Super Bowl 44 Myth Buster

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Tombo:
What about Montana not throwing one interception in 4 super bowls? (2 of them very competative)

It's an incredible accomplishment that I'm not trying to diminish.

I'm just saying that those were incredible teams that we had, and we were able to advance throughout the playoffs despite some so-so performances by Joe. I think that simply putting those 4 SBs on him does a disservice to some great players. And I think that comparing the Colt's supporting cast to those teams does the same thing.

Its pretty funny but people simply block out many of the really bad performances that Joe had in other playoff games. I made a post earlier in which I stated that he had 21 picks in the 19 non SB playoff games that he played. He played terribly in the first round playoff losses to NY and Minnesota and even had 3 picks in the 1981 NFC title game against Dallas.

His SB performances are amazing and no one would ever dispute that. Joe is easily my favorite QB of all time. I just refuse to drink the Niner Koolaid and say that he is without question the greatest of all time or without question the only guy you would want to have a last minute comeback. There are a few other special quarterbacks, including Peyton Manning, that are right there with Joe.

Really good and lengthy article about Montana's entire playoff career and other playoff QB's careers:

Quote:
When people say Montana is the greatest QB of all time, it's what he did in seasons 10-12 that really put him in that category. Because prior to that, he was a QB with 2 rings already, but also three straight playoff failures and question marks over his future with the 49ers. He washed all of that away with a run of excellent play in the postseason that no QB has ever matched. That was seasons 10-12. Bradshaw's were 9 & 10. What's the point there? That you cannot truly measure a "good playoff QB" or "bad playoff QB" until you have a finished product. People throw the choker/clutch labels out there way too fast. Like John Elway proved, by winning titles in his 15th & 16th seasons, you almost have to give a quality QB the full length of his career to demonstrate whether or not he is championship caliber. Of course it takes a ton of help and usually some luck to win a title in any season.

Quote:
Quickly here, if you want my definition of a good playoff QB, you can't judge it by just by his number of rings, or just by stats, or just by record. There are many factors to consider. First give me a guy that plays well enough in the regular season to get his team into the tournament every year so they have a chance to catch a break or two and go all the way. Then when you get there, just play well enough to give the team a chance to win more often than not. What more can you ask for? Playing well in the playoffs is no different than doing the things you need to do well in the regular season: converting 3rd downs to sustain drives, getting more TDs in the red zone instead of FGs, and ball security.

Halfway to those 4 rings Bradshaw and Montana each have, there were a lot of bumps in the road. Their performances were up and down. They played on great teams which allowed them to still have early success. It was not until much later in their careers where they peaked individually and that is when the other half of those titles were won. That is when they started racking up great performance after great performance, which is what they are remembered best for.

QB A: 136/257 (52.9%), 1960 yards, 7.63 YPA, 14 TDs, 16 INTs, 70.2 PR, 8-4 record, 2 titles
QB B: 125/199 (62.8%), 1873 yards, 9.41 YPA, 16 TDs, 10 INTs, 99.5 PR, 6-1 record, 2 titles
QB C: 214/363 (59.0%), 2671 yards, 7.36 YPA, 17 TDs, 15 INTs, 80.3 PR, 7-4 record, 2 titles
QB D: 246/371 (66.3%), 3101 yards, 8.36 YPA, 28 TDs, 6 INTs, 110.6 PR, 9-3 record, 2 titles
QB E: 44/69 (63.8%), 613 yards, 8.88 YPA, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 100.7 PR, 2-0 record, 2 titles
QB F: 76/157 (48.4%), 1050 yards, 6.69 YPA, 4 TDs, 9 INTs, 54.9 PR, 4-3 record, 1 title
QB G: 50/105 (47.6%), 558 yards, 5.31 YPA, 1 TD, 2 INTs, 59.1 PR, 0-3 record, 0 titles
QB H: 354/542 (65.3%), 4273 yards, 7.88 YPA, 26 TDs, 16 INTs, 93.1 PR, 9-5 record, 1 title

If I told you those were 8 different QBs, then you would probably believe me. In a way, they are 8 different QBs there. But there are actually only 4 QBs represented with their playoff careers broken up into two parts. And some of that results in drastic changes for the player.

