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.
Denbrnc
12-07-2008, 02:27 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.
I agree with you. That is what these people that say that "championships define QB's" don't seem to get. Tom Danyluk, the guy who wrote a book called "The Super 70's" a few years ago, interviewed Art Rooney, Jr, and asked him about what they thought about Montana when he came out of ND in 79. He basically said that they weren't too impressed with him, that he threw a soft ball that was easy to catch or intercept, and that his success at ND was the product of a system and being on a great team. The reason that I think that Elway and Marino are better than system QB's like Montana or Brady is that they didn't need to win the SB to be elected to the Hall of Fame, even though Elway did. Montana and Brady, however, would be like Ken Anderson if they never would have won a ring.
Galloping Ghost
12-08-2008, 12:43 PM
I agree with you. That is what these people that say that "championships define QB's" don't seem to get. Tom Danyluk, the guy who wrote a book called "The Super 70's" a few years ago, interviewed Art Rooney, Jr, and asked him about what they thought about Montana when he came out of ND in 79. He basically said that they weren't too impressed with him, that he threw a soft ball that was easy to catch or intercept, and that his success at ND was the product of a system and being on a great team. The reason that I think that Elway and Marino are better than system QB's like Montana or Brady is that they didn't need to win the SB to be elected to the Hall of Fame, even though Elway did. Montana and Brady, however, would be like Ken Anderson if they never would have won a ring.
Are these same football men that said that Johnny Unites was too dumb to play in the NFL? This is class example of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Just because Art Rooney, Jr said Joe Montana was just a "system" quaterback it must be true. The whole "system quarterback" is a platitude that really just doesn't say much. Dan Marino was just as much a "system quarterback" as Joe Montana. The Miami offense was designed to maximize Marnino's talents. Marino set a bunch of records and that's why he is in the HoF. There is nothing wrong with that as his induction was well earned. However, in the biggest game of his life, SuperBowl XVI, against the 49ers he was crushed. And the Dolphins had an outstanding team in '84 going 14-2. They were considered an equal match for the 49ers going into the Super Bowl. And Mario was considered the superior quarterback at that point.
The whole anti-arguemnt against Montana seems to be "Well, if Joe played for another team he wouldn't have been that great." I find that argument pointless. Firstly, it's entirely speculative. Some just assume Joe would have been Kenny Anderson or Joey Harrington if he had played for an average team. How can anyone possbily know this? They can't. Secondly, Joe didn't play for another team in is prime. He played for the 49ers and he had great succes there. Did he have help? Of course. But all great quarterbacks had help. Isn't Bart Star a system quarterback? Otto Graham? They played for teams known for having very specific types of offenses and they won championships with not always great passing stats.
Galloping Ghost
12-09-2008, 05:07 PM
The Montana vs Marino debate reminds me of the Bill Russell vs Wilt Chamberlain debate.
Denbrnc
12-16-2008, 11:02 PM
That is what I was thinking. The thing is, however, is that Russell has more rings, but nobody considers him to be a better player than Wilt. So, why do we think that Montana was better than Marino and Elway and Brady better than Manning just because they won more rings, even though they aren't better players? It is an example of how much hype QB's get in the NFL when they win rings, even though they didn't carry their teams all by themselves.
Galloping Ghost
12-17-2008, 05:28 PM
That is what I was thinking. The thing is, however, is that Russell has more rings, but nobody considers him to be a better player than Wilt. So, why do we think that Montana was better than Marino and Elway and Brady better than Manning just because they won more rings, even though they aren't better players? It is an example of how much hype QB's get in the NFL when they win rings, even though they didn't carry their teams all by themselves.
Actually, that's not true. Today, Will is seen as the "better" player mostly by those who never say them play. Wilts scoring and rebound records are so outrageous that to most who didn't see either player in their primes they just assume that Wilt was considered the greater player in their playing days. Though Wilt awed people with his one-man show Russell was considered the "greater" player. In 1974 Bill Russell was voted Greatest Player in the History of the NBA by the Professional Basketball Writers Association of America.
And how is Marino a better quarterback? Simply because he set a bunch of passing records?
Denbrnc
12-17-2008, 09:39 PM
No, because he had more ability than Montana.
Galloping Ghost
12-18-2008, 01:30 AM
No, because he had more ability than Montana.
And how do you know Marino had more "ability" than Montana. And what kind of "ability" are you referring to?
