Scottemojo
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 14,663
- Reaction score
- 1
The whole Luck vs Wilson debate reminds me of this from when I was a lot younger.
Montana. Rings. Which is how the debate goes in retrospect. Unlike Luck and Wilson, the two entered the league a few years apart, but by 87 the question of which was better burned in NFL circles. Montana's time as a KC Chief only made the debate burn more.
But if you polled every GM in the late 80's, Montana had a far better team around him and damn near every GM would take Elway over Montana. And every DC would tell you Elway is the one who keeps you awake at nights. The prototype. But joe just kept putting up better numbers and winning more.
The similarites don't end there. The AFC was weak as dishwater in that time, just like now. The NFC was brutal, and just beginning a stretch of dominance that would last most of the 90's. Often lost in the talk of the 5 rings is just how awesome that defense of the Niners was.
Montana: 3rd rounder. His first ring, in 81, had as much to do with the Niners brand spanking new and awesome secondary as with Walsh's offensive short pass game. Keena Turner, Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright...The Niners only gave up more than 20 points 3 times the year the Niners won their first ring. Sound familiar?
A cursory look at the stats is also reminiscent of Luck Vs Wilson. Elway threw more interceptions. Even in that era of DBs allowed to do stuff they can't now, Montana took care of the ball. He almost always had better numbers, a WAY higher completion percentage, and for most of his career, he had far better running backs than Elway did. Elway defenders, or apologists if you prefer, had the same answer. Elway is asked to do more. Montana plays in that gimmick offense, his completion percentage is misleading, the Niners have better talent around him, etc etc etc. Size was part of the debate, Joe just wasn't durable compared to Elway. Both kicked ass at coming from behind to win.
For those of you that remember that far back, what was your choice of the two guys?
Montana. Rings. Which is how the debate goes in retrospect. Unlike Luck and Wilson, the two entered the league a few years apart, but by 87 the question of which was better burned in NFL circles. Montana's time as a KC Chief only made the debate burn more.
But if you polled every GM in the late 80's, Montana had a far better team around him and damn near every GM would take Elway over Montana. And every DC would tell you Elway is the one who keeps you awake at nights. The prototype. But joe just kept putting up better numbers and winning more.
The similarites don't end there. The AFC was weak as dishwater in that time, just like now. The NFC was brutal, and just beginning a stretch of dominance that would last most of the 90's. Often lost in the talk of the 5 rings is just how awesome that defense of the Niners was.
Montana: 3rd rounder. His first ring, in 81, had as much to do with the Niners brand spanking new and awesome secondary as with Walsh's offensive short pass game. Keena Turner, Ronnie Lott, Eric Wright...The Niners only gave up more than 20 points 3 times the year the Niners won their first ring. Sound familiar?
A cursory look at the stats is also reminiscent of Luck Vs Wilson. Elway threw more interceptions. Even in that era of DBs allowed to do stuff they can't now, Montana took care of the ball. He almost always had better numbers, a WAY higher completion percentage, and for most of his career, he had far better running backs than Elway did. Elway defenders, or apologists if you prefer, had the same answer. Elway is asked to do more. Montana plays in that gimmick offense, his completion percentage is misleading, the Niners have better talent around him, etc etc etc. Size was part of the debate, Joe just wasn't durable compared to Elway. Both kicked ass at coming from behind to win.
For those of you that remember that far back, what was your choice of the two guys?