Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Just for the hell of it....the reason why I said that Joe's '89 is the finest passing season I've seen is because of the following. Joe missed 3 games in the regular season, but when you add his playoff games you get the following "composite" 16 game season:

469 attempts
336 completions
71.6 comp %
4321 yards
37 tds
8 int
119.4 QB rating

The NFL averages in '89 were 55.8% and a 73.3 QB rating. Actually Steve young's finish to 1994 after the humiliating loss to philly rivals this but it encompasses only 14 games.

Who cares? Montana is a hall of famer with four Super Bowl rings. His legacy was secured a long time ago.

Originally posted by natediaz:

if you are comparing skill sets then aaron rodgers blow joe montana out the water. rodgers arm is insane. and he can throw on the run. in fact, nobody is more accurate than rodgers on the run maybe other than yours truly steve young.

i mean let's drop all the GOAT talk and be serious here. just be objective and compare rodgers to montana, who's more impressive as far as physical talent goes? just be very very honest. IMO it's not even close. even steve young actually had a better all around skill set. there are many people who believes young had higher peak than montana. stats say so too.

but QBing is not about just physical talent. it never was. that's why montana was the GOAT. montana was a natural. he was a great winner. he was deadly in a big game. because QBing isn't just about the arm talent. it's not about the wheels either. i see these QBs at the combine doing great things. dude running 4.5s. they agile. these guys have guns. ryan leaf was pretty talented. i know ryan leaf. he was freaky good in college. but his heart was a size of peanut. he couldn't handle pressure. all that physical talent goes down to toilet when things go wrong. 1 INT leads to throwing several more because he couldn't handle it mentally.

yes, it's never about the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. brady has a heart of a lion. dude cried about getting picked 199th after winning 2 mvps. i never seen a player who's more addicted to winning.

Right about Rogers. He's got way better arm than Brady Montana many others. It's one reason why he's on my top 3 list along with Joe of rozelle era and later qbs. how does it contradict what ive said? I don't think it does.

Brady certainly wants to win and is very mindful of his image No Doubt. But I don't think he's got the tenacious heroic qualities you quite suggest. We all have our warts brady is no different. Wont get into anything more but lets keep it real shall we? Vanity can be a powerful motivator. Im sure the coaching staff doesnt care how the guy crosses the finish line.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

Omg are you guys clueless....but I was expecting that. Tuck rule? Embarrassing argument has absolutely nothing to do with playoffs games.

Defenses you play are IRRELEVANT since we aren't comparing their actual stats. The amount of points scored between Joe and Tom is irrelevant. The amount you score more or less vs the QBs of your era is relevant. Brady was better at producing points than Montana not because he scored more, but because he scored more in his era compared to league avg.

The avg in Brady's era is higher due to what you claim much easier to play offense today compared to back when Joe played. Just because Joe had trouble against a good Giants defense and held the ball for 8 seconds and took a shot to the back which would be legal today doesn't mean QBs got "murdered" back in the day. Yes you could hit high or low without repercussions but let's not pretend that was happening all game long. Let's also not pretend today's QBs don't get hit harder than they ever did back then because they do. Ever heard of "in the grasp rule"? A rule in the 80's ( thank God it's gone) that once a QB was basically touched the play was over. The harder to pass back in the 80's is a myth. 5 yard Chuck rule started in 1978. Defenses today play a lot more bump and run and far more sophisticated than back then. Receivers today still get tattooed, as hard as ever. That's difference is penalties do get get called more extending drives due to today's rule changes. That doesn't make it easier to pass, it makes it easier to score. Approx 6 drives per season more on avg,that's it (and just because a drive gets extended doesn't mean point will be scored). That's why today's offenses only score approx 16 points more during Brady years compared to Montana's. The fact we all know QBs on avg are better now than ever before and should be scoring more, therefore the "it's easier to score today" is true but not that much, a couple of tds and a FG per season...wow so much harder.

Montana lead his team to score 400 points or more (the mark of a very good offense) 5 times with 475 being the best (would equate to 491 if he played in Bradys era). He didn't come within 16 points of 400 any other year. Brady lead his team to score 400 ten times (all above 416). Including 4 times over 500. The most any other organization in NFL history has is 2 500 point seasons.

Brady produces more points per game than any QB in history, including Manning. It's why I chuckle when I hear Brady is GOAT yet Manning is best regular season QB. Brady scored more, has a better rating, turns the ball over less and wins more than Manning. Sorry Brady is the best regular season QB. Brady is that best playoff QB, Brady is the best clutch QB. Montana still owns best SB QB, mainly due to his 4th game.

