Do you think SBs count too much when measuring personal achievements?

I think it really does. SBs are team accomplishments and I have no idea why they count so much for individual measurements. Think of Favre. He has one SB in his career. In that SB, he played mediocre, but won b/c of Desmond Howard's returns and the defense having 4 turnovers. But let's say defense had 2 instead of 4 and the Packs lose. Suddenly Favre has the same "he's great, but..." mentioned about him like Marino. It's the ultimate goal, but if a certain QB fails to achieve it, that doesn't mean he's automatically worse for it. If he had a great team surrounding him his whole career and fails to do it, then yes it goes against him. Otherwise, no. My point is, this SB thing is judged instantly. He doesn't have a SB? That's a negative, no questions asked. People should judge individual scenarios before saying whether it's a negative or not.

When the Colts won the SB, I was happy as a Colts fan. I was only happy for Manning b/c people would finally get off his back about that thing. That SB in my mind doesn't make him any greater QB than before. That performance in the AFC championship does.

I think it kind of stands more for how clutch the players are who have accomplished their main goal and didn't fall apart when it mattered.

If you get to the SB 15 times in your career and never won any of them then it really shows how much presure effects your skills. I'd prefer the QB who only made it there 3 times but won all 3 of them.

Yup. I mean, the difference between making it in or out of the Hall of Fame can sometimes depend on whether or not the player won a championship. Look at Chris Webber... I mean... If he won championships, he would be looked at as a so much better player. Look at guys like Junior Seau, Barry Sanders, Allen Iverson, etc. They have all never won a championship, yet some people just go ahead and say they're not as good as they really are for the simple fact that they have no gold to go with the guns. They all play with a ton of heart, are up in the all time greats, and are simple team leaders, regardless of the fact that they haven't had the big stuff yet.

Is it their fault that they don't end up with big names around them at the end of the day? They don't make those decisions. The coaches do. Do you honestly think they could have won a championship single handedly? Like Magic Johnson said, (I don't remember the exact quote), you can't win it all without good support. Is all luck gonna be on their side? Some may just be unlucky. Like Chris Webber. Back in Michigan, with the Fab Five, they were expected to be the "second coming" or something. Then, all luck just ran out because of a time out. People still heavily criticize C-Webb for that very mistake, thinking "Oh, he's supposed to be perfect. He sucks. Worst player ever".

When you're talking individual accomplishments, don't factor in championships too much at all. Because by that logic, a backup punter could end up one of the greatest players of all time or something by just sitting there riding the pines and then ending up with 5 rings on his finger. Probably better than a starting quarterback who's won 5 MVP's, which is obviously just wrong.

I think it kind of stands more for how clutch the players are who have accomplished their main goal and didn't fall apart when it mattered.

If you get to the SB 15 times in your career and never won any of them then it really shows how much presure effects your skills. I'd prefer the QB who only made it there 3 times but won all 3 of them.

Just_Osmo

But he can fall apart and still win it. Look at Ben Roethlisberger. He had a 33 QB rating in the SB, won it and if he ever goes on to have a great career, there will not be a but next to his great player comments. Why not? Because he won a SB. That's all that counts right now. Not how he won it. That's what should count.

Its how its won. If your running backs rushes for A buck .50 and 3 tds i think he should get alot of the credit. in Bradys case (which i know your referring to) he does deserve alot of credit for the first two beacause they were basically won by him in the clutch. So it is really how they are wonpatsfan83428

But what if you step up in the biggest stage and lose? Let's say in both those Brady SBs, the defense has a letdown and the Pats lose. Noone will look at his great performance, all they'll see is a great QB with no SB. That's not fair.

Tired of hearing about Brady's 3 SB rings? :P

Still, a lack of a championship, or a lack of multiple championships should not discredit a player's greatness. KJust look at Dan Marino. We can all agree he's one of the best of all time. He went to on SB, and lost it. Does that instantly make him a bad player? Nope. Should it give him the "yeah... but...." status? Nope.

