WOW Steve Young #81 on 100 All Time best Players

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.

I totally disagree about Montana being so far down the list if you take away his SuperBowls. His ultimate legacy is as a champion, but he has great performances against great teams throughout his career that did not take place in a Super Bowl. Coming back from being down 35-3 against the Saints during the 1980 season, there is "The Catch", the fantastic performance vs Chicago in the 1988 NFC Championship (to this day, the ONLY 49ers playoff win on the road), his performance against the Eagles after getting clobbered all day by that defense in 1989, taking the Kansas City Chiefs as close to a Super Bowl as they were ever going to get in the 1993 season, etc. Montana was a gamer and did it throughout his career, not just in the Super Bowl. As much as his performances stand out far and above any other QB on that stage, lets not reduce his legacy to just 4 games.

The same cannot be said for Dan Marino, Warren Moon, etc. So even if you take away 3 of the championships, I'd still want Montana back there over most of the great QBs in history.

Originally posted by WestCoast:

Originally posted by Axl49:

Originally posted by SanFranAddic:
These kinds of list are always crap. Always biased toward the more recent players because those are the ones people know and have seen.

The NFL started in 1920, so there must be 10's of thousands of guys who have played in the league. To be considered one of the top 100 out of at least 20-30,000 players is pretty amazing.

I'm happy he made the list.

Michael Irvin is NOT better than Young neither is Elway or Marino which im sure will be on here. We are just saying give the man the respect he deserves 81 is way too low and there are lots of old school players on the list as of right now.

elway>young

elway>young = BullSh[t...fer reals. Steve Young's 1994 season was some of the finest, if not the finest QB play the world has ever seen. As much as I adored Montana and hated to see him go, 1994 will always be my favorite season. And I've been a fan since October 11th 1981-the day Montana became a football god.

My post>yours.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

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.

I agree in ranking Elway over Young. But the difference isn't as great as it comes across in your post. To me, they were the masters at combining passing and running at the QB position. Elway had the stronger arm and to me Young was the better running QB. Both had the ability to make something out of nothing. However, I think if you put Young on those Denver teams, he could've taken them to the Super Bowl as well. Young played on some teams that without him would've been very average if not downright terrible (see the 1998 49ers vs. the 1999 49ers). Also, the years where the 49ers were absolutely loaded were from 1992-1994. Outside of that, it's debateable where they really ranked against the top teams in the league, however they still dominated against the best teams in the league, including the great John Elway during one of Denver's best seasons (1997).

Really, who cares?

Originally posted by Oakland-Niner:
Wow is right. With one Superbowl and a great surrounding cast, he shouldn't be top 100. I dont give a crap what his passer rating was...133.?

when it gets down to the top 10 there will be alot of wtf's I'll bet

Originally posted by midrdan:
I think Young's ranking is right about where it should be. There have been thousands of players in the NFL over the years and, according to this list, only 80 to play the game were better than Young. Not bad for the only starting QB to follow a hall of famer and make the hall of fame ...

People that think Young should be rated higher than Elway, Marino, or even Aikman are a little biased I'm afraid. Elway took 3 teams to the SB without nearly the same supporting cast as Young had and is the only QB to start in 5 SBs. Marino was the most prolific passer in NFL history when he retired and not one single offensive player that he played with during the prime of his career will make the HOF. Aikman played at the same time as Young and got the better of him 3 to 1 in rings. Young failed to win with a loaded team in '91, '92 and '93. And failed to beat Green Bay from '95 through '97. He had the greatest NFL receiver in history to throw to during his entire career and his career QB rating reflects that.

I loved watching Young play and he'll always be one of my favorites but I hate to look back on those teams in the 90s and think we only came out of it with one SB. Around the country his career is perceived for what it really was - a great one, but with less accomplishments than his talent and the talent around him should have achieved. So if he gets dinged a bit for that and is placed behind other QBs that had better statistics with less talent or that achieved more than he did, then so be it.

No disrespect to you sir because I know you mean well but your argument is filled with holes and is a slap in the face to one of the greatest defensive players the game has ever seen. Without Ronnie Lott, how many rings does this franchise win in the 80's?

Steve Young didn't have Ronnie Lott.

The nosedive this team took after SY retired was depressing.

I thought the east coast fanboys would at least disrespect him with a rating of around 60 or so.....still shaking my head at them and some of the so called fans here.

Originally posted by Gavintech:

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.

You sir deserve a standing ovation. Thank you. I'll just add Manning has had the same offensive coordinator for his entire career. That's no small thing and quite a rare thing I might add. Manning is an amazing QB to be sure but some of the comments here are just absurd.

I saw that s**t also. I thought young would at least be in the top 40.

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...

You sir are wrong. Top 5 lists of just niners? He makes that with ease. Don't be so ignorant. You seem to be the kind of fan who grew bitter after Montana's departure and to this day always have to marginalize Steve Young's accomplishments and worth to this team.

