There are 127 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Timemachine: Montana or Young?

Timemachine: Montana or Young?

Originally posted by YOUNGster08:
I would go with Young. I know Montana is great and he won 4 Super Bowls but he also had the great Walsh and I think a better defense than Young had. Not only that, but the Cowboys were a dynasty in the 90's for a reason and were probably the toughest competition the 49ers had to deal with in their 20 year reign.

I think so too. Our offense didn't have problem scoring against the Cowboys' D. But the Cowboys' offense played much better against our defense. We had to load up on our defense from the draft of Stubblefield and B.Young, coupled with FA of Plummer, Ken Norten Jr. and Deion to get over the Cowboys. Steve Young was trying to do too much to keep up with the Cowboys' offense and that's where he gets in trouble with throwing a pick or two.

Each qb has his own type of hurdle to get over to be great.
Originally posted by GoalLineStand:
Originally posted by Niners99:
i dont really remember Joe Montana playing for the Niners. i was about 6 or 7 when he left for KC, so itd be easy for me to say Steve Young, who i grew up watching. to me he was the 49ers QB when i was growing up.

however, being a hardcore, keep up with the team daily Niner fan for 16 years now, ive done alot of research on what i missed in the Montana years. There is a reason Joe is thought of as the best QB in NFL history. he had an intangible quality. leading a comeback came routinely, and when the difficultly and pressure of the playoffs/Super Bowl came up, he stepped his game up to an even higher level. Montana played in 4 Super Bowls. he won all 4, was named MVP in 3, (lead the game winning 2 min. drive with a TD pass to WIN the championship in the one game he DIDNT get MVP), and had a career QB rating in the big game of 127.8 (with no picks), best all time. there will never be another Joe Montana.

Steve Young was great, but Joe Montana was legendary. Young had the better tools, but Montana had the touch, the accuracy, the brains, the cool attitude, and the killer instinct when the games got really important.

IMO its a no brainer pick. if Steve Young didnt win the Super Bowl in 94-95, he wouldnt have been remember the same, both among the fans, and nationally. that season he stepped out of Montanas shadow for the first time, and the fans loved him for good. we lose that game and hed be "that very good Niner QB that just couldnt get it done."

anybody over the age of 35 is going to say Montana regardless because they saw the careers of both, but for the people around my age and younger, go watch some old games. look at some playoff stats and such. its incredible.

For someone that never really got to see Montana play you pretty much nailed it.
I consider myself lucky to see every game Montana played from December 1982 until he became a Chief, thanks to my trusty old Beta VCR. I was serving in the military from 1/79 until 12/82 so I didn't get to see the 1981 season with the exception of the playoffs and SB16.

From my recollection, Young was never much of a come from behind QB. If the team got down early, he panicked. Anyone else remember the playoff game against the Cowboys in the early 90's when they won their 1st SB under Jimmy Johnson. Young had the classic 'deer in the headlights' look on his face while trying to lead a comeback late in the game. Even Madden commented on it. It's a look that I never saw on Montana's face.

As good of a quarterback as Steve Young was physically, he just didn't have the mojo that Montana had. The 49ers won the Super Bowl in the 94-95 season on the strength of the defense. That was the missing ingredient needed to put the team past the Cowboys in the '90s. That was the year they brought in Deion Sanders, Ken Norton Jr., Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, and Tim McDonald, and they drafted Bryant Young.

The most frustrating thing about Young, as you mentioned, was that he panicked A LOT when the pressure was put on him. The 49ers were a very good team throughout the '90s, but they always allowed the Packers to best them in the playoffs. I believe if Montana had been quarterbacking those teams instead of Young, the 49ers would've capture at least two more Super Bowl wins.

Steve Young was a great quarterback during the regular season. However, once he faced the pressure of the playoffs, he wilted. Whereas, Montana thrived and excelled under that pressure. Overall, Montana was, and forever will be, the better quarterback.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,698
Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Originally posted by GoalLineStand:
Originally posted by Niners99:
i dont really remember Joe Montana playing for the Niners. i was about 6 or 7 when he left for KC, so itd be easy for me to say Steve Young, who i grew up watching. to me he was the 49ers QB when i was growing up.

however, being a hardcore, keep up with the team daily Niner fan for 16 years now, ive done alot of research on what i missed in the Montana years. There is a reason Joe is thought of as the best QB in NFL history. he had an intangible quality. leading a comeback came routinely, and when the difficultly and pressure of the playoffs/Super Bowl came up, he stepped his game up to an even higher level. Montana played in 4 Super Bowls. he won all 4, was named MVP in 3, (lead the game winning 2 min. drive with a TD pass to WIN the championship in the one game he DIDNT get MVP), and had a career QB rating in the big game of 127.8 (with no picks), best all time. there will never be another Joe Montana.

