Joe Cool

No, not Flacco. I'm tired of talking about the Ravens.

I'm talking about Montana. (Damnit, I'm gonna have dental floss lyrics stuck in my head all day)

Anyway, after Brady's latest postseason failure, I want to revisit the following:

Four Super Bowls, four victories, ZERO interceptions.

I would like to be entertained by anyone who thinks they can make a rational argument that Joe Montana is NOT the greatest modern quarterback in NFL history.

 

Obviously, what he did with the 49ers is enough to make Montana the GOAT. Also consider how stacked the NFC was during Montana's days. The Giants. The Redskins. Da Bears.

But even more amazing is that after missing nearly two full seasons, Montana left San Francisco, went to Kansas City, and promptly led the Chiefs to their first division title since Lenny Dawson played, and got them to the AFC Championship game.

Also, Montana was Super Bowl MVP three times. The one game he wasn't happened to include the masterpiece drive of his career.

 

Damn. I hate when alphabet boy and I agree like this.

I really think some people go on about all the talent Montana had around him later in his time with the 49ers and forget how great he was long before Jerry Rice arrived.

 

Yeah, I don't think you're going to see anyone ever touch what Montana did in the Super Bowl.

It sure seemed like Brady was headed that way after the first three titles, and while he's played in more Super Bowls than Montana, his team also lost two games in which they were a pretty big favorite...

It's not a knock at Brady, who is a first ballot lock and one of the best of all-time...

He's just not Joe Montana.

 

I'm a uniter.

 

Well, he didn't exactly rip the Giants apart.

Was 2-2 in playoffs against them, with 5 TDs and 9 INTs. Last two: 34-of-62, 0 TDs, 3 INT.

So yeah, he's the best. But like all QBs, had some awful games that have been swept from the memory banks.

 

The Giants knocked him around more than every other team combined... Between Jim Burt and the Roger Craig fumble game, most of his worst playoff moments came against the Giants...

The loss to the Vikings is another one that was particularly bad...

 

Montana is No. 1 ... but Bradshaw isn't far behind at 4-0 in the Super Bowl with an MVP (14-5 playoff record).

29-50, 394 yards, 3 TDs, pick, in first Super Bowl run (TD, no picks v. Minnesota)
32-47, 527 yards, 3 TDs, 5 picks in repeat year (2 TDs, 0 picks v. Dallas)
44-78, 790 yards, 8 TDs, 4 picks in third Super Bowl run (4 TDs, 1 pick v. Dallas)
53-84, 758 yards, 6 TDs, 4 picks in repeat year (2 TDs, 3 picks v. Rams)

 

I no longer believe that story about Joe seeing John Candy on the sidelines before "the catch".

 

glad you raised this point, 'cause fat effer fatcesca's been railing on a similar note of late (and, by the way, i certainly believe montana deserves to be in any 'best ever' discussion)... but, unlke fatcesca and to some extent you, i am NOT a proponent of the fat effer's contention that coaches agree they'd prefer to have not gone to a super bowl if they LOSE the game. what hogwash.

yes, i understand that the losing team is quickly dropped like a sore thumb from the day-after on. and that, back in the day when the loing AFC team seemed to get BLOWN OUT every year they often became the butt of jokes. but franny boy's contention that bradshaw being UNDEFEATED in four supes and montana also being 4-0, while brady's two heartbreaking supe losses to the giants means he automatically is eliminated from 'best ever' consideration is nonsense. fatcesca claims many of his coaching buddies agree they'd rather never go to a supe if they were going to lose is utter b.s. i understand the sentiment, and why franny contends the 0-4 bills 'are a joke' when they should be celebrated for just getting to 4 straight, or than elway was considered 'a loser' because of three super losses unti he finally won his two, is revisionist b.s. eleay was NEVER widely considered a 'loser' or a lchoker' for losing supes to tems the broncos didnt measure up to. elway was ALWAYS celebrated for his great playoff comeback wins -- like 'the drive' -- which made any 'he chokes' chargess silly.

as for the bills, yes, they were often ridiculed, mostly because they were BLOWN AWAY in 3 of 'em. the first was arguably the greatest supe ever, when they were upset by the giants in the 'norwide' game.

but, generally speaking certainly in recent years, when the supes have been highly competitive, there has been no such sentiment on behalf of the losing team that they would've rather not played in the supe. or by fans that the losing team hadnt accomplished anything.

the belichick/brady tandem is 3-2 in supes. i get that even if the pats had won the supe this year that 4-2 isn't a 'better record,' winning pct. wise. but the pats and brady would deserve mad accolades for winning as many as montana and bradshaw while also qualifying for the playoffs more oten and qualifying for the super six times overall. 'cause what makes the pats so dynastic isnt that they won three supes in four years, but that they year after year (when brady was healthy) won the afc east with doubledigit wins.

hey, y'all know i'm no pats lover. but while lombardi's packers and noll's steelers had 'off years,' brady's pats were in the playoffs and legit super contenders year in, year out. so what i'm saying is that the fact they lost two supes, if they had won their fourth i don't agree that 4-0 in supes is a better accomplishment than 4-2 in supes -- 'cause winning six conference championships is a bettr accomplishment than winning four confereence titles; that brady leading his team to a 4-2 record in 6 supes was more impressive than going 4-0, 'cause the former is evidence that your team had a super-quality team more than any others.

as usual, i know i'm not articulating this as clearly as i'm thinking it in my head, but do ya know what i'm saying? yes, 4-0 is a 'better record' than 4-2 but 4-2 is better in terms of year to year, high-quality dominance. am i making any sense?

simply based upon titles and his individual performance in those game it's impossible to argue that montana isnt the great 'big-game' player of all time. lordy.-

 

No supe for you!

 

Bradshaw was Super Bowl MVP twice, both coming after the league drastically changed the rules to favor the offenses in 1978. That is part of why his numbers are tough to compare to somebody like Montana or Brady.

That said, I'd still put Bradshaw well behind both of those guys.