Remember for a short window when Jake Delhomme was this unbelievably "clutch" playoff QB based on his 5-1 record, 108.4 passer rating, road dominance and that great performance in a losing effort against New England in SB 38? Well in the two playoff games he's played since that point he threw 2 TDs to 8 INTs in blowout losses and fans are calling for Matt Moore to be the starter in Carolina. That might be one of the fastest cases of playoff immortal falling to playoff mortal.

So if you are an Eagles fan and think after 11 seasons that Donovan McNabb has no chance of ever getting it done, well you are probably right. Or....or, he just may shock everyone, have the right things fall into place (like getting home playoff games against an 8-8 team with no defense and a weak #2 seed with Michael Vick at QB), and with just enough luck and plays from his teammates, McNabb can hoist that Lombardi trophy one day after putting up big stats in three straight wins.

And if you are still one of the people out there that thinks Peyton Manning is not a good playoff QB (have they started an endangered species list yet for that type of person?), well consider that the 4x MVP winning QB from 2003-09, that has a chance at putting up a strong statistical game against the Saints to win his second title and second SB MVP award in his 12th season, is QB H from above.

QB A: Terry Bradshaw 1972-77
QB B: Terry Bradshaw 1978-82
QB C: Joe Montana 1981-87
QB D: Joe Montana 1988-94
QB E: Johnny Unitas 1958-59
QB F: Johnny Unitas 1964-71
QB G: Peyton Manning 1999-02
QB H: Peyton Manning 2003-09

Never underestimate the ability of a QB to go from playoff god to playoff fraud or vice versa throughout their career. There is a reason most players do not get the accolades or respect they truly deserve until their career is over.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=5850

Let's see Manning take a Chiefs team with average at best WRs and an old RB to the Conference Championship.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
Nice try dude - but you argue a PIECE of my argument and then try to extrapolate in areas where I'm not arguing at all.


I never said the TOTAL of the 1988 team was better than the TOTAL of the COLTS - I said offense. You quote me but don't respond accurately - again this what I say:

Different players were drafted at different times and peaked and was in their prime or still good but declining while others were peaking. Regardless, these players were good but there were teams out there that could push this team to their limit as in a competitive game. At the beginning of 1988, and at the end of the season, no one thought this was a dominant team and found ways to win - regardless.

Exactly - from my recollection, a 10-6 team going into the play-offs regardless of what they did still wasn't known until years later - but again I was only comparing the OFFENSE of 1988 to OFFENSE of the Colts today or even as you put it THROUGHOUT Colts history. - but again not my main point which was -

To say other than 81 (and let's remember your original point that Montana had a metric ton of talent - absolutely) talent "pales" in comparison is just inaccurate. The 1984 team matches up quite well with the Colts of today - the Super Bowl. The 49ers have a better defense, BUT the Colts have MUCH better offense. Again, it doesn't "pale" in comparison. That's mythology.

The respective defenses of each team are part of their supporting casts whether you like it or not. To simply dismiss those defenses and their contributions does a disservice to those players, and it's simply not how football works. Furthermore, nothing in the "different players were drafted..." statement discriminates between defense and offense, so your allegations of misquoting you are silly and out of left field. You even reference Michael Carter, Haley, & Ronnie Lott in the original quote.

Three-fifths of our Offensive Line made the Pro Bowl in '84. When was the last time that happened with any team? Wendell Tyler was a Pro Bowler as well.

A QB that has 3 Pro Bowl linemen protecting him and a Pro Bowl RB (with Roger Craig at FB) sure does have a lot of help...even if you want to disregard a dominant defense, for whatever reason.

Quote:
Highest scoring team in the league in 1984 - and you're trying to argue that this squad could compare even to THIS years version of the Colts offense? I won't even bring back Marvin Harrison in his prime (they own the QB/WR combo TD record). If this is true, how effective would Montana be with Wayne, Addai, Clark, Collie, and Garcon and give Manning the 49ers offense from 1981 or 1984. Montana would SHATTER every offensive record out there. Really? Seriously? You're making this argument that Clark and Solomon even in their primes are better than Wayne, Addai, Clark, Collie, and Garcon?

Clark, Solomon, Tyler, Craig, (funny how you omitted those two), Francis, and a Pro Bowl offensive line compared to that group? Yes, definitely better than what Manning has. It's funny how you mention that the Niner players who were drafted "hadn't become what they were going to be yet" (which is mostly not true)...yet you throw a 6th Round pick in his 2nd year (Garcon) and 4th Round rookie into the conversation about the vaunted Colts offense?