KHenry14
12-18-2008, 08:55 PM
Just look at the 1981 Niner team. IMO the least talented team to ever win a SB. Yet Montana, in only his first full season as a starter, won a SB. His starting RB...Ricky Patton, hardly a name that anyone other than a die hard Niner fan would know. His left tackle Dan Audick was barely 240 pounds, and the rest of the line was undersized and untested. Yet Joe led that offense brilliantly, capped by the NFC championship game, while an ugly game overall, showed that Joe was a winner in the pro's, just like he was in college. Nothing ever bothered him.
BTW, contrast this to Marino's performance in SB XIX, the Niners started getting to him in the second half and he fell apart.
Denbrnc
12-19-2008, 05:12 AM
That 81 Niner team wasn't that bad. Earl Cooper was a solid FB, and I think that Paul Hofer was the HB, then he got hurt and Patton replaced him. I think that Hofer was considered one of the better all-around backs in the league. His receivers, Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon, and TE Charle Young were not that bad. They were better than Elway's receivers and TE in his first 5-7 years in the league. People want to give Joe all the credit for the final drive in the 81 NFC Championship, but that was Walsh's playcalling. They called more runs than passes on that drive. But, people want to hype up Montana. Man, if Drew Pearson would have scored or gotten in FG range on the play after "The Catch", and the Cowboys would have won, Montana wouldn't be held up in as high esteem today, and Drew Pearson would be in the Hall of Fame, where he belongs.
BTW, contrast this to Marino's performance in SB XIX, the Niners started getting to him in the second half and he fell apart.
That is because Miami had no running game to take the pressure off of him. And, when your defense can't stop a great attack like Walsh's West Coast offense, or any offense for that matter, that made it easy for the Niners defense to take out Marino when he had to play catch-up.
football junkie
12-20-2008, 05:29 AM
Much of the credit for Montana's success is given to Bill Walsh and rightly so.
I do wonder, however, how much of Dan Marino's "failure" if you can call a Hall of Fame career that can be attributed to Don Shula?
During Shula's early days in Baltimore he had HOF running back Lenny Moore matched with Johnny Unitas. During the glory days in Miami, pre-Marino, Shula's teams had HOF running back Larry Csonka and three time pro bowl running back Mercury Morris.
When Miami drafted Marino, I wonder if Shula wasn't blown away by his raw talent and potential. During Marino's entire 17-year career, I believe, he only enjoyed one season with a 1,000 yard rusher.
Shouldn't Shula share some of the blame for not running, pun intended, a more balanced offense and acquiring a top-notch running back? I think so.
Denbrnc
12-22-2008, 01:46 AM
Yes, I think Don should get some of the blame. He did use Marino's talents way too much. However, I wonder what would have happened if RB David Overstreet, their 81 first-rounder out of Oklahoma, wouldn't have died prior to the 84 season. If he was the right guy to take pressure off of Marino, maybe Dan wins a ring.
Also, poor draft selections from 84-89 really crippled Marino's chances to get a SB win:
1984: With depletions at LB due to the recent tragic deaths of Larry Gordon and Rusty Chambers, Shula trades up to the 14th slot in the first round to take Jackie Shipp. He then drafts LB Jay Brophy in the second. Both were disappointments. Players he could have had that year in the first two rounds: Safteties Don Rogers and Scott Case, DE Sean Jones, LB's Scott Radecic and Kyle Clifton, and DE Jumpy Geathers. Any of those players would have helped out the defense more than who they took.
1985: They selected Lorenzo Hampton in the first round, and passed on DE/OLB Simon Fletcher, and then took LB Alex Moyer at the end of the third, and passed on OLB Kevin Greene, who went to the top of the fifth.
1986: With no first rounder, they take LB John Offerdahl in the second round, but then they take DE T.J. Turner in the third over DE/OLB Tim Harris, who was a much better player.
1987: Taking DT John Bosa was a mistake. They could have had DE/OLB Tony Woods, CB Nate Odomes, or S Tim McDonald.
1988: Eric Kumerow was their third first-round defensive bust of the Marino era. I think that DT Michael Dean Perry or CB Eric Allen would have helped their defense tremendously.
1989: They had two first rounders that year, and took RB Sammie Smith and S Louis Oliver. Oliver wasn't bad for them, but Smith was a bust. LB Eric Hill, CB Donnell Woolford, and DE Trace Armstrong would have been better selections than Smith.