Best supporting cast a QB has ever had...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Since QB's get too much singular recognition for their team winning a Super Bowl(when being compared to each other), I thought it might be a good idea to find the QB with the all-time best supporting cast(which naturally gives him too much credit in the 'ring' hoopla compared to others).
My nomination...Troy Aikman.
During their run, he had the best RB in the league, the best FB in the league, the second best WR in the league, a top three TE, and the BEST offensive line. Their defense was always near the very top, ranking from '92-'96, 5th, 2,3,3,3,.
In fact, his # of pro bowl teammates from '92-'96 was 6,10,10,9,9...pretty much all well deserved too.
I'm curious if somebody can find another.
The most amazing thing I find about Aikman is how he threw an interception once every 33 passes, THE SAME RATE AS DAN MARINO, and yet he had every advantage of making safer/easier passes...more weapons to defend for opponents, and the non obvious pass situations where the defense could not key on him, compared to Marino. Add to the fact that Aikman's interception rate was safe guarded because he retired early, and that he didn't hit a longer decline phase.
I bring Aikman up, because it is just the plain truth, and because it seems that he thinks he is clearly above everyone else at QB(when he is broadcasting). He was good, but he has zero titles without that cast, and he showed that when he had no cast that he was not capable of carrying a team on his back and leading a good offense(like Elway, marino, Favre etc... have done when they had lesser casts). Simply put, Aikman wasn't much of a threat unless he had the All-Pros around him. It would have been nice to see him have to contend with some wind when he was passing too.
My nomination...Troy Aikman.
During their run, he had the best RB in the league, the best FB in the league, the second best WR in the league, a top three TE, and the BEST offensive line. Their defense was always near the very top, ranking from '92-'96, 5th, 2,3,3,3,.
In fact, his # of pro bowl teammates from '92-'96 was 6,10,10,9,9...pretty much all well deserved too.
I'm curious if somebody can find another.
The most amazing thing I find about Aikman is how he threw an interception once every 33 passes, THE SAME RATE AS DAN MARINO, and yet he had every advantage of making safer/easier passes...more weapons to defend for opponents, and the non obvious pass situations where the defense could not key on him, compared to Marino. Add to the fact that Aikman's interception rate was safe guarded because he retired early, and that he didn't hit a longer decline phase.
I bring Aikman up, because it is just the plain truth, and because it seems that he thinks he is clearly above everyone else at QB(when he is broadcasting). He was good, but he has zero titles without that cast, and he showed that when he had no cast that he was not capable of carrying a team on his back and leading a good offense(like Elway, marino, Favre etc... have done when they had lesser casts). Simply put, Aikman wasn't much of a threat unless he had the All-Pros around him. It would have been nice to see him have to contend with some wind when he was passing too.
0
Comments
From 1975-1979, his # of Pro Bowl teammates were 11,9, 4, 10, 10..
He had a HOF RB, two HOF WRs, a HOF Center to go along with a very good O-Line. He had a HOF Coach and what is considered the greatest defense of all-time...
I don't know of anyone that would put Troy Aikman in the top 10 QBs of all-time...When you hear about Super Bowl QB heros, you usually hear about Bart Starr, Terry Bradshaw, Joe Montana...Aikman isn't typically mentioned in the same breathe as those guys..Although he might think he is...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Eyebone
This is the quandry for "All-Time Great" players that played for "All-Tiime Great" teams....They tend to go hand-in-hand and there really is no way to discern if the team was better because of the QB or if the QB was better because of the team...
I think Joe Montana was the first Super Bowl era QB to play for a dynasty and win with different sets of players...He won with/without Rice, with/without Roger Craig, with/without a great defense, even with/without Bill Walsh...Tom Brady is the only other QB to do something similar...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I think Irvin was probably the best WR ever in terms of positioning himself to catch passes purely on his merit(regardless of the QB). I always thought he got away with a lot of Pass Interference...but regardless of the reason why, it was all to Aikman's(and the Cowboys) benefit.
