Joe Montana or Steve Young?

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.

I remember that Chiefs game, 44-9. I think our only good victories that year were against the Cowboys and the Broncos (eventual Super Bowl winner). We were at home, but Green Bay was certainly the better team that year- especially without Hearst.

Steve was the better player. Gimmie Steve!

Originally posted by random49er:
Steve was the better player. Gimmie Steve!

Chilll

Wow what a thread full of history that I've somehow put out of my mind. Seems like a mirror image of our Harbs and Shanny years. Damn this franchise could have 12 Lombardis.

Anyway those 90's weren't the 80's.
Steve wasn't Joe.
Joe's niners had some tough, heartbreaking playoff loses as well but 4-0 in the Bowl says it all.

This is why we can't have nice things... we always go looking for trouble when things calm down. I'm not participating in this. 🧐

Steve was obviously the more talented player and more of "today's" QB that everyone wants.
Joe had the "it factor" though.
Steve grew up and improved a lot from his first year as a starter when I think we were 4-6 or something like that to the end of his career. Some of the playoff stats weren't that great but as I recall the defense wasn't always that great in those games either.

Both are all time greats and if I wanted to watch a guy throw pretty passes and make some exciting plays and play like his hair was on fire to try to get a win, I would love to watch Steve.

But Joe, man. I remember when I was in school the Eagles were just killing us in a game at the half. I told a teacher or someone about it and he said Montana will probably pull off some magic and he did. We wound up winning that game. And those Buddy Ryan Eagles teams, while it didn't work out the way either side hoped, they were still no joke-particularly on defense.

Obviously if I had to pick one of them to win a big game, it's Joe every time.

Those times where Steve Young gave me hope only to be one and done by GB. I'm going with Montana all day!!!!

Originally posted by LifelongNiner:
I remember that Chiefs game, 44-9. I think our only good victories that year were against the Cowboys and the Broncos (eventual Super Bowl winner). We were at home, but Green Bay was certainly the better team that year- especially without Hearst.

Yep. We played four playoff teams that year going 2-2. The Packers by contrast played in a division where 4 of 5 teams went to the playoffs, and played 8 total games against playoff teams finishing 7-1.

Without a doubt it would be Joe ... I was blessed enough to watch most of all Joe's games and Steve's games , while both were great in their own ways ,, without Joe there would be no Steve ,, Young almost lost the job to Bono ppl were calling for Bono to replace Montana,, Steve was not considered a passer when he first stepped in.. he was exciting to watch because he is a great competitor but at first He inspired no confidence ,
Joe set the table ,, developed the WC system under Walsh , was the catalyst that helped change the culture of the 9ers to a powerhouse dynasty,, plus set some other standards that even to this day that are mimicked .. IMHO,,Steve sat at the table already created by Joe and the 9ers..while he was great in His style and I was glad to have him as a niner..hands down he became who he became because of of Joe ..

Steve is a regular season HOF QB...it took 3/4 of the 94 NFC probowl team to get him over the hump. Joe was amazing and before Brady won 7 was the undisputed GOAT.

Originally posted by Afrikan:
This is why we can't have nice things... we always go looking for trouble when things calm down. I'm not participating in this. 🧐

We have all said it 1000 times and I'll say it again, if not for Leonard freaking Marshall, we don't have this conversation.

Originally posted by Livendiea9er:
We have all said it 1000 times and I'll say it again, if not for Leonard freaking Marshall, we don't have this conversation.

We definitely get the "Threepeat", I don't know about '91 but we thrash the cowgirls in the'92 NFCCG and beat the bills again

We would have won another 2-3 SB with a healthy Montana. That is being said with the knowledge Young IS a hall of famer so I am not even knocking him. I don't think folks realize how amazing Montana was.

I held season tickets during the years when both of them played. Steve was more athletic but Joe was a God to us. He just gave the team an air of confidence that they could win every game.

I remember a quote from Dallas coach Tom Landry after the Niners beat the Cowboys. He said it's got to be Montana because there's nothing else there.