WOW Steve Young #81 on 100 All Time best Players

Originally posted by Wubbie:

Originally posted by ElDannMann:

Originally posted by kray28:

Originally posted by Axl49:

Originally posted by RageFury:
Seahawks fan here.

Come on, some of you guys are overly indignant about Young's ranking. He inherited a world-class team. He's ranked where he is for a reason. Saying he's automatically better than Peyton Manning...I don't think so. Take a look at the comments about Peyton on this QB power rankings article by Bill Simmons as an example of what I mean: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100902

"2. Peyton Manning, Colts
He maintains his "Don't bet against me in any nationally televised night game" status, as well as his "Don't ever throw my opponent into a tease or parlay" status and "If you're up by 17 with a quarter to go and you don't chop my head off and finish the game, I will absolutely drop three quick touchdowns on you, and you know I will" status."

That last part is hilarious, and oh so true. How many times have we seen Peyton drop a retarded number of touchdowns in a short timespan on someone? He has probably done it to every team in the league; and he has not had a supporting cast for his career like Young did, nor get to train behind Montana during his glory years like Young did.

Manning is better than Young. Young at 81 is the problem this is stupid low for the most complete player ever at that position. Top 3 qbs ever are Montana, Manning and Unitas or Brady.

Manning is a pure pocket passer, Young was a much more versatile all around athlete and player that blossomed into a highly efficient and accurate passer later in his career. The fact that he spent the first third of his career in the USFL, playing for a pathetic Bucs, and then sitting behind Montana is unfairly held against him.

Manning is better than Young, without a doubt. Just because Young is more "versatile" doesn't mean he's better. Manning is much better.

~Dann~

I think Manning is a better QB than Steve Young too, but if I could build a franchise after one player in NFL history, it'd be Steve Young.

The man in his prime is a nightmare to gameplan for. Yes, I know Manning is like a coach on the field, but how do you gameplan against Steve Young? He's a great pocket passer, but his ability to move out of the pocket and scramble makes him so dangerous. Put those two together and have a great offensive coordinator and surrounding cast, that offense is unstoppable.

It's kind of a weird response, but I just think that you can do so much more with Steve Young as your QB.

You're right. If I had the first overall pick in the draft, and Steve Young and Manning were there (and I somehow knew what they'd be like in their primes), I'd have a hell of a choice picking between them. I think I would go with Manning still, but the intangibles of Young would be hard to pass up. Definitely a tough choice.

~Dann~

YOu know I am curious to see where Manning and them are ranked. I dont think top 10 tho only because for some QB's it seems the criteria is SB's won.

Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me who's won the most SB's as a QB. Is it Montana, or someone else?

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
YOu know I am curious to see where Manning and them are ranked. I dont think top 10 tho only because for some QB's it seems the criteria is SB's won.

Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me who's won the most SB's as a QB. Is it Montana, or someone else?

like as a starter for his team? montana and bradshaw both have 4

People aren't complaining that Young was #81. They are complaining that guys like Aikman and Bradshaw will be placed higher.

Originally posted by WestCoast:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:
YOu know I am curious to see where Manning and them are ranked. I dont think top 10 tho only because for some QB's it seems the criteria is SB's won.

Just out of curiosity can anyone tell me who's won the most SB's as a QB. Is it Montana, or someone else?

like as a starter for his team? montana and bradshaw both have 4

oh ok thanks. and yeah i meant as a starter, who's whon the most. and if it is montana and bradshaw, i'd say they boty may be top 10 or in top 15 at least

Originally posted by MaliCali:

Originally posted by leolion:

Originally posted by MaliCali:

Originally posted by WestCoast:

Originally posted by Axl49:
This is absurd he has the highest qb rating ever for a qb and is top 10 qb's ever and he is 81 who the hell is putting this list together and the fans that voted for him this low are stupid. He is 60-50 best players ever not 81 give me a break. I hope Jerry Rice gets greatest ever or JOE but I know dumb ass Jim Brown will get this spot.

with our luck it will be
1. J. Brown
2. J. Rice
3. J. Montana

I would not even be surprised if Johnny Unitas got rated higher than Montana...most of the older analysts have him tabbed as the best, there will literally ever be...no matter the competitions achievements...when in fact most 3rd string modern QB's playing in that era would have tore those defenses apart....todays base defenses didn't even exist yet for part of Unitas's career

The rules of the game have changed to favor the offense. I don't think many modern receivers would go over the middle if they were going to encounter a Hardy Brown clothesline. Likewise, QBs can hardly be touched nowadays. OTOH - players are bigger and better conditioned than they were in the good old days. It's almost impossible to compare players of different eras. Unitas in his day was head and shoulders above the other QBs of his day.

regardless...

