Joe Montana: Cool Under Pressure

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
If winning the most SBs is your basis for making Brady the GOAT then he is. Don't forget he also lost 3. Nunbers alone b=never tell the story. Mark McGuire hit 70 HRs. Does anyone think that makes him a better hitter than Ruth, Williams, Mays or Mantle.

The Montana vs Brady argument will never be settled and it can't be. The differences between football in the 80s and football in the past 20 years is huge. Rosters were much deeper in the 80s. Rules allowed far more contact with the QB. Teams didn't pass as much as they do now. Receivers didn't wear gloves like flypaper.

Comparing eras is exactly what Greatest of All Time is all about. And saying that Brady lost Super Bowls as if losing in the Super Bowl is somehow worst than not even getting to the game is probably the dumbest argument. Only now do people say rings don't matter. And Jerry Rice admitted to using stick em.

My point is you can't really have a Greatest of All Time when the game has changed so much. It's a barstool argument but there is no way to really know. I heard none other than Lawrence Taylor say there is no way that Brady would have survived as long as he did if he played in the era that Montana did. He talked about how they used to drive him into the turf and hit him with the crown of the helmet. All stuff you can't do anymore. Joe has had over 30 surgeries because of the beating he took at QB. I have no problem saying Brady was the best of his era. I think Mahomes may surpass him in many things if he plays long enough. He's clearly more talented.

If it's all about titles why is Bill Russell not the best ever? Yogi Berra? Henri Richard?

Brady is the most successful QB of all time......but I'd still take Montana as the best QB I've ever seen.

Brady is a top 5 guy all time for me, but a large part of his success is simply due to longevity. The guy was playing very good football for a decade longer than Montana did, and that's because of the training/nutritional/medicinal/surgical advancements in today's era, (and a voodoo witch doctor with probably some nefarious concoctions) ridiculous rules to protect the position, and other rules that have opened up the passing attack. Montana's last SB win was when he was 33, and he remained an elite player for at least another year. Brady was still at a similar level when he was 43....so the dude had an extra decade to collect more stats/wins/SB's.

The QB position determines wins and losses far more in today's game than it did in Montana's era, so Brady has that advantage as well. The salary cap/free agency era also actually benefits today's great QB's, because to have one of those guys on relatively even teams heavily sways success in your direction.

Whenever this discussion comes up, I always point to the 1989 game at Veterans Stadium against the Eagles. It's possibly the greatest game I've seen from a QB from every standpoint. He didn't just put up monster numbers....he did it while getting destroyed by Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons and the rest of that psychotic pass rush. He was bloodied and battered to the point where SF was gonna pull him simply for protection. Not only did they not protect him, they actually put more skill players out in play, and prayed that limited protection could hold up. He still got his ass kicked, but he pulled out a miraculous comeback.

Funny thing about all the stats, and how very average quarterbacks today put up better numbers than Montana did in his era.....and I'm not a big QB rating guy but.....Tom Brady's lifetime playoff rating is 89.8. That's pretty average....especially in this era. Montana's was 95.6.

Johnny Unitas was the man. Same with Roger Staubach. Then it was Montana and Marino. The first half of Favre's career, and then there is Brady. Mahomes will probably be the next one....especially being the face of the league and how the NFL is more sports entertainment, and the league will do a lot to ensure Mahomes' success. I'll take Joe Montana, and I haven't seen one argument to convince me otherwise.

Originally posted by 9ers4eva:
If it's all about titles why is Bill Russell not the best ever? Yogi Berra? Henri Richard?

Many will say because they all played against plumbers and garbage truck drivers and apparently they don't have the genetics to compete with today's athletes. With this said Bill Russell was an ultra-athlete who could touch the top of the backboard and Joe Montana was legit basketball player who could dunk two-handed with ease.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Brady is the most successful QB of all time......but I'd still take Montana as the best QB I've ever seen.

Brady is a top 5 guy all time for me, but a large part of his success is simply due to longevity. The guy was playing very good football for a decade longer than Montana did, and that's because of the training/nutritional/medicinal/surgical advancements in today's era, (and a voodoo witch doctor with probably some nefarious concoctions) ridiculous rules to protect the position, and other rules that have opened up the passing attack. Montana's last SB win was when he was 33, and he remained an elite player for at least another year. Brady was still at a similar level when he was 43....so the dude had an extra decade to collect more stats/wins/SB's.

