Why I think Montana was overrated

[ABQCOWBOY]

My point is not that Montana was not a great QB, he was. I think he benefited by the system that Walsh put in place more than any others on the QB game list benefited from their systems. The early west coast offense was difficult to defend because nobody else ran it and nobody else could duplicate it to practice against.

The only defense that had any consistent sucess against Walsh was the Giants and that was simply LT changing what they did.

SF didn't miss a beat w/ Young. Walsh was Fouts and Anderson qb coach. The year he became their coach their stats improved dramatically. Same thing in SF and Stanford.

No way Denver goes to any of those superbowls with Montana instead of Elway.

Football is the ultimate team game. No quarterback would be on that list if they didn't have decent players around them. You can't complete passes on your back. The west coast offense was an extension of the running game and most of the time passes were gone before a rush could whiff Montana. Some of those qbs put teams on their back, I think Walsh had more to do with his success than any other qb on the list.

Graham was a product of Brown's system to a certain extent also. They were doing things that no other team did which gave them a huge advantage for a time.

Great QB, not a top ten all time IMO. I would bet if teams started from scratch today and could pick any qb in their prime to lead them Montana would not be a top 10 pick.

The WCO and Paul Brown's offense are the same offense. Paul Brown taught that offense to Walsh when he was in Cincinnati. It was later renamed the WCO after Walsh departed for San Francisco.

Montana's greatness was evident even at ND. Walsh had nothing to do with that but Montana still showed greatness. I think it's a mistake to say that Walsh lead to Montana's greatness more so then any other QB/HC relationship.

Lastly, I guess I would again point out that Walsh was only in San Diego for a year. The 1976 season. Walsh had very, very little influence on Dan Foutes and his development. Foutes came into the league in 1973. In 1978, Don Coryell joined the Bolts and that's when things really changed. The Chargers joined the NFL in 1970 (merger). Up to 1979, the best that franchise had ever done was a 3rd place finish. When Coryell took over, the Chargers enjoyed the 1st real success they'ed ever had, going to the playoffs 4 straight years between 79 and 82. From 78 to 86, the time that Coryell was in San Diego, were the 9 most productive seasons of Fouts' career. In short, Coryell was the primary reason for Fouts' success. Not Walsh.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Great QB, not a top ten all time IMO.

So, what size straightjacket do you wear?

 

[jackrussell]

So, what size straightjacket do you wear?

You can't type wearing a straightjacket silly.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Dude what game were you watching when Montana, played for the Niners.

Montana, in my opinion is rated #1, on my list of great QBs the guy just killed defenses with his deadly accuracy with the ball, and killed defenses in other ways many other QBs, couldn't.

Nobody ran the WCO, like Montana did he made the WCO, yes Walsh, (rest his soul) was a pioneer in creating the offense but he wasn't on the field playing the offense.

There were many other QBs, that ran the WCO, some were pretty good but they were not Montana.

The timing offense created by Don Coryell, with the Chargers led by Fouts, I never saw Fouts play, but I did read stuff about how good he was running the offense but he never won a SB.

To me not being a homer here but no QB, ran the Coryell attack better than Aikman, yeah he didn't have the stats Fouts, had in the same offense but he won three SBs, running that offense.

So no one can overrated Montana 4 SB victories, Bradshaw 4 SB victories, Aikman 3 SB victories, and Brady 3 SB victories.

I don't care who they had around them those WRs, couldn't throw the ball to themselves, and the RBs, couldn't hand the ball to themselves all the QBs, mentioned were just as important to their teams winning championships.

While I think Aikman was the overall better QB, Fouts was the better passer within that system.

I don't think people were scared to death of the Cowboy's passing game. Defensive coordinators weren't worrying about stopping the Cowboy's air attack, like they did the San Diego passing offense. My God that offense in San Diego was a thing of beauty.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

I believe that Montana was helped by Walsh and the system more than any other quarterback except for maybe Graham. If you look back at the QB's that Walsh had: Kenny Anderson, Fouts, DeBerg, Garcia, Montana, Young, Dils at Stanford etc......... All of them had one thing in common. They all dramatically increased their accuracy and yards under Walsh. They all ran an offense that was new, thus harder to defend.

"Walsh made me," Anderson said

"Bill Walsh made all the difference in the world," said Fouts, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with Walsh, in 1993.

"I learned more in two years from Bill about being a quarterback than I did in the rest of my 10 years in the NFL," said Dils, who now works in Atlanta for Grubb & Ellis, a commercial real estate advisory firm. "He taught me so much about the game."


In a March 2007 article in Sports Illustrated, columnist Michael Silver described Walsh as the "most influential football man of his era" and a "transcendent ringmaster." "With his meticulously crafted organization and cerebral practice regimens, to his daring personnel decisions and his visionary offensive schemes, he created an enduring model," Silver wrote. "Today, the West Coast, with its reliance on short passes, precisely timed routes and intricately planned progressions, is the NFL's preeminent scheme. But in the early 1980s it merely drove opposing coaches nuts."

