Timemachine: Montana or Young?

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:

Quote:
and Montana is on our bench. How do you keep the greatest big game QB on the bench in that situation? Thanks Seifert!

Man...could you imagine that happening today's media circus. I think that put Montana over the edge with SF. We did him dirty.

Agreed. It was after that NFC Championship game, in the locker room, that DeBartolo agreed to trade Montana. I was at the game in '92 against Detroit when Montana returned to action. Montana led 2 second half scoring drives and the crowd was insane. Montana still had it, even after all of those injuries. It never sat right with me that he lost his starting job due to injury. I know Seifert wanted to build "his" team and that Young at that point had the most upside, if you will, but if Joe Montana was our starting QB in 1992 and 1993 ... well, I think we'd all avoid having to hear "How 'bout them Cowboys!" ad nauseum.

1992 maybe, but NOBODY could have stopped the Cowboys in 1993.

[ Edited by fastforward on Feb 4, 2011 at 13:47:07 ]

I prefer Jeff Kemp.

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by BobS:
The bias and close mindedness here is ridiculous, most of the Montana camp act like he never had a bad play-off game. Anyone who claims the 90's defenses were better than the 80's are completely nuts.

Montana had 3 terrible playoff games in a row from 85 to 87. Another bad one and who knows if he would have been out and Young in. That doesnt take away from Joe's greatness in SuperBowls though. He is without question the greatest SB performer at his position. What it should do is to make people realize that Montana wasnt perfect which some people in here seem to forget.

People also forget that Walsh played Young a lot in 1988. Fans were clamoring for Young to replace Montana THAT YEAR. Young went to the media and chirped about wanting to start ... and then played his way out of the job (We were 6-5 when Walsh finally gave Montana back the starting job). Montana led them to the playoffs, won the SB and then put up a 14-2 record in 1989 and dominated in the playoffs en route to another SB. Oh ... and Montana did basically break his back in 1986. The fact that he came back that year at all was pretty amazing, not to mention the fact that we played so many rookies in 1986 - we had a very young team. 1987 was a tough year to be sure - we dominated the league that year and should have beaten the Vikings.

People also seem to forget 1991 ... Montana was injured the whole year with the elbow. Young led a team that went 14-2 the previous year to a 10-6 record and missed the playoffs. Then proceeded to get routinely beaten by Dallas and Green Bay for the next decade or so. My biggest disappointment as a fan was the 1992 NFC Championship Game against Dallas - not Young's finest game - and Montana is on our bench. How do you keep the greatest big game QB on the bench in that situation? Thanks Seifert!

Probably because Steve Young lead the NFL in every significant passing category there was in 1992 and had lead the team to a 14-2 record. No coach alive would have benched him - even for Joe Montana. Hindsight is 20-20 but Young was a better player at that point than Montana.

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Almost everyone who watched both play wouldn't even bother having this discussion. As great as Young was for us, Montana was simply in another class...as in, quite possibly the greatest QB of all-time.

I agree that Montana wins this argument. However, most people forget that Joe totally stunk it up in the playoffs 3 years in a row from 85-87. He was pulled in the Vikings game in favor of Young. In 1988 the Niners were 6-5 and just about done. If the Niners lose another game or 2 down the stretch and dont win the SB that year who knows how history would have been written.

Joe was awesome in the Superbowls and so was Steve in his one attempt. However, Montana had some VERY average to poor performances in non SB playoff games. These are usually overlooked because of the 4 rings and his great SB efforts.

Montana > Young but it isnt THAT great of a difference in my opinion.

IMO, if you find a way to win 4 Super Bowls, you're allowed to have a handful of average-to-bad playoff games. In fact, this game is about finding a way to overcome mistakes, bad performances and imperfections (whether they be your own or others).

All the great ones have had to deal with adversity, but it's how you come back from that adversity (or poor performance or injury, etc.) that sets you apart. IMO, to overcome all that Joe had to overcome and win 4 World Championships (when Steve, as great as he was, was only able to win 1), sets Joe apart by a fairly wide margin.

If a man's career was only (or even mostly) about stats, I could see your point...but IMO, it's so much more than that.

I would argue this point by putting forth the name Terry Bradshaw. Or Marino as the polar opposite.

