Super Bowl 44 Myth Buster

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
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.

So Manning can execute the WCO like Montana? The proof is in the player. I have no doubt that Walsh could work wonders with any QB but there was a reason why Montana was good at what he did with the 49ers. Again, to diminish Joe's role. Wow! I can't believe I'm DEFENDING Joe MONTANA! in Ninertalk no less. There was a clear reason why Walsh drafted him.

The implication the Niners would have been better with John Elway or Peyton Manning at QB because they're not as "injury prone" as Montana isn't as equally silly? Seriously? I'm just speechless. Really?

I guess Lawrence Taylor was just an average LB at the time who knocked Joe out.

We didn't threepeat because of a Roger Craig fumble, not because Joe couldn't get the job done. Joe gets knocked out because contrary to popular belief, the Niners didn't have this massive, perfect OL that never missed a block.

Your points:
Clear reason why Walsh drafted him. Yes. he was so excited about him that he waited until the 3rd round. By the way, the guy he really wanted in that draft was Phil Simms but he was taken in rd 1. As far as WCO offense.. I am pretty damned sure that John Elway could have quarterbacked in any sytem there is. He was bigger, stronger, faster, and more athletic than Joe. I am not saying that he had a better career at all.. Just that he had everything in a QB that could prosper in any system.

Lawrence Taylor never knocked Joe out of any game. At least get your facts straight. He was knocked out by Jim Burt and Leonard Marshall.

I didnt say that the Niners WOULD have won more. I said you could make the arguement that they MIGHT have won more since Montana was injured twice in playoff games and guys like Elway and Manning were never knocked out. Again, I did not make any absolute statements. You did however when you said that Joe would have absolutley won BOTH Indy SBs which of course you have no way of knowing.

People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

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.

Your argument that SF had a way better Defense is AGREED by me %100. Hell, I even agree that we had a better OL. But to compare the skill positions, I think the Colts had better weapons for Manning. I do agree alot that Manning helped make those weapons look good. But watching Harrison's amazing fingertip catches on balls thrown behind him, likewise with Reggie Wayne. Throw in Dallas Clark and Edge in his prime, Manning had some awesome weapons.

Don't get me wrong, although Manning has only won 1 SB, I believe he should still be in the discussion of best QB of all time. But Discussion only. He's hands down the best QB of this era (Brady is overrated in my eyes).

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

I know its crazy. Damn I had no idea how many Niner fans like Peyton so much. Had Peyton won on Sunday then there would be a s**t load of zoners crowning his ass right now, even after the loss the rush to defense is pretty amazing.

Honestly, I think most sports fans NEED the current player to be the best player..so they begin to form their opinions based on that. In 20 years there will be a new King.

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

Just as the idea of Montana winning with Manning's supporting cast can't be proven either. Using SB wins as a basis for who is better is illogical, because it's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. If you believe that Montana was a better quarterback, that's fine. But simply referencing Super Bowl wins is causation without correlation.

Originally posted by kronik:
Your argument that SF had a way better Defense is AGREED by me %100. Hell, I even agree that we had a better OL. But to compare the skill positions, I think the Colts had better weapons for Manning. I do agree alot that Manning helped make those weapons look good. But watching Harrison's amazing fingertip catches on balls thrown behind him, likewise with Reggie Wayne. Throw in Dallas Clark and Edge in his prime, Manning had some awesome weapons.

Don't get me wrong, although Manning has only won 1 SB, I believe he should still be in the discussion of best QB of all time. But Discussion only. He's hands down the best QB of this era (Brady is overrated in my eyes).

Great points as usual. I think this is a fair and accurate assessment of Manning's place in history. This may just be perception on my part, but I've gotten the sense that Niner fans are using this Super Bowl as evidence that Manning doesn't belong in the discussion regarding the best QB of all time. I very much disagree with that.

I also agree that he's hands down the best QB of his era and that Brady is overrated.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

Just as the idea of Montana winning with Manning's supporting cast can't be proven either. Using SB wins as a basis for who is better is illogical, because it's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. If you believe that Montana was a better quarterback, that's fine. But simply referencing Super Bowl wins is causation without correlation.

No I'm not saying it was because of the SB's, he was just that good. I honestly believe if he had stayed healthy and we didn't trade him we would of won at least 2 more championships in the early 90's because he was better than Young.

