Joe Montana's legacy (1 Viewer)

[azgroover]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games.

Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

 

[Jason Wood]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games. Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

It's a good point, AZ. What one loss does to the PERCEPTION of someone's legacy. If we see someone like Brady (or Big Ben b/c he's young and already has two rings) get five rings, then I think the conversation gets interesting again. I also would say that if someone like Brady won four rings, and got to another Super Bowl on top of that, being 4-2 in Super Bowls would be an astounding accomplishment, too.

 

[xpiredcoupon]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games. Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

It's a good point, AZ. What one loss does to the PERCEPTION of someone's legacy. If we see someone like Brady (or Big Ben b/c he's young and already has two rings) get five rings, then I think the conversation gets interesting again. I also would say that if someone like Brady won four rings, and got to another Super Bowl on top of that, being 4-2 in Super Bowls would be an astounding accomplishment, too.

4-1*

 

[Steelfan7]

Montana was great, but if my memory serves me correctly most of those great 49ers teams were pre salary cap era. What todays top qb have accomplished should be factored in how the salary cap restricts some great teams from keeping their team together and prevents them from going out and acquiring better higher priced players like the 49ers and Cowboys teams during Montana's era.

 

[Jason Wood]

Montana was great, but if my memory serves me correctly most of those great 49ers teams were pre salary cap era. What todays top qb have accomplished should be factored in how the salary cap restricts some great teams from keeping their team together and prevents them from going out and acquiring better higher priced players like the 49ers and Cowboys teams during Montana's era.

I think you have to take it on a season by season basis, for a fair comparison. There are years when a team (pre or post salary cap) has to get through the very best of the rest of the league in the playoffs, and other times not. If a team in the pre- salary cap era won, it was many times playing against other ELITE teams. The lack of elite teams these days (again, theoretically to react to your contention0 would argue that sometimes today's champs have a less impressive road to victory. I think that's why you see wild card teams win titles now, when that was unheard not long ago (or at least a true rarity).

 

[azgroover]

Montana was great, but if my memory serves me correctly most of those great 49ers teams were pre salary cap era. What todays top qb have accomplished should be factored in how the salary cap restricts some great teams from keeping their team together and prevents them from going out and acquiring better higher priced players like the 49ers and Cowboys teams during Montana's era.

This is true, but we've seen guys in this era given the chance and for whatever reason were unable to capitalize on it. Random thought: Another name overlooked amongst Brady, Manning, and Ben is Kurt Warner. Imagine if he were 3-0 in Super Bowls. Where would he have ranked in the Montana, Bradshaw, etc. pantheon if he went undefeated in those games?

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Montana didnt have to deal with a salary cap, but he is the most clutch QB ever no doubt.

i thought BigBen was gonna give him a run

Even though brady,Peyton n BigBen have all lost a superbowl now will anyone be shocked if they win another?

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?

Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.

The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.

Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

 

[azgroover]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

 

[thriftyrocker]

Montana was great, but if my memory serves me correctly most of those great 49ers teams were pre salary cap era. What todays top qb have accomplished should be factored in how the salary cap restricts some great teams from keeping their team together and prevents them from going out and acquiring better higher priced players like the 49ers and Cowboys teams during Montana's era.

I don't think Ben or Brady would be any more successful in the pre-salary cap era. They have coaches and management which are great at finding talent and managing the cap. Pitt and NE have put elite teams out there for 10+ years, regardless of what they had to do to do it. Would those 2 teams be more dominant if they could spend more? I don't see it. If anything it would lessen their advantage because lesser organizations could cover their mistakes by overspending.

 

[redBourne]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

I also question the purpose of the post. We all know that the QB undoubtedly receives more reward and blame for the success and failures of the team. Someone always has to block and catch passes for for the QB. In it's on right, a QB can take over a game and score 45 points only to lose because the defense allows 46. Those men would be more pressed to receive the honor of the hall of fame than a quarterback who orchestrates 26 points and the defense allows 20 and win's multiple titles. That's the nature of the game, the hall and life in general.

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

Why would it possibly do that? Does the Hall of Fame only recognize any and all QBs whose teams win the Super Bowl?

 

[DiStefano]

Salary cap or no salary cap, sometimes it's just luck. Montana deserves to be looked at as one of the greatest qb's of all time, but it just so happened he had the greatest NFL player of all time catching his passes.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Salary cap or no salary cap, sometimes it's just luck. Montana deserves to be looked at as one of the greatest qb's of all time, but it just so happened he had the greatest NFL player of all time catching his passes.

FYI montana won a superbowl without Rice. And Rice won a superbowl with Montana Its fun to argue who is the greatest and a superbowl Loss IMO hurts the arguement,

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

I also question the purpose of the post. We all know that the QB undoubtedly receives more reward and blame for the success and failures of the team. Someone always has to block and catch passes for for the QB. In it's on right, a QB can take over a game and score 45 points only to lose because the defense allows 46. Those men would be more pressed to receive the honor of the hall of fame than a quarterback who orchestrates 26 points and the defense allows 20 and win's multiple titles. That's the nature of the game, the hall and life in general.

I must have missed the part where this was about who gets into the Hall of Fame. It seems like people were comparing the excellence of QBs generally based only on their Super Bowl results. That's what I object to. It's stupid. Consider this, the first sentence of the OP:

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB.

This leads inevitably to the absurd conclusion that a QB whose team goes 9-7 and misses the playoffs in a given year would take less of a hit to his reputation/resume than a QB who goes 14-2 and gets to the Super Bowl, where he throws 50 absolutely perfect passes and scrambles for 100 yards but his team loses 50-49, because the first guy could still be considered in the conversation of the greatest Super Bowl QB ever but the second guy couldn't.

 

[boubucarow]

In each of those Super Bowl runs for Montana, how many dropped picks were there? Would any have cost his team the game? I don't know, I was too young to remember the first two and can't recall from his last two.

 

[azgroover]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

Why would it possibly do that? Does the Hall of Fame only recognize any and all QBs whose teams win the Super Bowl?

Because you just made an argument that these guys didn't do it themselves. Name 1 player in the HOF who did in fact do it by himself.Does the HOF only recognize QBs who were stat whores? Using your criteria of eliminating Super Bowl performances, would you place Vinny T. and Drew Bledsoe in the HOF? They're amongst the all time passing leaders.

 

[timschochet]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around?

Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls.

I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

 

[DiStefano]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around? Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls. I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

<_<

 

[saintsfan]

Montana was a machine, but it's not apples to apples.

There was a period, right about the time the 49ers won those Super Bowls, that the team that won the NFC was going to crush the AFC team. That's not the case any more. Ben did not have the better team last night. Brady might have had the better team overall against the Giants, but the Giants matchup up well against the Pats with all those pass rushers and the Pats not being a running team.

Apples to Studebakers

 

[TobiasFunke]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

Why would it possibly do that? Does the Hall of Fame only recognize any and all QBs whose teams win the Super Bowl?

Because you just made an argument that these guys didn't do it themselves. Name 1 player in the HOF who did in fact do it by himself.Does the HOF only recognize QBs who were stat whores? Using your criteria of eliminating Super Bowl performances, would you place Vinny T. and Drew Bledsoe in the HOF? They're amongst the all time passing leaders.

This is up there with the worst logic I've ever seen. I said they didn't win the Super Bowl by themselves. That's true. What that has to do with a Hall of Fame I can't possibly imagine. A player make it to the Hall of Fame on a combination of subjective and objective review of your career performance. Why that's relevant to me pointing out that judging a QB solely, primarily, or even much at all on how his team does in a couple of Super Bowl games I can't possible imagine. I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make. Nor do I understand what you're trying to say with the Testaverde and Bledsoe argument. I assume you're referring to their career numbers, which are of course a product of their longevity more than anything else. What does that have to do with the fact that your OP makes no sense? And why did you even bring up HOF credentials? Your OP refers only to HOF-worthy QBs. You make no mention of their HOF credentials and how they are impacted by anything.I get more confused as to your point with each post. I can't wait for the next one.

 

[travdogg]

Does the HOF only recognize QBs who were stat whores? Using your criteria of eliminating Super Bowl performances, would you place Vinny T. and Drew Bledsoe in the HOF? They're amongst the all time passing leaders.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but I think Bledsoe was a better QB than Troy Aikman, he just wasn't on as good of a team in his prime. I'd throw Esiason above Aikman too.

 

[Jason Wood]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around?

Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls.

I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

How quickly we forget.

The 49ers were demonstrably better than the Broncos in Super Bowl XXIV, no question.

However,

1988 Bengals were 12-4, scored 448 points, allowed 329 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7/4 p/g)

1988 49ers were 10-6, scored 369 points, allowed 294 points, had the 6th best differential in the league (4.7 p/g)

1984 Dolphins were 14-2, scored 513 points, allowed 298 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (13.4 p/g)

1984 49ers were 15-1, scored 475 points, allowed 227 points, had the top differential in the league (15.5 p/g)

1981 Bengals were 12-4, scored 421 points, allowed 304 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7.3 p/g)

1981 49ers were 13-3, scored 357 points, allowed 250 points, had the 3rd best differential in the league (6.7 p/g)

Not sure where you get the idea they were CLEARLY better than their opponents in every Super Bowl. In three of the four their opponents were among the top teams in the league, and in both cases the Bengals had better point differentials and in 88 had the better record to boot.

