Do you buy into the narrative of Joe Montana's "unblemished Super Bowl record" vs. Brady?

[Ring 6]

Tyler was faster, smaller and quicker to the hole.

A Smith was bigger and stronger.

I'd compare James Brooks to Tyler - not A Smith.

Both had pretty good careers.

Completely different runners.

The point is you think A Smith is a JAG and that is nuts.

A smith was a jag. He averaged over 4.0 one time in his career. He was the slowest Rb I have ever seen.
He would run to the defensive right off tackle and have the defensive left end tackle him for no gain. It happened a lot of times.

 

[Ring 6]

Tyler was faster, smaller and quicker to the hole.

A Smith was bigger and stronger.

I'd compare James Brooks to Tyler - not A Smith.

Both had pretty good careers.

Completely different runners.

The point is you think A Smith is a JAG and that is nuts.

And you are the one who compared the 2.
Tyler averaged 4.9, 4.9, 5.1 as a 49er.

Tyler in sf 5.0 per carry
Smith in NE 3.9

 

[RobertWeathers]

A smith was a jag. He averaged over 4.0 one time in his career. He was the slowest Rb I have ever seen.
He would run to the defensive right off tackle and have the defensive left end tackle him for no gain. It happened a lot of times.

He did it 3 times.

 

[primetime]

I don't agree. Winning is the single most important stat a Qb should be measured by. A QBs job is to lead his team, manage the game and make the plays that need to be made in order to win the game. The playoffs and Super Bowl system are a way of differentiating the Phillip Rivers from the Jim Kellys and Fran Tarkentons of the world from the Montanas, Bradys, Bradshaws, Starrs and Staubachs.

What if TB12 won 180 regular season games but went 7-23 and lost 6 Super Bowls.

Would you think of him any less?

No. But I also think Marino is unfairly maligned for his lack of rings, too. There's only so much a quarterback can do to win games. He doesn't play defense, he doesn't play special teams, he doesn't control the bounces of fumbles.

 

[Soul_Survivor88]

No. But I also think Marino is unfairly maligned for his lack of rings, too. There's only so much a quarterback can do to win games. He doesn't play defense, he doesn't play special teams, he doesn't control the bounces of fumbles.

What the hell happened to Marino? It doesn't feel right that someone of his pedigree would go an entire career never winning a Super bowl.

 

[RobertWeathers]

And you are the one who compared the 2.
Tyler averaged 4.9, 4.9, 5.1 as a 49er.

Tyler in sf 5.0 per carry
Smith in NE 3.9

YPC is no question important but so is durability.

Curtis Martin's YPC is less than Tylers. Who is better?

I did compare the two and said that they were different. Tyler was more elusive. Smith was more about power.

A RBs workload takes a toll. Some can handle it. Some cant.

Smith was much more of a workhorse as his workload indicates. Tyler would hit 200 carries and need the next year off.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Perhaps I'm missing something but I've never quite understood how Montana losing two games that Brady won is somehow a difference maker in Montana's favor.

"Hmmm - two great QBs, both have 4 Super Bowl rings - but which one has the edge? Hey - I know. Didn't Montana fail to make it to as many Super Bowls as Brady? Well, then clearly you have to give Montana the advantage!"

Exactly

Montana's six best playoff appearances: 4 SB wins, 2 conference championship losses
Brady's six best playoff appearances: 4 SB wins, 2 conference championship wins

Only a complete idiot could say the former is better.

(BTW, Montana only got to 6 conference championships win or lose. Brady has gotten to 10 conference championships.)

 

[Ring 6]

He did it 3 times.

Now you are disagreeing with facts? He averaged over 4.0 as a rookie and then never did again his entire career.

 

[RobertWeathers]

No. But I also think Marino is unfairly maligned for his lack of rings, too. There's only so much a quarterback can do to win games. He doesn't play defense, he doesn't play special teams, he doesn't control the bounces of fumbles.

What the hell happened to Marino? It doesn't feel right that someone of his pedigree would go an entire career never winning a Super bowl.

BB has said that there are some players that elevate their games when the lights are brightest. There are also players that then to lose their ability to discipline their games when the pressure is on.

TB12 said it best that 90% of his wins are due to him not making losing plays and the the other team screwing up.

I agree that a QB needs help to win games and a Super Bowl. If TB didn't have a good D making plays and a GOAT kicker he'd be down on the list. But what Tom did every time was not LOSE a game for his team by making dumb throws, trying to do too much at critical points in the big games and make the plays that need to be made when they need to be made. Joe Cool is the same way. Same with Aikman, Starr, Bradshaw,, etc..

As far as Dan goes, Marino is a great QB but IMO is in the same bucket as Jim Kelly, Fran Tarkenton, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Rich Gannon and those guys who won during the regular season but when the big time playoff pressure was on them they lost discipline in their games, tried to do too much or made a "negative" play when their team could not afford one.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Now you are disagreeing with facts? He averaged over 4.0 as a rookie and then never did again his entire career.

1997 4.3
2001 4.0
2005- 4.0

 

[Ring 6]

YPC is no question important but so is durability.

Curtis Martin's YPC is less than Tylers. Who is better?

I did compare the two and said that they were different. Tyler was more elusive. Smith was more about power.

A RBs workload takes a toll. Some can handle it. Some cant.

Smith was much more of a workhorse as his workload indicates. Tyler would hit 200 carries and need the next year off.

Tyler in 84, the year you said you would take smith over him carried 246 times for 1262, 5.1 per carry

Smith in 01 was 287/1157/4.0
Then in 02 252/982 3.9
Then in 03 182/642 3.5

So your argument is that the extra 41 carries in 2001 took such a toll on Smith that he lost 105 yards on them, and was actually better than Tyler?
In 2002 the extra 6 carries took such a toll that he lost 280 yards on them and was better?
Not sure how you explain 03.

Oh and by the way, contrary to your believe, Tyler didn't have to take the next year off he came back and ran for another 5.1 per carry.

You also should be aware that 1984 Tyler put those numbers up in an offense where his FB ran 155 times as well.

 

[Ring 6]

1997 4.3
2001 4.0
2005- 4.0

only one of those numbers is over 4.0

 

[RobertWeathers]

only one of those numbers is over 4.0

Sigh....

 

[Ring 6]

Sigh....

You have to realize at this point that you got this one way wrong. I appreciate your affection for Smith because he was part of a championship (and a smaller part of a second one) but he absolutely was a JAG and nowhere in the class of Wendell Tyler, not to mention Roger freaking Craig.

 

[aluminum seats]

Montana is the Greatest SB QB and Brady is the Greatest Career QB. INSIDE of those 240 minutes of SB by Montana and the 360 minutes of SB by Brady - - Montana's performance is better.

The totality of their entire careers? Brady is better and Montana is not even close.

This pretty much sums up the entire debate, and I don't think anyone who's reasonable would disagree with either position.

And as you said elsewhere, the stuff with Montana and SB is really just parsing debating points.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Tyler in 84, the year you said you would take smith over him carried 246 times for 1262, 5.1 per carry

Tyler was hurt in 85 and 86.

Smith in 01 was 287/1157/4.0
Then in 02 252/982 3.9
Then in 03 182/642 3.5

So your argument is that the extra 41 carries in 2001 took such a toll on Smith that he lost 105 yards on them, and was actually better than Tyler?

In 2002 the extra 6 carries took such a toll that he lost 280 yards on them and was better?
Not sure how you explain 03.

I never said Smith took a toll between 01 and 02. You did.

Smith averaged .1 yards less per carry in 02 and had less carries because TB12 threw it almost 200 more times in 02 than 01. Otherwise he was the same runner.

Smith had a hamstring injury in 03. He came back healthy down the stretch and kicked ass in the playoffs.

Oh and by the way, contrary to your believe, Tyler didn't have to take the next year off he came back and ran for another 5.1 per carry.

You also should be aware that 1984 Tyler put those numbers up in an offense where his FB ran 155 times as well.

