Originally posted by LA9erFan:
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.
Wow, this thread is a lot to try and digest all at once. Here's my opinion on the comparison between Montana and Manning.
Montana ran the 49er offense great. He had natural ability and instinct that may be above any other QB in the NFL, past or present. He could probably run most offenses to a high level.
Manning
is the Colts offense. There is a reason they call him an offensive coordinator on the field. I don't think there is another QB today that has as much control over play calling, and it has been a long, long time since QBs have had that much control, and it may very well be that Manning does that better than any QB ever. Given the same freedoms, he could probably run most offenses to a high level.
They both have had great players around them. I don't know how anyone could say one is greater than the other, because there really isn't a good way to compare. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses, they played in different eras, offenses were called differently, defenses are different, rules are different. The salary cap didn't start until 1994 I believe, and no one can say that hasn't brought in a huge dynamic into the league, making it very difficult to compare the two. So I think this is really a moot argument.
BUT, I think I would argue against the thought that Manning is not more integral to his team's success than Montana was. Again, Manning is the offense in Indy. Take him away and that team finished 5-11 this year (That was an ESPN analyst opinion. I think it might be a slight exaggeration, but only slight). Did you see what happened to that team when Painter stepped out onto the field? Have you seen what happened in the past when Sorgi played QB in mop up duty? There is a reason Jim Irsay stated publicly that Manning was going to be the highest paid player in league history when it came time to renew his contract. That's because Irsay and Bill Polian know exactly how integral Manning is to that offense. Take him away, and they are average at best.
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 