 

[David Yudkin]

Obviously Montana is in the pantheoon of greatest QBs ever and has a sparkling post season resume. But consider how well his defense played . . .

1981

SFO coughed up the ball 6 times against the Cowboys (including 3 picks from Montana). The defense got it back 3 times and the Niners somehow eked out a 1 point victory. In that post season, the 49ers defense forced 11 turnovers on the way to their first SB title.

1984

In three post season games, the defense only allowed 1 TD and 4 FG for a total of 19 points.

1988

In three post season games, the defense did not allow a TD. They only gave up 7 FG for 21 points (I believe the offense allowed a, INT return TD, but the defense did not allow a TD.)

1989

In three post season games, the defense allowed 2 TD and 4 FG for a total of 26 points.

As well as Montana and the offense played, in three of their SB runs the defense allowed 6.3. 7.0, and 8.7 ppg in the postseason. Certainly that made Montana's job a whole lot easier.

People also forget the lull in between 84 and 88. While SFO made the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87, they were one and done each year. Montana's passer ratings in those playoff losses were 65.6, 34.2, and 42.0. In the last two of those games, he only had 98 and 109 passing yards.

Bottom line, many times if a QB has an off game in the playoffs his team will lose, and many times if the defense plays great the team will win (and a huge percentage of the time the role of the QB would dramatically be minimalized).

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Montana didnt have to deal with a salary cap, but he is the most clutch QB ever no doubt.

Never the biggest, fastest or strongest arm, but always seemed to come up with a play.

 

[timschochet]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around?

Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls.

I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

How quickly we forget.

The 49ers were demonstrably better than the Broncos in Super Bowl XXIV, no question.

However,

1988 Bengals were 12-4, scored 448 points, allowed 329 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7/4 p/g)

1988 49ers were 10-6, scored 369 points, allowed 294 points, had the 6th best differential in the league (4.7 p/g)

1984 Dolphins were 14-2, scored 513 points, allowed 298 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (13.4 p/g)

1984 49ers were 15-1, scored 475 points, allowed 227 points, had the top differential in the league (15.5 p/g)

1981 Bengals were 12-4, scored 421 points, allowed 304 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7.3 p/g)

1981 49ers were 13-3, scored 357 points, allowed 250 points, had the 3rd best differential in the league (6.7 p/g)

Not sure where you get the idea they were CLEARLY better than their opponents in every Super Bowl. In three of the four their opponents were among the top teams in the league, and in both cases the Bengals had better point differentials and in 88 had the better record to boot.

I didn't give a single one of those teams a chance before the game began to beat the 49ers. I'm betting Vegas didn't give much of a chance either.

 

[azgroover]

You guys realize that every NFL teams has an active roster of 53 players, of whom 45 are on the active roster for a game, yes?Not one quarterback in the history of football has won a Super Bowl by themselves. Even if their team passed on every single play, someone has to block for them, someone has to catch their passes, and someone has to stop the other team from scoring. None of these things are of minor importance.The quarterback might be the most important player on the field, but he is not the team, not even close. It's possible to win a game with horrible QB play, and it's possible to lose one with brilliant QB play. Heck, it's possible to win a Super Bowl getting nothing more than mediocre QB play all year, and it's possible to not even make the playoffs despite brilliant play from a QB all year.Unless you think Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Dan Marino, this conversation is silly. Please, stop the madness.

Does this stance make you anti Hall of Fame?

Why would it possibly do that? Does the Hall of Fame only recognize any and all QBs whose teams win the Super Bowl?

Because you just made an argument that these guys didn't do it themselves. Name 1 player in the HOF who did in fact do it by himself.Does the HOF only recognize QBs who were stat whores? Using your criteria of eliminating Super Bowl performances, would you place Vinny T. and Drew Bledsoe in the HOF? They're amongst the all time passing leaders.

This is up there with the worst logic I've ever seen. I said they didn't win the Super Bowl by themselves. That's true. What that has to do with a Hall of Fame I can't possibly imagine. A player make it to the Hall of Fame on a combination of subjective and objective review of your career performance. Why that's relevant to me pointing out that judging a QB solely, primarily, or even much at all on how his team does in a couple of Super Bowl games I can't possible imagine. I literally have no idea what point you're trying to make. Nor do I understand what you're trying to say with the Testaverde and Bledsoe argument. I assume you're referring to their career numbers, which are of course a product of their longevity more than anything else. What does that have to do with the fact that your OP makes no sense? And why did you even bring up HOF credentials? Your OP refers only to HOF-worthy QBs. You make no mention of their HOF credentials and how they are impacted by anything.I get more confused as to your point with each post. I can't wait for the next one.

Likewise.

 

[azgroover]

Does the HOF only recognize QBs who were stat whores? Using your criteria of eliminating Super Bowl performances, would you place Vinny T. and Drew Bledsoe in the HOF? They're amongst the all time passing leaders.

Not to sidetrack the thread, but I think Bledsoe was a better QB than Troy Aikman, he just wasn't on as good of a team in his prime. I'd throw Esiason above Aikman too.

I loved me some Drew Bledsoe too. He's in my personal HOF, but he has a lot of haters.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Obviously Montana is in the pantheoon of greatest QBs ever and has a sparkling post season resume. But consider how well his defense played . . .1981SFO coughed up the ball 6 times against the Cowboys (including 3 picks from Montana). The defense got it back 3 times and the Niners somehow eked out a 1 point victory. In that post season, the 49ers defense forced 11 turnovers on the way to their first SB title.1984In three post season games, the defense only allowed 1 TD and 4 FG for a total of 19 points.1988In three post season games, the defense did not allow a TD. They only gave up 7 FG for 21 points (I believe the offense allowed a, INT return TD, but the defense did not allow a TD.)1989In three post season games, the defense allowed 2 TD and 4 FG for a total of 26 points.As well as Montana and the offense played, in three of their SB runs the defense allowed 6.3. 7.0, and 8.7 ppg in the postseason. Certainly that made Montana's job a whole lot easier.People also forget the lull in between 84 and 88. While SFO made the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87, they were one and done each year. Montana's passer ratings in those playoff losses were 65.6, 34.2, and 42.0. In the last two of those games, he only had 98 and 109 passing yards.Bottom line, many times if a QB has an off game in the playoffs his team will lose, and many times if the defense plays great the team will win (and a huge percentage of the time the role of the QB would dramatically be minimalized).

thats very interesting most people dont realize how good the 49ers Defense was. I dont recall it being that great. Again the QB gets more credit for wins and more blame for losses then even perhaps the head coach\

 

[Jason Wood]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around?

Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls.

I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

How quickly we forget.

The 49ers were demonstrably better than the Broncos in Super Bowl XXIV, no question.

However,

1988 Bengals were 12-4, scored 448 points, allowed 329 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7/4 p/g)

1988 49ers were 10-6, scored 369 points, allowed 294 points, had the 6th best differential in the league (4.7 p/g)

1984 Dolphins were 14-2, scored 513 points, allowed 298 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (13.4 p/g)

1984 49ers were 15-1, scored 475 points, allowed 227 points, had the top differential in the league (15.5 p/g)

1981 Bengals were 12-4, scored 421 points, allowed 304 points, had the 2nd best differential in the league (7.3 p/g)

1981 49ers were 13-3, scored 357 points, allowed 250 points, had the 3rd best differential in the league (6.7 p/g)

Not sure where you get the idea they were CLEARLY better than their opponents in every Super Bowl. In three of the four their opponents were among the top teams in the league, and in both cases the Bengals had better point differentials and in 88 had the better record to boot.

I didn't give a single one of those teams a chance before the game began to beat the 49ers. I'm betting Vegas didn't give much of a chance either.

You would be wrong. The 81 game was a pick 'em and the 84 game was a field goal.

 

[David Yudkin]

thats very interesting most people dont realize how good the 49ers Defense was. I dont recall it being that great. Again the QB gets more credit for wins and more blame for losses then even perhaps the head coach\

SFO in football reminded me a lot of the 80s Lakers in basketball. Sure, they played well in the regular season, but they went into overdrive in the post season. It's like they knew they were going to make the playoffs and didn't really kill themselves in the regular season and then went nuts in the playoffs.1981Regular Season 22.3 PPG, 15.6 PPG allowedPost Seaon 30.7 PPG, 24.0 PPG allowed1984Regular Season 29.7 PPG, 14.2 PPPG allowedPost Season 27.3 PPG, 8.7 PPG allowed1987Regular Season 23.1 PPG, 18.4 PPG allowedPost Season 27.3 PPG, 9.3 PPG allowed1988Regular Season 27.6 PPG, 15.8 PPG allowedPost Season 42.0 PPG, 8.7 PPG allowed1994Regular Season 31.6 PPG, 18.5 PPG allowedPost Season 43.7 PPG , 24.7 PPG allowed

 

[TobiasFunke]

Likewise.

OK then. Let's make it simple:Who has the more impressive Super Bowl legacy- a guy who plays in 4 Super Bowls and goes 4-0 while throwing for an average of 150 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs per game? Or a guy who players in 10 Super Bowls and goes 9-1 while throwing for an average of 350 yards, 4 TDs and zero INTs per game.? According to your OP, the former would be more impressive because once a QB loses a Super Bowl, they "essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." Your words. I strongly disagree.

 

[fatmnkypants]

Montana was great, but if my memory serves me correctly most of those great 49ers teams were pre salary cap era. What todays top qb have accomplished should be factored in how the salary cap restricts some great teams from keeping their team together and prevents them from going out and acquiring better higher priced players like the 49ers and Cowboys teams during Montana's era.

At the same time, Montana has to deal with his WR's being mugged, def players taking ferocious hits on him...... The game has been made much easier for QB's both in the physical beating they take and in the defensive restrictions on coverage. The numbers he put up in that era are amazing.

 

[plyka]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games. Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

This doesn't make much sense. If you have QB#1 with 4 superbowl victories and 1 loss, so 5 trips and 4 wins. On the other hand, you have QB#2 with 4 trips and 4 wins. Which QB do you think has a better record? It is a logical fallacy to believe that the QB with 4 trips and 4 wins has a better record than the QB with 5 trips and 4 wins. The reason is that you aren't counting where they lost for all except when they lost in the superbowl. The guy that won 4 and played in 4 didn't just play 4 years in the league. He has other years and in those years he lost somewhere else. So one QB gets to the superbowl 5 times and wins 4, he has a worse record to the guy who gets to the superbowl 4 times and wins 4, but in the 5th year loses in the 1st round of the playoffs? So getting to the superbowl and losing in the superbowl is WORSE than losing in the 1st round or not even making the playoffs at all?

 

[fatmnkypants]

Salary cap or no salary cap, sometimes it's just luck. Montana deserves to be looked at as one of the greatest qb's of all time, but it just so happened he had the greatest NFL player of all time catching his passes.

Montana won TWO Superbowls without Jerry Rice!! He was already a hall of fame QB before Rice even got there.. i'm sure Rice also benefited (as he has said himself many times from having Montana and his accuracy passing to him, and later Young.Montana won Championships at every level he played, high school, National Champion at Notre Dame, then in the NFL. He was known for his comebacks as far back as Highschool-- they guy had it from the start-

 

[fatmnkypants]

Likewise.

OK then. Let's make it simple:Who has the more impressive Super Bowl legacy- a guy who plays in 4 Super Bowls and goes 4-0 while throwing for an average of 150 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs per game? Or a guy who players in 10 Super Bowls and goes 9-1 while throwing for an average of 350 yards, 4 TDs and zero INTs per game.? According to your OP, the former would be more impressive because once a QB loses a Super Bowl, they "essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." Your words. I strongly disagree.

But Montana didn't go 4-0 in Superbowls while putting up mediocre numbers... That's where your arguement fails. He went 4-0 and put up fantastic #'s. If you want to say a guy who goes 3-1 and puts up great #'s should be looked at the same or near the same as the guy who went 4-0- then your argument makes sense. I agree the 1 loss doesn't change things because it's a team game.. It works both ways though- Roth. had a very poor game in one of his Superbowl wins, but he's still being put in the upper echelon of great Superbowl Qb's with his two wins.

 

[Eminence]

Kurt Warner is the Ultimate post-season Quarterback.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Likewise.

OK then. Let's make it simple:Who has the more impressive Super Bowl legacy- a guy who plays in 4 Super Bowls and goes 4-0 while throwing for an average of 150 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs per game? Or a guy who players in 10 Super Bowls and goes 9-1 while throwing for an average of 350 yards, 4 TDs and zero INTs per game.? According to your OP, the former would be more impressive because once a QB loses a Super Bowl, they "essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." Your words. I strongly disagree.

But Montana didn't go 4-0 in Superbowls while putting up mediocre numbers... That's where your arguement fails. He went 4-0 and put up fantastic #'s. If you want to say a guy who goes 3-1 and puts up great #'s should be looked at the same or near the same as the guy who went 4-0- then your argument makes sense. I agree the 1 loss doesn't change things because it's a team game.. It works both ways though- Roth. had a very poor game in one of his Superbowl wins, but he's still being put in the upper echelon of great Superbowl Qb's with his two wins.