And Joseph Addai? Are you serious?

Quote:
The 49ers were not considerably more talented across the board relative to teams in their era than the Colts are. Redskins, Giants, Bears and Rams would disagree with you. Again you're talking about a span of 10 years - there were times when team would peak and other times when they were convincingly beaten. I think you're significantly overstating 49er talent levels here relative to the rest of the league even during their era ( the 49ers had 2 eras under Walsh, under Siefert) Seriously. If this is an assessment of talent relative to the contemporary mean, the Colts are easily rank high, if not the highest in talent at areas where they are strongest - again

At what positions do the Colts rank highly against the contemporary mean? During the span of 10 years, we increased our level of talent, with both the '81 and '86 drafts. Frankly, I find it flabbergasting that you think that these Colts teams are comparable to the talent on those Niner squads.

Quote:
Again, for the record, where does Montana totally choke? Despite his defense only giving up 10 points in 84 through the play-offs. The 84 Super Bowl was a route, where does Montana throw a pick-6 in the deciding minutes with the game on the line?

He doesn't, at least not in 84. (although once again, he was awful from 85-87) He didn't need to be great...we gave up TEN points en route to the Super Bowl. Merely adequate QB play gets you there. By comparison, the Saints only had 3 possessions where they didn't score yesterday.

Quote:
I NEVER SAID Montana's a better QB simply based on Super Bowl victories. My main point was in objection to this, and I quote:

So the 49er's still win all they were going to win and be as dominant as they were going to be WITHOUT Joe Montana. This is what I'm reading from this argument which I believe is patently false and hyperbole by nature. Montana ran a system that he knew and executed better than any other WCO QB. If Peyton Manning is QB of the 49ers circa 1981 they don't even SNIFF the play-offs let alone beat the Cowboys in the NFC Championship game. To imply so is the same fallacy in argument I hear from Boomer Esiason - simply because Joe was uncanny in his ability to be mobile and perform under pressure. Circa 1984? We give Peyton Manning the Niners and he possibly wins with that team but again, do I see him winning the Super Bowl? Maybe - maybe not. The only team I see Peyton winning with absolutely are with the 1989 team. Conversely if I put Montana with ANY of the Colts Super Bowl teams - it's not even close - Not. Even. Close. It's easily a win, both times.

"Not. Even. Close." Simply because you say so? Very poor argumentative tactic. I can say that Montana doesn't make it to the Super Bowl with this current Colt squad and it's "Not. Even. Close". Does that make my argument valid?

And THAT'S what you got out of my post? Really?!? That the Niners were going to win and be as dominant whether Montana was there or not? You got THAT out of what I'm saying?

Jesus H. Christ, that's not at all what I'm saying. Montana was a GREAT quarterback. But he wasn't nearly as heavily depended on as Manning is. When Manning has a mediocre performance in the playoffs...the Colts have lost. When Montana did? We still won our share of games. That speaks to the quality of those Niner squads.

Quote:
LOL!! Imagine Montana throwing against defenses where passive interference calls were "emphasized" and where you can't even TOUCH the QB after he lets the ball go. Really? Seriously? Is there even any doubt? Montana not only did that in San Francisco but almost nearly did it with the Chiefs with MUCH lesser talent than he ever had in San Francisco, again.

The Chiefs? You're talking about the same team that benched Montana in favor of Dave Krieg after a 9-23, 0 TD, 1 INT performance in the Conference Championship game and then lost in the 1st Round the next year after his defense got carved up by Miami? Those Chiefs teams certainly weren't as talented as the Niners were...and they didn't make it to the Super Bowl as a result, and couldn't survive a poor performance from Montana. That appears to support my point.

imo joe would have won at least 1 more if he hadnt been kicked out. i mean young was great and all, but he just wasnt joe.

