Pitcher Wins & Losses = Quarterback Super Bowl titles?
ripkenintheminors
Posts: 2,186 ✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
I was thinking about this while posting on another forum. In fact, I went on to post something along the lines of what I am going to post here. I am interested in your comments.
For the longest a conventional line of thinking in baseball was that the number of wins and losses were the norm for pitcher evaluation. Over the past few years I have seen and heard from more and more people that are changing their philosophy and saying that wins and losses are not the best standard to determine the greatness of a pitcher. Where I am going with this is the fact that the standard among many when ranking quarterbacks is in regards to the number of Super Bowl wins. Until Elway won his first SB he was regarded as a great QB that just "couldn't win the big one.". Until Peyton Manning won a SB he was regarded as "this generation's Dan Marino."
I fully understand that you play to win the Super Bowl. However, is it time that a QB can be a great QB without the first measure being the number of rings? I find this interesting because the only time the "ring(s)" argument is used is when trying to diminish a career of a solid player. However, when it is on the other end do we ever hear someone saying a less than HOF caliber player deserves to be in the HOF just because of the ring? Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Jim Kelly because of the ring?
For the longest a conventional line of thinking in baseball was that the number of wins and losses were the norm for pitcher evaluation. Over the past few years I have seen and heard from more and more people that are changing their philosophy and saying that wins and losses are not the best standard to determine the greatness of a pitcher. Where I am going with this is the fact that the standard among many when ranking quarterbacks is in regards to the number of Super Bowl wins. Until Elway won his first SB he was regarded as a great QB that just "couldn't win the big one.". Until Peyton Manning won a SB he was regarded as "this generation's Dan Marino."
I fully understand that you play to win the Super Bowl. However, is it time that a QB can be a great QB without the first measure being the number of rings? I find this interesting because the only time the "ring(s)" argument is used is when trying to diminish a career of a solid player. However, when it is on the other end do we ever hear someone saying a less than HOF caliber player deserves to be in the HOF just because of the ring? Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Jim Kelly because of the ring?
0
Comments
<< <i> Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Jim Kelly because of the ring? >>
Good point Chris, and I'll assume this question is rhetorical.
Obviously, Dilfer was not and is not a better QB than Kelly, or Marino.
There isn't a position in sports more unfair than determining the value of a player by the number of rings. In baseball, a pitcher could throw a complete game, no hit shut out and win a game. In basketball, an offensive superstar like Jordan gets to play defense too, and therefore has an opportunity to influence a game on both ends of the court.
In football, a QB will never play defense or special teams, so there's only so much he can do.
Elway was considered a semifailure until Terrell Davis came along. Marino and Fouts never won one either, but you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who things they were inferior to Trent Dilfer and Doug Williams.
I don't care how many Superbowls Brady or Bradshaw have. They were/are great. But listen to other coaches and defensive players. Whether you like him or not, Manning is one of a handful of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, whether he wins another Superbowl or not. He'll need another one or two for the general public to agree with me, but if you watch and understand the game, you'll know he doesn't need another one.
Marino and Fouts= 0 Superbowl wins
Dilfer and Williams= 2 Superbowl wins.
Who do you want quarterbacking your team??
shawn
D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
I do not think the single measuring stick for a QB should be how many rings he has. If a QB gets to the Superbowl and wins a ring, that is something which should be considered in determining how the QB is viewed amongst other QBs. Longevity, life time statistics, won-loss record of his team in the games he has played in, how many times his team made the playoffs, etc. all should be considered.
For me, it comes down to a personal choice, which of course includes many factors to consider, including emotional attachment.
I am a Bronco fan. Thus I am a fan of Elway. Biased in his favor also.
When I consider which QBs are the best of the best, I ask which one I would want to have quarterbacking my team in a game that counts (i.e. a regular season game which has playoff implications [do you get in or not, and what seeding will you get]; or is a playoff game).
For me, Elway is close to the top of the list. So is Montana. Elway may only be 2-3 in the Superbowl, but his first three Superbowl teams from the 1980's never would have gotten to the Superbowl if he had not been the QB. His 1997 team probably would not have won against the Packers in the 1998 game if he had not been the QB (regardless of Terrell Davis). He had(has) more fourth quarter come from behind victories than any other QB.