What I wrote had nothing to do with Montana. It was an argument that the OP's statement that any QB that loses the Super Bowl "essentially ruins any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." That doesn't make any sense. I pointed it out with a hypo. It's the same point that plyka made a few posts later; I just used a more extreme hypothetical fact pattern to point out how wrong it was.Montana was very good in Super Bowls, maybe the best ever. Few people deny that. What I'm rejecting is the idea that once a QB loses a Super Bowl he doesn't have any chance to pass Montana. That makes no sense.

 

[fatmnkypants]

Likewise.

OK then. Let's make it simple:Who has the more impressive Super Bowl legacy- a guy who plays in 4 Super Bowls and goes 4-0 while throwing for an average of 150 yards, 1 TD and 3 INTs per game? Or a guy who players in 10 Super Bowls and goes 9-1 while throwing for an average of 350 yards, 4 TDs and zero INTs per game.? According to your OP, the former would be more impressive because once a QB loses a Super Bowl, they "essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." Your words. I strongly disagree.

But Montana didn't go 4-0 in Superbowls while putting up mediocre numbers... That's where your arguement fails. He went 4-0 and put up fantastic #'s. If you want to say a guy who goes 3-1 and puts up great #'s should be looked at the same or near the same as the guy who went 4-0- then your argument makes sense. I agree the 1 loss doesn't change things because it's a team game.. It works both ways though- Roth. had a very poor game in one of his Superbowl wins, but he's still being put in the upper echelon of great Superbowl Qb's with his two wins.

What I wrote had nothing to do with Montana. It was an argument that the OP's statement that any QB that loses the Super Bowl "essentially ruins any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB." That doesn't make any sense. I pointed it out with a hypo. It's the same point that plyka made a few posts later; I just used a more extreme hypothetical fact pattern to point out how wrong it was.Montana was very good in Super Bowls, maybe the best ever. Few people deny that. What I'm rejecting is the idea that once a QB loses a Super Bowl he doesn't have any chance to pass Montana. That makes no sense.

okay, I agree with that as I said in my earlier post- you have to look at that QB's overall performance. Since the OP was referring to Montana though- I assume you were speaking of Montana. Still though- it would be hard for a QB with losses to pass Montana as Montana was 4-0 with great numbers.. So that QB is going to have to go 3-1 with better #'s or 5-1 with same #'s etc... It is a tall mountain to climb if we are talking about QB SuperBowl performances.

 

[David Yudkin]

okay, I agree with that as I said in my earlier post- you have to look at that QB's overall performance. Since the OP was referring to Montana though- I assume you were speaking of Montana. Still though- it would be hard for a QB with losses to pass Montana as Montana was 4-0 with great numbers.. So that QB is going to have to go 3-1 with better #'s or 5-1 with same #'s etc... It is a tall mountain to climb if we are talking about QB SuperBowl performances.

Anything will be subjective in the first place, but suppose Brady goes on to win 2 more SBs and ends up 5-1 in the Super Bowl. Let's also say he does not play as well in the post season as Montana but Brady keeps up his sparkling winning percentage in the regular season and wins a couple more MVP trophies.At that point, Brady would have 5 rings (with a SB loss) compared to Montana (who had better post season stats), 4 MVPs, and a better regular season record. Would that trump Montana?How about if Brady only wins one more SB and ends up 4-1 but still wins another MVP or two?People like to point to Montana's 4-0 record in the SB. That's obvious a great accomplishment, but he DIDN'T win the SB in 11 other seasons. He made the playoffs in 7 other seasons and came up short. Does making the playoffs count for anything? Does making the playoffs and losing count for anything? Does NOT making the playoffs caount as a negative?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Legacies are funny things. In the 1981 NFCCG, which produced The Catch, Montana:

1) Threw a red-zone interception in the 2nd quarter

2) Fumbled in Dallas territory in the final 2 minutes of the half

3) Threw a red-zone interception in the 3rd quarter

4) Threw a 4th quarter interception when trailing by 6

Then, with 51 seconds left, Dallas got the ball down 1. Danny White connected ona deep pass to Drew Pearson, who had an open path to the end zone. Eric Wright had a good angle and make a game-saving tackle, as White fumbled on the next play. Had Wright been a step out of position, Montana and his 4 TOs would have made him the goat, instead of the GOAT. Just like when...

In the 1983 NFCCG, Montana couldn't get his team any points in the first three quarters. In the 2nd quarter, on 3rd and 2 from the 38, he threw an incomplete pass, failing to set his team up in better FG position (Wersching missed the 55-yarder). In the first half, Montana's offense was a woeful 1 of 8 on 3rd downs, and Montana was 9/21 for 68 yards. He led a late rally in the 4th quarter, but it wasn't enough.