Theres a lot of crazy non sequitors in this post. My favorite is that the rule changes dont affect bradys stats because penalty yards arent included.

Thats a good one. The other one is that qb protections dont mayter because quarterbacks dont take kill shots all game long. Oh my gosh.

Because this is a video game and it takes ten kill shots to bring your energy points to zero.

Its no easier to complete a forward pass today than in the 80s? When every stat says otherwise, starting with the league average points posted last page? Why are you reaching so bad? Pretty soon its going to be just you and diaz congratulating yourselves.

Originally posted by natediaz:

i can't really speak for the pats fans. but honestly who didn't watch Joe play if you are a football fan? i mean niners were a dynasty. if you are old enough you saw montana and niners because they were always on tv.

i briefly lived in the south in early 90's. everybody had niners starter jacket.

it's like how everybody is forced to watch pats nowdays. because they are always on TV and always on the big stage. it's hard not to watch brady.

My point is, a lot of pro brady peopl are in their 30s and 40s and didnt watch joes career unfold. So all the info they have about joe are youtube highlights and nfl.com stats.

Originally posted by natediaz:
brady was an impressive game manager in his 1st season IMO. pats did limit the plays because he was a 1st timer. and he had few really bad outings which hurt his stats. but overall he was pretty damn good. there's a reason why brady started the SB and bledsoe got traded.

and he was clutch when it mattered the most. that 4th qtr drive in the SB was magical. john madden keep saying 'be safe and go to OT' 'i don't agree with this decision' made it even more impressive. actually many pats fans believe that was the greatest moment in the pats history. that was the birth of the greatness.

year after that brady led the league in TD and finished 6th in yards. hardly a game manager. name me a game manager who led the league in TDs and top 10 in yards.

Yeah but that drive doesn't count because it was a game winning FG and those drives don't matter.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
My point is, a lot of pro brady peopl are in their 30s and 40s and didnt watch joes career unfold. So all the info they have about joe are youtube highlights and nfl.com stats.

How old are you, just curious?

I'm pretty sure most of us here are diehard 49er fans. Don't know many casuals who go out of their way to sign up and post on 49er message boards so nobody here is hating on Joe or trying to put him down.

I'm like vegas...i hate having to downplay what Joe did because what he did was magical and yes he made the WCO look so smooth. But the man wasn't perfect and while his play in the SB is the best ever and jaw dropping it became clear to most people that Brady is the best. To win as consistently and with different parts the way he has done is crazy. it simply should not happen in a salary cap era for this long.

There really is no arguing with how much that guy puts into his craft and how much he's able to achieve with limited athletic ability.

That is why he should be considered the best over Montana.

Originally posted by Niners816:
Personally I'm still of the opinion that Joe's the finest QB (even though Steve young is actually my all time favorite player) I've ever seen play(his 1989 playoff run is the best I've ever seen a QB play). If I had to win one playoff game he's the guy I'd pick. The titles won in an era that I personally just think was stronger especially at the top and the efficiency in which he did it I will always cherish. His playoff stats even with the bad outings against New York still stand really tall.

Montana playoff career stats
62.7%
251 ypg
95.6 rate

These numbers stand up pretty nicely against all other QBs including Brady.

Brady playoff stats
62.7%
268 ypg
89.0 rate

Personally, I like the QB rating number because it is a nice way to compare efficiency when pass attempts are unequal. Just looking at Joe's and Tom's playoff careers, joe attempted about 32 passes a game and Tom is at about 39. Decided to look at some QBs gamelogs and look at the amount of 100+ rated games they've had just to see how it shook out. Usually a QB rating of 100, signifies a pretty good game all things considered. Here's what I found.

Brady has 12 out of his 34(35%)
Rodgers has 7 of 17 (41%)
Young had 5 of 14 (36%)
Brees has 5 of 11 (45%)
Manning had 6 of 27 (22%)
Favre had 10 of 24 (42%)
Montana has 12 of 23 (52%)

Even with the bad games vs NYG and Min, joe was gonna give you a pretty exceptional playoff performance at a rate that exceeds these other legendary signal callers.

Now having said all of that, I can see why and accept why Brady will be listed at the top of the lists going forward. His longevity and stats are incredible and he has earned the accolades he's received.

Look at the teams each QB had though.

Montana was able to maintain the core of his team throguhout his career because there was no salary cap. Brady had to constantly adjust to new players with a defense that fluctuated from good to great to crap.

Joe had a defense outside the top 5 twice in his career. Outside the top 10 once and the 49ers didn't make the playoffs that year(strike season or not)

Let's also not forget that most of those huge numbers were during the 89 playoffs when the team was stacked on offense.

