The Class is Good, the 2018 version

[JohnTurney]

. As Reaser said, his being a backup to Joe doesn't take away from those seven or eight great years. It just stopped him from having 11 or 12 great years.
.

Even worse, it puts us in the "we will never know". Category. It is same thing over and over. I say 8 great years is not worthy of being the best of the best, a first-ballot HOFer when there are 7 non-productive years.

You don't care as much as I do about his bench sitting and seem to make excuses for it, giving kind of partial credit because of who he sat behind. Others want to give him credit for 3 rings. FIne, that's your view and their view. My opinion is just as valid as yours. And I don't see making chicken salad out of 7 years of chicken s^^t as helping Steve's first-ballot case. But, the HOF voters agreed with you, so you win the argument no matter what.

No, the HOF committee has made some mistakes concerning first-ballots. Slater is one, Taylor is one, Young is one. IMO

[JohnTurney]

Aikman
Baugh (charter)
Blanda (asterisk needed)
Bradshaw
Elway
Favre
Fouts
Kelly
Marino
Montana
Moon
Starr
Staubach
Unitas
Young

.

Aikman=borderline yes, the 3 rings. Not 3 "Steve Young" rings. Marginally put him over
Baugh (charter)--yes
Blanda (asterisk needed)---agree, asterisk...as QB, no, as a longtime kicker.. I guess
Bradshaw--yes, 4 rings does it
Elway---yes
Favre--yes
Fouts--no, too many non-productive season. HOF, yes, for sure, 1st ballot? No. Had
Kelly--torn, marginally yes, but had he waited a year, no injustice would have been done
Marino--yes. Numbers make up for lack of rings. Didn't ride pine, production every year
Montana--yes
Moon--no. Not 100% sure he's HOF. But marginally, yes, longevity...1st ballot ? No way
Starr ---yes, 5 rings
Staubach---yes
Unitas--yes
Young--no

[Reaser]

I don't understand the caveat of Young spending a major portion of his career as a backup is fine because he was backing up Montana...what if Young was forced to sit on the bench behind some terrible QB, like Scott Brunner or Frank Seuer? Would that somehow change reality of Young's accomplishments? Should we reconsider John Unitas' HOF worthiness because he was cut in favor of Jack Scarbath?

Now on my seasons-played stance, his being a backup doesn't take away his MVP's, or his 3 rings (

So Young definitely belongs in the current definition of 1st ballot HOFer, IMO. The standard simply isn't there.

No, you got it. It doesn't change the reality of his accomplishments. Just as 1955 doesn't take away from anything Unitas' did, or that he was Shaw's backup, or that the Colts won the NFL championship and their QB was NFL MVP and it wasn't Unitas, or the score in SB V when Unitas was knocked out and the final score with Morrall in, or being benched/replaced during his final years and so on. You can come up with "yeah, but" for most players, most don't have a clean sweep of accomplishments year after year (like Graham going to 10 league championships in 10 years). So it's not that it's "fine", it's that it doesn't take away from what he did. "he has 2 MVP's and 1 ring BUT he was a backup QB before that!" ... the but implies cancelling out or lessening 2 MVP's and 1 ring. My point was that it doesn't. 2 MVP's, [3] rings, period. AND he was TB's QB and Montana's backup during his career.

3 rings was nothing more than an accuracy correction. Since the thread was filled with "he has 1 ring", he has 3. I also said I get why people were saying "1 ring" because as starting QB he has one, but he definitely has 3 so it looks weird to say someone only has 1 ring when they literally have 3 rings. If others want to say that's twisted logic and that he does NOT have 3 rings, that's up to them.

Exactly on the 1st-ballot standard, which is why the debate is funny. Act like there is some great 1st-ballot standard and Steve Young ruined it. Not the case, at all.

[JohnTurney]

3 rings was nothing more than an accuracy correction. Since the thread was filled with "he has 1 ring", he has 3. Hence why I said I get why people were saying "1 ring" because he only gets credit as starting QB for one, but he definitely has 3 so it looks weird to say someone only has 1 ring when they literally have 3 rings.

Exactly on the 1st-ballot standard, which is why the debate is funny. Act like there is some great 1st-ballot standard and Steve Young ruined it. Not the case, at all.

And it's a good thing, too. It's good to have someone around who remembers that Steve Young was on the 1988 and 1989 49ers. I know I needed that "reminder" since only the whole discussion centered around that era.

[Reaser]

And it's a good thing, too. It's good to have someone around who remembers that Steve Young was on the 1988 and 1989 49ers. I know I needed that "reminder" since only the whole discussion centered around that era.

I enjoy your numerous and repeated "[m]y opinion is just as valid as yours" type comments in this thread that have been proven disingenuous with your numerous and repeated whining and condescending responses to Ness, conace, and generally anyone who disagrees or per usual, anyone who doesn't suck-up to you. It's entertaining.

Also great that saying a fact, "3 rings", throws you into a hissy fit where you called facts "twisted logic" and sarcastically drop "3 rings" into a majority of your next handful of responses. I thought it was a nice touch. Are we doing emojis as mic drops or should I throw a hashtag in here or what? I'll leave it up to the mature to get back to me on that.

[JohnTurney]

I enjoy your numerous and repeated "[m]y opinion is just as valid as yours" type comments in this thread that have been proven disingenuous with your numerous and repeated whining and condescending responses to Ness, conace, and generally anyone who disagrees or per usual, anyone who doesn't suck-up to you. It's entertaining.

Also great that saying a fact, "3 rings", throws you into a hissy fit where you called facts "twisted logic" and sarcastically drop "3 rings" into a majority of your next handful of responses. I thought it was a nice touch. Are we doing emojis as mic drops or should I throw a hashtag in here or what? I'll leave it up to the mature to get back to me on that.

Actually, when I post "[m]y opinion is just as valid as yours" it is because it is a sincerely held belief. As far as the rest of your post, you honestly may need to look into this: http://www.rageaholicsanonymous.org/ And sadly, I am not joking.

[Reaser]

Actually, when I post "[m]y opinion is just as valid as yours" it is because it is a sincerely held belief.

Reads sincere, very sincere. Now that that's cleared up, the discussion can continue, on-topic.

[JohnTurney]

Reads sincere, very sincere. Now that that's cleared up, the discussion can continue, on-topic.

Reads seethingly.

[Bryan]

No, you got it. It doesn't change the reality of his accomplishments. Just as 1955 doesn't take away from anything Unitas' did, or that he was Shaw's backup, or that the Colts won the NFL championship and their QB was NFL MVP and it wasn't Unitas, or the score in SB V when Unitas was knocked out and the final score with Morrall in, or being benched/replaced during his final years and so on. You can come up with "yeah, but" for most players, most don't have a clean sweep of accomplishments year after year (like Graham going to 10 league championships in 10 years). So it's not that it's "fine", it's that it doesn't take away from what he did. "he has 2 MVP's and 1 ring BUT he was a backup QB before that!" ... the but implies cancelling out or lessening 2 MVP's and 1 ring. My point was that it doesn't. 2 MVP's, [3] rings, period. AND he was TB's QB and Montana's backup during his career.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I don't understand the 'clarification' of "Young being a backup QB" to "Young being a backup QB to Joe Montana", as if that is some sort of notable accomplishment and should be viewed through the HOF lens differently than if Young had been a backup to Scott Brunner. Using this logic, I can spin your anti-Unitas diatribe into a positive...Unitas was so good that he sent the 1968 "NFL Championship" QB and reigning MVP back to the bench in 1969. I don't recall how effective Unitas was from that point on in his career, but the timeline tells me that he put an NFL Championship QB/MVP on the bench, he won another ring, then he went to a different team and kept another 1st ballot HOF QB on the bench.

This forum provides a great break from reality at times.

[conace21]

Unitas was never the same player after 1968, thanks mostly due to his elbow injury. He had played at an MVP level in 1967.The last three years were entirely forgettable. But those don't take away from his 1957-1967 career, especially since those are easily explained; age and an arm injury.

And I never described Young being a backup to Joe as an accomplishment that adds to his HOF resume. I'm just saying that it doesn't detract from it. What's the shame in being a backup to the greatest QB of the generation?

I'll compare that to Kurt Warner. Warner lost his job to Marc Bulger....who had played very well in 2002. He lost it to Eli Manning, who was awful his rookie year. And he lost it to Josh McCown and Matt Leinart in Arizona. Here's the thing: Warner DESERVED to lose those jobs. He was constantly turning the ball over, holding the ball and not making the plays he did at the beginning and end of his career. That doesn't take away his MVP awards, but one could say "Well, he had all those weapons around him that made him look better."

Young's performance from 1997-1990 does nothing to cast doubt on his performance later on. He just wasn't as good as Joe at the time.