<< <i>My nomination...Troy Aikman.
During their run, he had the best RB in the league, the best FB in the league, the second best WR in the league, a top three TE, and the BEST offensive line. Their defense was always near the very top, ranking from '92-'96, 5th, 2,3,3,3,. >>
Not to take anything away from Smith but Barry Sanders was the best RB in the league during that period IMO. If he hadn't retired when he did, Emmitt would probably still be behind him on the all time list.
FWIW, I think the best supporting cast goes to the 1991 Giants. Heck, they won it with their back-up quarterback (Hostettler). Throw in LT, Bavarro, Banks, OJ, Meggett, etc. How's that for a supporting cast.
Scott
T-205 Gold PSA 4 & up
1967 Topps BB PSA 8 & up
1975 Topps BB PSA 9 & up
1959 Topps FB PSA 8 & up
1976 Topps FB PSA 9 & up
1981 Topps FB PSA 10
1976-77 Topps BK PSA 9 & up
1988-89 Fleer BK PSA 10
3,000 Hit Club RC PSA 5 & Up
My Sets
<< <i>I think the bottom line is, as Skinpinch mentioned in another thread, all SB winning QBs had GREAT supporting casts. >>
Do you think Peyton Manning had a great supporting cast this year? Other than his WRs, is there anyone else on the Colts team that screams "future HOFer"?
In his case, I think the team is better because of Peyton..Without him in the lineup, they are .500 at best...I would put Tom Brady in the same category during his Super Bowl Victories..How many all-time great/HOF caliber players were on ANY of those Patriot teams??Not many...Almost impossible to do in the age of Free Agency...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Not to take anything away from Smith but Barry Sanders was the best RB in the league during that period IMO. If he hadn't retired when he did, Emmitt would probably still be behind him on the all time list. >>
No doubt about that.
<< <i>
<< <i>I think the bottom line is, as Skinpinch mentioned in another thread, all SB winning QBs had GREAT supporting casts. >>
Do you think Peyton Manning had a great supporting cast this year? Other than his WRs, is there anyone else on the Colts team that screams "future HOFer"?
In his case, I think the team is better because of Peyton..Without him in the lineup, they are .500 at best...I would put Tom Brady in the same category during his Super Bowl Victories..How many all-time great/HOF caliber players were on ANY of those Patriot teams??Not many...Almost impossible to do in the age of Free Agency...
Jason >>
Jasp, this is the end result of what this is all about...and what I want to plow through. I think Manning and Brady are both rising fast on my list for what you mention. Manning has finished third a couple of times in the 'Kentucky Derby'...while riding a DONKEY!!
Las year was actually Manning's first legit chance to win one...home field, proper defense, and great offensive supporting cast(then the kicker cost them). This year, he didn't have the proper D, until the playoffs when they played like last year.
Marino has ridden many of Donkey's, except for '84. But in the Super Bowl Montana carved the D apart, and Marino was forced to throw in obvious situations late...and they lost. His other decent teams simply could not stop Thurman Thomas. Marino had one legit shot in '84, but his defense in the Super Bowl eliminated that chance.
It wasn't until his defense became elite that they finally won(home field advantage went with it). But his offense supporting cast was never elite...especially the running backs. Certainly not even in the same universe as Aikman's offensive supporting cast(including hte line).
I remember watching those playoff times where Green Bay ALWAYS had to go INTO Dallas, and Dallas had a better player at pretty much every single position, except QB. THEN THE THE HOME FIELD. That is a tough recipe for a QB to beat another QB.
In fact, during the regular season once, Jason Garrett started instead of Aikman, and the Cowboys absolutely steam rolled the Pack. Irvin, Emmit and CO. will do that for you.
Elway too. Elway in his super Bowl losses was better than Elway in his wins. It was the supporting cast that made ALL the difference.
Most NFL passses are timing, and it certainly helps to have Irvin receiving it than Brian Baschangel(sp).
I always take their goal line play into consideration for Aikman's TD totals. THat is why I mentioned the INT rate compared to Marino's...with all the factors in Aikman's favor.
