Joe Montana Legacy Secured

lv and guapo get a room lmao. dont worry guapo, i was joking. i know you are super straight and don't swing that way. you've made that more than clear on a lot of different occasions.

Originally posted by LVJay:

you're absolutely right and I honestly don't know if Joe would've played and if he did, then not to the best of his ability. But I was just using that comment because a lot of posters like to throw in what if scenarios. I'm just stating what did happen (in SBs) while others try to ignore what this debate truly is about... if neither of these QBs had SB victories, then this thread isn't even here. Brady has 5. Montana is flawless. Brady took 17 + years to get there. Montana sealed his legacy in a decade.

I think that's a reasonable point and I've made too. 4 in 13 years here is more dominant than 5 in 17 years. I don't see him as flawless though since we lost in 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, and 90. Different sport but once breaking the cusp Jordan was as flawless ad it gets. Everyone else lost at some point. I'm not one to believe a SB loss is more meaningful but that's where the debate comes in.

Originally posted by TheHYDE49er:
lv and guapo get a room lmao. dont worry guapo, i was joking. i know you are super straight and don't swing that way. you've made that more than clear on a lot of different occasions.

LMAO ... the Exorcist pics tho

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by LVJay:
you're absolutely right and I honestly don't know if Joe would've played and if he did, then not to the best of his ability. But I was just using that comment because a lot of posters like to throw in what if scenarios. I'm just stating what did happen (in SBs) while others try to ignore what this debate truly is about... if neither of these QBs had SB victories, then this thread isn't even here. Brady has 5. Montana is flawless. Brady took 17 + years to get there. Montana sealed his legacy in a decade.

I think that's a reasonable point And 1 I've made too. 4 in 13 years here is more dominant than 5 in 17 years. I don't see him as flawless since we lost in 83, 83, 85, 86, 97, and 90.

Joe is nowhere near flawless in those regards (I only meant in SBs) and he choked in a lot of those other meaningful games, but in SBs, he's a diff animal.

Originally posted by LVJay:
Keep reaching.

You, of all people, accusing others of "reaching". You are the one incessantly repeating the "Joe Montana had the 'Perfect In The Super Bowl' Gene™", and then dismissing poor performances in other playoff games because they "weren't in the Super Bowl". That is astoundingly preposterous. It is absolutely mind-boggling that you think it's okay for a team/player to get knocked out in the opening round of the playoffs, and then act like it's an unforgivable sin to lose in the Super Bowl. You're literally arguing that it's better to go 0-1 in the playoffs than to go 3-1 in the playoffs. Calling that "asinine" doesn't even begin to do it justice. Your entire argument is based on such a terrible premise that it's completely impossible to have a logical argument with you.

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by LVJay:
Keep reaching.

You, of all people, accusing others of "reaching". You are the one incessantly repeating the "Joe Montana had the 'Perfect In The Super Bowl' Gene™", and then dismissing poor performances in other playoff games because they "weren't in the Super Bowl". That is astoundingly preposterous. It is absolutely mind-boggling that you think it's okay for a team/player to get knocked out in the opening round of the playoffs, and then act like it's an unforgivable sin to lose in the Super Bowl. You're literally arguing that it's better to go 0-1 in the playoffs than to go 3-1 in the playoffs. Calling that "asinine" doesn't even begin to do it justice. Your entire argument is based on such a terrible premise that it's completely impossible to have a logical argument with you.

You're upset with me too now? How is that reaching? I'm just looking at his perfect record in SBs... he played poorly in a lot of games (many meaningful ones as well). However, once he arrived, he was a diff animal. When you run out of logical things to use in a debate, then maybe it's time to hang it up

Originally posted by tjd808185:

I think that's a reasonable point and I've made too. 4 in 13 years here is more dominant than 5 in 17 years. I don't see him as flawless though since we lost in 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, and 90. Different sport but once breaking the cusp Jordan was as flawless ad it gets. Everyone else lost at some point. I'm not one to believe a SB loss is more meaningful but that's where the debate comes in.

What Montana was able to accomplish in such a short time and what the 49ers were able to accomplish as a franchise is amazing.

However it does help when you can keep your best talent and not watch some of your best guys leave to other teams because you can only afford so many good players.

Montana always had great defenses behind him. Then when we added Craig, Rathman, Rice and Taylor the offense just went to another level. Nobody could defend us.

We can all hope that our new front office/coaching staff can get similar results and consistency that the Pats have despite the cap.

I think I heard a crazy stat that there was only a handful of starters stayed the same from the Pats SB team in 2014 to this past SB team.

Brady, Edelman, Blount, Solder, Hightower, Mccourty and Chung....and technically Blount didn't "start" either game.

That's basically 16 new starters on the SB team from 2 years ago.

The fact that they're able to keep on winning with turnover that drastic is insane.

