Steve Young on flagship 49ers

Originally posted by boast:
coulda
woulda
shoulda

I totally agree with this.

And totally agree that one player can make the difference between winning and losing. We need that player on the DL or OLB and at the QB.

Originally posted by NinerGM:

Originally posted by Marvin49:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by English:

Originally posted by Joecool:
Montana never had this problem. They down graded certain positions while he was there and they still won.

Um, huge fan of Montana that I am, I can't think of any significant examples of such downgrades, certainly not on the O. Perhaps you would care to be more specific?

Montana never had any top level RB in 1979.
Roger Craig only had 2 1000 yard seasons and was a downgrade from Tyler.
Young had Hearst for 2 1000 yard seasons averaging far more per carry than Craig.
Fred Dean only had 1 good year for the 49ers.

Steve Young had Jerry Rice in his prime and didn't only have Watters for one year.

I'm sorry, but thats total bunk.

The talent around Montana IMPROVED through his career. Craig was NOT a downgrade from Tyler. The Niners added both Jerry Rice and John Taylor while Montana was playing. The D lost Fred Dean, but added Charles Haley.

I'm not trying to say Steve was better than Joe, but Steve lost Haley, Lott, Rathman, Taylor, Watters, Sanders, and a number of other during his time in SF.

I still think Montana is the greatest of all time, but to say that he did it while the talent around him dropped is entirely incorrect. The '84 and '89 teams are some of the most talented teams in NFL history.

I think the 87 team was better than the 84 team. Just a personal preference.

Interesting. I view the 87 side as maybe the best ever. Certainly better than the 84. That should have been the start of the threepeat.

Great as Montana was, he won with at least a decent running game and terrific defenses. Beginning in the 1981 season, he had a RB by committee...among Ricky Patton, Johnny Davis and Earl Cooper, they ran for @ 1200 yds. Reserves Walt Easley, Paul Hofer, Bill Ring & Montana added 600 more. That year, we had the #2 scoring defense and led the league in T.O. margin.

Next SB season (84), Montana had @ 2000 yds between Wendell Tyler and rookie Roger Craig. They had the #1 defense in the league that year.

In 1988, between Craig and Rathman, they had @ 2000 yds rushing. They had the #8 defense in the league that year.

In 1989, between Craig, Rathman, Young, Montana and Flagler, they had over 2000 yds rushing. They had the #3 defense that season.

So, pls don't give me that Montana won without a good rushing attack and stellar defense.

Young2Rice;
We probably could have won a few more if we gave Montana his throne back.

I recall Montana being able to win the big game with no recognizable RB or defense.
Montana had a greet defense, and HELLO, Roger Craig??????

Would have been nice to have been able to keep Haley. But with the way he acted, the only way that could have happened if Walsh required Haley to wear a chastity belt, and he was carted on and off the field like Hannibal Lecter. I know when a player is great, the coach puts up with some nonsense. Parcells used to do that with Lawrence Taylor. But his nonsense was coming to meeting late, not waving "little LT" in front of everyone.

Originally posted by TheGoldDiggerrrr:
That last thought from Young stands out. We've seen other teams pay for letting key players get away following Super Bowl appearances, including when Seattle did not use the franchise tag for guard Steve Hutchinson. The Arizona Cardinals also expected to maintain recent successes better amid personnel losses

Steelers, trading off Holmes. Big ben could have used him. A guy who could open up windows and go up top and really make the big catchs when needed. I thought why watching the superbowl how ben is missing something then it clicked... Holmes wasn't playing for them, he was truly a target ben trusted and sorry hines ward isn't the wr he use to be.

So ture...teams that down grade thinking they'll be fine end up losing.

Cowboys won the superbowl and let Ken Norton go and we got him and won the superbowl the next year...but then we returned the favor with Sanders

Originally posted by mustangmele:
Letting Watters and Haley go reminds me of when the niners parted ways with T.O. and Jeff Garcia. Yeah, T.O. needed to go, but getting rid of Garcia was premature.

Garcia has admitted that choice was his, and it was a mistake.

Originally posted by nw9erfan:

Originally posted by Young2Rice:
We probably could have won a few more if we gave Montana his throne back.

I recall Montana being able to win the big game with no recognizable RB or defense.

