Joe Montana or Steve Young?

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Such a silly take after closer examination of those "playoff chokes"

92 & 93 vs the Cowboys? Sure you can easily make a case that he choked in those games, but after that SB vs the Chargers?

1995 Packers: had no run game and had over 50 passing attempts, which was unheard of in that era, I believe he had the record for most passing attempts in a playoff game. Might've been broken by now with how the rules favor the passing game.

1996: Packers: forced himself to play with broken ribs. and eventually was taken out

1997: Packers: No Jerry Rice(just like most of the season), Garrison Hearst was useless after trying to play with an injury. Brent Jones played with a broken jaw I believe as well, would be his last NFL game. Just not enough fire power to beat the defending champs in the rain.

1998: Falcons: Garrison Hearst gets injured on the first play, Terry Kirby gets injured later on. No run game, and the defense fell off a cliff after the Bryant Young injury. Still only lost by 2 to the team that would represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

A lot of fans who either don't remember or just weren't around yet will still label those games as "chokes" by Steve Young, it comes off as more of bad luck imo. Those Niners teams probably would've made it to at least 1 or 2 more super bowls during the late 90s had a few more things bounced their way, unfortunately they did not . There's a reason so very few QBs have multiple Super Bowls, and luck plays a part regardless how big or small.

I personally think both things are true: we lost to better teams in almost every one of those seasons and Steve Young did not play well in those games.

Whether someone wants to label it 'choking' or not, I would agree his play was clearly not the only factor in the losses.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by elguapo:
This can't even be a real question! Steve Young choked in way too many playoff games to be considered even close to as good as Montana. Steve Young was probably the most efficient and best overall quarterback due to his dual threat in the regular season but come playoffs it's easily Montana

Such a silly take after closer examination of those "playoff chokes"

92 & 93 vs the Cowboys? Sure you can easily make a case that he choked in those games, but after that SB vs the Chargers?

1995 Packers: had no run game and had over 50+ passing attempts, which was unheard of in that era, I believe he had the record for most passing attempts in a playoff game. Might've been broken by now with how the rules favor the passing game.

1996: Packers: forced himself to play with broken ribs. and eventually was taken out

1997: Packers: No Jerry Rice(just like most of the season), Garrison Hearst was useless after trying to play with an injury. Brent Jones played with a broken jaw I believe as well, would be his last NFL game. Just not enough fire power to beat the defending champs in the rain.

1998: Falcons: Garrison Hearst gets injured on the first play, Terry Kirby gets injured later on. No run game, and the defense fell off a cliff after the Bryant Young injury. Still only lost by 2 to the team that would represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

A lot of fans who either don't remember or just weren't around yet will still label those games as "chokes" by Steve Young, but it falls more on bad luck imo. Those Niners teams probably would've made it to at least 1 or 2 more super bowls during the late 90s had a few more things bounced their way, unfortunately they did not . There's a reason so very few QBs have multiple Super Bowls, and luck plays a part regardless how big or small.

No that's reality not a silly take. A silly take would be what you were arguing which is a bunch of excuses as to why he choked against very competitive teams. I saw every single one of those games. The niners have always have bad injury luck in the playoffs.

Yes, Steve Young did have some bad luck (but then again so did Montana) but he performed very poorly in those early 90s playoff games especially versus the Cowboys. Did you happen to catch those? Because the film is still out there and it backs up exactly what I said.

Originally posted by elguapo:

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by elguapo:
This can't even be a real question! Steve Young choked in way too many playoff games to be considered even close to as good as Montana. Steve Young was probably the most efficient and best overall quarterback due to his dual threat in the regular season but come playoffs it's easily Montana

Such a silly take after closer examination of those "playoff chokes"

92 & 93 vs the Cowboys? Sure you can easily make a case that he choked in those games, but after that SB vs the Chargers?

1995 Packers: had no run game and had over 50 passing attempts, which was unheard of in that era, I believe he had the record for most passing attempts in a playoff game. Might've been broken by now with how the rules favor the passing game.