If you listen to the players and coaches you never hear "he's never won a super bowl" or "he only won one or two". They know as well as ANYONE who really watches the game that getting to the Super Bowl for an individual player is almost entirely out of their control.

Favre's stats wern't medicore, they wern't omg stunning...but throwing 54% for 248yds 2TD's, 0 INT's is a decent day at the office.

In a way yes, but a championship is what 'Caps' it for a legend of the game.

It does. I was arguing about Elway vs. Favre and I brought up the 3 consecutive MVP awards he had and then he goes "yeah, but has he gone to five Super Bowls?"

That automatically makes him the better QB...lol. Not.

I think in a way you can judge by someone winning a championship because of their leadership. Granted not all greats are put ongood teams. Dan Marino is one of the greatest natural/mechanical passers in NFL history, and until Favre came along....held just about every passer record there was, but he didn't win a championship. He never really had a great team though.

It really doesn't help Marinos cause however, because he played when the 49er's were dominating the mid-late 80's, and then when Dallas dominated the early 90's.

The arguement too is that greats make the players around them better, Favre does that...he consistantly did that with players in the 90's.

My point is, I don't think it should completely judge a player....it's a team sport afterall, but it def. puts that "Exclamation Point" on the end of someone's career.

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

So let's say QB X throws 10 TDs in the SB and loses, and QB Y throws 0 TDs and 5 INTs and wins, you'd take QB Y? If yes, then you'd pick the team of QB Y. We're talking about the individual player.

I think it really does. SBs are team accomplishments and I have no idea why they count so much for individual measurements. Think of Favre. He has one SB in his career. In that SB, he played mediocre, but won b/c of Desmond Howard's returns and the defense having 4 turnovers. But let's say defense had 2 instead of 4 and the Packs lose. Suddenly Favre has the same "he's great, but..." mentioned about him like Marino. It's the ultimate goal, but if a certain QB fails to achieve it, that doesn't mean he's automatically worse for it. If he had a great team surrounding him his whole career and fails to do it, then yes it goes against him. Otherwise, no. My point is, this SB thing is judged instantly. He doesn't have a SB? That's a negative, no questions asked. People should judge individual scenarios before saying whether it's a negative or not.

When the Colts won the SB, I was happy as a Colts fan. I was only happy for Manning b/c people would finally get off his back about that thing. That SB in my mind doesn't make him any greater QB than before. That performance in the AFC championship does.

manningbowl135

Nothing matter more than SB victories.

It's all about being clutch. If you do good during the regular season, but fold during the playoffs (or don't even get there) it was all for nothing.

Being clutch and able to succeed when it matters most is by far the most important thing.

During the playoffs and SB's great quarterback have to be able to reflect their greatness under that level of pressure and high quality play.

So let's say QB X throws 10 TDs in the SB and loses, and QB Y throws 0 TDs and 5 INTs and wins, you'd take QB Y? If yes, then you'd pick the team of QB Y. We're talking about the individual player.manningbowl135

Hahaha. Come on man, be reasonable.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

manningbowl135

So let's say QB X throws 10 TDs in the SB and loses, and QB Y throws 0 TDs and 5 INTs and wins, you'd take QB Y? If yes, then you'd pick the team of QB Y. We're talking about the individual player.

Well Kelly, Marino, Manning and Elway for a while didn't have bad teams either. They were just chokers. Brady hasn't had an all-star team yet has 3 SB rings.

Well Kelly, Marino, Manning and Elway for a while didn't have bad teams either. They were just chokers. Brady hasn't had an all-star team yet has 3 SB rings.AHUGECAT

"Yet" not including this year, because he does now.

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]So let's say QB X throws 10 TDs in the SB and loses, and QB Y throws 0 TDs and 5 INTs and wins, you'd take QB Y? If yes, then you'd pick the team of QB Y. We're talking about the individual player.KingOfKonging

Hahaha. Come on man, be reasonable.

