Montana's perfect Super Bowls in perspective

Bruins29 said:

You arent making a point. It makes no sense to penalize TB for working with his team. Who did Montana win with? Lets not make it out like the Niners had no defense.

Click to expand...

I am not penalizing Brady; I am speaking to practicality. Even in the salary cap era a QB needs a certain amount of talent around him to win regardless of his own abilities.

That is true for the pre-salary cap era too.

I am speaking to the point it is kind of unfair to say "Brady won with less talent than Montana" cause at the time of Montana you needed a higher level of talent to win cause there were other teams that were also stacked.

That is what I am saying. Montana had a fantastic D no question. Without it he could not have won. This is not because Montana is not an all time great but due to the fact that he was going to have to beat other stacked teams to win and to go in with any less he would no doubt get his butt kicked regardless of how well he personally played. That is my point. I hope it is clear now.

BobDigital said:

Yes Montana played on a stacked team. 100% true and can not be refuted. However back then you had to have a stacked team to win. There were 4-5 other stacked teams that just out spent others and had more talent. If Montana had not been on a stacked team (ala Miami for instance) I doubt he would ever have won or only won 1. Same for Brady I think. If Brady played on that era and was not on a stacked team he would have found incredibly hard to win multiple SBs. Doubt he could have frankly.

.

Click to expand...

Check the math on the ratio of money the 9ers spent compared to the rest of the league. It was the equivalent of having an extra 50 million in payroll IIRC. That is a lot of players.

Also, what are you taking about "if Brady played in that era and was not on a stacked team he wouldn't have won"

TB did win. 4 times on teams that were not stacked up with a slew of HOF players. That is the whole point of this. The league is designed to have parity.

BobDigital said:

That is my point. I hope it is clear now.

Click to expand...

Yes, your point is clear. It makes no sense but it is clear.

BobDigital said:

Nope. I just jumped into the last page and saw a post i thought I wanted to comment on. I did not read the entire thread. I will look at it and get back to you if you'd like.

Click to expand...

it was page 4

Bruins29 said:

Check the math on the ratio of money the 9ers spent compared to the rest of the league. It was the equivalent of having an extra 50 million in payroll IIRC. That is a lot of players.

Also, what are you taking about "if Brady played in that era and was not on a stacked team he wouldn't have won"

TB did win. 4 times on teams that were not stacked up with a slew of HOF players. That is the whole point of this. The league is designed to have parity.

Click to expand...

Bruins29 said:

Yes, your point is clear. It makes no sense but it is clear.

Click to expand...

Wow. Okay. You are obviously more interested in refuting what I say before listing to it and trying to understand it. Conversation over.

BobDigital said:

Wow. Okay. You are obviously more interested in refuting what I say before listing to it and trying to understand it. Conversation over.

Click to expand...

Several posters here with a ton of football knowledge have all told you the same thing, several times. You have a right to you opinion. However just because you repeat something over and over, doesn't make it true.

BobDigital said:

Wow. Okay. You are obviously more interested in refuting what I say before listing to it and trying to understand it. Conversation over.

Click to expand...

Also, its easy to refute what you say because you continually contradict yourself and post incorrect info or at least things that are interpreted differently than what you mean.

eom said:

it was page 4

Click to expand...

K just checked in out. Interesting stuff you found there. Good job on it.

First let me address the money each team had. As you know it is true the 49ers generally out spent other teams. Perhaps were more overall talented than them too. However it is hard to judge that just by money. Having the highest payroll does not automatically mean having the best talent as I am sure we all know. It is fair to say though (particularly for the 1988 and 1989 years IMO) the 49ers had probably the most talented other 52 players on their roster. But others were not as far behind as that average salary may lead one to believe IMO.

Now onto Montana's personal performances in those runs. Yes some were better than others clearly. It is kinda unfair in a way to not put in the SB stats too cause Brady also USUALLY gets an ez game of a team he can beat up on in his first AFC division game. It just so happens Montana usually had his in the SB (in fact it be fair to say for most of these years the NFCCG was the SB)

I think when you look at it that way the stats are a bit closer. Lets look at all 4 championship runs and see how it stacks up.

Montana: TD/INT 6/4 7/5 8/1 11/0 (admittedly those last 2 teams were VERY good).

Brady: TD/INT 1/1 5/2 5/0 10/4

Seems to me overall Brady has a slight edge but not as the way you looked at it made it seem. I think it is also fair to say his 2003 and 2004 teams though not as dominate as the late SF teams are about equally relatively dominate compared to the rest of the league as I think those were both cases (2003 is a little closer but clearly 2004) when he had the best group of 52 players around him.

Also it is of note in 2001 Brady certainly did not have a gimmie opponent and got knocked out a little under half way through the AFFCG that year so that first run is not as bad as it looks stat wise.

BobDigital said:

Yes Montana played on a stacked team. 100% true and can not be refuted. However back then you had to have a stacked team to win. There were 4-5 other stacked teams that just out spent others and had more talent. If Montana had not been on a stacked team (ala Miami for instance) I doubt he would ever have won or only won 1. Same for Brady I think. If Brady played in that era and was not on a stacked team he would have found incredibly hard to win multiple SBs. Doubt he could have frankly.

Did no salary cap make it easier or harder (or no different) for Montana. Frankly IDK. We don't have enough info.

I think it is fair to say it made it easier when he was actually able to get to SBs cause the AFC was clearly out matched by the NFC at this time (probably a good reason why his SB stats are so good). However it could be argued it made his playoffs in the NFC harder.

I will just go by the eyeball test and give you my opinion on it. Brady generally gets 1 ez playoff game and 1 hard playoff game to get to the SB. Then the SB is hard generally.

Montana usually got 2 hard NFC playoff games and 1 ez SB. Sometimes only 1 hard NFC game if he got lucky and if unlucky a hardish SB (like the 20-19 match up).

Click to expand...

well, you post stuff like the above which can be a little irritating.

we actually DO have enough info to figure out if the pre-cap era made it easier or harder --- it made it much easier.

the niners outspent the league, and that includes that other handful of nfc contenders.
you're trying to sell us that the nfc was some kind of tough road for joe cool to navigate to get to his 4 sb?
in the early 80s the niners retooled their defense, after joe won his first sb, turning it into a historically great unit.
in the following 3 sb runs joe (and his defense) was up against 6 nfc opponents --- giants, rams, bears x2, and minny x2
in those 6 games joe's defense held their opponents to a total of 31 points over 6 games ---- so tell me, do you think the pre-cap era was helping joe or hurting him???
that's your tough road???

once they slapped a cap on that league the niners saw 1 ccg in the next 20 years

edit: just to underline it, of those 6 'tough' nfc games that brady never had to endure, joe cool would have won 4 of them by leading his offense to 2 fg.
which was apparently asking too much in '85 + '86 when they got knocked out of the playoffs with a single fg scored in each game.
but at least it kept joe's sb record perfect......

eom said:

well, you post stuff like the above which can be a little irritating.

we actually DO have enough info to figure out if the pre-cap era made it easier or harder --- it made it much easier.

the niners outspent the league, and that includes that other handful of nfc contenders.
you're trying to sell us that the nfc was some kind of tough road for joe cool to navigate to get to his 4 sb?
in the early 80s the niners retooled their defense, after joe won his first sb, turning it into a historically great unit.
in the following 3 sb runs joe (and his defense) was up against 6 nfc opponents --- giants, rams, bears x2, and minny x2
in those 6 games joe's defense held their opponents to a total of 31 points over 6 games ---- so tell me, do you think the pre-cap era was helping joe or hurting him???
that's your tough road???

once they slapped a cap on that league the niners saw 1 ccg in the next 20 years

Click to expand...

I see where you are coming from and allow me to explain myself.

It seems to me you think the pre-cap made it easier. Maybe it did. I DO NOT think we have enough evidence to say that for sure or to be sure how much easier it made it (a tad bit easier or to use your word "much easier"). I think that jury is still out.

Right now if you wanted my honest answer I would tell you I think it did make it easier. How much is the question though. I am currently of the mind it made it a little easier but not "much easier". Here is how I am looking at it and how I measure it. And see if you think this makes sense.

In the pre-cap era there was about 1 dynasty every decade with a few other teams doubling up at times (these will not be exactly self contained within each decade)

60s - Packers, 70s - Steelers (dolphins, oakland, cowboys 2) 80s - 49ers (washington, NYG 2) 90s - Cowboys (Denver 2 - cap in place to be fair)

Then the salary cap comes. Now in the 2000s what do we see?

2000s - Pats <dynasty> Pitt, Giants 2

This is about the trend we saw the last few decades. The question is how much did the salary cap change and I think we just don't know yet. So far it appears to be nothing cause it is the same thing as previous decades with 1 dominate team and a few good teams stealing a few during their run.

I think this question will be better answered in the coming decades. I think if we do not see another dynasty after the Pats in this decade it will be proof positive a dynasty is a lot harder now. Currently I think we just need to wait and see. I hope you understand where i am coming from.

