Joe Montana: Best football player of all time?
by David Fucillo on Jul 8, 2009 8:00 AM PDT
in San Francisco 49ers News
Email
PrintOver the weekend, Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in a marathon 5-set classic at Wimbledon to surpass Pete Sampras for the most majors won in a career. Naturally, folks have since been discussing his place among the all-time greats in tennis and across sports in general. Given that he is only 27, it's safe to say his place in tennis lore is secure. However, one of the more interesting articles comes courtesy of the Telegraph (Is it just The Telegraph, or is it the British or UK Telegraph? Folks from the UK got an answer?).
The article decided to put together a list of the Top 20 sports stars of all time. There was really no criteria, although name brand recognition might have played a big part (as opposed to some kind of straight statistical look). Additionally, very few sports had multiple representatives. Cricket had two and track and field had three, although Usain Bolt was listed under "athletics."
I won't even begin to try and argue for or against the cricket guys or the rowing guy or the guy in MotoGP (motorcycle stuff). However, I did want to point to the man they grabbed from American football, our boy Joe Montana.
Joe Montana (American football)
As you would expect, there is some debate over the greatest quarter-back of all time, but Joe Montana is always up there, most often at the top. Known for his ability to remain calm under pressure Montana, who spent most of his career with the San Francisco 49ers, was named Most Valuable Player in three Super Bowls. As a tribute, the 49ers retired his jersey number, 16, when he left the team.
It's certainly an intriguing pick. One problem with the NFL, as is the case with many team sports, is that it's hard to separate the individual performance from the team. They chose Joe Montana, but for this purpose, let's take a look at another 49er. Jerry Rice is the greatest wide receiver of all time. It's not even a debate. People make the argument he's the greatest football player of all time, but it's a tough call to determine where he falls in the "greatest player of all time debate." A lot more difficult than declaring Roger Federer the greatest tennis player of all time, or Carl Lewis one of the greatest track stars ever.
In looking at Montana, there are arguments for and against his inclusion. One of the easiest arguments for inclusion would be his three Super Bowl MVPs, not equaled by anybody. Of course, on the other end is a purely statistical look. He was a very good QB, but his career numbers are surpassed by multiple QBs. As our upcoming all-time team vote on QB will show, numerous folks would even go so far as to argue he was not even the greatest QB in franchise history.
I won't go into the Joe vs. Steve debate at this point. Rather, I wanted to look at the Joe vs. Jerry debate. Rice is well known in the NFL and in America, but Joe Montana definitely has a global name-brand recognition that Rice probably doesn't have...even after Dancing with the Stars! So, what do folks think? And feel free to open this up to who you think is the greatest player in NFL history. Not an easy question to answer, but still something to consider. It's pretty hard to even begin to start comparing players, particularly when looking at position versus position and offense versus defense.
69 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Jerry Rice
is generally considered to be the greatest football player of all time, however, to old time fans, Ollie Matson holds that honor. He was simply incredible. He made All-Pro as a fullback, kick returner, and as a linebacker/safety who was a brutal tackler. Only player in NFL history to be traded for nine (9) players. On top of being a great athlete, Ollie was also a wonderful human being. He played his football locally at Washington High School in San Francisco before moving on to USF, then the pros.
Kezarvet
yeah montana and rice need to be on top
but tom brady needs to be close to the tom too.
he has put up hall of fame numbers with mostly rift raft recievers most of his career.
having moss, welker and now galloway will help him alot if he stays healthy.
montana and brady actually have somewhat similar numbers.
montana:
games played: 192
QB rating: 92.3
comp : 63.2
att: 5391
comp: 3409
yds: 40,551
td: 273
int: 139
didnt play 2 years of his 16 year career
4 SB’s, 4 SB wins, 3 SB MVP’s
brady:
games played: 113
QB rating: 92.9
comp : 63.0
att: 3653
comp: 2301
yds: 26,446
td: 197
int: 86
hasnt played 2 years of his 9 year career
1 regular season MVP, 4 SB’s, 3 SB wins, 2 SB MVP’s (youngest to win the award beating out montana)
brady is the joe montna of this era and may be the best before his career is over. although no one can ever take away the great memories of joe and the great things he’s done
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
by remembering9ergods on Jul 8, 2009 8:45 AM PDT reply actions
The one thing 49er fans can say to put your theory on Brady being considered the best (besides the fact that you’re saying “IF” he plays at a high level for the rest of his career), is the fact that Montana NEVER LOST A SUPER BOWL!!!!