If Peyton Manning played a season in that era, with his knowledge of football and defenses...should he play against a defense that wasn't even running modern base formations...6000+ yards and 50+ touchdowns would be completely reasonable..

the only athlete from that era who i believe had the physical capabilities to play in our modern era would be Jim Brown, there is no questioning the tough grittyness and heart of old era players...unfortunately that only gets you so far in Today's game, which on it's own speaks volumes of how the game has evolved.

Give me Leo Nomellini, Bob St. Claire, or Ernie Ladd...any of those guys could play and thrive in the Modern Game. Nomellini was better at shedding blocks (and throwing them) than anyone in the first 75 years of the league. Sadly, as one of the top lineman ever, and easily the best DT, he won't make the list

Originally posted by Druckenmiller14:

Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:
The responses in this thread are hilarious. Steve would be fortunate to crack some Top 5 lists of just 9ers, and you people are crying that he's not all-time top 10 or 20 in NFL history...

I agree, the bias in this thread is just too funny. I LOVE Steve Young. Hes one of the best QBs I've ever seen. But he wasn't a regular starter until the age of 31! It certainly wasn't his fault but you can't put a player(who in some ways), only played half a career, too much higher than that. He was only a full-time starter from age 31-37. Outside of maybe Gale Sayers, you won't see too many other guys higher who played in a shorter window than that. SO many people are forgetting this.

Cosigned

Originally posted by Axl49:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by Axl49:
Steve young is a far better player than Elway was. Young could have won 1 or 2 more rings if he didn't get hurt. Elway only won his rings because of his RB just like Brady only has rings cause of the tuck rule and Vintaries Leg. Not to mention Elway got smashed in in other super bowls where Young broke records at his Big dance and is the greatest QB performance ever at a Superbowl.

Steve Young played in all of 1 SB. John Elway played in 5 SB's and won 2. Yes they got smoked 3 times primarily because the Broncos had terrible defenses that got killed by Washington, NY, and the Niners. Elway got those teams into the SB's with amazing last minute drives against Cleveland.

John Elway was an amazing QB. Probably the greatest arm ever, could run, and leads the NFL I believe in all time comeback wins.

Steve Young is much better than #81 but he should not be ahead of John Elway.

My defense is young never had the chance to start a long career like Elway did. The AFC was weak in those days NFC was cream of crop and Young Had the best super bowl for a qb ever. Better athlete and more accurate than Elway. Had the TD record for WR/QB before manning broke it and he played half as long as Elway and other great QBs. Steve young was the complete package at QB end of story. Elway only one the big one after he had a great RB at his helm. Is kelly ahead of Young then becuase he went to 4 straight SB's?

Maybe you arent old enough to have seen Elway in his prime and just going by numbers. First of all Young was not a better athlete that John Elway. Elway was bigger, a much better arm, and could run well. He was a great baseball player who started at Stanford and good enough to be drafted by the Yankees. Elway took mediocre teams to the Superbowls. Steve Young took a GREAT team to the SB and played one of the worst SB teams in San Diego ever.

I love Steve Young. One of my favorite Niners. However, I would never put him ahead of John Elway. If both had been on the same roster, Young would have been riding the bench just like he did behind Montana.

Originally posted by ElDannMann:

Originally posted by Wubbie:

Originally posted by ElDannMann:

Originally posted by kray28:

Originally posted by Axl49:

Originally posted by RageFury:
Seahawks fan here.

Come on, some of you guys are overly indignant about Young's ranking. He inherited a world-class team. He's ranked where he is for a reason. Saying he's automatically better than Peyton Manning...I don't think so. Take a look at the comments about Peyton on this QB power rankings article by Bill Simmons as an example of what I mean: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/100902

"2. Peyton Manning, Colts
He maintains his "Don't bet against me in any nationally televised night game" status, as well as his "Don't ever throw my opponent into a tease or parlay" status and "If you're up by 17 with a quarter to go and you don't chop my head off and finish the game, I will absolutely drop three quick touchdowns on you, and you know I will" status."

That last part is hilarious, and oh so true. How many times have we seen Peyton drop a retarded number of touchdowns in a short timespan on someone? He has probably done it to every team in the league; and he has not had a supporting cast for his career like Young did, nor get to train behind Montana during his glory years like Young did.

Manning is better than Young. Young at 81 is the problem this is stupid low for the most complete player ever at that position. Top 3 qbs ever are Montana, Manning and Unitas or Brady.

Manning is a pure pocket passer, Young was a much more versatile all around athlete and player that blossomed into a highly efficient and accurate passer later in his career. The fact that he spent the first third of his career in the USFL, playing for a pathetic Bucs, and then sitting behind Montana is unfairly held against him.

Manning is better than Young, without a doubt. Just because Young is more "versatile" doesn't mean he's better. Manning is much better.

~Dann~

I think Manning is a better QB than Steve Young too, but if I could build a franchise after one player in NFL history, it'd be Steve Young.