Maybe this belongs in a seperate thread but after reading some of the replies here it just made me think about all the Super Bowl performances I've seen. And yes I'm a huge Niner fan so admittedly some bias; but here it goes:

Best performance by a QB in one Super Bowl:
1. Steve Young (vs San Diego) 6 td's / no ints
2. Joe Montana (vs Broncos) 5td's / no ints
3. Doug Williams (vs Broncos) 4 td's & biggest comeback in SB history (tied by Saints)
4. Kurt Warner (vs Titans) 414 yds / 2 td's / no ints
5. Phill Simms (vs Broncos) 22-25 / 268 yds / 3 tds

P.S. for qb's playing in more than one Super Bowl my pick would have to be #16 Joe Montana. Terry Bradshaw was solid and also won 4 sb's but the numbers and MVP trophies go to Joe. And is anybody seriously gonna argue that Bradshaw had a better supporting cast...or that Montana did? sure you are!! LOL

Ps.#2 You know you dont get your team to more than 2 super bowls if you aint good..and Jim Kelly, Elway,Tarkenton were Hall of Fame qb's who just fell short more than once in the big game. Why? Because its still a team sport.

Go Niners 2010 is here!

Originally posted by PlayAction:
Just as it took a loss in SB42 to quiet some of that "Tom Brady is better than Joe Montana" noise, so too hopefully will this loss squash some of that Peyton is the greatest of all time drivel. Don't get me wrong, I respect both of them and wish the Niners had either one of them instead of what we do have. And this is not a knock on their fans either. But how soon some of those high paid so-called "experts" forget the many great accomplishments of Joe Montana especially in Super Bowls!

That in four SB's Joe never threw one interception!!
That in four SB's Joe out performed not one, but two Hall of Fame qb's (Marino, Elway)
That Montana lead his team on a last chance 92 yard TD drive..to win a SB! (sb23)
Some fans of Manning have said: "Manning doesn't have a Jerry Rice to throw to"
Well newsflash ya'll..neither did Joe when Niners beat the favored Bengals in SB16

Maybe some day Manning or another qb will surpass Joe's SuperBowl accomplishments..hell records are made to be broken...but as of tonight?
Manning isn't even the best in 2010, for one year at least that crown goes to DBrees.
Here end-ith the lesson.

Go Niners, 2010 is here!

I agree that no one is better than Joe. No one could see the field like Montana. However, Manning is the NFL MVP. He had 7 4th quarter come backs and where would the Colts be without him. MVP is regular season. Brees was not the best in 2010. I didn't even think he looked that great against the Cards and he looked really shaky against the Vikings. They got lucky even winning that game. However, he played really well in the super bowl. But no, I'd put Brees 3rd behind Manning and Chris Johnson.

Joe threw a pick to end the game against cinci......


He got lucky it was dropped it was a dumb pass that 99% would end in an int.

Even after that Ronnie lott was the reason cinci did not win with their own last min drive.

Your Quote NinerGM:

"We give Peyton Manning the Niners and he possibly wins with that team but again, do I see him winning the Super Bowl? Maybe - maybe not. The only team I see Peyton winning with absolutely are with the 1989 team. Conversely if I put Montana with ANY of the Colts Super Bowl teams - it's not even close - Not. Even. Close. It's easily a win, both times."

My thoughts:

Some good arguments on both sides but this statement is just silly in my opinion with no facts that support it. Please... give a talent like John Elway or Peyton Manning an offensive guru like Bill Walsh and the COMPLETE team the Niners had and I am pretty sure they would have won several Superbowls.

One could argue that there might have been more SB's because both Manning and Elway were bigger, stronger, and less prone to injuries like Joe was. Remember, Joe got knocked out of 2 playoff games, one of which was the NFC title game. I dont remember Elway or Manning EVER having that happen to them. Maybe we 3 peat if Elway and not Montana is our QB. Of course, there is no way to know. Just like its impossible to say that Joe Montana would absolutley have won the SB last Sunday with the Colts.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Super Bowl victories are only a partial measure of how good a quarterback is. Joe had JUST A LITTLE bit of help. This Colts team may not even be a playoff team without Manning. Can't say the same about the Niners of the 80's that had a metric ton of talent.

JOE HAD HELP??????REALLY in 81 and 84 i don't think so. Dwight clark????? WOW......Roger Craig....ok but no Rice no Taylor No Rathman no Jones not much of anything. Joe won 2 sb's with little to no help. Good Defenses but the 38 points he rolled up on Miami and the 20 in the first half against Cin......not much help at all. The NE and Ind offenses were better we just had the best QB of all time.

Joe had ALOT of help in '84. That team was one of only 3 that have EVER gone 18-1...and only 2 of those teams won the SB (laughing Hysterically right now at the Patriots).

Strangely enough, the Niners and Bears did it in back to back years.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by NinerGM:
No, Esiason uses this logic for Montana as a blanket statement - like you do.