And QB rating is absolutely the worst thing you can look at outside of the new made up QBR stat.

Originally posted by genus49:

How old are you, just curious?

I'm pretty sure most of us here are diehard 49er fans. Don't know many casuals who go out of their way to sign up and post on 49er message boards so nobody here is hating on Joe or trying to put him down.

I'm like vegas...i hate having to downplay what Joe did because what he did was magical and yes he made the WCO look so smooth. But the man wasn't perfect and while his play in the SB is the best ever and jaw dropping it became clear to most people that Brady is the best. To win as consistently and with different parts the way he has done is crazy. it simply should not happen in a salary cap era for this long.

There really is no arguing with how much that guy puts into his craft and how much he's able to achieve with limited athletic ability.

That is why he should be considered the best over Montana.

Mid fifties. You?

Said it before, will say it again. Both great QB's, but whichever era you want to use, if I have a choice with exactly the same coach, same defense, same offense everything exactly the same except I can choose Brady or Montana to be QB in a SB game, I will always choose the guy who went 4-0 and never threw an INT in the SB. Give me Joe every damn time. Regardless of how many times the Brady guys say 4-0 is a lame stat......it is still 100% the last time I checked my math.
Again, I'm not slamming Brady, the guy is amazing, but Joe is better imho.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

26 ALL PRO's for Brady, 13 for Montana. Not Pro-Bowlers. ALL PRO'S. And these are all unique individuals.

Vegasodds101 already addressed this point. You are comparing the salary cap era (with high roster turnover) to the non-salary cap era.

Ronnie Lott played alongside Joe Montana from 1981 to 1990. That's ten seasons. He was an All-Pro 7 times during that span.

Rodney Harrison played for the Patriots from 2003 to 2008. He was an All-Pro once (2003).
Devin McCourty has played for the Patriots from 2010 through 2016. He has been an All-Pro three times (2010, 2013, 2016).

Your logic: "Tom Brady played with 2 All-Pro safeties. Joe Montana only had 1 All-Pro safety. Tom had more help."
The reality: "Montana had 7 seasons of All-Pro safety help. Brady had 4 seasons of All-Pro safety help."

Of course the number of unique All-Pro teammates is going to be higher. The salary cap means that they can't keep all of the All-Pro players they acquire -- they are going to leave free agency or get traded away (Moss was an All-Pro that was traded away, Welker was an All-Pro that they let walk in FA, Jamie Collins was an All-Pro that was traded away, Logan Mankins was an All-Pro that was traded away, etc).

EDIT: also, let me preemptively say something here. Walsh had the well-known philosophy of "trading away a player a year too early, rather than a year too late." That is completely different than having to let go of a player purely because of financial constraints and "you can't pay everybody".

This notion that the 49ers kept this single, stacked team for a decade is flat out wrong. The 1981 49ers looked nothing like the 1989 49ers. There were only three players from the 1981 team that played in 1989 - Montana, Lott and Turner.

The fact is the 49ers turned over their roster fully in less than nine years. What free agents were readily available for them to sign during this period to fill holes? None. They built 4 championships through the draft and trading for Fred Dean in 1981.

Originally posted by genus49:

Look at the teams each QB had though.

Montana was able to maintain the core of his team throguhout his career because there was no salary cap. Brady had to constantly adjust to new players with a defense that fluctuated from good to great to crap.

Joe had a defense outside the top 5 twice in his career. Outside the top 10 once and the 49ers didn't make the playoffs that year(strike season or not)

Let's also not forget that most of those huge numbers were during the 89 playoffs when the team was stacked on offense.

And QB rating is absolutely the worst thing you can look at outside of the new made up QBR stat.

Says you.....it's simply a statistic that takes everything into account(%, yards, TD/int, ypa) Joe was 10-2 in games with games a QB rating over 100. Brady was 12-0, so there seem to at least be a pretty decent correlation between that stat and winning a playoff game. In fact here's the record of those QBs I mentioned when having a QB rating of over 100:

Brady 12-0
Rodgers 6-1
Montana 10-2
Young 5-0
Brees 4-1
Manning 5-1
Favre 10-0

That's at 52-5 record when posting a QB rating over 100. That's a 91.2% Win percentage. Hell, Joe's the only one to lose more than once while having a game like this. Just to add to this, here are some more historical QB and their records when posting a 100 rating:

Bradshaw 7-0
Staubach 5-2
Marino 4-1
Elway 5-0
Aikman 9-0
Big Ben 4-0
Starr 5-0
Eli Manning 5-0

In total that's a 96-8 record in these situations. Winning percentage is 92.3%. Of all those guys, staubach and Montana are the only guys with multiple loses in these situations.

