Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Falcon
Mediocre postseason stats. Only 1 ring.
The other 3 have 10 rings between them plus greater legacies. It's pretty simple. They carried their teams when it counted most.
Montana never threw an interception in any of the 4 Superbowls he won.
Brady won played in 6 Superbowls, won 4 and may well be on his way to his 5th.
Elway, hell, he may be thr best of the bunch. If pressed Inmay choose him out of the 4 to be my QB.
Those guys are proven winnrrd. Manning, not so much. Honestly not sure I would even rank Manning in the top 5.
|
Just curious here, not trying to start an argument. The rings debate obviously plays a role to an extent, but I'm curious if that's the be-all/end-all of the debate or if it's just a part of the overall package.
Would you say Eli is better than Peyton? After all, 2 rings vs. one and you can argue Eli played a bigger role in those 2 wins then Peyton did in his.
Where does Dan Marino stand in your rankings? Is he all the way at the bottom since he never won a SB?
I get that SB wins definitely plays a part, but I don't believe that's the final argument. Is Roethlisberger better than Peyton? Not in my book. Football is one of the ultimate team sports. It's not like basketball where you can group 3 elite players on a team and compete for a championship 4 years in a row.
I honestly feel like Peyton gets a bad rap for the SB's, when the GM's strategy was "give Peyton a solid team and let him take care of the rest." For me the difference lies in the fact that when Brady went down for the year, the Pats survived and went 11-5 because that team was solid from the ground up. But when Peyton went down for the year they had one of the worst tank jobs I've ever seen. That's the difference.