You assume like many who haven't actually experienced in person the 49ers over time that the group you state where "talent was considerable" didn't happen overnight. It wasn't as if Rice, Taylor, Craig, Haley, Michael Carter, Lott, Wright, Sapolu, McIntyre, Barton, Rathman - they just walked on the field and were sudden all-pros.

Also, the players you mention span different eras of dominance but were all peaking at one time in 1989 more than 1988. Many 49er fans do this, not just germane to this argument. Different players were drafted at different times and peaked and was in their prime or still good but declining while others were peaking. Regardless, these players were good but there were teams out there that could push this team to their limit as in a competitive game. At the beginning of 1988, and at the end of the season, no one thought this was a dominant team and found ways to win - regardless.

By 1988, Rice had established himself as the best receiver in the league. He & Craig were 1st team All-Pros. Michael Carter was 2nd team All-Pro, and the linchpin of Seifert's 3-4. Charles Haley was a Pro-Bowler. So was Lott. JT was the best punt returner in the game and a Pro Bowler.

Randy Cross was 34. Sapolu & McIntyre were 27, and in their primes. Our entire secondary and almost our entire LB corps were in their mid-to-late 20's.

There is so much more talent on that team than on this Colts team, it isn't even a contest.

Quote:
To say other than 81 (and let's remember your original point that Montana had a metric ton of talent - absolutely) talent "pales" in comparison is just inaccurate. The 1984 team matches up quite well with the Colts of today - the Super Bowl. The 49ers have a better defense, BUT the Colts have MUCH better offense. Again, it doesn't "pale" in comparison. That's mythology.

My point is that over the course of their careers, Montana had considerably more talent than Manning had. And it isn't even close. That 1984 squad was the 2nd highest scoring team in the league, had Wendell Tyler AND Roger Craig in the backfield, along with Dwight Clark & Freddie Solomon in their primes. When you add that to the fact that the Niners had the stingiest defense in the league...there's no mythology needed.

Quote:
Since you're speaking from authority on the topic, please as one who made the initial argument, show me where Montana had a terrible game in 81 and 84 and the 49ers still won the game - by contrast show me a game where Manning had a terrible game in every case and the Colts lost? What is success? What's the standard that you're judging? TD? Passing yards?

He was phenomenal in '81.

Montana was good, but not great against both the Giants & Bears in '84. But the fact that the Niners gave up a combined 10 points in those games gave the Niners the luxury of winning games despite a good-but-not-great performance from the QB position. Manning doesn't have that luxury.

He was God-awful in the playoffs from 85-87.

The gauge is reads and throws.

Quote:
See here's my point:

You can't make a blanket statement like "they had a metric ton of talent" or "their talent pales in comparison" or "that QB must do well" when you're making a comparative analysis of two teams playing in two different eras - especially when you're assessing "talent". I could say hands down, on offense, the Colts of today quite simply is a bigger and faster team than the 49ers of 1988, 81 and 84. That's more a precise statement than the argument you make and much more accurate simply because 300LB lineman and average offensive skill player running a 4.4 40 wasn't nearly as common as it is today.

In order for the argument to sell, I think you have to be more accurate.

Of course players are bigger/stronger/faster now. It's an assessment of talent relative to the contemporary mean. The 49ers were CONSIDERABLY more talented across the board, relative to the other teams in their era than the Colts are...especially outside of the QB position. I believe that this is born out by the multiple HOF, all-pro, and pro bowl appearances on those rosters in comparison with the current Colts squads.

Therefore, it's an illogical argument to state that Montana's a better quarterback simply based on Super Bowl victories. In order for it to be a valid metric, the surrounding variables would have to be nearly identical, and I don't believe that's even close to being the case in this comparison.

If you believe that Montana was better than Manning based upon the factors that a QB has control over, I'm willing to hear that. But if it's merely based on SB victories, it's an over-simplification that isn't based on an even playing field.

Don't agree with the highlighted. Thos guys (Tyler, Soloman, Clark) were NOT in their prime. They were already old and out of their prime. Thus the need to draft Rice. Craig was definately on the upswing, but to say Wendell Tyler was in his prime .... LOL

Tell us how these guys performed after they subsequently left the niners?

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by danimal:
And Peyton is far too cerebral. Montana's instincts were a huge part of his game.

