The Class is Good, the 2018 version

[JohnTurney]

Steve Bono never stepped in and took over for Montana, either. His only starting stint with the Niners was in 1991 as a replacement for Steve Young. The Niners were 5-1 with Bono as the starter, and in one of the games Bono put up a 27-41-347-3 TDs 0 INTs statline against the #1 defense in the NFL (Saints). The Niners started the year 4-5 with Young as the starter, and Bono nearly rallied them into the postseason.
.

And I count 1991 as one of Young's "good seasons" or "HOF" seasons. I count 1991-98 as his starting career, his HOF-worthy years.

[Ness]

Also, one last thing. I don't think anyone could have just stepped in and took over for Montana. Over the years we saw guys like Jeff Kemp, Mike Moroski, or Steve Bono take over. While they all looked solid in that system, they never looked "great".

To me, Jeff Kemp & Mike Moroski are the definition of "anyone". Kemp had the best season of his career in his lone year with the Niners, and actually put up better stats than Montana in 1986.

Moroski started a grand total of 2 games with San Fran, and he didn't really step in a take over for Montana, he stepped in and took over for Kemp. So yeah, Steve Young was much better than third string Mike Moroski. The fact that the Niners actually won a road game with Moroski as the starter is notable, and Moroski threw for 332 yards in a losing cause the following week.

Steve Bono never stepped in and took over for Montana, either. His only starting stint with the Niners was in 1991 as a replacement for Steve Young. The Niners were 5-1 with Bono as the starter, and in one of the games Bono put up a 27-41-347-3 TDs 0 INTs statline against the #1 defense in the NFL (Saints). The Niners started the year 4-5 with Young as the starter, and Bono nearly rallied them into the postseason.

Young was obviously better than a collection of career backups and third-stringers, but I'm not sure anyone can argue that he inherited a pretty cushy situation in San Francisco (if that is indeed what you are arguing).

Montana was coming off back surgery in 1986, and came back during the middle of the season. He still played fairly well. I don't think Kemp played much better.

I know Bono didn't replace Montana. But he stepped in the same system. By 1991 the 49ers were still running the offense they had been for years.

Young stepped into a great situation certainly. He was still a better player max potential than guys like Bono, Kemp, or Moroski. Or Deburg who all played in the same system with a lot of the same players. That was my point.

[Ness]

Probably not going to change your mind on this one.

Nothing you post is anything that is not known. Young was a stat king. Passer rating thing, passer rating that. Drew Brees has nothing to do with this. And for all those stats and the 2 MVPs, he got just one Super Bowl and he had good defenses year after year, but facing the Cowboys and Packers he usually lost.

So, it's not about him being a worthy HOFer, he is. And, the committee voted him in on the first try. But a fair analysis of things raises the questions I ask. No, you are not going to change my mind, and why would you want to? Especially reciting things that are commonly known, like his MVPs or his stats. I think everyone on this site is familiar with those things, they even know he was a backup to Joe Montana. So there may not be a need to recite the obvious.

I am not trying to change your mind. That is not the purpose. The thread is there are players who are borderline 1st ballot HOFers who got in on the first ballot. A couple may have been this year, Slater, Allen and Steve Young are examples, in my opinion, of others. Certainly, you can disagree, the committee disagreed.

The point of this forum is to have discussions. I didn't mean it to get off into a discussion about Steve Young. However, since it did, there should be room for reasonable people to disagree. Young is hardly a slam-dunk lock like Montana or what Manning and Brady will be.

All that matters that this is not something I am throwing out to offend Young or 49er fans, but I think I have a little bit of knowledge on the HOF subject and based on that limited knowledge I have come to my own conclusion and that is it's fair to look at Young's bad seasons, his non-HOF seasons of which there were 7 and there were 8 great seasons that were of HOF quality. Throw in his decision to go to USFL and that is 8 HOF seasons and 8 that were not. That is enough to raise the question of first-ballot quality. Doesn't mean I am right. It does mean it is a reasonable position.

I'm asking about Brees to see how consistent your logic is across other platforms. Brees is also what I would consider a stat king of his era. Just like Marino was. Or Moon. Both first ballot guys in their own right. What is "stat king" supposed to mean to you? You're throwing that label around loosely. Steve Young put up big numbers...and that's bad? I don't get it.

Steve has two MVP awards and one ring. Peyton Manning has four MVP awards, and two Super Bowls. He lost a ton of times in the playoffs to the Patriots, Steelers, or Chargers. Should he not be a first ballot nominee because he didn't match his ratio of MVP awards to rings? Favre has three MVP awards and one ring. His teams also had quality defenses every year and he still lost. So...not first ballot right? You can disagree, that's fine. I just want to see if your logic checks out to other players that had similar circumstances. I don't see why what some of what you said would apply to Young, but not anyone else. Fouts, Moon, Kelly, and Marino shouldn't be first ballot players then if you start bringing up rings.

[Ness]

Steve Bono never stepped in and took over for Montana, either. His only starting stint with the Niners was in 1991 as a replacement for Steve Young. The Niners were 5-1 with Bono as the starter, and in one of the games Bono put up a 27-41-347-3 TDs 0 INTs statline against the #1 defense in the NFL (Saints). The Niners started the year 4-5 with Young as the starter, and Bono nearly rallied them into the postseason.
.

And I count 1991 as one of Young's "good seasons" or "HOF" seasons. I count 1991-98 as his starting career, his HOF-worthy years.

Pretty remarkable what Bono did that year. Just like when Matt Cassel filled in for Tom Brady.

[Bryan]

I don't see why what some of what you said would apply to Young, but not anyone else. Fouts, Moon, Kelly, and Marino shouldn't be first ballot players then if you start bringing up rings.

Fouts was borderline to me. But at least he set and reset the single season passing record three different times (consecutive, too) and can kind of be viewed as an "innovative/influential" player in league history due to transitioning the NFL from a running league to a passing league.

You can't even make that type of argument with Moon, because the run-and-shoot didn't have staying power. He was essentially an above-average QB who was durable and played in pass-heavy systems. He wasn't very efficient and was turnover prone, his 1990 season was an outlier because he actually put up a nice QB rating of 96.8 when the majority of his career that number bounced between mid-70's to mid-80's, and I don't think his teams ever made it past the divisional round of the playoffs. Moon was another guy like Marcus Allen that I just didn't "get", because when Moon retired he was spoken of as if the HOF was a mere formality. Perhaps he was a trend-setter for consistently being 4th best QB in his conference and racking up pro bowl appearances.

I was never a big admirer of Kelly. I guess he has to get into the HOF because of 4 AFC championship wins, but there are some holes in his resume. I respect that he ran the show with Buffalo's no-huddle offense, but I'd put him at the low end of HOF QBs, even if it is his birthday today.

Marino to me is definite first ballot. The guy rewrote the record book without much of a supporting cast. In some sense, I think his greatness worked against him as he would drag a mediocre Dolphins team into the postseason and then get manhandled by teams with vastly superior talent. Even though his numbers have been eclipsed, IMO Marino's 1984 season is still the greatest QB season ever (not Bert Jones in 1976, Aaron Schatz!). Marino was so good that year, that the Niners were only 3 point favorites in the Super Bowl. Its almost cliché`, but give Marino the 1984 or 1994 Niners team, just the supporting cast and not even 'the system', and I'm guessing he could eke out a Super Bowl victory.

If forced to rank the QBs, it would be Marino....Young.....Fouts......Kelly...Moon. Marino = elite, Young = borderline elite, Fouts = 2nd tier, Kelly = borderline 2nd tier, Moon = participant

[L.C. Greenwood]

I don't see why what some of what you said would apply to Young, but not anyone else. Fouts, Moon, Kelly, and Marino shouldn't be first ballot players then if you start bringing up rings.

