Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by LVJay:
LMAO... I understand that. I meant, I am not. And if I am sounding pretty offensive, well, I wasn't at first, but a lot of the other comments (maybe not yours) were justifying this/that to downgrade Montana, etc....

I can't deny Brady. He's right before our eyes. He's truly amazing.

Two different eras... two QB legends. Each has a legacy (stats / record) that can arguably trump the other...... these debates are fun, but on the same token can be redundant (dead end arguments from opinions).

Dude no offense but wtf are you doing in here when the whole thread is discussing the best ever? Nobody cares about the discussion about SB best.

Originally posted by elguapo:
You use the word dense before? Well your comment sums it all up. Buddy you are a contradiction in terms. You said the tuck rule was one play in his career? That gave him a Super Bowl. What in the hell are you thinking? The Raiders deserved to go to the Super Bowl and they most likely would've lost to the Rams. You are seriously unbelievable it is laughable reading your posts. Keep up the great work.

Let's ignore all the benefits Montana had and only bring up miniscule BS for Brady right?

The guy was trying to compare how tough Montana had it with defenses being allowed to play when he won then brought up the Tuck rule as a big factor in why Brady doesn't match up.

He's also the same dude talking about just Superbowls...and i'm the one contradicting right? Tuck rule was an NFL rule created before Brady was even drafted, how exactly did it impact the rest of his career? One game, yes the rule allowed him to get to the SB and win it. It wasn't in the SB and there was plenty other things that had to take place for Brady to actually win the SB including beating a heavy favorite and better talented squad in the Rams. Oh and by the way that was when defense could still do all those things he claimed only Montana had to deal with...

You talking about laughable posts is ironic as hell considering you're a one trick pony with your discussions here, if i can even call them that. No logic just derp.

Originally posted by elguapo:
Hahahaha that is so true. Great analogy. It's really unbelievable with these guys. They act like losing a Super Bowl in horrible fashion should not count against a all-time type of player. Only scoring 14 and 17 points against the Giants? Is that a joke? Come on man. Anyways Brady has a great career going but Montana is the best. Wish he had more years on the Niners but then again we had Steve Young waiting. If that wasn't the case we still would've had Montana and won a few more Super Bowl's. Oh wait we can't say that because that's hypothetical. What a joke.

No that's called fact...

Losing a SB does count against a player. So does losing earlier in the playoffs when you can't even play in the SB. Your logic is it's better not to place at all vs getting a silver medal because you're not getting the gold right? Cuz you like to pretend that losing earlier in the playoffs is somehow not losing...

Losing in horrible fashion? The only horrible fashion about losing that game was because of the David Tyree play and the dropped Asante Samuel pick. Losing a 3 point game isn't horrible fashion, it's disappointing but not as disappointing as losing earlier in the playoffs and not even getting a chance to win it.

You want a horrible loss? Look no further than our loss to the Giants in 87 where Montana couldn't even throw for 100 yards and had 2 picks. That's a horrible loss...but it's not in the SB so you like to pretend that doesn't count right?

If Tyree this / if Asante that......... if Craig doesn't fumble, Montana goes onto to 3peat... 3 in a row would trump everything / no discussion to begin with (Hypothetically speaking)

What if a midget was tall, what if a fat lady was skinny, what if the tooth fairy exists

Originally posted by Niners816:

It's not a myth....stats show that it was harder to pass. Here's a cross-section of each guy's career and the comp% and rate by the league.

League passing averages
1981- 54.6% 70.5rate
1984- 56.4% 73.2rate
1989- 55.8% 73.2rate
2007- 61.2% 80.9rate
2011- 60.1% 82.5rate
2016- 63.0% 87.6rate

From an efficiency standpoint, the average QB season in 1981 went from Brock Osweiler's 2016 to a point where Phillip River's 2016 season is now an average season.

QB completion percentage has absolutely increased like you posted, as has almost every QB stat. I've been watching football since mid 1970s and there is zero doubt in my mind the QBs today are flat out better than those of 30 years ago. Archie Manning runs the best QB camp in the country, what he says holds water to me. He says Qbs have got better every year, today's QBs coming out of High School are much more prepared for NFL than the QBs getting drafted 30 years ago. Having refereed HS football for over 20 years I can tell you that is fact. I just watched 1983 SB Skins vs Oakland. Skins looked like a HS team, every offensive play was shaky. The quality of the game has improved.