Originally posted by theduke85:
You, of all people, accusing others of "reaching". You are the one incessantly repeating the "Joe Montana had the 'Perfect In The Super Bowl' Gene™", and then dismissing poor performances in other playoff games because they "weren't in the Super Bowl". That is astoundingly preposterous. It is absolutely mind-boggling that you think it's okay for a team/player to get knocked out in the opening round of the playoffs, and then act like it's an unforgivable sin to lose in the Super Bowl. You're literally arguing that it's better to go 0-1 in the playoffs than to go 3-1 in the playoffs. Calling that "asinine" doesn't even begin to do it justice. Your entire argument is based on such a terrible premise that it's completely impossible to have a logical argument with you.

There's a reason I waved the white flag earlier.

white flag = when you run out of logical things to use in a debate, then maybe it's time to hang it up...

Originally posted by LVJay:
white flag = when you run out of logical things to use in a debate, then maybe it's time to hang it up...

white flag = when the other person is delusional and logic doesn't work.

I'd say that's a lot more accurate.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by LVJay:
white flag = when you run out of logical things to use in a debate, then maybe it's time to hang it up...

white flag = when the other person is delusional and logic doesn't work.

I'd say that's a lot more accurate.

Ok, but you're not mad tho, right? I'm really not trying to troll you / get on your nerves.

We just don't agree on certain things, which is cool with me...

Originally posted by LVJay:
Ok, but you're not mad tho, right? I'm really not trying to troll you / get on your nerves.

We just don't agree on certain things, which is cool with me...

I don't get mad on online forums or people i've never met irl.

I'm just honestly shocked that you're not getting what people are discussing here. I'm pretty sure you said it yourself that you consider Brady the best QB so your arguments are beyond confusing because nobody here is saying Brady played better in SBs than Joe.

It's like you walk into a room of people trying to figure out who would win in a fight Alien or Predator and you start arguing with people about Predator having better technology. Sure you're right but that's not what the discussion was about.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by LVJay:
Ok, but you're not mad tho, right? I'm really not trying to troll you / get on your nerves.

We just don't agree on certain things, which is cool with me...

I don't get mad on online forums or people i've never met irl.

I'm just honestly shocked that you're not getting what people are discussing here. I'm pretty sure you said it yourself that you consider Brady the best QB so your arguments are beyond confusing because nobody here is saying Brady played better in SBs than Joe.

It's like you walk into a room of people trying to figure out who would win in a fight Alien or Predator and you start arguing with people about Predator having better technology. Sure you're right but that's not what the discussion was about.

Fair enough

My money would be on Predator btw ...

Originally posted by natediaz:

i've never once put much emphasis on the QB rating. it's a result of the offensive play calling, Oline, and weapons around the QB. brady puts up great rating whenever he's protected. whenever he gets abused like how he was abused against the broncos or the giants, QB ratings become lousy.

i just never been a QB rating guy. i mean matt ryan had 144 QB rating in the SB. brady much lower. if the QB rating is the #1 priority then young is better than montana. and rodgers is the GOAT. and my boy wilson will be up there very high when he retires.

QB rating is just a stat that takes everything into account and gives an efficiency rating. I don't think it's the end-all-be-all, but it is a great indicator on whether or not you are gonna win the game.

Notable QB records with rating of over 100 in the playoffs

Brady 12-0
Rodgers 6-1
Montana 10-2
Young 5-0
Brees 4-1
Manning 5-1
Favre 10-0
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
Warner 3-1
Wilson 4-2
Kelly 3-0
Moon 0-2
Ryan 2-2
Fouts 1-0
Simms 2-0

In total that's a 111-15 record in these situations. Winning percentage is 88.1%. Of the 22 guys, only one has a losing record (Moon) and one has a .500 record (Ryan). Also looking at this list only Montana and Wilson have put forth these kinda of performances in over 50% of their playoff appearances....kinda speaks to the toughness of the playoffs.

Originally posted by natediaz:

one interesting stats - Brady has thrown 50+ passes in last 2 SBs. niners never asked montana to throw that much. Do you know what most QB's records are when they throw over 50 times in a game?

Tom Brady: 18-9 (27 games, 5-2 in the playoffs )
Drew Brees: 4-15 (19 games, 0-2 in the playoffs)
Peyton Manning: 4-12 (16 games, all in the regular season)
Dan Marino - 5-11 (16 games, 0-2 in the playoffs)
Joe Flacco: 3-9 (12 games, all in the regular season)
Matt Stafford: 1-10 (11 games, , all in the regular season)
Eli Manning: 3-7 (10 games, 1-0 in the playoffs)
Brett Favre: 2-6 (8 games, , all in the regular season)
Big Ben : 2-4 (6 games, all in the regular season)
Joe montana: 2-3 (5 games, all in the regular season)
Kurt Warner: 1-4 (5 games, , all in the regular season)
Aaron Rodgers: 1-2 (3 games, all in the regular season)

without doubt brady is asked to do more. more so than anybody in the history of the NFL. this stat blows my mind. this is why pats don't need a running game to be competitive.

All that illustrates is the differences from the WCO and the ernhardt-Perkins/air raid flavor of offense the pats run. The WCO was predicated on 50/50 pass/rush distribution by games end. Usually they would pass early to build a lead and then run the clock out in the second half. That was just their MO and it's the reason why Montana and Young never really had the huge hash numbers.

In fact of those 5 games for Joe, only 3 of them were in SF in the 85 and 86 seasons.