Joe Montana Legacy Secured

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Wow dude you really cant let this go can you?

Why on earth do you want to continue to argue points that have already been argued a zillion times?

I gurantee if you go and voice your opinion on the Pats board's thread of "Brady is the GOAT" youll be well loved and admired.

Pretty sure I didn't bump this thread. I come to these message boards to talk about football and the 49ers. Just because this is a 49ers board doesn't mean we should all be blind homers.

I'm not doing anything but stating facts and pointing out the hypocrisy that's riddled all over this thread.

This whole thread is basically insecurity driven. If you want to believe that Joe is the best ever that's fine but me pointing out flaws and hypocrisy in people's reasons as to why that's the case is allowed unless I missed the "you shall not post truths if they don't make 49ers look great"

But if you want to point out anything I said that's wrong feel free to do so.

Have you considered wether you are a blind homer for brady?

Do you think brady would have run walsh's wco better than joe? Consider the difference in mobility. Walsh would start removing rollouts and planned keepers from the game plan. Would the catch have happened with brady behind center? Not the way it did, no way.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by babarvaart:

Very rarely is there an undisputed GOAT in any sport and this is no exception. Roger Federer is about the only 1 I can think of as he's so obviously ahead of anyone else.

Joe won 4
Tom won 5 but played 60% longer.

take your pick.

You don't think you're leaving out a few things?

Like the whole salary cap situation? But let's forget about that for a second and just use your logic for ranking the best.

Terry Bradshaw won 4 in 6 years
Joe won 4 in 9 years

Bradshaw must be better right?

If joe was playing with steel curtain he would have won 6 in 6 years. Come on man.

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Have you considered wether you are a blind homer for brady?

Do you think brady would have run walsh's wco better than joe? Consider the difference in mobility. Walsh would start removing rollouts and planned keepers from the game plan. Would the catch have happened with brady behind center? Not the way it did, no way.

Blind homer for Brady? He clearly has his flaws and yes mobility is one of them.

But why does Brady have to run Walsh's WCO? And we don't know what he would've been able to do. His strength is in the pocket. I don't want to get into hypotheticals here. Would Joe be the same QB on this Pats offense? Would he play as well as Brady?

Joe was a perfect fit for Bill's offense. Bill was an offensive genius so Joe was certainly aided by having someone like that around. The WCO was new and it took defenses time to adjust. He had a lot of benefits Brady didn't have. Brady has his own benefits with the rule changes and Belichick being an exceptional coach on his own right but let's call a spade a spade...

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Have you considered wether you are a blind homer for brady?

Do you think brady would have run walsh's wco better than joe? Consider the difference in mobility. Walsh would start removing rollouts and planned keepers from the game plan. Would the catch have happened with brady behind center? Not the way it did, no way.

Blind homer for Brady? He clearly has his flaws and yes mobility is one of them.

But why does Brady have to run Walsh's WCO? And we don't know what he would've been able to do. His strength is in the pocket. I don't want to get into hypotheticals here. Would Joe be the same QB on this Pats offense? Would he play as well as Brady?

Joe was a perfect fit for Bill's offense. Bill was an offensive genius so Joe was certainly aided by having someone like that around. The WCO was new and it took defenses time to adjust. He had a lot of benefits Brady didn't have. Brady has his own benefits with the rule changes and Belichick being an exceptional coach on his own right but let's call a spade a spade...

Once again I disagree. Brady wouldn't have been great in the system because he wasn't mobile. If Brady played in the WCO the system wouldn't have been as dynamic because of the lack of scrambling plays that could be utilized. Brady has way more benefits now than Montana had.

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:
Once again I disagree. Brady wouldn't have been great in the system because he wasn't mobile. If Brady played in the WCO the system wouldn't have been as dynamic because of the lack of scrambling plays that could be utilized. Brady has way more benefits now than Montana had.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by fortyninerglory:

Wow dude you really cant let this go can you?

Why on earth do you want to continue to argue points that have already been argued a zillion times?

I gurantee if you go and voice your opinion on the Pats board's thread of "Brady is the GOAT" youll be well loved and admired.

Pretty sure I didn't bump this thread. I come to these message boards to talk about football and the 49ers. Just because this is a 49ers board doesn't mean we should all be blind homers.

I'm not doing anything but stating facts and pointing out the hypocrisy that's riddled all over this thread.

This whole thread is basically insecurity driven. If you want to believe that Joe is the best ever that's fine but me pointing out flaws and hypocrisy in people's reasons as to why that's the case is allowed unless I missed the "you shall not post truths if they don't make 49ers look great"

But if you want to point out anything I said that's wrong feel free to do so.

If anyone disagrees with your opinion you dismiss them as "blind homers".

Originally posted by genus49:

Blind homer for Brady? He clearly has his flaws and yes mobility is one of them.

