I'm telling you, Sammy Baugh

winning a super bowl.

fixed.

and to be honest, no one except gb and nfc north fans give a shit about gb.

Generally if you remove years where guys make the Superbowl they have bad playoff records.

Montana was 4-7 in those situations.

He's 9-8 in the playoffs. Playoffs are always against top level competition. I'd say any QB with a record above .500 in the playoffs has performed pretty well. I don't think you can just selectively remove the 'good' years to make a case that he's a choker or doesn't perform in those situations.

Sure, but he also went to 4, and won them without ever throwing a single INT.

That note about Peyton's playoff record was secondary to everything else I mentioned.

Peyton had 1 TD and 1 INT in his previous SB. I wouldn't say they won (or lost) b/c of him in that game.

Still peeved they let this cat go, could've used him as a FB, instead of Madison Hedgecock.

Montana was 16-7.

I think no matter how you measure the two, Montana comes out on top.....right now.

Clearly Manning has better regular season accolades, but its the Superbowls that count the most, right?

It was an extremely biased pick.

The coaches seemed pretty sure when Hostetler won the starting job the next season.

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.

If Peyton can get a couple more SB's under his belt then he would be Dan Marino + Joe Montana.

Which is exactly why I won't call him the best RIGHT NOW.

Manning plays in a dome. He doesn't have to deal with the elements. Joe Montana played in San Francisco. Also, Joe Montana beat great defenses. I don't know if Manning has.

I kno it's not the same, but it's not like Peyton plays every game of his life in a dome. Yes he plays half the season there, but I'd be interested to see his career splits, dome v. outdoors.

Trent Dilfer's name always has to come up when you judge quarterbacks on rings.

Just because Dilfer has a ring and Marino doesn't, does that make Dilfer the better quarterback?

I'm siding with Whiskey on this one.

I'm surprised Brady has been left off most of everyone's list though.

With the offense Tommy Boy had, I don't think he could've missed a SB ring if he purposely tried to flop. That's why I left him off.

Joe also played with great defenses most of the time and that could make up for any problems his offense might have had. Since Joe played in an era without a salary cap and had an owner that was willing to spend he was surrounded by much more talent in a league with less competition. He played in what during his time was a completely innovative offense which also helped.

That said, I wouldn't argue with Montana being better than Manning at this stage.

No, but that's only four games, compared to the 150+ that both have or will have played in their careers. What I'm saying is that Super Bowl success is GROSSLY overvalued in the 'quarterback greatness' evaluating scheme.