Walsh's impact on the coaching industry is apparent by the rise of former assistants, players and people who have come under his influence, including Dennis Green, Mike Holmgren, Mike Shanahan, Ray Rhodes, Jeff Fisher, Sam Wyche, Rod Dowhower, Bruce Coslet, Sherman Lewis, Brian Billick, Gary Kubiak, George Seifert, Jon Gruden, Paul Hackett, Tom Holmoe, Dwaine Board, Bobb McKittrick, Bill McPherson, Steve Mariucci, Tom Rathman, Jim Mora, Greg Knapp, Harry Sydney and Tom Lovat.

Montana would not have been anywhere as good with most of the teams that the other listed quarterbacks played with IMO.

I, in a heartbeat, would've traded Danny White or any other QB with the exception of Staubach for the "overrated" Montana anytime!

 

[Billy Bullocks]

Ya, 4 rings and 0 picks in the SB...not to mention some CLUTCH drives to win those SBs.

Montana is definately not overrated.

 

[mmillman]

Using all your logic would you say Bill Russell was the best basketball player ever? I think it is Jordan but if your criteria is titles then it has to be Russell.

If the only criteria is superbowl wins for being the best what about Rice being the best? He won without Montana. Young had better seasons in SF than Montana did. He stunk in Tampa was MVP in SF. If Rice was the best then I imagine it had to help Montana right?

You can't honestly believe that Montana could have played on those Bronco teams and led them to the Superbowl. Elway took not very talented teams and willed them to win. He finally got a ring when he had some talent around him but it wasn't close to the talent around Montana. Somebody mentioned TD in Denver. Denver has a very runner friendly offense. You put average running backs in that system and they become All-pros. The system and the players around you matter. Walsh was an offensive genius that built many qb's and has a coaching tree that you wouldn't believe.

Aikman wouldn't have been as productive without Smith and Irvin. Smith wouldn't have been as productive without the great OL in front of him and Aikman keeping defenses honest.

"Bill Walsh made all the difference in the world," said Fouts, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with Walsh, in 1993.

 

[mmillman]

A part of me would love to agree with you, given that Montana-to-Clark was the single biggest dagger my 8th-grade heart ever felt.

Nevertheless...are you insane? I can see your point--every QB, in order to be successful, needs to end up in a system that best fits his skills. Using your reasoning, virtually any good QB can be labeled overrated. Hundreds of QBs have played in Walsh's system, and others derived from it, over the years--and none of them played it like Montana did.

Young was just as good if not better in the same system. It took some time before defenses caught up to the WCO.

Aikman would have been awesome in that system. It is a system that relies on quick decisions and accuracy something that Montana was great doing but IMO Aikman was the most accurate passer I have ever seen.

 

[mmillman]

It is a fun debate and there is no way I can prove I am right. At the same time you can't prove I am wrong.

 

[jackrussell]

It is a fun debate and there is no way I can prove I am right. At the same time you can't prove I am wrong.

We can't.

But Joe did.

 

[DaBoys4Life]

Yeah...I guess Troy can thank Norv for the timing system.

Marino can thank whomever for the 'no running game' system.

Moon can thank Gilbride? for the run & shoot. (thanks also to Buddy Ryan: )

Emmitt can give thanks for the 'big offensive line' system.

Lawerance Taylor can give thanks for the 'do whatever you want' system.

When you get down to it...these HOFers just really suck.

http://i192.***BLOCKED***/albums/z62/MonkeyDMalcolm/rofflecopter-15935.jpg
​

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Using all your logic would you say Bill Russell was the best basketball player ever? I think it is Jordan but if your criteria is titles then it has to be Russell.

I agree, it's Jordan. But then I never saw Russell play so I can't give an accurate thought on how great he really was.

If the only criteria is superbowl wins for being the best what about Rice being the best? He won without Montana. Young had better seasons in SF than Montana did. He stunk in Tampa was MVP in SF. If Rice was the best then I imagine it had to help Montana right?

Where on this forum did anyone say the ONLY criteria was Superbowls? Hmmm? I simply pointed out that not only did he win 4, and brought his time from behind to win 2 of those in the final 3 minutes of the game, but that he was perfection on the grandest stage. In the biggest game of the season he played better than ANYONE ever played.

If it was just about the fact that he got the rings then I could be putting Bradshaw into this conversation, and obviously I'm not.

Steve Young was very good but he wasn't Montana. They were no where near as good a championship team, that being great when it mattered most, with Young like they were with Montana. Rice no doubt helped Young, and Montana, cause he was the best WR I've ever seen play. But, once more, realize that Joe won his first 2 rings WITHOUT Jerry Rice. He won with a WR tandem that included Clark and some Joe Blow that none of us, outside of Niners fans, probably even remember. And the only reason anyone remembers Clark is cause of the catch. A good WR, no doubt, but certainly not someone you go to and say "Yeah that guy was so great he made QB's great".

You can't honestly believe that Montana could have played on those Bronco teams and led them to the Superbowl. Elway took not very talented teams and willed them to win. He finally got a ring when he had some talent around him but it wasn't close to the talent around Montana. Somebody mentioned TD in Denver. Denver has a very runner friendly offense. You put average running backs in that system and they become All-pros. The system and the players around you matter. Walsh was an offensive genius that built many qb's and has a coaching tree that you wouldn't believe.