If this is the kind of fan you are then quite frankly, you suck as a fan. No.8 was an amazing player and would have been in any era of football.

I don't see the majority of fans here crying that he's not top 10 or 20 but 81 is low enough that it's a slap in the face to the 49er organization(and maybe that's the goal), it's fans and to No. 8.

I won't be surprised to see 81 42 and 16 get lower ratings than they deserve.

Young is the reason I became a niners fan when I was 4. With the ADD I have and at age 4, to keep my attention he is top 10 at least. Oh well he's number one to me

Originally posted by TDilvr:

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...

You sir are wrong. Top 5 lists of just niners? He makes that with ease. Don't be so ignorant. You seem to be the kind of fan who grew bitter after Montana's departure and to this day always have to marginalize Steve Young's accomplishments and worth to this team.

If this is the kind of fan you are then quite frankly, you suck as a fan. No.8 was an amazing player and would have been in any era of football.

I don't see the majority of fans here crying that he's not top 10 or 20 but 81 is low enough that it's a slap in the face to the 49er organization(and maybe that's the goal), it's fans and to No. 8.

I won't be surprised to see 81 42 and 16 get lower ratings than they deserve.

First off, chill. No need for the "you suck as a fan" comment esp. if you don't know who you are talking too.

You are also being ignorant with the different views others have on this subject. Just because they don't necessarily share the same views as you, you have no right slamming their stance on the subject. Seriously, take a chill pill.... It is not that crucial.

- 98

Originally posted by TDilvr:

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...

You sir are wrong. Top 5 lists of just niners? He makes that with ease. Don't be so ignorant. You seem to be the kind of fan who grew bitter after Montana's departure and to this day always have to marginalize Steve Young's accomplishments and worth to this team.

If this is the kind of fan you are then quite frankly, you suck as a fan. No.8 was an amazing player and would have been in any era of football.

I don't see the majority of fans here crying that he's not top 10 or 20 but 81 is low enough that it's a slap in the face to the 49er organization(and maybe that's the goal), it's fans and to No. 8.

I won't be surprised to see 81 42 and 16 get lower ratings than they deserve.

Steve only makes the top 5 of 49ers if you pick completely qb-centric and if you don't go back before 1980. Let's face it, three of the top 5 are set in stone, with Montana, Rice and Lott.

Saying IWAS sucks as a fan is foolish. Can we not have have a discussion about football without resorting to abuse? If we can't, we should be ashamed.

Regarding Young, I am not sure why people care about these popularity contests. He was a great qb with a few flaws, and we were very lucky to have him back to back with Joe. The question of comparison with Aikman has been done to death elsewhere, but I think it is very clear that it was the supporting class that made Aikman great and that Young was in the main a better qb. So Young probably should have been rated higher, but why let it worry you?

Originally posted by TDilvr:

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...

You sir are wrong. Top 5 lists of just niners? He makes that with ease. Don't be so ignorant. You seem to be the kind of fan who grew bitter after Montana's departure and to this day always have to marginalize Steve Young's accomplishments and worth to this team.

If this is the kind of fan you are then quite frankly, you suck as a fan. No.8 was an amazing player and would have been in any era of football.

I don't see the majority of fans here crying that he's not top 10 or 20 but 81 is low enough that it's a slap in the face to the 49er organization(and maybe that's the goal), it's fans and to No. 8.

I won't be surprised to see 81 42 and 16 get lower ratings than they deserve.

You lack objectivity. I can't help you with that. And your homer-ism for Steve's impressive regular-season accomplishments and underachieving post-season accomplishments has impaired you.

Besides all that, you've proven yourself to be comically gifted (albeit unintentional) when you get your 2-beer buzz going.... sir

[ Edited by IWASATTHECATCH on Sep 11, 2010 at 01:37:55 ]

Man, am I the only one that gets a little tired of all the statistical comparison? Career passer rating and/or post-season records do not a great player make. To me, greatness is all about how they play the game. When you watch a great player, you know it... it excites you, even if you are not a fan of the team.

Barry Sanders is a good example. Yes, he put up amazing numbers, but that isn't what set him apart. I don't know about you guys, but I would try to catch his games just to see him play. Didn't care about wins or losses or statistics, just wanted to see something amazing... and he always delivered.

Sanders has no post-season pedigree, he doesn't hold any of the "important" records statistically. Yet, who here wouldn't rate him higher than Emmitt Smith? Smith has the career records and super-bowl rings. Who would you rather watch on Sunday?

When did it become possible to attach something so mundane as a "rank" on something as transcendent as the concept of "greatness". We all know what inspires us and what we view as truly awesome. The problem is that we aren't all going to share the same viewpoint.

Personally, I think the whole concept for this show is a farce. It's an entertainment program intended to spark debate and promote interest in the league. I suggest taking it for what it is and just relax and enjoy watching those players that were truly great.

Ah, who am I kidding? Young > Aikman!