<< <i>It's not football but Don Mattingly was clearly exactly one ring short of going into the HOF. If it had not been for the 1994 strike or if he had stuck around another year, he would've had his championship and would've gone in the HOF without any problems. >>
Steve
<< <i>In 1970 the Steelers drafted Terry Bradshaw. The Saints picked Archie Manning a year later. I contend that had they been switched, Archie would today be in the Hall of Fame and the Steelers might have won even more Super Bowls. With the Saints, Bradshaw would have been a bust. No way Super Bowls alone can be the rating. Now, when I look at QB's with great numbers and add the Super Bowls to the argument, then I think it can make a difference. i.e. Dan Marino vs Joe Montana. >>
You can say that about a lot of players. What if Montana played on a bad team? A big reason The steelers won all those super bowls is because bradshaw was awesome during big games. He also won the season MVP in 1978, and had the strongest arm in the game.
Before bradshaw, the Steelers were losers just like the saints.
I give him all the credit in the world for winning. But there is no way anyone can convince me that Mark Rypien, Trent Dilfer, and Jeff Hostetler should be ranked anywhere near Dan Marino.
<< <i>My point is that judging a QB by Super Bowl wins is not completely fair. The team is what helps. Bradshaw, great as he was, had arguably the greatest team in history around him. Look at 1976. Bradshaw got hurt and they won 9 games in a row with Mike Kruczek at QB. . >>
That is incorrect. Bradshaw played 10 out of 14 games in 1976. A big reason why the steelers won all those super bowls was because Bradshaw played great in big games. two-time super bowl mvp. He also had some great years during the regular season like in 78(MVP and ap player of the year) and 79 to help get them there. The Steelers offense was one of the best in the league. Look at other great HOF QB's that won multiple super bowls. They all had great teams around them. Montana, Aikman, Staubach, Brady.
Pitcher Cy Youngs = NFL QB Superbowl titles
<< <i>I think it's more like this:
Pitcher Cy Youngs = NFL QB Superbowl titles >>
Close, but only because of this:
Generally in order to win the Cy Young, or a Super Bowl title, the pitcher and the QB are usually pretty good, or even excellent.
However, both things are often achieved because of the ability of the teammates, and neither is usually a fair barometer on judging an individual player, because there are just too many things out of the players control to assess THEM on that criteria.
Cy Youngs awards are generally given to the player with the most wins(and respectable enough ERA).
When a quarterback wins a Super Bowl with a team that gives up the most points in the league, then come talk, and I will be impressed and judge that QB on that ring. Until then, no QB wins a title with a sub par defense...it just doesn't happen. So to give them credit over their peers who don't have as good a situation, is just plain stupid.
p.s Bradshaw's 'record' as the main QB in 1976 was 4-4. Kruczek was 6-0.
<< <i>.
p.s Bradshaw's 'record' as the main QB in 1976 was 4-4. Kruczek was 6-0. >>
Bradshaw started 8 games but played in 10 regular season games......he played injured.
If the colts win the super bowl, they will win with the 17th best defense in the league. The saints defense is worse.
Nonetheless, it is VERY clear that the main reason why the Saints and Colts are where they are at is because of their OUTSTANDING QB's. Any objective person knows this. If Bradshaw won his titles with defenses ranked 20th, I would give him more credit too.
However, in Bradshaw's case, it is very clear that the reason why they were there was because of their defense, then because they had an excellent running game, and Bradshaw was above average, and they had two good Wide Receivers. Yet Bradshaw gets 'ring' credit over someone like a Marino, because Marino never had anything close to that luxury. The only time he had some defense, they did get to the Super Bowl. But the team they played was superior.
No matter how you skirt the fact, in 1976 when Bradshaw was the team's primary QB, they went 4-4. When their scrub back up was the QB, they went 6-0. Their defense was #1 in the league that year, and they had a great running game and WR...any scrub could win with them, and indeed a scrub did!
In fact, in the years where Bradshaw's defense was out of the top ten in points allowed(ranked 16th, 17th, 17th, 15th, 11th), his cumulative record as the primary QB was: 34-30.
Sorry, Bradshaw was good, but there are prevailing reasons, other than his ability, as to why he has four rings. The original premise of pitcher wins and losses = QB super bowl titles, is prettty spot on. It is pretty telling when the main arguments against this come from Bradshaw and Aikman fans.
Montana fans don't need to bring up titles, because Joe showed on his own his QB worth...same for Elway. They don't need the help of good teammates to be viewed as one of the best.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Bradshaw is one of the most overrated QBs of all time. >>
No, Marino is the most overrated in history. cough cough choke choke.
Bradshaw is top ten qb ever. The only qb in history to win 4 championships in 6 years......and he called his own plays
<< <i>The Colts have given up the 8th most points in the league, and the Saints the 20th. If a team gives up 400 yds in a game, but only 10 points, it gives their QB a heckuva chance to win, hence points allowed as the barometer in this case.
Nonetheless, it is VERY clear that the main reason why the Saints and Colts are where they are at is because of their OUTSTANDING QB's. Any objective person knows this. If Bradshaw won his titles with defenses ranked 20th, I would give him more credit too.
However, in Bradshaw's case, it is very clear that the reason why they were there was because of their defense, then because they had an excellent running game, and Bradshaw was above average, and they had two good Wide Receivers. Yet Bradshaw gets 'ring' credit over someone like a Marino, because Marino never had anything close to that luxury. The only time he had some defense, they did get to the Super Bowl. But the team they played was superior.
No matter how you skirt the fact, in 1976 when Bradshaw was the team's primary QB, they went 4-4. When their scrub back up was the QB, they went 6-0. Their defense was #1 in the league that year, and they had a great running game and WR...any scrub could win with them, and indeed a scrub did!
In fact, in the years where Bradshaw's defense was out of the top ten in points allowed(ranked 16th, 17th, 17th, 15th, 11th), his cumulative record as the primary QB was: 34-30.
Sorry, Bradshaw was good, but there are prevailing reasons, other than his ability, as to why he has four rings. The original premise of pitcher wins and losses = QB super bowl titles, is prettty spot on. It is pretty telling when the main arguments against this come from Bradshaw and Aikman fans.
Montana fans don't need to bring up titles, because Joe showed on his own his QB worth...same for Elway. They don't need the help of good teammates to be viewed as one of the best. >>
The fact of the matter is, the 49'ers also had superior defenses and without the defense the 49'ers dont win 4 super bowls.
Elway didnt win a super bowl until they had a better defense and a superior running back.
The Steelers offense were one of the best in the league. And 5 PLAYERS FROM THAT 70'S OFFENSE ARE IN THE HALL OF FAME.
1976 is just one year. And Bradshaw played injured. And guess what. They didnt go to the super bowl that year with a injured Bradshaw.
The main reason why they won those super bowl games was because the offense came up with big plays, and the defense kept them in the game. How many of those players on defense won a super bowl MVP?
Bradshaw's a first ballot hall of famer. He was one of the best competitors the sport has ever seen. The best team in the NFC in the 70's were the cowboys. BRADSHAW BEAT THE COWBOYS EVERYTIME HE PLAYED THEM.
Steve
<< <i>Wouldn't World Series rings be the same as Super Bowl titles?
Steve >>
The argument I was making with the title is that measuring a pitcher solely on their W/L record is as ridiculous of a standard as measuring a QB by Super Bowl titles. For the longest time people in baseball would say player X is better then player Y because player x had more wins even if their ERA was 1 run higher. Eventually people broke away from the traditional measurement and started looking at things such as ERA, WHIP and K/9. The NFL is yet to break away from the "old school" standard of ranking a QB by SB titles. How many times in the past week have you heard a broadcast say "if Manning and the Colts win the SB Peyton will be two rings behind Montana and one behind Brady"?
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
<< Bradshaw is one of the most overrated QBs of all time. >>
No, Marino is the most overrated in history. cough cough choke choke.
Bradshaw is top ten qb ever. The only qb in history to win 4 championships in 6 years......and he called his own plays
Are you kidding me, LOL? Marino never had the great fortune of playing on a team even half as good as the Steelers teams from the 1970s. If he had, he'd have won at least four Super Bowls. Do you just fail to comprehend the concept that a championship QB is in most cases just the beneficiary of the teammmates around him, particularly the defense in the case of Pittsburgh or do you really just not understand the game of football? Put away the homer glasses and try to remain objective, geez...
I suppose you're going to tell me that a pitcher's W-L record illustrates how good he is, too...or that Ted Williams was overrated because he never won a World Series ring, right?
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Nonsense. The Steelers beat the Cowboys, not Bradshaw. And if Jackie Smith doesn't drop Staubach's soft toss in the end zone in Super Bowl XIII, the Cowboys would have won that Super Bowl. So I guess you can say that Jackie Smith beat the Cowboys that time, LOL..
