Who had the better career: Bob Griese or Dan Marino? | Page 3 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

Who had the better career: Bob Griese or Dan Marino?

Who had the better career: Bob Griese or Dan Marino?

  • Bob Griese

  • Dan Marino


Results are only viewable after voting.
IMO the loss of Bobby Beathard may have been the biggest loss. He went on to build great teams in Washington and later that lone Chargers team that made it to the SB. Shula, the coach, was arguably the greatest, but Shula, the GM, let the coach down. (Technically, I don't believe Beathard had the GM title, Shula did, but practically speaking Beathard did the GM stuff).
Yeah, good point. Shula did the best he could with the players HE gave himself but he made way too many mistakes drafting and even in free agency as well.
 
I think this is really a question about what people think a QB does. Marino was unquestionably a better passer. And had the passing stats that go along with that. If you believe that all a QB does is pass then Marino is the far, far better QB in your mind. IMO being a QB is about more than passing. There is no objective measure, but I suspect that Griese was the better game manager.

In my youth I was the kid that went to many of the Dolphin TCs and practices that were open to the public and then I worked at the stadium for a bit. I used to talk to coaches and staff, etc. One of the things I recall them complaining about (privately, never in public) was that Marino often audibled to passing plays but never audibled to run plays. Obviously, we had a better pass offense during that time, but the impression of the people I spoke to was that Marino was making the wrong decisions. If so, that would have had broader implications for the defense and the team in general. I wonder if Marino, as a better game manager, might have had more SB appearances and possibly a SB win.

One of my favorite older QBs was Steve Young. He was a guy who could do everything. (I believe that if he had been drafted as a RB, he would still be in the HOF as a RB.) But he became a much better QB when he learned to do less, ie., to hand off the ball and get three yards even though he new he could get 5 yards if he just kept it or more if he audibled to a pass. My guess is that Walsh was able to move on from Montana (after several years) b/c he felt that Young became a good enough game manager. Young came into the league as the better passer and athlete.

For me, Marino was the better passer and had the better individual stats and career, it's not even close. But in terms of the better QB and team success, I see that question as much closer.
 
I have to say this is a crazy comparison. It's Dan Marino and it's not close. I get that it was a different era but seriously, Bob Griese threw for a grand total of 2,060 yards in two years!! Also, it wasn't like he was efficient either. Earl Morrall is proof of how little the QB meant to that team, in that era. They threw that statue out there and they went undefeated. They ran for an average of 4.9 yards per carry over the two super bowl years. They had two 1,000 yard rushers in 72 and nearly accomplished that again in 73. Their defenses were unbelievable. With all the talk of the steel curtain, the no-name defense was right there as one of the best all time.

Dan Marino revolutionized the modern passing game in the NFL. He put up numbers that were so silly, they took decades to break in the pass-happy modern NFL. He had ONE 1,000 yard rusher in his career and that guy averaged 3.6 YPC and that team averaged 3.2. Let's not even talk about the defenses he had to carry. Take Dan's 1984 year and compare it to today. It's still one of the greatest years of all time and if you compare the rules then, it's absolutely the best.

By this logic, Trent Dilfer had a more successful career than Dan Marino simply because he won a super bowl. Winning and putting up great numbers, like Brady, is an accomplishment. Just winning a super bowl means nothing. It's been done by inept QBs before. This is why the super bowl argument does not hold up. In today's game, you need a great QB. In the '70s, if you could run and play defense, you'd win most games.

This is nothing against Bob Griese but come on. This is almost laughable. Bob is not in the same orbit as Dan and no, just because he won super bowls doesn't mean his career was more successful.
The OP is asking who had the better career, not who was the better QB

PS - that “statue” in Earl Morrall led the league in passing in ‘72. He also led the Colts to a SB and came off of the bench to win a SB for them too. He was the NFL MVP in ‘68. He had a HOF career so let’s not take anything away from the man.
 
Bob was a great QB, I would trip over myself if I was GM, and had a chance to have a Bob Griese clone. The man threw a beautiful pass, and he was the cerebral QB for more reasons then the glasses. He was Montana, Brady, Penny, before they even threw a pass.

The question is who had the better QB Career, and championships are team achievements, so you need to think, would Miami have won those two SBs if Marino were QB?

Well, just my opinion, but I think, not only would they have beaten the Redskins and Vikings, I think Miami would have had a great chance of beating the Cowboys if Marino was QB...Not an indication on Griese being bad, but that Marino was/is on a level higher then most QBs in the HOF (this is why I have a problem when they call Brady the GOAT...Marino could do anything Brady did, but Brady could never do everything Marino did as far as how he played could play the game).

Just my opinion, and opinions does not make one right or wrong...Only something actually happening makes it fact.
 
Last edited:
why even?

Not sure if this is the OP’s motive but there’s a barrage of Tweets from weirdos on Twitter knocking Herbert for the lack of wins. They’re using this to argue that Tua was the correct pick. I’m hoping Tua has the better career but I’ll never be convinced Herbert isn’t the better player.

