Greatest QB "Let the facts speak for Themselves"

[PHINZONER]

I continually have the disscusion w/ lost souls! Bronco and 9er fans. I went to an Elway sight, and low and behold, every thing was compared to MARINO.
Elway 2nd
Elway 2nd on and on. Heck Elway only had 2 years that could be considered compareable or better than Marino. His last two w/ TD in his backfield. If he is the greatest why could he not even get 1 first down when TD left w/ the migrane. Remember that was also whenn JJ took the air out of the ball and started this bore fest called a power run game w/ the likes of K A-Jabbar,JJ,Avery, and all the other misfits.

Yes Elway has 1 more win than Marino. Let's not forget about the achiles injury. We looked awsome that year!

Head 2 Head. Nuff said. I have a Magazine that has the all time rank for the top 20. What a joke. The ones that seem obvious aren't ther and guys like Lomax, O'Donnell, and .... acouple others are on it.

It is done on todays Qb rating system.

Why this post now?

Because w/ the HOF induction coming up, all the talking heads will still clamour to Elway and Montana. I thought they were all love children of Elway last year. If super Bowl's are the criteria, then Bradshaw should be #1, Montana #2 Brady#3 Aikman #4.......Doug Williams #26.........Trent Dilfer#29......Dan Marino #32.......Warren Moon#48.... you get it!

COME ON! Ask Billechick if a qb should be rated on SB's or is it all the way down to the 53rd guy on a roster. Elway hadd what 5 tries. That is 5 GREEEAAAT teams not 1 like Marino had. Marino also played against arguably one of the grearest teams ever.

I have to run but will grt back to it later. I will dig up the mag. and post the rankings. OHHH yeah, they then took the ranking sys. and altered it for things like ints, TD's Comp%, att, sacks I believe, yds/att. yds/compl.

Not even close. MARINO #1 and I will post the rest of the list later. It is much better, w/ just a few that will make you say "HMMMM"

 

[dolfreak]

I thought Elway was a more complete QB than Marino. He had a play action and was just as tough as anyone in the game today. But Elway had the luxury of a solid running game, Marino didn't. Marino was the greatest passer ever. He can throw it better than anybody. Just Never go by stats when ranking QB's.....if that were the case Manning is on pace to be the "Greatest Ever" when we all know he hasn't won a big game in his entire College-Pro Career . That could change but for now my top 3 are Montana, Elway, Marino.

 

[phillyphinphan]

When talking about the "Greatest ever" there is, to me, a significant difference between passer and Qb and subsequently a different set of criteria surrounding the two.

On the discussion of greatest QB, I cannot in my heart of hearts give the nod to Marino although for the bulk of his career he did not have the running game of Montana and Elway, Great Qb's are ultamately judged by how many trips to the grand stage and wins in the biggest game in pro sports. Arguments arise as to the role of the qb on a particular team and surrounding talent which are valid. But it basically HAS to come down to how chilly your fingers are (re: rings). QBs are more than passing machines who can shred defenses, it's about effectively and efficiently managing a team and locker room. Leading them through the same set of circumstances that affect all of the other teams. And at the end of the day raising the Lombardi trophy high enough for the world to see. A few set of examples: Bradshaw who was to told his hayseed schtick would spell his doom at the hardest position to play in sports. what did he do? He won. Montana, Blessed with the greatest football player in my lifetime took advantage of that and won. And Elway who I see as the most comparable to Marinos situation, he put up big numbers in his career and at the end was blessed with a 2 grand back and, again, took advantage and won. Marino for all his greatness and physical ablility wowed us for years and showed us things never done before as a QB, but in the end did not win the only game that counts win discussing the all timer's

On Discussing the greatest Passer, there is no discussion. In an era of dominant offense's and skill players, Marino was king. It simply did not matter who was on the other LOS. Whether good or bad Marino shredded them the same. I would be diminishing Marino's legacy to put other names in this part of the discussion because there were simply no one else out there doing the things Marino did. The thing about it, is records can be broken but SB wins live FOREVER. So being a Great QB takes preference over being a Great Passer (see Peyton vs. Brady). While I am ranting there were two things that bothered me about Marino: The fact that he reamed out his wr's ON THE FIELD. and at the end of his career he would hold the ball at his waist, ready to fire, and would inevitably get stripped by the DE or OLB at the most inoppurtune times (now that I think about it that is more of a issue for our LT at the time, so scratch the second one)

 

[ch19079]

same old argument. stats vs. SB victories.


i said it befor and ill say it again.

the point of the game is to win the SB. so you can not be the greatest QB ever, and not win a SB. you can be in the top 3, but the #1 guy has to have a ring.

EDIT: i go into more detail in other replys in this thread. please keep reading the other pages before responding.
it just saves me from typing the same thing over and over...
thanks

 

[rafael]

same old argument. stats vs. SB victories.


i said it befor and ill say it again.

the point of the game is to win the SB. so you can not be the greatest QB ever, and not win a SB. you can be in the top 3, but the #1 guy has to have a ring.

Your confusing individual achievements with team achievements. Everybody knows one player cannot win a Superbowl by himself. It is nonsensical to use a yardstick that no one player can achieve to measure his individual ability.

 

[GreenMonster]

same old argument. stats vs. SB victories.


i said it befor and ill say it again.

the point of the game is to win the SB. so you can not be the greatest QB ever, and not win a SB. you can be in the top 3, but the #1 guy has to have a ring.

By that thinking do you just toss Barry Sanders from the running back arguement. I don't think Barry was the best RB but many do and don't hold the fact the he was awful in the playoffs with like 300 yards in 6 games.

 

[ch19079]

Your confusing individual achievements with team achievements. Everybody knows one player cannot win a Superbowl by himself. It is nonsensical to use a yardstick that no one player can achieve to measure his individual ability.

