Who had the better career: Bob Griese or Dan Marino? | Page 7 | 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.
BahamaFinFan78 said:
If you were starting a team from scratch and could take either one in their prime, who are you taking?
Click to expand...
Where are the hash marks?..Bob's time or Dan's time?.....makes a BIG difference in running the ball and passing the ball.
 
I said Bob Griese, cause he won two Super Bowls and that's what everybody strives to do. And as somebody else pointed out, this is not a vote on who was the better Quaterback, just who had the better career.
 
tay0365 said:
Dan Marino had the better career, but Bob Griese had the better team.

Marino has even just one of those three RBs (Especially Zonk), and that Defense, Miami might be the only team to go to 5 straight SBs, with Marino ending his career with more SB appearances and wins then Brady had...The hard way, actually winning them without any tricks (underhanded or somewhat legal).
Click to expand...
Even with those RB, he probably would have checked off to a pass play 95% of the time. Just Dan being Dan.
 
jfleag61 said:
Even with those RB, he probably would have checked off to a pass play 95% of the time. Just Dan being Dan.
Click to expand...
No he would not have, if you were lucky enough to watch Dan at his prime, RBs kept hitting walls, kept averaging 3.5 or less.

You get a RB that got tough punishing yards like Zonk, and the offense would be scary to stop.

If you got a blazing thunderbolt like Morris, teams would be nervous of him taking to the house on every down.

You have a consistent back like Kiick to consistently move the chains for you 3 and short, and in the Redzone, Miami would have scored far more then their 25+ to 30+ a game average they had during the Marino years.
 
royalshank said:
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.
Click to expand...
My point was we should not say one had a better career simply because they won two super bowls. Marino's career is far superior and it's not close. One revolutionized the entire league and one managed games with the running game dominating. One rewrote the record books and was a first-ballot hall of famer and one was not. Griese literally threw for a grand total of 161 yards on 19 total attempts in 2 super bowl wins! Was he efficient, yes, was he needed to win those super bowls, likely not. The game was different back then. Teams didn't rely on their QB to win as they do now.

I get your point on Earl Morrall, however, he did not lead the league in passing that year. He led the league in rating, which measures efficiency. He should be efficient with that running game. He only threw the ball 150 times, which by per game average was very low, even for the era. It was running (3000 yards in 72 and 2500 in 73) and defense (No. 1 in scoring defense 72 and 73, just over 10 PPG) that won the super bowls. He was 38 and was very statuesque at that point in his career. If he had a HOF career, he would be in the HOF. He was very good at doing his job, which was to not lose games. This, again, shows how little the QB meant in winning those super bowls.

Comparing Bob's career to Dan's is laughable.
 
Soxfinatic said:
My point was we should not say one had a better career simply because they won two super bowls. Marino's career is far superior and it's not close. One revolutionized the entire league and one managed games with the running game dominating. One rewrote the record books and was a first-ballot hall of famer and one was not. Griese literally threw for a grand total of 161 yards on 19 total attempts in 2 super bowl wins! Was he efficient, yes, was he needed to win those super bowls, likely not. The game was different back then. Teams didn't rely on their QB to win as they do now.

I get your point on Earl Morrall, however, he did not lead the league in passing that year. He led the league in rating, which measures efficiency. He should be efficient with that running game. He only threw the ball 150 times, which by per game average was very low, even for the era. It was running (3000 yards in 72 and 2500 in 73) and defense (No. 1 in scoring defense 72 and 73, just over 10 PPG) that won the super bowls. He was 38 and was very statuesque at that point in his career. If he had a HOF career, he would be in the HOF. He was very good at doing his job, which was to not lose games. This, again, shows how little the QB meant in winning those super bowls.

