Omerta+ 1,206 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) This is something that always irritates the shit out of me when people use the SB to validate someones career while making another person seem to be the greatest. To me some of the best people in the game of all time get snubbed by this stigma and it is ridiculous. My biggest pet peeve. Dan Marino. I know all the pats fans and Manning fans will argue, but I think he was the best pure passer this game has ever seen. He was deadly accurate and he had arm strength that neither Brady or Peyton can claim at any point in their careers. same is said for Joe Montana, not saying he wasnt great but as far as pure QB play I think Marino dusts all their asses off. Then there is the argument about Tom doing so much with nothing. Marino was Tom Brady before Tom Brady. He had Clayton and Duper as his star WR's who he made look much better than they actually were. And his defense was GARBAGE. Not saying it is only Brady because Peyton gets the same treatment as far as the elevation of people around him. Which dont get me wrong they did but this is not something new. Not a knock against either because they are both great but neither are Marino. So for people to throw rings into an equation about an argument for Peyton and Tom being the best to me is stupid. Looking at most of those SB wins Brady had a defense. When his defense left his playoffs stopped being magical Cinderella stories, and in the big games as of late Brady has not been the Brady circa 2004 or so. Not saying he does not play great (lets face it a sub par Brady game is still a good game the majority of the time). Then less examine Peyton I am not sure how many people remember but he sucked in the playoffs that year. Records he still has(Marino): Most games, 400 or more yards passing, Career: 13 Most Games, 400 or more yards passing, Season: 4 in 1984 Most 4th quarter comeback wins, career: 36 Most game-winning drives in the 4th quarter/overtime, career : 51 Most seasons leading league, pass attempts: 5 (1984, 1986, 1988, 1992, 1997) Most seasons leading league, completions: 6 (1984–86, 1988, 1992, 1997) Most seasons, 40 or more touchdown passes: 2 (1984, 1986) 100 TD passes in fewest number of games to start career: 44 200 TD passes in fewest number of games to start career: 89 Monday Night Football, most passing yards: 9,654 Monday Night Football, most completions: 798 Monday Night Football, most attempts: 1,303 Monday Night Football, most touchdown passes: 74 Monday Night Football, most wins as a starter: 20 Records he had at one time until just now being beaten by guys with far more weapons: Most yards passing, Season: 5,084, in 1984 Lowest percentage, passes intercepted, rookie season: 2.03 in 1983 (296-6) Most consecutive seasons, 3,000 or more yards passing: 9 (1984–92) Most games, 300 or more yards passing, season: 9 in 1984 Most touchdown passes, season: 48 in 1984 Most consecutive games, four or more touchdown passes: 4 in 1984 Most consecutive games, two or more touchdown passes: 12 Most consecutive games with a touchdown pass, playoffs: 13 Highest passer rating, rookie season: 96.0 Most seasons, 3,000 or more yards passing: 13 (1984–92, 1994–95, 1997–98) Most completions, career: 4,967 Most attempts, career: 8,358 40,000 career passing yards in fewest number of games to start career: 153 Most yards passing, career: 61,361 Most touchdown passes, career: 420 Most wins against one team: 24 against the Indianapolis Colts Most games, three or more touchdown passes, career: 62 Most wins in different stadiums: 31 50,000 career passing yards in fewest number of games to start career: 193 Highest career TD-INT differential: +168 Most games, four or more touchdown passes, career: 21 Most regular season wins, quarterback/head coach: 116 with Don Shula :bricks: NOBODY has these records and numbers, but rings have more bearing on an individual which all of the sudden makes them viable candidates for the best ever. There is nobody close as far as what he did and yet people rarely put him over Brady, Montana, Elway, and Peyton. People should be ashamed of themselves. Then lest talk about Barry Sanders. Greatest the game has ever seen (argue all you want my mind isn't changing and a lot of people will agree). And yet no SB. The man was amazing and even in today's NFL would have made people look silly and probably still be the number one back in the game today during his prime. He still has more records than Jim Brown. Like seasons with 1500 yards rushing, 25 games with more than 100 yards (Jim Brown had 22), 15 TD's of 50 yards (jim Brown 12), 46 games with 150 YFS (walter Peyton 45). And when he retired he was a shade less that 1500 yards away from eclipsing Walter who he could have shattered had he tried, and Emmit would have never caught him. Yet he has no championships. Although there is some justice because the consensus is he is the best. Then there are players who have never won one in modern day but were dominant: Ladanian Tomlinson Brian Dawkins Ed Reed Andre Johnson Randy Moss ( while a douche sometimes still dominant) London Fletcher and the list goes on. SO to me the Lombardi means nothing when talking about individuals. Now I do believe and individual can get you to the playoffs but you dont win without a team. so how much faith do you guys put in it ? Edited June 23, 2012 by Ngata_Chance 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 23, 2012 To say it means everything is obviously stupid, but to say it means nothing is equally as dumb. The goal of any NFL team is to win the Super Bowl. To say that you don't put more stock in a player that helped a team accomplish that goal makes no sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) To say it means everything is obviously stupid, but to say it means nothing is equally as dumb. The goal of any NFL team is to win the Super Bowl. To say that you don't put more stock in a player that helped a team accomplish that goal makes no sense. Right there in bold says it all. It means something but when trying to judge people on an individual basis I do find it pointless. And since I used brady in a not so flattering light (although second to dan marino is nothing to sneeze at)I will say something positive this time. What I am saying is in Brady's heyday when he was winning SB's left and right he was not near the QB he is now. he was good then dont get me wrong