The QB position determines wins and losses far more in today's game than it did in Montana's era, so Brady has that advantage as well. The salary cap/free agency era also actually benefits today's great QB's, because to have one of those guys on relatively even teams heavily sways success in your direction.

Whenever this discussion comes up, I always point to the 1989 game at Veterans Stadium against the Eagles. It's possibly the greatest game I've seen from a QB from every standpoint. He didn't just put up monster numbers....he did it while getting destroyed by Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons and the rest of that psychotic pass rush. He was bloodied and battered to the point where SF was gonna pull him simply for protection. Not only did they not protect him, they actually put more skill players out in play, and prayed that limited protection could hold up. He still got his ass kicked, but he pulled out a miraculous comeback.

Funny thing about all the stats, and how very average quarterbacks today put up better numbers than Montana did in his era.....and I'm not a big QB rating guy but.....Tom Brady's lifetime playoff rating is 89.8. That's pretty average....especially in this era. Montana's was 95.6.

Johnny Unitas was the man. Same with Roger Staubach. Then it was Montana and Marino. The first half of Favre's career, and then there is Brady. Mahomes will probably be the next one....especially being the face of the league and how the NFL is more sports entertainment, and the league will do a lot to ensure Mahomes' success. I'll take Joe Montana, and I haven't seen one argument to convince me otherwise.

You have to divide the players into different eras.

Pre tv era
Super bowl era late 60s late 70s
Free agent parity era 80s 90s
Defensive rule restriction era 90s 2000s
Touch football qb era 2000s today

Joe is best 80s on. You have to inflate his stats for longevity and pass rules to compare with modern qbs. Joe is the prototype of modern qb mobile successful off schedule, every throw is catchable makes all throws the progression king best play faker of modern era?

The best qb of all time no one knows. Too many great players with too little film.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/giants-legend-lawrence-taylor-doesn-145524078.html

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
If winning the most SBs is your basis for making Brady the GOAT then he is. Don't forget he also lost 3. Nunbers alone b=never tell the story. Mark McGuire hit 70 HRs. Does anyone think that makes him a better hitter than Ruth, Williams, Mays or Mantle.

The Montana vs Brady argument will never be settled and it can't be. The differences between football in the 80s and football in the past 20 years is huge. Rosters were much deeper in the 80s. Rules allowed far more contact with the QB. Teams didn't pass as much as they do now. Receivers didn't wear gloves like flypaper.

Comparing eras is exactly what Greatest of All Time is all about. And saying that Brady lost Super Bowls as if losing in the Super Bowl is somehow worst than not even getting to the game is probably the dumbest argument. Only now do people say rings don't matter. And Jerry Rice admitted to using stick em.

The gloves receivers wear now give a far greater advantage than stickem. I saw the difference firsthand at the Pro Football HOF (they let you hold a ball with abd without the gloves).

Montana should probably be held as (at least) an equivalent to Brady when you compare eras but he comes off as a salty hater in all of his interviews.

Originally posted by Leathaface:
Montana should probably be held as (at least) an equivalent to Brady when you compare eras but he comes off as a salty hater in all of his interviews.

See the recent one? He was trashing Seifert stating we'd win 2-3 more if they hadn't started that guy (Young) over him in 91 and kept him through 92-93. He's gotta point you know

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:

Originally posted by Hysterikal:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:
If winning the most SBs is your basis for making Brady the GOAT then he is. Don't forget he also lost 3. Nunbers alone b=never tell the story. Mark McGuire hit 70 HRs. Does anyone think that makes him a better hitter than Ruth, Williams, Mays or Mantle.

The Montana vs Brady argument will never be settled and it can't be. The differences between football in the 80s and football in the past 20 years is huge. Rosters were much deeper in the 80s. Rules allowed far more contact with the QB. Teams didn't pass as much as they do now. Receivers didn't wear gloves like flypaper.

Comparing eras is exactly what Greatest of All Time is all about. And saying that Brady lost Super Bowls as if losing in the Super Bowl is somehow worst than not even getting to the game is probably the dumbest argument. Only now do people say rings don't matter. And Jerry Rice admitted to using stick em.

The gloves receivers wear now give a far greater advantage than stickem. I saw the difference firsthand at the Pro Football HOF (they let you hold a ball with abd without the gloves).