Steve Young should also consider that he choked big time in the playoffs, throwing a poor performance after the next.

This is the biggest load of crap I've ever read in the Zone.

Steve Young was always part of the solution and not part of the problem. Even Montana could not win a Super Bowl when he didn't have a top 10 defense....same is true of Young.

Thank You Based God.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by mustangmele:
Letting Watters and Haley go reminds me of when the niners parted ways with T.O. and Jeff Garcia. Yeah, T.O. needed to go, but getting rid of Garcia was premature.

Garcia has admitted that choice was his, and it was a mistake.

The choice was his because the 9er's were over the cap and had to shed all kinds of salary. He didn't want to play for the league minimum. It's the NFL, not the NBA, there's no soft cap that lets you go over the cap to sign your own players. Garcia, T.O., J. Peterson, A. Carter, hell even the likes of Lance Schulters; they couldn't have kept any of them because of millions in dead money and a couple guys that were getting overpaid at the time (Fred Beasley comes to mind)...

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I think everyone on this thread is in agreement that Montana is better than Young.

However, that idea that the team downgraded during Montana's years is ridiculous.

I like another poster am curious to know what was this ONE good season that Fred Dean had.

Also, Roger Craig has been a HOF semi-finalist and finalist for the last few years. When was Wendell Tyler even in the running, but Craig is a downgrade. Really?

Montana had Dwight Clark and Freddie Solomon as his receivers in the early days and John Taylor and Jerry Rice later on his career. Definitely sounds like an upgrade to me. At TE, he started with Charle Young and finished with Brent Jones. Upgrade. And on defense? Those defenses were tough and if it weren't for a revolutionary offense, they would've gotten a lot more credit during the 80s.

But on Steve's original point, I agree with him about the 49ers getting too cute. Especially with Ricky Watters. I said that in another post, the loss of Ricky Watters affected the 1995 team more much more than the loss of Deion. It was one of the rare cases where a RB wasn't so easily replaceable. Hopefully, we don't make the same mistake again with free agents in the future.

Agree completely about Watters. I remember complaining to my buddy who is a Packers fan aboud Deion leaving. He emphasized the loss of Watters being the bigger loss. He was right

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Nice find.

You need a complete team to compete.

Oh, what could have been....

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Watters?

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Haley?

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Deion Sanders?

Even just one of those guys. How many more?

Big W wassup brotha, you said the truth there. But then I ask, then why all the hate (not just for one player), but those that say we dont need a full quality team to be able to compete. Not you, just a lot of our fans. They say we just need a hot QB, and that thats all we need to take us over the top.

I know thats not the case, but maybe they'll finally end that silly talk, being that even Steve Young said you need good/great players on each side of the ball to really compete.

What are you talking about? We have plenty of talent outside of QB. The only thing this team lacks is a significant pass rush, a decent cover corner and a damn QB to be in contention for a championship (I didn't bother to mention good coaching because they have already addressed that weakness). A good QB would help us WIN right NOW even without filling the other two needs, as is evidenced by the close games we've lost the past couple years because our QB couldn't complete the comeback or put up enough points to put the other team out of reach. Having a game manager for a QB usually means he lacks that killer instinct, which has been the case with Alex Smith and was the case with Shaun Hill.

Also, there are always exceptions to every rule. The 2006 Colts were NOT a complete team. Peyton Manning carried them on his back the whole season and the defense finally starting doing it's job in the postseason, but they were far from complete. People act like that defense was playing great football that postseason, but the truth is they only played great compared to what they were playing like before.

The 2000 Ravens were not a complete team, either, but they were an anomaly. There are plenty of other teams that weren't "complete" that won the Super Bowl. The Green Bay Packers weren't complete this year because they had no running game. What they did have was a good defense and a great QB.

I don't think you're understanding why people want a franchise QB before trying to address anything else. Name one franchise that won MORE THAN ONE championship without a top-level QB. Exactly. Look around at the dynasties. Niners had Montana and Young, Patriots have Brady, Cowboys had Aikman, Steelers have Roethlisberger and had Bradshaw (whom I don't think was a top ALL TIME QB, but was one of the best while he played). People want to get that QB before bothering with anything else because QB is the most important position. Period.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by mustangmele:
Letting Watters and Haley go reminds me of when the niners parted ways with T.O. and Jeff Garcia. Yeah, T.O. needed to go, but getting rid of Garcia was premature.