By that thinking do you just toss Barry Sanders from the running back arguement. I don't think Barry was the best RB but many do and don't hold the fact the he was awful in the playoffs with like 300 yards in 6 games.

i see what you mean, but you can talk about the best ever LB, or CB, or O-Lineman, or RB, or WR, or TE, or whatever and not even bring up superbowls. thats the nature of their positions. there job is to do what they do at the highest level. get the most sacks, tackles, INTs, TDs, yards, receptions...... and you compare those amongst other players at that position to find the greatest.

but the QB is the only position, IMO, where greatness is not defined by stats, but rather by wins, losses, playoff wins, and SB wins. thats the nature of that position. stats are great to have, but unless they equal a win, or playoff win, or SB win, than they are good, but not good enough.

 

[Marino Forever]

i see what you mean, but you can talk about the best ever LB, or CB, or O-Lineman, or RB, or WR, or TE, or whatever and not even bring up superbowls. thats the nature of their positions. there job is to do what they do at the highest level. get the most sacks, tackles, INTs, TDs, yards, receptions...... and you compare those amongst other players at that position to find the greatest.

but the QB is the only position, IMO, where greatness is not defined by stats, but rather by wins, losses, playoff wins, and SB wins. thats the nature of that position. stats are great to have, but unless they equal a win, or playoff win, or SB win, than they are good, but not good enough.

But ask a RB or LB what they would rather be known for: a super bowl champion or the leading yardage gainer or touchdown maker and what would they say?

 

[rafael]

i see what you mean, but you can talk about the best ever LB, or CB, or O-Lineman, or RB, or WR, or TE, or whatever and not even bring up superbowls. thats the nature of their positions. there job is to do what they do at the highest level. get the most sacks, tackles, INTs, TDs, yards, receptions...... and you compare those amongst other players at that position to find the greatest.

but the QB is the only position, IMO, where greatness is not defined by stats, but rather by wins, losses, playoff wins, and SB wins. thats the nature of that position. stats are great to have, but unless they equal a win, or playoff win, or SB win, than they are good, but not good enough.

The nature of the sport is that it is a team game, moreso than any other major sport. I know some people use the team championships to measure individual greatness but that seems a ridiculous standard. The analogy that comes to mind would be that of great runner or swimmer in a leg of a race. If that guy is by far faster than everyone else but his teammates are soo bad that the team doesn't win a championship it doesn't make him slower. It just means he doesn't have a team championship. He is still better than everyone else.

In football the QB is the most important position but he isn't more important than the other 21 starters combined. Also half the game he isn't even on the field. It doesn't make sense to measure an individual's greatness by including times when he isn't even on the field.

 

[djfresh47]

Stats aren't everything. Marino was a great passer, but ya need the rings. I think Marino was better than Elway, but not better than Montana. Ya can argue it all day but it's just opinion. If Brady continues on the path he's on he'll be in the arguement, as will Manning.

 

[Dolfan984]

The nature of the sport is that it is a team game, moreso than any other major sport. I know some people use the team championships to measure individual greatness but that seems a ridiculous standard. The analogy that comes to mind would be that of great runner or swimmer in a leg of a race. If that guy is by far faster than everyone else but his teammates are soo bad that the team doesn't win a championship it doesn't make him slower. It just means he doesn't have a team championship. He is still better than everyone else.

In football the QB is the most important position but he isn't more important than the other 21 starters combined. Also half the game he isn't even on the field. It doesn't make sense to measure an individual's greatness by including times when he isn't even on the field.

Exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[ch19079]

The nature of the sport is that it is a team game, moreso than any other major sport. I know some people use the team championships to measure individual greatness but that seems a ridiculous standard. The analogy that comes to mind would be that of great runner or swimmer in a leg of a race. If that guy is by far faster than everyone else but his teammates are soo bad that the team doesn't win a championship it doesn't make him slower. It just means he doesn't have a team championship. He is still better than everyone else.

In football the QB is the most important position but he isn't more important than the other 21 starters combined. Also half the game he isn't even on the field. It doesn't make sense to measure an individual's greatness by including times when he isn't even on the field.

football is a team sport, but the QB is still the head, the leader, the general, of that team. he cant feel that he was sucessful if the team doesnt win the game. he doesnt have control of the D, but if the D gives up a last second hail mary, than his team still losses, and the QB failed to lead them to victory. it sucks for any QB, to have his carrer defined by a defensive play, droped pass, or special teams play which he has no control over and cost him the win, but he accepted that when he chose to play QB. thats the nature of the QB position. he is responsible for the win, or loss.

 

[DolfanISS]

same old argument. stats vs. SB victories.


i said it befor and ill say it again.

the point of the game is to win the SB. so you can not be the greatest QB ever, and not win a SB. you can be in the top 3, but the #1 guy has to have a ring.

With your argument, where the point of the game is to win SB's, Charles Haley (5 rings) is the best DE ever. Better than Bruce Smith or Reggie White. in fact he's the best player ever.

Football is the ultimate team sport regardless of position. Every other player on a football team is measured by their individual accomplishments except QB. That makes no sense to me.

 

[ffmfinfan]

Dan is the man!

too bad he'd never won the big game

 

[Dolphin39]

Here are my QB rankings. To me, Superbowl wins should not be a ranking factor.

The top two are a step above everyone else.
1. Dan Marino...the best
2. John Elway...a truly great QB
-------------------------------------
The next level
3. Brett Farve...tough competitor, gutsy
4. Steve Young...had a lot of talent on offense & defense
5. Jim Kelly...This guy had heart and is underated in my opinion.
-------------------------------------
* Joe Montana...has always been overated in my opinion