As for the 12 games, 3 were in 89, 3 were in '88, 2 were in '81, 2 were in '90 and he had 1 each in '84 and '93. His 2 loses came with a niner defense ranked 2nd in scoring and a KC defense ranked 7th.

You also keep bringing up the cap....he was also playing uncapped teams, so he was playing teams with more talent as well. Really can't hold that against him. Brady has been fabulous navigating the cap era, but the uncapped era required a type of team profile that encompassed both offense and defense strength. The capped era has shown this is not always the case.

Originally posted by midrdan:

This notion that the 49ers kept this single, stacked team for a decade is flat out wrong. The 1981 49ers looked nothing like the 1989 49ers. There were only three players from the 1981 team that played in 1989 - Montana, Lott and Turner.

The fact is the 49ers turned over their roster fully in less than nine years. What free agents were readily available for them to sign during this period to fill holes? None. They built 4 championships through the draft and trading for Fred Dean in 1981.

The key to the Walsh niners was getting rid of a guy a year earlier rather than a year too late. That was the key to their run from 79-88 with Walsh and they carried this on from 89-93 with seifert. The cap changed this and the niners didn't not respond that well after the 94 season and the results were the cap hell we faced in 99. We basically gave the league a blue print of what not to do in regards to the cap.

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:

We say we can't compare eras but what we can compare is each player to their own era. To me the stat I look at most is points scored. All stats are team stats so a QBs td total for example is great but it is still a team stat. Therefore for me, the total points scored by a team is the one I look at most. That being said, I just spent some time looking up points scored for Montana's and Brady's teams vs the league avg for each individual year. A QBs job is to lead the team to score points (among some other things) so lets see how they did.

Montana starting with 1980 - Montana didn't start all year as didn't Brady in 2001 and 2016

49ers points scored from 1989-1990 vs league avg each year with +/-:

320-328 -8
357-331 +16
372-322* +50 (actual was +28, prorated due to strike)
432-349 +83
475-339 +136
411-345 +66
374-328 +46
459-324 +135
369-324 +45
442-330 +112
353-322 +31

That's an avg of +65 for Montana lead 49ers teams vs league avg....Pretty damn good.

Now Patriots points scored from 2001-2016 (-2008 due to injury).

371-323 +48
381-347 +34
348-333 +15
437-344 +94
379-330 +49
385-331 +54
589-347 +242
427-344 +83
518-352 +166
513-355 +158
557-364 +193
444-375 +69
468-361 +107
465-365 +100
441-364 +77

That's an avg of +99 points scored for Brady lead Pats vs league avg...amazing.

I like this comparison simply because it is a way to compare players from different eras. Players from thier own eras played by the same rules. How they did verse their piers, then comparing the stats from there, works IMO. Just comparing Montana lead 49ers avg 398 points per season compared to Brady's lead Pats 448 doesn't hold up because of the different era debate. Most would have guessed Brady scored more than Montana so how much more they scored vs their eras competition is way better.

One side note: After 1990 Montana missed 1991, played only 1 game in 1992 before ending his career with 2 seasons in KC. In those two seasons, Montana lead Chiefs averaged 324 points compared to league avg of 312 for only a +12 per season. Add that a Dave Krieg lead 1992 KC team scored 348 points and a Steve Bono lead 1995 KC team scored 358 means an avg of 353 points scored in the seasons before and after Montana. The league avg those years was 322, that's a +31 for Krieg and Bono compared to only a +12 for Montana. Now also add the 49ers from 1991-94 averaged 451 points per season where the league avg was only 307 for a +144.

Those numbers don't look good for Montana. As soon as he left the 49ers they scored more when it was harder to score. Steve Young was actually better at producing points for SF. The Chiefs also produced more in the season before and after his arrival with two different mediocre Qbs.

Patriots in 2008 lead by Matt Cassel scored 179 less points than the previous season under Brady. This season the Patriots under Garoppolo and Brissett avg 20.25 points per game compared to 30 under Brady.

You guys can draw your own conclusions...I have mine.

Here are each of their rankings based on both pts and yards.

Montana (79-90)


Brady (01-16)


Some notes.....in ten years starting with the niners, joe had 9 years with a top5 offense in relation to yards and 5 years with a top5 offense in pts. Tom had 6 years with a top5 offense for yards and 9 years with a top5 offense for pts in 16 years. Also while NE defense struggled with yards for a time, it really didn't translate to pts given up. I gotta give kudos to Belichek for that.

Not sure there is any life left in this thread, just argumentation. Montana was the best quarterback of his era. End thread.