I must say, WhiskeySam, that I am impressed with your in-depth analysis and I can do nothing to impeach your arguments or conclusions. I would argue, however, that when and how a quarterback throws interceptions has more of an effect than the raw number of interceptions alone. For example, both Marino and Favre, who enjoyed extraordinary regular season success, have a history of monumental breakdowns in the playoffs, and consequently, neither has attained any remarkable level of postseason success (Marino had no Superbowl victories and Favre had one). I would be curious to see your response to this article , entitled "The Lord of Postseason Stats," which addresses the issue of interceptions and their impact on playoff success.
"Nonstopdrivel" wrote:
I think it's being biased to say Marino and Favre did not attain postseason success. That statement is based upon their teams' performance which is not always indicative of their performance. Favre's TD% in the playoffs was 5.4, and his INT% was 3.8%. Both numbers are higher than his regular season career averages. The quality of defenses faced increases in the postseason. That his INT% is up is not surprising, but that his TD% also increased indicates he wasn't just a regular season wonder. Marino's numbers do, in fact get worse in both TD% and INT%. If you remember those Dolphins teams, though, this shouldn't surprise you. They were one-dimensional teams that couldn't run the football. No one objectively thought those were championsip caliber teams. Again, tougher defenses in the postseason aren't going to allow a one-dimensional offense dominate them.
For every Philly or Giants game that Favre gets blamed for losing, there's a Lions Wild Card game or Super Bowl performance he gets credited for winning. Too often the win-loss record is hung on a QB, especially in the playoffs, regardless of how the QB played. Winning championships is an indication of a balanced team. Although QB play is an important factor, it's not the only factor in a team's postseason success. Favre had one of his best games in the Denver Super Bowl, but the Packers lost because the defense couldn't stop Terrell Davis. Conversely, Namath is remembered as being a winner...even though he only made the postseason twice. What were his postseason stats? 3 TDs, 4 INTs exactly like his career numbers of 173 TDs and 220 INTs. He had one good game, beating the Raiders with 3 TDs and 1 INT to get to Super Bowl III. The following year, his Jets lost in the first round with him throwing 3 INTs and 0 TDs. Namath was a crappy QB with a loud mouth whose largest claim to fame was not throwing a TD or INT in the Super Bowl he played in. The Jets' defense gets no credit for forcing 4 turnovers or Matt Snell rushing for 121 yards and the game's only TD.
The article is slanted because it doesn't account for why Marino was throwing interceptions. His team was one-dimenstional, and as such was playing from behind a lot. When you have a team playing from behind, they take chances because let's face it, whether you lose by 1 point or 50 points you're done if you lose in the playoffs. Citing Phil Simms didn't help their argument. The Giants won the second Super Bowl because Norwood missed the FG that started Buffalo's curse. Aside from that, Simms didn't even play in that game. Jeff Hostetler was the starter. That article looked at one number, built an entire argument around, and failed to look at anything else. They'd have a stronger argument if they had looked into whether the INTs were the turning points in the game or whether they came as the team was playing from behind getting desperate.
If we want to roll rings on the table, Bart Starr is the best QB ever, and I don't see anyone making that argument. Starr was great, don't get me wrong. I see a lot of parallels between him and Brady. Low draft pick, not highly regarded early on. Great defenses, great coaches, and perfect fits for what they were asked to do. Both Hall of Fame QBs. But I think as far as pure passers go, they're trumped by Manning, Unitas, etc. The latter were better pure passers whose teams were not as loaded. That's why I don't think it's accurate to base team success in a team game on one player. There were 52 other men on the Dolphins, but only Marino is the one hung with the "never won a title" label, and that's unfair.