TD tidbits: During each of their careers(equal period), Favre had more TD passes than Aikman TD passes and E. SMith TD rushes combined.
During Favre's best three year run, he had more TD passes from 20 yards or out, than any single QB had TOTAL TD passes from all yards(in that time period)!
<< <i>One thing we should remember about Aikman and the Cowboys is that his stats are often weighed down by the fact that he NEVER did the Favre, Marino, Manning thing where TD passes are padded down at the goal line. If you asked me the question of who I thought was the QB that cared the least about his stats, I would first say Aikman, then probably Brady. The Cowboys always ran the ball in the goal line situation, which is cleary attested to by Emmitt Smith's crazy TD numbers. >>
Bingo...
This was my next point..When a QB has a great RB behind him, it's proven by looking at past Super Bowl Champions that you have a better chance of winning the big one...It also means the QB's stats are going to be lower than a QB/team that is pass first...
Marino never had a great RB..EVER...So he never won the big game..But he also had amazing/enormous stats every year because???He had no great RB...
One hand feeds the other..Favre also has huge passing numbers..None only for hsi durability, but because he's also lacked a dominant RB..Bob Griese is a HOF QB with 25,092 yards under his belt in ..When you've got Csonka, Kiick and Mercury Morris running behind you, you aren't going to need to throw much...Griese averaged just 21 ATTEMPTS and 156 yards per game over his 14 year career...Yet he went to 8 Pro Bowls, has 2 Super Bowl rings and was elected to the HOF..
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>One thing we should remember about Aikman and the Cowboys is that his stats are often weighed down by the fact that he NEVER did the Favre, Marino, Manning thing where TD passes are padded down at the goal line. If you asked me the question of who I thought was the QB that cared the least about his stats, I would first say Aikman, then probably Brady. The Cowboys always ran the ball in the goal line situation, which is cleary attested to by Emmitt Smith's crazy TD numbers. >>
Plus, stats like yardage and TDs are overrated when evaluating the worth of a QB. Some of the best QBs don't put up crazy numbers because they manage the game well, and they have a good enough defense and running game that they don't NEED to throw for 4,000+ yards and 40+ TDs. Brady is a perfect example of that.
<< <i>He was not an accurate passer nor was he QB intellect all that impressive. >>
Just wanted to dispute this...Bradshaw called his own plays...I know he gives off the dumb-guy vibe and this is a stereotype that has followed him to this day..But he was one of the last of the old school QBs who called their own plays..Regardless of surrounding cast, to be as successful as he was, to me is intellectually impressive...
As far as accuracy goes, Bradshaw threw one of the most accurate deep balls I've ever seen...He could put the ball through a car tire from 50 yards with little effort...His completion % is a direct result of the style of offense the Steelers employed...Run, Run, Run, Throw deep. Which fit him perfectly...
The thing that ALL of these Great Super Bowl QBs had is that they fit well into their system...To me that's the bottom line...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
Bingo...
This was my next point..When a QB has a great RB behind him, it's proven by looking at past Super Bowl Champions that you have a better chance of winning the big one...It also means the QB's stats are going to be lower than a QB/team that is pass first...
Marino never had a great RB..EVER...So he never won the big game..But he also had amazing/enormous stats every year because???He had no great RB...
One hand feeds the other..Favre also has huge passing numbers..None only for hsi durability, but because he's also lacked a dominant RB..Bob Griese is a HOF QB with 25,092 yards under his belt in ..When you've got Csonka, Kiick and Mercury Morris running behind you, you aren't going to need to throw much...Griese averaged just 21 ATTEMPTS and 156 yards per game over his 14 year career...Yet he went to 8 Pro Bowls, has 2 Super Bowl rings and was elected to the HOF..
Jason >>
Excellent point, and that should be the thrust of any argument, and NOT so and so has three rings, and Marino ZERO...then concluding that so and so is better, and that Marino can't win a big game.