Well aware thanks

The FB was Roger Craig who was a superior player to Tyler who was getting long in the tooth.
He started to develop knee and hip issues. Plus he was fumbling more which gave Walsh an excuse to let Roger Craig get more snaps in the passing game

Just to be clear here, I never said I thought Tyler was a bad football player.

You said Smith was one and you are flat-out wrong and always will be.

 

[RobertWeathers]

You have to realize at this point that you got this one way wrong. I appreciate your affection for Smith because he was part of a championship (and a smaller part of a second one) but he absolutely was a JAG and nowhere in the class of Wendell Tyler, not to mention Roger freaking Craig.

I made an honest mistake and misread your question.

At any rate, averaging 4.0 ypc is pretty good over 100, 200 or 300 carries. Averaging 3.9 is good for the same workload. Big freaking deal if it isnt over 4.0. C'mon now...

We can agree Tyler was quicker to the hole and more explosive. That does not mean he was a vastly superior running back. He flat-out had durability issues at USC, the Rams and with the 49ers (but he was getting older so that is ok)

 

[Ring 6]

Tyler was hurt in 85 and 86.

Smith in 01 was 287/1157/4.0
Then in 02 252/982 3.9
Then in 03 182/642 3.5

So your argument is that the extra 41 carries in 2001 took such a toll on Smith that he lost 105 yards on them, and was actually better than Tyler?

In 2002 the extra 6 carries took such a toll that he lost 280 yards on them and was better?
Not sure how you explain 03.

I never said Smith took a toll between 01 and 02. You did.[/quote]
Of course you did. You said Smith was a workhorse and all those carries took a toll on him so his ypc was lower ever though somehow he was better.

Smith averaged .1 yards less per carry in 02 and had less carries because TB12 threw it almost 200 more times in 02 than 01. Otherwise he was the same runner.

If you watched the games you would not say that.

Smith had a hamstring injury in 03. He came back healthy down the stretch and kicked ass in the playoffs.



Well aware thanks

The FB was Roger Craig who was a superior player to Tyler who was getting long in the tooth.
He started to develop knee and hip issues. Plus he was fumbling more which gave Walsh an excuse to let Roger Craig loose.

Just to be clear here, I never said I thought Tyler was a bad football player.

You said Smith was one and you are flat-out wrong and always will be.

I didn't say Smith was bad, I said he was what he was a JAG.
You are comparing him to a guy who ran for 1260 yards at 5.1 a carry and a near Hall of Famer.
You are out of your mind.

 

[Ring 6]

I made an honest mistake and misread your question.

At any rate, averaging 4.0 ypc is pretty good over 100, 200 or 300 carries. Averaging 3.9 is good for the same workload. Big freaking deal if it isnt over 4.0. C'mon now...

We can agree Tyler was quicker to the hole and more explosive. That does not mean he was a vastly superior running back. He flat-out had durability issues at USC, the Rams and with the 49ers (but he was getting older so that is ok)

No 4.0 is not good. It is mediocre. 3.9 is worse.

But here you go. I used 200 or more carries in a season since 2001.
343 runners have carried the ball 200 or more times in a season
220 of them averaged 4.1 or better.
only 76 averaged under 3.9

So your idea of 'good' is being worse that 64% of the players, or even better than just 23%?
We have a different idea of good.



You said Smith was better than 1984 Tyler. What does USC and the Rams and how soon after that his career ended have to do with that?
We are talking about who was a better RB, not who accumulated statistics.
Was Antowain Smith better than Gale Sayers?

 

[Ring 6]

I made an honest mistake and misread your question.

At any rate, averaging 4.0 ypc is pretty good over 100, 200 or 300 carries. Averaging 3.9 is good for the same workload. Big freaking deal if it isnt over 4.0. C'mon now...

We can agree Tyler was quicker to the hole and more explosive. That does not mean he was a vastly superior running back. He flat-out had durability issues at USC, the Rams and with the 49ers (but he was getting older so that is ok)

246 carries for 1262 yards and a 5.1 ypc is better than anything Antowain Smith ever did.
There is no debate.
1984 Wendell Tyler was far, far, far better than any version of Antowain Smith.
That was the statement that we are discussing, not health, college careers or anything of the sort.