Anyway, Griese had a better career and Marino was a better player.
 
I voted for Bob; two Super Bowls, then a long and respected career as an analyst, and more importantly... as a father of successful sons who have their own careers in football.

There was NEVER a better pure passer than Dan, but he was a great individual talent inside of a team sport, and honestly... for all his talent, he doesn't seem to have the love from others that Bob has had. I think Dan is a bit of of an egoist.
 
It's not a simple comparison at all. The two played in completely different leagues as far as I see it.

During Griese's heyday almost no teams would score 400 points in a season, but by the time Griese's career was wrapping up and Dan was about to enter the league, they lengthened the season to 16 games and expanded the league, which thinned out the talent more. Suddenly, there were multiple teams scoring over 400 points.

During Griese's heyday, running backs were perennially the highest valued players in the league, which basically meant your team didn't go anywhere if you didn't have at least one good one. Quarterbacks were just a hard animal to pin down during those years. Guys would have a great season sandwiched between good or solid years but nothing spectacular. We've all heard about the greats like Tarkenton, Staubach, and Bradshaw. There was Unitas, too, who I want to keep as an exception for now. During Griese's time, there were QB's popping up and winning the MVP and OPoY, but none of them were in the running every season. It paints an odd picture.

Unitas was something exceptional and from a time before Griese. I don't know or understand football going back that far, so...

What I think is important is that the HoF QB's of Griese's era generally were pro bowl selections, finished near the top in MVP voting a couple times and maybe won it once, and led teams who won the Superbowl. By that measure, both Griese and Marino had exceptionally great careers but in totally different leagues. Griese was a 8x pro bowler while Marino was selected 9x. Griese was a 2x All pro while Marino was 3x. Dan's greatest accolades came in his second season during a span of time when he had the best offense in the NFL at his command, though (1x MVP, 1x OPoY) -- Yes, during Marino's very best seasons the Dolphins were rushing for 1500-1900 yards and were the definition of unstoppable.

So let's not get totally carried away in the Legend of Dan Marino. By the time he got into the league, the brand of football was becoming more offensive. I do think that Marino was much closer to the type of talent the more modern QB position needed. Griese is a different kind of QB, I think. Bob was great being the type of QB that the league had around back then -- they weren't really asking the QB to air it out a bunch. I don't want to say that Dan would obliterate the 1972-1973 league because there are more variables to consider. One of the reasons those Dolphins teams were so tough is because the defense took care of business and then got off the field while the Miami offense chewed the clock and stuffed it into the end zone. That kind of football requires few if any turnovers...
 
If you ask Dan Marino, I’m pretty sure he’s say Bob since he won 2 SBs.
I doubt if Dan would say that he’s about as ****y as they come. And that’s a good thing I always like that about him
 
In a way it's an easy answer. I'd take two super bowl wins over passing records.

It's a shame that Miami couldn't win a super bowl with a talent like Marino.
 
Put Marino on those 70s teams and they likely go 17-0 more than once. Probably win some absurd number of games consecutively. But career-wise, I can’t peg it. 2SBs for Griese yes, multiple all-pro for Marino. Individually, Marino’s would be better statistically/accolade-wise.
Maybe, but...

Griese was perfectly suited for Miami's style of play in the 70's. His skills complemented that team in a way Marino might not have. Play action fakes, patience etc.

The Dolphins wouldn't have passed the ball 30-40 times a game with Csonka, Morris and Kiick.
 
While Marino was the better QB, Griese is so underrated for a guy who led teams to 3 straight SBs and is in the HOF.

Griese called his own plays and he had great “feel” for the game. He was very much like Montana and Brady in the way he managed a game. Those who say he benefited from the great run game are correct. He was smart. He wasn’t selfish - he called the plays that gave us the best chance to gain yards and first downs available. And when he didn’t have a great run game all he did was lead the league in passing in 1977. Point is, he could throw it beautifully. While he didn’t attempt many passes in his 2 SB wins, he was nearly perfect. Did you know he was a 3 sport standout - baseball, basketball and football and super athletic (early in his career he was criticized for scrambling too much). I think some younger fans vaguely remember a broken down Griese late in his career - coke bottle glasses and all - and think “what a dork”. Truth is the man would house most of us on any court of our choosing.

Now here’s the controversial part - if Marino had the team Griese had, yes he undoubtedly wins a SB or multiple. But would he have been patient enough to run the offense that was so successful for those teams? Had he slung it all over and put up tons of points, that means the time consuming drives that wore defense down don’t happen. It also means our D is on the field more. It’s interesting to ponder anyway.
You said it better than I did. Griese was so underrated.

Brady is actually a good comparison. I watched games where Brady took those 3-5 yard completions all day long when they were working. Same with Griese. If the run game was on, he'd complement it with a few passes, but really stick to the running game.

Griese gets criticism for not having stats, being just a game manager, but he was an excellent quarterback. Unselfish and good at all the little details that added up to winning.
 
Back
Top Bottom