Jump to content

Montana on Brady's longevity


sportjames23

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wwhickok said:

Montanta is absolutely right. Brady and even Ben, Cam Newton and others would not have survived the late 80s, early 90s.

Ehhhhh just because Joe didn't doesn't mean he's the rule. Brady/Ben/Cam are alot bigger and Ben and Cam do not get nearly the protection alot of other QB's get and they took their fair share of big hits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, lancerman said:

Ehhhhh just because Joe didn't doesn't mean he's the rule. Brady/Ben/Cam are alot bigger and Ben and Cam do not get nearly the protection alot of other QB's get and they took their fair share of big hits.

My statement had nothing to do with Joe Montana's health when he played.  Cam is overrated and injury prone.  Ben has taken a serious amount of hits, no question.  Some of the hits Cam has taken have been of his own cause but many have not.

Brady has played with both good Olines and poor olines but I've never felt he has played with an Oline that would have matched up against guys like Lawrence Taylor very well.  That can be said about a lot of Olines of course.  But the rules are designed greatly to protect the QB.  Back in Joe's day, they were not.  If QBs in general that play with success today had played then, their level of success with be at the very least marginally lower, possibly much lower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2018 at 1:40 PM, wwhickok said:

My statement had nothing to do with Joe Montana's health when he played.  Cam is overrated and injury prone.  Ben has taken a serious amount of hits, no question.  Some of the hits Cam has taken have been of his own cause but many have not.

Brady has played with both good Olines and poor olines but I've never felt he has played with an Oline that would have matched up against guys like Lawrence Taylor very well.  That can be said about a lot of Olines of course.  But the rules are designed greatly to protect the QB.  Back in Joe's day, they were not.  If QBs in general that play with success today had played then, their level of success with be at the very least marginally lower, possibly much lower.

So basically no modern player would 'survive' in the 1980s? That's absurd and I'm sure multiple QBs today would adjust accordingly and thrive in 80s. Plenty of garbage and less talented QBs than Big Ben and Cam Newton survived then, no reason why those guys wouldn't either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Classic said:

So basically no modern player would 'survive' in the 1980s? That's absurd and I'm sure multiple QBs today would adjust accordingly and thrive in 80s. Plenty of garbage and less talented QBs than Big Ben and Cam Newton survived then, no reason why those guys wouldn't either. 

I think what people are saying is while today's top QBs would adjust if they had to play under the rules of a different era, their numbers just wouldn't be the same. Today's QBs would be taking more hits without the penalties called today, and their receivers wouldn't be running as free. Also, defenses were able to utilize horsecollar tackles in Montana's era, it was a different game on so many levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

I think what people are saying is while today's top QBs would adjust if they had to play under the rules of a different era, their numbers just wouldn't be the same. Today's QBs would be taking more hits without the penalties called today, and their receivers wouldn't be running as free. Also, defenses were able to utilize horsecollar tackles in Montana's era, it was a different game on so many levels.

I understand but the issue was about durability. Considering QBs where given way more time back then before being replaced especially if they showed any semblance of talent. Cam and Ben both have immense talent and unless they suffered a career ender would play longer than average careers. . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, LaserFocus said:

I think what people are saying is while today's top QBs would adjust if they had to play under the rules of a different era, their numbers just wouldn't be the same. Today's QBs would be taking more hits without the penalties called today, and their receivers wouldn't be running as free. Also, defenses were able to utilize horsecollar tackles in Montana's era, it was a different game on so many levels.

Part of that's just that the passing games evolved as well. Like Montana and Marino wouldn't have their numbers if they played in the 60's because nobody ran offenses like that. The closest was maybe Unitas. Montana and the West Coast offense was a major shift in the passing game. Then in 2007 Belichick and Brady spamming the shotgun out of the spread was another massive shift that changed offenses. Everyone adapts to their time. It would be hard to tell how a WCO offense would fair in the 60's. Maybe it would wreck the league because teams wouldn't know what the hell was going on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 8:28 PM, lancerman said:

I think there’s a difference between most physically talented and greatest. Marino, Young, and Rodgers are the best physical specimens to fulfill the requirements of the position, but Joe and Tom were such better decision makers and knew how to break a defense at the right time that I think they were far more ideal in big game situations 

I think that the reason why we often see the more physically talented players achieve less success in the form of championships is that they often develop egos that aren't conducive to the team element of winning. Take Brett Favre as the ultimate example of this. He had all the physical gifts you could ask for but such a massive ego that he cost his team multiple rings. At the same time, his gifts put teams that had no business even competing for championships in positions to contend year in and year out. The downside is that it all flows through them though and one bad game and you're done. 

On the other hand, when you have guys who have to work extra hard and make preparation and study the key of their success you often see them benefit more from the team because they don't cost them as much and make it much easier for a team to develop and maintain a synergy over long periods of time. 

Less athletically gifted players like Brady and Montana bought into systems or cultures and benefited greatly for this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

Part of that's just that the passing games evolved as well. Like Montana and Marino wouldn't have their numbers if they played in the 60's because nobody ran offenses like that. The closest was maybe Unitas. Montana and the West Coast offense was a major shift in the passing game. Then in 2007 Belichick and Brady spamming the shotgun out of the spread was another massive shift that changed offenses. Everyone adapts to their time. It would be hard to tell how a WCO offense would fair in the 60's. Maybe it would wreck the league because teams wouldn't know what the hell was going on.

 

You send Montana or Brady back to the 60s and have them play the style of offense that they play now and they would destroy the league even more than they have. 

The main reason why they have achieved the success that they have is that they played in systems that were ahead of the competition. 

I think the only thing that may prevent them from totally dominating is that it was ok to purposely injure players back then so I imagine that they would not have lasted an entire season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, khaosoy said:

I think that the reason why we often see the more physically talented players achieve less success in the form of championships is that they often develop egos that aren't conducive to the team element of winning. Take Brett Favre as the ultimate example of this. He had all the physical gifts you could ask for but such a massive ego that he cost his team multiple rings. At the same time, his gifts put teams that had no business even competing for championships in positions to contend year in and year out. The downside is that it all flows through them though and one bad game and you're done. 

On the other hand, when you have guys who have to work extra hard and make preparation and study the key of their success you often see them benefit more from the team because they don't cost them as much and make it much easier for a team to develop and maintain a synergy over long periods of time. 

Less athletically gifted players like Brady and Montana bought into systems or cultures and benefited greatly for this. 

That sounds like Jeff George. Not Favre. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, lancerman said:

Part of that's just that the passing games evolved as well. Like Montana and Marino wouldn't have their numbers if they played in the 60's because nobody ran offenses like that. The closest was maybe Unitas. Montana and the West Coast offense was a major shift in the passing game. Then in 2007 Belichick and Brady spamming the shotgun out of the spread was another massive shift that changed offenses. Everyone adapts to their time. It would be hard to tell how a WCO offense would fair in the 60's. Maybe it would wreck the league because teams wouldn't know what the hell was going on.

The passing game evolved as a direct result of the rules changes, coaches discovered how to manipulate the rules to maximum advantage. It's not a coincidence Bill Walsh's West Coast offense took off in San Francisco, or Air Coryell ignited in San Diego. Agree about Montana and Marino having to adjust their game if they played under the older school rules. The 1960s featured even more hits which weren't called when compared to the 70s, so those receivers would be belted even more on the short routes. I agree about the design element having some success initially, but the WCO QB would be an inviting target. In the 1960s, the head slap was a legal and effective tactic used by defensive lineman to get to the QB.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...