I have the utmost respect for Peytons audibling skills, but I have nothing but contempt for how heavily he relies on it. At some point you just have to play a little more naturally if you want anyone to take you seriously as the best ever

This seriously might be the dumbest statement I have ever read in here.

Then it should have been easy for you to expand a bit.

Originally posted by NinerGM:
And this is simply because you say they are? Manning has never had any Pro Bowl lineman? Manning has never had Pro Bowl players on his defensive squad in Freeney? And better than the 1981 team? Clark, Solomon, Tyler and Craig are better than today's Colt's OL and WR corps? LOL! Really! Okay

It's funny that you say that I'm misconstruing your argument and using hyperbole, when that's exactly what you're doing here. Where did I say that Manning never had any Pro Bowl lineman? I didn't. Where did I say that Manning never had a Pro Bowl defensive player? I didn't. The fact that you need to say that (while alleging that I'M the one doing this) is ironic.

However, in '84, 3/5ths of Montana's offensive line were Pro Bowlers. His RB was a Pro-Bowler. Keena Turner was a Pro Bowler, Fred Dean was still a force, and the entire secondary made it to the Pro Bowl.

Does any Manning team have a comparable resume?

In '81 there were 3 other Pro Bowlers (just like the Colts this year), and the defense as a whole gave up the 2nd fewest points in the league.

Quote:
Because you've already admitted that players are bigger, stronger faster than they are today. I don't need to "mention" that and it wasn't an omission. I know the pool of players I'm drafting from are already ahead of what the NFL was drafting in 1981 or 1984.

I can't believe I'm here right now. Of course players are bigger, stronger, faster now than they were then. But the argument is that the level of talent on the Niners was far greater when compared to their respective era than the current Colts roster.

This current Niner squad is bigger, stronger, faster than the dynasty teams...does that mean that we should be winning more Super Bowls than them? Of course not, because EVERY team is bigger, stronger, faster. What a ridiculous point.

Quote:
Wow really? Marvin Harrison was the best WR in the league for much of the time Manning has put up monster numbers. Seriously? Harrison and Wayne and Clark all in primes were comparable to any WR core in the NFL in their current era and you're debating with me about how Manning never had talent and had to do all the heavy lifting on his own relative to what Montana had to do with the Niners in 81 or 84? Really? I'm defending the Colts here and I'm not even a Colts fan - and defending Montana against someone who has the moniker "LA49erfan" LOL!

How good are/were Harrison, Wayne, & Clark? I'd argue that Manning made them look a lot better than they actually were/are, considering that virtually everybody that plays receiver for them turns out to be productive. Their projected #2 receiver (Gonzales) got injured, but it didn't matter. Throw a 6th rounder who barely player the year before and a 4th Round rookie, and they put up numbers too. This isn't to say that Harrison, Wayne, & Clark aren't good at one they do, but they are/were certainly augmented by Manning. EVERYBODY put up numbers in Indy...what's the common thread?

And just as you feel as though you have to defend Montana against a fellow Niner fan, I feel as though I have to defend some GREAT Niner teams against a Niner fan that is diminishing them. I think that Montana/Manning are far more comparable than their supporting casts.

Quote:
Again absolute unprovable statements, hyperbole.

They're opinions. Of course they aren't provable...but they're supportable. We're having a subjective argument here. One where you're making allegations with flimsy evidence interspersed in between.

Quote:
LOL! And this in NO WAY is an absolute or even GENERALLY true for the 49ers. Show me a trend of games where Montana played poorly repeatedly and the Niners still won WITH/or WITHOUT Montana's contributions - repeatedly. And what's so shaky about your argument is that comparatively the team probably had MORE talent in 1990 top to bottom with HOFers in their prime(s), performing at a extremely high level, and that uber-talented team DIDNT MAKE IT but lost in a close game to the Giants - and here's the clincher - NOT because Montana had a bag game. It would seem to me obviously the 49ers weren't ridiculously better than teams during their era in which they competed for a chance to get to the Super Bowl.

I said "mediocre", not poor. For as many allegations as you're putting out there, you sure do like to change my words. In terms of mediocre playoff performances by Montana that still resulted in a Niner victory...

-He had 3 INTs in The Catch game, and Eric Wright's tackle on Pearson and Lawrence Pillers subsequent sack are what sealed that game. We had a balanced rushing attack to the tune of 130 yards.

