Originally posted by dtg_9er:
Originally posted by PhillyNiner:
Joe vs Steve also comes down to what you want in a QB...in the modern era where a QB is asked to be more mobile and athletic I can definitely see the argument for Steve. Nothing against Joe...but his style game, the stat lines he put up it is starting to slide into the baseball stats arguments. It was a different era, the rules were different. You start to question could he do now what he did then? Steve's game is much more comparable to the modern QB...in fact you could say he was the prototype for what a team wants out of a passer to this day.
Would I personally still go with Joe? Yeah...I think big game, ice water veins and legit field general skills outweigh so many things and Joe had all of that on a level of nobody since. But I don't make the call lightly...if you put Steve Young on the field behind any of the Patriots teams we have watched or put him up in Denver during the Manning era...multiple titles get won no question.
Only disagreement with this is the definition of athletic. Montana was an All-State B-Ball player in HS, so his nimbleness and balance were exceptional. He wasn't as fast but he had other qualities that fall into athletic for me--vision, agility, mental toughness, physical toughness, etc.
what does mental toughness or vision have to do with being athletic lol.
either way. you can't go wrong with either one, especially when you have Rice and TO on the team. i would probably take Young just because he was more exiting too watch. don't think he was the better QB, but he was a little more enjoyable to watch as a fan.
