Make the Case (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Going to be doing a series of posts in the Shark Pool titled "Make the Case", where we play devil's advocate and argue against the seemingly impossible to argue against.

Today: Make the case that Joe Montana is overrated. It can be that he's the 10th best QB instead of the best QB ever; i.e., we're not saying that the guy sucks. Just the argument that a player is overrated.

 

[DawnBTVS]

I don't necessarily believe these but here goes...

1: Was injured for periods of his career and was rarely healthy for an entire season. That hurts his productivity overall and dependability in comparison to other QBs. One could argue it also skews his numbers as he didn't play 16 games compared to QB X who may have had 1-2 bad games as a result of playing 4 more games.

2: Had two great seasons in terms of YPA (1984 and 1989) but was mostly around the 7.5 range. His backup, Steve Young was much, much better in this regard. Given weapons like John Taylor, Jerry Rice, and Roger Craig one could argue that Montana should have a higher YPA.

3: Was somewhat unimpressive in the latter stage of his career. 1986 = 8 TD vs 9 INT. 1988 = 59.9% and 18 TD vs 10 INT. 1990 = 26 TD vs 16 INT (career high).

4: Never consistent in Passer Rating. 1983 = 5th, 1984 = 2nd, 1985 = 3rd, 1986 = 10th, 1987 = 1st, 1988 = 6th, 1989 = 1st, and 1990 = 7th. His backup, Steve Young was 1st in 1991, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Finished 6th in 1995 then finished 1st in 1996 again.

 

[butcher boy]

1. Failed to find a cure for cancer.

2. Could not end worldwide poverty.

3. Still has not found a viable energy alternative to oil.

I'll just have to settle for him being the best QB ever.

 

[Slider]

This is easy.

He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.

Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Jerry Rice

 

[GregR]

This is easy. He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

I think if one has to try to make such a case this is a pretty good job. I'd also mention the fickleness of basing so much of his rating off of Super Bowl victories alone while ignoring other playoff failures or how many playoff games could have been lost if the D had failed on a stand or a receiver had dropped a 3rd down pass.But one nitpick. There's not much left of true importance for a QB outside of "running a system to perfection, reading a D quickly, and delivering the ball". If we're saying Montana was elite at those, to me that's an argument that supports the prevalent view of him. Not an argument that he's overrated.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

This is easy. He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

Outstanding, could not have said it better myself.

 

[steelcityman]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.

Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

 

[DiStefano]

This is easy. He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

Outstanding, could not have said it better myself.

Except that Steve Young ran it better than Joe. Joe was good, no doubt, but "greatest of all time?", I don't think so.

 

[FF Ninja]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.

Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

I agree. I don't see the point of these topics. I wish the criteria for the Shark Pool would be changed to strictly fantasy football related discussion. Hypothetical situations, best uniforms ever, player X was really nice to me and my kid at Sizzler, etc. don't really serve any purpose.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I always come back to this: What's more likely, that the 49ers just happened to have two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time on the same team or that they had a coach/system that was ahead of its time and made otherwise "good" quarterbacks look like all-time greats?

Like the modern New England Patriots, there is little doubt in my mind that any NFL starting QB would have been a consistent pro-bowler and Super Bowl contender on those 49ers teams in the 80's, and likewise any merely good starting QB would have been considered an all-time great. Playing for that team immediately bumped a QB up two tiers on the list.

When you look at the list of all-time great QBs, most of them are paired with great coaches/systems. That's no coincidence. It's the ones that get on that list without having a huge systematic advantage that impress me.

 

[Chazzhawk]

Close this thread Joe Montana is top 3 no doubt and arguably the best quarterback ever.

 

[doowain]

Why is everyone so afraid of debate?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off.

Are you talking about where he took an average Chiefs team to the AFC championship game in a season where he beat his old team and "his replacement"?

 

[doowain]

He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off.