In the first game of the '84 playoffs, he threw 3 INTs, including a pick-six.

In '85 and '86, the 49ers went one-and-done in ugly losses to the Giants, and Montana threw 3 INTs while leading the team to just one FG in each game.

In '87, the 49ers were the best team in the league. A SB win would have put them in the pantheon of great teams, but Montana threw for just 109 yards and a pick-six before being benched for the rest of the game in one of the biggest playoff upsets of all-time (a 36-24 victory by Minnesota). From '85 to '87, Montana went winless in the post-season.

 

[RudeDog]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games. Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

Ummm, from this criteria we have to consider Bradshaw as one of the 2 greatest QB's of all time.

 

[azgroover]

In recent years, we've seen some fine HOF shoo in QBs already with Super Bowl wins under their belt (Brady, Manning, Ben) go ahead lose the big one and essentially ruin any chance they had to be thrown into the conversation as the all time best Super Bowl QB. The more time goes by, the more we can appreciate and marvel at what Montana was able to accomplish in late January games. Could Rodgers be the latest 2nd coming of Joe Cool? Time will tell.

Ummm, from this criteria we have to consider Bradshaw as one of the 2 greatest QB's of all time.

Indeed. Many do consider him the 2nd best Super Bowl QB.Never saw him play a down, so I don't have an opinion.From Wiki

In four career Super Bowl appearances he passed for 932 yards and 9 touchdowns, both Super Bowl records at the time of his retirement. In 19 postseason games he completed 261 passes for 3,833 yards.

 

[CalBear]

Montana was the QB on a team which, in each of his 4 SB appearances, was CLEARLY better than their opponent. Only in one of those games, in 1988, was Montana forced to execute a last minute TD drive to win the game- which to his credit, he accomplished. Very few QBs have even been in this situation. Big Ben has been in it twice: 2 years ago, he led his team to a victory. Yesterday he didn't. Who knows whether Montana would have been successful the 2nd time around?

The Niners were not clearly better than anyone in 1981. They were 6-10 in 1980 and 2-14 in the two previous years. They had a total of four Pro Bowlers that year, and not a single player who had ever made a Pro Bowl prior to 1981. And while he didn't lead a game-winning drive in the Super Bowl that year, he did lead one of the classic game-winning drives in the conference championship.

Tom Brady has also led his team, in 2 SBs, to last minute victories. Kurt Warner appeared in 3 SBs and each time directed his team to a game winning or game tying score in his final drive, yet he is not given the credit Montana is because he was not the last guy to have the ball in his hands and as a result lost 2 of those 3 Superbowls. I think Brady and Warner (and Steve Young) were all better QBs than Joe Montana. Montana was a fine QB, but also one of the luckiest to ever play. That is his ultimate legacy.

In Brady's three wins, New England did not trail in the second half. Leading a FG drive in a tie game is a lot different (and easier) than leading a TD drive when down by 4. When Brady was put in the position of being down by three in the fourth quarter, he threw three incompletions and took a sack.

 

[Blue-Kun]

Always love how in these conversations those Bengals teams get put on blast. Hint: Mike Brown wasn't ruining the team, the Bengals were actually GOOD.

 

[Jason Wood]

Always love how in these conversations those Bengals teams get put on blast. Hint: Mike Brown wasn't ruining the team, the Bengals were actually GOOD.

Exactly. They were QUITE good.

 

[fatmnkypants]

Legacies are funny things. In the 1981 NFCCG, which produced The Catch, Montana:1) Threw a red-zone interception in the 2nd quarter2) Fumbled in Dallas territory in the final 2 minutes of the half3) Threw a red-zone interception in the 3rd quarter4) Threw a 4th quarter interception when trailing by 6Then, with 51 seconds left, Dallas got the ball down 1. Danny White connected ona deep pass to Drew Pearson, who had an open path to the end zone. Eric Wright had a good angle and make a game-saving tackle, as White fumbled on the next play. Had Wright been a step out of position, Montana and his 4 TOs would have made him the goat, instead of the GOAT. Just like when...In the 1983 NFCCG, Montana couldn't get his team any points in the first three quarters. In the 2nd quarter, on 3rd and 2 from the 38, he threw an incomplete pass, failing to set his team up in better FG position (Wersching missed the 55-yarder). In the first half, Montana's offense was a woeful 1 of 8 on 3rd downs, and Montana was 9/21 for 68 yards. He led a late rally in the 4th quarter, but it wasn't enough.In the first game of the '84 playoffs, he threw 3 INTs, including a pick-six.In '85 and '86, the 49ers went one-and-done in ugly losses to the Giants, and Montana threw 3 INTs while leading the team to just one FG in each game. In '87, the 49ers were the best team in the league. A SB win would have put them in the pantheon of great teams, but Montana threw for just 109 yards and a pick-six before being benched for the rest of the game in one of the biggest playoff upsets of all-time (a 36-24 victory by Minnesota). From '85 to '87, Montana went winless in the post-season.

