Elway or Montana, who would you go with?

• I have asked this before just want to see what the gallery thinks now? Let's face it, if it wasn't for Bill Walsh Montana would just be a state. Elway had Reeves and a bunch of no names. Yet Elway still managed to play in 5 SB's, granted Montana has 4 rings but he had a ton of help around him. Imagine if Montana played in Denver and Elway played in SF. Elway would have 6 rings or more and Montana would have 0, well maybe Shanahan could have got him one...maybe. If you think Montana was better what is your argument for him, other then he has more rings cause i already poked holes all through that argument.

• Answer:

  You propose a great question. I feel John Elway had the better physical attributes than Montana. Elway had the rocket arm, better durability, the right size and more strength. I also think Elway is was extremely intelligent (duh,he came from Stanford). WIthout having a great coaching on his side in Denver, he was still able to run that offense efficiently and pull out wins when least expected. He definitely was a leader and made the most out of his opportunity. However, I feel you are not giving Montana enough credit. You say he had all this talent around him, but did you know that Montana won the first 2 Superbowl's without any receiver, runner or tight-end going to the Pro Bowl during those two particular years? Would it surprise you that when John Elway won his superbowls, he had offensive help from Pro Bowlers Terrell Davis, Ed McCaffrey, and Shannon Sharpe (runner, reciever and tightend). I am not saying that makes John Elway accomplishments less credible. I am only pointing out that your "argument" that Montana had more talent, thus he won more, is debatable. The argument goes both ways. Then you pointed out that Joe Montana was successful because of Bill Walsh. Hmm... interesting point. But let's analyze this for a second. Did the system make the player great or the player make the system great? Didn't John Elway run the same West Coast Offense when he won his SuperBowls under Mike Shannan? Yeh, I know. Then you are going to say if Elway ran it his entire career, he would of won more superbowls. That is not necessarily so. Like Chris Berman says, "That's why they play the games". The way we can tell how comparable these great two quarterbacks were is by comparing how they performed under the same West Coast offense scheme. You have to give the edge to Montana as he definitely ran it better. Joe had the better quarterback rating, he spread the ball around more efficiently where Full back Tom Rathman caught 77 balls in 1989, had two 1000 yard receivers in John Taylor and Jerry Rice, and made Roger Craig along with Jon Frank a catching threat on any given play. Elway was better suited as a drop back, move around in the pocket, and sling that powerful arm of his. Montana, if you watched him, he would roll to his right half the times and shoot accurate dart passes. Very graceful and masterful footwork (in and out of the pocket). His timing of the pass and pacing of the game was amazing as well. Montana was very intelligent, could see the entire field, read defenses and was super cool under pressure. His combination skill set was more balance for what he was trying to do. I've watched John Elway and Joe Montana their entire careers. Both are legends with alot of common traits. But Montana had this indescribable quality about him. (Have you actually seen Montana play during a live game?) He is the greatest player (not just quarterback) I have ever seen.