Garcia has admitted that choice was his, and it was a mistake.

Sad Jeff is Sad

Originally posted by 49erRider:

Originally posted by Jersey9er:

Originally posted by Wodwo:
Nice find.

You need a complete team to compete.

Oh, what could have been....

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Watters?

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Haley?

How many more Super Bowls do we win if we keep Deion Sanders?

Even just one of those guys. How many more?

Big W wassup brotha, you said the truth there. But then I ask, then why all the hate (not just for one player), but those that say we dont need a full quality team to be able to compete. Not you, just a lot of our fans. They say we just need a hot QB, and that thats all we need to take us over the top.

I know thats not the case, but maybe they'll finally end that silly talk, being that even Steve Young said you need good/great players on each side of the ball to really compete.

What are you talking about? We have plenty of talent outside of QB. The only thing this team lacks is a significant pass rush, a decent cover corner and a damn QB to be in contention for a championship (I didn't bother to mention good coaching because they have already addressed that weakness). A good QB would help us WIN right NOW even without filling the other two needs, as is evidenced by the close games we've lost the past couple years because our QB couldn't complete the comeback or put up enough points to put the other team out of reach. Having a game manager for a QB usually means he lacks that killer instinct, which has been the case with Alex Smith and was the case with Shaun Hill.

Also, there are always exceptions to every rule. The 2006 Colts were NOT a complete team. Peyton Manning carried them on his back the whole season and the defense finally starting doing it's job in the postseason, but they were far from complete. People act like that defense was playing great football that postseason, but the truth is they only played great compared to what they were playing like before.

The 2000 Ravens were not a complete team, either, but they were an anomaly. There are plenty of other teams that weren't "complete" that won the Super Bowl. The Green Bay Packers weren't complete this year because they had no running game. What they did have was a good defense and a great QB.

I don't think you're understanding why people want a franchise QB before trying to address anything else. Name one franchise that won MORE THAN ONE championship without a top-level QB. Exactly. Look around at the dynasties. Niners had Montana and Young, Patriots have Brady, Cowboys had Aikman, Steelers have Roethlisberger and had Bradshaw (whom I don't think was a top ALL TIME QB, but was one of the best while he played). People want to get that QB before bothering with anything else because QB is the most important position. Period.

Yeah but it is going to be close to impossible to get a Montana/Young or Aikman or Ben Ruthlessraper. You can't force this and reach on a guy hoping he can be good. If you're going to develop a guy you might as well develop a 2nd or 3rd pick. If you try to force it and you pick the wrong guy, not only do you wind up with a guy like Alex Smith or Vince Young but you could wind up missing out on a great pass rusher or cornerback like a Patrick Peterson.

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by mustangmele:
Letting Watters and Haley go reminds me of when the niners parted ways with T.O. and Jeff Garcia. Yeah, T.O. needed to go, but getting rid of Garcia was premature.

Garcia has admitted that choice was his, and it was a mistake.

He made that choice because the Niners offered him a joke of a deal. He knew he started his career late and didn't have a lot of time to earn NFL money, so he looked out for himself financially with that decision. Had the Niners made him a decent offer, he would have stayed. Words from his mouth (he told me, and no, I don't have pictures of him saying it to me so don't ask LMAO).

Originally posted by Gavintech:

Originally posted by dj43:

Originally posted by mustangmele:
Letting Watters and Haley go reminds me of when the niners parted ways with T.O. and Jeff Garcia. Yeah, T.O. needed to go, but getting rid of Garcia was premature.

Garcia has admitted that choice was his, and it was a mistake.

The choice was his because the 9er's were over the cap and had to shed all kinds of salary. He didn't want to play for the league minimum. It's the NFL, not the NBA, there's no soft cap that lets you go over the cap to sign your own players. Garcia, T.O., J. Peterson, A. Carter, hell even the likes of Lance Schulters; they couldn't have kept any of them because of millions in dead money and a couple guys that were getting overpaid at the time (Fred Beasley comes to mind)...

They couldn't keep them all, obviously, but they could have kept their franchise QB of all people. They just didn't bother to make any effort. That's the truth.