Discussion in 'The National Football League' started by Huge, Mar 20, 2007.
Why are QBs measured by the number of Super Bowls they win?
I'm just thinking out loud.
Because people are stupid and need easy-to-digest examples. Same reason pitchers get all the glory in baseball, even though they only play every five games. No other player has a win/loss record.
I still think Dan Marino is one of the greatest QBs in the history of the NFL, but try to argue that point with the average person, and the first thing they ask is "how many Super Bowls did he win?". In a team sport, QBs get way too much blame and glory, IMHO.
I thought this was gonna be one of the Chicago Bear joke threads. So carry on....
Well I certainly don't measure a quarterback's success based on the number of Super Bowls they win. But modern day society usually thinks otherwise.
Defense doesn't win championships. Defense results in ties and hockey scores that a kicker from some European colony can decide. A FO marketing department made that saying up to sell more beer.
An offense scores.
A really good offense keeps your defense on the bench:
and you cannot have a really good offense without a good QB.
I really don't think QBs are measured by the number of SuperBowls they win, unless you're talking about Tom Brady.
Peyton was the best QB in this league, before the Superbowl. I still think McNair is one of the best in the league. I also think Marc Bulger is in that group. I knew Warner was a bad ass before he got to the SuperBowl, which is why I had no problem rooting for the Rams.
SuperBowl wins without a doubt, is something to hang your hat on, more so for QBs. It's an accomplishment all players would love to have. As a matter of fact, I'd bet it's easier for a good QB to get into the HOF without a SuperBowl win than it is for another player who doesn't have a superbowl win.
Well that, and....uhhhh....
- Brady has orchestrated 21 game-wining drives to break a tie or take the lead in the fourth quarter or overtime. Five of his game-winning efforts have come in postseason, where he has played in 11 games.
- Brady owns two Pete Rozelle Awards as Super Bowl MVP (XXXVI and XXXVIII). He is just the fourth player in Super Bowl history to earn multiple MVP awards, joining Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw and Bart Starr, all three of whom are enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
- Brady has led a game-winning drive to break a tie or take the lead in the fourth quarter of each of the Patriots' three Super Bowl victories, becoming the only quarterback in NFL history to lead three such game-winning drives in the Super Bowl.
I never understand why Brady doesn't get the respect. Sure he's on a great team, but so were all the other Super Bowl winning QBs. It's not like you could stick Carr in the Patriots offense and do the same thing. TB is a great field general, even without the rings.
More about Tom Brady's greatness
That's a symptom of playing on a defensive oriented team.
Are you going to give more props to Brady for having to decide a game in the fourth then you would a Jim Plunkett that was 24-3 by the end of the 3rd in his first Super Bowl and 35-9 by the end of the 3rd in his second Super Bowl?
The first 4 Super Bowls weren't even close, not even the Jets Namath one.
I could've sworn there was a guy who made his name making some clutch field goals playing for that very same team...
and.. wait a minute.. that guy won another Super Bowl this year. Things that make you go hmm...
sides, I'm not saying Brady isn't a good QB. I'm just saying when you ask the Question, "who is the best QB in the league right now??" you'll get answers like:
"Peyton Manning, he is a freak'n machine. He's the coach on the field. He's the field general. He'll pick you apart."
"Donovan McNabb, he's amazing. He flicked the Ball 69 yards off his back foot. He put that ball on the money. If you cover all his receivers, he'll beat you with his legs."
"Tom Brady, he's got three Super Bowl rings."
I don't get it either. People talk about his surrounding team yet they fail to recognize that the Pats are notorious with getting rid of talent too and despite the players leaving and the scrub receivers at times the guy still produces wins. If people think they could have gotten as far as they did with their receivers this year if Brady wasn't their QB...they are smoking some heavy stuff.
I also don't like the Veneteri argument. Yes he is clutch and made the kicks but in all of those situations plays had to be made to get him into that position. You could easily argue that Brady is as much a part of Venetieri's success as V is a part of Bradys.
They were still here when the Oilers drafted him and I was very excited about that, but IMO, he never achieved "elite" status. Above average qb, but I don't believe he should ever be lumped in with the really good ones.
A really good defense trumps a really good offense though. Need Proof? 85 bears, Bucs superbowl year & the Ravens defense that year even though they played a not so hot giants team.
yeah. people need a scapegoat for something, whether it's good or bad. the QB is the leader of the team and touches the ball on every snap, so clearly they're 100% responsible for wins and losses, yes?
For the 80's for the offensive argument:
The 49ers ( 4 Super Bowls with good D great O )
beating mostly offensive teams Bengals
the 89 Broncos could be called a defensive team
The Cowboys are going to send at least 3 offensive players to the HOF for their little stint. Nobody is going to make it from the defense, outside of maybe Sanders ( and he really didn't show up until Switzer was hired ).
beating mostly offensive teams Bills
the 95 Steelers could be called defensive
The Ravens had the #1 Defense in the league again in 2006 and still failed
against the league's best offense, the Colts.
For every 4 Steeler rings on D, there are 4 missing Viking rings from D.
defense does not win championships.
defense can win champinships.
( and then only every now and then )
yeah, that was the same kicker that got Manning into the Super Bowl, too.
And it wasn't the Colts' offense that won those playoff games. It was defense. I remember one particular game where the only points on the board for the Colts were put up there by the....kicker.
And don't kickers need good QBs to put them in position to make the kicks? Something about teamwork comes to mind here....
Most Super Bowl winning QBs have the benefit of playing with GREAT TEAMS, which includes great defenses. Joe Montana did not win those games by his lonesome. He had great defenses, as well as a HoF WR at his disposal.
My point is that Brady has more come from behind victories in his career than any other QB by his age in their respective careers. Leadership and making clutch plays is what defines a great QB, IMO.
And bro', remember that Brady was in the AFC Championship game throwing to a Texans reject. I'd like to see Manning make plays with our rejects when the game is on the line (oh, that's right, he's got future HoF Harrison for his whole career). Taking little and doing a lot with it is another halmark of great QBs, as well.
My veiw has always been the game is won at the line, without one of the best o-line in the nfl ever, the 3 HOF from the Cowboys would not be there.IMO Yes they where a good off. team,but IMO they had an awsome o-line. It makes a difference.
The game is not always won on the line, but I agree that the Cowboys won with their line much more than with anything else.
My point is that since the first half of the argument 'that defense wins championships' is false, then the QB measured by Super Bowl rings doesn't really matter.
( even though QBs are not really measured by their Super Bowl rings alone. It will never be common to hear that Rypien is a greater QB than Marino, Fouts, or Moon. And that's without going back to the time before Super Bowls. )
as for this Colts defense bit... I will have to look at something first.
Would you think any less of Brady if he didn't have any SuperBowl championships?? Let's say their roles were reversed, Peyton got all the rings, Brady got all the accolades........
Is Brady still a great QB??
I don't think SuperBowl wins change that. I don't believe the SuperBowl wins define a QB(or any other player for that matter).
Montana was great, because he made plays.... more times than not. Dan Marino was a great QB because he made plays, more times than not. Elway, Foust(sp??)..... great QBs. McNabb.... Elite... no superbowl wins for McNabb, Foust, or Marino. & like Elway, Peyton was a great QB way before he won a Super Bowl.
by the way, there was a little tongue-in-cheak there, when I said QB wins are only used to define great QBs when talking about Brady. I'm sure there are many reasons people believe Brady is a great QB.
I say offense is what drives the Colts championship run
I point to drive charts. In every game that they played, outside of the Super Bowl, they have at least 3 drives with more than 10 plays.
IND vs BAL
Only one gimmie FG off of a fumble
TOP for KC was 39-20
TOP for BAL was 31-28
TOP for NE was 31-28
TOP for CHI was 38-21
I feel like Rex blew more drives than what the Colt's defense made.
There is a difference between great and good. The Colt's D was just good during the post season.
Separate names with a comma.