Steve Young was great, but Joe Montana was legendary. Young had the better tools, but Montana had the touch, the accuracy, the brains, the cool attitude, and the killer instinct when the games got really important.

IMO its a no brainer pick. if Steve Young didnt win the Super Bowl in 94-95, he wouldnt have been remember the same, both among the fans, and nationally. that season he stepped out of Montanas shadow for the first time, and the fans loved him for good. we lose that game and hed be "that very good Niner QB that just couldnt get it done."

anybody over the age of 35 is going to say Montana regardless because they saw the careers of both, but for the people around my age and younger, go watch some old games. look at some playoff stats and such. its incredible.

For someone that never really got to see Montana play you pretty much nailed it.
I consider myself lucky to see every game Montana played from December 1982 until he became a Chief, thanks to my trusty old Beta VCR. I was serving in the military from 1/79 until 12/82 so I didn't get to see the 1981 season with the exception of the playoffs and SB16.

From my recollection, Young was never much of a come from behind QB. If the team got down early, he panicked. Anyone else remember the playoff game against the Cowboys in the early 90's when they won their 1st SB under Jimmy Johnson. Young had the classic 'deer in the headlights' look on his face while trying to lead a comeback late in the game. Even Madden commented on it. It's a look that I never saw on Montana's face.

As good of a quarterback as Steve Young was physically, he just didn't have the mojo that Montana had. The 49ers won the Super Bowl in the 94-95 season on the strength of the defense. That was the missing ingredient needed to put the team past the Cowboys in the '90s. That was the year they brought in Deion Sanders, Ken Norton Jr., Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, and Tim McDonald, and they drafted Bryant Young.

The most frustrating thing about Young, as you mentioned, was that he panicked A LOT when the pressure was put on him. The 49ers were a very good team throughout the '90s, but they always allowed the Packers to best them in the playoffs. I believe if Montana had been quarterbacking those teams instead of Young, the 49ers would've capture at least two more Super Bowl wins.

Steve Young was a great quarterback during the regular season. However, once he faced the pressure of the playoffs, he wilted. Whereas, Montana thrived and excelled under that pressure. Overall, Montana was, and forever will be, the better quarterback.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC

Better do some research, the defenses behind Young on average where not near as good as those behind Montana. Montana laid a few major play-off eggs. Check out 1986 and 1987 he had 3 one and dones in the play-offs.
This really isn't a debate Steve can or should win. Joe was the man. He was a master of the game of football. There were times where he just seemed unbeatable. Steve Young was great but he rarely elevated the team. Joe constantly put the team on his back and often took it farther than it may have been capable of going where as Steve usually fell short. I'll take Stve Young over just about any other QB in the history of the NFL. But not Joe.
Originally posted by fortyninerglory:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by msallaz51:
Originally posted by GlenCoffeesNuts:
Young made things happen with his incredible tools such as his quick feet and strong arm. Joe made it happen with magic. My vote is for Joe.

Joe could make reads faster, react quicker and was more accurate. The most impressive thing Joe did was to lead a team of nobodies in '81' to the superbowl. He was later blessed with for talent to win his other 3.

The biggest thing is playing under pressure. Steve was horrible when the game was on the line and the stakes were highest, Joe was at his best. If you look at Steve's biggest wins, the 2 against Dallas in 94 and the SB, at no point was there any doubt, the Niners controlled from the outset so he was loose and played well. now once he won the SB that changed a little, but before he was always tight and threw crucial INTs at the worst time.

Joe Montana was 0-3 in the playoffs in 85, 86, and 87, throwing 0 touchdowns and 4 interceptions in those 3 games. What is your point?


The point is Joe Montana won FOUR (4) Super Bowls and Steve Young won ONE (1).

The other point is that, other than winning the the Super Bowl in 1994, Steve Young continuously choked against the Troy Aikman led Cowboys (1992 & 1993)and the Bret Favre led Packers (1995, 1996 & 1997). Also, there was a playoff loss to Atlanta in 1998.

More statistical goodness:

Joe Montana's regular season record 117-47... Steve Young 94-49.
Playoffs: Joe 16-7... Steve 8-6.

In the post season: Joe had a rating of 95.5... Steve 86.1.

Joe was also the MVP of three out of four of his Super Bowls.


Now, what's your point?
Originally posted by BobS:
Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Originally posted by GoalLineStand:
Originally posted by Niners99:
i dont really remember Joe Montana playing for the Niners. i was about 6 or 7 when he left for KC, so itd be easy for me to say Steve Young, who i grew up watching. to me he was the 49ers QB when i was growing up.

however, being a hardcore, keep up with the team daily Niner fan for 16 years now, ive done alot of research on what i missed in the Montana years. There is a reason Joe is thought of as the best QB in NFL history. he had an intangible quality. leading a comeback came routinely, and when the difficultly and pressure of the playoffs/Super Bowl came up, he stepped his game up to an even higher level. Montana played in 4 Super Bowls. he won all 4, was named MVP in 3, (lead the game winning 2 min. drive with a TD pass to WIN the championship in the one game he DIDNT get MVP), and had a career QB rating in the big game of 127.8 (with no picks), best all time. there will never be another Joe Montana.

Steve Young was great, but Joe Montana was legendary. Young had the better tools, but Montana had the touch, the accuracy, the brains, the cool attitude, and the killer instinct when the games got really important.

IMO its a no brainer pick. if Steve Young didnt win the Super Bowl in 94-95, he wouldnt have been remember the same, both among the fans, and nationally. that season he stepped out of Montanas shadow for the first time, and the fans loved him for good. we lose that game and hed be "that very good Niner QB that just couldnt get it done."

anybody over the age of 35 is going to say Montana regardless because they saw the careers of both, but for the people around my age and younger, go watch some old games. look at some playoff stats and such. its incredible.

For someone that never really got to see Montana play you pretty much nailed it.
I consider myself lucky to see every game Montana played from December 1982 until he became a Chief, thanks to my trusty old Beta VCR. I was serving in the military from 1/79 until 12/82 so I didn't get to see the 1981 season with the exception of the playoffs and SB16.

From my recollection, Young was never much of a come from behind QB. If the team got down early, he panicked. Anyone else remember the playoff game against the Cowboys in the early 90's when they won their 1st SB under Jimmy Johnson. Young had the classic 'deer in the headlights' look on his face while trying to lead a comeback late in the game. Even Madden commented on it. It's a look that I never saw on Montana's face.

As good of a quarterback as Steve Young was physically, he just didn't have the mojo that Montana had. The 49ers won the Super Bowl in the 94-95 season on the strength of the defense. That was the missing ingredient needed to put the team past the Cowboys in the '90s. That was the year they brought in Deion Sanders, Ken Norton Jr., Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, and Tim McDonald, and they drafted Bryant Young.

The most frustrating thing about Young, as you mentioned, was that he panicked A LOT when the pressure was put on him. The 49ers were a very good team throughout the '90s, but they always allowed the Packers to best them in the playoffs. I believe if Montana had been quarterbacking those teams instead of Young, the 49ers would've capture at least two more Super Bowl wins.

Steve Young was a great quarterback during the regular season. However, once he faced the pressure of the playoffs, he wilted. Whereas, Montana thrived and excelled under that pressure. Overall, Montana was, and forever will be, the better quarterback.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC

Better do some research, the defenses behind Young on average where not near as good as those behind Montana. Montana laid a few major play-off eggs. Check out 1986 and 1987 he had 3 one and dones in the play-offs.

I absolutely concur that Montana had a great defensive cast playing with him. I believe a lot of folks overlook that fact because the Montana-led offense of the '80s was so spectacular. My point was that Young needed a stellar defense to get him his Super Bowl win. Young also played with that same defense throughout the '90s (minus Sanders), but was only able to come up with the one Super Bowl. When Young's back was against the wall, he couldn't overcome the pressure and pull out the win. It seemed that almost every year during the '90s, the 49ers were losing to the Packers in the playoffs.

Joe Montana was just a better quarterback when it mattered the most, and he was clutch more often that Young ever was.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC
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.