Exactly, which is why Bradshaw deserves to be up there with Montana...and as great as Marino was, though he's in the conversation, he falls short because of his inability to win it all (or even get back to the dance after his 2nd year).

At least your consistant with your argument...I don't agree that Bradshaw deserves it...but I can't argue with your thought process since you do.

Marino argueably carried the team on his back with his WRs...they lacked a upper tier running game and the defense was average at best (and that on a good day) imo.

If the ultimate goal is to win a world title, and you have QBs that have led their teams to 2/3/4, you have to give the nod to those guys. That doesn't diminish what the other guys did (Young who only won one, Favre who only won one, Marino and Kelly who didn't win any, etc., etc., etc.), but world titles are the ultimate measuring stick in this game simply because of how extraordinarily hard it is to win them.

Yes, it's a team sport and Bradshaw/Montana/Aikman/Brady had the best overall teams of their respective eras...there is no question about that. But it still takes a great QB to lead those great teams to multiple world titles.

So for my money, without discounting those other guys, I put guys like Montana, Bradshaw, Aikman, Brady and possibly even Big Ben if he wins on Sunday (along with Unitas, Graham, Starr, etc.), at the top of the list when it comes all-time greats.

I cant agree with you here Ghost. In an individual sport I agree that its all about the championships. Federer, Tiger, Nicklaus, Borg... guys like that are the greatest ever because they won major championships. Lee Westwood is the #1 golfer in the world but he cant be considered a great until he wins some majors.

However, in a team sport there are way too many factors that decide if a great player wins a world title. What is the talent level on your team? How great is your defense? How many great teams are playing in your era?

In baseball.. would you say that Mickey Mantle should be considered greater than Willie Mays? I know I wouldnt. Mays won 1 WS ever and Mantle won 7. What about Barry Bonds?

As far as football goes, should Dan Marino be considered less great than Troy Aikman because he never won a SB and Aikman won 3? Marino played on teams with horrible defenses and limited running games. He had to play against one of the best 49er teams ever in his SB appearance. Aikman had stars all around him and beat Buffalo twice.

While winning championships is certainly the ultimate goal I dont think it should be weighed as heavily as many do as a criteria for who is the greatest in their sport. I think Dan Marino would have won titlles with the 90s Cowboys or the 80s Niners. Dont you?

It's a case-by-case basis, IMO. No, Aikman doesn't automatically get the nod over Marino because of this 3 titles. But he's in the conversation even though his stats are not even close to Dan's. Reason being, he managed to win 3 titles to Dan's 0, and they both started from the same place. Young QBs on bad teams that acquired talent over time and put up amazing stats...Dan did it longer and better, but Troy brought home the trophies.

Now, in terms of talent around them, was Troy handed all-pro talent or did he manage to help elevate the play of those around him as Joe was able to do with that '81 team? That's the question...and we don't know what Dan would've done with the Niners of the 80's or the Cowboys of the 90's. Maybe Dan doesn't keep the play alive, buying time and rolling to his right and lofting a perfect pass to Clark in the end zone to propel a dynasty like Joe did. Maybe he doesn't come into Candlestick in '92 and in the 4th quarter, would rather hit a long pass than a quick slant to Alvin Harper (which sealed the victory) and resurrected the Dallas franchise.

We don't know these things, John. We only know what happened, and you decide on a case-by-case basis as to who the greatest is based on that (as opposed to hypotheticals).

Now (IMO), Joe put up sustained stats that were comparable to Steve's in a lot of areas...but because of what he did in a number of big games (including his flawless stats in all 4 SBs, the game that matters the most), it's just not even close when you try and compare Steve to Joe.

Now, Aikman to Marino...I'm open to the conversation, but because Troy delivered the goods 3 times, he gets my vote.

Sorry Ghost. I just think you put way too much emphasis on the rings when it comes to greatness. We can agree to disagree. While it is what a player plays for obviously it should never been the true measuring point. Again, I go back to the Mays-Mantle comparison. I would also use Marino and Bradshaw. Bradshaw had tons of Hall of Famers on the team, the best running game in football, incredible receivers, and the best defense in the league. Yes, he won 4 titles. He SHOULD have won titles with those teams.

In terms of Joe and Steve.. they both lost NFC title games and playoff games . Joe actually had far worse games than Steve ever did when you look at some of the ratings. In Superbowls they were both amazing.

Again, I think Montana gets the nod over Young but it isnt by a huge margin in my opinion.

Baseball and football are apples and oranges in that respect. You can have the best LF (or RF or catcher or pitcher in a 5-man rotation) in the game and still suck as a team. However, it's almost impossible to sustain mediocrity as a team if you have a GREAT QB...you can still be a bad team if you have a GOOD QB, but when your QB is great, it can elevate an entire franchise (unlike a LF, RF, catcher, etc.).

Point being, the QB position is the most unique in all of sports and should be viewed from a different perspective.

I do find it funny though that you're emphasizing a few bad playoff games to bring Steve a little closer to Joe, but you're kinda knocking me for emphasizing a few more Super Bowl wins as my reason for putting Joe far ahead of Steve. Isn't that just the other side of the same coin? Btw, I never said titles were the true (or even the only) measuring stick. I said it was a case-by-case basis....but I tend to give the nod to the guys who won it all, over the guys with great stats and no rings.

My point is simply this. There are too many variables in team sports to put almost all the emphasis on the number of rings they have to determine greatness. Kurt Warner had 3 of the greatest SB games a QB has ever had. Should he be downgraded because his team only won 1 of those games and his defense couldnt hold the opponents? Would he be considered up there with the greatest ever if he had won those 3?

Tell me.. is Dan Marino considered less great than say Bob Griese because he never won and Griese won 2? I guess we can beat this into the ground but again I think you can put too much emphasis on the rings

I would rather have Tom Brady over Steve.

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Almost everyone who watched both play wouldn't even bother having this discussion. As great as Young was for us, Montana was simply in another class...as in, quite possibly the greatest QB of all-time.

I agree that Montana wins this argument. However, most people forget that Joe totally stunk it up in the playoffs 3 years in a row from 85-87. He was pulled in the Vikings game in favor of Young. In 1988 the Niners were 6-5 and just about done. If the Niners lose another game or 2 down the stretch and dont win the SB that year who knows how history would have been written.

Joe was awesome in the Superbowls and so was Steve in his one attempt. However, Montana had some VERY average to poor performances in non SB playoff games. These are usually overlooked because of the 4 rings and his great SB efforts.

Montana > Young but it isnt THAT great of a difference in my opinion.

IMO, if you find a way to win 4 Super Bowls, you're allowed to have a handful of average-to-bad playoff games. In fact, this game is about finding a way to overcome mistakes, bad performances and imperfections (whether they be your own or others).

All the great ones have had to deal with adversity, but it's how you come back from that adversity (or poor performance or injury, etc.) that sets you apart. IMO, to overcome all that Joe had to overcome and win 4 World Championships (when Steve, as great as he was, was only able to win 1), sets Joe apart by a fairly wide margin.

If a man's career was only (or even mostly) about stats, I could see your point...but IMO, it's so much more than that.

I would argue this point by putting forth the name Terry Bradshaw. Or Marino as the polar opposite.

Exactly, which is why Bradshaw deserves to be up there with Montana...and as great as Marino was, though he's in the conversation, he falls short because of his inability to win it all (or even get back to the dance after his 2nd year).

At least your consistant with your argument...I don't agree that Bradshaw deserves it...but I can't argue with your thought process since you do.

Marino argueably carried the team on his back with his WRs...they lacked a upper tier running game and the defense was average at best (and that on a good day) imo.

If the ultimate goal is to win a world title, and you have QBs that have led their teams to 2/3/4, you have to give the nod to those guys. That doesn't diminish what the other guys did (Young who only won one, Favre who only won one, Marino and Kelly who didn't win any, etc., etc., etc.), but world titles are the ultimate measuring stick in this game simply because of how extraordinarily hard it is to win them.

Yes, it's a team sport and Bradshaw/Montana/Aikman/Brady had the best overall teams of their respective eras...there is no question about that. But it still takes a great QB to lead those great teams to multiple world titles.

So for my money, without discounting those other guys, I put guys like Montana, Bradshaw, Aikman, Brady and possibly even Big Ben if he wins on Sunday (along with Unitas, Graham, Starr, etc.), at the top of the list when it comes all-time greats.