And on the game's definitive play, Clark made an amazing grab. There's a reason that play isn't called "The Pass". Mediocre effort by Montana in that game, but we came away with the victory nonetheless.

-1st Round, vs. Lions, 1983...Another mediocre performance from Montana, but we won the game largely due to the 5 INTS that the defense created. To his credit, Montana led a great drive at the end of the game after a pedestrian performance, but the team is never in that position without the gaudy amount of turnovers that we created.

-2nd Round, vs. Giants, 1984...Montana throws another 3 INTs, one of which was a Pick-6 to Harry Carson. However, since that was the ONLY Touchdown that 49er team allowed before the Super Bowl, the Niners still won behind a 6 sack, 2 INT, 3 points allowed performance by our defense.

-Conference Championship vs. Bears, 1984...Montana throws 2 INTs and is fairly inaccurate throughout the day. The Niners rush for 159 yards on 29 carries.

...but none of it matters because the Niners get NINE sacks on the way to a shutout.

Quote:
Are you saying we still won our share games because of defense alone?

No. This is the hyperbole and extrapolation. Try reading and comprehending.

Quote:
So therefore the argument is, and you've stated it clearly, Montana isn't as integral to the 49ers as Manning is to the Colts. Just say it. It's not true, but just say it.

Montana wasn't as integral to the Niners as Manning is to the Colts. I think I've been pretty clear with this point and if you're only understanding it now, I'm not sure I'm talking to someone that's worth talking to.

Quote:
Really? Do I need to do this? Defend Montana's legacy as a QB and defend just how integral he was to the 49ers greatness during the 80s? And the Cheifs that you deride the Chiefs of 1994 Dave Kreig wasn't even on the TEAM in 1994. Wow Really?

Krieg was on the team in 1993, and replaced him in the Conference Championship game, which I specifically referenced.

Quote:
The argument isn't whether or not Montana is perfect. I would never state that. The argument isn't whether or not Montana at one time played on great teams, that's not in doubt. The argument simply is Montana is and was just as integral to the 49er success as Manning was to the Colts, comparatively and fundamentally. If I move either QB in either system, if I ask either QB to play in each other's position in history, Montana hands down, convincingly is the better QB.

I understand that's your opinion. But merely restating your hypothesis doesn't really get us anywhere. Support it.

Quote:
To argue hyperbole and state the Niners had a "metric ton" of talent who were far and away better then all else in the league is an insult to the NFL, but to Bill Walsh and McKittrick who employed one of the most brilliant offensive systems that could take "less talented players" and that's from the book dammit - and make them effective.

We may have to agree to disagree here because there is NO WAY IN ALL HELL you're ever going to get me reason hyperbole and absolute generalization challenge Walsh, his coaches, Montana and what those players did for 20 years with what they had. The fact that Rice talks about he wasn't the fastest, most talented guy in the draft but still is the GOAT is more of a testament to what was achieved.

And once again, it's relative to the talent of that era. Thank you for bringing up Bill Walsh, because having arguably the greatest coach of all-time as Montana's coach certainly helped his cause, don't you think? Even off of the field, Montana's supporting cast was better than Manning's.

Quote:
So you don't forget, the statement you make here is just not true:

Why...because you say so? Once again, that's a very ineffective tactic.

Originally posted by kronik:
Don't agree with the highlighted. Thos guys (Tyler, Soloman, Clark) were NOT in their prime. They were already old and out of their prime. Thus the need to draft Rice. Craig was definately on the upswing, but to say Wendell Tyler was in his prime .... LOL

Tell us how these guys performed after they subsequently left the niners?

Tyler was 29 when he made his only Pro Bowl in 1984, on the strength of a 1262 yard, 5.1 ypc season. If that wasn't his prime...what was?

Clark was just 27 years old and played for 3 more seasons.

I concede your point about Solomon. Although it was his most productive year in terms of TDs and he was a solid producer in terms or yardage, you can argue that it was Montana that was propping him up.

All of them retired as Niners, so I don't know what to tell you there.

However, as a whole the supporting cast was phenomenal on that '84 team. I believe we had 10 Pro Bowlers. Montana, 3/5ths of the offensive line, Tyler, Keena Turner, and our entire defensive secondary. Plus we had Fred Dean. Supporting casts don't get much better than that.

Originally posted by AmpLee:
Good Stuff!

Please tell me why I'm in here.