BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 ultimately. NO. But the kooks think they must win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Guy Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes, nothing else matters except the rings. Are salesmen based on sales? Yes. Individual sales, not TEAM sales. You refute your own point. What does Norwoods kick have to do with Andre Reed's skills? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artmalibu Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Winning a super bowl is a team accompleshment. QBs get too much fame or blame. Some people say defense wins championships others sy its QBs, both cant be right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjt328 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. Yes. I agree that Super Bowl wins are all that matters in the end. As a Bills fan, I would rather my team have a Lombardi trophy in the case, instead of several players in the Hall of Fame and/or record books. But that wasn't the original poster's question. He asked about using Super Bowl wins to compare players (specifically QBs). The legacy of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith, Marvy Levy, etc., etc. would ALL be looked at completely different if Scott Norwood's kick went through the uprights. Despite the fact they had NOTHING to do with that individual play. Good or No-Good. Like someone else said, John Elway was in the same boat as Jim Kelly and Dan Marino - until the last 2 years of his career. What if Denver hadn't gotten lucky and landed Terrell Davis in the final rounds of the draft? What if Elway decided to retire a few years earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBear Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 If a guy truly had a scrub team around him and still put up good/great numbers I think it can be overlooked (see Peyton Manning). I think it's telling though how a guy performs if/when he reaches the biggest stage. Does he underachieve, overachieve or meet expectations when the lights shine brightest? That's why I'll never consider Jim Kelly one of the elite all-time greats. He had a ton of talent around him, but they collectively came up so small in those Super Bowls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rico Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 So then you think Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB of all time, right? No, I would probably say Joe Montana.... but I would indeed rather have Bradshaw QB my team in a big game than many other so-called greats who fold when it counts the most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Vader Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 No. A Super Bowl championship is a team effort. There are Quarterbacks out there that have never won a Super Bowl and are Hall-of-Famers. Does anybody talk about the legacy of Trent Dilfer? Doug Williams? Jeff Hostetler? Mark Rypien? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 No, I would probably say Joe Montana.... but I would indeed rather have Bradshaw QB my team in a big game than many other so-called greats who fold when it counts the most. There's something to be said for guys who rise to the occasion, and not to discount that, but I think often times one dimensional teams can rack up wins in the regular season, but come playoff time when the weather is cold & you're facing more complete teams, it's not necessarily that the QB folds so much as it's virtually impossible for a QB to carry a team that can't run & play defense in those conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benderbender Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Eli Manning has 2 SB rings and no one has him pegged for the Hall of Fame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Yes. I agree that Super Bowl wins are all that matters in the end. As a Bills fan, I would rather my team have a Lombardi trophy in the case, instead of several players in the Hall of Fame and/or record books. But that wasn't the original poster's question. He asked about using Super Bowl wins to compare players (specifically QBs). The legacy of Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed, Bruce Smith, Marvy Levy, etc., etc. would ALL be looked at completely different if Scott Norwood's kick went through the uprights. Despite the fact they had NOTHING to do with that individual play. Good or No-Good. Like someone else said, John Elway was in the same boat as Jim Kelly and Dan Marino - until the last 2 years of his career. What if Denver hadn't gotten lucky and landed Terrell Davis in the final rounds of the draft? What if Elway decided to retire a few years earlier? You are highly confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ny33 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? Dude, this just isn't true. The 2011 Packers had a weak running game and the WORST defense by yards allowed per game. There are many more examples of teams that lacked a solid defense and run game, but this is a very recent, and glaring, one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 16, 2013 Author Share Posted October 16, 2013 Dude, this just isn't true. The 2011 Packers had a weak running game and the WORST defense by yards allowed per game. There are many more examples of teams that lacked a solid defense and run game, but this is a very recent, and glaring, one. The 2011 Packers lost in the first round of the playoffs. The 2010 Packers D held opponents to 16, 21, 14, & 25 points through the playoffs. And although the running stats weren't gaudy, the run game was effective throughout the playoffs. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Front Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Sonny Jurgensen never won one. Boy, he played on some terrible teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Things are never so black and white as people make them out to be. Alex Smith is undefeated. He's not a special QB and IMO, coudl be replaced by a lot of guys and see no dropoff. Is Alex Smith a better QB than Aaron Rodgers because his team has 2 more wins? Hell no. QB is the number one difference maker in football. But football is still the ultimate team game. Russell Wilson isn't the same guy on the JAgs. Eli Manning is not twice the QB Peyton is because he has one more ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryce Paup 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? Ummmmmmm the Rams had Marshall Faulk... and they had a top 10 defense also... it was a defensive play at the goal line that prevented Tennessee from tying up the game.. The Rams defense won the Bucs game too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 It's not the deciding factor. If I could choose one QB, it'd be Peyton Manning, not Brady. They are both top tier, I just think Manning is a bit better. So many factors in winning a Super Bowl, coaching, defense, etc.Example: In SB Vs new Orleans, if Wayne makes the proper break in his route, Manning probably has 2 SB wins and it's not even discussed. Instead, an INT.It's one game, other players make plays too. Early 00's Pats had superior defense to Colts and usu. home field. Not coincidentally they haven't won a SB since. Doesn't make Brady less of a QB. It is a team game after all. It's only a fair way to D-bags like Colin Cowherd, who only deals in absolutes. 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. Rational thought is disregarded by dunces. Fitz was and never will be better than Brady. I hate Brady, but I realize that is a fact Football is way more than QB vs QB. Especially since they never really face each other. In the end SB wins are all that matters to be the greatest team, but lots of teams have won SB titles with QB's that will never be thought of as HOF'ers. Was it Bobby Layne who said he never lost a game, he just ran out of time? Things happen in games, guys make plays on the other team too. It's possible to play an excellent game, and the other team just makes one more play than yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 It's not the deciding factor. If I could choose one QB, it'd be Peyton Manning, not Brady. They are both top tier, I just think Manning is a bit better. So many factors in winning a Super Bowl, coaching, defense, etc.Example: In SB Vs new Orleans, if Wayne makes the proper break in his route, Manning probably has 2 SB wins and it's not even discussed. Instead, an INT.It's one game, other players make plays too. Early 00's Pats had superior defense to Colts and usu. home field. Not coincidentally they haven't won a SB since. Doesn't make Brady less of a QB. It is a team game after all. It's only a fair way to D-bags like Colin Cowherd, who only deals in absolutes. Rational thought is disregarded by dunces. Fitz was and never will be better than Brady. I hate Brady, but I realize that is a fact Football is way more than QB vs QB. Especially since they never really face each other. In the end SB wins are all that matters to be the greatest team, but lots of teams have won SB titles with QB's that will never be thought of as HOF'ers. Was it Bobby Layne who said he never lost a game, he just ran out of time? Things happen in games, guys make plays on the other team too. It's possible to play an excellent game, and the other team just makes one more play than yours. Peyton is the best regular season QB ever. However if it's one game with everything on the line, I'm going with Brady. Peyton has too many duds in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Peyton is the best regular season QB ever. However if it's one game with everything on the line, I'm going with Brady. Peyton has too many duds in the playoffs. I'd say he's possibly the best QB ever. regular season or playoffs doesn't matter, it's still a game. He's had plenty of good games in the playoffs. He lost a few in the early 2000's on the road to a superior NE defense and a superior coach. Last year vs ravens was hardly a dud. He leads them to what is probably the winning points and an absolutely horrendous play by a db extends a game that should have been over to OT. Things happen. Everyone remembers a couple bad playoff games from 10+ years ago. If I had to win one game, I'd still go with Manning over any other QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Super Bowl wins is an excellent way to grade a QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boatdrinks Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Super Bowl wins is an excellent way to grade a QB. Yeah, I'd much rather have Trent Dilfer on a team than say, Dan Marino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts