"My son and I have been arguing" Topic

I happen to think that the only quarterback statistic that matters is Super Bowl rings. Anything else is nothing but style points.
Getting the job done is thr key.

My poor son thinks I am delusional, because that would rank Terry Bradshaw as one of the Greats. Well, yes. That's the point. Chad Pennington has the highest pass completion career average in history. Kurt Warner is second. So what?

BTW, this is very much in line with my "Grant was a better general than Lee" argument.

There's a simple way of analysing if a method for ranking quarterbacks works – see if Dan Marino comes out number 1, and ditch it if he doesn't….

Hmmm…

So Trent Dilfer was a better QB than Marino, is what you're saying?

QB's are part of a team. Some great QB spent their career in bad teams while ordinary QB's win games mostly through their teams's great defenses. I do not agree it is the *only* stats that matters, no.

When Dan Marino has a Super Bowl ring, come back and argue. Until then…

BTW, any QB named "Trent" is automatically out of the discussion.

Ok, how about Brad Johnson, then?

Or are the Brads also automatically out of the discussion?

One ring is a statistical blip. You need 2 to rise above background noise.
I had no idea that a "Brad" had one.

Well, let's compare QBs that are both Super Bowl MVP (meaning the QB "won" the game, which is John's argument) and NFL Hall of Famer's (the argument the rest of us use):

Bart Starr
Joe Namath
Len Dawson
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Steve Young
John Elway

Who else is missing from that list? I'm not in the mood to look for pre-Super Bowl championship winners like Unitas and Baugh.

Edit: still changing the rules? Now it is two rings?

Joy Namath only belongs on the list because of III. That, and being a blowhard. If you wish to drag in his career stats, see his total touchdowns vs interceptions.

I am not changing the rules. I am REFINING them.
Two rings is obviously better than one. Four is better than two.

Winning games and winning championships matter. QB rating does not. Heck, no one can even EXPLAIN what a "QB rating" is, let alone justify its use. What's a "perfect" rating, 156.7?

What quarterback lead the greatest 4th quarter comeback in NFL history? <DING!> Yeah, I forget his name too. Frank something… Buffalo Bills, I think.

Please do not mention Jim Kelly….

I would like to make a case for Jim Kelly…ooh, sorry.

I have had the same argument with a couple of mates in the past and I agree with the OFM on this one. Winning a big gold ring is the definition of success. Bradshaw might not have been pretty to watch but he did the job – or more to the point he complimented the steel curtain perhaps.

- Winning a big gold ring is the definition of success -

Well then you disagree with John. He believes one is not enough!

It's the influence of the fantasy leagues. Stats count more than results to some of the yahoos.

I always thought Barry Sanders was overrated ! I don't think the teams he played on ever wom a playoff game. I'm sure if he played on those Super Bowl Champion San Fran and Dallas teams he would have brought them down.

So the great quarterbacks are in order:

Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
Troy Aikman
Tom Brady
Bart Starr
Bob Griese
Roger Staubach
Jim Plunkett
John Elway
Ben Roethlisberger

All the other 5,000+ are posers.

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die…

And both Manning sucks!

Only *one* ring each, pfff!

If winning championships is the only thing that counts, then Terry has to get in line, and not at the front.

Otto Graham has nearly twice as many as Terry, and Bart Starr has two more. And they won them as QBs in the days of bump and run, head slaps, and before holding was legalized.

Now, you will surely want to exclude Otto Graham, as he won four of those while playing in the AAFC, before coming to the NFL and kicking everybodys' butts. And I'm okay with that, because…

…Starr won his rings with Boyd Dowler and Carroll Dale as his primary receivers. There is a reason that even Dowler's and Dale's Moms don't remember who Bart was throwing to in those days. Thus, Bart Starr is clearly the greatest QB of all time. Did the most, amongst the toughest, with the leastest.

Waddayaknow, King made a list this week :

link

I'll make the case for Jim Kelley. He is the only QB to make it to the Super Bowl 4 times….

…in a row…

…and lose…

…all 4.

OK. Bad I dea. Forget I said that.

BTW, Terry Bradshaw is the greatest QB ever.

Football is a team sport and subject to a single elimination playoff.
Doug Williams was thoroughly pedestrian QB and happened to have one of the best Super Bowl quarters ever. That does not make him better than Marino. A 37mm gun might be able to take out a Panther on the right day with the right conditions and that would be all that mattered to the now defunct Panther's crew, but given a choice I would go with the Panther any day.
Any player can play his heart out for a weak team, and be a great player (Dick Butkis – Bears were good but not great).
You can cherry pick the argument either way, but if you are talking about great PLAYERS then their greatness should not be contingent on success of the entire team. Last year's super bowl was between two very pedestrian teams that got hot when it counted – does not make Warner and Roethlisberger teh best two QBs from last year.

Joe Namath? Didn't he wear pantyhose or something? And I believe the Buffalo Bills were, in fact, world champions:

link

I blame it all on baseball. What the heck does ERA have to do with winning at anyway.
VR
James Mattes

Football's biggest sin; you can't compare players, except for kickers, based on individual or team statistics.

Frank something… Buffalo Bills

Reich – other than Boomer Esiason, the only Maryland quarterback to do anything of note in the Pros.

"Well then you disagree with John. He believes one is not enough!"

Nope, he never said that. He just said that one is good, but more is BETTER.

And I agree!

Trent Dilfer is the cog in that arguement's wheel, but I still agree with the premise.

Otto Graham, 10 seasons, 7 championships.

It's too bad the NFL ignores things they consider "prehistoric".
If Otto Graham has 7, then he becomes like unto Abou Ben Adhem.

OK. If the number of championships is not the determining criterion, then pray tell what else would you consider as relevant?

Oddly enough, there are other people on the football team that have an influence upon victory, or lack thereof.

It would be theoretically possible for a phenomenally good QB to never win a Superbowl, because of the poor performance of everyone else.
-Kle.

Or, Klebert, because they were selfish QBs who cared more about passing records than wins, who would glady force a pasws for an INT than run for a first down or take a sack, and couldn't care less about a Super Bowl win (Dan Marino comes to mind)

;)

Sure, that's possible too. I'm just saying that it is technically feasible for a situation to occur in which SB rings is not the best measure of skill.

What if there were a QB who was a truly phenomenal athlete, and he gets killed in a car wreck in his first, undefeated season before the Super Bowl? This guy is suddenly a hack?
-Kle.

Good point, Klebert.

What about The Snake?

Rich