Quote:
Originally Posted by GTripp0012
It's odd because it's the same coaches and writers who perpetuate the "rings" myth are the ones turning around to tell you that Marino was the best they've every played against/covered.
Which is just a fine observation to make, but why say something meaningless that you're going to contradict at the first alternative example? I just have never understood it.
|
The role of "Winning It All" in defining a QB is really hard. Unlike RB, QB's have a much more direct role in how well a team performs. The only team that I can think of that won a championshiop with an average or below average QB is the Ravens and Dilfer and that was b/c their D that year was an all time/once in a lifetime kinda scary good. Teams have won with career average QB's who had good years (Brad Johnson, Gannon, McMahon), but usually, a QB who is playing well
that particular year - (for whatever reason) - is important.
A QB who
consistently takes average to good teams to the top and comes through in the biggest game of the year should be recognized for having certain intangibles (like I believe Brady does). But, as others have said, the mere fact that a QB doesn't have a ring should not be some knock against them - unless they show a consistent inability to get over the hump (One name that hasn't come up in this discussion is Jim Kelly - how would he be viewed today if the Bills had won those four super bowls? How about if they won only one?)