gannable wrote:hopeless
youi're just caught up in the latest must be the greatest
Anyone who watched Montana and Manning play knows Montana is the better QB.
Put it this way - its the 4th quarter in a big game, who do want at QB? the guy who typically comes up small or Joe Montana? easy answer
and the 1981 49ers were not the most talented team. Dallas had the best team but Montana engineered a game winning drive.
And the competition was so much better during the 80's.
The product today is completely watered down. There are no great teams anymore. So yes the NFL was much better back then.
You think watching a video game is exciting. I find it boring.
I'm much more impressed in a QB being great during an era when the rules arent completely geared towards putting up big statistics/ If you compare some average QB's statsd playing today to a great QB like Roger Staubach you'd say Staubach sucks. You can't compare QB's from different eras based on stats
For that matter, Roger Staubach was a greater QB than Manning or Brady. Staubach was called captain comeback, whereas the other two are captain chokes.
Fourth quarter of a big game, I want John Elway, mostly for mobility purposes. Anyway, is that how we're measuring quarterback greatness? First you measured it by Super Bowls and now we're talking about who we'd take in the fourth quarter. This is largely a subjective discussion, but c'mon. Let's at least use the entirety of the quarterback's body of work; not just whether it's more likely he would lead a fourth quarter comeback.
By the way, good for Montana that he engineered a game winning drive against a better team. I literally provided you with a video of Peyton doing the same thing against a much better defense.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that I like 52-7 games. I enjoyed last night's game because of the defensive play of the Seahawks (mostly the defensive line, which got pressure with four, allowing seven to drop in coverage and hit the receivers). The best game I saw this year was the Eagles-Lions snow game, which was hardly played in videogame conditions. Further, I grew up on 1980s Eagles defense so I'm biased in that regard. I am generally okay with the new rules regarding defensive backs (helmet-to-helmet and defenseless receiver hits). I'm not okay with the quarterback protection, but that's largely a decision-by-decision issue (in other words, I'm okay with the rules; I'm not okay with how they are enforced on a case-by-case basis). But this idea you have that I must like videogame football because I think Manning is the best quarterback ever is ridiculous. The man is 37 years old and he's been playing since the 1990s before all of these offense-favoring rules came into effect.
I'm also not convinced you watch football right now or at least you don't watch it as closely as I do. I'm still wondering how you get from "defenders can't spear or hit a guy helmet-to-helmet" to "defenses are hamstrung." We saw it last night. You accuse me of liking whatever is new and exciting. You're stuck in the past. It's a common thing, but it's okay. We can get you over that hump. You just need some patience and you need to watch more modern football!