Montana and Brady’s stats and really, their game play are very similar.. not to mention their body size. Remember when Montana’s body started breaking down, his numbers started to go as well. Brady already has a year lost due to an ACL. It could already be the beginning of the end for him.
Please
Winning (and losing) Super Bowls is all on the QBs?
Also, an ACL injury to a QB is a lot different than a back injury. I’m not saying Brady will for sure continue where he left off, but I don’t think it’s that unlikely at all.
.....
It should affect him long term though
Brady wants to play till he’s 40, but his injuries are going to come back and kick him in the ass at that age
by SportsChicken on Jul 8, 2009 1:59 PM PDT via mobile up reply actions
I just don’t think an knee injury to a QB isn’t that detrimental. A smart QB with a good (and accurate) arm like Brady should be able to adjust to diminishing mobility and still be successful. Back injuries, on the other hand, ruin everything at any position.
lets be honest, he really wasnt that mobile to begin with so it shouldnt affect him to much
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
by remembering9ergods on Jul 8, 2009 4:07 PM PDT up reply actions
My argument for Montana over Brady
in the Super Bowl Montana threw 11 TDs and 0 INTs.
Brady has thrown 7 TDs to 1 INT, in the same amount of games.
Pretty sick stats for both QBs. Montana has the edge because he dominated opponents in the Super Bowl, and led one of the most historic game winning drives of his era. All of Brady’s performances have been solid (1001 yards, 95.1 rating), but Brady’s wins haven’t been as lopsided.
I understand QBs don’t account for the team winning, but in Montana’s case, it was a huge difference. He destroyed John Elway and Dan Marino in his super bowl showdowns, and that only adds exclamation points to his case. Yes Montana had great defenses, but so has Brady. Brady’s biggest super bowl victory is a margin of 3 points.
You can then debate that when Brady finally got some weapons, he bombed 50 TD passes, a NFL record, to match Moss’ record of 23 receiving TDs. A great season indeed. But let’s not overlook Montana’s 1987 season. Jerry Rice caught 22 TDs in 12 freakin’ games. Montana threw 31 in 13 games, 11 started. Brady’s season is unquestionably better, due to an undefeated record and the overall record shattering season it was, but overall I’d give the edge to Montana, because of Super Bowl dominance, and his incredible coolness when the game was on the line.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
by Andrew Davidson on Jul 8, 2009 4:28 PM PDT up reply actions
i can agree with that
brady is as cool as cool in the pocket too. he to would be 4 for 4 in SB’s and likely would have 3 SB MVP’s to after leading a scoring drive against the giants with .43 seconds left. the defense lost that game.
as i originally said montana is ahead of brady but he MAY pass him before he’s done. being a 49ers fan who grew up in new england i’ve had the best of both worlds.
im gonna be all up on you like a spider monkey!
by remembering9ergods on Jul 8, 2009 5:37 PM PDT up reply actions
With out any criteria to use as a measurement
Joe would get my vote for the reasons Dre noted… It is special enough to get the SB once but 4 times!!! and then win them all!! Joe is 4 for 4 and 3 MVPs at that… add to the mix the last drive heroics against Cincy for the W. .Dang… Talk about a clutch player..
All of the other names noted buy others above are very good and appropriate choices. Given a set of more objective criteria I would also put Jim Thorpe, RC Owens, Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emit Smith, Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkis, and our own Mike Singletary on the list.. I am sure others would add or detract from this list. but heck,,, that is what is cool about American Football. It has something for everyone.
