Originally posted by bigmur49:Obviously such a discussion can go many ways
Since when is it just a given that Brett Favruh was abetter QB than Steve Young. I don't believe that at all. Yes, his career stats are more impressive, but he also played way longer. For all of his great moments and highlights, I can find the same amount of big games that Favre lost all by himself at the end. I am not trying to say it is Young by a wide margin or anything, Favre is one of the best QB's ever, but so is Young in my opinion.
- Overall career (Longevity)
- Best 5+ year run
- Most clutch
- Most consistent
Although the Packers had the coaching edge and early on the defense, I think the teams were mostly equal. So how do you explain the enormous edge in W-L record? Unless you are just gonna say Favre over performed in 95, 96 and 97. Yes I'm aware we were out played on special teams and in the turnover department in a few of those games.
Unless you are going to take the Favre/Young debate towards how the pro game is currently being played, which favors accuracy/running ability. Then you will come off as a blind homer if you argue Young over Favre. Equal, you could pass on most knowledgeable fans from the 1990's. In overall history, the Football community won't let us have Montana AND Young in the TOP5. Most lists I have seen from the ''Modern Game'' Young is usually at 10 and I'm satisfied with that.