How about a new measure for QB greatness?
SanctionII
Posts: 12,121 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Great lifetime stats and only one Super Bowl win do not cut it anymore.
To be considered one of the all time great pro QB's you must have great lifetime stats and at least 2 Super Bowl wins.
As time goes on and more QB's win two Super Bowls, then adjust the rules to require three wins and/or adjust the rules to require better lifetime stats?
If the above rule is adopted, then all of this talk about QB's with one or no Super Bowl wins will go out the window, leaving everyone who cares about this topic with a more limited pool of QB's to argue over.
Whatcha think?
Applied to yesterday's game, Manning just does not cut it yet. Neither does Warner or Favre.
In fact the only active QB who does cut it is Brady with 3 wins and 1 loss [which took a lot of the luster off of him]. Or does Big Ben have two wins yet? (I do not remember)
To be considered one of the all time great pro QB's you must have great lifetime stats and at least 2 Super Bowl wins.
As time goes on and more QB's win two Super Bowls, then adjust the rules to require three wins and/or adjust the rules to require better lifetime stats?
If the above rule is adopted, then all of this talk about QB's with one or no Super Bowl wins will go out the window, leaving everyone who cares about this topic with a more limited pool of QB's to argue over.
Whatcha think?
Applied to yesterday's game, Manning just does not cut it yet. Neither does Warner or Favre.
In fact the only active QB who does cut it is Brady with 3 wins and 1 loss [which took a lot of the luster off of him]. Or does Big Ben have two wins yet? (I do not remember)
0
Comments
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
Ive said it numerous times that PERSONALLY I dont think its fair to use SB wins as a benchmark for greatness.
<< <i>
Ive said it numerous times that PERSONALLY I dont think its fair to use SB wins as a benchmark for greatness. >>
But wouldnt you agree, the biggest reason why the Patriots went to 4 super bowls in the last 10 years is because of Brady?
<< <i>
<< <i>
Ive said it numerous times that PERSONALLY I dont think its fair to use SB wins as a benchmark for greatness. >>
But wouldnt you agree, the biggest reason why the Patriots went to 4 super bowls in the last 10 years is because of Brady? >>
There is no doubt about it.
However my reasoning is this and its ver simple.. Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Warren Moon was?
i guess starr must move up to the top of the list then. 2 sb wins and another 3 nfl championships before the super bowl existed. oh wait, there are some that dont belive that championships before the super bowl count for anything.
Collecting:
Brett Favre Master Set
Favre Ticket Stubs
Favre TD Reciever Autos
Football HOF Player/etc. Auto Set
Football HOF Rc's
Bart Starr has five rings. Puts him ahead of Montana, right?
Does not Otto Graham have more than 5 rings.
I recall he is somewhere up there in Bill Russell, Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach land (10, 10 and 9 rings, thus needing two hand, 8 fingers and one or two thumbs to display all of the bling).
Save on ebay with Big Crumbs
Steve
It is not right to hold individual players to the shortcomings of their team. When a quarterback can throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns in a game, and still lose that game because their team's defense sucks, it is not the quarterback's fault.
Steve
<< <i>Taking this a step further, and crossing sports, I guess Ernie Banks can't be considered as an All Time Great, since he never even sniffed a World Series.
It is not right to hold individual players to the shortcomings of their team. When a quarterback can throw for 400 yards and 5 touchdowns in a game, and still lose that game because their team's defense sucks, it is not the quarterback's fault.
Steve >>
I think if a great and talented QB like marino, who had a long career felt his team and organization wasnt good enough to win a championship, he wouldve asked to be traded. But that wasnt the case. I can think of two other QB's who won super bowls, chose the team they wanted to play on when they got drafted. Elway chose Denver over Baltimore and ELI Manning chose the giants over the chargers.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>
Ive said it numerous times that PERSONALLY I dont think its fair to use SB wins as a benchmark for greatness. >>
But wouldnt you agree, the biggest reason why the Patriots went to 4 super bowls in the last 10 years is because of Brady? >>
There is no doubt about it.
However my reasoning is this and its ver simple.. Is Trent Dilfer a better QB than Warren Moon was? >>
No, and neither was Troy Aikman.
<< <i>Taking this a step further, and crossing sports, I guess Ernie Banks can't be considered as an All Time Great, since he never even sniffed a World Series. >>
That's correct, Ernie Banks was a very poor quarterback
How about instead of something new, we stick to the old formula of using the totality of everything the player has done to help the team? Winning 16 games was a nice accomplishment for the Colts, just not nearly as nice as the 16 wins for the Saints. It shouldn't be this hard to understand. . .
That's a little unfair. The 2008 Pats were 1 year removed from the greatest offensive season in NFL history. You could have plugged almost any QB into that offense, and they would have put up big numbers. Brady's numbers would have dwarfed Cassel's (or anyone's else) with that 2008 team. He would have gone over 40 TDs and 4,500 yds easily, especially against a schedule that included the NFC West.
Brady has had exactly 1 season with what I would consider elite skill position guys (2007). Even though the names are the same, I don't count this year because Moss was clearly hurt more than he let on, and Welker missed 3 games. And they had a huge hole at the #3 WR spot all year. Guys like Manning and Montana were on teams that were STACKED at the skill positions for almost their entire career. Since Brady has been playing, the Patriots have used 3 first round picks on skill position guys, none of which were WRs, all of which were busts (D. Graham, B. Watson, L. Maroney). By comparison, Manning has played with NINE first round skill position guys, almost all of which were/are dominant at their positions (M. Faulk, M. Harrison, E. James, R. Wayne, D. Clark, J. Addai, A. Gonzalez, D. Brown).
It is downright scary to think what Brady's and Moss' numbers would be had they played their entire career together (like Manning/Harrison, and Montana/Rice). For the most part, the Patriots WR corps has been a rotating crew of mediocre to better-than-average WRs that Brady has had to learn with and adjust to, each and every year. Manning and Montana played with the same Pro Bowl guys for 4-5 years in a row, developing and maintaining the chemistry and timing that is needed to be an elite offensive team.
In another thread I posted about the 7 or 8 factors I think should be weighed in determining QB greatness. For me, a big factor is the surrounding cast. Super Bowl rings shouldn't be the be-all and end-all for QB discussions, but it's certainly one of the top 2 or 3 factors.
<< <i>That's a little unfair. The 2008 Pats were 1 year removed from the greatest offensive season in NFL history. You could have plugged almost any QB into that offense, and they would have put up big numbers. >>
Could the same have been said for any other year? Not trying to minimize what Brady did. However I think the Cassel factor will play a role in the way Brady is viewed. We always ask rhetorically "How would that team look with another QB running the offense?" and in this case we got to see it. Either way I agree with you that using rings as a standard is ridiculous.
Ripken in the Minors * Ripken in the Minors Facebook Page
<< <i>Ben does have two rings. As far as Brady goes I'm not on board with granting him the crown just because of the SB wins. Tom is a great and HOF QB. However, take a look at the numbers Matt Cassel put up as Tom's replacement. In one year as starter Cassel posted more yards than 3 of Tom's seasons, a higher QB rating than 4 of Tom's seasons and fewer INT's than ALL of Tom's season. Smaller sample size with only 15 starts but it certainly puts things in perspective. >>
What no one remembers about that Cassel season is that they played the easiest schedule in the league that far. There is a reason why they went 11-5 but didn't make the playoffs. Their division was good but everyone else stunk!
My Podcast - Now FEATURED on iTunes
Did sombody actually say that Moon was better than Aikman!