Defenses today get called a bit more for PI (about 2.5 per team per season) but that isn't enough for the stats disparity. Qbs aren't getting hit any less today, just players are careful when they hit them. Since players are bigger, faster, stronger today the game is sped up and QBs still take big hits. Today's defenses are without question more sophisticated and elaborate. Add the bigger and faster athletes and the advanced knowledge and technology of studying for both offense ad defense and you have a better quality game. I truly don't think the stars of 30 years ago come in today's game and light it up. The great ones, Montana, Marino etc..would be fine eventually, but would take a little time to figure it out. The avg QBs back then would not make it today. The avg QB today would do quite well back then, nevermind the Brady, Rodgers Mannings etc....

So, is it really easier to pass today or are the QBs just better?

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by LVJay:
LMAO... I understand that. I meant, I am not. And if I am sounding pretty offensive, well, I wasn't at first, but a lot of the other comments (maybe not yours) were justifying this/that to downgrade Montana, etc....

I can't deny Brady. He's right before our eyes. He's truly amazing.

Two different eras... two QB legends. Each has a legacy (stats / record) that can arguably trump the other...... these debates are fun, but on the same token can be redundant (dead end arguments from opinions).

Dude no offense but wtf are you doing in here when the whole thread is discussing the best ever? Nobody cares about the discussion about SB best.

Read the thread.. you and a select few who have a complex against the fact that Montana is perfect in SBs are coming up with everything / anything you can to downplay... but ok, we'll play by your (opinionated) rule. NOT!!!!!

Your comments seem like you're worried that Montana's Legacy legitimately trumps Brady's Legacy (performances in SBs and not choking).

"Nobody cares about the discussion about SB best." ... said no one except those in favor for Brady... Please just stop, it's embarrassing

I guess the next thing you'll be saying is SBs have nothing to do with Joe's Legacy (IT HAS EVERYTHING TO WITH IT)...

"wtf" are you talking about

Keep reaching with stats... just remember the only game that matters is the SB. That's why they play the regular season... ultimately get to the SB and win (not) lose. I don't remember those who didn't make it to the finals in the olympics just like I can't remember who got bronze or silver (NO ONE CARES).

Originally posted by LVJay:
Keep reaching with stats... just remember the only game that matters is the SB. That's why they play the regular season... ultimately get to the SB and win (not) lose. I don't remember those who didn't make it to the finals in the olympics just like I can't remember who got bronze or silver (NO ONE CARES).

Once again what are you doing in this thread? You claimed you believe Brady is the GOAT correct?

So what are you arguing?

This is why you need to stay out of this conversation because you keep talking about who is the best in SBs. It's Joe, nobody is arguing about that so for your phantom argument obviously you only care about the SB and winning it is the only thing that matters.

The rest of us are talking overall picture and in that discussion getting to the SB and losing it is better than losing in the WC round or not getting to the SB at all.

Silver medal is still a medal. Would you rather be a silver medalist or bronze? Would you rather be a bronze medalist or not even place?

I'll now whether you're worth talking to based on your response.

Originally posted by LVJay:
If Tyree this / if Asante that......... if Craig doesn't fumble, Montana goes onto to 3peat... 3 in a row would trump everything / no discussion to begin with (Hypothetically speaking)

What if a midget was tall, what if a fat lady was skinny, what if the tooth fairy exists

I'm not arguing that Brady didn't lose that SB. I'm pointing out that the game wasn't a "horrible loss" when one miracle play decides the game and you still lose by 3 points it's not a horrible loss.

Can't tell if you're trolling or you legit can't follow the conversation.

Bottom line to me is just thinking about my team over the next 13-15 years. Would I rather have my team win 4 SBs or 5? Would I rather have my team go to 4 SBs or 7? Call me crazy but I'd rather have e my team go to 7 and win 5 instead of my going to only 4 and winning them......yea I know I said "only 4".

Originally posted by LVJay:
Read the thread.. you and a select few who have a complex against the fact that Montana is perfect in SBs are coming up with everything / anything you can to downplay... but ok, we'll play by your (opinionated) rule. NOT!!!!!

