sfsuphysics
Active member
*COUGH*
Yikes!
You can't say that kind of thing in Montana country!
Seriously though, best ever? Namath said it? Christ me must have gotten one too many hits to the head.
OT: Roethlisberger better than Warner?
- Thread starter Dyngoe
- Start date
*COUGH*
Yikes!
You can't say that kind of thing in Montana country!
Seriously though, best ever? Namath said it? Christ me must have gotten one too many hits to the head.
Dyngoe
New member
All love for Joe Cool. Even as a Steelers fan, I had to sit in awe of what he did with the 49ers. And, at the end of the day I say it is (or will be) a toss up between:
Joe Montana
Jonny Unitas
Peyton Manning
Depending on who builds the list and what qualifications they have, these three should always be 1-3 on every list. Knowing I'm going to get some flack for saying Manning in the list, let's remember he just finished his 9th season and has at least three more to go.
Joe Montana
Jonny Unitas
Peyton Manning
Depending on who builds the list and what qualifications they have, these three should always be 1-3 on every list. Knowing I'm going to get some flack for saying Manning in the list, let's remember he just finished his 9th season and has at least three more to go.
Solitaryensis
New member
As a lifelong Montana supporter I will say that the team you play for has a huge impact on your success. Sure, great QBs makeado but I'm sure nearly every QB in the league (with the exception of Orton and sexy Rexy) would do very well if put on a good team in a good system. That being said, I grew up watching the Niners and no team will ever accomplish what they did (with Montana and Young) IMHO.
On another note, I think Manning has changed the game and well be hard pressed to see a QB with his IQ in a very long time. You would think others would try and emulate what he does but the fact that no one does/can says a great deal about the man
On another note, I think Manning has changed the game and well be hard pressed to see a QB with his IQ in a very long time. You would think others would try and emulate what he does but the fact that no one does/can says a great deal about the man
Dyngoe
New member
I also loved the Niners of that era but what is it that they have accomplished that no other team will?
5 Superbowl wins? Tied with Dallas and Steelers
4 Super Bowls in 9 years? Dallas had 3 in 4 and Steelers had 4 in 6.
And, if you expand the list you get the 70's Cowboys who won a LOT but only took home two rings or the 40's-50's Brown who smacked the crap out of everyone for six years. And, of course, we can't forget Lombardi's Packers of the 60's.
So, do I think SF was really good back then? ABSOLUTELY! But to say that they did something no one else could is just crazy.
Solitaryensis
New member
Ok maybe slight exaggeration 
. What I meant was how special the team was and what they did for the game. I think an argument could be made that they are one of a handful of teams that has helped the NFL survive when it's existence was in jeopardy. They also represnted some of the best things about team, focus, dedication and committment. It goes without saying that young really set a precadent with hissl style of play not to mention being a no namer bench warmer that went on to have the success he did
So....ok I exaggerated a bit. Sue me. I'm a niners fan. Oh and sorry for the typos. Been on the iPhone
. What I meant was how special the team was and what they did for the game. I think an argument could be made that they are one of a handful of teams that has helped the NFL survive when it's existence was in jeopardy. They also represnted some of the best things about team, focus, dedication and committment. It goes without saying that young really set a precadent with hissl style of play not to mention being a no namer bench warmer that went on to have the success he didSo....ok I exaggerated a bit. Sue me. I'm a niners fan
. Oh and sorry for the typos. Been on the iPhonesfsuphysics
Active member
Can't say I liked the 85 bears.. I mean the whole superbowl shuffle, McMahon... those were some of the most arrogant ****s out there! That being said Walter Payton? Oooh man talk about talent.
And yeah you can't compare dynasties, however I think in fairness you have to treat a franchise in that same dynasty era... for instance, 49ers, 5 superbowls, all within the same era, they had quite a few overlapping players etc, which is why I don't consider the Cowboys nor Steelers in the same league while they both had awesome teams, they had 5 superbowls as well but the players on the teams of those superbowls were generations apart. (Also this leaves an out should the Steelers win their 6th).
