Rob's House Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Not really, but it still is a benchmark. Look at guys who have won because they were on great teams. Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer, Mark Rypien, It takes a team to win the SB, but having a top tier QB sure does help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Lot of QBs with SB rings that are not in Hall of Fame...so no, I don't think it's fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No, it isn't. And it's not just a problem for QBs. I make this argument every time the HOF voting comes up. The guys with the championship rings are always pushed up the list. Guys without rings are left at a significant disadvantage, unless their stats are completely out of this world (like Dan Marino or Barry Sanders). Case in point. Michael Irvin, Andre Reed and Tim Brown were all top WRs in the same era. All three dominated on the field. All three had great stats. All three had Pro Bowls. But only one of them was a first-ballot selection. The others may NEVER get in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Rev.Mattb74 ESQ. Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes, nothing else matters except the rings. Are salesmen based on sales? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) Eli Manning. 3rd class QB, but has two rings. Edited October 16, 2013 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Is Trent Dilfer > Jim Kelly? is Trent Dilfer > Dan Marino? Does Trent Dilfer = Joe Naimath? Does Trent Dilfer = Peyton Manning? Super Bowls are very important in a historical context, but you've gotta take the whole rather than the sum of the parts. Taking your pick between Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Joe Naimath, Payton Manning, and Trent Dilfer, we can have an endless argument of who we would take first. The last pick is an unequivocal no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 It may not be fair, but the bottom line here is love it or hemate it, the perception of greatness is established on the biggest stage, in front of the largest audience in the most critical moments. It's not absolute, but you need to have a much better career without a ring to get to canton than you need to have if you win a few big ones. But Trent Dilfer won't ever be mentioned as an all time great and Peyton's yellow jacket would be pressed and ready for him even if he didn't win one for Indy and called it a career tomorrow. An example of a guy who likely will go to canton but may have had a tougher arguement without a ring is say a Ben R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No. There have been some GREAT QBs who never won a SB. HOF QBs. Fact is, most players, great, good, or average, don't win a SB. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes, nothing else matters except the rings. Are salesmen based on sales? 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrLocke Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I was having this conversation the other day. Rings obviously aren't everything or Terry Bradshaw would be the greatest of all time and I don't know anyone who would say that. Stats don't tell the whole picture either. Look at Troy Aikman's stats. I think 24 td passes was the most he he had in a season. It is impossible to know what he could have done if he wasn't handing the ball of to Emmitt so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I don't think its fair to say that one QB is better than another purely by virtue of a super bowl ring or suggest that Marino isn't a premier QB because he never won the big one. I don't think you can discount super bowl victories either, especially multiple super bowl victories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freester Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Archie Manning was one of the greatest QB of all time, but he played for a terrible organization and a team devoid of talent. This was before the salary cap leveled the playing field. Football is a team sport and coaching plays a huge role. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes. As Jim Irsay said this week, he'll take championships over stats every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes. As Jim Irsay said this week, he'll take championships over stats every time. So then you think Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB of all time, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Greg Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Don't think it's just winning that one game itself, but leading your team for an entire season to that final victory is an achievement. Everyone looks to the QB as the leader of the team. It's an important quality that deserves to be measured. I can think of few quarterbacks who have won the superbowl who didn't have a leadership quality that was the right fit for that particular team. QBs who win multiple superbowls are far more impressive in that respect, because they are able to maintain that team mentality for multiple seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 So then you think Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB of all time, right? Rational thought is a fancy form of making excuses. Super Bowl wins are all that matters. The better man is determined by W's. Fitz was a better QB than Brady for a fleeting moment, cause he won. Period. The other 20 guys on the field are irrelevant. Football is QB vs. QB. End. Of. Discussion. Period. That is all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebandit27 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Rational thought is a fancy form of making excuses. Super Bowl wins are all that matters. The better man is determined by W's. Fitz was a better QB than Brady for a fleeting moment, cause he won. Period. The other 20 guys on the field are irrelevant. Football is QB vs. QB. End. Of. Discussion. Period. That is all. Hence why Joe Flacco was the best QB in football last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
filthymcnasty08 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Eli Manning. 3rd class QB, but has two rings. 3rd Class? wow. I think that's a little rough....he is having a terrible year but I think its safe to say most would take him on the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2o Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No, it isn't. And it's not just a problem for QBs. I make this argument every time the HOF voting comes up. The guys with the championship rings are always pushed up the list. Guys without rings are left at a significant disadvantage, unless their stats are completely out of this world (like Dan Marino or Barry Sanders). Case in point. Michael Irvin, Andre Reed and Tim Brown were all top WRs in the same era. All three dominated on the field. All three had great stats. All three had Pro Bowls. But only one of them was a first-ballot selection. The others may NEVER get in. Tim Brown should be in without question, without question. Ahead of Reed IMO if it comes down to the two. I also believe that Reed should have been in long ago as well, especially ahead of someone like Chris Carter. I don't see how some of these people helping to make this decision are allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts