Timemachine: Montana or Young?

"Joe Cool"

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.

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.

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.

Have you looked at their RB's # of receptions? Their WRs weren't great...probably average...I'll grant that...but wco isn't just about that.

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

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!

Um...I did see both of them play. Steve Choked? REALLY? I'm not arguing that Steve is as good as Montana except in terms of atheletic ability...where he is better...but seriously?

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).

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

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!

Um...I did see both of them play. Steve Choked? REALLY? I'm not arguing that Steve is as good as Montana except in terms of atheletic ability...where he is better...but seriously?

Seriously. The quarterback leads the team. He led the team to many playoff losses against the Cowboys and Packers among others. It wasn't pretty.

For example: after Steve finally won against the Packers in the playoffs (barely) in 1998, he choked against the Falcons. ONE touchdown, THREE interceptions with a rating of 61.7 in that game.

[ Edited by FILTHpigskin on Feb 3, 2011 at 13:05:38 ]

It's tough to say.. I mean, with this team? We obviously don't have the defense of the 80's or the offensive players (certainly not the OL).

Young is hands down my favorite 49er all-time, but I don't think you can just overlook four flawless Super Bowl victories (no INTs in the Super Bowl all time by Montana). Young would have had two rings though had Hearst not gone down against Atlanta, in my opinion.

In the end, it's by a slight margin I'll still have to say Montana because he won on a young team, and four SB wins is too many to not take the guy.

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.

[ Edited by Jakemall on Feb 3, 2011 at 13:08:00 ]

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

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!

Um...I did see both of them play. Steve Choked? REALLY? I'm not arguing that Steve is as good as Montana except in terms of atheletic ability...where he is better...but seriously?

Seriously. The quarterback leads the team. He led the team to many playoff losses against the Cowboys and Packers among others. It wasn't pretty.

For example: after Steve finally won against the Packers in the playoffs (barely) in 1998, he choked against the Falcons. ONE touchdown, THREE interceptions with a rating of 61.7 in that game.

I think your neglecting to add into the equation that Hearst was hurt that game so the Falcons got to sit back and focus on the passing game and dare them to run with the ball. Stats are a wonderful thing...but they don't account for or tell a whole story.

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
It's tough to say.. I mean, with this team? We obviously don't have the defense of the 80's or the offensive players (certainly not the OL).

Young is hands down my favorite 49er all-time, but I don't think you can just overlook four flawless Super Bowl victories (no INTs in the Super Bowl all time by Montana). Young would have had two rings though had Hearst not gone down against Atlanta, in my opinion.

In the end, it's by a slight margin I'll still have to say Montana because he won on a young team, and four SB wins is too many to not take the guy.

This is pretty close to where I am at...BUT considering how much pressure our OL gives up, I'm inclned to go with Steve who buys time with his mobility...but ONLY for that reason. If our line is even a little better in pass coverage Montana becomes the choice in my mind.

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.

[ Edited by GhostofFredDean74 on Feb 3, 2011 at 13:32:03 ]

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:

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!

Um...I did see both of them play. Steve Choked? REALLY? I'm not arguing that Steve is as good as Montana except in terms of atheletic ability...where he is better...but seriously?

Seriously. The quarterback leads the team. He led the team to many playoff losses against the Cowboys and Packers among others. It wasn't pretty.

For example: after Steve finally won against the Packers in the playoffs (barely) in 1998, he choked against the Falcons. ONE touchdown, THREE interceptions with a rating of 61.7 in that game.

I think your neglecting to add into the equation that Hearst was hurt that game so the Falcons got to sit back and focus on the passing game and dare them to run with the ball. Stats are a wonderful thing...but they don't account for or tell a whole story.

I know stats don't tell the whole story. I'm going off the complete body of work of both QB's and Steve's disappointing playoff loss after disappointing playoff loss stands out in my mind. Just as it did back then.

Sure, for one year, when he clearly had the best team in the league, Steve led the 49ers to a lopsided Super Bowl win. Other than that, his postseason record is fairly unspectacular to me.

Originally posted by Jakemall:

Originally posted by OnTheClock:
It's tough to say.. I mean, with this team? We obviously don't have the defense of the 80's or the offensive players (certainly not the OL).

Young is hands down my favorite 49er all-time, but I don't think you can just overlook four flawless Super Bowl victories (no INTs in the Super Bowl all time by Montana). Young would have had two rings though had Hearst not gone down against Atlanta, in my opinion.

In the end, it's by a slight margin I'll still have to say Montana because he won on a young team, and four SB wins is too many to not take the guy.

This is pretty close to where I am at...BUT considering how much pressure our OL gives up, I'm inclned to go with Steve who buys time with his mobility...but ONLY for that reason. If our line is even a little better in pass coverage Montana becomes the choice in my mind.

Joe was able to buy time with his mobility as well. The only difference is Joe always moved around to buy time for his receivers whereas Steve Young early in his career used his mobility to simple run the ball. Even with this horrible line, Joe could still get it done. I have seen plays where Montana looked as if he were backtracking/running sideways and three defenders are running forward him chasing him, and he will complete a pass for a 1st down.