So other things should be looked at. That is why it hits home that Marino and Aikman both have the same INT rate, despite Aikman having every possible advantage to have a better one. Things like this should be looked at.
The supporting cast is huge. The good RB may prevent Aikman from having gaudy passing totals, but it also gives him a huge advantage in being able to throw high percentage passes. His yards per pass should be incredible, and his interception rate should be the best in history(give his supporting cast, and perceived ability). But they aren't, and neither are his totals.
I consider Marino the second best quarterback I have ever seen behind Montana and feared nobody more than him. However, he has to share some of the responsibility for the Dolphins inability to win in some of the big games. Before he got there they had the best defense in the NFL and even in his rookie year they had a pretty good defense. Although they did not have any big name backs they had some backs who had decent rushing averages especially early in Marino's career. Plus, the year they should have got to the Super Bowl and could have beaten the Bears Marino came unglued against the Patriots in the AFC championship game.
arguably had the best RB and O-line of all time. Add Irvin, Harper, Novacek and Moose (both very underrated) and you have a potent offense.
I've got Aikman, Irvin , Emmitt, Larry Allen, Deion Sanders...
Is there anyone else that was HOF Caliber? Offense and Defense? Maybe Darren Woodson as a longshot???
They'll never approch the 70's Steelers with 5 Offensive HOFers and 4 Defensive HOFers...No chance...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
He won a ton of rings and was a very good pash rusher
Not sure of stats or anything but he changed the Cowboys D when he was traded there
DP
Jasp, I tend to agree that the Steelers had a better supporting cast. Though even though Dallas may end up with less HOF, they have guys who were on the cusp of HOF, or just plain the best at their position(like Moose). I happen to think those Dallas teams are among the top five of ALL TIME, no question. In their playoff runs, they had to go through two super teams all the time(GB and SF). And those teams through them.
I agree with your Bradshaw assessment too. Just because he had the supporting cast, it doesn't mean he isn't a great. It does mean it gave him four rings though. I also dislike when people bring up Bradhshaw's numbers and compare them to guys from the 90's, without recognizing it is the defensive rules that make a huge difference.
Aro, I would agree that '85 was a decent shot for Marino to win a Super Bowl, and that they had enough pieces. That was probably his last decent shot before the defense went completely south(and the running game too). He didn't have a good game against New England, no. Though they also gave up 31 points...that doesn't help either(and other QB's have been saved by their defense on Super Bowl runs, like Manning this year).
Even with ALL the pieces in place, there are still odds and pure chance that can prevent a team from winning it all. So if a QB fails in his only two legit shots to have a Super Bowl winning team, I don't hold that at all against him. Bad games happen to all, and there is no reason why it can't happen then. In fact, the bad playoff games happen to all of them sooner or later. Some just get bailed out by their teammates.
Finally, with Aikman's supporting cast(and the defensive attention drawn to the running game), with the praise that is heaped upon him, I would have expected him to have a yards per pass much better than Marino or Favre. They were similar(though Aikman didn't play as long, and his would drop had he). I would also expect him to average much better interception rate Aikmand one INT every 33 passes, Marino 33, Favre 31. Again, very close. Aikman should be much better with a shorter career AND the defensive attention given to the running game(and Irvin)
With all the attention needed to be given to Emmitt Smith, Aikman had much more opportunites for 'easy' completions for good yardage. Add the fact that he had Michael Irvin sucking all the balls in, AND a better offensive line for time.
In summary, Aikman didn't have those key rates any better than Marino or Favre...he had the privlege of passing in less obvious passing situations, and he had better guys catching the ball. Basically, he did slightly less, even though he had more in his favor to work with. The rings are a result of the vastly superior supporting cast, and don't belong in a discussion of who was a better QB, as that is a measurement of how good a TEAM, not individual. Aikman is probably a hair below those two, despite what the ring count is.
Guys like Tom Brady should be getting heaps of credit for putting up the performances he has done, with a steaming pile of pooh for receivers. Not quite that bad, but not good. He, like Favre, also have the elements to deal with.
