Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by robniner:

-Three losses
-Spygate--------->resulting of earning the "cheaters" reputation
-the footballs

CASE CLOSED

Tuck rule

Originally posted by RonMexico:

Originally posted by robniner:

Originally posted by titan:

There's no one like JOE MONTANA. Brady does resemble his greatness!

But not the taintness and the douchiness.

Joe is a dick

But he is our dick!

Foles>Brady

Originally posted by Niners99:

Why not? Who would want the 2 losses? Even Peyton's wins were a joke. He faced Rex Grossman's Bears, and then won a freebie with Denver's D when he was washed up. He even admits he didn't do anything that year. Eli won 2 SB MVP's against Brady.

Manning outdueled Brady to get to both of those SB's. 1 was one of the best games ever. If he played a duck in the finals well they earned it by getting to the game.

It seems like people just watch the SB and that's it and act like the 2 teams who get in are randomly selected and that's why that's the only game that matters.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
With a chance to win the game Brady turned the ball over. That's a fact.

After he had just brought his team back with 3 TDs to take the lead.

Originally posted by tjd808185:
Manning outdueled Brady to get to both of those SB's. 1 was one of the best games ever. If he played a duck in the finals well they earned it by getting to the game.

It seems like people just watch the SB and that's it and act like the 2 teams who get in are randomly selected and that's why that's the only game that matters.

Nah, not randomly selected. The NFL puts a lot of analysis into who they allow to play in the SB.

Originally posted by a49erfan77:

Nah, not randomly selected. The NFL puts a lot of analysis into who they allow to play in the SB.

I'm sure they really wanted Nick Foles there. That sounds right.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
With a chance to win the game Brady turned the ball over. That's a fact.

Why are you trying so hard to prove Brady is better than Montana on a 49er fan forum?

Brady essentially led the team to 4 straight TD drives(not counting the 22 seconds they had heading into the half as a realistic drive) after losing his #1 WR to injury.

Because his OL allowed a Dlman to get in there and knock the ball out of his hand on the 5th drive doesn't mean he failed.

Having 5 straight TD drives against the #4 points/yards allowed defense in the NFL in what in essence was home field for them(based on crowd noise) was something Joe never had to do in his career.

I'm sure if Brady had a top 10 defense like Joe did in each of his SB wins or if his D averages 16 points allowed per game like Joe's did in his SB wins...well obviously it would've been a blowout by the Pats and not another loss.

Just because Joe is an all time great who was a niner doesn't mean we have to trash Brady...once again the guy grew up a niner fan like all of us. Show some respect.

To think a super bowl loss is a huge negative is strange to me.

If you're not first you're last!

Originally posted by tjd808185:

Originally posted by Niners99:

Why not? Who would want the 2 losses? Even Peyton's wins were a joke. He faced Rex Grossman's Bears, and then won a freebie with Denver's D when he was washed up. He even admits he didn't do anything that year. Eli won 2 SB MVP's against Brady.

Manning outdueled Brady to get to both of those SB's. 1 was one of the best games ever. If he played a duck in the finals well they earned it by getting to the game.

It seems like people just watch the SB and that's it and act like the 2 teams who get in are randomly selected and that's why that's the only game that matters.

Peyton was notoriously mediocre in the playoffs.

Brady is a great player, just not as great as Joe.

Originally posted by Young2Rice:

To think a super bowl loss is a huge negative is strange to me.

If you're not first you're last!

Were you satisfied with Super Bowl 47?

Neither were the 49ers.

Originally posted by genus49:
Brady essentially led the team to 4 straight TD drives(not counting the 22 seconds they had heading into the half as a realistic drive) after losing his #1 WR to injury.

Because his OL allowed a Dlman to get in there and knock the ball out of his hand on the 5th drive doesn't mean he failed.

Having 5 straight TD drives against the #4 points/yards allowed defense in the NFL in what in essence was home field for them(based on crowd noise) was something Joe never had to do in his career.

I'm sure if Brady had a top 10 defense like Joe did in each of his SB wins or if his D averages 16 points allowed per game like Joe's did in his SB wins...well obviously it would've been a blowout by the Pats and not another loss.

Just because Joe is an all time great who was a niner doesn't mean we have to trash Brady...once again the guy grew up a niner fan like all of us. Show some respect.

Once again...

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:
Brady played very meh in his first Super Bowl appearance but people use it in GOAT conversations why? Because he drove down the field for the win when it mattered.

Last night Brady played good the whole game but then when it came time to pull off the win against one of the worst defenses he's played in the Super Bowl? He coughed the ball up.

So which is it? Is it about stats or is it about delivering in the moment? Brady fans can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
With a chance to win the game Brady turned the ball over. That's a fact.

Why are you trying so hard to prove Brady is better than Montana on a 49er fan forum?

Brady essentially led the team to 4 straight TD drives(not counting the 22 seconds they had heading into the half as a realistic drive) after losing his #1 WR to injury.

Because his OL allowed a Dlman to get in there and knock the ball out of his hand on the 5th drive doesn't mean he failed.

Having 5 straight TD drives against the #4 points/yards allowed defense in the NFL in what in essence was home field for them(based on crowd noise) was something Joe never had to do in his career.

I'm sure if Brady had a top 10 defense like Joe did in each of his SB wins or if his D averages 16 points allowed per game like Joe's did in his SB wins...well obviously it would've been a blowout by the Pats and not another loss.

Just because Joe is an all time great who was a niner doesn't mean we have to trash Brady...once again the guy grew up a niner fan like all of us. Show some respect.

Brady lost to Foles and Eli x2... Montana hands down the GOAT

Originally posted by Fanaticofnfl:

Originally posted by theduke85:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
The Brady apologists are out in force after the choke job.

If you want a case study of how insecure 49ers fans are, look no further than a 503-yard, 3 TD, 0 INT performance being spun as a "choke job" by Brady.

When Montana had a performance like this (Denver), his team won 55-10. Do you think Brady would've won if his defense allowed 10 points yesterday? (Hint: yes.)

Brady is the last person to blame for the game yesterday. Good grief.

Brady played very meh in his first Super Bowl appearance but people use it in GOAT conversations why? Because he drove down the field for the win when it mattered.

Last night Brady played good the whole game but then when it came time to pull off the win against one of the worst defenses he's played in the Super Bowl? He coughed the ball up.

So which is it? Is it about stats or is it about delivering in the moment? Brady fans can't have it both ways.

I agree, but in fairness to Brady, getting sacked and fumbling is a far cry from throwing an ill-advised interception.

Anyway, I agree Brady fans can't have it both ways. But why are Montana apologists able to have it both ways?

Everyone cites his impeccable Super Bowl record, but glosses over his losses earlier in the playoffs. Like, for example, three straight one-and-dones, a three-year stretch where he threw 0 TD and 4 INT. Why does Montana get credit for being perfect in the SB, but everyone glosses over him having complete duds in the playoffs? "Those games don't count, they didn't happen in the SUPER BOWL" is the most mind-numbingly stupid excuse I've ever heard in my life, and yet people reflexively regurgitate that awful argument every time this discussion comes up.

Imagine that, having terrible performances prevents a player from reaching the Super Bowl in the first place, who would've thought?!