Equating Super Bowl victories to QB success

[deroc5050]

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? Tom Brady has gone from being a good QB in 2001 to a great QB by 2004.. and has seemingly upped his level of play every year... It seems like every year the guy gets friggen better.. It looks as though he is playing in his prime at the age of 34.. Watching him throw the ball against Denver last Saturday was awe inspiring. With that said how and why does the media equate SB victories (a team effort) to an indivual? Like how is TB already not the best or the 2nd best ever? The guy has won in the NFL multiple ways can adapt to many different situations and succeed at the highest level. But he has not won the SB since 2004 and obviously his best games have come well after 2004 so that right there tells me that this whole SB victories = best ever is a flawed.. a down right idiotic way to measure the GOAT.

I think TB makes everyone around him better he can make jags look like stars.. and he makes stars look like HOF players. ( Gronk, Welker, branch, Hernadez) branch is not a hof player but Branch disappeared when he went to Seatle. I also think Gronk is special and probably if he stays healthy and continues to improve over the years he will be a lock for a first ballot HOF. So Gronk is probably a bad example because he is already on pace to be more than just a star in this league. But we all know the list of receivers Brady has had in the past.

I always hear he doesn't have the strongest arm, not sure who does and not sure its relevent really, but when I see TB throw the fb it looks special. Especially those intermediate lazer beams. Maybe thats my rose colored glasses but its fun watching the guy play as opposed to Eli Manning or Ben Rapistberger. I know Eli gets the job done but to me he is kind of boring to watch and I hate his stupid face! Sorry 2007 has forever scared me.

Whatever team accomplishments Brady gets from here on out will be gravy and just add to his legacy. But to me one of the best QB's in history really took his game to a higher level well after his last SB victory. Am I off base here? Am I missing something? Is Terry Bradshaw the best QB of all time? Is Trent Dilfer and Peyton Manning equals because they both got 1 title each? You cant pick and choose when to use this stat as the barometer for QB greatness. I bring this up because it was all over the Boston Sports talk radio this afternoon and I just find it kind of annoying. :bricks: rant over.

 

[Ring 6]

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? Tom Brady has gone from being a good QB in 2001 to a great QB by 2004.. and has seemingly upped his level of play every year... It seems like every year the guy gets friggen better.. It looks as though he is playing in his prime at the age of 34.. Watching him throw the ball against Denver last Saturday was awe inspiring. With that said how and why does the media equate SB victories (a team effort) to an indivual? Like how is TB already not the best or the 2nd best ever? The guy has won in the NFL multiple ways can adapt to many different situations and succeed at the highest level. But he has not won the SB since 2004 and obviously his best games have come well after 2004 so that right there tells me that this whole SB victories = best ever is a flawed.. a down right idiotic way to measure the GOAT.

I think TB makes everyone around him better he can make jags look like stars.. and he makes stars look like HOF players. ( Gronk, Welker, branch, Hernadez) branch is not a hof player but Branch disappeared when he went to Seatle. I also think Gronk is special and probably if he stays healthy and continues to improve over the years he will be a lock for a first ballot HOF. So Gronk is probably a bad example because he is already on pace to be more than just a star in this league. But we all know the list of receivers Brady has had in the past.

I always hear he doesn't have the strongest arm, not sure who does and not sure its relevent really, but when I see TB throw the fb it looks special. Especially those intermediate lazer beams. Maybe thats my rose colored glasses but its fun watching the guy play as opposed to Eli Manning or Ben Rapistberger. I know Eli gets the job done but to me he is kind of boring to watch and I hate his stupid face! Sorry 2007 has forever scared me.

Whatever team accomplishments Brady gets from here on out will be gravy and just add to his legacy. But to me one of the best QB's in history really took his game to a higher level well after his last SB victory. Am I off base here? Am I missing something? Is Terry Bradshaw the best QB of all time? Is Trent Dilfer and Peyton Manning equals because they both got 1 title each? You cant pick and choose when to use this stat as the barometer for QB greatness. I bring this up because it was all over the Boston Sports talk radio this afternoon and I just find it kind of annoying. :bricks: rant over.