1996: Packers: forced himself to play with broken ribs. and eventually was taken out

1997: Packers: No Jerry Rice(just like most of the season), Garrison Hearst was useless after trying to play with an injury. Brent Jones played with a broken jaw I believe as well, would be his last NFL game. Just not enough fire power to beat the defending champs in the rain.

1998: Falcons: Garrison Hearst gets injured on the first play, Terry Kirby gets injured later on. No run game, and the defense fell off a cliff after the Bryant Young injury. Still only lost by 2 to the team that would represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

A lot of fans who either don't remember or just weren't around yet will still label those games as "chokes" by Steve Young, but it falls more on bad luck imo. Those Niners teams probably would've made it to at least 1 or 2 more super bowls during the late 90s had a few more things bounced their way, unfortunately they did not . There's a reason so very few QBs have multiple Super Bowls, and luck plays a part regardless how big or small.

No that's reality not a silly take. A silly take would be what you were arguing which is a bunch of excuses as to why he choked against very competitive teams. I saw every single one of those games. The niners have always have bad injury luck in the playoffs.

Yes, Steve Young did have some bad luck (but then again so did Montana) but he performed very poorly in those early 90s playoff games especially versus the Cowboys. Did you happen to catch those? Because the film is still out there and it backs up exactly what I said.

Literally the first thing mentioned was that he didn't play very good in those Cowboys games lmao. I was referring to what happened after Super Bowl 29.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:
I personally think both things are true: we lost to better teams in almost every one of those seasons and Steve Young did not play well in those games.

Whether someone wants to label it 'choking' or not, I would agree his play was clearly not the only factor in the losses.

Good luck winning a Super Bowl when your QB is the leading rusher (95 and 96) and when you finally get a RB (Hearst) they get hurt either before or during the playoffs. Losing Jerry Rice for the majority of the season and then asked to beat the defending champs with JJ Stokes and a young T.O. doesn't help either.

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:

Originally posted by elguapo:
This can't even be a real question! Steve Young choked in way too many playoff games to be considered even close to as good as Montana. Steve Young was probably the most efficient and best overall quarterback due to his dual threat in the regular season but come playoffs it's easily Montana

Such a silly take after closer examination of those "playoff chokes"

92 & 93 vs the Cowboys? Sure you can easily make a case that he choked in those games, but after that SB vs the Chargers?

1995 Packers: had no run game and had over 50+ passing attempts, which was unheard of in that era, I believe he had the record for most passing attempts in a playoff game. Might've been broken by now with how the rules favor the passing game.

1996: Packers: forced himself to play with broken ribs. and eventually was taken out

1997: Packers: No Jerry Rice(just like most of the season), Garrison Hearst was useless after trying to play with an injury. Brent Jones played with a broken jaw I believe as well, would be his last NFL game. Just not enough fire power to beat the defending champs in the rain.

1998: Falcons: Garrison Hearst gets injured on the first play, Terry Kirby gets injured later on. No run game, and the defense fell off a cliff after the Bryant Young injury. Still only lost by 2 to the team that would represent the NFC in the Super Bowl.

A lot of fans who either don't remember or just weren't around yet will still label those games as "chokes" by Steve Young, but it falls more on bad luck imo. Those Niners teams probably would've made it to at least 1 or 2 more super bowls during the late 90s had a few more things bounced their way, unfortunately they did not . There's a reason so very few QBs have multiple Super Bowls, and luck plays a part regardless how big or small.

I used to agree with that sentiment. But then you look at the regular seasons for each of those years and the team was playing lights out despite those deficiencies.

Didn't we destroy Dallas in Dallas with Grbac in 1995 ? The same year we lost to GB in the divisional?

And didn't we sweep the division (last time we did it before 2022) and rattle off 11 straight after losing Rice (and Young) in the season opener on 1997?

I loved Steve Young, more than Joe Montana, because so feel he is the ultimate ambassador for this team, whereas Montana just takes a back seat and gripes every chance he gets. But Steve did come up short multiple times. I don't blame him for 93, 96, or 98 because those were better teams we were up against….but 92 vs Cowboys, 95 vs Packers, and 97 Packers were home games that should have been easily won and equated to SB trophies.