[ Edited by GhostofFredDean74 on Feb 3, 2011 at 08:58:45 ]
Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Originally posted by BobS:
Originally posted by dankmeistr:
Originally posted by GoalLineStand:
Originally posted by Niners99:
i dont really remember Joe Montana playing for the Niners. i was about 6 or 7 when he left for KC, so itd be easy for me to say Steve Young, who i grew up watching. to me he was the 49ers QB when i was growing up.

however, being a hardcore, keep up with the team daily Niner fan for 16 years now, ive done alot of research on what i missed in the Montana years. There is a reason Joe is thought of as the best QB in NFL history. he had an intangible quality. leading a comeback came routinely, and when the difficultly and pressure of the playoffs/Super Bowl came up, he stepped his game up to an even higher level. Montana played in 4 Super Bowls. he won all 4, was named MVP in 3, (lead the game winning 2 min. drive with a TD pass to WIN the championship in the one game he DIDNT get MVP), and had a career QB rating in the big game of 127.8 (with no picks), best all time. there will never be another Joe Montana.

Steve Young was great, but Joe Montana was legendary. Young had the better tools, but Montana had the touch, the accuracy, the brains, the cool attitude, and the killer instinct when the games got really important.

IMO its a no brainer pick. if Steve Young didnt win the Super Bowl in 94-95, he wouldnt have been remember the same, both among the fans, and nationally. that season he stepped out of Montanas shadow for the first time, and the fans loved him for good. we lose that game and hed be "that very good Niner QB that just couldnt get it done."

anybody over the age of 35 is going to say Montana regardless because they saw the careers of both, but for the people around my age and younger, go watch some old games. look at some playoff stats and such. its incredible.

For someone that never really got to see Montana play you pretty much nailed it.
I consider myself lucky to see every game Montana played from December 1982 until he became a Chief, thanks to my trusty old Beta VCR. I was serving in the military from 1/79 until 12/82 so I didn't get to see the 1981 season with the exception of the playoffs and SB16.

From my recollection, Young was never much of a come from behind QB. If the team got down early, he panicked. Anyone else remember the playoff game against the Cowboys in the early 90's when they won their 1st SB under Jimmy Johnson. Young had the classic 'deer in the headlights' look on his face while trying to lead a comeback late in the game. Even Madden commented on it. It's a look that I never saw on Montana's face.

As good of a quarterback as Steve Young was physically, he just didn't have the mojo that Montana had. The 49ers won the Super Bowl in the 94-95 season on the strength of the defense. That was the missing ingredient needed to put the team past the Cowboys in the '90s. That was the year they brought in Deion Sanders, Ken Norton Jr., Rickey Jackson, Gary Plummer, and Tim McDonald, and they drafted Bryant Young.

The most frustrating thing about Young, as you mentioned, was that he panicked A LOT when the pressure was put on him. The 49ers were a very good team throughout the '90s, but they always allowed the Packers to best them in the playoffs. I believe if Montana had been quarterbacking those teams instead of Young, the 49ers would've capture at least two more Super Bowl wins.

Steve Young was a great quarterback during the regular season. However, once he faced the pressure of the playoffs, he wilted. Whereas, Montana thrived and excelled under that pressure. Overall, Montana was, and forever will be, the better quarterback.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC

Better do some research, the defenses behind Young on average where not near as good as those behind Montana. Montana laid a few major play-off eggs. Check out 1986 and 1987 he had 3 one and dones in the play-offs.

I absolutely concur that Montana had a great defensive cast playing with him. I believe a lot of folks overlook that fact because the Montana-led offense of the '80s was so spectacular. My point was that Young needed a stellar defense to get him his Super Bowl win. Young also played with that same defense throughout the '90s (minus Sanders), but was only able to come up with the one Super Bowl. When Young's back was against the wall, he couldn't overcome the pressure and pull out the win. It seemed that almost every year during the '90s, the 49ers were losing to the Packers in the playoffs.

Joe Montana was just a better quarterback when it mattered the most, and he was clutch more often that Young ever was.

Dan
49ers Fan in NC

It amazes me that no one seems to remember how bad our running game was for Young except for the short time Waters was around and then Hearst. If Hearst doesn't get hurt, this conversation is VERY different. Not to knock Montana, but except for the 1st year we won the superbowl, he had an amazing running attack and a great d.

Not to mention Steve's career was significantly shorter than Joe's. I seem to remember Steve wanting to come back but being adviced the team itself wasn't good enough to justify him taking the risk.