Winning Super Bowls is a factor in the GOAT argument. It has never been used as a finite argument that whoever wins the most SBs is therefore the best QB. That is why the Dilfer argument is stupid to even bring up.

The point of playing is to win SBs. Often, not always, winning a SB comes down to your QB making or not making plays. So winning SBs is a big part of a QBs resume, and the difference among the elite QBs that win them or do not usually comes down to how they played in the big game.
Manning's 9-10 playoff record has a lot to do with Manning. Since the playoffs are more important than the regular season, that is a large detractor. You can find a number of QBs who were more successful in the regular season than Joe Montana, but his postseason success closes the argument. There is no question that the difference between Montanas post season results and those of Manning, Marino, Favre, etc are directly related to the players they were.

Unfortunately in sports discussions everyone wants to make an argument black or white. Either its all that matters or it doesnt matter at all. Neither is that case here.

 

[Ron Sellers]

Quarterbacks get way too much credit for a victory.

Quarterbacks get way too much blame for a loss.

And when their careers are finished, almost all players get way too much credit for super bowl wins, while the careers of others are unjustly diminished for not enough championships.


Football is the ultimate team game. In my opinion there is way too much credence given to team championships when evaluating an individual's career.

 

[i82much]

Hmm. I was always of the mind that Montana's no interceptions in a Super Bowl was one of the really impressive feats in sports. The competition just gets tougher as you advance, so success in the playoffs or in the Super Bowl tells you something.

I guess the counterargument is the smaller sample size, I mean it is tough to knock Brady for one Super Bowl loss when hey, Montana lost games that *could* have gotten him to the Super Bowl. Either way, you didn't win the Super Bowl because you lost, right?

 

[Matt Hooper]

Was Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino?

 

[strngplyr]

Was Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino?

Marino might be jealous of him.

 

[Joker]

Hmm. I was always of the mind that Montana's no interceptions in a Super Bowl was one of the really impressive feats in sports.Phil Simms...22/25..3 TD's ..no INT's...ring any bells, black bird?? The competition just gets tougher as you advance, so success in the playoffs or in the Super Bowl tells you something.I want to say something about the Carolina/Pats Super Bowl ..Brady moving the pats into FG range with 9 seconds left for the win...nah, pretty ordinary I guess

I guess the counterargument is the smaller sample size, I mean it is tough to knock Brady for one Super Bowl loss when hey, Montana lost games that *could* have gotten him to the Super Bowl.Montana never "lost" a Super Bowl after passing his team to the LEAD with 2 minutes left in the game Either way, you didn't win the Super Bowl because you lost, right?

Elway lost Super Bowls when he was the best QB in the league...he won 2 when he was nothing more than Terrel Davis' caddy...even if the Broncos had NOT won those SB's ,Elway would still have gone down as one of the game's greats.

 

[Gostkowski for 3]

Elway lost Super Bowls when he was the best QB in the league...he won 2 when he was nothing more than Terrel Davis' caddy...even if the Broncos had NOT won those SB's ,Elway would still have gone down as one of the game's greats.

davis and the ONLINE were great, but John was still pretty damn good.

 

[Joker]

davis and the ONLINE were great, but John was still pretty damn good.

no doubt but no way was Big John the mobile, fleet as a gazelle Mack truck he was when he first went to the big dance...my point is not about denigrating Elway's legacy, it's to point out that even if he had never won those 2 rings later on, he would go down as one of the greatest to ever play the position.