Originally posted by DrEll:
I used to agree with that sentiment. But then you look at the regular seasons for each of those years and the team was playing lights out despite those deficiencies.

Didn't we destroy Dallas in Dallas with Grbac in 1995 ? The same year we lost to GB in the divisional?

And didn't we sweep the division (last time we did it before 2022) and rattle off 11 straight after losing Rice (and Young) in the season opener on 1997?

I loved Steve Young, more than Joe Montana, because so feel he is the ultimate ambassador for this team, whereas Montana just takes a back seat and gripes every chance he gets. But Steve did come up short multiple times. I don't blame him for 93, 96, or 98 because those were better teams we were up against….but 92 vs Cowboys, 95 vs Packers, and 97 Packers were home games that should have been easily won and equated to SB trophies.

This x 1000. Common sense

Originally posted by RiceOwensStokes:
Literally the first thing mentioned was that he didn't play very good in those Cowboys games lmao. I was referring to what happened after Super Bowl 29.

Yes and I still think you are giving Young way too much of a pass after those Cowboys games lmao

Originally posted by DrEll:
I used to agree with that sentiment. But then you look at the regular seasons for each of those years and the team was playing lights out despite those deficiencies.

Didn't we destroy Dallas in Dallas with Grbac in 1995 ? The same year we lost to GB in the divisional?

And didn't we sweep the division (last time we did it before 2022) and rattle off 11 straight after losing Rice (and Young) in the season opener on 1997?

I loved Steve Young, more than Joe Montana, because so feel he is the ultimate ambassador for this team, whereas Montana just takes a back seat and gripes every chance he gets. But Steve did come up short multiple times. I don't blame him for 93, 96, or 98 because those were better teams we were up against….but 92 vs Cowboys, 95 vs Packers, and 97 Packers were home games that should have been easily won and equated to SB trophies.

I think the divisional game against the Falcons probably stands out as the worst Young performance in a game we might have won had he played better.

95 and 97 Packers were just better teams than the 49ers. I believe the Packers were road favorites in the 97 championship game.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
I used to agree with that sentiment. But then you look at the regular seasons for each of those years and the team was playing lights out despite those deficiencies.

Didn't we destroy Dallas in Dallas with Grbac in 1995 ? The same year we lost to GB in the divisional?

And didn't we sweep the division (last time we did it before 2022) and rattle off 11 straight after losing Rice (and Young) in the season opener on 1997?

I loved Steve Young, more than Joe Montana, because so feel he is the ultimate ambassador for this team, whereas Montana just takes a back seat and gripes every chance he gets. But Steve did come up short multiple times. I don't blame him for 93, 96, or 98 because those were better teams we were up against….but 92 vs Cowboys, 95 vs Packers, and 97 Packers were home games that should have been easily won and equated to SB trophies.

I think the divisional game against the Falcons probably stands out as the worst Young performance in a game we might have won had he played better.

95 and 97 Packers were just better teams than the 49ers. I believe the Packers were road favorites in the 97 championship game.

We were the better team in 95 for sure. The Packers got their ass handed to them vs Dallas the following week in the NFCC game. The same Dallas team we put up 40 against with Elvis Grbac IN Dallas a few weeks prior. We were the favorite for the SB that year.

We were a better team in 1997. We owned the best record. Swept the division. Owned the best defense in the league. Again I don't watch the highlights much bc it breaks my heart until this day but the Packers put ok and average effort at best that day. You g just couldn't muster any offense and I think we lost 23-7 or something like that.

The Divisional vs Atlanta was a wash. Our SB that year was the Catch II. Rice was old. Hearst had a bum hamstring. It was out worst defensive unit of the decade led by Antonio Langham It didn't matter whether we beat Atlanta that year….Minnesota with Randy Moss and Chris Carter with Randall would've embarrassed us…

Originally posted by DrEll:
We were the better team in 95 for sure. The Packers got their ass handed to them vs Dallas the following week in the NFCC game. The same Dallas team we put up 40 against with Elvis Grbac IN Dallas a few weeks prior. We were the favorite for the SB that year.