but today it is like he is almost of another realm. His 2004 self pales in comparison to him as of late in my opinion however, how many SB's has he won lately. Because he does not have a team around him. So if you look at when Brady is trying to win a SB by himself he has failed. Nothing on him but I dont know any QB's that can win it all by themselves. I mean if Aaron Rodgers or Tom ?brady cant do it I dont see anybody that can. So if they nobody can do it by themselves then why use it to judge individuals. And to do the flip side Trent Dilfer. Die hard Ravens fan. That said he was terrible and I would love to see somebody on here state an argument that was LOGICAL saying HE was a key factor in that SB. I am saying one person can not win a SB. I am not saying it will never happen but you would ahve ot have a guy who is truly unstoppable and we have not seen that. Now if there is a guy who is built like Big ben, with early mike Vick speed, Rodgers accuracy, Favre's durability, Brady's leadership, Montan's clutch gene, and Elway's arm we may not see it. Once that happens then I will say OK one guy can win one so it should be a factor when determining credentials for GOAT of all time honors. Edited June 23, 2012 by Ngata_Chance 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted June 23, 2012 Most players don't need a super bowl to validate their careers. If they are great, they'll be great regardless, and their numbers and individual accomplishment speak for them. It kinda turns into a cop out when you start pointing to championships before anything else... Championships have been and will always be team accomplishments. How you perform in the playoffs is something else though. A lot of people hold that higher then anything else, because, in the playoffs, there's more pressure to win. Which usually brings out the best, or the worst of individuals. Which is fair imo to compare two individuals like that, as long as the two players have had a large sample of playoff games throughout their entire careers. But when it becomes completely unfair when one doesn't have as large of a sample as the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted June 23, 2012 And to do the flip side Trent Dilfer. Die hard Ravens fan. That said he was terrible and I would love to see somebody on here state an argument that was LOGICAL saying HE was a key factor in that SB. Turnover %? The whole win with defense doesn't work as well when your QB is turning the ball over a lot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thanatos 2,847 Posted June 23, 2012 Ngata is so completely on the money here. Cossell had an article showing how much better Brady is now than he was when the Pats won 3 superbowls, yet people think he's no longer a "winner." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted June 23, 2012 Turnover %? The whole win with defense doesn't work as well when your QB is turning the ball over a lot. True enough but when you are handing the ball to Priest Holmes and Jamal Lewis and telling them to run behind Jonathan Ogden it is not a complicated offense to execute. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
butta54 371 Posted June 23, 2012 There have been some good points already stated, but I have to say it no matter how you split it a player is playing to win the superbowl. Doesn't matter what the mindset of the player is, the game of professional football, being drafted out of college, and playing as a starter or anyway contributing to the team is for ONE reason which is to win the SUPERBOWL not the regular season or playoff games. There really is no individual aspect to football cause it is a TEAM game. The nature of the sport. If you want to discuss individual careers that's fine, but the main focus is on what they accomplished on their teams. I agree you can't put everything into it and you can't put nothing in it at the same time. However, it makes a difference. Winning a Superbowl when you put in serious work and contributed to your team's victory says a lot about a player because its the ultimate prize and you those players become champions...what other title is there to shoot for in football? There is a reason it is a long and hard road to that grand stage. It doesn't matter to me when you won a Superbowl (as in the Brady case) as long as you put in your work to get the team there. I agree it doesn't mean you are at the top of your game, but it still says something about being to that mountain top. I never really respected players who play to be the best at their position more than I respect the players who play to be a champion. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted June 23, 2012 True enough but when you are handing the ball to Priest Holmes and Jamal Lewis and telling them to run behind Jonathan Ogden it is not a complicated offense to execute. But at some point you're still gonna have to throw the rock. And having a QB who knows and understand what he is, and his role in the grand scheme of things is makes a huge difference. Honestly, the way the Ravens won that Super Bowl probably won't ever happen again. That defense was just on another level. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Omerta+ 1,206 Posted June 23, 2012 But at some point you're still gonna have to throw the rock. And having a QB who knows and understand what he is, and his role in the grand scheme of things is makes a huge difference. Honestly, the way the Ravens won that Super Bowl probably won't ever happen again. That defense was just on another level. Yeah he knew his place that is for sure, but everyday in practice against that defense I am sure he was reminded. It may not happen again. As to Dilfer himself and his play. To me I cant say that is something that is great when you do nothing either it is just kind of a bleh thing. For me it is like you threw nine passes and while you did not complete all of them you did not fuck any up either so uh.....good job...i guess. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zack_of_Steel+ 3,014 Posted June 23, 2012 I think that there is some grey area here. Dan Marino and Peyton Manning had chances to perform well in the playoffs and lead their teams to Super Bowl victories, but they played like shit or choked. Yes, Peyton got a ring and Marino didn't, but Manning's team bailed him out while Marino's didn't. They are nearly carbon copies of eachother. For these two, gaudy stats are great, but the inability to perform in crunch time hinders them and, therefore, should knock them down the list of greatest players. Joe Montana was the most clutch QB in history and put up ungodly playoff numbers. If he were swapped with Peyton or Marino, I have no doubt that he'd have performed better than them in the playoffs. Conversely, I think Manning and Marino might have gotten rings with the 49ers, but I don't believe anyone would have looked at them and said, "wow, they won the title for their team." Players like London Fletcher definitely get a pass because they were great players that never got a team place around him with which to win a ring. Fitzgerald is in this category as well. He willed his team to the Super Bowl and brought them back and if not for the heroics of Big Ben and Santonio Holmes, he'd have gotten his championship. Reggie Wayne, however, disappeared in quite a few playoff games. I think that, like anything in this world, we have to look at the circumstances and variables before we put lables on players in the NFL. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Eefluxx 113 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) I keep seeing this brought up from time to time about players who never won a super bowl but deserved one. London Fletcher did win a super bowl. Super Bowl XXXIV or 34. He was the starting middle linebacker for the Rams. I just wanted to clear that up. Otherwise I do agree with everything Ngata said and I remember watching Dan Marino and he is one the best QB's ever with or without the ring. Edited June 23, 2012 by Eefluxx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
seanbrock 1,684 Posted June 23, 2012 Zack pretty much nailed it. One thing I'll add though is Super Bowls are more important when comparing QB's than say maybe RB's or LB's or FS's or whatever position it may be because nobody has more of an impact games being won or loss than the QB. I think Razor posted some stats that pointed to an interesting trend that's developing in the NFL. The team who's QB plays better than the other QB is going to win the game. IF you're a QB and you can't get it done in the playoffs and win a ring it should be more of a slight on your career than say, a great LB or DB or something. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steelrain43 27 Posted June 23, 2012 awesome post, on a very real subject--we all at one time or another--have had a debate online or in person, and a player comparison comes down to a SB winner vs one that didn't win it..and everytime--the guy with the SB wins, will throw that in there once you say something that they cannot stat counter.. ngata said it best, and IMO--SB wins, you have to say--team accomplishment, even if the QB was the star of the game... and many great players, most notably marino never did win one, but that means nothing about him as a pure player, means he never had a team to beat out the others.. I see it simply--to win a championship--you don't even need to be the best team..just the team playing best, at the right time..health can be a factor as well... when the 2 teams face off--whichever team tips the scales in all 3 phases closest to playing 3 phases of championship football will win... let's say for instance--if eli manning had played against his own defense and tom brady would do the same (bare with me)--would eli still win?... many are saying eli is betterthan brady, due to 2 times head to head beating them...but is that really accurate?....giants dline is the best 4/3 line in football IMO...blitz not needed for them... but all that is th arguements--SB wins,vs personal accomplishments and player rankings vs each other---there are too many variables many times to do that fairly anyway.. but no, to answer--SB wins are a team goal, but you can play your position at the highest levels and deserve recognition for that.. dan marino is one, so is the players from the 4 time in a row SB losing bills..is anyone gonna say tht team wasn't talented?.. great post ngata Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
blotsfan 2,112 Posted June 23, 2012 many are saying eli is betterthan brady, due to 2 times head to head beating them. No one says that. Ever. 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Milla4Prez63 678 Posted June 23, 2012 The goal of everyone is to win a Super Bowl. But I don't think you necesarily need one to validate your career. Unless you choke hard by throwing an INT in conference championship games/Super Bowls every year. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Steelrain43 27 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) No one says that. Ever. espn discussed it, which was better..so you are wrong, it has been discussed..even aired for millions to see, apparently you wasn't one of them... not saying i agree with even asking the question either..just saying that some are misguided enough to even ask it...notice my post deals with that very subject.. so, you are wrong bro, sorry...already been done.question was asked due to eli beating brady 2 times in a super bowl, so which was better.. Edited June 23, 2012 by Steelrain43 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
housemd 338 Posted June 24, 2012 espn discussed it, which was better..so you are wrong, it has been discussed..even aired for millions to see, apparently you wasn't one of them... not saying i agree with even asking the question either..just saying that some are misguided enough to even ask it...notice my post deals with that very subject.. so, you are wrong bro, sorry...already been done.question was asked due to eli beating brady 2 times in a super bowl, so which was better.. Just because ESPN discussed it,it doesn't necessarily have to mean that the majority of football fans thinks Eli is better than Brady.. Eli didn't beat Brady twice in a SB,New York beat New England twice in a SB..Football is a team game,so the whole team gets the props for winning or losing a game.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241 Posted June 24, 2012 I will add that I don't believe what some others believe, which is that QBs play differently in the playoffs in comparison to the regular season. Not to say that some QB play worse or better in the playoffs, but I don't buy into the idea of it being added pressure, or anything of that sort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
