Better QB:Aikman or S Young

[Gryphon]

from Lester's Legends's SportingBlog

Last week, while asking whether Tom Brady or Peyton Manning was the better quarterback, this side debate came up. Who was the better quarterback, Troy Aikman or Steve Young? I thought it was worthy of its own debate.

The Numbers
Troy Aikman
61.5 Completion Percentage
32942 Passing Yards (22nd all-time)
165 Passing TDs (49th all-time)
141 INTs
1016 Rushing Yards
9 Rushing TDs
4 times top 10 in passing yards (4th being the highest)
3 times being top ten in TDs (3rd being hightest)
6 Pro Bowls
Super Bowl MVP
3 Super Bowl Rings
Most wins by a QB in any decade
Ranked No. 95 on The Sporting News' list of the 100 Greatest Football Players

Steve Young
64.3 Completion Percentage (4th highest all-time)
33124 Passing Yards (21st all-time)
232 Passing TDs (19th all-time)
107 INTs
4239 Rushing Yards (2nd most ever by a QB)
43 Rushing TDs (most ever by a QB)
96.8 Career Passer Rating (highest ever)
4 times top 10 in passing yards (finished 2nd three times)
6 times being top ten in TDs (lead the league 4 times)
6 times the league's highest rated passer (tied for most all-time)
2 MVPs
4 All-Pros
7 Pro Bowls
Super Bowl MVP
1 Super Bowl Ring as starter (3 overall)
Ranked #63 on The Sporting News list of the 100 Greatest Football Players

While Aikman was a great QB, he had the luxury of playing on a dynasty. When Steve Young got the chance to start the 49er dynasty was virtually over. Had he not been stuck behind Joe Montana for a few years, we wouldn't be having this debate. We would be comparing him to John Elway instead.

My vote is for Steve Young. What's yours?
__________________
for more updates visit http://gryphononcowboys.blogspot.com/

 

[Deputy493]

you say Aikman had the luxury of playing on a dynasty, well, the 49ers had a chance to be the dynasty of the 90's too, the problem was Dallas....for 4 straight years the Cowboys or 49ers won it all......Dallas QB'd by Aikman 3 and Young's 49ers 1..........if you are into stats, Young is your guy, then again he played in a stat friendly offense, Aikman did not......but for the big game, give me Aikman any day of the week.

You yourself said Young had to play behind Montana. There are many that believe to this day of the 49ers had started and played Montana in the 92 Championship game they would've beat Dallas (I disagree), but what does that say about Young right there?

Give me Aikman because I am interseted in winning, not stats.

 

[kingwhicker]

Young was the better QB by far by the numbers but he had a reputation of :ralph: in big games (regular season and playoffs). He was not a very good leader.

 

[Rack]

Young was a system QB. Without the WCO he would of been NOTHING. Just look what he did for the Bucs.


Aikman > Young and it isn't even close. I could only imagine the numbers Aikman would of put up in the WCO.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If you are a stat guy then Young is your man. If you are into winning on the field (ex. Super Bowls) then Aikman is your man.

Had Young stayed in Tampa, chances are pretty good we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

 

[Thick 'N Hearty]

I think it's hilarious that some think Aikman had more talent to work with in Dallas. Young had Rice, TO, and Watters. Young, Watters and Rice went to the Pro Bowl (not a huge measuring stick anymore) every year from 1992-1996. Not a bad stretch. Several O-lineman from the whiners made it, too. So they had the tools.

The difference between the two, like king said, is leadership. Aikman knew how to get the best out of the people on his offense. He had no problem getting in someone's face if they weren't doing their job.

And SB records, IMO, are the telling stat. Aikman 3, Young 1.

 

[LUVDABOYS]

Young is the biggest whiner quarterback I have ever seen. I cant stand listening to the guy. Young just had to win against the KC led Montana or he'd never get out from under the shadow. Montana flat whipped his **#, and I loved every second.

Personally, I think Tom Brady is better than Manning for the same reasons that I think Troy was better than Young. Stats dont show it all.

 

[Biggems]

Both are great QBs.....no need to bash Young in order to lift Aikman....no need to bash Aikman in order to lift Young.

Both guys QBd what I believe to be the top 2 teams from 92-95.....Aikman won 2 and lost 1.........Young won 1 and lost 2.

both teams had great WRs, great TEs, great defenses, top tier running backs, great OLs, and superb coaching.

i still wish we hadnt spotted the Niners 21 pts in 94.....we win that game easily if we dont.

 

[viman96]

Young is the better numbers QB and is the more dynamic of the two but IMO that is it. Troy was a better leader and the better all around QB. Also Young was a bit of a whiner and had chip on his shoulder. Remember Young running around like an *** having anyone he could find rip the so called monkey off his back? This unnecessary pressure probably kept him and the 49ers out of a few more SB's runs. No way Troy put himself above the team like Young did.