I cant agree with you here Ghost. In an individual sport I agree that its all about the championships. Federer, Tiger, Nicklaus, Borg... guys like that are the greatest ever because they won major championships. Lee Westwood is the #1 golfer in the world but he cant be considered a great until he wins some majors.

However, in a team sport there are way too many factors that decide if a great player wins a world title. What is the talent level on your team? How great is your defense? How many great teams are playing in your era?

In baseball.. would you say that Mickey Mantle should be considered greater than Willie Mays? I know I wouldnt. Mays won 1 WS ever and Mantle won 7. What about Barry Bonds?

As far as football goes, should Dan Marino be considered less great than Troy Aikman because he never won a SB and Aikman won 3? Marino played on teams with horrible defenses and limited running games. He had to play against one of the best 49er teams ever in his SB appearance. Aikman had stars all around him and beat Buffalo twice.

While winning championships is certainly the ultimate goal I dont think it should be weighed as heavily as many do as a criteria for who is the greatest in their sport. I think Dan Marino would have won titlles with the 90s Cowboys or the 80s Niners. Dont you?

It's a case-by-case basis, IMO. No, Aikman doesn't automatically get the nod over Marino because of this 3 titles. But he's in the conversation even though his stats are not even close to Dan's. Reason being, he managed to win 3 titles to Dan's 0, and they both started from the same place. Young QBs on bad teams that acquired talent over time and put up amazing stats...Dan did it longer and better, but Troy brought home the trophies.

Now, in terms of talent around them, was Troy handed all-pro talent or did he manage to help elevate the play of those around him as Joe was able to do with that '81 team? That's the question...and we don't know what Dan would've done with the Niners of the 80's or the Cowboys of the 90's. Maybe Dan doesn't keep the play alive, buying time and rolling to his right and lofting a perfect pass to Clark in the end zone to propel a dynasty like Joe did. Maybe he doesn't come into Candlestick in '92 and in the 4th quarter, would rather hit a long pass than a quick slant to Alvin Harper (which sealed the victory) and resurrected the Dallas franchise.

We don't know these things, John. We only know what happened, and you decide on a case-by-case basis as to who the greatest is based on that (as opposed to hypotheticals).

Now (IMO), Joe put up sustained stats that were comparable to Steve's in a lot of areas...but because of what he did in a number of big games (including his flawless stats in all 4 SBs, the game that matters the most), it's just not even close when you try and compare Steve to Joe.

Now, Aikman to Marino...I'm open to the conversation, but because Troy delivered the goods 3 times, he gets my vote.

Sorry Ghost. I just think you put way too much emphasis on the rings when it comes to greatness. We can agree to disagree. While it is what a player plays for obviously it should never been the true measuring point. Again, I go back to the Mays-Mantle comparison. I would also use Marino and Bradshaw. Bradshaw had tons of Hall of Famers on the team, the best running game in football, incredible receivers, and the best defense in the league. Yes, he won 4 titles. He SHOULD have won titles with those teams.

In terms of Joe and Steve.. they both lost NFC title games and playoff games . Joe actually had far worse games than Steve ever did when you look at some of the ratings. In Superbowls they were both amazing.

Again, I think Montana gets the nod over Young but it isnt by a huge margin in my opinion.

Baseball and football are apples and oranges in that respect. You can have the best LF (or RF or catcher or pitcher in a 5-man rotation) in the game and still suck as a team. However, it's almost impossible to sustain mediocrity as a team if you have a GREAT QB...you can still be a bad team if you have a GOOD QB, but when your QB is great, it can elevate an entire franchise (unlike a LF, RF, catcher, etc.).

Point being, the QB position is the most unique in all of sports and should be viewed from a different perspective.

I do find it funny though that you're emphasizing a few bad playoff games to bring Steve a little closer to Joe, but you're kinda knocking me for emphasizing a few more Super Bowl wins as my reason for putting Joe far ahead of Steve. Isn't that just the other side of the same coin? Btw, I never said titles were the true (or even the only) measuring stick. I said it was a case-by-case basis....but I tend to give the nod to the guys who won it all, over the guys with great stats and no rings.