He makes it seem as if SBs are the only thing that matter WHEN judging a player. It's not.

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]

I think it really does. SBs are team accomplishments and I have no idea why they count so much for individual measurements. Think of Favre. He has one SB in his career. In that SB, he played mediocre, but won b/c of Desmond Howard's returns and the defense having 4 turnovers. But let's say defense had 2 instead of 4 and the Packs lose. Suddenly Favre has the same "he's great, but..." mentioned about him like Marino. It's the ultimate goal, but if a certain QB fails to achieve it, that doesn't mean he's automatically worse for it. If he had a great team surrounding him his whole career and fails to do it, then yes it goes against him. Otherwise, no. My point is, this SB thing is judged instantly. He doesn't have a SB? That's a negative, no questions asked. People should judge individual scenarios before saying whether it's a negative or not.

When the Colts won the SB, I was happy as a Colts fan. I was only happy for Manning b/c people would finally get off his back about that thing. That SB in my mind doesn't make him any greater QB than before. That performance in the AFC championship does.

KingOfKonging

Nothing matter more than SB victories.

It's all about being clutch. If you do good during the regular season, but fold during the playoffs (or don't even get there) it was all for nothing.

Being clutch and able to succeed when it matters most is by far the most important thing.

During the playoffs and SB's great quarterback have to be able to reflect their greatness under that level of pressure and high quality play.

You can be clutch and still have your defense lose the game for you. Doesn't make your clutchness any worse. That's my point. It's not the win that matters. It's how you win it that defines the PLAYER. The team is defined simply by the win. The player is judged by his performance in the win, not the win itself.

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

without a doubt one of the dumbest things i've ever read. Football isn't like every other sport. It is the most TEAM oriented sport of them all. You mean to tell me if Dan Marino was in a super bowl and went 30-30 for 500 yards and 6 touchdowns and no int's but his defense gives up 7 touchdowns then that makes HIM a loser. Your logic is just rediculous, especially with your jim kelly argument. You make it sound that if jim kelly was the qb of the ravens then they wouldn't have won. Why did the ravens win the super bowl, not cause of their qb, it was cause their defense. And last time i checked ALL OF THOSE QUARTERBACKS YOU NAMED DON'T PLAY DEFENSE. If you want to make that case for a sport like basketball or hockey i'll ride with you til the end, but not football. I distinctively remember Jordan against Utah in 98 making a layup, then going on defense and stealing the ball from malone, then making the last shot. You can impact both parts of the game in that sport, you can't do it in football. According to your logic if terrel davis was never born, john elway would not be a great quarterback. It is absurd that you actually believe what you said

without a doubt one of the dumbest things i've ever read. Football isn't like every other sport. It is the most TEAM oriented sport of them all. You mean to tell me if Dan Marino was in a super bowl and went 30-30 for 500 yards and 6 touchdowns and no int's but his defense gives up 7 touchdowns then that makes HIM a loser. Your logic is just rediculous, especially with your jim kelly argument. You make it sound that if jim kelly was the qb of the ravens then they wouldn't have won. Why did the ravens win the super bowl, not cause of their qb, it was cause their defense. And last time i checked ALL OF THOSE QUARTERBACKS YOU NAMED DON'T PLAY DEFENSE. If you want to make that case for a sport like basketball or hockey i'll ride with you til the end, but not football. I distinctively remember Jordan against Utah in 98 making a layup, then going on defense and stealing the ball from malone, then making the last shot. You can impact both parts of the game in that sport, you can't do it in football. According to your logic if terrel davis was never born, john elway would not be a great quarterback. It is absurd that you actually believe what you said sixringz1

