Greatest QB "Let the facts speak for Themselves" | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Greatest QB "Let the facts speak for Themselves"

No Play Action

Dan admits himself that he never bothered to sell the fake. A quick release is great but when that ball is up by your ear hole right after you take the snap, no one is fooled. Was he that great or just a great stat machine? I'll go with great but you need great teams to win bowls, and that's what it is all about. I noticed a drop off right after Dwight Stephenson's carreer ended.
 
brparkway said:
Sooo, Marino is better than Montana because Montana didn't win a SB at the end of his career with KC, but number of rings doesn't count when comparing Montana's 3 to Dan's 0?
Not a swipe at Dan, just trying to wrap my mind around the logic in this thread. How do you think Dan would have done on that same KC team in his last couple of years?
Very few great qb's ever did well on another team after their primes.
Click to expand...

Here we go again crediting the QB for winning Super Bowls with a great team and using a bad team as the excuse when they don't win one.
 
ch19079 said:
everytime "they" talk about brady the main arguement is that he has won 3 of the last 4 SBs, and some pocket awarness. it changes the way you think about players.

as for the 1990s bills, if the bills had won just 1 of those 4 SBs, than they would be thaught of diffrently than they are now. insted of loosing 4, they would be known for dominating the AFC, for 4 strait years and getting a ring.

so IMO, a missed FG by a kicker, changed the way people view the team and the players.

so not having a SB ring, changes the way people think about marino. from being the greatest ever, to the best QB who doesnt have a ring.
Click to expand...


Good post. The Bills of the early 90's were a great team and really should have beaten the Giants. However they were unlucky in the fact that the Redskins, although a flash in the pan, were a way better and the Cowboys of the early 90's are the most dominating Dynasty we've seen in recent memory.
 
Agree! Yet the Bills run a close second. If they just won the first. who knows, maybe they win them all. They were unstopable until that 1 game. I am glad they did not win them, however for all the years I hated Kelly, it was b/c he was so damn good. The difference in that is that so many hate Marino for the same reason and fail to admit it. We were like that neighbor w/ the nice house, sweet cars, $$$, and the hottest wife in town. Every body hated it but the ones living in "Grace Land"

The Orange Bowl and Joe robbie were the envy of all!
 
No Win Bills

Poor Bills, every team in our division has been to the Superbowl. Even the Colts who used to be in our division have been to a Superbowl. Everyone has won at least one, except for the Bills. Oh well, they could be the Lions or the Cards.
 
ch19079 said:
everytime "they" talk about brady the main arguement is that he has won 3 of the last 4 SBs, and some pocket awarness. it changes the way you think about players.

as for the 1990s bills, if the bills had won just 1 of those 4 SBs, than they would be thaught of diffrently than they are now. insted of loosing 4, they would be known for dominating the AFC, for 4 strait years and getting a ring.

so IMO, a missed FG by a kicker, changed the way people view the team and the players.

so not having a SB ring, changes the way people think about marino. from being the greatest ever, to the best QB who doesnt have a ring.
Click to expand...

I'm not dis-agreeing with what your saying, it's the truth. The sad part is that it SHOULDN'T be the truth. The Bills of the early '90s WERE amazing! (This hurts to say so much! :cry: ) They were the class of the AFC, probably the NFL until the Cowboys Dynasty arose to power, and Scott Norwood should have mde that kick. But you are not only saying that "peoples" perception of great players changes without a ring but your own opinion changes also. Just because "people" think that Marino is not the best simply because he doesn't have a ring, doesn't mean that I'm going to jump on board and believe everyone else just becuase they're the majority.
 
I have not read this whole thread so forgive me if I repeat anything.

Before Elway won his 2 SB's I don't EVER remember anyone saying he was better than Marino. Then, Terrel Davis leads them there, and suddenly he is better. :shakeno: Now we have this rediculous argument by people (even ESPN guys) around Elway's HOF induction that Elway just might be the greatest when just 2 years ago Montana was EVERYONE'S man. :shakeno:

Marino was more than stats. He was as much a comeback guy as Elway (or Montana) he just didn't have those signature standout ones (short of "clock"). He won games when teams dared them to run and knew what was coming. If Miami could run the ball consistently any of those years, I think they get a ring.

As Bill Walsh once said.... "Montana is a product of the system, Marino IS a system."

BTW... this Marino/Elway/ring thing remindesme of the Roth/Hagar debate. It will NEVER end!
 
F150&Dolfan said:
Here we go again crediting the QB for winning Super Bowls with a great team and using a bad team as the excuse when they don't win one.
Click to expand...

So you're saying Dan WOULD have won a SB with that KC team, even though he didn't with the Dolphins, and so Montana should have too? :confused: I don't think so. Both were shells of their prime selves the last couple years.

All I know is, I saw both through their whole careers. Montana didn't have the arm of Dan, but he was better in other areas, like mobility and, in my opinion, finding the open man. Also, Rice was not on the first championship team. Montana carried them to the Super Bowl with that win over Dallas.
 
Super Bowl rings are EVERYTHING but they don't determine an individual player but a TEAM. If Dan Marino had a GOOD defense, he would have gotten his Super Bowl ring. If he had a GREAT defense... we would have been a DYNASTY. He was one of the best QB's to ever play the game. He has all the passing records to back it up.

Short and simple, but that's how I look at it.
 
The Qb's responsibility is to put points on the board. And Marino was responsible for more points than anybody. The other thing to consider is that every team Marino ever played knew that they had to stop him. There was no running game to help him out. And Marino still managed to put up the best stats ever, even when every opposing team knew he was going to be passing 35 times a game. He couldn't be stopped.
 
Hey, where is Brad Johnson in this argument, he won a super bowl didn't he, he must be one of the best QB's ever, and, Michael Pittman, I mean, he won with the Bucs that year too, he must be a better RB than Thurman Thomas and Barry Sanders... It should be what you did over the longevity of your career from a standpoint of how you contributed to your teams victories and the numbers you put up in the stats category... I think you can put Unitas, Montana, Elway, and Marino in ANY order and you'll be ok...
 
brparkway said:
So you're saying Dan WOULD have won a SB with that KC team, even though he didn't with the Dolphins, and so Montana should have too? :confused: I don't think so. Both were shells of their prime selves the last couple years.

All I know is, I saw both through their whole careers. Montana didn't have the arm of Dan, but he was better in other areas, like mobility and, in my opinion, finding the open man. Also, Rice was not on the first championship team. Montana carried them to the Super Bowl with that win over Dallas.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that the 49ers would have never had a chance to win any of those Super Bowls with Marino at QB as opposed to Montana????

Anything that I post is just to illustrate that football is the ultimate team sport and QB's should not be judged by how many rings they have on their fingers.

I realize that the Chiefs of the early 90's were never a Super Bowl calibur team. All I'm really trying to do is dicredit the logic that great QB's have multiple Super Bowl rings.

Go ahead tell me Montana was more accurate than Marino, more mobile, had better pocket presence or whatever. Just don't tell me he was just better becuase he has 4 Super Bowl rings. Becuase with that logic, then yes, he should have been able to carry the Chiefs to the Super Bowl as well.

I've got a really good question for everybody who likes to measure a QB's greatness based on the success of the team (which is offense, defense and special teams but the QB only plays offense).

Do you guys think Joe Montana would have 4 Super Bowl rings and half the legacy he has today if he had played with teams that were as good as the Chiefs teams he played on for his whole career?????????????????????????????

If anyone answers No you've proved my point.
 
Again, someone once said" greeatness is just being consistantly good over a long period of time" 17 years. Anybody else do it for 17 years.
 
If Marino were on that 9er team, OHHHH MYYYYY GOD!

Walsh said that people did not think Marino was mobile, yet he believed that he was the most mobile Qb in the pocket. Mobile enough to make anyone miss, and so quick at that one step to avoid a sack. He said his pocket awarness was second to none. Marino did not have to scramble out of the pocket b/c he knew how to move in it better than anyone. Remember before cunningham, coaches hated seeing the qb out running.

Accuracy is a question I pose! I remember seeing Marino stand in the pocket and ther was nothing, yet instead of waiting to be sacked he waited until the last second and threw it away. I saw him throw 3 in a row away, let alone in some games probably 6,8,10 or more away to help win the field position game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom