Timemachine: Montana or Young?

Originally posted by niteshade80:

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.

Well Said

Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

ZRF--I think you are mistaken when you say Young is a better athlete than Montana. He is definitely faster, a better runner, but that is one aspect of athleticism. Dexterity, balance, vision, and temperament are all areas where Montana excelled athletically over Young. As far as throwing the ball is concerned I believe Montana was more accurate and had much better touch. Montana tended to put the ball where the receiver could catch in stride and his ball, though not pretty all the time, was extremely catchable.

Young played baseball in HS and did well, but Montana was named to the all-state team while leading his basketball team to a state championship in HS.

Young is assumed the better athlete based on his spead, which, as you can tell, bothers me. Both were great athletes.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

ZRF--I think you are mistaken when you say Young is a better athlete than Montana. He is definitely faster, a better runner, but that is one aspect of athleticism. Dexterity, balance, vision, and temperament are all areas where Montana excelled athletically over Young. As far as throwing the ball is concerned I believe Montana was more accurate and had much better touch. Montana tended to put the ball where the receiver could catch in stride and his ball, though not pretty all the time, was extremely catchable.

Young played baseball in HS and did well, but Montana was named to the all-state team while leading his basketball team to a state championship in HS.

Young is assumed the better athlete based on his spead, which, as you can tell, bothers me. Both were great athletes.

Steve Young won more QB rating titles, finished with a higher completion percentage, and holds the record for highest QB rating average of all time. I think all these things give him a heads up in terms of vision and "touch". Both guys did a great job of hitting guys in stride, but as I said earlier.....I feel that opposing teams of the 90s were better equipped to defending our offense.

Again, I have no problem with Joe being labeled the GOAT, but I wonder what the feelings on this topic would be if Young won the SB in 92, 95, and 97.....thus giving him 4 rings as well.

Not sure if this point has been made, but by the time Montana was gone and Young was our starting QB, considerable adjustments had been made to defense the WCO. Also, guys like Holmgren and Shanahan were coaches during Young's career and the WCO tree had expanded. The '81 Niners won because opposing defenses were totally overwhelmed by the complex offense. That '81 team really wasn't very good from a talent standpoint. By the time Young was a QB he was facing other QB's trained by the WCO.

Still I take Montana > Young

Originally posted by ZRF80:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

ZRF--I think you are mistaken when you say Young is a better athlete than Montana. He is definitely faster, a better runner, but that is one aspect of athleticism. Dexterity, balance, vision, and temperament are all areas where Montana excelled athletically over Young. As far as throwing the ball is concerned I believe Montana was more accurate and had much better touch. Montana tended to put the ball where the receiver could catch in stride and his ball, though not pretty all the time, was extremely catchable.

Young played baseball in HS and did well, but Montana was named to the all-state team while leading his basketball team to a state championship in HS.

Young is assumed the better athlete based on his spead, which, as you can tell, bothers me. Both were great athletes.

Steve Young won more QB rating titles, finished with a higher completion percentage, and holds the record for highest QB rating average of all time. I think all these things give him a heads up in terms of vision and "touch". Both guys did a great job of hitting guys in stride, but as I said earlier.....I feel that opposing teams of the 90s were better equipped to defending our offense.

Again, I have no problem with Joe being labeled the GOAT, but I wonder what the feelings on this topic would be if Young won the SB in 92, 95, and 97.....thus giving him 4 rings as well.

It's up for debate of course...kind of like Walter Payton vs Gale Sayers in Chicago. Joe has always, will always be my favorite. Joe was never a stat machine...just a winner. My touch argument came from receivers who caught both talking about Montana's catchable ball, not knocking Young, but...

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

ZRF--I think you are mistaken when you say Young is a better athlete than Montana. He is definitely faster, a better runner, but that is one aspect of athleticism. Dexterity, balance, vision, and temperament are all areas where Montana excelled athletically over Young. As far as throwing the ball is concerned I believe Montana was more accurate and had much better touch. Montana tended to put the ball where the receiver could catch in stride and his ball, though not pretty all the time, was extremely catchable.

