Are Superbowl Wins a Fair Way to Rate QBs?

[RealityCheck]

Yeah, I'd much rather have Trent Dilfer on a team than say, Dan Marino.

One became a champion on the biggest stage of the year, the other...had some records.

[Boatdrinks]

One became a champion on the biggest stage of the year, the other...had some records.

 

Dilfer may have been a world champion one year, he just wasn't a great quarterback for any of them.

[Jauronimo]

One became a champion on the biggest stage of the year, the other...had some records and a bust in Canton.

How embarrassing for you.

[Rob's House]

I always think judging QBs by SBs is just a simple way for simple minds that don't like to think to rationalize an opinion.

[Jauronimo]

I always think judging QBs by SBs is just a simple way for simple minds that don't like to think to rationalize an opinion.

Nailed it. Lets forsake all other data points and limit our analysis to just super bowl wins in the name of some sort of false bravado because thats the bottom line.

[Agent 91]

To the average fan yes. But to people who know sports, it shouldnt. I liken this to my ongoing argurment with people about Peyton v Eli. I feel Peyton is superior, but eli has the rings. People say Eli is more clutch all that. But I also liken it to the fact that by their rationale Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest. Bill Russell is. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people will always twist facts and ideologies in their favor

[Rob's House]

One became a champion on the biggest stage of the year, the other...had some records.

Funny how different your assessment of Jim Kelly is based on the accuracy of a kick he had nothing to do with.

 

Viniaterri & Vandejagt's performances have more impact on your perception of Manning and Brady than Manning & Brady's performances do.

[CardinalScotts]

Yes, nothing else matters except the rings. Are salesmen based on sales?

 

way too many variables, the classic example is Elway at his best he couldnt win it - but handing off he could. Was a great quarterback but not because Terrell Davis showed up

Edited October 16, 2013 by CardinalScotts

[RealityCheck]

I just look at it like this. For a fan, fantasy and opinion are real things. As much football as I watch, all of my BS analysis comes full circle from time to time, and simplicity comes back to the picture. The sole purpose for an organization is to win the Super Bowl from a marketing perspective. That is their message every second of the day. The top QBs say it dozens of times to the media every week. Fans spend billions together, in the hopes that this is their year. I think that some of you are confusing the ultimate goal in football with the various consolation prizes that come with valiant but futile efforts. That is the romance of the game. I am with that too. It is just that when you guys bring up Trent Dilfer, I know exactly who that is, and can remember some big 3rd down conversions against the Giants defense. I hate the Giants, and Dilfer did his part. Thank you Trent. When you bring up Marino, the first thing I think of is Ace Ventura.

[Charles Romes]

Lets look at who is in the discussion also counting nfll titles. Montana 4, Unitis 3. Favre 1. Elway 2. Brady 3. P manning 1 graham 3. Baugh 2.

 

That's about it for the in the discussion group.

 

Marino must be left out of the discussion. Why? No title. That answers the question.

[Thurman#1]

You Still Need Running and Defense to Win the Super Bowl.

 

Looking over the last 25+ years only one team (Rams) has won the SB without at least having both a decent defense AND running game.

 

We put so much stock in SB wins when rating QBs, but is that a sorry indicator?

 

Marino & Manning, two of the all-time greats take flak for lack of rings, but is it possible that they were just on teams that were poorly designed for post season success?

 

A few illustrative points:

 

If Elway retires at 35 do we view him the same way? Was he better at 36 or did he finally have the right pieces around him?

 

Brady hasn't won a SB in 10 years. Was he better in his early 20s or has it just been that long since he had a good D and power running game?

 

 

No, wins are a terrible way to judge QBs, Super Bowls or not. It's the best way to judge TEAMS, by far. And it's legit to look at how QBs performed in Super Bowls. If they performed well in Super Bowls, that means something, as does bad performance.

 

You said that "... over the last 25+ years only one team (Rams) has won the SB without at least having both a decent defense AND running game." I would strongly argue that, strongly.

 

The 2010 Packers averaged 3.8 yards per rush that year, tying for 25th in the league. That's awful, and you hear people say that they improved during the playoffs, but it's more that it looked that way than that they actually improved. During the playoffs they stepped all the way up from 3.8 YPC to, well, to 3.7 YPC. The 2008 Steelers averaged 3.7 YPC. The 2006 Colts were 18th at 4.0 with teams selling out to stop Manning.. I could go on.

 

So yes, the QB is the most important guy on the field, and as time goes on you're less and less likely to win a Super Bowl without a really good QB. But even good QBs on lousy teams don't win SBs. Look at Eli this year or Brees last year. You can't judge a QB because his team's defense isn't holding up,or because his team's STs allow a game-winning punt return or because his field goal kicker misses a game winner.

 

As always, you judge a player, any player, by how well he plays.

 

Yes, nothing else matters except the rings. Are salesmen based on sales?

 

 

Yes. A salesman is judged based on HIS sales. Not the whole company's sales and not the whole company's profits.

[dave mcbride]

According to the logic on display here, Justin Verlander pitched terribly last night because the Tigers lost. My god.

 

For the record, Peyton Manning's postseason stats are as follows: 20 games, 7.6 ypa, 63.1 completion pct, 88.8 QB rating, 32 TDs, and 21 INTs. The Colts had some pretty crappy defenses over the years, lest people forget. And those who blame Manning for the loss last year to Baltimore are, quite simply, fools.

 

Terry Bradshaw's: 19 games, 8.4 ypa, 55.2 completion pct, 83.0 qb rating, 30 TDs, and 26 INTs.

[BuffOrange]

I'm not interested in the number of yds given up by a defense, especially during the regular season - points allowed during the playoffs is a much better indicator, particularly for this discussion.

