Better QB:Aikman or S Young

[Chocolate Lab]

All those numbers don't matter. The rushing ones especially don't matter. What does matter is performance under pressure, especially in the playoffs. And that's where Aikman was a machine.

It's like the debate of Manning vs. Brady. I think Brady is a better all-time QB by far, and the difference is how clutch he's been when it *really* matters.

 

[dbair1967]

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.

what did you see then? Aikman was a more talented passer and had a stronger, more accurate arm...his offensive system was predicated on intermediate to long passing routes, whereas Young played in a short pass system and rarely threw deep

every QB who started for SF in the 80's and threw to mid 90's posted high QB ratings, were guys like Steve Bono better too?

David

 

[THUMPER]

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/

Um, I think you got that a little backwards. Aikman was drafted by a 3-13 team who hadn't been in the playoffs in 4 years. Young played behind a legend in Montana and got the chance to start after Joe went down. The Niners were ALWAYS in the playoffs and had won 4 SBs by the time Young started.

If anyone had the luxury of playing for a dynasty it was Young, not Aikman.

Aikman helped build the Cowboys into a dynasty while Young only carried on with what was already there.



As to which one was the better QB I would go with Aikman because he had more success but they both have extraordinary skills in different areas so it is difficult to choose between them. Young has the better stats but Aikman has more wins.

 

[zrinkill]

Aikman helped build the Cowboys into a dynasty while Young only carried on with what was already there.

 

[J-DOG]

This is a stupid debate...Look at the divisions that the Niners played in compared to the Cowboys.
The Skins,Giants and of course the Cowboys all won super Bowls in the 90's I believe. Oh yeah the Eagles had a pretty good team that was in the playoffs all the time with a defense with the likes of Jerome Brown,Reggie White, Seth Joyner and Clyde Simmons.
What did the NFC west have to offer?
Stats mean jack in the playoffs.
Aikman won 2 out of 3 against Young head to head in the playoffs.
The Niners played in a notoriously weak division...Those stats were made against defenses that were plain mediocre to bad.
I would of loved to see Steve Young play twice against the Giants(Lawrence Taylor), Eagles(Buddy Ryan led defense),and Skins(Gibbs in his prime) defenses twice a year.
You can throw all the stats around you want but my eyes know the truth.
NFC East-A beast of a division in the 90's.
NFC West-One good team at that time.
It's that simple.

 

[philo beddoe]

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/

Troy Aikman

 

[THUMPER]

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.

Well, I watched both of them throughout their entire careers and I can say without hesitation that Aikman was the better QB. If you think differently then you are wrong.

 

[Doomsday]

Aikman hands down.

 

[DallasKnight]

You can throw all the stats at us you like. Steve Young was a poser who won 1 SB when his team CHEATED THE CAP to get there. They were 21 million over the cap to get and retain those players. They got their hands slapped for it, but that was it. And now, it's all been swept under the rug.

Troy Aikman was by far the better leader. By far the better general on the field.

Troy came in and helped build a dynasty. Steve came into a dynasty and watched it deteriorate while he was there. You tell me. Who's better?

Troy!

 

[wxcpo]

Um, I think you got that a little backwards. Aikman was drafted by a 3-13 team who hadn't been in the playoffs in 4 years. Young played behind a legend in Montana and got the chance to start after Joe went down. The Niners were ALWAYS in the playoffs and had won 4 SBs by the time Young started.

If anyone had the luxury of playing for a dynasty it was Young, not Aikman.

Exactly what I was thinking. Aikman's first season he failed to win a single game and the Cowboys as a team went 1-15 (ahhhhh beating the Skins alwasy nice). How is that playing for a dynasty?

Aikman helped build the Cowboys into a dynasty while Young only carried on with what was already there.

Correct! Aikman won 2 of 3 NFC Championship games against Young and the Niners and that's what made the Cowboys the team of the 90's and a dynasty. Had they lost those games there would be no talk of a dynasty, so Aikman was a huge key to the Cowboys winning those games and becoming that dynasty.

As to which one was the better QB I would go with Aikman because he had more success but they both have extraordinary skills in different areas so it is difficult to choose between them. Young has the better stats but Aikman has more wins.[/QUOTE]

To me this is a simple question to answer. Throw out stats, because they were pretty similar with the exception of rushing abilities. Aikman won the head to head games and led his team to 3 superbowl titles to Young's one. I'll take Aikman over Young any time.

 

[NextGenBoys]

This is a silly debate. This is a Cowboys forum, and Aikman was the QB in the greatest title run in the teams history. I dont know many that are going to vote Young.

That being said, I'd take Young over Aikman. He could make more things happen on his feet, and was still an incredible passer.

 

[Bizwah]

Um, I think you got that a little backwards. Aikman was drafted by a 3-13 team who hadn't been in the playoffs in 4 years. Young played behind a legend in Montana and got the chance to start after Joe went down. The Niners were ALWAYS in the playoffs and had won 4 SBs by the time Young started.

If anyone had the luxury of playing for a dynasty it was Young, not Aikman.

Aikman helped build the Cowboys into a dynasty while Young only carried on with what was already there.



As to which one was the better QB I would go with Aikman because he had more success but they both have extraordinary skills in different areas so it is difficult to choose between them. Young has the better stats but Aikman has more wins.

Nice post.