Go Niners…
the defense lost that game.
they allowed 17 points. it was the offense that lost that game by sucking for the first 3 1/2 quarters, where they only managed to score once.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Brady vs Montana
Brady couldn’t get the job at the end of the superbowl on their last drive. Montana is more clutch is I think is more important than stats at the end of the day
Go 49ers
Clutchness is a very amorphous sort of subjective ideal, and I don’t know that it’s particularly possible to fairly measure Montana’s clutchness against Brady’s. Both of them have demonstrated a remarkable ability to repeatedly control difficult on-field situations.
And I’ve said many times that I don’t think Brady is on Montana’s level yet, but I think that crutching on the clutchiness factor is an easy way to escape having to look at them more critically by keeping the discussion on pretty indefinite ground.
And I don’t mean to sound like I’m directing that at you. There are plenty of comments in this post that it would have been appropriate as a response to – and some that it would have been more appropriate – but it had to go somewhere.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions
Why bother with the comparison?
Montana had several TOUCHDOWNS to win games. Brady mearly positioned the team to get a field goal. The one time Brady needed a TD to win he lost, enough said. IMO Jerry Rice is the Greatest PLAYER of all- time, Montana is the greatest QB of ALL-TIME!!
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 9, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions
Montana > Brady
montana was better because he could throw with perfect accuracy no matter what direction he was moving or how awkward of a position his body was in. brady is more dependant on his perfect mechanics than montana was, which leaves him more at the mercy of his offensive line.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
comparing apples and oranges
I think its really hard to compare the best football player ever because it’s so much different than other sports. But if I had to pick one then I’d have to go with Jerry on pure stats. He has blown so many records out of the water and who knows if Joe could have won all his superbowls without him (guess you could make the same argument about rice w/out montana/young)..No knock to Joe, but Jerry dominates everyone who has ever played his position so I give him the edge
by larryallenseawolf on Jul 8, 2009 8:49 AM PDT reply actions
Against his peers, by which I mean the history of wide receivers in the league, Jerry Rice blows every single other person who has every played the position so far out of the water that there is no room for discussion. He’s among the historical leaders in statistical categories that only running backs touch. His production across the board was incredible, and based on the stats right now, it’ll probably be at least 20 years before we even have a chance to see somebody possibly approach what he did.
I think there’s no question. You can look at Montana and then look at 10 other quarterbacks and say, “well…. mayyyybe these guys were actually better… and if they weren’t, they’re pretty close.” If you look at Rice and then look at the 10 other best receivers in history, the only thing you can possibly say is, “damn, those guys would have had to play at all star levels for at leats five more full seasons to even get close… I mean… damn.”
Rice for me, easy.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions
Either way, it's a 49er at the top.
When you look at football (and sports in general), it’s all about winning. For football, winning starts with leadership and bringing your team together, and that starts usually with your QB. When I start discussing the best QB debate, I take into account winning first… and when I say winning, I’m talking about the post season… and nobody comes close to Joe Montana’s stats. His presence on the field was uncanny. When he was in his prime, as a fan, you just knew he would get the job done. You knew he would somehow make the play.
I don’t know how you can really compare Rice to Montana. Both were the best at their positions. I think QB is the center piece of your team, and probably considered the most important, which is why Montana gets my vote.
I can’t complain with either one being chosen.
Rice was the best at his position in history by a very, very, very, very, very, very large margin.
If Montana was the best at his position in history, it was by a slim margin at best. I agree that quarterback is a more important position, but that doesn’t make receivers fundamentally worse football players. Rice gets my vote.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:24 PM PDT up reply actions
Wait
Wins are not a QB Stat.
Joe Montana didn’t throw an INT in the Super Bowl, and he played in four of them (winning just 3 MVPs, ho-hum). Wins aren’t a QB stat, but the awards and trophies Montana has are impressive. Joe is not only undefeated in the big game, but interception-less (11 TDs).
Greatest football player of all-time? A very difficult question. I don’t want to get into that, because it’s hard to come to a conclusion.
Here's to Joe Perry, all-time leading rusher for the 49ers.
I said it before and I'll say it again.
