The dumb argument regarding Brady vs Montana

[Iamcanadian]

On 2/6/2018 at 8:09 PM, lod01 said:

Imagine the 49ers in this decade. Smoking Belicheck/Brady yearly. They were a superior team (to any Pats team) in a decade where you could punish a QB with brutal hits and not get flagged. They faced incredible competition vs the Giants , Redskins and for one year the Bears a (with one of the greatest Ds in history). The NFL championship back then WAS the SB. The SB was a simply a sacrifice of an AFC team to the NFC champion.

You take the 80's/early 90s 49ers and put them in the AFC East over the last 2 decades, with no punishing the QB and Montana has more than 5 SBs.

Sorry, but  Montana would be lost in the modern era. His HC invented the WCO and the 49ers played it Montana's whole career and HC's/DC's  took a decade to learn how to defend it. Today, the WCO scares nobody and is easily defended, so we have no way of knowing what effect it would have on Montana's success???

Look, I was a huige Montana fan and he was sensational in his era, but the game has changed and I have some doubts about whether Montana would be as great in this era without the benefit of playing in an offense that no HC or DC knew how to defend against. I suspect he would do all right, but match BB and Brady, no way, Brady is the goat now and untl another great combination of QB and HC come along.

There was only one season, when Brady had what could be called a star WR and he went undefeated during the regular season, the rest of the time, he has had to put up with numerous WR combinations and turnover in personnel in the FA era and still the battery goes on and on. Never seen anything like it in my 65 years of following pro football!!!

[lancerman]

18 minutes ago, Iamcanadian said:

Sorry, but  Montana would be lost in the modern era. His HC invented the WCO and the 49ers played it Montana's whole career and HC's/DC's  took a decade to learn how to defend it. Today, the WCO scares nobody and is easily defended, so we have no way of knowing what effect it would have on Montana's success???

Look, I was a huige Montana fan and he was sensational in his era, but the game has changed and I have some doubts about whether Montana would be as great in this era without the benefit of playing in an offense that no HC or DC knew how to defend against. I suspect he would do all right, but match BB and Brady, no way, Brady is the goat now and untl another great combination of QB and HC come along.

There was only one season, when Brady had what could be called a star WR and he went undefeated during the regular season, the rest of the time, he has had to put up with numerous WR combinations and turnover in personnel in the FA era and still the battery goes on and on. Never seen anything like it in my 65 years of following pro football!!!

Also it doesn't even begin to touch on how much the salary cap would have ravaged those Niner's teams. They really only could have existed in that era. It also doesn't account for how much better athletes are on average in the NFL today as well.

Way too many fans like to say that the passing rules would make their favorite QB from x era better. It just wouldn't work like that. Yeah passing has become more prolific. There is also a far greater burden on QB's than there was back then. Back in the 80's you could win without a great QB. Nowadays you almost need one.  

[sp6488]

10 hours ago, lancerman said:

Maybe but in the Patriots run they didn't consistently play an easier schedule than all the other teams. So it's dubious to say they are only where they are do tolack of competition. We see teams that walk through a cupcake division get a 3 or 4 seed and get bounced from the wildcard round. The Patriots have never been eliminated in the wildcard round. They are beating everyone and having strong playoff performances.

I think you missed the sarcasm my friend

[tom cody]

Brady/Montana would be a good battle for sure. 2 of the top QB's ever, would be interesting to see who would win. 

[CP3MVP]

I don’t see how Montana had better postseason competition. He never faced the best of the bears or redskins in the playoffs. The 88 bears are not the 85 or even the 86 team. He faced the giants at their peak in 86 and 90 and they crushed him.

[lancerman]

6 hours ago, CP3MVP said:

I don’t see how Montana had better postseason competition. He never faced the best of the bears or redskins in the playoffs. The 88 bears are not the 85 or even the 86 team. He faced the giants at their peak in 86 and 90 and they crushed him.

The most impressive teams Montana played in his Super Bowl runs were.

81 Cowboys (The Catch game)

84 Dolphins 

That's really it. 

For Brady's Super Bowl runs

2001 Rams (Greatest Show on Turf with MVP QB)

2004 Colts (best passing offense and QB year since the 1984 Dolphins MVP QB)

2004 Steelers (15-1 and one of the defensesin the leage)

2014 Seahawks (LOB in their prime)

2016 Falcons (historically great offense with MVP QB)

That's just Super Bowl runs, I could include things like the 2006 Chargers for Brady. Also I'm being very generous listing the 81 Cowboys. That has more to do with the game being historically significant and memorable. If I really wanted I could include great games like vs the 2014 Ravens or more recently the 2017 Jaguars (or even the Tuck Rule game or that great Panthers Super Bowl).

Also people forget but the AFC was the better conference in the 2000's. The Patriots, Colts and Steelers were the premier franchises in the NFL in that time frame. More than anyone in the NFC after the GSOT ended in 2001. Then you had the 2006/2007 Chargers who were for that brief time amongst the super elite in the NFL. The top NFC teams in Montana's day were the Giants (who took his lunch money as you mentioned), the 85 Bears who he never played, the Redskins who he never played at their highest level. And then a few Cowboys teams. Brady played one or more of the Steelers/Colts/Chargers in 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007. And he played 3 Super Bowl teams that had historically great units in the Rams/Seahawks/Falcons. Montana really only had the 84 Dolphins.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

23 hours ago, tom cody said:

Brady/Montana would be a good battle for sure. 2 of the top QB's ever, would be interesting to see who would win. 

Clearly NFL fans.

[TecmoSuperJoe]

EDIT: Nevermind.

[7DnBrnc53]

On 3/11/2018 at 10:53 PM, lancerman said:

Also it doesn't even begin to touch on how much the salary cap would have ravaged those Niner's teams. They really only could have existed in that era.

I don't know. The 49ers had an owner in Eddie D who would pay any price (in the 80's, he was paying his players illegal bonuses). They cheated the cap in the 90's pretty badly, and if there was a cap in the 80's, they would have done the same thing.

On 3/11/2018 at 10:32 PM, Iamcanadian said:

His HC invented the WCO and the 49ers played it Montana's whole career and HC's/DC's  took a decade to learn how to defend it. Today, the WCO scares nobody and is easily defended, so we have no way of knowing what effect it would have on Montana's success???

Walsh really didn't invent the short passing game (what is now called the WCO):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeIYdifUf3M

In this link, Tarkenton said that the short passing game (now called the WCO) was started in New York in 1967. Also, Bud Grant said that he was running the short passing offense with Tarkenton and Foreman in the 70's, and that Walsh got credit for inventing it because he knew the value of PR.