Forgive me, but living in Chicago, it’s hard to get used to the notion of a franchise having back-to-back Hall of Fame quarterbacks. Sid Luckman, who retired in 1950, still holds many of the passing records for the Bears.

The San Francisco 49ers, meanwhile, were blessed to have Joe Montana and Steve Young run the show for two decades. Both wound up in Canton.

However, it hardly was a smooth transition. In a fascinating new book, Best of Rivals, Adam Lazarus examines the uneasy relationship between Montana and Young when their Hall of Fame careers intersected in San Francisco.

Here’s my Q/A with Lazarus.

How did you get the idea for the book?

One of the real sparks for this book was the idea that a quarterback controversy is so sexy and so interesting. It seems like everyone in the media wants one to happen or wants to make one happen. Just look at what the Mark Sanchez-Tim Tebow story has done this year. So I wanted to tap into that powerful and emotional element of the NFL and immediately the Young-Montana story popped up.

But from a personal standpoint–even though I wasn’t a 49ers fan and lived in the Midwest–I grew up watching Young and Montana. They were two of the biggest names in that era and I remember how riveting it was when Joe was in Kansas City and Steve was in San Francisco. It was such a classic story of redemption for Montana and validation for Young that I wanted to bring that part of the story alive too. Just because the 49ers traded away Joe doesn’t mean the “rivalry” between the two ended.

What kind of access did you get from Montana and Young? What was their reaction when you told them the subject of the book?

I was very fortunate to interview both of them and they were really great to talk to, but I don’t think either one was too eager to discuss the specifics of their relationship with one another. They both were delicate and I think “politically correct” with their answers. The book isn’t really about Joe and Steve’s personal like or dislike for one another (although it’s certainly addressed) so that allowed me to talk with them about other parts of their careers and their lives and how those previous experiences shaped the quarterback controversy later on. But it’s a touchy subject for both men because I think they both have hard feelings from that time period: I think Joe didn’t like being pushed out of town and regretted that he couldn’t finish his career in San Francisco while Steve didn’t like sitting on the bench during his prime then being constantly measured against Joe’s towering achievements.

How different/similar are the two men?

As much as anything, this book highlights the differences between the two. Most people know that they played the game much differently: and not just that Joe was a righty and Steve a lefty. Joe did all he could to hang in the pocket and distribute the ball. Steve was often eager to tuck the ball and run. But the off-the-field element helped make this book more than just a “football story.” Joe came from a blue collar Catholic background; Steve a white collar Mormon background. Joe was an only child whose parents did all they could to make their son enjoy his childhood; Steve was part of a big family and all the kids worked multiple jobs growing up.

So it’s no wonder that Joe owned several houses and more than half a dozen sports cars during his career, while Steve (who had already made millions) lived in a rented a room in a teammate’s house and drove a 20-year-old car with two-hundred thousand miles. And their personalities were completely different as well. Joe was renowned for being so calm and carefree and just a laid-back teammate.

Chiefs teammate Neil Smith told me that Montana was “the coolest white guy that God ever made.” Steve was much more high strung and antsy, on and off the field. Brent Jones chalked that up to a real sense of urgency to make good on all that was expected of him. But what I liked most about the story was–and this is something Jerry Rice told me–that the two shared one trait that is so critical to playing quarterback. Joe and Steve commanded so much respect in the huddle and just had that “it” quality when it came to leadership.

What struck me about Montana was the physical beating he took and all the off-season surgeries. Do people underestimate his toughness?

What Montana was able to achieve during his career was almost mind boggling. Not only was he small for a quarterback (he played at about 190 pounds) but he wasn’t built solid. Several people used the word “fragile” when they described him and he didn’t do very much weight training. Yet he survived in the NFL for 15 seasons. Sure he missed games and missed practically two full seasons but he had this uncanny ability to recover and endure. And some of the hits he took were absolutely heinous, like the famous one Leonard Marshall delivered in the 1990 NFC Championship Game. He had two injuries (spine in 1986 and elbow in 1991-92) that many doctors and team officials considered career-ending yet he still returned to win Super Bowls, MVPs, and playoff games.

It is a bit ironic because what really ignites the quarterback controversy (i.e. the 49ers trading for Steve Young in 1987) is the front office underestimating Joe’s toughness. He had two brutal injuries the previous season and the front office didn’t know how much longer he would last. As it turned out, he lasted eight more seasons.

Would Young have achieved similar HOF success in a different system other than Walsh/49ers?

Young very well may have been the most physically talented quarterback in NFL history: he ran as fast and tough as a running back and, based on what he was able to do in college, was a very successful passer. So I think–Walsh and the West Coast system or not–he would have eventually put it all together to be a very good quarterback. That’s something Mike Holmgren once said, that Steve liked to figure things out for himself.

But watching Montana and studying that offense for all those years I think helped him take that step from very good to Hall of Fame. Those years he sat behind Montana he saw–in games, in practice, in the film room, in game planning meetings–how arguably the best offense of all time was constructed and executed. So his talents combined with that first-hand experience led to a special marriage.

Is your next book going to be on the Favre-to-Rodgers transition in Green Bay? Looks like back-to-back HOF QBs for the Packers.

Many people compare the Montana-Young story to Favre-Rodgers and there definitely are some parallels, but in some ways, I think it’s apples-to-oranges. Montana was only 30 when the 49ers made the trade for Young and Young had already been a pro for four seasons (two in the USFL, two in the NFL). So the on-paper gap between them wasn’t quite as wide as it was for Favre and Rodgers.

Favre was 35 when they drafted Rodgers, who had never played an NFL game. Furthermore, when Rodgers and Favre were on the same roster there was never really a “competition” between the two. Recall that in 1988, Bill Walsh publicly announced that the quarterback job was up for grabs between Joe and Steve. In Green Bay, Favre never missed a game so Rodgers didn’t have a chance to showcase his skills. Then he retired (sort of) and left (sort of) and Rodgers inherited the job outright.

In San Francisco, Montana missed significant time over the years due to injury and Young stepped in and played very well at times so he did showcase his skills. That gave the rivalry and the debate over the two more legitimacy. And since Young and Montana were together on the same roster for six seasons, while Rodgers and Favre were only together for three it’s not quite the same.

Anything else?

What makes this story special is that we’ll never see the likes of it again. Sure there may be another case of two Hall of Fame quarterbacks being on the same roster, like Rodgers and Favre. But because of the salary cap and free agency teams aren’t able to stockpile talent for long periods of time anymore. And considering how much money starting quarterbacks demand teams can’t afford to concentrate their funds on a position where their is no sharing of playing time like at running back or defensive end. And–unless you’re winning Super Bowls at tremendous pace like the 49ers dynasty did– organizations won’t tolerate the circus and distraction associated with a quarterback controversy.

Teams want one, unquestioned, unchallenged leader at quarterback. If Eli Manning or Matthew Stafford or Matt Ryan somehow became embedded in a quarterback controversy next year with a hot-shot young quarterback, it wouldn’t last nearly as long as Montana-Young and therefore it wouldn’t be nearly as epic.