Rice. What he did was light-years beyond otherworldly. I’m a little surprised that it’s even close for so many people.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions
Athleticism
Jerry has my vote based on his desire to be the best and work as hard as possible to be the best even in the off-season. When other all-pro players were relaxing and licking their wounds he was out running countless miles a day. It can be said he would be nothing with out Montana/Young but I think he would have still been the #1 go-to receiver no matter who was throwing and caught the hard to catch/poorly thrown balls from qb’s like we have now. He should be thankful for the pair of HOFer’s he got to catch from, however.
Happy to provide the UK perspective
Firstly, to answer Fooch’s question, it’s the Daily Telegraph, or the Sunday Telegraph, but the Telegraph will do. Definitely not the UK Telegraph! They are the biggest website of the national newspapers in this country. The biggest sports site overall here is www.bbc.co.uk/sport, or www.bbc.com/sport as you would see it.
In terms of their selection, you have to look at the generation Montana played in, plus the position he played, and the combination of the two were always likely to lead to him once the Telegraph decided they needed someone from American Football. The NFL was huge in this country in the mid to late 1980s. Whole books have been written on the phenomenon of American Football taking over in popularity from our own football in that era, so I won’t go into the reasons here, but suffice to say that by the early Nineties, our own football was enjoying a resurgence which ultimately would trample not only American Football, but also virtually all other sports including our own cricket and rugby, etc.
American Football is now very much coming back again. I doubt it will ever touch football here – I doubt any sport will again, to be honest. But it’s enjoying a resurgence, based on the success of the two Wembley games, and a very healthy showing on Sky Sports.
That said, you couldn’t put Tom Brady into that list, or even Troy Aikman, because for the vast majority of their readers, those guys are a great big “Who?” But you can put Montana in there, because people know him here, just as they know Dan Marino, or John Elway. It’s a generational thing, and it’s also a positional thing – when people are more casual consumers of the NFL, they focus on the QB. Jerry Rice – sure, they know him, but Montana’s the guy, the leader, and the superstar. The more you get into the game, the more you understand the importance of all the positions, but for a lot of UK fans, they are going to look to the QBs, especially those fans who have drifted away since the 1980s glory days.
I would think that explains their pick. I think it’s a decent list, and not too British parochial thankfully! And for my part, I am doing what I can to revive those glory days and convince everyone that they need to rediscover their love of the sport. I actually think a Niners game at Wembley would be huge, given how loved the team is here because of the success that co-incided with the boom period for the NFL in the UK, but hey, that’s a whole other debate …
by LondonNiner on Jul 8, 2009 10:11 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
interesting stuff, thanks for sharing
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
Well put
As a Brit living in the bay area, I would have to agree 100% with LondonNiner. I think he hit it on the head.
As another ex-pat in the bay area
I’m going to disagree, just a little -
guardian.co.uk is probably the biggest website of a UK national newspaper (“biggest” being a hard term to pin down internets wise, but anyway) – it even has US section. which the Torygraph (satyrical name alert!) does not.
As for that list, why did they not just call it “the biggest names in their sport” – that would have been more accurate. For a start, there are only two women – what sort of list is that? Eight or nine of those I’d want to dispute, but this probably isn’t the time or place
Thanks scots_lad ...
… nice of you to say so. Bobnothing – fair enough, the Telegraph and the Guardian tend to swap that particular title from month to month as they are basically level-pegging most of the time in terms of traffic. Either way, they are the two top papers online, with the BBC and Sky Sports and others obviously having strong presences on the web.
I am massively envious of both of you as Brits living in the Bay Area. I wish I was, although as England batter the Aussies this morning in the Ashes, it doesn’t feel too bad to be in the UK!
Joe, Johnny, maybe Jim
The reason the game is played is to win the Super Bowl. All other stats are basically just fun to talk about. Joe—4-0 with 3 MVP’s, that about says is all. Some of the “old-timers” will give the nod to Johnny Unitas, as he called his own plays and managed the offense. They’ll say that Joe was just a perfect fit for an ingenious system, but didn’t have the skills that Unitas had. However, if you get beat by a one-year wonder (Joe Namath), who guaranteed a win in a championship game… One could also make a case for Jim Brown. He dominated his era. Every one on the defensive side knew he was going to get the ball and they still couldn’t stop him. Had he not retired early, we might be considered the greatest ever. But he did. As for Jerry: best receiver ever no question. I just cant put him at best player ever.