Are you talking about where he took a mediocre Chiefs team to the AFC championship game in a season where he beat his old team and "his replacement"?

Oops.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I always come back to this: What's more likely, that the 49ers just happened to have two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time on the same team or that they had a coach/system that was ahead of its time and made otherwise "good" quarterbacks look like all-time greats?

Like the modern New England Patriots, there is little doubt in my mind that any NFL starting QB would have been a consistent pro-bowler and Super Bowl contender on those 49ers teams in the 80's, and likewise any merely good starting QB would have been considered an all-time great. Playing for that team immediately bumped a QB up two tiers on the list.

When you look at the list of all-time great QBs, most of them are paired with great coaches/systems. That's no coincidence. It's the ones that get on that list without having a huge systematic advantage that impress me.

The bolded is definately true but it's hard to hold it against them.

 

[MDSkinner]

He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off.

Are you talking about where he took an average Chiefs team to the AFC championship game in a season where he beat his old team and "his replacement"?

While he did beat his old team and replacement in his second season with the Chiefs(game 3), his old team and replacement went on to win the Super Bowl that season and the Chiefs went on to go 9-7.The year that Montana took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship game was the year before, and he did not beat or play his replacement that year. His replacement did, however, also make it to the NFC Championship game that year.

 

[butcher boy]

It's almost as if you can only be declared a great player without an asterisk if the team you were playing on was shitty.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off.

Are you talking about where he took an average Chiefs team to the AFC championship game in a season where he beat his old team and "his replacement"?

While he did beat his old team and replacement in his second season with the Chiefs(game 3), his old team and replacement went on to win the Super Bowl that season and the Chiefs went on to go 9-7.The year that Montana took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship game was the year before, and he did not beat or play his replacement that year. His replacement did, however, also make it to the NFC Championship game that year.

Sorry, that was me not remembering correctly then. I also wasn't really trying to take anything away from Steve Young, as obviously he went on to have a Hall of Fame career of his ownright.Bottom line is of course the system and supporting cast helped make both Montana and Young great, but I don't think they were just a couple of schmucks that got lucky - I think both helped make the system and the supporting cast geat as well. We will never know if Bernie Kosar could have won a couple of SuperBowls if he swicthed places with Montana or if Montana could have helped put Cleveland over the hump. Personally I think Montana would have excelled anywhere he played - but he certainly may not have won as many SuperBowls - the 49ers teams were stacked both offensively and defensively at the time (but it wasn't like Montana was just along for the rider like a Trent Dilfer).

 

[tombonneau]

I think if one has to try to make such a case this is a pretty good job. I'd also mention the fickleness of basing so much of his rating off of Super Bowl victories alone while ignoring other playoff failures or how many playoff games could have been lost if the D had failed on a stand or a receiver had dropped a 3rd down pass.

The first argument I'd go to is the bolded above. With the SB victories it's easy to ignore the fallow stretch where Montana & SF went three-straight years of one-and-done in the playoffs, with two of the games 3-point efforts where Montana failed to direct the offense to a TD.Obviously football is a team game, but if you are going to anoint a QB the greatest of all time, regardless of how bad his D is, he should be scoring TDs in the playoffs.

That being said, I can't recall ever seeing a QB play quite as well on the biggest stage as Montana in the second Cincy SB.

Also, he only managed to elevate a Good KC Team into a Very Good KC Team; had he gotten them to a SB it would be a different story. It'll actually be an interesting comparison to see what Manning's presence does for an average Denver team, or what happens if/when (shudder) Brady winds his career down on an average team.

I actually think if Manning can play a few more years and has Denver contending for the SB or appearing on one, it elevates him over Montana IMO, even if he only retires with the one ring.

ETA:

Link to playoff game logs:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01/gamelog/post/

During that three year one-and-done stretch Montana was about a 50% passer with a QB rating near 50 as well.

 

[Chazzhawk]

This is easy. He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

Outstanding, could not have said it better myself.