All true-- but all QB's put up stinkers. Look at his overall postseason #'s.. even with those stinkers- his #'s are amazing and better than the others Qb's in the discussion. If the bad games are weighing his overall numbers down- his good games were so good and often that his overall #'s are much better than most... and he had more or as many good games in the postseason as any QB in the modern game history.For example. Montana has 45 tds and 21 ints, 95.6 rating in the postseason, 4 Superbowls -11 pass tds, no ints, 127.8 rating.Manning- 29tds, 19ints, 88.4 rating in postseasn, 2 Superbowls- 2 pass tds, 2 ints.Elway 27 tds, 21ints, 79.7 ratings, 5 Superbowls- 3 tds, 8 ints Brady 30tds, 16ints 85.7 ratings, 4 Superbolws 7tds, 1 ints, 95.1 ratingBrady is the only one who compares. Also, Montana has 2 rush tds in the Superbowls to o for Brady, so it's 13 overall tds, to Brady's 7..... Still Brady's #'s are excellant.In this thread the OP is talking about jsut the Superbowl legacy.. Just look at Montana's numbers above.And dont tell me it was Rice or the defense or they played crappy teams.. 2 Superbowls without Rice, Montana put up 5 tds against a Denver def who I believe (I read it recently) gave up a total of 13 pass td's the whole season..... You can play what if's always= what if, so and so didn't drop an INT- Montana wouldn't have the game winning SB drive or whatif Marshall doesn't hit Montana from behind and break his hand with the 49ers leading the Giants to go into a 3rd straight superbowl.. Young comes in and he and Craig screw up the handoff and Craig fumbles away the game.. Montana might be sitting on 5 S.B's.. what if , what if.

 

[thriftyrocker]

People also forget the lull in between 84 and 88. While SFO made the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87, they were one and done each year. Montana's passer ratings in those playoff losses were 65.6, 34.2, and 42.0. In the last two of those games, he only had 98 and 109 passing yards.

To explain the low total yards - one of them he was knocked out by Jim Burt (missed the whole 2nd half), and one of them he was benched for Steve Young halfway through.

 

[fatmnkypants]

okay, I agree with that as I said in my earlier post- you have to look at that QB's overall performance. Since the OP was referring to Montana though- I assume you were speaking of Montana. Still though- it would be hard for a QB with losses to pass Montana as Montana was 4-0 with great numbers.. So that QB is going to have to go 3-1 with better #'s or 5-1 with same #'s etc... It is a tall mountain to climb if we are talking about QB SuperBowl performances.

Anything will be subjective in the first place, but suppose Brady goes on to win 2 more SBs and ends up 5-1 in the Super Bowl. Let's also say he does not play as well in the post season as Montana but Brady keeps up his sparkling winning percentage in the regular season and wins a couple more MVP trophies.At that point, Brady would have 5 rings (with a SB loss) compared to Montana (who had better post season stats), 4 MVPs, and a better regular season record. Would that trump Montana?How about if Brady only wins one more SB and ends up 4-1 but still wins another MVP or two?People like to point to Montana's 4-0 record in the SB. That's obvious a great accomplishment, but he DIDN'T win the SB in 11 other seasons. He made the playoffs in 7 other seasons and came up short. Does making the playoffs count for anything? Does making the playoffs and losing count for anything? Does NOT making the playoffs caount as a negative?

Again, look at Montana's numbers- overall including the wins and losses-- yes, he didn't win every year, but neither has anyone else- He's one of only two to win 4 times.. So you can say the same above about anyone including Brady.. yes Brady won 3 but what about all those other years that he didn't win? Do they count negatively.. What are the overall #'s in all the playoff games, wins and losses? Montana comes out ahead.Is suppose Brady does have 5 rings, 4 mvps- then it's another discussion-- but that's just fantasy right now. We can only go by actual events.

 

[DiStefano]

People also forget the lull in between 84 and 88. While SFO made the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87, they were one and done each year. Montana's passer ratings in those playoff losses were 65.6, 34.2, and 42.0. In the last two of those games, he only had 98 and 109 passing yards.

To explain the low total yards - one of them he was knocked out by Jim Burt (missed the whole 2nd half), and one of them he was benched for Steve Young halfway through.

I wonder why? Wasn't he All-Universe, the greatest qb ever?