And yeah you can't compare dynasties, however I think in fairness you have to treat a franchise in that same dynasty era... for instance, 49ers, 5 superbowls, all within the same era, they had quite a few overlapping players etc, which is why I don't consider the Cowboys nor Steelers in the same league while they both had awesome teams, they had 5 superbowls as well but the players on the teams of those superbowls were generations apart. (Also this leaves an out should the Steelers win their 6th
).I dunno, when Joe went to KC when Young took over, he took them to the AFC championship IIRC. However that being said yeah the coaching and guidance he got while on the 49ers did make him the man he was.
Dyngoe
New member
OK, I'll admit there was a gap between the 5 Super Bowl wins for Dallas and Pittsburgh but you are WAY off on saying the Niners had the same team during that time. Here are the facts:
0 players were on all 5 teams
6 players were on 4 teams notably:
Jesse Sapolu
Joe Montana
Ronnie Lott
Bill Walsh â€"œCoach (duh!)
15 players were on 3 teams notably:
Brent Jones
Bubba Paris
Jerry Rice
John Taylor
Randy Cross
Roger Craig
Steve Young â€"œ Backup for 2
The rest were on 2 or less, including the coach for win #5.
So, I understand that the Niners have a strong base here and I’m not knocking their run for a while but they had little consistency in their teams. Compare this to the 21 players that were there for the first four Steelers wins.
fishme
Premium Member
I believe Coach Bill Walsh only in for 2. But anyway, this kind of debate will go forever, depends on who you are talking too. You have to take salary caps, free agent to an account. I hate free agents. I think it killed the Sports, and small market has no chance to win now. Players get paid million million of mula for sitting on a bench....and fans ended up paying more for tickets.
Dyngoe
New member
Hey Andy,
Yes, sports in general can be debated for ever if not properly defined/confined. For example, naming the best QB or best "dynasty" is increadibly hard if you don't define the conditions. For example, were the '72 Dolphins the best team ever? Or, as I think, were the '85 Bears the best. One was undefeated while one defeated their opponents like they were highschool teams.
The only point I was making is that the Niners of the 80's and 90's had no consistency to speak of. Not judging this fact at all. I still think they had one of the best runs ever. But, even if they were close in time together there was not one person who was on the first and fifth super bowl team. So, they may as well have been 10 years apart because they were 100% different from the coach down to the kicker.
Yes, sports in general can be debated for ever if not properly defined/confined. For example, naming the best QB or best "dynasty" is increadibly hard if you don't define the conditions. For example, were the '72 Dolphins the best team ever? Or, as I think, were the '85 Bears the best. One was undefeated while one defeated their opponents like they were highschool teams.
The only point I was making is that the Niners of the 80's and 90's had no consistency to speak of. Not judging this fact at all. I still think they had one of the best runs ever. But, even if they were close in time together there was not one person who was on the first and fifth super bowl team. So, they may as well have been 10 years apart because they were 100% different from the coach down to the kicker.
sfsuphysics
Active member
Matt I wasn't say they had the same team, but they had an overlap of players, meaning while yes many did retire, some did go on and new ones came in. Unlike Pitt & Dallas where you had the Terry Bradshaw era and the Ben's era, extreme difference in every single person, how the game is play, the rules of the game etc.
IMO dynasties are all fads now with everyone jumping teams like crazy, even the Patriots while yeah they're good with a strong base there's just too much free agency for me to care that much about any particular football team.
However I am not taking away from the 70's steelers as that was a team that got many people with multiple SB rings, I'm just saying there's at least some connection between the 90's 49ers and the 80s franchise even if it wasn't one player on all of them, as opposed to the 70's steelers at the "2000" steelers.
IMO dynasties are all fads now with everyone jumping teams like crazy, even the Patriots while yeah they're good with a strong base there's just too much free agency for me to care that much about any particular football team.
However I am not taking away from the 70's steelers as that was a team that got many people with multiple SB rings, I'm just saying there's at least some connection between the 90's 49ers and the 80s franchise even if it wasn't one player on all of them, as opposed to the 70's steelers at the "2000" steelers.