Except that Steve Young ran it better than Joe. Joe was good, no doubt, but "greatest of all time?", I don't think so.

He ran it better than Joe but he only won one title, compared to his 4

 

[tombonneau]

He ran it better than Joe but he only won one title, compared to his 4

Well I think the point of these exercises is to go beyond SB titles; otherwise, every comparison between QBs would be a fairly rudimentary algorithm, invalidated by the classic Dilfer > Marino example.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off.

Are you talking about where he took an average Chiefs team to the AFC championship game in a season where he beat his old team and "his replacement"?

While he did beat his old team and replacement in his second season with the Chiefs(game 3), his old team and replacement went on to win the Super Bowl that season and the Chiefs went on to go 9-7.The year that Montana took the Chiefs to the AFC Championship game was the year before, and he did not beat or play his replacement that year. His replacement did, however, also make it to the NFC Championship game that year.

Not to mention that KC was 10-6, 11-5, and 10-6 in the three years before Montana got there with Steve DeBerg and Dave Krieg as their QBs. With Montana they were 11-5 and 9-7.

 

[Biabreakable]

Sorry but Joe Cool deserves better than this haterade.

 

[packseasontix]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.

Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

I agree. I don't see the point of these topics. I wish the criteria for the Shark Pool would be changed to strictly fantasy football related discussion. Hypothetical situations, best uniforms ever, player X was really nice to me and my kid at Sizzler, etc. don't really serve any purpose.

I agree that this needs to be in a real world nfl sub-forum.Also I forgot the Super Bowl where he threw 4 Tds to himself while picking up the blind side for him self and finally kicking the game winning field goal for himself. Sorry but no QB can be considered the best of all time, just the best on his team. I mean people can't even agree between Brees Rodgers Brady Manning right now.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

This is easy. He was at the right place at the right time. The WCO was rarely seen and hard to defend. Much like the Denver RB's and zone blocking it just took the league a long time to catch up to the WCO. The NFL is a copycat league and this system was an original. Once copied it made stars out of most that ran it. Even the Beuerlein, Feeley Grbac, Kolb and Bono's of the world made themselves a name in this O. It also elevated a very mediocre Rich Gannon to supremacy. It made Brett Favre look worldly (and his replacement is doing well) and even made Donovan McNabb look like a great QB. Heck it even helped Jake Plummer elevate his game and made a career for Jeff Garcia. There's just too many examples that point to the offense. You can go through the TE, WR and RB's to solidify the point. Don't think Jerry Rice didn't hand pick a WCO to end it out of chance.Joe Montana was the original and ran a system no one had ever seen like clockwork. He was not as good at his second home and his replacement picked up pretty much where Joe left off. It was clearly the system that made the player. Joe ran the system to perfection and could read a D quick and deliver the ball. Otherwise he was an average QB.

Outstanding, could not have said it better myself.

Except that Steve Young ran it better than Joe. Joe was good, no doubt, but "greatest of all time?", I don't think so.

He ran it better than Joe but he only won one title, compared to his 4

I know fans like to give QBs the credit but the 49ers team won 4 titles with Joe and only 1 with Young.

 

[Marauder]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.

Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

I agree. I don't see the point of these topics. I wish the criteria for the Shark Pool would be changed to strictly fantasy football related discussion. Hypothetical situations, best uniforms ever, player X was really nice to me and my kid at Sizzler, etc. don't really serve any purpose.

Especially when the threads are started by staff members in July when most people are gearing up for their FF drafts. Cluttering up the first page with these threads really seems like a bad idea.

 

[Shutout]

Why is everyone so afraid of debate?

Not afraid, just don't really see the point.

The man has a handful more Superbowl rings than anyone that is posting in here, he is universally regarded by his peers and his industry as one of the top 5, any way you slice it.