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Steve
Let's compare: 84 Dolphins (Marino's best team) / Steelers of the 70's
RB's Tony Nathan, Woody Bennett, Joe Carter / Franco Harris, Rocky Bleier, Reggie Harrison
WR's Mark Clayton, Nat Moore, Mark Duper /Lynn Swann, John Stallworth, Frank Lewis
OL Led by Dwight Stephenson HOF Center / Led by Mike Webster HOF Center
DL Betters, Baumhower, Bokamper / Greene, Greenwood, White, Holmes
LB's Bowser, Duhe, Brudzinski, Brown, Rhome /Ham, Lambert, Russell
DB's Blackwood, Blackwood, Judson, McNeal / Blount, Wagner, Shell, Edwards
Where do the Dolphins compare? I would argue that the receivers were better, but since two of the Steelers are Hall of Famers and none of the Dolphins are, maybe I am wrong. The running backs? Not even close. Defensive line? Linebackers? Defensive Backs? And this was Marino's BEST TEAM. The Steelers team of above was essentially the team that Bradshaw had from 1974 through the end of his career. I don't say that Bradshaw is a poor QB. Not at all. He was a very good one. But no better than Archie Manning, Ken Anderson, Ken Stabler, or maybe even Craig Morton. Bradshaw was in the right place at the right time.
Exactly. And to Bradshaw's credit, he did play extremely well in all four Super Bowls (even though he did throw 3 picks in the 4th SB vs. LA). But to ignore the impact of the Pittsburgh Steelers's dynasty on his legacy is really an exercise in foolishness and not looking at the reality behind the record.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> "if Manning and the Colts win the SB Peyton will be two rings behind Montana and one behind Brady"? >>
How is that any less accurate than saying Pedro Martinez is 39 wins behind Jamie Moyer?
<< <i>
<< <i> "if Manning and the Colts win the SB Peyton will be two rings behind Montana and one behind Brady"? >>
How is that any less accurate than saying Pedro Martinez is 39 wins behind Jamie Moyer? >>
It has nothing to do with accuracy. The context of the statement was in regards to determining the greatness of Manning/Montana/Brady. The logic was that if Peyton can somehow get 3 rings he will be as good as Brady because since he has fewer Super Bowl rings he is obviously less of a QB.
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
<< <i>BRADSHAW BEAT THE COWBOYS EVERYTIME HE PLAYED THEM.
Nonsense. The Steelers beat the Cowboys, not Bradshaw. And if Jackie Smith doesn't drop Staubach's soft toss in the end zone in Super Bowl XIII, the Cowboys would have won that Super Bowl. So I guess you can say that Jackie Smith beat the Cowboys that time, LOL.. >>
Lol. The QB is the leader of the team. Thats why they get paid the BIG BUCKS. So he gets most of the credit. And Bradshaw has stated this himself that it was HIM that beat the cowboys everytime.
<< <i>
<< Bradshaw is one of the most overrated QBs of all time. >>
No, Marino is the most overrated in history. cough cough choke choke.
Bradshaw is top ten qb ever. The only qb in history to win 4 championships in 6 years......and he called his own plays
Are you kidding me, LOL? Marino never had the great fortune of playing on a team even half as good as the Steelers teams from the 1970s. If he had, he'd have won at least four Super Bowls. Do you just fail to comprehend the concept that a championship QB is in most cases just the beneficiary of the teammmates around him, particularly the defense in the case of Pittsburgh or do you really just not understand the game of football?
>>
Complete nonsense. The difference between Marino and Bradshaw is Marino was a choker and bradshaw came through when it counted. Marino played on lots of great miami teams. In 84 the dolphins went 14-2, were the favorites in the super bowl and Marino had his chance but laid an egg. The next year in 85 the dolphins were the HEAVY favorites against a wild card Patriots in the playoffs. And once again Marino laid an egg. Between 1983 and 1999 Marino's dolphins made the PLAYOFFS 10 TIMES But failed to win a championship.
Great players make great plays in BIG GAMES. Bradshaw did. Marino didnt.