The Dolphins were not a bunch of untalented losers- they even went to the Super Bowl in the 80s WITHOUT Dan Marino. Marino was just a choker which is why he can never be considered one of the greatest. 48 touchdown passes and 5000+ yards mean NOTHING without a ring because winning is more important. The Dolphins were NOT a bad team, and neither were the Bills. Four straight super bowls and you lose them all? A true legend QB like Brady, Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw, etc. etc. would die before they lose four straight Super Bowls

What I am trying to say is that a Championship ring is required to be "One of the greats." Elway may not have the stats that Marino has, but he has the rings and what matters most at the end? Stats don't mean anything. Rings do. So basically Elway should be rated above Marino because Elway has pretty good stats BUT ALSO HAS RINGS.

Fact is Marino is the greatest LOSER quarterback ever. He may hold (held) 503603206326 records but there's one thing he doesn't have.

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]without a doubt one of the dumbest things i've ever read. Football isn't like every other sport. It is the most TEAM oriented sport of them all. You mean to tell me if Dan Marino was in a super bowl and went 30-30 for 500 yards and 6 touchdowns and no int's but his defense gives up 7 touchdowns then that makes HIM a loser. Your logic is just rediculous, especially with your jim kelly argument. You make it sound that if jim kelly was the qb of the ravens then they wouldn't have won. Why did the ravens win the super bowl, not cause of their qb, it was cause their defense. And last time i checked ALL OF THOSE QUARTERBACKS YOU NAMED DON'T PLAY DEFENSE. If you want to make that case for a sport like basketball or hockey i'll ride with you til the end, but not football. I distinctively remember Jordan against Utah in 98 making a layup, then going on defense and stealing the ball from malone, then making the last shot. You can impact both parts of the game in that sport, you can't do it in football. According to your logic if terrel davis was never born, john elway would not be a great quarterback. It is absurd that you actually believe what you said AHUGECAT

The Dolphins were not a bunch of untalented losers- they even went to the Super Bowl in the 80s WITHOUT Dan Marino. Marino was just a choker which is why he can never be considered one of the greatest. 48 touchdown passes and 5000+ yards mean NOTHING without a ring because winning is more important. The Dolphins were NOT a bad team, and neither were the Bills. Four straight super bowls and you lose them all? A true legend QB like Brady, Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw, etc. etc. would die before they lose four straight Super Bowls

What I am trying to say is that a Championship ring is required to be "One of the greats." Elway may not have the stats that Marino has, but he has the rings and what matters most at the end? Stats don't mean anything. Rings do. So basically Elway should be rated above Marino because Elway has pretty good stats BUT ALSO HAS RINGS.

Fact is Marino is the greatest LOSER quarterback ever. He may hold (held) 503603206326 records but there's one thing he doesn't have.

you competely skipped over my entire point. football is not a sport that one player can determine a championship. Of course the ultimate goal is to win a championship, but if you do your job and the defense doesn't stop anybody then how can that determine the greatness of the qb. that's rediculous. And since we are using marino as the topic, he may not have ever played on bad teams, but he NEVER had a good team. Name me one, just one hall of famer he ever played with on either side of the ball (and thurman thomas's last year doesn't count cause he was never on the field). And when it comes to elway, keep in mind he went to 3 super bowls and got blasted in all of them prior to terrel davis. Because terrell davis was a great running back that automatically makes elway a great quarterback since according to your logic he obviously wasn't until terrel davis came along. Like i said, in a sport like basketball i will ride with you to the end cause you can play both ends of the court. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you're saying it and the points you are making make absolutely no sense

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]without a doubt one of the dumbest things i've ever read. Football isn't like every other sport. It is the most TEAM oriented sport of them all. You mean to tell me if Dan Marino was in a super bowl and went 30-30 for 500 yards and 6 touchdowns and no int's but his defense gives up 7 touchdowns then that makes HIM a loser. Your logic is just rediculous, especially with your jim kelly argument. You make it sound that if jim kelly was the qb of the ravens then they wouldn't have won. Why did the ravens win the super bowl, not cause of their qb, it was cause their defense. And last time i checked ALL OF THOSE QUARTERBACKS YOU NAMED DON'T PLAY DEFENSE. If you want to make that case for a sport like basketball or hockey i'll ride with you til the end, but not football. I distinctively remember Jordan against Utah in 98 making a layup, then going on defense and stealing the ball from malone, then making the last shot. You can impact both parts of the game in that sport, you can't do it in football. According to your logic if terrel davis was never born, john elway would not be a great quarterback. It is absurd that you actually believe what you said AHUGECAT

The Dolphins were not a bunch of untalented losers- they even went to the Super Bowl in the 80s WITHOUT Dan Marino. Marino was just a choker which is why he can never be considered one of the greatest. 48 touchdown passes and 5000+ yards mean NOTHING without a ring because winning is more important. The Dolphins were NOT a bad team, and neither were the Bills. Four straight super bowls and you lose them all? A true legend QB like Brady, Montana, Aikman, Bradshaw, etc. etc. would die before they lose four straight Super Bowls

What I am trying to say is that a Championship ring is required to be "One of the greats." Elway may not have the stats that Marino has, but he has the rings and what matters most at the end? Stats don't mean anything. Rings do. So basically Elway should be rated above Marino because Elway has pretty good stats BUT ALSO HAS RINGS.

Fact is Marino is the greatest LOSER quarterback ever. He may hold (held) 503603206326 records but there's one thing he doesn't have.

you competely skipped over my entire point. football is not a sport that one player can determine a championship. Of course the ultimate goal is to win a championship, but if you do your job and the defense doesn't stop anybody then how can that determine the greatness of the qb. that's rediculous. And since we are using marino as the topic, he may not have ever played on bad teams, but he NEVER had a good team. Name me one, just one hall of famer he ever played with on either side of the ball (and thurman thomas's last year doesn't count cause he was never on the field). And when it comes to elway, keep in mind he went to 3 super bowls and got blasted in all of them prior to terrel davis. Because terrell davis was a great running back that automatically makes elway a great quarterback since according to your logic he obviously wasn't until terrel davis came along. Like i said, in a sport like basketball i will ride with you to the end cause you can play both ends of the court. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you're saying it and the points you are making make absolutely no sensesixringz1

I know what your point is - but a QB LEADS his team. As I said, the MarinoFins and 2004 Colts were not bad teams - it's just players like Peyton and Dan choked.

And about your other points - you don't need HOFers to win a Super Bowl. Marino threw 48 td passes for 5000+ yards and they made it to the Super Bowl - this clearly was not a bad team. Marino was just garbage in the clutch. Elway WAS a loser QB until Davis, yes, but he DID get 2 rings (and one SB MVP) to help establish him as one of the greatest.

A ring decides who is better more than stats. Both are important, but I'd rather take a 25 TD one SB ring over a 60 TD zero SB ring person.

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

I'm sorry but... I ENTIRELY disagree with that kind of logic. It's just not right at all.

So you look at guys like Kobe and AI. They couldn't win any rings. Why? If you actually have a clue about why, I'll give you some of your credibility back ;)

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]you competely skipped over my entire point. football is not a sport that one player can determine a championship. Of course the ultimate goal is to win a championship, but if you do your job and the defense doesn't stop anybody then how can that determine the greatness of the qb. that's rediculous. And since we are using marino as the topic, he may not have ever played on bad teams, but he NEVER had a good team. Name me one, just one hall of famer he ever played with on either side of the ball (and thurman thomas's last year doesn't count cause he was never on the field). And when it comes to elway, keep in mind he went to 3 super bowls and got blasted in all of them prior to terrel davis. Because terrell davis was a great running back that automatically makes elway a great quarterback since according to your logic he obviously wasn't until terrel davis came along. Like i said, in a sport like basketball i will ride with you to the end cause you can play both ends of the court. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you're saying it and the points you are making make absolutely no senseAHUGECAT

I know what your point is - but a QB LEADS his team. As I said, the MarinoFins and 2004 Colts were not bad teams - it's just players like Peyton and Dan choked.

