There are 46 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Timemachine: Montana or Young?

Timemachine: Montana or Young?

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.
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.
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), resurrecting 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. So if I had to be technical about it, I'd say Steve was probably the better passer....but Joe was the better QB/player.

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

[ Edited by GhostofFredDean74 on Feb 4, 2011 at 10:12:31 ]
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,555
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.

I am not saying Montana was not great, I just enjoyed watching Steve Young more. I also claim the gap between the two in excellence when it counted was not that great. On a 100 rating system Joe was a 99 and Steve was a 97. Young didn't become a full time starter on the 49ers till he was 30. I think if they swapped teams the Super Bowl ring count would have been closer than 4-1. I give a lot of credit for the 1981 Super Bowl win to Montana that team wasn't that good and won 3 close play-off games. Don't know if any other QB would have won with the 49ers that year. The 1989 team would have beat Denver with Ken Dorsey at QB.
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.
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.


It's not that Joe never had a bad playoff game, it's that he excelled in the playoffs more often than Steve did. Not comparing their defenses, or running backs, or coaches, or "era's", or even who they played against.

Joe outplayed Steve when it mattered most, in the playoffs. I don't see how anyone can argue that.

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.

[ Edited by GhostofFredDean74 on Feb 4, 2011 at 10:52:31 ]
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,555
Quote:

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.

The only other QB with 4 rings is Terry Bradshaw where would you say he rates?
Originally posted by BobS:
Quote:

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.

The only other QB with 4 rings is Terry Bradshaw where would you say he rates?

TB is a unique case, and I'm sort of revising my statement from earlier regarding Bradshaw. I wouldn't put him over most of the guys we discussed so far (especially as a passer), because he struggled so much in his earlier years. I mean, he was mediocre-to-plain-awful for the first 6 or so years of his career, so he gets dinged for that.

Clearly, you can see that he wasn't a great passer early on, but once the light went on, he was one of the best QBs in the business from '77-82. Would the Steelers have won 4 titles with someone else? Maybe and probably...but they didn't, so we'll never know.

[ Edited by GhostofFredDean74 on Feb 4, 2011 at 11:19:13 ]
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!
Member Milestone: This is post number 200 for midrdan.
Originally posted by GhostofFredDean74:
Originally posted by BobS:
Quote:

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.

The only other QB with 4 rings is Terry Bradshaw where would you say he rates?

TB is a unique case, and I'm sort of revising my statement from earlier regarding Bradshaw. I wouldn't put him over most of the guys we discussed so far (especially as a passer), because he struggled so much in his earlier years. I mean, he was mediocre-to-plain-awful for the first 6 or so years of his career, so he gets dinged for that.

Clearly, you can see that he wasn't a great passer early on, but once the light went on, he was one of the best QBs in the business from '77-82. Would the Steelers have won 4 titles with someone else? Maybe and probably...but they didn't, so we'll never know.

Bradshaw was throwing to two HOF receivers and was handing off to a HOF running back. And how many HOFers were on that Steelers defense? Bradshaw was a fine QB, but the talent around him was amazing. If you put Staubach on the Steelers they may not lose a game for a decade that team was so stacked.
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!


Good post.
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.
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.
Originally posted by BobS:
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.

I am not saying Montana was not great, I just enjoyed watching Steve Young more. I also claim the gap between the two in excellence when it counted was not that great. On a 100 rating system Joe was a 99 and Steve was a 97. Young didn't become a full time starter on the 49ers till he was 30. I think if they swapped teams the Super Bowl ring count would have been closer than 4-1. I give a lot of credit for the 1981 Super Bowl win to Montana that team wasn't that good and won 3 close play-off games. Don't know if any other QB would have won with the 49ers that year. The 1989 team would have beat Denver with Ken Dorsey at QB.

I prefer Montana, but I think you're unfair to Young for what happened in the 1988 season. Young didn't play himself out of the starting job. He started 3 games in the 11 games before Walsh decided to go with Montana for good, and won 2. One win was with his now famous 49-yard run at the end of the game to win the game against the Vikings. Walsh's decision to go with Montana was more about closing an open sore that existed since the season before, and a natural decision of a coach to give the more experienced guy (Montana) one more chance. It had little to do with Young's performance on the field that season (his loss to the Cardinals was because the inexplicable fold of the 49ers defense in the game.)