Arguing that he was a product of the system or in the right place at the right time is like arguing that is Bill Gates was born in the 1700s he wouldn't have been able to be who he was. Its not about circumstances and opportunities, its about the facts that Joe montana IS Joe Montana and that's simply it.

So, its hard to see the point because the best thing about this site is the useful information you can get from other real humans all over the world. The worst thing about this site is the increasingly juvenile and confrontational attitudes people broadcast over trivial issues that take up pages and pages and pages of forums, burying all the good stuff under mountains of "is too" and "is not", ad naseum and to the point that some people (with good info) just quit opening their mouth because they get bombed just out of natural reaction or reduce their visiting the site because of all the clutter that really has nothing to do with fantasy football.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that Joe would sign off on this type of concept. Its more akin to ESPN talking about tim Tebow or creating a "something-gate" every week instead of organizing good fantasy football information in a clean and concise presentation.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This seems pointless, are there really people out there who believe that Joe Montana and LT are overrated? Could also be a great way to weed people out of the Shark Pool.

 

[Alex P Keaton]

I think if one has to try to make such a case this is a pretty good job. I'd also mention the fickleness of basing so much of his rating off of Super Bowl victories alone while ignoring other playoff failures or how many playoff games could have been lost if the D had failed on a stand or a receiver had dropped a 3rd down pass.

The first argument I'd go to is the bolded above. With the SB victories it's easy to ignore the fallow stretch where Montana & SF went three-straight years of one-and-done in the playoffs, with two of the games 3-point efforts where Montana failed to direct the offense to a TD.Obviously football is a team game, but if you are going to anoint a QB the greatest of all time, regardless of how bad his D is, he should be scoring TDs in the playoffs.

That being said, I can't recall ever seeing a QB play quite as well on the biggest stage as Montana in the second Cincy SB.

Also, he only managed to elevate a Good KC Team into a Very Good KC Team; had he gotten them to a SB it would be a different story. It'll actually be an interesting comparison to see what Manning's presence does for an average Denver team, or what happens if/when (shudder) Brady winds his career down on an average team.

I actually think if Manning can play a few more years and has Denver contending for the SB or appearing on one, it elevates him over Montana IMO, even if he only retires with the one ring.

ETA:

Link to playoff game logs:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MontJo01/gamelog/post/

During that three year one-and-done stretch Montana was about a 50% passer with a QB rating near 50 as well.

Interesting points. I'm thinking about the contrast with stat-compiler Peyton Manning....at least Joe performed when it mattered most (4 Super Bowl wins where he killed it) vs Peyton whose defense really deserves all the credit for leading the team through the playoffs and onto a Super Bowl title that particular year.

 

[Warrior]

This seems pointless, are there really people out there who believe that Joe Montana and LT are overrated? Could also be a great way to weed people out of the Shark Pool.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'overrated'. Of course there are a TON of people who think they are overrated. I think Montana is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL and also think that he is overrated. Many think he is the unquestioned #1 because his team did so well in big games. I think they are overrating Montana when they base so much of their argument on rings when there were dozens of other players on that team that made it happen.

 

[Tau837]

Jerry Rice

XMontana won two Super Bowls before Rice joined the 49ers.

 

[Tau837]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

If the FBG staff is going to attempt to start some interesting threads while we are in the offseason dead period, I think they could easily choose better material.

 

[chook]

Why is everyone so afraid of debate?

Not afraid, just don't really see the point.

The man has a handful more Superbowl rings than anyone that is posting in here, he is universally regarded by his peers and his industry as one of the top 5, any way you slice it.

Arguing that he was a product of the system or in the right place at the right time is like arguing that is Bill Gates was born in the 1700s he wouldn't have been able to be who he was. Its not about circumstances and opportunities, its about the facts that Joe montana IS Joe Montana and that's simply it.