Young played baseball in HS and did well, but Montana was named to the all-state team while leading his basketball team to a state championship in HS.

Young is assumed the better athlete based on his spead, which, as you can tell, bothers me. Both were great athletes.

Steve Young won more QB rating titles, finished with a higher completion percentage, and holds the record for highest QB rating average of all time. I think all these things give him a heads up in terms of vision and "touch". Both guys did a great job of hitting guys in stride, but as I said earlier.....I feel that opposing teams of the 90s were better equipped to defending our offense.

Again, I have no problem with Joe being labeled the GOAT, but I wonder what the feelings on this topic would be if Young won the SB in 92, 95, and 97.....thus giving him 4 rings as well.

It's up for debate of course...kind of like Walter Payton vs Gale Sayers in Chicago. Joe has always, will always be my favorite. Joe was never a stat machine...just a winner. My touch argument came from receivers who caught both talking about Montana's catchable ball, not knocking Young, but...

Edit: I believe Montana had the rating record when he retired but was passed by Young. Vision was a Walsh coaching issue and both were trained to see the field. Still believe Montana had better vision.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by ZRF80:
Steve Young was the better athlete. He was more accurate and could beat you with his legs. Joe had a better arm. Although both were brilliant from a mental aspect, Joe had the patience and calm that led to 4 SB titles in the 80s.

Steve had 2 things going against him. ONE, the entire NFL (during the 90s) was built to beat the Niners. There were so many coaches from Walsh's tree that were lingering on different NFL teams, it made the WCO very defendable during that era. Teams like the Cowboys and Packers were built so that they could beat the Niners, and unfortunately Young was the guy caught with his pants down.

TWO, even after Young won a SB, he played under Montana's shadow. He always had that "chip" on his shoulder, and I think it cost him in big games. The team should have easily won the SB in 1992, 1995, and 1997......

If I was building a team from the bottom up, I would personally pick Young as my franchise QB, cause I think he brings more to the table than Joe. But Joe earned his legacy, and I have no problem with him being labeled the best ever.

ZRF--I think you are mistaken when you say Young is a better athlete than Montana. He is definitely faster, a better runner, but that is one aspect of athleticism. Dexterity, balance, vision, and temperament are all areas where Montana excelled athletically over Young. As far as throwing the ball is concerned I believe Montana was more accurate and had much better touch. Montana tended to put the ball where the receiver could catch in stride and his ball, though not pretty all the time, was extremely catchable.

Young played baseball in HS and did well, but Montana was named to the all-state team while leading his basketball team to a state championship in HS.

Young is assumed the better athlete based on his spead, which, as you can tell, bothers me. Both were great athletes.

Steve Young won more QB rating titles, finished with a higher completion percentage, and holds the record for highest QB rating average of all time. I think all these things give him a heads up in terms of vision and "touch". Both guys did a great job of hitting guys in stride, but as I said earlier.....I feel that opposing teams of the 90s were better equipped to defending our offense.

Again, I have no problem with Joe being labeled the GOAT, but I wonder what the feelings on this topic would be if Young won the SB in 92, 95, and 97.....thus giving him 4 rings as well.

It's up for debate of course...kind of like Walter Payton vs Gale Sayers in Chicago. Joe has always, will always be my favorite. Joe was never a stat machine...just a winner. My touch argument came from receivers who caught both talking about Montana's catchable ball, not knocking Young, but...

Well, the ultimate judge is the GOAT who caught balls from both guys, and he is quoted as saying that if Montana were a woman, he would marry her.

So take that for what its worth.

No competition here. Montana all the way, hands down.

Originally posted by NCommand:
No competition here. Montana all the way, hands down.

agreed young is great but montana is probally one of the best qb in nfl history

If you seen Montana's entire career this would not be even a question.

Also the rest of the country think we are out of our minds of comparing Steve and Joe all the time. To them its really obvious.

This is why in a lot of Top 10 NFL players list Steve doesn't show up and Joe does.

A good question would be what would Young's career have been if he had come into the NFL right out of college and played for a good team? He had some erratic years in Tampa Bay and Socal (USFL?). He would have had some interesting stats!