 

It's better for you because for any SB winning team to dis-prove your theory, they'd have to win how many 38-35 shoot-outs within the tiny 3 or 4 game sample-size that is the postseason - 2? 3? (heck the Ravens won 2 last year which is 1 more than the Rams did in '99).

Not only that but they would've had to have not had a lead in most of their games to pad their rushing stats (with their sometimes crappy running games).

 

I mean, that's great. Not sure how it's any different than saying "SB winners score more than their opponents in the postseason".

 

But to answer your ?, of course SB's are not a good way to rate QB's. But it's mostly because there is a crap-ton of luck in a single elimination format.

[bufffan031]

When it comes to rating QBs, superbowls aren't really a way to do it. There are other factors to look into. Me and my friend have gotten into arguments over which manning brother is better Peyton or Eli and and if u ask me it's Peyton without question. Granted Peyton has only one superbowl win and Eli has two but when I look at what both teams had to work with I think Eli won with a more well rounded team. The Giants had a much better defense in both years they won the superbowl than Peyton had to work with his entire tenure in Indy. Peyton and the offense had to constantly put up a bunch of points to keep up with opponents because their defense sucked for so long. Peyton holds a lot of records and is the only QB to have 4 MVPS it's clear to see when they both play which one is better. Peyton makes everyone around him better. Eli does not.

 

I also make the argument to which QBs would u rather have out of Peyton and Roethlisberger. Peyton only has one superbowl but has been to two and Roethlisberger has two but has been to three. Does that make him better? I don't think so, again Roethlisberger had a much better defense on his side. I would take Peyton any day of the week.

 

I think to base how much better or good a QB is on superbowls compared to other QBs is like saying that Trent Dilfer is better than Dan Marino because Dilfer won a superbowl and Marino didn't. That's not to say that when it comes to rating a QB winning a superbowl isn't anything. It's just not everything

Edited October 17, 2013 by bufffan031

[ExiledInIllinois]

 

 

So then you think Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB of all time, right?

 

No. Joe Montana is. Tom Brady a close second.

[thebandit27]

To the average fan yes. But to people who know sports, it shouldnt. I liken this to my ongoing argurment with people about Peyton v Eli. I feel Peyton is superior, but eli has the rings. People say Eli is more clutch all that. But I also liken it to the fact that by their rationale Michael Jordan is NOT the greatest. Bill Russell is. I guess what I'm trying to say is that people will always twist facts and ideologies in their favor

 

I see your point and am only responding to point out one difference with regard to the bold: in basketball, you're talking about a sport where only 5 men play at a time, with a maximum roster size around 10 or 12. In that case, number of championships by 1 player may have a bit more credence than in football--where 11 men take the field on each side of the ball at a time and dozens of players see playing time in any one game.

[Jauronimo]

I just look at it like this. For a fan, fantasy and opinion are real things. As much football as I watch, all of my BS analysis comes full circle from time to time, and simplicity comes back to the picture. The sole purpose for an organization is to win the Super Bowl from a marketing perspective. That is their message every second of the day. The top QBs say it dozens of times to the media every week. Fans spend billions together, in the hopes that this is their year. I think that some of you are confusing the ultimate goal in football with the various consolation prizes that come with valiant but futile efforts. That is the romance of the game. I am with that too. It is just that when you guys bring up Trent Dilfer, I know exactly who that is, and can remember some big 3rd down conversions against the Giants defense. I hate the Giants, and Dilfer did his part. Thank you Trent. When you bring up Marino, the first thing I think of is Ace Ventura.

You answered your own question. Championships are the best way to evaluate and compare organizations, not players. You are confusing outcomes attributable to over 100 players, coaches, scouts, and executives with the efforts of one man, and that is why you couldn't be more wrong.

[The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ.]

I understand the overwhelming sentiment. Correct me if I'm wrong: wouldn't the above be a false analogy?

 

In football, it takes many wins cumulative over the course of a season to win a Superbowl. In the sales profession, many transactions are made on an annual basis that determine whether or not an associate hits their numbers. In my opinion, that is a closer analogy.

 

What you're implying above is that only the Big Fish in the sales world matters, which isn't really true. Every sale adds to the bottom line, just as in football, every win adds to the team's success.

You make a fair argument, however I still think yes rings matter a lot. I love Jimbo, think he doesn't get a fair deal with the national talking heads. Saying that however that fact remains Jim gets three rings he would be talked about as the best ever. Marino gets a lot of buzz because he played on bad teams and in great weather. He had to throw all the time because his defense sucked and he had no running game. He had to throw, and playing in Miami made it easier, if the roles where reversed Jim would have had a better career in my humble opinion. This is all irrevelant because it is opinion, if you win(especially multiple rings) you have proof you are the best. Plunkett has more career interception then touchdowns, but he has 2 rings so people think he belongs in the hall. As with sales, someone can think that someone has a good pitch, great product, and wonderful charisma but if he doesn't back it up with sales then who cares.

 

Yes. Individual sales, not TEAM sales. You refute your own point.

 

What does Norwoods kick have to do with Andre Reed's skills?

If you have to go to the store, would you like a brand new shinning BMW that is broken down, our 15yo beat up F-150 that starts right up.

 

Yeah, I'd much rather have Trent Dilfer on a team than say, Dan Marino.

I would rather have Montana

[Pneumonic]

All else being equal, or close to being equal, SB wins is the tie-breaker for me. That's why I rank Montana as the best ever.

[The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ.]

All else being equal, or close to being equal, SB wins is the tie-breaker for me. That's why I rank Montana as the best ever.

I see what you are saying but I go the other way. Rings get you in the conversation, then you get thrown out based on other factors.