Players are not included in a coaching tree.
Marino Was Better than Montana but Walsh Was Better than Shula
- Thread starter miamifin12345
- Start date
Players are not included in a coaching tree.
juice1348
Fins fan in Bills Country...
Love it! I dont post much and I am 100% not saying this out of bias...Marino was not only better, but quite a bit better. With all other things being equal, Dan Marino would be the quarterback I would want. Even watching some of his highlights, I find myself in pure awe. His decision making, along with his accuracy and arm strength, was just phenomenal. He would throw balls for completions that NO OTHER QB, including Montana, would even ATTEMPT. His confidence (see 1994, 4th and 5 vs NE) was second to none and like Bill Walsh said "it looked as if he could literally see sideline to sideline." Field vision is the most underated and arguably most important thing to have as a QB and Dan Marino had some of the best field vision I have ever seen (Peyton Manning is great with this as well).
Anyone saying Montana was a better "leader" or "winner" or whatever is off. If you are leading a trained Navy Seal team, you will look like a great "61leader or winner" as well, but what if your leading a bunch of 19 year olds who just signed up for the armed forces? Point being, Montana was 'leading' much more talent and that can make you look good. Marino was leading (and winning with for the most part) decent players at best.
Im 33 years old and my dad is 61 and we still will watch Dan Marino highlights on youtube. It is just amazing to see the things he did and the throws he, not only attempted, but connected on. There were no "illegal blows to the QBs head" and rules like today, but he stood in there anyways, knowing he was going to get hit, and hit hard. Things he did on the field will always amaze me and given even an 'above average' team (defense, running game), Dan Marino wouldve won multiple titles. Put him on the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s! He has FOUR or more Superbowl rings. He truly was "that good."
Anyone saying Montana was a better "leader" or "winner" or whatever is off. If you are leading a trained Navy Seal team, you will look like a great "61leader or winner" as well, but what if your leading a bunch of 19 year olds who just signed up for the armed forces? Point being, Montana was 'leading' much more talent and that can make you look good. Marino was leading (and winning with for the most part) decent players at best.
Im 33 years old and my dad is 61 and we still will watch Dan Marino highlights on youtube. It is just amazing to see the things he did and the throws he, not only attempted, but connected on. There were no "illegal blows to the QBs head" and rules like today, but he stood in there anyways, knowing he was going to get hit, and hit hard. Things he did on the field will always amaze me and given even an 'above average' team (defense, running game), Dan Marino wouldve won multiple titles. Put him on the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s! He has FOUR or more Superbowl rings. He truly was "that good."
Last edited by a moderator:
Normally I would agree with you but most of the players who went on to be coaches that played under Brown said his influence shaped/influenced their coaching.