Thats why Bradshaw will always be known as a legend
Marino will always be known as a choker who failed in big games.
ps..In 85 the Dolphins were the only team to beat the bears that year. Not only the dolphins won but they spanked them...if i remember correctly the bears defense werent too shabby
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Blacklabel, it's obvious that you are either a totally biased homer or an ignorant football fan, so I won't bother illustrating once again why the Steelers of the 70s were BY FAR better than any team Marino ever played for, but maybe you can read PowderedH2O's post for additional information. Bradshaw was very good QB, and he played very well in 3 of 4 Super Bowls, but he was most certainly NOT the primary reason that Pitssburgh won 4 Super Bowls. I'd bet that Terry himself would admit as much if he were to be asked. If you can't understand that obvious concept, I suggest that you go back to playing Madden '09 and leave discusions like these to the grown-ups, LOL.. >>
Fool, its obvious you dont know the difference between a winner and a choker.
Marino played incredible and could beat ANY TEAM he played against during the regular season.
But Marino DIDNT DUBLICATE his talents in big games.(choked)
While Bradshaw is one of the 2 best qb's in post-season history.
<< <i>By the way, the heavily favored 1984 Miami Dolphins that choked in the Super Bowl against the 49ers were 3.5 point underdogs. The 49ers had a guy named Joe Montana and had won the Super Bowl three years earlier, and had barely lost the NFC Championship game the year before. They were 15-1 in the regular season, and entered the Super Bowl with an eleven game winning streak. They were coming off of the NFC Championship in which they demolished the Chicago Bears 23-0. They had the NFL's #2 offense and #1 defense. They had some pretty fair guys on the defense, such as Ronnie Lott (Hall of Famer), Fred Dean (Hall of Famer), Dwight Hicks (4-time Pro Bowler), Keena Turner (Pro-Bowler), Eric Wright (2-time Pro Bowler), Carlton Williamson (2-time Pro Bowler), Michael Carter (3-time Pro Bowler), Dwaine Board, and Gary Johnson (4-time Pro Bowler). The offense had Montana, plus Wendell Tyler, Roger Craig, Dwight Clark, Freddie Solomon, Russ Francis, and the best offensive line in football at the time. Yes, Marino and his Dolphins got beat. Marino threw for 318 yards. The Miami running game managed a paltry 25 yards. Is that Marino's fault? Montana threw for 331 yards and the 49ers rushed for 211 yards. Should we blame Marino for that too? It wasn't like the 49ers won the game on Marino turnovers. No, they had a great team and they won, because they were supposed to win. Compare that defense to the lineup I mentioned earlier for the Dolphins. It isn't even close. And as far as Marino dominating in the regular season and then choking in the playoffs against the Patriots, well, the Patriots played the Dolphins twice in the regular season and they split. Not a huge upset. And when the Patriots are making points off of a Tony Nathan fumble and a Lorenzo Hampton fumble, should we blame Marino? That would be like blaming Favre for all of the fumbles the Vikings had against the Saints. But I must admit, had Marino been the QB instead of Bradshaw during their glory years, it is unlikely that the Steelers would have won four Super Bowls. Of course, Marino was only a teenager, so it just seems logical. Marino in his prime would have led them to five or six. >>
You forgot to mention that in 84 Marino threw for 48 td's but only threw 1 in the super bowl. With 2 interceptions.
Fact of the matter is, Marino was a completely different leader in the post-season. Ted Williams never won a championship but only had 1 opportunity to do so. MARINO HAD 1O CHANCES and failed. Its a team sport, but Marino does and should get alot of the blame. He didnt make the big plays when his team needed it. Many of those playoff loses were right in their own backyard. Just like in 85 when they trounced the team who went on to trounce the patriots in one of the most lobsided super bowls ever.
<< <i> The logic was that if Peyton can somehow get 3 rings he will be as good as Brady because since he has fewer Super Bowl rings he is obviously less of a QB. >>
Exactly. And no one believes the silly logic that Pedro Martinez needs more wins to surpass Jamie Moyer either
~"Pitcher Wins & Losses = Quarterback Super Bowl titles?"~
Both are small ways of evaluating a player.
Three times the Steelers lost, and if Jackie Smith doesn't drop a sure thing TD pass, it's 0 for 4. Again, how do you blame Marino for a crappy Dolphins defense? You going to blame Kurt Warner for allowing the Steelers to score at the end of the game in last year's Super Bowl. After all, he was the losing QB.
LMAO, don't confuse Black Label wity the facts...virtually everything he says has no basis in reality anyway...ignorance is bliss, after all..
