View Full Version : Joe Montana vs. Dan Marino
C. Snake
05-25-2007, 05:56 PM
I've always found this one to be pretty close. Who do you find to be better: Montana or Marino?
Seattle1
05-27-2007, 05:36 AM
I voted for Montana since he's got the rings. He really knew how to get the "W."
Giants/Jets Legend
05-30-2007, 12:31 AM
Tough choice but Montana's got the rings and Marino doesn't. To be fair though, Montana played on better teams than Marino.
redlegsfan21
05-30-2007, 08:03 PM
I voted Marino just because the guy deserves some love. It was really close though.
gridiron
06-05-2007, 11:33 AM
Have to go with Montana, not only did he get the rings, he earned them. For instance, with the last minute drive to win of the SBs--I forget which one.
Giants/Jets Legend
06-09-2007, 08:15 PM
Have to go with Montana, not only did he get the rings, he earned them. For instance, with the last minute drive to win of the SBs--I forget which one.
Yeh those were awesome. Especially that pass he made to Jerry Rice in the endzone. I forgot which one that was in.
Have to go with Montana, not only did he get the rings, he earned them. For instance, with the last minute drive to win of the SBs--I forget which one.
Super Bowl 22, over Cincinnati. John Taylor who caught the winning TD in that one.
For Rice, take your pick, he scored 3 in the next one, and I think one in 22.
ATLFalcons
06-10-2007, 10:32 AM
Joe Montana over Dan Marino. The rings solve this.
brady_branch
06-10-2007, 11:24 AM
Football (and, to a lesser extent, basketball) is really the only major sport where championships count for something in determining individual greatness. Because of that, I go with Montana.
I voted Marino just because the guy deserves some love. It was really close though.
I wasn't there when Montana got inducted, but when Dan Marino was inducted into the HOF, all you could see were Marino Dolphin, Panther and HS jerseys. He gets a lot of love. I would have been embarrased to be a Steve Young fan that day.
cbenson5
06-11-2007, 10:25 PM
I'm not sure which player I feel is superior in this comparison, but it seems that most people seem to favor Montana. However, the prevailing reason that people seem to be choosing Montana is that he has four rings. I don't think this is a fair way to compare these two players. If they switched teams, would Montana still have four rings and Marino none? I could be swayed either way, but the rings argument does not do it for me.
Charles
I'm not sure which player I feel is superior in this comparison, but it seems that most people seem to favor Montana. However, the prevailing reason that people seem to be choosing Montana is that he has four rings. I don't think this is a fair way to compare these two players. If they switched teams, would Montana still have four rings and Marino none? I could be swayed either way, but the rings argument does not do it for me.
Charles
Quarterbacks get a lot of credit when teams turn around. The Niners were horrible before Montana got there, and in a short time they were a top team. The Chiefs also excelled when Montana was healthy. Marino did take over a team that had made it to the super bowl the previous year. He did lead the team to the playoffs, but they had their ups and downs.
gridiron
06-19-2007, 09:52 AM
SF also stayed on top after Montana left, while Montana didn't push KC over the top.
Brooklyn
06-19-2007, 10:13 AM
Football (and, to a lesser extent, basketball) is really the only major sport where championships count for something in determining individual greatness. Because of that, I go with Montana.
I agree, but switched. I think basketball, more than any other sport, require championships to help define individual greatness. With only five payers on the court, a superstar can really make a difference, and if he is to be considered truly great needs to have led his team to a championship at some point.
I also agree in football, but only for the QB position. an individual player can't do enough to turn around a hockey or baseball team, although a goalie in hockey can carry a team through a Stanley Cup run. an occassional pitcher can carry a team in baseball to a world series (see Matthewson 1905, Koufax 1965 or Hershiser 1988), but that is not required for greatness.
SF also stayed on top after Montana left, while Montana didn't push KC over the top.
When you replace a HOF'er with a HOF'er that happens. Montana certainly shouldn't get discredited for that. And, not pushing KC over the top makes him even with Marino there, doesn't it?