We were a better team in 1997. We owned the best record. Swept the division. Owned the best defense in the league. Again I don't watch the highlights much bc it breaks my heart until this day but the Packers put ok and average effort at best that day. You g just couldn't muster any offense and I think we lost 23-7 or something like that.

The Divisional vs Atlanta was a wash. Our SB that year was the Catch II. Rice was old. Hearst had a bum hamstring. It was out worst defensive unit of the decade led by Antonio Langham It didn't matter whether we beat Atlanta that year….Minnesota with Randy Moss and Chris Carter with Randall would've embarrassed us…

The Packers dominated the 97 championship game with their defense. We scored 3 offensive points and got a late TD return from Chuck Levy for a final score of 23-10. It was not close. I understand we were the one seed (winning tiebreaker against GB at 13-3) and had the top ranked defense by some metrics, but our schedule was light. The NFC west was laughably bad that year. The best win of the season was the MNF game against the Broncos, but we also got absolutely annihilated by the Chiefs (the AFC one seed) in KC that year as well ending what I think was a 10 game winning streak or something like that. The Packers were a better team on both sides of the ball and again were favored on the road (pretty significant if you gamble at all).

I think the same was true in 95, but people didn't realize it going in so it was more of a surprise result. Having said that, the game was again not really close. It started with the Walker fumble-TD return and then the Packers offense completely dissected our defense to take a comfortable 3 score lead. Their defense was very good. We made the score closer in the end but again, it was really a one sided game that could have been even worse.

I agree that we probably don't beat the Vikings in the 98 title game, but we had opportunities to win the Falcons game even with the loss of Hearst early to the leg injury. We had the ball in scoring range down 14-10 (3rd quarter) and Young forced a terrible interception to Eugene Robinson that was returned all the way to the other side of the field giving the Falcons their own scoring opportunity (they grabbed a fg). On the ensuing possession Young, down 17-10, had another interception that looked like a miscommunication with his receiver (TE Clark I think). Young also should have had a 3rd turnover that was overturned in one of the most egregious (and forgotten) bad calls in playoff history. He threw a backwards pass to Terry Kirby at his feet that was picked up by a Falcon and returned for a touchdown, only to have the refs first incorrectly say the Falcons player was down by contact, and then change that call to say Kirby had possession of the fumble and was down by contact. The game would have been 21-0 and instead the 49ers kept possession and scored a touchdown making it 14-7. It really was ugly stuff that game.

Originally posted by SmokeyJoe:

Originally posted by DrEll:
We were the better team in 95 for sure. The Packers got their ass handed to them vs Dallas the following week in the NFCC game. The same Dallas team we put up 40 against with Elvis Grbac IN Dallas a few weeks prior. We were the favorite for the SB that year.

We were a better team in 1997. We owned the best record. Swept the division. Owned the best defense in the league. Again I don't watch the highlights much bc it breaks my heart until this day but the Packers put ok and average effort at best that day. You g just couldn't muster any offense and I think we lost 23-7 or something like that.

The Divisional vs Atlanta was a wash. Our SB that year was the Catch II. Rice was old. Hearst had a bum hamstring. It was out worst defensive unit of the decade led by Antonio Langham It didn't matter whether we beat Atlanta that year….Minnesota with Randy Moss and Chris Carter with Randall would've embarrassed us…

The Packers dominated the 97 championship game with their defense. We scored 3 offensive points and got a late TD return from Chuck Levy for a final score of 23-10. It was not close. I understand we were the one seed (winning tiebreaker against GB at 13-3) and had the top ranked defense by some metrics, but our schedule was light. The NFC west was laughably bad that year. The best win of the season was the MNF game against the Broncos, but we also got absolutely annihilated by the Chiefs (the AFC one seed) in KC that year as well ending what I think was a 10 game winning streak or something like that. The Packers were a better team on both sides of the ball and again were favored on the road (pretty significant if you gamble at all).

I think the same was true in 95, but people didn't realize it going in so it was more of a surprise result. Having said that, the game was again not really close. It started with the Walker fumble-TD return and then the Packers offense completely dissected our defense to take a comfortable 3 score lead. Their defense was very good. We made the score closer in the end but again, it was really a one sided game that could have been even worse.