Fouts was borderline to me. But at least he set and reset the single season passing record three different times (consecutive, too) and can kind of be viewed as an "innovative/influential" player in league history due to transitioning the NFL from a running league to a passing league.

You can't even make that type of argument with Moon, because the run-and-shoot didn't have staying power. He was essentially an above-average QB who was durable and played in pass-heavy systems. He wasn't very efficient and was turnover prone, his 1990 season was an outlier because he actually put up a nice QB rating of 96.8 when the majority of his career that number bounced between mid-70's to mid-80's, and I don't think his teams ever made it past the divisional round of the playoffs. Moon was another guy like Marcus Allen that I just didn't "get", because when Moon retired he was spoken of as if the HOF was a mere formality. Perhaps he was a trend-setter for consistently being 4th best QB in his conference and racking up pro bowl appearances.

I was never a big admirer of Kelly. I guess he has to get into the HOF because of 4 AFC championship wins, but there are some holes in his resume. I respect that he ran the show with Buffalo's no-huddle offense, but I'd put him at the low end of HOF QBs, even if it is his birthday today.

Marino to me is definite first ballot. The guy rewrote the record book without much of a supporting cast. In some sense, I think his greatness worked against him as he would drag a mediocre Dolphins team into the postseason and then get manhandled by teams with vastly superior talent. Even though his numbers have been eclipsed, IMO Marino's 1984 season is still the greatest QB season ever (not Bert Jones in 1976, Aaron Schatz!). Marino was so good that year, that the Niners were only 3 point favorites in the Super Bowl. Its almost cliché`, but give Marino the 1984 or 1994 Niners team, just the supporting cast and not even 'the system', and I'm guessing he could eke out a Super Bowl victory.

If forced to rank the QBs, it would be Marino....Young.....Fouts......Kelly...Moon. Marino = elite, Young = borderline elite, Fouts = 2nd tier, Kelly = borderline 2nd tier, Moon = participant

Dan Fouts was absolutely terrifying for those Air Coryell teams, and I give him additional credit for helping lift the Chargers from doormat to SB contender. True story about Fouts, who broke in with the 1973 Chargers, and John Unitas was the starter early that season. The San Diego coaching staff was so dysfunctional, they instructed Unitas not to advise Fouts on playing the position, or anything else. Of course, Unitas ignored that idiotic order, and talked to Fouts anyway.

[conace21]

Johnny U. Did say that a QB hasn't arrived until he can tell a coach to go to hell.

[JohnTurney]

I'm asking about Brees to see how consistent your logic is across other platforms. Brees is also what I would consider a stat king of his era. Just like Marino was. Or Moon. Both first ballot guys in their own right. What is "stat king" supposed to mean to you? You're throwing that label around loosely. Steve Young put up big numbers...and that's bad? I don't get it.

Steve has two MVP awards and one ring. Peyton Manning has four MVP awards, and two Super Bowls. He lost a ton of times in the playoffs to the Patriots, Steelers, or Chargers. Should he not be a first ballot nominee because he didn't match his ratio of MVP awards to rings? Favre has three MVP awards and one ring. His teams also had quality defenses every year and he still lost. So...not first ballot right? You can disagree, that's fine. I just want to see if your logic checks out to other players that had similar circumstances. I don't see why what some of what you said would apply to Young, but not anyone else. Fouts, Moon, Kelly, and Marino shouldn't be first ballot players then if you start bringing up rings.

How many times are you going to post that " two MVP awards and one ring"? I certainly am no expert but I am aware of the basics of Young's career.Look I don't fall for red herrings like "Should he not be a first ballot nominee because he didn't match his ratio of MVP awards to ring" So, you can tell by that where my "logic checks out". I don't take illogical bait like that. I have never heard an MVP to ring ratio and how it applies to Favre or Young. I think my logic is just fine. I study this stuff a little bit and have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. Maybe not as much as yours, but I am comfortable with my opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, I simply think 2 MVPs and 1 ring is not first ballot when it is coupled with 7 bad or non-good or backup seasons.

Lots of excuses can be made, he was playing behind Montana and he was in Tampa, but you can only look at a guy's career as it happened, not project things that could have happened. And I listed more than Steve Young as players I thought had dubious 1st ballot elections, Jason Taylor, Urlacher to me was borderline, Jackie Slater, and there would be others, in my view. Key phrase—in my view.

No one has to agree with me. They can think I am wrong, the HOF committee sure disagrees, so I am voicing an opinion. I have stated the opinion. I don't need to be reminded that Young had 2 MVPs and one ring. I think I remember.

Maybe the onus is on you to explain why you think a guy who spend half his career on the bench is a 1st ballot HOFer, maybe there is some accountability there, like with Moss, on having poor seasons for whatever reason.

As far as stat king, the passer rating is what I was specifically referring to, his passing titles.That is a "positive". But it still does not make his poor seasons good or 1st ballot worthy.

As far as Drew Brees, when he has 7 bad seasons, then we can bring him into the conversation. Looks to me like he rode the pine just one season so their careers are not comperable.

[SixtiesFan]

Johnny U. Did say that a QB hasn't arrived until he can tell a coach to go to hell.

Y.A. Tittle said in a book he put out after retiring it was when a QB could tell his coach "to go fly a kite" that he had made it. I'm sure Johnny U. agreed.

[conace21]

I'm asking about Brees to see how consistent your logic is across other platforms. Brees is also what I would consider a stat king of his era. Just like Marino was. Or Moon. Both first ballot guys in their own right. What is "stat king" supposed to mean to you? You're throwing that label around loosely. Steve Young put up big numbers...and that's bad? I don't get it.

Steve has two MVP awards and one ring. Peyton Manning has four MVP awards, and two Super Bowls. He lost a ton of times in the playoffs to the Patriots, Steelers, or Chargers. Should he not be a first ballot nominee because he didn't match his ratio of MVP awards to rings? Favre has three MVP awards and one ring. His teams also had quality defenses every year and he still lost. So...not first ballot right? You can disagree, that's fine. I just want to see if your logic checks out to other players that had similar circumstances. I don't see why what some of what you said would apply to Young, but not anyone else. Fouts, Moon, Kelly, and Marino shouldn't be first ballot players then if you start bringing up rings.

How many times are you going to post that " two MVP awards and one ring"? I certainly am no expert but I am aware of the basics of Young's career.Look I don't fall for red herrings like "Should he not be a first ballot nominee because he didn't match his ratio of MVP awards to ring" So, you can tell by that where my "logic checks out". I don't take illogical bait like that. I have never heard an MVP to ring ratio and how it applies to Favre or Young. I think my logic is just fine. I study this stuff a little bit and have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. Maybe not as much as yours, but I am comfortable with my opinion. Perhaps, just perhaps, I simply think 2 MVPs and 1 ring is not first ballot when it is coupled with 7 bad or non-good or backup seasons.

Maybe the onus is on you to explain why you think a guy who spend half his career on the bench is a 1st ballot HOFer, maybe there is some accountability there, like with Moss, on having poor seasons for whatever reason.

I think it's pretty simple. He was a backup to the greatest quarterback in his generation, and he had no control over it. He's a first ballot HOF player because he was the best quarterback in the NFL for 3 seasons (1992-1994) and a top 3-4 QB for 4 years after that.

John Elway or Dan Marino are first ballot HOF quarterbacks, and if they had been traded to the 49ers, they would have been on the bench as well.... unless Elway threatened to walk away and play baseball.

Also, while Young only won 1 run himself, he was a vital contributor to two other title winners. In 1988-89, he appeared in 9 games where he threw at least 10 passes. He was 7-2 in those games, and one was a meaningless blowout where Montana rested for the playoffs