Better QB:Aikman or S Young

[Crown Royal]

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?

I never called him overrated, I said he gets an asterisk next to his name. Which means that when one is looking at their career, one has to take into account the system in which the player played in.

And who said Montana was exempt from this? Do you think that Montanta, Young, McNabb, Hasselback, etc.etc. would be the same QBs in a down the field scheme, where the QB isn't necessarily the feature player?

 

[Tricericon]

I think you build your offense to your QBs strengths. Playing the WCO would be a handicap for a QB like say, John Elway, while playing in a down the field attack would be a similar handicap for the Joe Montanas of the world.

Let me put it this way: If you are a great QB in a down the field offense, you are a great QB. If you are a great QB in the WCO, you are a great QB. Is a yard gained in the West Coast offense less valuable to the team than one gained by throwing downfield?

 

[Deputy493]

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

I don't think there can be a very strong case that Young is the greatest QB of all time, not even close.....he isn't even the greatest QB to play for the 49ers.

The NFL is about winning and playing your best in the big games. Young did that once, Aikman did that 3 times.

If this was a Fantasy Football debate Young wins easily, but this is a results debate.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

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.

You make some good points until that last sentence. I don't think when anyone talks about the greatest QB to ever play, the name Steve Young comes up, that's more for the Montana's, Elway's, Staubach's, Unitas'.

Folks get lost in the numbers too much, it's more about the moments that define greatness.

 

[Bleu Star]

Aikman > Young and it isn't even close.

End of story.

 

[DizzG]

If you think it was Aikman you did not see them play on a regular basis.

bullcrap. I saw both play in person and saw both on a regular basis plenty of times and I would take Aikman hands down

its not even close. forget the numbers. everyone knows Aikman could have put up just INSANE numbers if he wanted too...the offense Dallas had with the running game didnt fit that.

Aikman is a better overall QB

 

[Tricericon]

I like to use numbers because that is the only way to be completely unbiased. I understand folks who don't though, and with football numbers is it especially hard to seperate a player from his teammates so...

I also disagree with the notion of ranking players by championships; Championships are won by teams. JMO.

 

[DallasEast]

I like to use numbers because that is the only way to be completely unbiased. I understand folks who don't though, and with football numbers is it especially hard to seperate a player from his teammates so...

I also disagree with the notion of ranking players by championships; Championships are won by teams. JMO.

No one can be 'completely unbiased' by basing their opinion on stats alone. Brett Favre has thrown for more than 50,000 yards in his career, but I wouldn't automatically elevate him above Aikman or Young for that sole reason.

 

[Tricericon]

No one can be 'completely unbiased' by basing their opinion on stats alone. Brett Favre has thrown for more than 50,000 yards in his career, but I wouldn't automatically elevate him above Aikman or Young for that sole reason.

Numbers don't lie, they just don't necessarily mean what they appear to at first glance - or what whoever is throwing them at you wants you to think they do. Always ask yourself "What do these numbers really mean?". Total career yards, for example, is not a very good statistic, it shows biases towards long careers (duh), recent players (passing rules changes that favor offense), players with weaker defenses (teams that get ahead run), among other factors that may have had nothing to do with how good he really was.

Farve, your example, is right at the top yardage wise but all that really tells me is:
1. He is a good QB.
2. He doesn't get injured much.
3. He has had a very long career.
4. He has been for the vast majority of that career the best QB on his team.
5. His defenses haven't been world-beaters.

To know where to put him, I would need to know things like YPA, TDs, INTs, talent around him, era he played in, etc, etc. Then I need to know the same things for everyone I am comparing him to. Then I would use that as a foundation for my opinions. It is far, far from being the first & only word.

Btw, Aikman & Young are both most likely better than Farve.

Also, my previous post was badly worded. I meant numbers are unbiased, not myself. I try, but it's not always possible.

 

[Aikbach]

My top tier of NFL ALL-Time greats includes John Elway, Roger Staubach, Joe Montana, Troy Aikman and Johnny Unitas.

My second tier ranks Fran Tarkenton, Terry Bradshaw, Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Brett Favre, Steve Young.

My third tier Don Meredith, Jim McMahon, Wade Wilson, Randall Cunningham, Warren Moon, Kenny Stabler, Danny White, Phil Simms.

 

[burmafrd]

Numbers are the products of a system. Bottom line is that when it came down to Championship games, Aikman was better when it counted.
Even Youngs SB is a joke- the Chargers were totally outclassed that year.WHile Aikman won 2 against arguably the best team to never win a championship.
Throw out the 3 turnovers and Young ends up 0 for 3 in Championship games.Aikman was 3-1 and very nearly 4-0. That is why he is the better QB= its not about numbers- its about who has the rings. That is why Brady will be better then Manning unless manning turns it around and wins a couple more SBs.