And about your other points - you don't need HOFers to win a Super Bowl. Marino threw 48 td passes for 5000+ yards and they made it to the Super Bowl - this clearly was not a bad team. Marino was just garbage in the clutch. Elway WAS a loser QB until Davis, yes, but he DID get 2 rings (and one SB MVP) to help establish him as one of the greatest.

A ring decides who is better more than stats. Both are important, but I'd rather take a 25 TD one SB ring over a 60 TD zero SB ring person.

I see. How bout the next time you watch guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Yep. Let's watch them SOMEHOW lead the defense warming the benches while the DEFENSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONE PLAYING! The QB does not call DEFENSIVE plays. They don't play DEFENSE. Football is a TEAM sport. I guess you haven't realized that yet. 11=/= 1...

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

Lets see Jim Kelly in the HOF, Dilfer(113 TDS, 129 INTs).... no chance in heck of ever being in the HOF, unless he buys a ticket to visit it. Dont even try to compare this apples to rotten oranges anymore.

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]you competely skipped over my entire point. football is not a sport that one player can determine a championship. Of course the ultimate goal is to win a championship, but if you do your job and the defense doesn't stop anybody then how can that determine the greatness of the qb. that's rediculous. And since we are using marino as the topic, he may not have ever played on bad teams, but he NEVER had a good team. Name me one, just one hall of famer he ever played with on either side of the ball (and thurman thomas's last year doesn't count cause he was never on the field). And when it comes to elway, keep in mind he went to 3 super bowls and got blasted in all of them prior to terrel davis. Because terrell davis was a great running back that automatically makes elway a great quarterback since according to your logic he obviously wasn't until terrel davis came along. Like i said, in a sport like basketball i will ride with you to the end cause you can play both ends of the court. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you're saying it and the points you are making make absolutely no senseAHUGECAT

I know what your point is - but a QB LEADS his team. As I said, the MarinoFins and 2004 Colts were not bad teams - it's just players like Peyton and Dan choked.

And about your other points - you don't need HOFers to win a Super Bowl. Marino threw 48 td passes for 5000+ yards and they made it to the Super Bowl - this clearly was not a bad team. Marino was just garbage in the clutch. Elway WAS a loser QB until Davis, yes, but he DID get 2 rings (and one SB MVP) to help establish him as one of the greatest.

A ring decides who is better more than stats. Both are important, but I'd rather take a 25 TD one SB ring over a 60 TD zero SB ring person.

Just answer me this since i feel like i'm beating a dead horse with this topic. Forget the 4 super bowl appearances jim kelly had. Lets just concentrate on the first one against N.Y. When they were down by 2 with less than 3 min to go and Kelly marched his team down the field and put them in field goal range for norwood. Since Norwood missed that kick, it cements jim kelly as a loser in your mind correct? But if norwood made that kick then Jim Kelly is a "great" qb correct? Can you see what i'm saying with how rediculous that sounds. Why is it that another player can dictate the quarterback's greatness? Kelly did all he could do in that situation. HE didn't miss the kick, it was someone else. And it's the exact same thing for Brady. Viniaterri made his kicks, but what if he was like norwood and missed those kicks, why should brady be penalized for it. Brady did the same thing kelly did. He got his team in a position to win the game. It just so happens New England's kicker made the kick and Buffalo's didn't. I see no way that kick should reflect on the qb. The qb has one job. He can't play defense or be a kicker. There is no way a qb's greateness should be dictated on things out of his control.

And one more thing just out of curiousity. Based on your criteria of who is a "great" qb you said you would rather someone with a ring and not as many stats correct? Now i'm not gonna go crazy and name someone like dilfer or doug williams, but how about a kurt warner type player. Super bowl champ, 2 time mvp, and multiple pro bowls. In your list of "Great" quarterbacks, can you honestly tell me you feel he is a better quarterback than dan marino?

^^I agree with all of your posts in this topic, but just to let you know, you spelled ridiculous wrong ;)

^^I agree with all of your posts in this topic, but just to let you know, you spelled ridiculous wrong ;)

detroitpistons0

ha ha. all over that one huh? so much for that college education

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

mrgab

Lets see Jim Kelly in the HOF, Dilfer(113 TDS, 129 INTs).... no chance in heck of ever being in the HOF, unless he buys a ticket to visit it. Dont even try to compare this apples to rotten oranges anymore.

Let's see - Dilfer a Super Bowl Champion... Jim Kelly... ummm.... 4 straight losses in the Super Bowl?

I'd take 113 and 129 over 4 straight losses in a super bowl any day. Heck, I am sure Kelly would BEG for 113 and 129 as long as he got ONE win out of his 4 appearances. Stats are meaningless (until you finally get the ring).

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]you competely skipped over my entire point. football is not a sport that one player can determine a championship. Of course the ultimate goal is to win a championship, but if you do your job and the defense doesn't stop anybody then how can that determine the greatness of the qb. that's rediculous. And since we are using marino as the topic, he may not have ever played on bad teams, but he NEVER had a good team. Name me one, just one hall of famer he ever played with on either side of the ball (and thurman thomas's last year doesn't count cause he was never on the field). And when it comes to elway, keep in mind he went to 3 super bowls and got blasted in all of them prior to terrel davis. Because terrell davis was a great running back that automatically makes elway a great quarterback since according to your logic he obviously wasn't until terrel davis came along. Like i said, in a sport like basketball i will ride with you to the end cause you can play both ends of the court. I understand what you are trying to say, but the way you're saying it and the points you are making make absolutely no sensedetroitpistons0

I know what your point is - but a QB LEADS his team. As I said, the MarinoFins and 2004 Colts were not bad teams - it's just players like Peyton and Dan choked.

And about your other points - you don't need HOFers to win a Super Bowl. Marino threw 48 td passes for 5000+ yards and they made it to the Super Bowl - this clearly was not a bad team. Marino was just garbage in the clutch. Elway WAS a loser QB until Davis, yes, but he DID get 2 rings (and one SB MVP) to help establish him as one of the greatest.

A ring decides who is better more than stats. Both are important, but I'd rather take a 25 TD one SB ring over a 60 TD zero SB ring person.

I see. How bout the next time you watch guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Yep. Let's watch them SOMEHOW lead the defense warming the benches while the DEFENSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ONE PLAYING! The QB does not call DEFENSIVE plays. They don't play DEFENSE. Football is a TEAM sport. I guess you haven't realized that yet. 11=/= 1...

Tom Brady has nothing to do with the defense, sure. But he has 3 rings and now the stats.

[QUOTE="mrgab"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

Lets see Jim Kelly in the HOF, Dilfer(113 TDS, 129 INTs).... no chance in heck of ever being in the HOF, unless he buys a ticket to visit it. Dont even try to compare this apples to rotten oranges anymore.

Let's see - Dilfer a Super Bowl Champion... Jim Kelly... ummm.... 4 straight losses in the Super Bowl?

I'd take 113 and 129 over 4 straight losses in a super bowl any day. Stats are meaningless (until you finally get the ring).

Jim Kelly with that Ravens defense = easy super bowl win. Also how many times did Dilferquarterback(not lead)that great Ravens team to super bowl other than that one time? Stats are how individual players are measured. Rings is how teams are measured.

Heck, if you want to go by rings, Jim Sorgi won a super bowl ring last year, guess that makes him a great all time QB... he's the back up QB on the Colts.