DEFENSES. Bad defenses help QB's. Fouts, Marino, and Manning all have had their numbers benefitted with having a bad defense. They never have to go conservative. This helps their numbers(in total, not percentage). This hurts the totals of Aikman, Brady, and Favre during their run. They had good defenses, and they could have piled up more yardage if there were more shootouts.
Also, I think you are giving Aikman too much credit by putting him only "a hair" behind Marino. As a quarterback Marino is vastly superior in every way.
A couple of points about your analysis:
In Aikman's defense his career interception percentage is roughly the same as Marino and Favre because in his early years the Cowboys were awful. I know Favre's percentage is hurt by the old man years but Aikman gets hurt by his first two seasons.
Marino had a great offensive line for pass protection. They were lousy run blockers but they were unbelieveable at protecting Marino. Marino has the quickest release in history and an unbelievable pocket presence but the line understood completely where to provide protection and how to seal the pocket and prevent pressure up the middle. The thing I found most difficult to believe about the Super Bowl that the Dolphins lost to the 49ers was the amount of pressure San Fransisco put on Marino. That year (including play-offs) Marino threw 625 passes and was sacked 13 times. In the superbowl he was sacked 4 times in 50 passes. The 49ers pressure came with 3 and 4 man fronts.
DEFENSES: Yes, bad defenses helped Marino's totals on one hand because they gave up so many points and he had to pass a lot to match the other team. But, on the other hand, the way to beat Miami was to run the football and keep the ball out of Marino's hands. The Dolphins did have an atrocious defense overall but it was particularly brutal against the run. I do not have the numbers but Marino might have had less offensive plays to work with, and overall possessions because the defense not only gave up lots of scoring drives, but time consuming ones. In that AFC championship game of 1985 the Pats threw for only 71 yards yet they ran for 255 on 59 carries. 59 carries takes up a lot of the clock.
Which going off topic for a moment leads me to believe that the real culprit in the Dolphins not being more competitive in the Marino era was Shula. I mean how could his run defense be lame every single year? You know what the opposition wants to do, and still do nothing to address the problem. In that New England game the Patriots kept coming up with 3rd and 5, 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 4. They would line up in a shot gun, Miami would pressure from the outside, and the Patriots would run a draw to Craig James or give him a shovel pass. It worked virtually every time. It got to the point where a friend of mine who was a Dolphins fan was screaming at the TV, "It's going to him, it's going to him" as he was pointing to James. In the Super Bowl the Patriots tried the same play against the Bears twice. The first time, James got creamed 3 yards in the backfield, the second time James got creamed 4 yards in the backfield. They never ran the play again.
<< <i>What about montana he had rice lott craig and a great supporting cast for years >>
I think Joe Montana was the first Super Bowl era QB to play for a dynasty and win with different sets of players...He won with/without Rice, with/without Roger Craig, with/without a great defense, even with/without Bill Walsh...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Nice post....
However let's look at this from a different point of view - let's say that Marino's protection from the line was marginally good and his release made the stats look better for the O-Line. Then in the Superbowl against the 49ers, Walsh figured out that if you drop 7 into coverage against 3 receivers and Marino had no where to throw the ball quickly plus Miami had no running game, Marino would have to either be sacked or throw ill-fated passes.
Miami and Marino showed no ability to adjust to this. No other team did that to Miami all year long, in fact Marino never had another season like that. Teams played him the same way after that. Except the Bears in 1985, they tried to blitz Marino and he destroyed them on a Monday night.
Walsh's defensive strategy that night was another "genius" moment for him. It seems if you have a top 5 defense, a good running game (or a passing attack that acts like a running game , ie: Rams) and the ability to move the ball in 20+ yard chunks every once in a while you have a shot of becoming a SB winner. Check the stats, every sb winner has that.
