Montana on Brady's longevity

[VigilantZombie]

15 hours 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. 

You may be right, but I'm not sure if you are.  What I'm saying is, the players today have it easier in terms of the 'aggressive nature'.  But then again today's game is also played faster, so it goes both ways really.

But what I mean to say is, NE's Oline isn't exactly stellar and in a time where there was no salary cap, I'm not sure if that Oline would've held up against the elite Dlines of the times.  But then again perhaps in the 80's NE would've had a better Oline to protect Brady (or Carolina a better one to protect Cam, etc).  We can play this game all day really, the whole "Golden Boy" issue is completely separate from this discussion though.

[childofpudding]

Yeah and 1980s' Montana's head would spin if you plopped him into today's game because of the much more complicated defensive schemes, disguises and formations used today. Defenders today are also bigger and faster, and force is mass × velocity, so maybe Montana wouldnt be able to handle fewer, but much harder hits today.

Comparing across eras is silly. It's pretty much impossible to know how Brady or Manning or Brees would hold up in Montana's era. Montana was shorter and lighter than many QBs today, and he lasted quite a few years.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who really has no huge problem with someone who still thinks Montana is the GOAT.

[Non-Issue]

It is absolutely easier now. What Tom Brady has done is phenomenal. And is part of why I consider him the GOAT. To play AT HIS LEVEL for as long as he has is just astounding. But there is absolutely no denying that had he been playing in Joe Montana’s era, he would have had a monumentally harder time playing great football till 40.

QBs back in those days had no protection. There weren’t rules protecting their knees. Or their heads. Or any of that. You were there for two purposes. To move the chains and provide NFL films with slo-mo highlights of you being destroyed by a blitzer.

[lod01]

of course he is:

Now that was a few years before Joe but do that today and you will be serving the biggest suspension and fine ever.

[bluemushrooms]

Combination of more physical injury protection in the modern era and Brady is legitimately tough as nails.  

 

Would Brady have lasted as long back then? Probably not.  But I have no doubt that Brady would still have some of the best longevity back then; Brady takes some serious hits and a lot of them.  Idk if  avocado's sent his body back in time to puberty-level injury recovery mode but, Brady can get crushed all game and play better after all the hits.  Hitting Brady every time after he releases the ball?  He couldn't give less f--ks.  Hit Brady every time he tries to release the ball?  Still no f--ks given except now he has to change his play to release before the sack.  Lot of people say he gets shook after a few hits but, he doesn't so much as his play style does.  

 

 

[m haynes]

On 4/17/2018 at 9:16 AM, TheVillain112 said:

I watched some clips of Montana last season.  And he's not wrong.  The hits those QBs took were unbelievable.  It's one thing to say things have changed in 25-30 years, it's another thing to actually see the hits these QBs constantly took during games.  I agree 100% that Brady wouldn't be able to play as long as he has in Montana's time.  That's not a knock on Brady, him being able to do it in today's NFL is quite a feat itself...

If that is true, The best QB of all time was, Mr. John Unitas, hands down. Because Brady and Montana wouldn't of lasted a season. They had no rules. Dl could rush and punch the QB in the head, pile drive him and gang tackle.  He played in 90+ consecutive game which is incredible. That not even talking about his numbers.  Pats fan here and it still amazes me.

[biletnikoff]

he's admitting the game is staged in so many words. Players are told not to hit the QB. what difference does a/the rule make if a player hits the QB before or after the whistle, if they accomplish injuring or rattling him? If a team is actually trying to win, the rule would be irrelevant to them.

this isnt basketball..no one fouls out. The rule is pointless..its just blatantly obvious no one is trying to win. They are keeping the promoted 'star' upright for selling the tv entertainment.

a QB hasnt been violently blind sided in 20 years. No rule makes that possible. It means players have followed the order not to do it, which means the game is in fact staged

 

 

[lancerman]

On 4/30/2018 at 5:37 AM, biletnikoff said:

he's admitting the game is staged in so many words. Players are told not to hit the QB. what difference does a/the rule make if a player hits the QB before or after the whistle, if they accomplish injuring or rattling him? If a team is actually trying to win, the rule would be irrelevant to them.

this isnt basketball..no one fouls out. The rule is pointless..its just blatantly obvious no one is trying to win. They are keeping the promoted 'star' upright for selling the tv entertainment.

a QB hasnt been violently blind sided in 20 years. No rule makes that possible. It means players have followed the order not to do it, which means the game is in fact staged

 

 

Joe Flacco slid at the very last second and a defender didn’t pull up and it became a massive controversy this year. 

