Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana
Debate Rounds (3)
Measuring a QB has a lot of immeasurables, but, when I thing of rating a QB, I mean by his ability to complete passes when he has to.
Steve Young, had he and Montana had the same amount of years with the same team, Young would have completed more passes, on average.
Since we can't judge whether those passes would have been in clutch circumstances, we have to say that - measurably - Steve Young was the better QB.
Steve Young's passing rate: 96.8
Joe Montana's: 92.3
The job of the QB is to complete passes. The Offense is to score points, the D is to stop the other team.
Games won is a team stat. TD's has to do with the reciever as much as the QB.
The completion percentage is the only thing that gets close to measuring what a QB does, but the QBR is helpful because it combines relative weights of INT's, TD's, Yards, Completions, etc.
ooberman forfeited this round.
Not so fast!
While Montana won 4 Super Bowls, Young also won a Super Bowl, in far fewer starts AND was Super Bowl MVP 100% of the time.
But, the larger point wasn't addressed. While counting Super Bowl rings helps, it makes Terry Bradshaw and Monatana equal in this category, yet, clearly Bradshaw wasn't nearly the QB Montana was.
Also, compare Dilfer (1 SB win) to Marino (0 SB wins). Clearly, Super Bowl wins don't measure the best QB.
After all, it's a team game.
Therefore, I still argue the one thing a QB can control (completion %) is the besst measure of which QB is better.
Also, MVP's of the Super Bowl only measure one game. Eli Manning is not a very good QB, if one looks at his body of work, but he was MVP for the 2 SB's he won.
The argument about SB's falls flat.
Elway lost 4 Super Bowls before he won 2 - does that mean he was a bad QB, then a good one? He was he same player!
Plus, in his frist SB win, Terrell Davis won MVP. Does that mean Elway wasn't that good - until he won MVP the next year?>
It doesn't make any sense to judge a single player for a team stat: wins, or, for one game (Super Bowl).
In finance, for example, the best economist is the one who has consistent return, not one big - lucky - pay day.
If we take any other field, consistency is the key.
There is no doubt Montana was a great QB. The difference between Young, Montana, Brady, etc, is very small.
I think is does a disservice to the great play they have all done by reducing "best" to one game.
Again, I'd like my opponent to undermine my argument that the best way to measure the skill of a player is:
How well they play their position over time, and measure what they can control. (While completions require good catchers (WR's, TE's, RB's), it still requires the QB to recognize who is open - or which player can best catch the ball.
Also, I think we also need to consider audibles (recognizing the defense) and adding the threat of the run (whch Young was excellent at).
Personally, I'm a NE fan and think Brady is GOAT, because of the things he has done with his limited skill set. His decision making (which feeds into completions) is as good as it gets, and he can play in big games (unlike P.Manning)
One last note. P.Manning has won 1 SB and was MVP. Eli won 2 and was MVP twice. No one is going to argue Eli is better than Peyton, but my opponent's logic would require us to consider Eli a better QB than Peyton.
Clearly, there is more to judge a player than by Championship wins and MVP's.
To drive this point home. Was Montana a bad QB before he won a SB? My opponent would have to say "yes", which is clearly inconsistent.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.