You'd think that with nearly a majority of other posters stating the same point that in truth Bradshaw was the beneficiary of perfect timing and was simply fortunate to have played on arguably the best team of all time, that you would at least consider that possibility when it comes to evaluating players like him vs Marino. But then again, the ignorant usually have a very narrow-minded point of view. That may change with maturity or age, but perhaps not. Like I said, even Bradshaw himself would tell you that he wasn't the primary reasons for those Steelers' titles.
And what does the word "DUBLICATE" mean??
And you call me the fool? What a clown...
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i> By the way, the heavily favored 1984 Miami Dolphins that choked in the Super Bowl against the 49ers were 3.5 point underdogs.
Three times the Steelers lost, and if Jackie Smith doesn't drop a sure thing TD pass, it's 0 for 4. Again, how do you blame Marino for a crappy Dolphins defense? You going to blame Kurt Warner for allowing the Steelers to score at the end of the game in last year's Super Bowl. After all, he was the losing QB.
LMAO, don't confuse Black Label wity the facts...virtually everything he says has no basis in reality anyway...ignorance is bliss, after all..
You'd think that with nearly a majority of other posters stating the same point that in truth Bradshaw was the beneficiary of perfect timing and was simply fortunate to have played on arguably the best team of all time, that you would at least consider that possibility when it comes to evaluating players like him vs Marino. But then again, the ignorant usually have a very narrow-minded point of view. That may change with maturity or age, but perhaps not. Like I said, even Bradshaw himself would tell you that he wasn't the primary reasons for those Steelers' titles.
And what does the word "DUBLICATE" mean??
>>
TYPO. But you knew what i meant. Is this grammar forum? You were probably the nerdy teacher's pet in school, who was in the band. You obviously know very little about football
So what other FIRST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER do you want to deny of their greatness, moron?
Three times the Steelers lost, and if Jackie Smith doesn't drop a sure thing TD pass, it's 0 for 4. Again, how do you blame Marino for a crappy Dolphins defense? You going to blame Kurt Warner for allowing the Steelers to score at the end of the game in last year's Super Bowl. After all, he was the losing QB.
LMAO, don't confuse Black Label wity the facts...virtually everything he says has no basis in reality anyway...ignorance is bliss, after all..
You'd think that with nearly a majority of other posters stating the same point that in truth Bradshaw was the beneficiary of perfect timing and was simply fortunate to have played on arguably the best team of all time, that you would at least consider that possibility when it comes to evaluating players like him vs Marino. But then again, the ignorant usually have a very narrow-minded point of view. That may change with maturity or age, but perhaps not. Like I said, even Bradshaw himself would tell you that he wasn't the primary reasons for those Steelers' titles.
And what does the word "DUBLICATE" mean??
>>
TYPO. But you knew what i meant. Is this grammar forum? You were probably the nerdy teacher's pet in school, who was in the band. You obviously know very little about football
So what other FIRST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER do you want to deny of their greatness, moron?
Moron? LOL, so I guess when your point is disproven again and again, not only by me, but by other more knowledgable football fans, all that's left is namecalling. Typical juvenile behavior. I'd like to continue this "debate" with you, maybe when you get a little older or gain a better understanding of the game of football and can comprehend factors for player performance more revealing than the obvious "number of rings." Till then, wave that Terrible Towel! LMAO!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>
teammmates >>
Not found in the English language
<< <i>Bradshaw was the perfect quarterback for the Steelers of the 70's. He was probably the best deep passer in the history of the NFL. The Steelers offense was built on running the football and throwing deep and Bradshaw was a perfect fit. Marino as great as he is (top 5 all-time in my opinion) was never comfortable in that type of offense. The Dolphins the year before he arrived were 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards. It was not like they could not run the football >>
Well said.
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw was the perfect quarterback for the Steelers of the 70's. He was probably the best deep passer in the history of the NFL. The Steelers offense was built on running the football and throwing deep and Bradshaw was a perfect fit. Marino as great as he is (top 5 all-time in my opinion) was never comfortable in that type of offense. The Dolphins the year before he arrived were 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards. It was not like they could not run the football >>
Well said. >>
Yup, he was so well suited for that team that when the backup scrub came in for him as a starter in 1976, the scrub went 6-0.