I saw a video where some guy went to a high school and had high school players making leaping one handed catches with those gloves. No question they give the receiver a big advantage. Look at all the one handed catches we see today. That used to be rare. Are we supposed to think that all the receivers today have bigger and better hands. It's the same as baseball. The pitchers aren't suddenly able to throw faster. They're only expected to go 5 innings in many case so they don't need to save anything for the later innings. They can let the shaft out early. On top of that, they measure the ball speed when it leaves the pitchers hand now. They used to measure it when it crossed the plate. That's a difference of about 3-4 mph.

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Brady is the most successful QB of all time......but I'd still take Montana as the best QB I've ever seen.

Brady is a top 5 guy all time for me, but a large part of his success is simply due to longevity. The guy was playing very good football for a decade longer than Montana did, and that's because of the training/nutritional/medicinal/surgical advancements in today's era, (and a voodoo witch doctor with probably some nefarious concoctions) ridiculous rules to protect the position, and other rules that have opened up the passing attack. Montana's last SB win was when he was 33, and he remained an elite player for at least another year. Brady was still at a similar level when he was 43....so the dude had an extra decade to collect more stats/wins/SB's.

The QB position determines wins and losses far more in today's game than it did in Montana's era, so Brady has that advantage as well. The salary cap/free agency era also actually benefits today's great QB's, because to have one of those guys on relatively even teams heavily sways success in your direction.

Whenever this discussion comes up, I always point to the 1989 game at Veterans Stadium against the Eagles. It's possibly the greatest game I've seen from a QB from every standpoint. He didn't just put up monster numbers....he did it while getting destroyed by Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons and the rest of that psychotic pass rush. He was bloodied and battered to the point where SF was gonna pull him simply for protection. Not only did they not protect him, they actually put more skill players out in play, and prayed that limited protection could hold up. He still got his ass kicked, but he pulled out a miraculous comeback.

Funny thing about all the stats, and how very average quarterbacks today put up better numbers than Montana did in his era.....and I'm not a big QB rating guy but.....Tom Brady's lifetime playoff rating is 89.8. That's pretty average....especially in this era. Montana's was 95.6.

Johnny Unitas was the man. Same with Roger Staubach. Then it was Montana and Marino. The first half of Favre's career, and then there is Brady. Mahomes will probably be the next one....especially being the face of the league and how the NFL is more sports entertainment, and the league will do a lot to ensure Mahomes' success. I'll take Joe Montana, and I haven't seen one argument to convince me otherwise.

Montana won his 4 SB in a span of 9 years. It took Brady 14 years to win his 4th. Joe only played about 10 seasons for the Niners. He was so beat up that they traded him to KC. I heard he's had more than 30 surgeries for various issues related to football. Brady can be thankful that he didn't play in the era when QBs were fair game.

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Brady is the most successful QB of all time......but I'd still take Montana as the best QB I've ever seen.

Brady is a top 5 guy all time for me, but a large part of his success is simply due to longevity. The guy was playing very good football for a decade longer than Montana did, and that's because of the training/nutritional/medicinal/surgical advancements in today's era, (and a voodoo witch doctor with probably some nefarious concoctions) ridiculous rules to protect the position, and other rules that have opened up the passing attack. Montana's last SB win was when he was 33, and he remained an elite player for at least another year. Brady was still at a similar level when he was 43....so the dude had an extra decade to collect more stats/wins/SB's.

The QB position determines wins and losses far more in today's game than it did in Montana's era, so Brady has that advantage as well. The salary cap/free agency era also actually benefits today's great QB's, because to have one of those guys on relatively even teams heavily sways success in your direction.

Whenever this discussion comes up, I always point to the 1989 game at Veterans Stadium against the Eagles. It's possibly the greatest game I've seen from a QB from every standpoint. He didn't just put up monster numbers....he did it while getting destroyed by Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons and the rest of that psychotic pass rush. He was bloodied and battered to the point where SF was gonna pull him simply for protection. Not only did they not protect him, they actually put more skill players out in play, and prayed that limited protection could hold up. He still got his ass kicked, but he pulled out a miraculous comeback.

Funny thing about all the stats, and how very average quarterbacks today put up better numbers than Montana did in his era.....and I'm not a big QB rating guy but.....Tom Brady's lifetime playoff rating is 89.8. That's pretty average....especially in this era. Montana's was 95.6.

Johnny Unitas was the man. Same with Roger Staubach. Then it was Montana and Marino. The first half of Favre's career, and then there is Brady. Mahomes will probably be the next one....especially being the face of the league and how the NFL is more sports entertainment, and the league will do a lot to ensure Mahomes' success. I'll take Joe Montana, and I haven't seen one argument to convince me otherwise.

Montana won his 4 SB in a span of 9 years. It took Brady 14 years to win his 4th. Joe only played about 10 seasons for the Niners. He was so beat up that they traded him to KC. I heard he's had more than 30 surgeries for various issues related to football. Brady can be thankful that he didn't play in the era when QBs were fair game.

WHY we all still arguing about Joe vs Brady?

How many Super Bowl did Brady play like Joe ?? Joe's worst Super Bowl performance was against the Cincy (part 2) and he closed that performance w/the best drive ever..

Brady's team never faced any teams like Joe did.. .

Originally posted by 9moon:

Originally posted by CatchMaster80:

Originally posted by RickyRoma:
Brady is the most successful QB of all time......but I'd still take Montana as the best QB I've ever seen.

Brady is a top 5 guy all time for me, but a large part of his success is simply due to longevity. The guy was playing very good football for a decade longer than Montana did, and that's because of the training/nutritional/medicinal/surgical advancements in today's era, (and a voodoo witch doctor with probably some nefarious concoctions) ridiculous rules to protect the position, and other rules that have opened up the passing attack. Montana's last SB win was when he was 33, and he remained an elite player for at least another year. Brady was still at a similar level when he was 43....so the dude had an extra decade to collect more stats/wins/SB's.

The QB position determines wins and losses far more in today's game than it did in Montana's era, so Brady has that advantage as well. The salary cap/free agency era also actually benefits today's great QB's, because to have one of those guys on relatively even teams heavily sways success in your direction.

Whenever this discussion comes up, I always point to the 1989 game at Veterans Stadium against the Eagles. It's possibly the greatest game I've seen from a QB from every standpoint. He didn't just put up monster numbers....he did it while getting destroyed by Reggie White, Jerome Brown, Clyde Simmons and the rest of that psychotic pass rush. He was bloodied and battered to the point where SF was gonna pull him simply for protection. Not only did they not protect him, they actually put more skill players out in play, and prayed that limited protection could hold up. He still got his ass kicked, but he pulled out a miraculous comeback.

Funny thing about all the stats, and how very average quarterbacks today put up better numbers than Montana did in his era.....and I'm not a big QB rating guy but.....Tom Brady's lifetime playoff rating is 89.8. That's pretty average....especially in this era. Montana's was 95.6.

Johnny Unitas was the man. Same with Roger Staubach. Then it was Montana and Marino. The first half of Favre's career, and then there is Brady. Mahomes will probably be the next one....especially being the face of the league and how the NFL is more sports entertainment, and the league will do a lot to ensure Mahomes' success. I'll take Joe Montana, and I haven't seen one argument to convince me otherwise.

Montana won his 4 SB in a span of 9 years. It took Brady 14 years to win his 4th. Joe only played about 10 seasons for the Niners. He was so beat up that they traded him to KC. I heard he's had more than 30 surgeries for various issues related to football. Brady can be thankful that he didn't play in the era when QBs were fair game.

WHY we all still arguing about Joe vs Brady?

How many Super Bowl did Brady play like Joe ?? Joe's worst Super Bowl performance was against the Cincy (part 2) and he closed that performance w/the best drive ever..

Brady's team never faced any teams like Joe did.. .

We always seem to have a need to say this guy or that guy was the greatest ever. Most sports evolve with rule changes and additional games , etc. We just saw Lebron James set the all time scoring record. Does that make him a greater scorer than Kareem? I don't thunk so since they didn't have the 3 point shoot for most of Kareem's career. Same for many other players.

Football has seen many rule changes over the years. Even things like instant replay have changed the game. How many plays get overturned because of it. I always prefer to compare contemporaries since the rules and conditions are more or less the same. But even then it's not always fair. I love Montana but can anyone say that Dan Marino wouldn't have won 4 or 5 SBs if he played forthe Niners and had Walsh as a coach.

For me watching Joe break the huddle and stand a few steps behind the center, his arms by his side, looking over the defense sideline to sideline. Man, that defense was in for a world of hurt.