 

[DallasEast]

I can only imagine the numbers Aikman would have put up if he only had to dump the ball into the flats or throw to receivers in crossing patterns all day. If Aikman had played in a West Coast offense, he would've destroyed Young's and Montana's numbers. The only advantage Young ever had over Aikman was his scrambling ability. Heck, if Aikman's quick release plus the short passing game would have entended his career. Very few defenders would've gotten close enough to deliver many of the concussions and back injuries which shortened his career.

 

[CactusCowboy]

I have always said Young was the better QB and I come to this conclusion because I watched both for many years, on TV and at each ones various stadiums as I traveled from Cali to Texas all the time. I don't even know what the numbers are, what I saw with my own two eyes was that Young was the better of the two. If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

 

[viman96]

I have always said Young was the better QB and I come to this conclusion because I watched both for many years, on TV and at each ones various stadiums as I traveled from Cali to Texas all the time. I don't even know what the numbers are, what I saw with my own two eyes was that Young was the better of the two. If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

I watched both of them play a lot. I have seen both play live as well. Young was the better numbers QB but not the better leader. IMO Steve put his needs above the team which Troy did not do.

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

I have always said Young was the better QB and I come to this conclusion because I watched both for many years, on TV and at each ones various stadiums as I traveled from Cali to Texas all the time. I don't even know what the numbers are, what I saw with my own two eyes was that Young was the better of the two. If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

Finally.. Something we agree on.

 

[ROMOSAPIEN9]

If I was given the chance to take one QB in the history of the NFL to play one season with, it would be Steve Young. Career, I'll take John Elway.

 

[Rack]

I have always said Young was the better QB and I come to this conclusion because I watched both for many years, on TV and at each ones various stadiums as I traveled from Cali to Texas all the time. I don't even know what the numbers are, what I saw with my own two eyes was that Young was the better of the two. If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

If you think Young was better then you watched on a regular basis w/o knowing a thing about what you were looking at.

 

[Stash]

Young was a system quarterback - plain and simple. The West Coast offense is built for quarterbacks to put up big numbers. It's made plenty of mediocre talents look good as well.

Young was nothing before he got to the West Coast system - just ask the Bucs.

Montana did it before him, Garcia did it afterwards. I put it in the same category as Denver's running system making good running backs great.

 

[dmoore]

I think Aikman would've put up better numbers had his teams not been so dominating for a while. Basically the whole 2nd half of a lot of his games they had it won. Just from what I can remember, I thought Aikman was better. He had amazing accuracy, and a good enough arm to make all the throws. But then again, I was born a Cowboys fan so I'm not exactly bias free.

 

[Rack]

Young was a system quarterback - plain and simple. The West Coast offense is built for quarterbacks to put up big numbers. It's made plenty of mediocre talents look good as well.

Young was nothing before he got to the West Coast system - just ask the Bucs.

Montana did it before him, Garcia did it afterwards. I put it in the same category as Denver's running system making good running backs great.

Just look at Garcia for proof. Great numbers in the WCO, HORRIBLE numbers outside the WCO.

 

[DallasEast]

I have always said Young was the better QB and I come to this conclusion because I watched both for many years, on TV and at each ones various stadiums as I traveled from Cali to Texas all the time. I don't even know what the numbers are, what I saw with my own two eyes was that Young was the better of the two. If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

For virtually the entirety of their careers, the networks showcased both of their teams week-after-week. Both teams enjoyed being slotted in as the 'nationally' broadcasted game. For anyone, including myself, who loves football and wanted to watch great football, they had many opportunities to watch both men work.

I do know this. Young's offense predicated that he pass more often and Aikman's offense did not--primarily because of the proficiency of Dallas' rushing attack. If you were to transplant both quarterbacks into his rival's offense, you would see a direct correlation in their productivity: Young would not have to pass as often and Aikman would have been forced to pass more often.

The strength of Aikman's passing skills was his accuracy. I would argue that watching Aikman as often as I did leads me to believe that he would have been more productive in the West Coast offense. Why? Because he would not have found it necessary to create as many passing opportunities as Young had to because the latter quarterback scrambled often to find open receivers. Aikman's quick release and accuracy in the short passing game would have destroyed defenses.

On the other hand, Young would have had to depend on passing in a timing based offense. In this offense, the quarterback's ability to throw the ball to a specific spot was dependent upon the defense to not read where the quarterback was wanting to throw the ball. During Young's career, once the play started to break down, Young would scramble to allow his receivers to readjust their routes and get open again. That's an advantage to have when your receivers are running short crossing and flat patterns, but can you imagine how well Young would have succeed trying to find open receivers who have run outs, deep curls and post patterns? Against the zones Aikman was forced to throw against game-after-game?

I'm sorry. I saw enough of both quarterbacks' skills. Subtract Young from the West Coast offense and I see a QB who would have less success throwing the ball. JMO.

 

[zrinkill]

Aikman ..... its not even close.