I agree that we probably don't beat the Vikings in the 98 title game, but we had opportunities to win the Falcons game even with the loss of Hearst early to the leg injury. We had the ball in scoring range down 14-10 (3rd quarter) and Young forced a terrible interception to Eugene Robinson that was returned all the way to the other side of the field giving the Falcons their own scoring opportunity (they grabbed a fg). On the ensuing possession Young, down 17-10, had another interception that looked like a miscommunication with his receiver (TE Clark I think). Young also should have had a 3rd turnover that was overturned in one of the most egregious (and forgotten) bad calls in playoff history. He threw a backwards pass to Terry Kirby at his feet that was picked up by a Falcon and returned for a touchdown, only to have the refs first incorrectly say the Falcons player was down by contact, and then change that call to say Kirby had possession of the fumble and was down by contact. The game would have been 21-0 and instead the 49ers kept possession and scored a touchdown making it 14-7. It really was ugly stuff that game.

Lol. I wonder how many posters even understand or know or care about everything that you just said. Just a different era. Different mentality.

Many people think that had we held on to Joe we wouldn't have lost to the Cowboys those 2 years, but even after Steve supposedly got the monkey off his back, he was responsible for Dallas getting their 3rd with Aikman. Steve simply went from not being able to beat Dallas to not being able to beat Green Bay. In 95, the Packers had no business beating us and were summarily dispatched by the Cowboys, allowing them to tie us for SB trophies. Had we beaten GB, we definitely would have beaten Dallas that year again. But people today are whining that Kyle can't win the big one.

Damn I didn't click on the Kyle Thread.

Originally posted by SLCNiner:
Many people think that had we held on to Joe we wouldn't have lost to the Cowboys those 2 years, but even after Steve supposedly got the monkey off his back, he was responsible for Dallas getting their 3rd with Aikman. Steve simply went from not being able to beat Dallas to not being able to beat Green Bay. In 95, the Packers had no business beating us and were summarily dispatched by the Cowboys, allowing them to tie us for SB trophies. Had we beaten GB, we definitely would have beaten Dallas that year again. But people today are whining that Kyle can't win the big one.

Joe was better than Steve in his prime, but we didn't choose between them then. Joe was at the tail end of his career and Steve was the league MVP.

You guys need to stop applying the transitive property when analyzing teams, lol. We may have beat the Cowboys in the regular season in 95, and the Cowboys may have beaten the Packers in the title game, but the games are about matchups. The Packers couldn't dominate the Cowboys lines like they did against us in every single matchup. I think the Packers had lost like 6-7 straight games against Dallas, in Dallas, before beating the brakes off them in 97 at Lambeau. Even the 96 Packers, eventual SB winners and one of the best teams of all time, lost to Dallas in Dallas by multiple scores. That 96 Cowboys team was out in the wild card against the Panthers. *it was the divisional round, not wild card*

Could the 95 Niners have beaten Dallas in the title game? Maybe. They definitely would have been underdogs even with the regular season win.

Steve was the better passer but he's not close to Joe as a QB...

sometimes, it takes more than being a very good passer.. Those teams that Young lost to so many times... Dallas... Green Bay... Joe would not lose to those teams.. .. maybe.. JUST maybe, the Green Bay team that won their 1st Super Bowl w/Brett Favre..

The difference??? Teams did not respect Young's talent the way they respected Joe when it comes " GAME TIME "..

Go ask Chris Collinsworth.. " he's not God, he's not human... the guy is someone in between "..

Originally posted by 9moon:
Steve was the better passer but he's not close to Joe as a QB...

sometimes, it takes more than being a very good passer.. Those teams that Young lost to so many times... Dallas... Green Bay... Joe would not lose to those teams.. .. maybe.. JUST maybe, the Green Bay team that won their 1st Super Bowl w/Brett Favre..

The difference??? Teams did not respect Young's talent the way they respected Joe when it comes " GAME TIME "..

Go ask Chris Collinsworth.. " he's not God, he's not human... the guy is someone in between "..

Did Collinsworth say that about Joe? That's a great quote lol