 

[Gostkowski for 3]

no doubt but no way was Big John the mobile, fleet as a gazelle Mack truck he was when he first went to the big dance...my point is not about denigrating Elway's legacy, it's to point out that even if he had never won those 2 rings later on, he would go down as one of the greatest to ever play the position.

i agree with you some. the stats that marino used to put up arent as big of a deal as they used to be, so you need a different measursing stick, and so it's a good thing to have the stats and the rings. i think a lot of people view elway as better than marino, but if elway had never won a ring, i think a lot of people would put marino ahead of him. that's just my thinking. everyone has there own top 10 qbs and almost nobody agrees on them.

 

[PatsFan24]

Wins and losses are a team stat, however the QB is the most important position on the field and the leader of the team in most cases. That is why they judge more by titles than stats. Plus, the goal is to win the game, not roll up a bunch of numbers in a loss.

 

[randomk1]

Was Trent Dilfer better than Dan Marino?

Yeah and when Marino was having his best season he was still outplayed by Joe Cool.


SBs do matter...it's performing when it's do or die. It's performing when the stakes are at their highest.

Manning torches every D he sees during the regular season yet there are still questions about him as a playoff QB because of his history there. Even in 06 he wasn't all that great.

 

[i82much]

I think people are just going to use different criteria for greatness no matter what you are talking about. A QB probably has more influence over whether a team wins a SB than anybody else, but he's still one of 50+ players, not to mention coaches. Then there is the schedule you play, injuries, dumb luck.

But then again, if stats were everything, wouldn't Peyton Manning be the all-time greatest? But does anybody actually think that?

 

[Fball]

You need a lot of things to win a SB - good QB play, good defensive play, good coaching, and luck; not necessarily in that order.

Personally, I think coaching is paramount. You rarely see a bad coach win the big one, unless their team is stacked.

If you put Marino on the NE squads of '01, '03 and '04 with BB at the helm, I have a very hard time believing that he doesn't win at least 2 of the 3.

 

[RodThePat]

I think people are just going to use different criteria for greatness no matter what you are talking about. A QB probably has more influence over whether a team wins a SB than anybody else, but he's still one of 50+ players, not to mention coaches. Then there is the schedule you play, injuries, dumb luck.

But then again, if stats were everything, wouldn't Peyton Manning be the all-time greatest? But does anybody actually think that?

Ahm...no, he wouldn't, since Brett Favre and Dan Marino have better volume-stats and Tom Brady has better efficiency stats (like passer rating, TD%, INT% and TD/INT ratio).

The SuperBowl argument only has merit if we are using it as some sort of tie-breaker when comparing quarterbacks of similar quality. That's why the "oh, so I guess Trent Dilfer is better than Marino, then" retort is borderline ******ed.

 

[deroc5050]

Ahm...no, he wouldn't, since Brett Favre and Dan Marino have better volume-stats and Tom Brady has better efficiency stats (like passer rating, TD%, INT% and TD/INT ratio).

The SuperBowl argument only has merit if we are using it as some sort of tie-breaker when comparing quarterbacks of similar quality. That's why the "oh, so I guess Trent Dilfer is better than Marino, then" retort is borderline ******ed.

of course its ******ed, thats why I used it as an example. I know most logical fans don't just look at SB rings and use that as the measuring stick. I think the Patriots beating the 14-2 chargers in the divisional round was the most impressive play off win they have ever accomplished and that was not a super bowl. You need great teams to win SB's for the most part. Montana was surrounded by great talent and coaching.

 

[Ring 6]

of course its ******ed, thats why I used it as an example. I know most logical fans don't just look at SB rings and use that as the measuring stick. I think the Patriots beating the 14-2 chargers in the divisional round was the most impressive play off win they have ever accomplished and that was not a super bowl. You need great teams to win SB's for the most part. Montana was surrounded by great talent and coaching.

I am a firm believer that you can't replace results with excuses about circumstances. Achievement is something that actually happens and to argue that someone who did not achieve should get the same credit as someone who did is wrong. Every team starts every season with one objective, winning the SB. Nothing else is comparable or compensates against that achievement.