Blacklabel, think about what you are saying for a moment. On one hand you are on this board touting Lynn Swann as a stud, and citing his acrobatic catches in the Super Bowl to show how he could do something that no other reciever could. Aren't those acrobatic catches a great help to his QB???? Since Swann is the one of the very few who could do that, isn't that an advantage for Bradshaw over the other QB's??? Certainly! Then it is stupid to penalize other QB's who can't just throw the ball up there and have an acrobatic receiver catch them for him.
You also said that the Steelers defense was the best ever, and said sorry to the '85 Bears, therefore claiming that the defense was a major reason in the success of the team. Again, any QB with a lesser defense is at a big disadvantage when it comes to winning anything, and it is stupid to give Bradshaw credit because of that.
In your own words and thoughts written on this board, you are supporting the case of the original poster. In order for a QB to win Super Bowls, he needs all those things you are saying the Steelers had. It is just like a pitcher winning 20 games because he had 6.55 run support.
You also just glossed over the fact that when the Steelers had a mediocore defene, Bradshaw's career record was 34-30. If he was so good, and was THE reason why the Steelers got rings, then he should have had a much better record when the defense wasn't carrying him, and he should have won Super Bowls those years too. But his teams were just mediocore...and Bradshaw wasn't much better.
You haven't said much about the running game because nobody brought up Franco Harris being a wuss. Had somebody said that, you would have chimed in that he was an all time great too.
Does it still need to be spelled out for you????
<< <i>Blacklabel, I don't deny Bradshaw deserving to be in the Hall. He was a fine quarterback. The original argument was whether Super Bowls can be an accurate measurement of greatness for the QB. My argument was that a player like Marino, who didn't have the great talent surrounding him >>
Untrue. Marino played on great teams in the 80's that underachieved in the post-season. Like the 85 team who were the only team to beat the almighty Bears. And a big reason why they underachieved is because Marino was a choker in post-season. And being he had great recievers, theres just no excuse to back him up. If Marino's teams could beat powerhouses in the regular season, then why couldnt they do it in the playoffs???
once again:
"GREAT PLAYERS MAKE GREAT PLAYS IN BIG GAMES."
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Bradshaw was the perfect quarterback for the Steelers of the 70's. He was probably the best deep passer in the history of the NFL. The Steelers offense was built on running the football and throwing deep and Bradshaw was a perfect fit. Marino as great as he is (top 5 all-time in my opinion) was never comfortable in that type of offense. The Dolphins the year before he arrived were 3rd in the NFL in rushing yards. It was not like they could not run the football >>
Well said. >>
Yup, he was so well suited for that team that when the backup scrub came in for him as a starter in 1976, the scrub went 6-0.
WOW, THEY WON 6 GAMES, OH BOY. Bradshaw was hurt that year and they lost in the playoffs. Thanks for making my point again. I remember a rookie qb about 6 years ago won his first 11 games as a starter.
Then it is stupid to penalize other QB's who can't just throw the ball up there and have an acrobatic receiver catch them for him.
GUESS THAT MEANS Brady doesnt get any credit since Moss, because Moss is taller than his opposition.
You also said that the Steelers defense was the best ever, and said sorry to the '85 Bears, therefore claiming that the defense was a major reason in the success of the team.
NOPE, YOU MUST be thinking of someone elses comments, because i never said that.
In your own words and thoughts written on this board, you are supporting the case of the original poster. In order for a QB to win Super Bowls, he needs all those things you are saying the Steelers had. It is just like a pitcher winning 20 games because he had 6.55 run support.
WRONG. Apples and oranges. Look at every team that won multiple super bowls. They all or almost all had great qb's GOING back to Bart Starr. Look at all of those great Baltimore Ravens defenses in the past 9-10 years. Yet they only won 1 championship because they didnt have a great QB. It usually takes more than just a superior defense to win super bowls. You need a great qb who can come up big under pressure n big games.
You also just glossed over the fact that when the Steelers had a mediocore defene, Bradshaw's career record was 34-30. If he was so good, and was THE reason why the Steelers got rings, then he should have had a much better record when the defense wasn't carrying him, and he should have won Super Bowls those years too. But his teams were just mediocore...and Bradshaw wasn't much better.
What period are you talking about?
>>
Yes, I would not give Tom Brady all the credit because I know that Moss is a big part of all those TD passes, and that the Pats defense(and kicker too) were huge reasons why they won Super Bowls, without which, they would not have won either. Just like Lynn Swann coming down with amazing catches. It takes a great team all the way around to be multiple championship caliber. To give the credit to Bradshaw is silly.
Without the top flight defense, Bradshaw led teams were simply mediocre. In every season where his defense was outside the top 10 in points allowed, their record was 34-30(when Bradshaw was the QB).
However, Tom Brady excelled before he had Moss, and excelled with mediocre receivers, and mediocre RB's. Bradshaw did not. He needed the help to excel.
And yes, I will say it again. A back up scrub went 6-0 with that team. If a back up scrub could go 6-0, the other components of the team must be a MAJOR factor in why they won. And for the record, BRADSHAW was the QB in the playoffs when they lost that year.
Couple that with the fact when their defense was mediocre with Bradshaw at the helm, and then went 34-30, it shows that Bradshaw should NOT be getting all this credit for rings, when clearly it was the exceptional teammates that made it possible.
Some more things to understand young man. Bradshaw's teams were so good that in the playoffs they had home field advantage often, and because of their seed, they usually had to play a team that was inferior than them, so they should win more because that situation.
For instance, Bradshaw's teams only had to play five road playoff games in all those years. What happened when they had to play in a tougher situation like that?? They went 2-3.
What were Bradshaw's QB ratings in those games?
57
40
44.5
158
59.7
So now lets play detective on what we know.
1) When a back up scrub got significant playing time on the same team, he went 6-0, and Bradshaw 4-4.
2) When Bradshaw's defense was not an elite defense, and only mediocre, Bradshaw only managed a 34-30 record with them.
3) When Bradshaw was put in a situation where he had a tough playoff situation of playing on the road, and playing against a team as good or better, he went 2-3. And his game by game performance of QB rating was 57, 40, 44, 158, 59. Understand that superior QB's who were not lucky enough to have Bradshaw's situation usually had to go into the playoffs in this situation as the norm, thus VERY hard to win anything, JUST LIKE BRADSHAW couldn't.
4) Bradshaw had how many HOF teammates??
5) Bradshaw's big games were aided by the acrobatic catches of Lynn Swann. Without such heroics, he doesn't have those big games.
6) Bradshaw was lucky to even stay alive in the playoffs on Franco Harri's famous catch. Pure luck, and nothing to do with him.
7) A famous drop by Jackie Smith allowed Bradshaw's team to win a Super Bowl. Pure luck.
As you see, with lots of help from teammates, and some good fortune of weird plays, and with Bradshaw being good himself, that is why the Steelers won those Super Bowls. It isn't much different than a guy winning 20 games for a couple of years because he has good infielders, and great run support. Give the credit APPROPRIATELY son!
Marino played from 1983-1999. Here is the complete list of Dolphins defensive players that made the the All-Pro team during his career: Zach Thomas 1998-99, Sam Madison 1999, Bryan Cox 1992, John Offerdahl 1990, Bob Baumhower 1983, Doug Betters 1983. 17 seasons - 7 All-Pro defensive players. Jack Lambert was All-Pro six times by himslef. So was Jack Ham. Joe Greene five (four during Bradshaw's years). Donnie Shell three times. LC Greenwood twice. Mel Blount twice. And if we count Pro-Bowls up, it is even more disparaging. And what about Bradshaw and Marino themselves? Bradshaw once All-Pro and three Pro Bowls. Marino three times All-Pro and nine Pro Bowls. The players voted on this. Clearly there were many years that the AFC players did not feel that Bradshaw was even worthy of playing in the Pro Bowl. During his peak years Bob Griese, Ken Stabler, Ken Anderson, and Brian Sipe were going ahead of Bradshaw.
So we have a quarterback that has a non-existant running game and a defense that is at best mediocre and you are going to criticize him because he got to the playoffs ten times and never won the Super Bowl. I say let's rank him higher! He got to the playoffs ten times with this????
Marino has to take some of the responsibility for the lack of a running game. The Dolphins built their offensive line around protecting him - they were much better pass blockers than run blockers. Granted, his lightning release was a huge factor but still the year before he arrived they ranked 3rd in the league in rushing. The year prior to that they ranked 10th in rushing. Defensively, they were 2nd in the league the year before he arrived (the Killer B's). The year after he left they were 6th. Teams that run the football tend to have better defenses in that they are on the field less (more rested) and face less opportunities.
Marino is easily an all-time great but his supporting cast (at least offensively) was built around his strengths. It still amazes me, though, that Don Shula was not able to at least build a defense capable of stopping the run, since that is basically what everybody tried to do on the Dolphins.