When it's all been said and done.

[MTK]

I really think Super Bowls are so overrated when it comes to evaluating QBs. We never hold other positions to that same standard. There are so many factors that go into winning Super Bowls, and QBs get far too much credit for winning them.

Marino was definitely one of the top QBs ever, and as far as pure passers go he might be tops.

[Ruhskins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I really think Super Bowls are so overrated when it comes to evaluating QBs. We never hold other positions to that same standard. There are so many factors that go into winning Super Bowls, and QBs get far too much credit for winning them.

Marino was definitely one of the top QBs ever, and as far as pure passers go he might be tops.

Agreed. Barry Sanders is considered one of the top RBs in league history and no one gets on his case about his team never winning a SB, or even getting there at all.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I really think Super Bowls are so overrated when it comes to evaluating QBs. We never hold other positions to that same standard. There are so many factors that go into winning Super Bowls, and QBs get far too much credit for winning them.

Marino was definitely one of the top QBs ever, and as far as pure passers go he might be tops.

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.

[JoeRedskin]

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?)