Could Montana win with Peyton's teams? No idea and I could care less. Montana was the complete package and came through in the big game, something that Manning lacks. Maybe he'll come through next season or in the future who knows..

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

Just as the idea of Montana winning with Manning's supporting cast can't be proven either. Using SB wins as a basis for who is better is illogical, because it's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. If you believe that Montana was a better quarterback, that's fine. But simply referencing Super Bowl wins is causation without correlation.

But LA....ALL methods to arrive at the "Best Ever" is flawed. Normally I would say using causation without correlation is a major No No, but in this scenario what else can we use?

There really is only one right answer. Very few sports fans can accept it though.

There is no Best Ever.

Joe Montana has and always will be my favorite QB. I just want to be clear on that. I just dont think that SBs by themselves automatically set who is the GOAT. I dont think less of Manning because he didnt win on Sunday. He played great. I dont think less of Kurt Warner because he lost last year and only won 1 SB. He was incredible.

Montana was incredible in Superbowls. He was absolutley amazing in the 88 and 89 playoff runs. He was also not great in several other playoff games. Remember, the Niners were favorites in both 87 and 90 with teams that had home field advantage yet lost with Joe having below average games.

Joe was a member of an amazing organization with an offensive guru in Walsh, an owner that would out spend anyone in Eddie D, and with players that could be considered as GOAT at their positons in Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. The Niners were just flat out better than the competition during those years on both sides of the ball. Other great QBs such as Dan MArino and now Peyton Manning simply have not had that ideal situation. That is why I dont think SB wins should be the HUGE factor that it is in deciding GOAT. Thats all.

Originally posted by Memphis9er:
I do not think any QB will ever post the record in the SB that Joe did. Joe did have a little help though.

I hope someone does, I just hope it's a 49er.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Joe Montana has and always will be my favorite QB. I just want to be clear on that. I just dont think that SBs by themselves automatically set who is the GOAT. I dont think less of Manning because he didnt win on Sunday. He played great. I dont think less of Kurt Warner because he lost last year and only won 1 SB. He was incredible.

Montana was incredible in Superbowls. He was absolutley amazing in the 88 and 89 playoff runs. He was also not great in several other playoff games. Remember, the Niners were favorites in both 87 and 90 with teams that had home field advantage yet lost with Joe having below average games.

Joe was a member of an amazing organization with an offensive guru in Walsh, an owner that would out spend anyone in Eddie D, and with players that could be considered as GOAT at their positons in Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. The Niners were just flat out better than the competition during those years on both sides of the ball. Other great QBs such as Dan MArino and now Peyton Manning simply have not had that ideal situation. That is why I dont think SB wins should be the HUGE factor that it is in deciding GOAT. Thats all.

Thats all very obvious and well known. You can cite the problem, but can you state a solution?

What factor should replace SB wins as a major decider on who is the best QB ever?

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Joe Montana has and always will be my favorite QB. I just want to be clear on that. I just dont think that SBs by themselves automatically set who is the GOAT. I dont think less of Manning because he didnt win on Sunday. He played great. I dont think less of Kurt Warner because he lost last year and only won 1 SB. He was incredible.

Montana was incredible in Superbowls. He was absolutley amazing in the 88 and 89 playoff runs. He was also not great in several other playoff games. Remember, the Niners were favorites in both 87 and 90 with teams that had home field advantage yet lost with Joe having below average games.

Joe was a member of an amazing organization with an offensive guru in Walsh, an owner that would out spend anyone in Eddie D, and with players that could be considered as GOAT at their positons in Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. The Niners were just flat out better than the competition during those years on both sides of the ball. Other great QBs such as Dan MArino and now Peyton Manning simply have not had that ideal situation. That is why I dont think SB wins should be the HUGE factor that it is in deciding GOAT. Thats all.

Thats all very obvious and well known. You can cite the problem, but can you state a solution?

What factor should replace SB wins as a major decider on who is the best QB ever?

Trust me, whatever you come up with will have just as many holes as SB wins, thus it will be purely a matter of preference

And to think I almost missed this argument...

- 98

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by BirdmanJr:
People arguing against Montana in NT, why doesn't it surprise me?

Matter of the fact is you can say "well if Manning had so and so team he'd also win multiple SB's, his defense has let him down, players are faster now then they were then" That's all speculation and can't be proved, Montana did it and Manning couldn't do it on Sunday and that's all that matters. I don't give a rats ass about who had the better supporting cast, if that's the case then you can say that Rice isn't the G.O.A.T either because he had Montana and Young throwing at him while Randy Moss had scrubs throwing at him

Manning still has plenty of time to cement himself as the G.O.A.T as of now he's not there yet PERIOD.

Just as the idea of Montana winning with Manning's supporting cast can't be proven either. Using SB wins as a basis for who is better is illogical, because it's a team accomplishment, not an individual one. If you believe that Montana was a better quarterback, that's fine. But simply referencing Super Bowl wins is causation without correlation.

But LA....ALL methods to arrive at the "Best Ever" is flawed. Normally I would say using causation without correlation is a major No No, but in this scenario what else can we use?

There really is only one right answer. Very few sports fans can accept it though.

There is no Best Ever.

I can't dispute that.

My basis for evaluating a player is judging what he can control, and eliminating the rest. Obviously this is VERY subjective, and that speaks to your point about preference.

For example, the Colts had a 2nd quarter drive that ended when Manning threw a perfect pass that hit Garcon in stride and in space...but was subsequently dropped. In the elements that he could control, Manning made a great play there.

The other possession that they had in that quarter was after a goal line stand by their defense that pinned them at the 1. There were 3 consecutive running plays and a punt. No much that Manning could control there.

Due to the Saints' effectiveness with the football and the onside kick, they were able to keep the ball out of Manning's hands for an extremely long period of time. Once he got it back, they scored again.

The Saints only had 3 possessions where they didn't score. That's an extremely small margin for error for an opposing QB, and I think that pulling out a victory under those circumstances is an unreasonable expectation. In the matters that Manning could control, I thought he had a superb game. Of course there was the INT and a couple of poorly thrown balls, but in the overall context of the game...I thought he did very well.

But obviously, that's a subjective point of view, as you said.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:
Joe Montana has and always will be my favorite QB. I just want to be clear on that. I just dont think that SBs by themselves automatically set who is the GOAT. I dont think less of Manning because he didnt win on Sunday. He played great. I dont think less of Kurt Warner because he lost last year and only won 1 SB. He was incredible.

Montana was incredible in Superbowls. He was absolutley amazing in the 88 and 89 playoff runs. He was also not great in several other playoff games. Remember, the Niners were favorites in both 87 and 90 with teams that had home field advantage yet lost with Joe having below average games.

Joe was a member of an amazing organization with an offensive guru in Walsh, an owner that would out spend anyone in Eddie D, and with players that could be considered as GOAT at their positons in Jerry Rice and Ronnie Lott. The Niners were just flat out better than the competition during those years on both sides of the ball. Other great QBs such as Dan MArino and now Peyton Manning simply have not had that ideal situation. That is why I dont think SB wins should be the HUGE factor that it is in deciding GOAT. Thats all.

Thats all very obvious and well known. You can cite the problem, but can you state a solution?

What factor should replace SB wins as a major decider on who is the best QB ever?

Trust me, whatever you come up with will have just as many holes as SB wins, thus it will be purely a matter of preference

Well.. you already state that anything I say with have holes so I guess there is no reason to even try.

Actually.. you are right. There are no absolute factors that should decide who is the GOAT. If its just SBS then Terry Bradshaw should be at the top with Joe. My point is that SB's should not be counted as strongly as most in here would want it to be.

Its just impossible to compare. What about the years pre-SB? Are you going to consider players you never saw play like Unitas or Otto Graham? How much should incredible stats count playing with below average teams like Marino had to face?

The fact is its almost impossible to come up with one person who is the GOAT because of the different eras, how the game has evolved, and the fact that its a team game with so many variances. Its like trying to say who the GOAT is in baseball. It is Babe Ruth? WIllie Mays? Albert Pujols? How the hell can anyone really say.

Its a fun debate and really there is no right or wrong. You can say Montana and not be wrong. Another can say Elway and also not be wrong. The only thing I think IS wrong is to make absolute statements like they know 100% that is has to be. Example.. saying that Montana would for sure have won both Indy SB's.