Also are you aware I said several times I think Brady > Montana but i just don't think the view Montana > Brady is automatically stupid.

no, apparently YOU just don't know
the jury is most definitely in, and the rest of the civilized world pretty much is of the opinion that it's much harder to build a dynasty and dominate the league post-cap ---- why do you think they have a cap?

you keep saying over and over how we don't have enough evidence, when a dozen mailbags of evidence has been emptied on your bench.
were you on that OJ jury?

in those 6 games against his very toughest opponents ---- his rogues gallery of nemeses, in your own opinion, joe's defense held them down to 31 points over 6 games.
2 fg would've won 4 of those games, which shouldn't have been overly hard seeing as how joe also happened to have a guy some consider to be the best receiver in history, covered in stickum from head to toe, AND a pro-bowl rb.

in the 4 years from '91-'94 steve young took over for the greatest ever and led that team to 3 more ccg and another sb win.
in the following 4 years he managed to sniff one ccg, which they lost --- but I'm sure the cap had nothing to do with it.........

nobody is bringing up how much more advanced the game has become. yes, it's less physical but the defense itself is much more complex and today's league has so much more bigger athletes.

think about this. kam chancellor is as big as lawrence taylor was and he plays safety.

the speed of the game is faster than ever before. yes there will be more PIs called and less roughing the passer penalties, but the game is still faster - meaning you have to think and react faster. and QB position has evolved into such a complex position. trent dilfer said today's high school players know more about playbooks than an NFL rookie 30 years ago. there are much more information. game isn't so simple anymore.

and by this logic - 'who do you want when you have to get a touchdown to win the game? 2min left?' answer is not montana. it's without a doubt brady because brady's football IQ is higher. much better processing speed and he just knows more. on top of that brady has more comeback wins and will deliver in the clutch. not trying to bash montana, but his time has passed. brady is now #1. move over joe cool. no disrespect, but there will never be another tom brady.

yeah, I think the argument montana supporters seem to have for joe cool is he played against all these HoF defenders, while nobody brady plays against is in the HoF.

I understand joe played 30 yrs ago, and all these legends from our childhoods, or nfl films, seem bigger than life, but being iconic does not mean you're the best ever at what you did.

Deus Irae said:

No Brady led Patriots team has ever been held to single digit scoring in a playoff game. The Montana led 49ers were held to 3 points, and one-and-done, two years in a row (1985-1986).

Click to expand...

They were "one and done" in 1987 as well. They lost to Minnesota, pretty badly too.

BigEZPatsFan76 said:

They were "one and done" in 1987 as well. They lost to Minnesota, pretty badly too.

Click to expand...

For me, all things considered (too numerous to mention here) Brady is the best.

End of argument.

eom said:

no, apparently YOU just don't know
the jury is most definitely in, and the rest of the civilized world pretty much is of the opinion that it's much harder to build a dynasty and dominate the league post-cap ---- why do you think they have a cap?

you keep saying over and over how we don't have enough evidence, when a dozen mailbags of evidence has been emptied on your bench.
were you on that OJ jury?

in those 6 games against his very toughest opponents ---- his rogues gallery of nemeses, in your own opinion, joe's defense held them down to 31 points over 6 games.
2 fg would've won 4 of those games, which shouldn't have been overly hard seeing as how joe also happened to have a guy some consider to be the best receiver in history, covered in stickum from head to toe, AND a pro-bowl rb.

in the 4 years from '91-'94 steve young took over for the greatest ever and led that team to 3 more ccg and another sb win.
in the following 4 years he managed to sniff one ccg, which they lost --- but I'm sure the cap had nothing to do with it.........

Click to expand...

I am going to be very clear here. The jury is not in. Period. It is still deliberating. The only proof we have if Dynasty's are harder post cap is if there are less dynasty's post cap. Right now we can not determine that for sure. We are still within a range that is not largely outside of past patterns. We are still averaging 1 dynasty per decade.

Now if there is no dynasty that emerges by the end of 2020 lets say. Now you have some very good evidence for it being harder to have a dynasty with the cap cause that would show a break in the pattern in the salary cap era. Until that happens though I don't think it is unfair to say we don't have enough evidence.

The sample size is simply too small right now IMO (though admitted not by too much).

Also Joes D was great. When Have I not said so? Lets look at is fairly.

1st SB run - Gave up 24, 27 & 21 points = 24 PPG
2nd SB run - Gave up 10. 0. 16 = 8.67 PPG
3rd run - Gave up 3. 9 & 16 = 9.3 PPG
4th run - Gave up 13, 3, & 10 = 8.67 PPG.

Obviously 3 of those runs had superb D. However this great D also let Joe down at times giving up 17. 36 and 49 points in Joes 3 one and dones. This goes to show that the D was very good it was not otherworldly for the whole run.

I don't like how you only picked 6 games. We should look at all 12 to be 100% fair.

Lets also be fair and acknowledge Joe rarely needed his D to play as well as they did in those runs generally. The 49ers never scored below 20 PPGs in any of those 12 playoffs victories. Even with a lesser D they could have still won 4 championships. Brady on the other hand needed his team to hold the opponent below 20 a couple times to win. Now in fairness that is a bit of a loaded statement cause those 2 game were bad weather games but it is interesting.

BobDigital said:

I am going to be very clear here. The jury is not in. Period. It is still deliberating. The only proof we have if Dynasty's are harder post cap is if there are less dynasty's post cap. Right now we can not determine that for sure. We are still within a range that is not largely outside of past patterns. We are still averaging 1 dynasty per decade.

Now if there is no dynasty that emerges by the end of 2020 lets say. Now you have some very good evidence for it being harder to have a dynasty pre-cap cause that would show a break in the pattern in the post salary cap era. Until that happens though I don't think it is unfair to say we don't have enough evidence.

The sample size is simply too small right now IMO (though admitted not by too much).

Click to expand...

You lost the Montana/Brady argument when you failed to acknowledge your mistake in playing the "short window" card, because you lost all of your credibility as a result. At this point, your best play is a completely rebooted argument that starts from scratch, in a thread somewhere down the road.

Deus Irae said:

You lost the Montana/Brady argument when you failed to acknowledge your mistake in playing the "short window" card, because you lost all of your credibility as a result. At this point, your best play is a completely rebooted argument that starts from scratch, in a thread somewhere down the road.

Click to expand...

I have said several times in this thread I think Brady > Montana. I made no mistake about the short window argument though as it holds up. Montana won his championships at a faster rate than Brady while he was winning them. Why is that unfair? Why is that wrong? It can be argued Montana was more potent during his run. Maybe he was better at his best. It is worth considering and I think more than a fair argument for Pro-Montana people.

BobDigital said:

Also Joes D was great. When Have I not said so? Lets look at is fairly.

1st SB run - Gave up 24, 27 & 21 points = 24 PPG
2nd SB run - Gave up 10. 0. 16 = 8.67 PPG
3rd run - Gave up 3. 9 & 16 = 9.3 PPG
4th run - Gave up 13, 3, & 10 = 8.67 PPG.

Obviously 3 of those runs had superb D. However this great D also let Joe down at times giving up 17. 36 and 49 points in Joes 3 one and dones. This goes to show that the D was very good it was not otherworldly for the whole run.

I don't like how you only picked 6 games. We should look at all 12 to be 100% fair.
.

Click to expand...

yeah, I picked 6 games --- you know why I picked 6 games?
because YOU told me the afc wasn't much of a fair challenge and montana needed every penny of this bloated payroll to cope with the monsters of the nfc.
YOU told me the real challenge for montana was beating the nfc, and apparently montana's only claim to the throne is that HE won 4 sb, so I took a look at the nfc path to those 4 sb that he had to travel and found his defense did most of the work, and beating those nfc teams wasn't such an arduous task for joe cool, after all, considering his offense only needed a couple fg to manage it.
that first sb, which I give joe all the credit for, was prior to the niners retooling their defense.
congrats to him on that one.

here's joe cool's heroic efforts in those 'one and dones' you mentioned, where the defense 'let him down'
I mean, since we're being 100% fair
'85 - 26/47 296y 0/1 td/int -- offense scored 3, defense allowed 17
'86 - 8/15 98y 0/2 -- includes pick 6, knocked out after a half
'87 - 12/26 109y 0/1 -- int was a pick 6 and joe cool was benched in the 3rd qtr, defense allowed 2 td

'85 - '87 -- the best ever right in his prime

BobDigital said:

I have said several times in this thread I think Brady > Montana. I made no mistake about the short window argument though as it holds up. Montana won his championships at a faster rate than Brady while he was winning them.

Click to expand...

Yes, you did, and no it doesn't, as I've pointed out a bunch of times.

3 in 4 years is much faster than 4 in 11 (even 10) years

BobDigital said:

Why is that unfair? Why is that wrong?

Click to expand...

Simple mathematics

BobDigital said:

It can be argued Montana was more potent during his run. Maybe he was better at his best. It is worth considering and I think more than a fair argument for Pro-Montana people.

Click to expand...

As I've said, repeatedly, one can make an argument for any of the top 6. That includes Montana. The problem is that your attempt to make the argument for Montana was fatally flawed because of your approach.