DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

***Playergirl*** · 01-28-2010, 06:44 PM

See, I think there's a difference between "best quarterback" and "best record".

Clearly, most people use "Number of Super Bowl Rings" as the very first criteria to determine who's who in the pecking order of great QB's.

It's funny, because most other sports don't measure their 'best evers' that way.

I realize that QB's have more control over the outcome of a game than say, your star cleanup hitter, your 30 ppg shooting guard, or whatever, but the fact remains, it's a team sport, and judging a guy's worth based on his teams accomplishments is a fallacy to begin with. Dan Marino can't make the defense better. He can't make the field goals. He doesn't block for the running backs, yet because he has zero rings, he often gets left out of the 'best ever' discussions.

Until Favre left him in the dust, Marino was easily the most prolific passer in the game's history, CLEARLY a better passer than Elway, yet Elway is often mentioned moreso among the greats because he had the good fortune of having Terrell Davis on the Broncos during his last 2 years.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

So Joe's sparkling SB TD/INT ratio means NOTHING to you?

I wouldn't say that SBs are the end all be all. Otherwise, more people would think a crappy QB like Terry Bradshaw earned more accolades.

I do think with all things being equal, Superbowls mean a LOT.

I don't think they mean everything, but Montana has a lot of playoff records to his pedigree as well.

This man performed extremely well in the clutch.

That means more to me than Marino's regular season records, or Favre's for that matter.

I get that not every QB had the supporting cast that Montana had, but you can't deny what he did when it mattered most.

01-28-2010, 06:44 PM	#52
*Playergirl* Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 440 Senior Member	See, I think there's a difference between "best quarterback" and "best record". Clearly, most people use "Number of Super Bowl Rings" as the very first criteria to determine who's who in the pecking order of great QB's. It's funny, because most other sports don't measure their 'best evers' that way. I realize that QB's have more control over the outcome of a game than say, your star cleanup hitter, your 30 ppg shooting guard, or whatever, but the fact remains, it's a team sport, and judging a guy's worth based on his teams accomplishments is a fallacy to begin with. Dan Marino can't make the defense better. He can't make the field goals. He doesn't block for the running backs, yet because he has zero rings, he often gets left out of the 'best ever' discussions. Until Favre left him in the dust, Marino was easily the most prolific passer in the game's history, CLEARLY a better passer than Elway, yet Elway is often mentioned moreso among the greats because he had the good fortune of having Terrell Davis on the Broncos during his last 2 years. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So Joe's sparkling SB TD/INT ratio means NOTHING to you? I wouldn't say that SBs are the end all be all. Otherwise, more people would think a crappy QB like Terry Bradshaw earned more accolades. I do think with all things being equal, Superbowls mean a LOT. I don't think they mean everything, but Montana has a lot of playoff records to his pedigree as well. This man performed extremely well in the clutch. That means more to me than Marino's regular season records, or Favre's for that matter. I get that not every QB had the supporting cast that Montana had, but you can't deny what he did when it mattered most.
	Quote