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.