I can, and I do, believe that Montana could have, and would have, lead those Denver teams to victory cause I do believe he was a better QB than Elway. I'll even go one step further and say that if those teams had Joe, rather than Elway, then they wouldn't have had a 2-4 Superbowl record. It would have been better. But that is just my opinion. And don't get me wrong I love John Elway. I thought he was great. But Joe was greatness. Look no further than his final two seasons, past his prime, when he took Kansas City teams that were not very talented to the playoffs, and one of those seasons all the way to the AFC Championship game before the only team in the AFC who went to Superbowls during that time span, the Buffalo Bills, knocked them off.

Not to mention there was that wonderful duel between him and Elway in Mile High, while Joe was a Chief, on Monday Night football where Joe led the Chiefs to a come from behind victory over the Broncos.

Magic.

Aikman wouldn't have been as productive without Smith and Irvin. Smith wouldn't have been as productive without the great OL in front of him and Aikman keeping defenses honest.

"Bill Walsh made all the difference in the world," said Fouts, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with Walsh, in 1993.

And again no one is saying that good coaching doesn't help. But for you to try and make it out like it had more to do with the coaching is just silly. If you don't have the talent, the brains, and the ability to run that brilliant offense that Walsh instaled then what you've got is a great offense that looks like crap cause the QB you have can't run it. Montana didn't just run it, he owned it.

 

[Yeagermeister]

Montana no Young yes

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You can't type wearing a straightjacket silly.

I'm thinking the friendly person who pushes his food under the door is taking dictation.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Using all your logic would you say Bill Russell was the best basketball player ever? I think it is Jordan but if your criteria is titles then it has to be Russell.

If the only criteria is superbowl wins for being the best what about Rice being the best? He won without Montana. Young had better seasons in SF than Montana did. He stunk in Tampa was MVP in SF. If Rice was the best then I imagine it had to help Montana right?

You can't honestly believe that Montana could have played on those Bronco teams and led them to the Superbowl. Elway took not very talented teams and willed them to win. He finally got a ring when he had some talent around him but it wasn't close to the talent around Montana. Somebody mentioned TD in Denver. Denver has a very runner friendly offense. You put average running backs in that system and they become All-pros. The system and the players around you matter. Walsh was an offensive genius that built many qb's and has a coaching tree that you wouldn't believe.

Aikman wouldn't have been as productive without Smith and Irvin. Smith wouldn't have been as productive without the great OL in front of him and Aikman keeping defenses honest.

"Bill Walsh made all the difference in the world," said Fouts, who was inducted into the Hall of Fame, along with Walsh, in 1993.

Bill Russell, was better then Jordan IMO. This coming from a Carolina fan. I think Jabbar was the best basketball player ever. JMO of course.

Walsh was a guy who took what Paul Brown created and basically used it at San Francisco. You can call him a genious if you wish but honestly, the offense he used IS PAUL BROWN'S OHIO OFFENSE! This is a big reason why there was bad blood between Paul Brown and Bill Walsh.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Young was just as good if not better in the same system. It took some time before defenses caught up to the WCO.

Aikman would have been awesome in that system. It is a system that relies on quick decisions and accuracy something that Montana was great doing but IMO Aikman was the most accurate passer I have ever seen.

Aikman would not have been great in that system. To be a good WCO QB, you need to be able to throw well on the run. Aikman was just OK at this. He was not great at it. He doesn't fit the WCO well. He could have played in it but I don't think he could have been great at it. That is my opinion.

 

[jackrussell]

I'm thinking the friendly person who pushes his food under the door is taking dictation.

Maybe....

 

[Doomsday101]

If Joe is over rated then there are many great QB's who are just as over rated.

 

[lonestar6]

Young was just as good if not better in the same system. It took some time before defenses caught up to the WCO.

Yes, and I'm surprised to see how many people on this board think Young was overrated. Just from my memory of watching him play a lot, I thought he was an awesome quarterback (tough, mad scrambling skills, accurate, and creative), and when the Cowboys were winning those championships in the early 90s he was the single player I was most afraid of to face in the league. To me, that the Cowboys defense shut him down 2 out of 3 times says more about the Cowboys team than any failings on Young's part, and if it weren't for the Cowboys he'd be sitting with 3 rings instead of 1.

And even when the 49ers as a team were in decline in the late 90s, I always thought he was the single reason they remained ultra-competitive and even Superbowl contenders, while you couldn't say the same thing about the Cowboys even as they experienced the same decline. And looked what happened to that team after he retired.

So no to Montana and Young being overrated. I guess I'd have to rate Montana over Young because of 4 rings to 1, but in my mind those 2 were pretty close. And this coming from a person that liked Montana and hated Young.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Young was very good but I've ALWAYS been thrilled that it was Young in those NFC Title games and not Montana. I have no shame in admitting that I really do believe that our 3-1 advantage in Superbowl wins, in that era, might not be in our favor if it were Montana instead of Young playing.