As long as YOUR measure of success is championships there is no such thing TO YOU. It may be legitimate to measure teams by the number of championships but not individulas. Championships are a TEAM accomplishment and you are applying them to individuals. Yes the QB is considered the leader of the team but if his followers suck he can't do shit.
If you took any one of those QBs you listed and put them on most of the 70's or 80's Packers teams and they don't get their rings which means they are not great QBs I guess.
I know you are not saying guys like Dilfer are better than Marino because they have a ring and that you are using it as more of a tie breaker between two otherwise fairly evenly matched individuls but you have to make sure that those individuals are fairly evenly matched before you apply the ring criteria and not let the number of rings influence your judgement in the first place.
Originally Posted by: sschind
Okay. Let's look at this another way. Manning has and Favre has stats that no other quarterback comes close to. In other words, they are not "evenly matched" in terms of their individual performance with Starr, Graham, and others.
On the other hand, is it true to say either one of them went through their careers with "followers who can't do shit"? Okay, they may not have had as many Hall of Famers as the Lombardi Packers did. I'll concede that. But on the other hand, how many Super Bowls have been won in the Favre/Manning era with that number of Hall of Famers on the team. How many Hall of Famers did Dilfer or Doug Williams or whoever play with?
The year Favre won his SB, I believe the Packers had the #1 defense in the league or close thereto. How many years did he have a top-10 defense? (I don't know the answer here, but I don't think it is "one.")
How many playoff games has Manning been on the *losing* side? How many playoff games was Marino on the *losing* side?
And as for Marino, who was *his* coach? I seem to remember the guy who he played most of his career for ended up in Canton, too.
It may seem so, but "championships" are not my main criterion for quarterback greatness. The only quarterback on my "top 10 list" for which they were the determinant actually is Montana. I actually wanted to leave Montana off my list, since I've never thought as highly of him. But the sheer number of times he won meant I had to include him.
But it isn't championships that decides for me. It is "if I were picking a team to field, who would I put at the position." And for quarterback, that means "leadership". And to me, Starr defines that term.
Might Manning, Favre, et al have won ith the Lombardi Packers? Might Marino? I don't know. Maybe.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the criteria and priority among them.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)