 

[Zaxor]

Lets see...how about we use Jeff Garcia.... when he was in SF in a WCO he went to probowls when he went to cleveland in a non WCO he was awful...went to Philly a WCO and did well again.... does everyone see a pattern developing...

Some qbs need more help some need less...
it is a bit of a pointless arguement as it can't proven who is better...

I liked both QB's but I don't believe either would make my top ten
but I don't see where you can go wrong with either as long as the system fit for them

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

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.

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

Excellent post.

I would like to add...

the first NFC title game changed dramatically when Rice's TD got called back... it was like the tuck game for New England. We went on to rule a good part of the 90's.

the 3rd NFC title game... we gave it to them... a Jimmy Johnson-led team would have NEVER have let that happen... we spotted them 21 points in about 12 minutes of 1st qtr....

so in my eyes... Young is Lucky, darn lucky to have ONE SB... (say thank you Cowboys)....

I choose Aikman.

 

[Bizwah]

Excellent post.

I would like to add...

the first NFC title game changed dramatically when Rice's TD got called back... it was like the tuck game for New England. We went on to rule a good part of the 90's.

the 3rd NFC title game... we gave it to them... a Jimmy Johnson-led team would have NEVER have let that happen... we spotted them 21 points in about 12 minutes of 1st qtr....

so in my eyes... Young is Lucky, darn lucky to have ONE SB... (say thank you Cowboys)....

I choose Aikman.

About the Rice-TD called back.

During the replay of the game, Young makes the comment that the hold occurred in a spot that really didn't have any significance on the outcome of the play.

Bull!

Maryland blew by the OL in front of him and would've had a clear run at Young. Maryland might not have sacked Young, but he would almost certainly have altered the play...either by rushing Young's throw, or making Young scramble.

I do know that wasn't the point of your post.....it's just that Young's whining about it annoyed me.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

About the Rice-TD called back.

During the replay of the game, Young makes the comment that the hold occurred in a spot that really didn't have any significance on the outcome of the play.

Bull!

Maryland blew by the OL in front of him and would've had a clear run at Young. Maryland might not have sacked Young, but he would almost certainly have altered the play...either by rushing Young's throw, or making Young scramble.

I do know that wasn't the point of your post.....it's just that Young's whining about it annoyed me.

I remember him saying that..... thanks for the info... I didnt know that... he did make it sound like it shouldnt have been called.... BUT.... it doesnt matter.... penalty is a penalty... happens to ALL teams and the most inopportune times....

 

[CactusCowboy]

Most cowboy fans, kind of like most Texans, cannot see past there arses. Everything is about the Boys.

 

[CactusCowboy]

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

Why do you keep that pitiful looking car in your posts?

 

[Rack]

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.

That bolded part is not correct. If anything, the complete opposite was the truth. The cowboys offense of the 90's was extremely predictable. The talent at QB, WR, and RB was so great that it didn't matter. Teams knew Irvin's routes would most likely be a comeback route or a skinny post, and even though he was the only REAL threat at WR they still couldn't stop him. Mainly cuz Aikman was so accurate with the ball. The cowboys didn't do any shifting and very little motion back in those days. They didn't have to. Hell, they only ran like 2 or 3 running plays a game (of course they ran the ball more then that, but they called the same plays over and over).

Young's offense used a lot of motion to help get Rice in mismatches. Hell, they got us to put a Linebacker on him a few times. That's what the WCO does, it creates mismatches but also utilizes high percentage passes.

Why do you keep that pitiful looking car in your posts?

It looks even more pitiful now with the hood removed. I'll be removing the fenders on tuesday. Looks like I might have more damage to the right/front end then I had previously though. Not sure how bad yet though.

 

[random Cs]

You can't automatically assume that Aikman would have better stats then Young in a WCO. Young's #s are better then Montana's and with his mobility he's much better suited for the west coast offense. There was a time in the league where people thought he was unstoppable withi his running ability.

I don't think it's fair to hold those firsts two years with the Bucs against Young either. Lets be real about that, that 80's Bucs team was one of the worst teams in NFL history. Aikman wouldn't have taken em anywhere, his first two years with your boys weren't so hot either.

Apples to oranges IMO, both are different QBs. Young obviously had the athletic ability, but I'd probably take Aikman for a big game. Young was alotta flash. Plus, he's an ***...

 

[Rack]

You can't automatically assume that Aikman would have better stats then Young in a WCO. Young's #s are better then Montana's and with his mobility he's much better suited for the west coast offense. There was a time in the league where people thought he was unstoppable withi his running ability.

I don't think it's fair to hold those firsts two years with the Bucs against Young either. Lets be real about that, that 80's Bucs team was one of the worst teams in NFL history. Aikman wouldn't have taken em anywhere, his first two years with your boys weren't so hot either.

Apples to oranges IMO, both are different QBs. Young obviously had the athletic ability, but I'd probably take Aikman for a big game. Young was alotta flash. Plus, he's an ***...

No arguing that one. The dude's like school on sunday... no class.