So, its hard to see the point because the best thing about this site is the useful information you can get from other real humans all over the world. The worst thing about this site is the increasingly juvenile and confrontational attitudes people broadcast over trivial issues that take up pages and pages and pages of forums, burying all the good stuff under mountains of "is too" and "is not", ad naseum and to the point that some people (with good info) just quit opening their mouth because they get bombed just out of natural reaction or reduce their visiting the site because of all the clutter that really has nothing to do with fantasy football.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that Joe would sign off on this type of concept. Its more akin to ESPN talking about tim Tebow or creating a "something-gate" every week instead of organizing good fantasy football information in a clean and concise presentation.

Fantastic post.

 

[Synesthesia]

I always come back to this: What's more likely, that the 49ers just happened to have two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time on the same team or that they had a coach/system that was ahead of its time and made otherwise "good" quarterbacks look like all-time greats?

Three, not two. I was talking about it in the Ken Anderson thread, but Bill Walsh really only spent multiple years working with 3 QBs during his career. All three guys were league MVPs, two of them are in the HoF, and the third is largely considered the best QB not in the HoF. One of three things must be true: either Bill Walsh is the best evaluator of QB talent in NFL history, or else Bill Walsh is the luckiest man to ever walk the planet to just stumble on such talent, or else there was some other factor at play that caused QBs that worked with Bill Walsh to look like all-time greats. And if anyone wants to try to champion that first possibility- that Anderson, Montana, and Young really were that good, and Walsh just had an uncanny ability to spot QB talent- remember that Walsh heralded Jake Plummer as the next Joe Montana. I think it's clear that something about Bill Walsh elevated those QBs he was working with to heights they would have had no hope of achieving on their own. I think it's obvious what that "something" was, too- the WCO, the single most widely-copied and impactful offensive innovation since the invention of the pocket. I would even go so far as to suggest that had Jake Plummer been drafted by San Francisco in the late 70s instead of by Arizona in the late 90s, there's a very good chance we'd be visiting his bust in Canton today. Now, counterfactuals can only go so far, and hypotheticals are not reality. I think it's clear that Joe Montana had far and away the best career of any QB in history. I think his impact on the game is undeniable. I think he's *one of* the best QBs of all time. I just think there are other guys who are better, who could have achieved similar accomplishments if put in the same circumstances, but who could have also succeeded in circumstances where Montana would have struggled. Guys like Manning, Young, Unitas, Elway, Marino, Staubach, and Tarkenton.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

This seems pointless, are there really people out there who believe that Joe Montana and LT are overrated? Could also be a great way to weed people out of the Shark Pool.

I think you need to look up the definition of 'overrated'. Of course there are a TON of people who think they are overrated. I think Montana is one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL and also think that he is overrated. Many think he is the unquestioned #1 because his team did so well in big games. I think they are overrating Montana when they base so much of their argument on rings when there were dozens of other players on that team that made it happen.

His team did so well in big games because Joe Montana threw 11 TD passes and 0 INT in 4 Super Bowl wins. Pretty difficult to overrate that.

 

[DiStefano]

I always come back to this: What's more likely, that the 49ers just happened to have two of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time on the same team or that they had a coach/system that was ahead of its time and made otherwise "good" quarterbacks look like all-time greats?

