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?
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Now, if some bum who just managed an offense won 4 rings but didn't put up great stats, I would obviously take that into consideration and not rank him so high (it's all a case-by-case basis). But when you've put up spectacular career numbers AND manage to win multiple titles, that has to lift you up in the rankings of the all-time greats (IMO).
And the truth is, we'll never know if Marino would've won titles with the 90's Cowboys or the 80's Niners. I would assume so, but maybe there was something about the way he played that caused him to choke/tense up or not play his best when the lights were brightest. Maybe he wouldn't have been able to scramble to his right, buy time and hit Clark in the back of the end zone in '81, or have the patience to dink/dunk his way down the field before throwing a TD strike to John Taylor to win a world title in '89. We'll never know.
However, we do know what actually happened, what stats were put up by whom, and how many titles these guys were able to win (or not win). So I give credit to the guys that managed to lead their teams to multiple titles.
Like I said, I'm not trying to diminish the greatness of guys who didn't win multiple titles (or even one). And I also get that this is a team sport, and one man alone doesn't win you championships. But you would agree with me that there is no other position in all of sports quite like the QB position. If your QB is not great MOST of the time (and when it matters most), you will not win over a sustained period of time.
IMO, comparing baseball players and their championships is apples and oranges, considering baseball is the ultimate "stats" sport. You can be great as a stand-alone player and not win multiple titles, and still be considered the best at your position. But how much does a LF really impact a game/season/decade, or a SS or a 1st baseman or even 1 pitcher in a 5-man rotation? In comparison to a QB on a football team, not nearly as much...which is why that particular comparison falls a little short, IMO.