The man in his prime is a nightmare to gameplan for. Yes, I know Manning is like a coach on the field, but how do you gameplan against Steve Young? He's a great pocket passer, but his ability to move out of the pocket and scramble makes him so dangerous. Put those two together and have a great offensive coordinator and surrounding cast, that offense is unstoppable.

It's kind of a weird response, but I just think that you can do so much more with Steve Young as your QB.

You're right. If I had the first overall pick in the draft, and Steve Young and Manning were there (and I somehow knew what they'd be like in their primes), I'd have a hell of a choice picking between them. I think I would go with Manning still, but the intangibles of Young would be hard to pass up. Definitely a tough choice.

~Dann~

You take Young in that case if you're an expansion team and you know his surrounding cast is not going to be that good. You take Manning if you have a great line in front and good players around him.

Originally posted by kingairta:
People aren't complaining that Young was #81. They are complaining that guys like Aikman and Bradshaw will be placed higher.

Exactly.

I dont know who is making this list but they have their head up their butt. Steve young is far better than 81st

It's the Nostalgia Effect. Old players are going to rank higher than newer players.

It's a psychological thing, same as when people say back in the "good ol' days", when really if you compare the reasons they were considered the good ol days, modern society actually comes out on top.

Originally posted by Gavintech:
You take Young in that case if you're an expansion team and you know his surrounding cast is not going to be that good. You take Manning if you have a great line in front and good players around him.

Sorry, but you've got that completely backwards. Manning is the one that has had major success with a team that had little skill across the board. It has taken years for the supporting cast to get good for him, but he has been a winner for a long time; Young's the one that inherited a fantastic team. If you're starting with nothing, Peyton is the proper pick, hands down.

Originally posted by RageFury:

Originally posted by Gavintech:
You take Young in that case if you're an expansion team and you know his surrounding cast is not going to be that good. You take Manning if you have a great line in front and good players around him.

Sorry, but you've got that completely backwards. Manning is the one that has had major success with a team that had little skill across the board. It has taken years for the supporting cast to get good for him, but he has been a winner for a long time; Young's the one that inherited a fantastic team. If you're starting with nothing, Peyton is the proper pick, hands down.

He's had the system and the players in place for his entire career. Marshall Faulk was the Colts RB in the beginning of his career and there was no drop off when he left for St Louis when Edgerrin James had over 1,500 yards and 13 TDs as a rookie, winning the NFL rushing title in each of his first two seasons (Peyton's 2nd and 3rd). He also always had a stellar O Line and Marvin Harrison was also there the whole time.

I'm not trying to discount Peyton in any way, only you're argument, which is simply wrong and not based in fact.

Steve Young had some great teams around him but he did things most QB's could never do even when he didn't. Steve's first year as starter his RB was Dexter Carter, but he still lead the league in QB rating. He's also lead the team to a 12-4 record and been the NFL's top rates passer in 1996 with Terry Kirby as the starting RB.

Steve went years without having a running game at all and still carried the offense to league leading numbers and 10+ winning seasons over and over. Manning has ALWAYS had premier talent around him and a top flight RB for his entire career (except maybe this year). If you look at history the one that's done more with less is Young, there really isn't an argument.

Originally posted by Druckenmiller14:

Originally posted by IWASATTHECATCH:
The responses in this thread are hilarious. Steve would be fortunate to crack some Top 5 lists of just 9ers, and you people are crying that he's not all-time top 10 or 20 in NFL history...

I agree, the bias in this thread is just too funny. I LOVE Steve Young. Hes one of the best QBs I've ever seen. But he wasn't a regular starter until the age of 31! It certainly wasn't his fault but you can't put a player(who in some ways), only played half a career, too much higher than that. He was only a full-time starter from age 31-37. Outside of maybe Gale Sayers, you won't see too many other guys higher who played in a shorter window than that. SO many people are forgetting this.

Then I love the hypocrisy of the Joe Montana/Terry Bradshaw/Troy Aikman conversations here. People rip Aikman/Bradshaw in this thread because hes just listed for "winning super bowls." LOL Hello! The same group will turn around and praise Montana and say hes a winner and won of the best every BECAUSE of his rings! Montana was great, but take away 3 super bowl wins and hes way down on this list. Statistically he doesn't blow anyone away with his career totals or peak seasons. Moon, Favre, Marino, Tarkenton and Manning all have more TD passes. Guys like Testaverde and Bledsoe have more passing yards. As for his peak totals, he threw for more than 28 TDs in a season once. And the day he hit 30, he became pretty fragile and missed a lot of time with various injuries.

Still an all-time great, but its funny when people knock Aikman/Bradshaw for the very thing that they prop Montana up for.

NO beacuse montana was effiecient his td/int ratio is amazing as his qb rating and winning percentage and comp pecentage etc. Aikmen and Bradshaw are subpar and got lucky with the teams they were on. Montana was art in motion to watch and deserves his number one spot of all time qb ahead of Manning.