But why does Brady have to run Walsh's WCO? And we don't know what he would've been able to do. His strength is in the pocket. I don't want to get into hypotheticals here. Would Joe be the same QB on this Pats offense? Would he play as well as Brady?

Joe was a perfect fit for Bill's offense. Bill was an offensive genius so Joe was certainly aided by having someone like that around. The WCO was new and it took defenses time to adjust. He had a lot of benefits Brady didn't have. Brady has his own benefits with the rule changes and Belichick being an exceptional coach on his own right but let's call a spade a spade...

Walsh and mcdaniel do the same thing scheme to fit the talent they have. Walsh would bring more kenny anderson to a brady led wco and mcdaniel would start putting more naked bootlegs and full field reads into the ne system with joe.

It would be an interesting question to ask which qb each guru would want to work with. I think walsh was pretty happy with the way joe ran his concepts. I bet mcd would also look for a qb with joes traits -- but of course the longevity issue is all brady.

The house that Joe built is sinking.

Originally posted by Joecool:

The house that Joe built is sinking.

I'm betting he has more than one house.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
If anyone disagrees with your opinion you dismiss them as "blind homers".

Not at all but "Brady cheated so he's not GOAT" is being a blind homer
"Brady lost in the SB, Joe didn't" is being a blind homer
and plenty more...

Originally posted by Arsenal2004:
Once again I disagree. Brady wouldn't have been great in the system because he wasn't mobile. If Brady played in the WCO the system wouldn't have been as dynamic because of the lack of scrambling plays that could be utilized. Brady has way more benefits now than Montana had.

Once again...agree to disagree lol.

At the end of the day if a QB can make plays from the pocket it doesn't matter if he's not as mobile. Pats call rollouts time to time...it's just not a strength of Brady so it's not a staple of their offense. But let's not pretend like mobile QBs are automatically better. We've seen plenty of mobile QBs who aren't 1/10th of a QB that Brady is.

I just don't like hypothetical situations in general because you simply don't know. Would the offense be limited due to lack of bootlegs? Sure. Would it be an offense which doesn't have success? Doubtful.

At the end of the day does it matter if you score a TD with a bootleg or from the pocket?

Originally posted by brodiebluebanaszak:
Walsh and mcdaniel do the same thing scheme to fit the talent they have. Walsh would bring more kenny anderson to a brady led wco and mcdaniel would start putting more naked bootlegs and full field reads into the ne system with joe.

It would be an interesting question to ask which qb each guru would want to work with. I think walsh was pretty happy with the way joe ran his concepts. I bet mcd would also look for a qb with joes traits -- but of course the longevity issue is all brady.

I don't think there's any question Bill Walk >>>>>> McDaniels and I would hope we don't try to argue otherwise around here.

I'm sure the Pats would love to have more mobility out of Brady but it's not how that works. Brady is great for his abilities in the pocket and at 40 he moves around the pocket better than almost any QB in the game right now with guys 10-15 years younger than him.

And at the end of the day it's all about the play on the field.

Is there anyone here who can deny that Randy Moss is more TALENTED than Jerry Rice? But who was the better receiver?

And longevity is part of the game. Everyone is throwing out how much Joe got beat up in those days but he wasn't the only QB playing in the league. Dan Marino played in the same era and he didn't have the same injury situation. Just like in today's NFL not everyone stays healthy and durable the way Brady has. Look at Andrew Luck or Ben Roethlisberger.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

If anyone disagrees with your opinion you dismiss them as "blind homers".

Not at all but "Brady cheated so he's not GOAT" is being a blind homer
"Brady lost in the SB, Joe didn't" is being a blind homer
and plenty more...

Brady lost int he SB and Joe didn't is a stone cold fact.
Brady cheated and his team cheated and those are stone cold facts.
What those things mean in evaluating their Legacies is subjective.

Originally posted by TheWooLick:
Brady lost int he SB and Joe didn't is a stone cold fact.
Brady cheated and his team cheated and those are stone cold facts.
What those things mean in evaluating their Legacies is subjective.

And people being subjective is very much dependent on whether or not they are being realistic or blind homers....

And btw Brady cheating is not a stone cold fact unless you're Roger Goodell.

Originally posted by genus49:

Originally posted by TheWooLick:

Brady lost int he SB and Joe didn't is a stone cold fact.
Brady cheated and his team cheated and those are stone cold facts.
What those things mean in evaluating their Legacies is subjective.

And people being subjective is very much dependent on whether or not they are being realistic or blind homers....

And btw Brady cheating is not a stone cold fact unless you're Roger Goodell.

Yep, saying 5-3 > 4-0 is subjective and saying 4-0 > 5-3 is also subjective.

Brady broke the rules with the football psi, that is cheating. The Pats broke the rules by spying on other teams, that is cheating. What that means to a person when considering Legacy is subjective.