Why can't you put Jerry as best player ever?
He has the most records in the NFL that won’t ever get broken. In my opinion that, along with the super bowls, constitutes as the best player ever.
when will the Kenny Thomas Reign of Terror end?!!??
by diehardkingsfan5 on Jul 8, 2009 10:59 AM PDT via mobile up reply actions
It's a QB thing
To my way of thinking the QB is, more or less, the engine of the offense. Yes, Jerry has superior skill and all the achievements needed to be considered the best. Arguments in favor of him are strong and compelling. However, Joe, Johnny, and Jim controlled their respective offenses and dominated their era at the same time. (I know Jim Brown wasn’t a QB, but it’s hard to argue that he didn’t control the offense.) Jerry didn’t really control the offense as the others did.
by Under-the-gun on Jul 8, 2009 5:54 PM PDT up reply actions
But the question is best player, not most important position.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:26 PM PDT up reply actions
That’s true. I guess I kind of lump them together, sort of like MVP and best player. Are we voting for the best player or the one most valuable to his team? If you just look at an individual player, his stats, and nothing else, it doesn’t really show the entire picture. Jerry was one of the, if not the best, blocking receivers of all time—no stat for that. I’m just adding “importance” as one quality of a player that isn’t measured by numbers. I would also say that the better a player gets, the higher his importance becomes. Joe was one of the calmest under pressure and his teammates drew confidence from that. I’m not sure if Jerry could instill confidence at the same level. If you believe in the saying, “Great players make those around them better,” then surely Jerry made those around him better, just not to the same extent as Joe, Johnny, or Jim—in my opinion.
by Under-the-gun on Jul 9, 2009 9:54 AM PDT up reply actions
I get what you’re saying. Put that way, it’s all on how you determine the value of a football player. My criteria isn’t quite the same as yours, but I respect where you’re coming from.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
Oops!
Some of the "old-timers" will give the nod to Johnny Unitas, as he called his own plays and managed the offense. They’ll say that Joe was just a perfect fit for an ingenious system, but didn’t have the skills that Unitas had. However, if you get beat by a one-year wonder (Joe Namath), who guaranteed a win in a championship game…
Johnny Unitas didn’t lose to Namath . . . ever. Earl Morrall played QB for the Colts in that Super Bowl due to Unitas being injured. I saw Johnny U play several times in person and would rank him along with Montana and Otto Graham as the three best of all time to this point.
Kezarvet
In retrospect,
if I remember right, they brought Unitas in off the bench late in the game to try and catch up. He missed most if not all of the season due to an injury to his throwing arm and hadn’t played in a game at all for months. He didn’t start and only played a couple of series when they were already in deep doo doo.
Kezarvet
My Bad
I do remember seeing Johnny U. playing at or near the end of the game. I just assumed that he had been there the whole time. He was the type of player you’d have to strap down to keep out of a game. I should have done better research.
by Under-the-gun on Jul 8, 2009 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions
The reason the game is played is to win the Super Bowl. All other stats are basically just fun to talk about.
My opinion on this line of reasoning has always been that it is a veru clean and nice way to say that you’re not particularly interested in thinking very hard about football.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:28 PM PDT up reply actions
Quite the contrary
If playing the game wasn’t about winning the Super Bowl (or Championship) then why play? I have never heard any player of note say they were playing to come in 2nd or that their careers would be considered successes if they finish 8-8 every season. Joe, Johnny U. and Otto Graham, are usually often considered the best three quarterbacks of all time. Yet, none of them hold records for most yards or TD’s in the regular season. That you have to insult the writer personally to get your point across shows that you don’t have a meaningful or well thought out argument in regard to what he wrote. I guess you weren’t particualarly interested in making an intelligent rebuttal.
by Under-the-gun on Jul 9, 2009 9:30 AM PDT up reply actions
Quite the contrary
What I’m trying to do here is to encourage intelligent and critical discussion. I didn’t mean to come off as dismissive, though I understand that it’s hard not to sound like a jerk when you’re saying what I said. I was speaking not to the person who made the comment, but rather to the line of reasoning itself. He’s not the only person in this thread who said roughly that same thing, and it’s a very common stance that people take in this discussion. I personally don’t think that it gives the discussion or the players involved in the discussion any real credit.