As far as for Shula - when Joe Robbie owned that team he was cheap and would not let Shula draft or sign players to make a difference. In fact this was the same owner who let Csonka, Kiick and Warfield leave Miami in the same year becuase he did not want to pay them more money thus ending Miami's early 70's dynasty. How good woud Dallas have been if Aikman, Irving and Smith were gone after winning the sb in 92. How about the Steelers losing Swan, Stallworth and Harris , etc.....
A lot of teams rushed 3 and 4 against the fish and played nickle or dime packages. Marino still picked them apart. Although he never matched the 84 season he had a ton of good seasons where he led the league in passing yardage. What made the 49ers unique in the Super Bowl was not that they got coverage sacks or forced Marino to throw to his third or fourth reads but that they were able to apply pressure up the middle with only a 3 and 4 man line, preventing him from stepping up in the pocket. After the 84 seasons teams might have taken away the deep ball and forced him to check down more to his backs but simply rushing 3 and putting everybody in coverage was not going to beat Marino and the Dolphins.
The strength of the Dolphins line played well with Marino. Fast pass rushing ends that liked to go strong to the outside played right into Marino's hands. He could step up to avoid the sack and had no worries about having his passes deflected at the line.
<< <i>It would have been nice to see him have to contend with some wind when he was passing too >>
You mean like I had to contend with while reading this post?
Please name me 1 QB that won the Superbowl by himself.
Elway was great but he didnt win the Superbowl untill the team got a real RB and o-line.
Favre won 1 Superbowl lost the other. He hasnt been back because his "supporting cast" is not that good.
1994 Pro Line Live
TheDallasCowboyBackfieldProject
Please elaborate at who your three points are directed towards. You put a partial quote of mine, and then follow with points seemingly against what I am saying. The only thing is, all those points you bring up are exactly what I am saying.
Clear Skies,
Mark
Raw: Tony Gonzalez (low #'d cards, and especially 1/1's) and Steve Young.
Hands down - Ken Dorsey
This guy had Clinton Portis, Shockey, Reggie Wayne a line that gave up 6 sacks all year and on defense Dan Morgan, Ed Reed, Buchanon, Wilfork - etc
how do you only win one championship with that line up?
<< <i><<Nobody has mentioned Jim Kelly? Those Bills teams that made four consecutive Super Bowls were pretty impressive if you ask me.>>
That's because the thread asked about the winning QBs, though not stated in the title. However, Jim Kelly would certainly be a finalist for such a recognition in my opinion. >>
OK. Jim McMahon was not even in the same class as Bradshaw or Aikman IMO so he gets my vote. Trent Dilfer is right up there with him, both those guys had defenses that were probably the best ever. Those teams are classic examples of Defense winning championships.
Him and Namath are the most overrated QBs of all-time -- and it's not even close.
Erik
<< <i>can we modify this thread and include NCAA Football QB Champs?
Hands down - Ken Dorsey
This guy had Clinton Portis, Shockey, Reggie Wayne a line that gave up 6 sacks all year and on defense Dan Morgan, Ed Reed, Buchanon, Wilfork - etc
how do you only win one championship with that line up? >>
Because Dorsey was not that good
<< <i>can we modify this thread and include NCAA Football QB Champs?
Hands down - Ken Dorsey
This guy had Clinton Portis, Shockey, Reggie Wayne a line that gave up 6 sacks all year and on defense Dan Morgan, Ed Reed, Buchanon, Wilfork - etc
how do you only win one championship with that line up? >>
Because most likely those guys didn't play as freshmen, and almost all of them left before they were seniors. Two quality years, if you're lucky, is all you're going to get out of players at UM.
Sweetness, Gault, great O-Line, and the Defense
<< <i>I go with Mcmahon for the 85 bears
Sweetness, Gault, great O-Line, and the Defense >>
'85 Bears HOF count for Jim McMahon----Walter Payton, Mike Singletary, Dan Hampton...Possible future HOFers---Richard Dent, Jim Covert...MIN 3, MAX 5 HOFers...
'78 Steelers HOF Count for Terry Bradshaw---Mel Blount, Joe Greene, Jack Ham, Franco Harris, Jack Lambert, John Stallworth, Lynn Swann, Mike Webster...Possible future HOFers---LC Greenwood, Donnie Shell....MIN 8, MAX 10...