Comparing Bob's career to Dan's is laughable.
Click to expand...
Good take. I will defends Morrall as he played or was part of 5 SB teams and 2x all pro with IMO a HOF career. He came off of the bench to lead the Colts to a SB win over Dallas. He played a huge role in ‘72 (all pro and led in Rating as you point out). He was the MVP in ‘68 leading the Colts to a 13-1 record vs the Jets in the SB. Reality is - on those teams w him and Unitas, the competition was fierce and it’s not as if Johnny was just “taken” to be be better. Yes at 38 Earl wasn’t the same guy but had we a Jacoby Brisset type I doubt we go undefeated.
 
The Gov said:
Marino was the better quarterback by a mile. Not taking Bob for granted as he was quite good himself, but Dan was better in a lot of facets of the game. But if you solely base this on SB wins then obviously Bob had the better career. If Dan had the teams that Bob had however, he would have won even more.
Click to expand...

If the criteria is solely Superbowl wins, it's an irrelevant question to ask because there is factually only one answer.
 
So hard to compare from different era's. I don't think anyone would argue that Marino is in an entirely different league than most quarterbacks. He's like what Mahomes is today. Rare, once in a generational type.

Griese falls somewhere between Phil Simms and Joe Montana.

But, I don't think you can assume that Marino could have done better with those 70's teams than Griese either. He might have, but Griese was also a perfect fit for that offense.

Griese recognized the talent on that team and played to it, calling all the plays. Doing the little things that added up to wins.

When Tom Brady had games where he didn't throw the ball in the air more than 10 yards and New England won by 17 points was that a bad strategy? Same thing. Conservative, but effective.

Honestly, I always thought Staubach was the best quarterback from that time frame. But a good argument could be made that Griese was the second best. He beat Tarkenton, Bradshaw and Stabler in the biggest games he played against those three quarterbacks.

Again, if it counts for Brady why not Griese?
 
Last edited:
royalshank said:
Good take. I will defends Morrall as he played or was part of 5 SB teams and 2x all pro with IMO a HOF career. He came off of the bench to lead the Colts to a SB win over Dallas. He played a huge role in ‘72 (all pro and led in Rating as you point out). He was the MVP in ‘68 leading the Colts to a 13-1 record vs the Jets in the SB. Reality is - on those teams w him and Unitas, the competition was fierce and it’s not as if Johnny was just “taken” to be be better. Yes at 38 Earl wasn’t the same guy but had we a Jacoby Brisset type I doubt we go undefeated.
Click to expand...
Well said. It always pays to have a quality backup. Earl certainly did his job well.
 
GhostArmOfMarino said:
If the criteria is solely Superbowl wins, it's an irrelevant question to ask because there is factually only one answer.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is what some want to say. The original question was who had a more successful career? I would still say Dan because super bowls are not the only criteria for the question.
 
Soxfinatic said:
Exactly, which is what some want to say. The original question was who had a more successful career? I would still say Dan because super bowls are not the only criteria for the question.
Click to expand...
Definitely. Especially when no player alone can make or win a Superbowl. It's more of a team accomplishment. When Griese didn't have that amazing team around him he was still a great QB but had he spent his career on the caliber of teams Dan did he most likely has 0 rings.

So if by career we mean "Who had the luck to be on a team with enough talent around them to win a Superbowl" sure it's Bob.

Any other criteria and I'm personally going Dan.
 
tay0365 said:
No he would not have, if you were lucky enough to watch Dan at his prime, RBs kept hitting walls, kept averaging 3.5 or less.

You get a RB that got tough punishing yards like Zonk, and the offense would be scary to stop.

If you got a blazing thunderbolt like Morris, teams would be nervous of him taking to the house on every down.

You have a consistent back like Kiick to consistently move the chains for you 3 and short, and in the Redzone, Miami would have scored far more then their 25+ to 30+ a game average they had during the Marino years.
Click to expand...
It was a joke. Been a fan since Shula got there.
 
They were both the best we ever had. Nothing since then other than a broken Pennington and a jeckle and hyde Fieldler
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom