Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:

Originally posted by babarvaart:
Playoffs are sort of important but why was Montana always considered better than Elway or Kelly ?

Waaaaaaaaay better decision-maker.

Because he won championships and they didn't...

So why should Montana be considered better than Brady when Brady won more?

No -- play by play by play by play -- Joe made the better decisions for the offense, getting the first downs moving the sticks.That's why.

LOL. These arguments always make me laugh. Moving the sticks? Walsh's offense was all about moving the sticks in a highly efficient manner and limiting risky throws. This is NOT a put down at all on Joes decision making but to say that he made better decisions than Brady is simply not fact but simply an opinion with nothing to really base it on. I mean, what is it about Tom Brady that makes you think he doesnt have elite decision making?

Originally posted by babarvaart:
But Otto Graham won even more so what about him ?

to be fair Brady has only won with BB so there is that as well.

but yeah it's all totally pointless and we can all make our own minds up.

And yes I'd rather lose in the playoffs than the SB. Losing the SB felt worse than going 2-14.

You seriously comparing winning a championship with only 12 teams and just one playoff game?

Your last statement tells me all I need to know about having this discussion with you, which is it's pointless.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
No -- play by play by play by play -- Joe made the better decisions for the offense, getting the first downs moving the sticks.That's why.

You've analyzed all their plays play by play I'm guessing?

Could it be that the WCO and the greatest coach ever in Bill Walsh made it easier for Joe to do that? Once again their performances in the SBs were pretty similar until Joe had one of the best playoff runs in history with that 89 team.

Do you think decisions are a little easier when you have a roster that talented?

So because Montana was lucky enough to be 4-0 in super bowls that erases the fact he screwed up in like 4 years worth of playoffs that kept them from going to the super bowl another 4 times?

Is this the factor for greatness?

Montana was 3-6 in a strike shortened season after winning the Super Bowl the previous year. The easiest year to win a super bowl and you miss the playoffs by one game because the Lions beat them out for the last spot with a 4-6 record.
lol

1983 - Lost to Washington in the Conf Champ.

1985 - Lost the WC game to the Giants

1987 - Lost Div playoff to Min.

1990 - Lost Conf. playoff to the Giants

Maybe if Joe was as good as Tom he'd be 8-8 in Super Bowls?

now that we have Hoyer it is in serious jeopardy

Originally posted by SoCold:
So because Montana was lucky enough to be 4-0 in super bowls that erases the fact he screwed up in like 4 years worth of playoffs that kept them from going to the super bowl another 4 times?

Is this the factor for greatness?

Montana was 3-6 in a strike shortened season after winning the Super Bowl the previous year. The easiest year to win a super bowl and you miss the playoffs by one game because the Lions beat them out for the last spot with a 4-6 record.
lol

1983 - Lost to Washington in the Conf Champ.

1985 - Lost the WC game to the Giants

1987 - Lost Div playoff to Min.

1990 - Lost Conf. playoff to the Giants

Maybe if Joe was as good as Tom he'd be 8-8 in Super Bowls?

I don't get it. So because he didn't advance to the SB darn near every year of his career he's invalidated?

In Montana's 10 years as a starter in SF (81-90) he won 4 Super Bowls. 4 SB victories in 10 years. 40% of his starting tenure in SF he led the team to a SB victory. Thats phenomenal.

Brady has won 5 SBs in his career. I guess that also means he screwed up 11 other times. Shouldn't really be held against him either.

Brady definitely edges him out in longevity, but I don't see how Montana's accomplishments can be diminished in retrospect.

Originally posted by SofaKing:

Originally posted by SoCold:
So because Montana was lucky enough to be 4-0 in super bowls that erases the fact he screwed up in like 4 years worth of playoffs that kept them from going to the super bowl another 4 times?

Is this the factor for greatness?

Montana was 3-6 in a strike shortened season after winning the Super Bowl the previous year. The easiest year to win a super bowl and you miss the playoffs by one game because the Lions beat them out for the last spot with a 4-6 record.
lol

1983 - Lost to Washington in the Conf Champ.

1985 - Lost the WC game to the Giants

1987 - Lost Div playoff to Min.

1990 - Lost Conf. playoff to the Giants

Maybe if Joe was as good as Tom he'd be 8-8 in Super Bowls?

I don't get it. So because he didn't advance to the SB darn near every year of his career he's invalidated?

In Montana's 10 years as a starter in SF (81-90) he won 4 Super Bowls. 4 SB victories in 10 years. 40% of his starting tenure in SF he led the team to a SB victory. Thats phenomenal.

Brady has won 5 SBs in his career. I guess that also means he screwed up 11 other times. Shouldn't really be held against him either.

Brady definitely edges him out in longevity, but I don't see how Montana's accomplishments can be diminished in retrospect.

so because tom didn't go 7-7 in his super bowls he's not as good?

the point is that the ultimate goal of the nfl is to win the super bowl. No one remembers throwing 3 INT in a playoff game in the 80's and you never making the super bowl. lol

5 rings > 4 rings

imo
Tom 1a
Joe 1b

everyone else

Originally posted by babarvaart:
Playoffs are sort of important but why was Montana always considered better than Elway or Kelly ?

we saw them play. what i'm trying to say is you gotta look at the whole package. regular season, playoffs, SB, awards, clutch factor, leadership, impact, arm talent, etc, etc.

everything. elway shouldn't even be top 10 with his lousy stats. but he finally got over the hump and won 2 rings. that's how he cemented his legacy as a top 10 QB.
if kelly won few rings, he would've been a top 10 QB too.

yes, it's not fair for kelly who should've won at least 1, but that's just how life works sometimes. imagine dan marino winning few rings. he might've been the GOAT over montana in that era.

Originally posted by SoCold:
so because tom didn't go 7-7 in his super bowls he's not as good?

the point is that the ultimate goal of the nfl is to win the super bowl. No one remembers throwing 3 INT in a playoff game in the 80's and you never making the super bowl. lol

5 rings > 4 rings

imo
Tom 1a
Joe 1b

everyone else

Exactly. People want to cherry pick the things they look at to prove their point but there's really no arguing what Brady has been able to accomplish.

People want to downplay his longevity as if it's a bad thing. The guy is playing some of his best football when most guys are retiring.

Most SB wins
Most SB starts
Most SB MVPs
Most wins...etc, etc.

Brady also had to win with very different teams throughout the years and was oh so close to going to even more SBs. Taking that awful offense in 2006 to the AFC Championship game before the defense totally collapsed in after they had a 21-6 lead and even with the D collapsing it was because Reche Caldwell couldn't catch a pass hitting him square in the hands to keep the Pats from killing the clock, this was after he dropped an earlier easy TD. No question Pats would destroy the Bears in that SB.

Hell even in 2015 who knows what happens if Gostkowski doesn't miss an earlier extra point and they don't have to go for two after Brady marches them down the field vs that ridiculous Denver defense after they beat the crap out of him all game long.

And this was all done with the salary cap in place so every few years key members of the team would walk out the door chasing big bucks somewhere else.

Originally posted by SoCold:
so because tom didn't go 7-7 in his super bowls he's not as good?

the point is that the ultimate goal of the nfl is to win the super bowl. No one remembers throwing 3 INT in a playoff game in the 80's and you never making the super bowl. lol

5 rings > 4 rings

imo
Tom 1a
Joe 1b

everyone else

Sure, I'd agree with that. I just don't see why in order to prop up Brady that Montana's accomplishments have to be diminished. I don't hold Montana's playoff losses against him, and I don't hold Brady's playoff losses against him. What they both did was amazing and pretty much smokes every other QB in the SB era out of the water.

5 > 4, we have to concede that, and Brady edges him out in both appearances and longevity, so a strong argument is made he gets the edge. But Montana's 10 year run was amazing in its own right and outpaces Brady in that stretch of time. 40% SB win rate over a 10 year period, compared to Brady 31% over 16 years. Montana at the height of his powers was just as good if not better than Brady imo.

Originally posted by SofaKing:
I don't get it. So because he didn't advance to the SB darn near every year of his career he's invalidated?

In Montana's 10 years as a starter in SF (81-90) he won 4 Super Bowls. 4 SB victories in 10 years. 40% of his starting tenure in SF he led the team to a SB victory. Thats phenomenal.

Brady has won 5 SBs in his career. I guess that also means he screwed up 11 other times. Shouldn't really be held against him either.

Brady definitely edges him out in longevity, but I don't see how Montana's accomplishments can be diminished in retrospect.

this argument really doesn't make sense. so montana didn't play 2 years with KC?

and what if brady retired in 2005 due to freak injury? he would've been 11-1 in the playoffs and 3-0 in the SB. going to 3SBs in 5 seasons. does that make him better QB then a guy who went to 7 SBs and winning 5 in 15 healthy seasons?

IMO, not only brady edges montana out in longevity, but he is way more accomplished QB for accumulating much more bulk stats, playoff stats, winning more games, more playoff games, more SB appearances, and more SB.

it's really a simple math. and longevity is a part of a greatness. would you want your future franchise QB to play 10 years or 16 years? you know the answer.

Originally posted by PrisonOfGlass:

Originally posted by dwy621:
but but but..Brady also has proven he will lose in the SB. So you would still go with him? I'd still prefer a guy who hasn't lost than a guy who has.

I'm going with Johnny Manziel. He's never lost a Super Bowl either.

Wow Diaz and Genus still fighting for their favorite player ever, Brady. LMAO.

I bet if this thread got locked with the last post an affirmative "Joe Montana is the GOAT" those two would be popping veins in their foreheads for not being able to respond back.

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

I bet if this thread got locked with the last post an affirmative "Joe Montana is the GOAT" those two would be popping veins in their foreheads for not being able to respond back.

Yeah...don't know how I'll be able to sleep at night if that happened.