Solitaryensis
New member
Agreed. Lets get back on track. Whos "better," Ben or Warner. Tough to decide since Warners at the end of his carrer and its been somewhat of a tumultuous ride (winning superbowl, being benched, etc) but if i were building a team, I think i would rather build it around Ben. Hes been consistent his entire career and has shown a toughness rarely seen in most QBs. Sure, his biking stunt was stupid but it was an accident, unlike what players like pacman do.
orientalexpress
New member
kurt warner by far,i seen Big Ben play everyweekend i'm not impress at all.He's force too many plays where he's could just throw the ball away.Kurt got that timing play down to the science.You can't predicted the future based on the past.another 5 years Then u can come back and compare Big Ben.The Steelers offense didn't miss a beat without Big Ben During the season.they're replace him with That wash out Qb from jacksonville.:smokin:
lapsan
lapsan
orientalexpress
New member
here another way of looking at it.let said Big ben play for Arizona would Arizona had this much success?Would Warner had this much success the Steelers?
lapsan
lapsan
Dyngoe
New member
The answer is probably "no" for both. The way a QB "fits" in a team is a lot more than just statistical numbers. Take a look at Brees in SD and Brees in NO. How about Pennington in Mia vs NYJ?
So, what's the outcome of these forced throws? 1 more INT than Warner? 8% lower completions?
Huh? I don't think we're trying to "predict" anything just comparing what is happening now.
Let's see...Leftwich came in to four games in the fourth quarter when the Steelers were blowing away the other team and the one where your Eagles sacked Ben 8 times. He threw a total of 21 passes all year. Hard to say "they didn't miss a beat" when he was only in for a beat at a time.
And Leftwich is not washed up, he's had some bad luck with his angle in his career but he's a good QB and we're lucky to have him.BTW Lap, I'm not surprised an Eagles fan doesn't like Ben.
Now, I have a question for you...what if Warner had Nate Washington and Ben had Anquon Boldin? Now, who do you think would do better?
I'm leaning on Warner being better. League MVP, SB MVP. From 99-01 he was the best in the game. Lots of people already consider him borberline Hall of Famer.
That said, Big Ben is only 26 with a good chance for ring #2. He also get points for being tough. Over the last 3 years, he has had 139 sacks. Over the same period, Warner was sacked 46 times.
I also think Warner is more accurate and Rothlisthberger appears to be mentally tougher.
That said, Big Ben is only 26 with a good chance for ring #2. He also get points for being tough. Over the last 3 years, he has had 139 sacks. Over the same period, Warner was sacked 46 times.
I also think Warner is more accurate and Rothlisthberger appears to be mentally tougher.
Solitaryensis
New member
I'm willing to concede that both are different thus making it hard to make an accurate comparison. But then again, no two players are the same and if that were the case what would us football junkies talk about?
I think the better question is who you would rather have if you were starting a new team and needed a QB. Of course who the other players you have will make a big difference but again, my nod goes to Ben. I think Ben is much more capable of winning on any kind of team than Warner is. With Warner, he has to be I a team with great recievers and where he is passing a lot to stay in rhythm. With Ben, you've got a QB that can fit into nearly any system. I'll admit, he doesn't do any one thing well but he can do nearly everything pretty darn good. If I have an all passing/no defense Martz style team I'm going with Warner but under almost any other circumstance I'm going with Ben
I think the better question is who you would rather have if you were starting a new team and needed a QB. Of course who the other players you have will make a big difference but again, my nod goes to Ben. I think Ben is much more capable of winning on any kind of team than Warner is. With Warner, he has to be I a team with great recievers and where he is passing a lot to stay in rhythm. With Ben, you've got a QB that can fit into nearly any system. I'll admit, he doesn't do any one thing well but he can do nearly everything pretty darn good. If I have an all passing/no defense Martz style team I'm going with Warner but under almost any other circumstance I'm going with Ben