Your comments seem like you're worried that Montana's Legacy legitimately trumps Brady's Legacy (performances in SBs and not choking).

"Nobody cares about the discussion about SB best." ...said no one except those in favor for Brady... Please just stop, it's embarrassing

I guess the next thing you'll be saying is SBs have nothing to do with Joe's Legacy (IT HAS EVERYTHING TO WITH IT)...

"wtf" are you talking about

Maybe you should read the thread because i'm not the only person to call you out on this.

The thread is about Brady being better than Montana. It's not about who played better in the SBs.

Is Phil Simms better than Tom Brady or Peyton Manning?

Your logic says yes....so wtf are you talking about?

Yes SBs have a lot to do with Joe's legacy. Him winning 4 and playing as well as he did there. Doesn't change that he only went to 4 which isn't as good as going to 7.

Best SB performer = Joe
Best QB = Brady

Does that help?

Originally posted by LVJay:
If Tyree this / if Asante that......... if Craig doesn't fumble, Montana goes onto to 3peat... 3 in a row would trump everything / no discussion to begin with (Hypothetically speaking)

What if a midget was tall, what if a fat lady was skinny, what if the tooth fairy exists

No. Actually that isnt true since Montana would never have played in the SB had Craig not fumbled. 3 in a row doesnt mean too much when you dont play all 3

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by LVJay:
Keep reaching with stats... just remember the only game that matters is the SB. That's why they play the regular season... ultimately get to the SB and win (not) lose. I don't remember those who didn't make it to the finals in the olympics just like I can't remember who got bronze or silver (NO ONE CARES).

Once again what are you doing in this thread? You claimed you believe Brady is the GOAT correct?

So what are you arguing?

This is why you need to stay out of this conversation because you keep talking about who is the best in SBs. It's Joe, nobody is arguing about that so for your phantom argument obviously you only care about the SB and winning it is the only thing that matters.

The rest of us are talking overall picture and in that discussion getting to the SB and losing it is better than losing in the WC round or not getting to the SB at all.

Silver medal is still a medal. Would you rather be a silver medalist or bronze? Would you rather be a bronze medalist or not even place?

I'll now whether you're worth talking to based on your response.

If you're gonna read my posts, perhaps you can try to comprehend... read between the lines to get a grasp. Obviously, you don't have an answer for a lot of what I mentioned.

Of course, you would like to ignore the SB facts... just because Brady accomplished more in regular season / playoffs to get to the SB (GOAT in that perspective)... it doesn't make him "better" when playing in the SB. Don't be naive and ignorant by trying to insult anyone's intelligence... the reasons there are any debates all point to the SBs.

If the guy I was trying to protect / back up had 2 losses I might (like you) be offended by a lot of these posts and try to down play Montana's accomplishments as much as possible to make my guy look a lot better... I see where you're coming from and I already know you aren't worth continuing a conversation with by all your previous comments and handpicking the posts you can justify against with stats

Originally posted by Vegasodds101:
Bottom line to me is just thinking about my team over the next 13-15 years. Would I rather have my team win 4 SBs or 5? Would I rather have my team go to 4 SBs or 7? Call me crazy but I'd rather have e my team go to 7 and win 5 instead of my going to only 4 and winning them......yea I know I said "only 4".

My mind is seriously blown that some people would argue against this. Maybe in hindsight fans can say "i'd rather we not go to the SB vs going there and losing it"

But if you go into any season nobody says "you know i'd rather not get to the SB because we may lose it"

Getting to the SB regardless of winning or losing it is better than not getting there. I've seen avid Brady haters admit Brady is the best after this SB. Yet here we are pretending 4-0 is better than 5-2.

Originally posted by LVJay:

If Tyree this / if Asante that......... if Craig doesn't fumble, Montana goes onto to 3peat... 3 in a row would trump everything / no discussion to begin with (Hypothetically speaking)

What if a midget was tall, what if a fat lady was skinny, what if the tooth fairy exists

We'd still have to beat Buffalo and Joe would of had to play with cracked ribs. I agree though if we 3 peated or NE went 19-0 there would be no debate. Neither happened so oh so close.