Giants/Jets Legend
06-23-2007, 12:07 PM
Super Bowl 22, over Cincinnati. John Taylor who caught the winning TD in that one.
For Rice, take your pick, he scored 3 in the next one, and I think one in 22.
The pass I'm talking about was in a Gatorade commercial about a year ago.
C. Snake
06-26-2007, 11:24 AM
I agree, but switched. I think basketball, more than any other sport, require championships to help define individual greatness. With only five payers on the court, a superstar can really make a difference, and if he is to be considered truly great needs to have led his team to a championship at some point.
But how does a championship in basketball make a player bigger than a football championship? I almost never hear people saying that Robert Horry is great because of his 7 rings, and yet I always hear people saying that Tom Brady is great because of his 3 rings.
The pass I'm talking about was in a Gatorade commercial about a year ago.
Was it as good as the pass Marino made to Mark Clayton at his HOF induction?
Steve_Atwater
08-06-2007, 12:46 AM
Let's do a role reversal. If Marino had played with the 49ers, with the talent they had, he would have gotten the records and 4-5 rings. If Montana had played with Miami, he would have been Joey Harrington number 2 (or, actually, Harrington would have been Joe Montana number 2). He would have had that kind of career, bouncing from one team to another, not doing very much.
So, who had the best career, Montana. Who was better, Marino, hands down.
Let's do a role reversal. If Marino had played with the 49ers, with the talent they had, he would have gotten the records and 4-5 rings. If Montana had played with Miami, he would have been Joey Harrington number 2 (or, actually, Harrington would have been Joe Montana number 2). He would have had that kind of career, bouncing from one team to another, not doing very much.
So, who had the best career, Montana. Who was better, Marino, hands down.
An aging Montana did very well for Kansas City, so he wasn't entirely made by his team. He might not have won four in Miami, but I believe he would have still been a HOF quarterback.
Steve_Atwater
08-06-2007, 11:19 AM
An aging Montana did very well for Kansas City, so he wasn't entirely made by his team. He might not have won four in Miami, but I believe he would have still been a HOF quarterback.
Well, I'm not sure I would call Montana's performances in those two seasons "doing very well". He played well for a guy who hadn't played for two years. But it's not as if he had taken a crappy team and carried them on his back to the AFC championship. The Chiefs were a solid ballclub, and his stats, especially in that 93 season, were far from spectacular (181-298, 2144 yards, 13 TD, 7 int).
Carsonpalmer9
08-06-2007, 08:02 PM
I voted Marino. Just cause statistically hes more superior than Montana. Montana was always on better teams and had Rice and Clark. Marino had who???
C. Snake
08-08-2007, 06:20 PM
I voted Marino. Just cause statistically hes more superior than Montana. Montana was always on better teams and had Rice and Clark. Marino had who???
Marino had Mark Duper, Mark Clayton and Irving Fryer throughout most of his career. All of them were multiple time Pro-Bowlers.
Carsonpalmer9
08-17-2007, 09:41 PM
Marino had Mark Duper, Mark Clayton and Irving Fryer throughout most of his career. All of them were multiple time Pro-Bowlers.
Never heard of them smart fart
C. Snake
08-20-2007, 02:49 PM
Never heard of them smart fart
Since I'm not going to stoop down to your level of insultment just when one states an obviuse fact to try and educate some people, NOT trying to insult anyone, I'm just going to again say that Marino had those 3 elite wideouts through most of his career.
Seattle1
08-20-2007, 06:15 PM
Since I'm not going to stoop down to your level of insultment just when one states an obviuse fact to try and educate some people, NOT trying to insult anyone, I'm just going to again say that Marino had those 3 elite wideouts through most of his career.
Fryar wasn't really in Miami very long. But he also had Nat Moore, and later O.J. McDuffie.
It really wasn't toward the end of his career, when McDuffie was his best and seemingly only option, that Marino didn't have that much around him.
carsonpalmer, it's not C.Snake's fault you're ignorant. There's no need to insult anyone because of that. Last time you do.