[ Edited by Jakemall on Feb 3, 2011 at 09:19:08 ]
Originally posted by VA49er:
This really isn't a debate Steve can or should win. Joe was the man. He was a master of the game of football. There were times where he just seemed unbeatable. Steve Young was great but he rarely elevated the team. Joe constantly put the team on his back and often took it farther than it may have been capable of going where as Steve usually fell short. I'll take Stve Young over just about any other QB in the history of the NFL. But not Joe.

I'd agree with this with one exception....if the team has a bad OL.
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,176
Lame arguments. SF had the #1 defense in the league for most of 95 and Hearst was a pro bowl back for most of his time in SF. The teams in the 90s had far more talent than Joe's 81-85 teams. Does anyone think that if Steve went to KC and Joe stayed the results would have been any different in 94? They would have been for KC, but not SF.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Lame arguments. SF had the #1 defense in the league for most of 95 and Hearst was a pro bowl back for most of his time in SF. The teams in the 90s had far more talent than Joe's 81-85 teams. Does anyone think that if Steve went to KC and Joe stayed the results would have been any different in 94? They would have been for KC, but not SF.

yeah, cuz KC sucked with players like Marcus Allen at HB..with fresh legs cuz he sat on the bench with the Raiders...and if I remember correctly one of the better defenses in the league. Not saying Young would have done better...but KC didn't suck..they just needed a qb..and they got one with Joe.
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.

[ Edited by Ninerjohn on Feb 3, 2011 at 09:40:23 ]
Originally posted by TX9R:
Lame arguments. SF had the #1 defense in the league for most of 95 and Hearst was a pro bowl back for most of his time in SF. The teams in the 90s had far more talent than Joe's 81-85 teams. Does anyone think that if Steve went to KC and Joe stayed the results would have been any different in 94? They would have been for KC, but not SF.

Rankings of 49ers defenes

87 ranked #1
95 ranked #1
97 ranked #1
81 ranked #2
77 ranked #3
88 ranked #3
90 ranked #3
89 ranked #4
91 ranked #5

Just saying...
  • TX9R
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 8,176
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Lame arguments. SF had the #1 defense in the league for most of 95 and Hearst was a pro bowl back for most of his time in SF. The teams in the 90s had far more talent than Joe's 81-85 teams. Does anyone think that if Steve went to KC and Joe stayed the results would have been any different in 94? They would have been for KC, but not SF.

yeah, cuz KC sucked with players like Marcus Allen at HB..with fresh legs cuz he sat on the bench with the Raiders...and if I remember correctly one of the better defenses in the league. Not saying Young would have done better...but KC didn't suck..they just needed a qb..and they got one with Joe.

Their WRs were garbage. I was in Houston when Joe came to town against Buddy Ryan's defense that beat Joe up the whole game. then Joe Joe'd em and went to the next round. I have serious doubts Steve would have come out ahead in that situation. Joe made everyone he played with better, Steve needed all the help he could get. I'm not hating on Steve, but he was nowhere near Joe in the clutch.
Originally posted by TX9R:
Originally posted by Jakemall:
Originally posted by TX9R:
Lame arguments. SF had the #1 defense in the league for most of 95 and Hearst was a pro bowl back for most of his time in SF. The teams in the 90s had far more talent than Joe's 81-85 teams. Does anyone think that if Steve went to KC and Joe stayed the results would have been any different in 94? They would have been for KC, but not SF.

yeah, cuz KC sucked with players like Marcus Allen at HB..with fresh legs cuz he sat on the bench with the Raiders...and if I remember correctly one of the better defenses in the league. Not saying Young would have done better...but KC didn't suck..they just needed a qb..and they got one with Joe.

Their WRs were garbage. I was in Houston when Joe came to town against Buddy Ryan's defense that beat Joe up the whole game. then Joe Joe'd em and went to the next round. I have serious doubts Steve would have come out ahead in that situation. Joe made everyone he played with better, Steve needed all the help he could get. I'm not hating on Steve, but he was nowhere near Joe in the clutch.


I think more people would agree if they actually watched the playoff games and saw both of them play... that's the only real way to determine who was the best.

Watch every minute of every playoff game both played. Then you may agree that Steve Young choked for the most part while Joe played masterfully for the most part. The proof is in the pudding!