Sorry, still gotta go with Bradshaw as having the best supporting cast of any Super Bowl winning QB...Not even close...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
I don't think you will find many people out there giving Jim McMahon "too much credit" for winning that Super Bowl...Much like Trent Dilfer with the Ravens...Guys like Bradshaw, Aikman, Montana, Young...We are talking HOF QBs, Super Bowl MVPs, etc...I think the original question is, which of these guys were REALLY that good, and which guys tend to be overrated because of the talent they were surrounded by??? Jim mcMahon wasn't over OR underrated..He was just a guy on a great team....Bradshaw and Aikman in particular are guys that tend to me vastly overrated..I like both these guys and think they each brought alot to the table, but the credit/hoopla they get for having multiple rings while guys like Marino have none boils down to the supporting cast around them and how each QB fit their systems...
Just wanted to clarify what we are actually talking about here...
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
The 69 Chiefs are another example. Len Dawson had a supporting cast that included 8 pro bowlers (10 if you include him and his backup QB)...
Another factor on Griese and Dawson is the coaches. Both Shula and Shram were considered elite coaches during those seasons they won their super bowls. But then again, you could say the same for Bradshaw with Noll and Aikman with Jimmie Johnson
Forget blocking him; find out where he lives and go punch him in the nuts. --WalterSobchak 9/12/12
Looking for Al Hrabosky and any OPC Dave Campbells (the ESPN guy)
<< <i>This was the original topic/question...."Since QB's get too much singular recognition for their team winning a Super Bowl(when being compared to each other), I thought it might be a good idea to find the QB with the all-time best supporting cast(which naturally gives him too much credit in the 'ring' hoopla compared to others)."
I don't think you will find many people out there giving Jim McMahon "too much credit" for winning that Super Bowl...Much like Trent Dilfer with the Ravens...Guys like Bradshaw, Aikman, Montana, Young...We are talking HOF QBs, Super Bowl MVPs, etc...I think the original question is, which of these guys were REALLY that good, and which guys tend to be overrated because of the talent they were surrounded by??? Jim mcMahon wasn't over OR underrated..He was just a guy on a great team....Bradshaw and Aikman in particular are guys that tend to me vastly overrated..I like both these guys and think they each brought alot to the table, but the credit/hoopla they get for having multiple rings while guys like Marino have none boils down to the supporting cast around them and how each QB fit their systems...
Just wanted to clarify what we are actually talking about here...
Jason >>
Exactly. Bradshaw and Aikman both happen to be overrated by themselves as well. Bradshaw never has a problem bringing up the rings.
<< <i>how about the worst supporting cast ? Marino >>
Tom Brady??? Yet he still won 3 Super Bowls...HOW???lol
Jason
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>how about the worst supporting cast ? Marino >>
Tom Brady??? Yet he still won 3 Super Bowls...HOW???lol
Jason >>
Oh it was just good 'ole fashion DESTINY!!!!!!!!!!!
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>how about the worst supporting cast ? Marino >>
Tom Brady??? Yet he still won 3 Super Bowls...HOW???lol
Jason >>
Oh it was just good 'ole fashion DESTINY!!!!!!!!!!! >>
Winning 3 with the supporting cast he's had was better than destiny..And it says alot about how good Tom Brady really is...
according to my values and my needs. Nothing holds dominion over me, I stand alone as the ruler of my life.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>how about the worst supporting cast ? Marino >>
Tom Brady??? Yet he still won 3 Super Bowls...HOW???lol
Jason >>
Oh it was just good 'ole fashion DESTINY!!!!!!!!!!! >>
Winning 3 with the supporting cast he's had was better than destiny..And it says alot about how good Tom Brady really is... >>
Well it would be real easy for me to be impartial as Brady and the Pats are my team through thick and thin, but in fairness if it was not for Vinatieri the Pats would not have three rings.