I’m not trying to swing the discussion here all the way in another direction. I’m not taking a hard pro-stats line while ignoring any kind of Super Bowl success, but saying that Super Bowl victories are more or less the end-all here and that external context like statistics is just window dressing is reductive and lazy. By that logic, Terry Bradshaw is every single bit the quarterback that Joe Montana was. Barry Switzer was as good of a head coach as Bill Cowher. What… Michael Irvin was a better receiver than Jerry Rice? Ken Norton, Jr., has five rings, doesn’t he? He must be the best player in history.
Context is ALWAYS a good thing. Any line of reasoning that dismisses context isn’t trying very hard. That’s all I’m saying.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 5:48 PM PDT up reply actions
CORRECTIONS
Wow. I got a couple of things incredibly wrong there. Give me a minute while I figure out what players I was actually thinking of.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 5:58 PM PDT up reply actions
Oh, duh. When I was talking about Norton, I meant Haley. I got confused with the whole Niner/Cowboy thing.
And when I said Irvin, I was just being a dumbface. I wasn’t getting him confused with anybody. I was just being wrong. Although I could have said Lynn Swann, who does have four rings.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 6:06 PM PDT up reply actions
I'm pretty much with you
Joe doesn’t really beat out Steve Young in my mind. I’d put Rice and Brown easily above Montana. Although I wish Brown would have played longer but do to his abbreviated career it’s Rice in my book.
Don't sweat it. I'm illiterate.
by methodrampage on Jul 10, 2009 9:22 AM PDT up reply actions
Joe was the ultimate clutch player.
And that’s what separates him from Young or Brady or even Johnny Unitas. For those of us who watched both Joe and Steve, the difference was that whenever Joe was playing, no matter what the score or time remaining, you just knew Joe could, and likely would, rally the team and win. Young? Not so much – I don’t think he had the field vision Joe did. Only Unitas came close as a clutch player. Rice was, with little doubt, the greatest receiver ever, but he could not carry a game or the team the way Joe could (see Philly game in ‘87). And I’ve never seen a more completely dominant performance by a QB than Joe’s SuperBowl win over Elway’s Broncos in NO. That game settled the Montana/Elway question once and for all, just as the Montana/Marino question was settled in the 9er’s win over the Dolphins down at Stanford. Joe was the ultimate winner, the guy you just knew could do it all by himself. I vote for Joe as the greatest player of the modern game.
I said before that I'd say it again.
Rice.
I saw Rice singlehandedly carry quite a few games during his career. As long as he was playing, the team could score on any given play. They were never out of it with him on the field.
And I think there really has to be something said for longevity. Rice was still arguably one of the top receivers in the league when he was 40! 40!
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions 1 recs
Jerry Rice
Greatest football player of all time. Bar none. Joe is the best QB ever. Not alltime Football player.
Fans stuck in the 80's are lame. Respect the past, live in the now.
+me
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:33 PM PDT up reply actions
Defense?
How about all those B-A defensive players who dominated the field and led the team from the other side of the ball like our own “Samurai” back in ’85? Any votes for him?
Greatest football player of all time?
This is hard, because really we are looking for people with superior athletic ability but with the presence and smarts to dominate. Joe “The Comeback Kid” Montana was the games most instictual quarterback. He operated better under pressure than no pressure — his performance improved when he didn’t have time to think. Jerry Rice worked on that same wavelength, almsot like an artist — Jerry could create misses and opportunities for an extra yard on instinct. These two were wired differently than most of the rest of the league.
Other teams had highly athletic instictual players as well. For example, Dallas had a dangerous running back in Emmit Smith. Jim Brown was also phenomenal. Barry Sanders always impressed me.
i would give the nod to Jerry
because he’s the undisputed best at his position. the only other guy you can say that about is anthony munoz. i dare you to find another example.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
i took my own dare
and decided to include lawrence taylor.
just to clarify, i am counting ILB and OLB as separate positions, so i’m only saying best OLB, not necessarily best LB.
I take full responsibility for my irresponsibility.
Question! Question! Question !
Are you guys going to start the season know as the Santa Clara 49er’s or San Fran or have you guys just relocated but still are know as San Fran I really want to know and I knew that this was the best site for 9er talk. I hope we stay in Oakland
Amazing, Jamarcus Russell hands off to McFadden who pitches it back to Russell who finds Darrius Heyward Bey in the Middle of the Field wide open 30, 20,10,5 Touchdown Raiders! Amazing. This telecast is Brought to you by Cable.
team name
They’re not moving to Santa Clara for several years. When they move they’ll still be the San Francisco 49ers.
by David Fucillo on Jul 8, 2009 7:56 PM PDT up reply actions
no
I’m just simplifying it for the Raiders fan. Election next March.
by David Fucillo on Jul 9, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions
lol simplifying it for the Raiders fan
classic
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
They won’t ever be the anythings of San Fran.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 8, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions
Without Joe and Steve
Where would Jerry stand in the record books?
Rice
Well he held a bunch of college football records when he was drafted so the talent was definitely there.
by David Fucillo on Jul 9, 2009 9:41 AM PDT up reply actions
Without Jerry, Where would Joe and Steve stand??
That really isn’t a fair question. Where would Brady be without belichik? Where would Elway be without Shanahan and T Davis? Where would Eli Manning be without that front four?? Most players need players to compliment them, some get credit they don’t deserve (Brady record-breaking TD’s). I’m a Niner for life but my top three Best players of all-time would be…………
1. Rice
2. Barry Sanders
3. Joe Montana
by Real Deal P Will on Jul 9, 2009 9:44 AM PDT up reply actions
i like Barry Sanders
+1
and in his 4th season, VD broke through the wall, Niners fan rejoiced and all was well in the kingdom. Singletary 3:42
Consequently
One of my favorite Kenny Mayne skits on ESPN was the Barry Sanders one where he explained his retirement. According to the skit, Sanders phoned the coach to tell him he was tired and the coach misheard him and scheduled a press conference to announce the retirement. And by the time that happened, Sanders didn’t want to tell anybody that they were wrong, so he just went with it. Maybe its on youtube.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 6:08 PM PDT up reply actions
Nope. Can’t find it.
My Dave Righetti is better than your Dave Righetti.
by howtheyscored on Jul 9, 2009 6:11 PM PDT up reply actions
Proves the point
that Football is the ultimate team sport.
I am of the opinion that there is no way to quantify and declare who is the best individual player of the game of football.. This game is so much grater than any one person. .Yes there have been some that have distinguish themselves as worthy of honor in a certain situation, game, season, or team to the point that one could claim : DYNASTY
Nobody and I mean nobody can point to any one person and truthfully say that this person and this person ALONE is responsible for the success and triumph of a particular team for a season. but for or time period and to the point that with out that person and that person alone TOTAL success would be absolutely and unequivocally impossible
by WC-Ninerhead on Jul 10, 2009 8:45 PM PDT up reply actions
yes he's the best
joe montana is the greatest football player of all time…….the only other argument i can realistically accept is jerry rice. yeah thats right!………..GO NINERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"There is no pressure. Pressure only exists when you're not prepared."
-The Samurai
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Tiquan Underwood, cut on Super Bowl eve, is a Patriot again
- Woman at Giants Super Bowl parade can’t wait to see Mark Sanchez (video)
- Bradying is sweeping the nation (for the next 48 hours or so)
- Knowshon Moreno charged with DUI; has a license plate that reads ‘SAUCED’
- Giants fan who won $50,000 on Super Bowl safety will donate winnings to charity
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