[Non-Issue]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:37 AM, biletnikoff said:

he's admitting the game is staged in so many words. Players are told not to hit the QB. what difference does a/the rule make if a player hits the QB before or after the whistle, if they accomplish injuring or rattling him? If a team is actually trying to win, the rule would be irrelevant to them.

this isnt basketball..no one fouls out. The rule is pointless..its just blatantly obvious no one is trying to win. They are keeping the promoted 'star' upright for selling the tv entertainment.

a QB hasnt been violently blind sided in 20 years. No rule makes that possible. It means players have followed the order not to do it, which means the game is in fact staged

 

 

 

[Non-Issue]

On 4/30/2018 at 7:37 AM, biletnikoff said:

he's admitting the game is staged in so many words. Players are told not to hit the QB. what difference does a/the rule make if a player hits the QB before or after the whistle, if they accomplish injuring or rattling him? If a team is actually trying to win, the rule would be irrelevant to them.

this isnt basketball..no one fouls out. The rule is pointless..its just blatantly obvious no one is trying to win. They are keeping the promoted 'star' upright for selling the tv entertainment.

a QB hasnt been violently blind sided in 20 years. No rule makes that possible. It means players have followed the order not to do it, which means the game is in fact staged

 

 

I often wonder if you are trying to be creative and imaginative or if you are just hallucinating.

[Malfatron]

I watched Joe Montana's highlights on youtube for like 15 minutes, and it always seems like he's throwing to wide open guys.

 

 

[Malfatron]

double post

[LaserFocus]

On 5/4/2018 at 7:09 PM, Non-Issue said:

 

Yes, QBs occasionally take big hits today, nobody is suggesting otherwise. But those hits are usually penalized, and defenders are frequently slowing down as they approach the QB, because of how the game is called today. In Montana's era, the massive hits were more common, with fewer penalties called, and glancing blows to the head weren't called as often as well. Also, low hits to the knees were more common as well. It's a vastly different game today, with nearly benefiting offenses. 

I also want to address this idea that somehow the QBs of the past would struggle with the more complicated nature of today's game. That's simply not true, they would just devote more  time breaking down video. Without a doubt, it would be easier for the QBs of the 80s and 90s to play under today's rules, than the QBs of this generation playing with how the game was structured back then.  

[Non-Issue]

4 hours ago, LaserFocus said:

Yes, QBs occasionally take big hits today, nobody is suggesting otherwise. But those hits are usually penalized, and defenders are frequently slowing down as they approach the QB, because of how the game is called today. In Montana's era, the massive hits were more common, with fewer penalties called, and glancing blows to the head weren't called as often as well. Also, low hits to the knees were more common as well. It's a vastly different game today, with nearly benefiting offenses. 

I also want to address this idea that somehow the QBs of the past would struggle with the more complicated nature of today's game. That's simply not true, they would just devote more  time breaking down video. Without a doubt, it would be easier for the QBs of the 80s and 90s to play under today's rules, than the QBs of this generation playing with how the game was structured back then.  

Sure, nobody is SUGGESTING otherwise. But the dude I was specifically responding to said it doesn’t happen. At all. He wasn’t suggesting it. He was stating it as a matter of fact. Which was the reason for the videos.

Read my prior comments in the thread if you would like a response to what you just said.

[Non-Issue]

10 hours ago, MathMan said:

I watched Joe Montana's highlights on youtube for like 15 minutes, and it always seems like he's throwing to wide open guys.

 

 

Highlights tend to be big plays. Big plays tend to happen when guys are wide open.

Show me a highlight reel of any QB. It won’t be showing you the 3 yard dump threading the needle with hands in his face to convert a 3rd down on his own 35. It’s going to be some long bomb over the top to a single covered receiver with a step on the corner. That’s how highlight reels work.

Trust me, if Montana was throwing to wide open guys, his numbers would be a lot more grand.