Three, not two. I was talking about it in the Ken Anderson thread, but Bill Walsh really only spent multiple years working with 3 QBs during his career. All three guys were league MVPs, two of them are in the HoF, and the third is largely considered the best QB not in the HoF. One of three things must be true: either Bill Walsh is the best evaluator of QB talent in NFL history, or else Bill Walsh is the luckiest man to ever walk the planet to just stumble on such talent, or else there was some other factor at play that caused QBs that worked with Bill Walsh to look like all-time greats. And if anyone wants to try to champion that first possibility- that Anderson, Montana, and Young really were that good, and Walsh just had an uncanny ability to spot QB talent- remember that Walsh heralded Jake Plummer as the next Joe Montana. I think it's clear that something about Bill Walsh elevated those QBs he was working with to heights they would have had no hope of achieving on their own. I think it's obvious what that "something" was, too- the WCO, the single most widely-copied and impactful offensive innovation since the invention of the pocket. I would even go so far as to suggest that had Jake Plummer been drafted by San Francisco in the late 70s instead of by Arizona in the late 90s, there's a very good chance we'd be visiting his bust in Canton today. Now, counterfactuals can only go so far, and hypotheticals are not reality. I think it's clear that Joe Montana had far and away the best career of any QB in history. I think his impact on the game is undeniable. I think he's *one of* the best QBs of all time. I just think there are other guys who are better, who could have achieved similar accomplishments if put in the same circumstances, but who could have also succeeded in circumstances where Montana would have struggled. Guys like Manning, Young, Unitas, Elway, Marino, Staubach, and Tarkenton.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Jerry Rice

XMontana won two Super Bowls before Rice joined the 49ers.

OK, I just changed my mind.Bill Walsh.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Because his middle name wasn't legally listed as "Cool".

 

[The Moz]

Played in the original WCO -- when team's really didn't know what hit them , Had probably the best offensive coach ever in Walsh , Had a GREAT defense and almost impossible to run against , a really good Oline , and of course in the latter half he had the best WR ever -- not to mention maybe the best pass catching RB or at least top 5 in Craig. BUT what makes him top 3 all time is his 1 year in KC where he has nothing at WR and still took KC to the AFC title game.

I never had him as the best ever as I don't judge a QB by his rings -- rings are won by the team not a player. Marino , Elway , Peyton , Brady , Unitas are all up there -- you could choose any and have a argument for them being the GOAT at QB.

If I had to choose 1 I would take Peyton as the GOAT just becasue he had to basically be the OC and the QB -- and last year you saw w/o Peyton how bad Indy really was -- you took Brady away and they still won 11 games.

 

[Fensalk]

He was not a QB that could excel in all systems. He lacked a strong arm, so he would likely look much less impressive in a vertical passing offense. The greatest QB of all time should be able to excel in all offensive systems. That's a high bar, but we are asking for only the best QB in this thread.

Montana's weakness was he was not an ironman. Bill Belichick's gameplan was basically to beat the snot out of Montana. Belichick's defense knocked Montana out of TWO playoff games: 1986 and 1990. The 1990 game was the last time he would ever play for the 49ers. He wouldn't recover from his injuries until playing for the Chiefs a couple years later.

 

[chook]

Jerry Rice

XMontana won two Super Bowls before Rice joined the 49ers.

OK, I just changed my mind.Bill Walsh.

It's sad how guys you've always read and respected in here just reverse it with one dumb comment.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Jerry Rice

XMontana won two Super Bowls before Rice joined the 49ers.

OK, I just changed my mind.Bill Walsh.

It's sad how guys you've always read and respected in here just reverse it with one dumb comment.

 

[Possum]

this isnt like making a case for Jerry Sandusky. Lets save the bandwidth and move to a different topic.Whats next, "was Walter Payton really sweet?" "Could Jerry Rice play today?"

If the FBG staff is going to attempt to start some interesting threads while we are in the offseason dead period, I think they could easily choose better material.

the entire series of threads seems extremely inane to me.

 

[The Moz]

What always gets overlooked is SF has a damn good all around team even pre Jerry. The had one of the best run D's around great blockers and and offensive scheme that teams just couldn't at the time solve. After Jerry ,Taylor , and Haley joined it was almost unfair. SF during the Montana run had one of the best run D's of the 80's if not the best , the best pass catching RB;s ie. Craig , a great line , the best DB in the game in Lott , and one of if not the seconf best pass rusher not named LT in Haley - throw in Rice and Taylor for the last 2. Montana I will say was the best at getting every ounce out talent out of him he had = he had a weak arm and no tolerance for getting getting hit hard but made big plays a big times.