My point is simply this. There are too many variables in team sports to put almost all the emphasis on the number of rings they have to determine greatness. Kurt Warner had 3 of the greatest SB games a QB has ever had. Should he be downgraded because his team only won 1 of those games and his defense couldnt hold the opponents? Would he be considered up there with the greatest ever if he had won those 3?

Tell me.. is Dan Marino considered less great than say Bob Griese because he never won and Griese won 2? I guess we can beat this into the ground but again I think you can put too much emphasis on the rings

I'll say it again, it's a case-by-case basis and not automatic that Griese was a better QB than Marino because he won 2 titles. And Warner is definitely considered one of the greatest despite him not winning more than 1 title...he put up great numbers with two different organizations ALONG with his great play when it counted the most.

But when all things are relatively equal (total stats, comeback ability, leadership, toughness, touch, accuracy, etc.), I will lean towards the guys who won it all. That's just me.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by billbird2111:
There is one Montana play that sticks out in my mind. It's not on youtube (I don't think), and I haven't seen a clip of it probably since it happened, but it involved some of his signature scrambling during his days as a young player.

Didn't know that Montana scrambled a lot? He did, especially early in his career. That was his X-Factor. Later, after back surgery, he cut out the fancy footwork and stayed in the pocket. But he took off plenty during those early years.

The one distinct play that I remember is that Montana was heading upfield and toward the sideline to get out of bounds before he could get smacked (this is before the slide rule you understand). There's another defensive player who has taken an angle on Montana as they both move toward the sideline. The thinking is Joe had better get out of bounds before he gets absolutely LEVELED by this defensive back who has taken an angle on him.

And then -- the amazing part. Inches before reaching the safety of the sideline -- Montana stops dead in his tracks. ON A FREAKING DIME. And this defensive back who had taken an angle on him flies past him out of bounds, unable to change his trajectory.

At that point, Montana pivots and runs straight up the sideline for another 30-40 yards before getting pushed out of bounds.

Amazing freaking play. The guy did amazing things.

I so remember that play! . . . I thought it was 1981, but it was 1984 against the Giants in the Divisional Playoffs. It's at the very end of part 8 and the beginning of part 9. The look on Parcells' face was priceless. It was 53 yards, unfortunately two plays later Joe threw his second pick then got leveled by LT during the return.

This was a pleasure to watch. I forgot how good of a game this was. It was 21-10 at half-time and then it became a defensive slug-fest. Good stuff!!! The Giants were up and coming just like the Bears and just as tough.





After making it past these guys then the 84 Bears, it's no wonder we waxed Marino.

Back to the point . . . Joe had wheels in his prime.

At first I was going to say "that's not it -- wrong side of the field."

Then I looked at the replay. That's it. Thank you for finding it for me. I really appreciate that.

Jeez Louise, what a play. What a freaking legend. How lucky we were to see this as it happened.

Originally posted by billbird2111:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:

Originally posted by billbird2111:
There is one Montana play that sticks out in my mind. It's not on youtube (I don't think), and I haven't seen a clip of it probably since it happened, but it involved some of his signature scrambling during his days as a young player.

Didn't know that Montana scrambled a lot? He did, especially early in his career. That was his X-Factor. Later, after back surgery, he cut out the fancy footwork and stayed in the pocket. But he took off plenty during those early years.

The one distinct play that I remember is that Montana was heading upfield and toward the sideline to get out of bounds before he could get smacked (this is before the slide rule you understand). There's another defensive player who has taken an angle on Montana as they both move toward the sideline. The thinking is Joe had better get out of bounds before he gets absolutely LEVELED by this defensive back who has taken an angle on him.

And then -- the amazing part. Inches before reaching the safety of the sideline -- Montana stops dead in his tracks. ON A FREAKING DIME. And this defensive back who had taken an angle on him flies past him out of bounds, unable to change his trajectory.

At that point, Montana pivots and runs straight up the sideline for another 30-40 yards before getting pushed out of bounds.

Amazing freaking play. The guy did amazing things.

I so remember that play! . . . I thought it was 1981, but it was 1984 against the Giants in the Divisional Playoffs. It's at the very end of part 8 and the beginning of part 9. The look on Parcells' face was priceless. It was 53 yards, unfortunately two plays later Joe threw his second pick then got leveled by LT during the return.

This was a pleasure to watch. I forgot how good of a game this was. It was 21-10 at half-time and then it became a defensive slug-fest. Good stuff!!! The Giants were up and coming just like the Bears and just as tough.





After making it past these guys then the 84 Bears, it's no wonder we waxed Marino.

Back to the point . . . Joe had wheels in his prime.

At first I was going to say "that's not it -- wrong side of the field."

Then I looked at the replay. That's it. Thank you for finding it for me. I really appreciate that.

Jeez Louise, what a play. What a freaking legend. How lucky we were to see this as it happened.

Yes we were lucky. I was a high school senior when I watched this game live. And believe me when I say it was a pleasure watching the youtube videos trying to find this play. I ended up watching the whole game with an ear-to-ear grin. Good times!

[ Edited by SonocoNinerFan on Feb 4, 2011 at 12:59:08 ]

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by Ninerjohn:

Originally posted by BobS:
The bias and close mindedness here is ridiculous, most of the Montana camp act like he never had a bad play-off game. Anyone who claims the 90's defenses were better than the 80's are completely nuts.

Montana had 3 terrible playoff games in a row from 85 to 87. Another bad one and who knows if he would have been out and Young in. That doesnt take away from Joe's greatness in SuperBowls though. He is without question the greatest SB performer at his position. What it should do is to make people realize that Montana wasnt perfect which some people in here seem to forget.

People also forget that Walsh played Young a lot in 1988. Fans were clamoring for Young to replace Montana THAT YEAR. Young went to the media and chirped about wanting to start ... and then played his way out of the job (We were 6-5 when Walsh finally gave Montana back the starting job). Montana led them to the playoffs, won the SB and then put up a 14-2 record in 1989 and dominated in the playoffs en route to another SB. Oh ... and Montana did basically break his back in 1986. The fact that he came back that year at all was pretty amazing, not to mention the fact that we played so many rookies in 1986 - we had a very young team. 1987 was a tough year to be sure - we dominated the league that year and should have beaten the Vikings.

People also seem to forget 1991 ... Montana was injured the whole year with the elbow. Young led a team that went 14-2 the previous year to a 10-6 record and missed the playoffs. Then proceeded to get routinely beaten by Dallas and Green Bay for the next decade or so. My biggest disappointment as a fan was the 1992 NFC Championship Game against Dallas - not Young's finest game - and Montana is on our bench. How do you keep the greatest big game QB on the bench in that situation? Thanks Seifert!

Probably because Steve Young lead the NFL in every significant passing category there was in 1992 and had lead the team to a 14-2 record. No coach alive would have benched him - even for Joe Montana. Hindsight is 20-20 but Young was a better player at that point than Montana.

Except for in the big games, when it actually counted ... just saying, if you're down in the 4th quarter and you've got Joe Montana on the bench you might want to consider going with him. I mean, what's the harm? Starting another QB controversy? I disagree that Young was the better player at that point. Montana out played him in their only match up ... 2 years later.

Originally posted by fastforward:

Originally posted by midrdan:

Originally posted by LambdaChi49:

Quote:
and Montana is on our bench. How do you keep the greatest big game QB on the bench in that situation? Thanks Seifert!

Man...could you imagine that happening today's media circus. I think that put Montana over the edge with SF. We did him dirty.

Agreed. It was after that NFC Championship game, in the locker room, that DeBartolo agreed to trade Montana. I was at the game in '92 against Detroit when Montana returned to action. Montana led 2 second half scoring drives and the crowd was insane. Montana still had it, even after all of those injuries. It never sat right with me that he lost his starting job due to injury. I know Seifert wanted to build "his" team and that Young at that point had the most upside, if you will, but if Joe Montana was our starting QB in 1992 and 1993 ... well, I think we'd all avoid having to hear "How 'bout them Cowboys!" ad nauseum.

1992 maybe, but NOBODY could have stopped the Cowboys in 1993.

You're probably right ... that team was sick.

I saw them both play I just liked S Young...Yes Montana has the 4 rings,,,BUT did he earn the 4 rings by himself...alot of people say this guys got this many rings BUT its a TEAM sport not a solo gig so the team helped Montana win the 4 SBs Its like I can say well S Young threw for 6TDs in his SB Does that make things any different...While Montana won the 4 SB he never threw for 6 TD in a SB...Again its a team sport. If J Taylor doesnt catch the ball against the Bengals on the final drive does J Montana still win the 4SBs? in 81 if the niners defense doesnt stop the Bengals on the 1st and goal on the 1 four staright plays does he win the 4 SBs...Unknown if he would have been able to bring the Niners back...Actually you can say IF the Niners defense doesnt intercept the Cowboys in the championship towards the end of the game does Montana even get to the SB in 81?

Yes Montana has MORE SB Rings 4 BUT He wasnt in on a single play that stopped the Bengals in SB 16 on that 1st a goal situation I talked about he was the one that intercepted the D White pass in the championship game. He threw the winning TD but he didnt have the ball batted back and catch it and run it in. Likewise IF R Craig DOESNT Fumble against the Giants do the Niners 3peat and Montana get #5? nobody knows...that fumble killed the whole season...just 1 play.

Too many people think this is a single player sport it seems by the comments T Bradshaw has 4 SB rings does that mean he's as good as Montana and Better than any other QB thats played? NO Id MUCH rather have a S Young or T Aikman as my QB then I would T Bradshaw...and yes i watched Bradshaw play as well He won 4 SBs because he had L Swann and J Stallworth and the Defense...ohhh and he had a pretty good RB named Franco too T Bradshaw didnt win the 4 SBs on his own.

but this is why I think its Stupid to say J Montana and his 4 SB rings makes him the best cause that means T Bradshaw is as good as him cause he too had 4 And that means Bradshaw is better then any other QB that ever played the game...Sorry I dont see that with #12. If T Brady wins 2 more SBs does that mean with his rings he's the best QB? By the way people post here it means Brady will be the best QB cause he has 5 SB rings if he wins 2 more...LOL I doubt that would ring well for Niner fans.

[ Edited by SashRoxx-1 on Feb 4, 2011 at 18:41:44 ]

Originally posted by TheNef77:
4 rings aren't a coincidence.

Montana

So you think Bradshaw is as good as Montana? If T Brady wins 2 more SB will you say Brady is a Better QB than Montana?

Since I think Montana is the best to ever play at the position, I wouldn't take anyone over him. Not to discredit what Steve did and had he not sat behind Joe all those years, maybe he would have been better. Steve was more fun to watch, but they were just different. Montana was the neurosurgeon, and Young was the guitar player for the best rock band. Both great at their professions, just ones more exciting to watch. =)

Steve Bono takes it

Originally posted by matt49er:
It's the offseason and we have a long time until the draft and probably FA. A friend of mine posed a question to me that I'm having trouble answering.

For arguments sake if you could bring Joe Montana or Steve Young in the prime of their careers to this current 49er team to take over as our new QB next season whom would you choose?

Taking into account the current personnel of the team, today's NFL and who you think would fair better with today's 49er team not who you believe was the better NFL QB in their respective careers.

After alot of thought I still can't definitevely say which HOF QB I would want to add to this squad. Both were great QBs and had wonderful careers.

Right now I'm leaning toward Steve Young today's NFL requires a mobile QB that can get out of trouble and being able to run the ball yourself is a huge plus in today's game. Young would be a super version of Micael Vick, way more accurate and while a little slower still very deadly with his feet.

Thoughts?

My vote was Montana, to me I believe Montana just got us to too many great games and was able to pull brilliance out of nowhere with what I believe is much less than what Young had. And having been one of the biggest building blocks of the dynasty to start the dynasty, to me I believe that was a much harder and monumental accomplishment (pardon the spelling, lol). Not taking anything from what Young did, Young somehow figured out how to extend the Dynasty another 10/11 years, which is not the easiest task either. To me, Montana, posting perfect ratings in all of the 4 superbowls, that's so difficult to beat, the only way someone can beat that to me, is if someone can do that for 5 superbowls and just to outnumber that performance. But these two QBs were just so awsome, its really up to the eyes of the beholder, I loved both of them as legendary 9ers players. Can they really be compared fairly? The argument can be made that Young helped Montana and the 9ers get to one of their SuperBowls during one of the years when Montana got injured in the late 80s and was able to come back for the playoffs and that would be a valid argument also. Whatever the opinion is, just go 9ers, come on babies, give us another SuperBowl, it's about time for the 9ers to win another one, just win it baby, lol.