People forget how bad the Cowboys were in the late 80s. It was bad, bad, bad. We're talking a lot worse than the Raiders this year.

Young came onto a SB ready team. He had Rice, Taylor, and Jones to throw the ball to. Watters was a rookie, but was a good receiver out of the backfield. And later, when Taylor retired (too early), he had TO to throw to.

Aikman had to wait for Irvin to develop. We had to rob Novacek from FA. We finally got a legit number two in Harper, but he left after his fourth season. For most of his career, Aikman had two options.....Irvin and Novacek.

After Harper left, and Novacek retired, teams began to concentrate all of their coverage on the ONE receiver that was a real threat. Aikman's numbers also took a hit when Irvin went down. He had NO ONE to throw to.

Young always had a number of studs to throw to. Even at the end of his career.

 

[CATCH17]

Ok first of all Aikman did a lot of his work in the 1st half and Emmitt did a lot of his work in the 2nd half of games.

Its just how it went down.

Aikmans offense is far more complicated. I dont know if Steve Young had the physical abilities to throw the ball vertically with the same type of accuracy Aikman had.

Aikman had a bigger arm and was far better with accuracy. Maybe the most accurate Quarterback of all time.

I think when your talking about an offense that can make guys like Chad Pennington, Elvis Grbac, and Jeff Garcia look good then you gotta believe some of its system.

Young was a really good west coast offense Quarterback but I think if you put Aikman in that offense and dumb down the difficulty of his throws his numbers would've been through the roof.

IMO Aikman was a better Quarterback and im not just saying that because im a Cowboy fan but because I believe Aikman was just a more physically gifted player.

 

[Crown Royal]

As I have consistently said on this board, anyone who puts up great numbers/is productive in a WCO offense will ALWAYS have an asterisk by their name in my head.

Young was great, but he fit that one scheme, which is extraordinarily QB friendly.

 

[dbair1967]

This is a silly debate. This is a Cowboys forum, and Aikman was the QB in the greatest title run in the teams history. I dont know many that are going to vote Young.

That being said, I'd take Young over Aikman. He could make more things happen on his feet, and was still an incredible passer.

you can have Young, and I'll take Aikman and beat your Young led team just about every time

David

 

[gbrittain]

Troy have had all the skills one could ever want in a QB. Good size...check. Cannon for arm...check. Played smart football...check. Leader...check. Deadly accurate...check. Played great football when it mattered most...check.

The only real knock on Aikman is that he did not have the wheels of a Steve Young. However, if anyone watched Aikman early on he was as nifty as he needed to be. He was no Drew Bledsoe/Dan Marino for sure. Towards the end of career when his back was shot was somewhat of a different story, but during his hayday he had all the wheels he needed.

Troy could have put up Montana/Young numbers had he played in SF. He could have put up Marinoesque numbers had he played for Miami. He could put up Manning type numbers if he played for today's Colts.

Troy WAS THAT GOOD! Fortunately for Cowboy fan though, he played in a system that was designed to win championships and not showcase any one individual.

I love Steve, Joe, Dan, and Peyton but if you are not including Troy's name in those circles you truly missed out on seeing and KNOWING how fortunate the Cowboys were.

 

[Crown Royal]

Troy could have put up Montana/Young numbers had he played in SF. He could have put up Marinoesque numbers had he played for Miami. He could put up Manning type numbers if he played for today's Colts.

No way. Troy was NOT a WCO QB. He could have been great there if they tweaked the system, but his feet didn't match what was required in that scheme.

 

[gbrittain]

No way. Troy was NOT a WCO QB. He could have been great there if they tweaked the system, but his feet didn't match what was required in that scheme.

I do not totally disagree with what you said. Like you said though "tweak" is probably key.

When Troy first came into the league he was not a statue. He could move much better than the Troy most remember towards the end of his career.

Regardless, the point is Troy was a great QB and could have put up the big numbers everyone craves so much had he been in a system that was designed to feature the QB.

 

[gbrittain]

No way. Troy was NOT a WCO QB. He could have been great there if they tweaked the system, but his feet didn't match what was required in that scheme.

One more thing. Putting Troy in WCO offense would be like using a Howitzers in a dart throwing competition.

Clearly the WCO was not built for someone with Troy's talents.

 

[Tricericon]

Young was better than Aikman. We were the better team, but the difference was the defense not the QBs.

The 49ers of the 90s were not as good as people thought they were. San Francisco's record and stats were inflated by playing the cupcake NFC West every year, and they were still living off the reputation of the great teams of the 80s (Hence the 'Young chokes in the playoffs' theory). They only year they were as good as us was 1994, when their defense got Deion Sanders and Ken Norton and became one of the league's best. Even the 14-2 team in 1992 was not as good as advertised.

Young's numbers are much, much better than Aikman's, even the ones such as Yards per Attempt that are not affected by the relative numbers of passes (the 'Aikman's numbers are worse because Emmitt always got the second half' theory). The 49ers did have Jerry Rice, but Irvin was no slouch and our offense was more talented than their's overall.

As for the 'Young is overrated because of the WCO Offense' theory, why isn't Montana, whose numbers in the same system with many of the same players are not as good as Young's, not also considered an overrated, mediocre QB?

Aikman is one of the greats, but a very strong case could be made that Young is the greatest quarterback to ever play.