[QUOTE="KingOfKonging"]

[QUOTE="manningbowl135"]So let's say QB X throws 10 TDs in the SB and loses, and QB Y throws 0 TDs and 5 INTs and wins, you'd take QB Y? If yes, then you'd pick the team of QB Y. We're talking about the individual player.manningbowl135

Hahaha. Come on man, be reasonable.

He makes it seem as if SBs are the only thing that matter WHEN judging a player. It's not.

No, obviously not.

But, being remembered as being clutch during the playoffs (especially the SB) is a huge plus for QB, especially considering that is when performance matters most.

Just answer me this since i feel like i'm beating a dead horse with this topic. Forget the 4 super bowl appearances jim kelly had. Lets just concentrate on the first one against N.Y. When they were down by 2 with less than 3 min to go and Kelly marched his team down the field and put them in field goal range for norwood. Since Norwood missed that kick, it cements jim kelly as a loser in your mind correct?sixringz1

Kelly should've marched them a little more than he did. So basically you're telling me Kelly is the anti-Brady (unclutch) so therefore cannot be compared to the REAL great QBs (like Brady, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Warner, etc. etc.)

But if norwood made that kick then Jim Kelly is a "great" qb correct? sixringz1

He IS a great QB but he failed when it mattered the most. But not only did he fail, he did it 4 straight times. Failures cannot be considered one of the greatest. Great, yes, but not a top 10. I'm not asking him to win all 4 straight, but at least win ONE with FOUR appearances.

Can you see what i'm saying with how rediculous that sounds. sixringz1

Rediculous is one of my biggest pet peeves lol.

Why is it that another player can dictate the quarterback's greatness?sixringz1

How much is a QB worth without another player? If Kelly wanted the ring more, he wouldvemarched down more.

Kelly did all he could do in that situation. HE didn't miss the kick, it was someone else.sixringz1

It's a 60 minute game, and he had 3 other chances to win the SB.

And it's the exact same thing for Brady. Viniaterri made his kicks, but what if he was like norwood and missed those kicks, why should brady be penalized for it. sixringz1

Fact is it didn't happen with Brady, but it happened with that failure Kelly.

Brady did the same thing kelly did. He got his team in a position to win the game. sixringz1

Wrong. Difference is is that Brady's team actually won the game, Kelly's did not.

It just so happens New England's kicker made the kick and Buffalo's didn't. I see no way that kick should reflect on the qb. The qb has one job. He can't play defense or be a kicker. There is no way a qb's greateness should be dictated on things out of his control. sixringz1

There's one thing in his control: getting to the end zone. He had 57 minutes to get more points before that last kick, but he's a choker and always has been. Kelly is a good QB yes but not a legend.

And one more thing just out of curiousity. Based on your criteria of who is a "great" qb you said you would rather someone with a ring and not as many stats correct? Now i'm not gonna go crazy and name someone like dilfer or doug williams, but how about a kurt warner type player. Super bowl champ, 2 time mvp, and multiple pro bowls. In your list of "Great" quarterbacks, can you honestly tell me you feel he is a better quarterback than dan marino?

sixringz1

I would choose a 1999 Warner over an 84 Dan Marino any day. Because in the end, he gets the ring and that's what matters.

[QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="mrgab"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

mrgab

Lets see Jim Kelly in the HOF, Dilfer(113 TDS, 129 INTs).... no chance in heck of ever being in the HOF, unless he buys a ticket to visit it. Dont even try to compare this apples to rotten oranges anymore.

Let's see - Dilfer a Super Bowl Champion... Jim Kelly... ummm.... 4 straight losses in the Super Bowl?

I'd take 113 and 129 over 4 straight losses in a super bowl any day. Stats are meaningless (until you finally get the ring).

Jim Kelly with that Ravens defense = easy super bowl win. Also how many times did Dilferquarterback(not lead)that great Ravens team to super bowl other than that one time? Stats are how individual players are measured. Rings is how teams are measured.

Heck, if you want to go by rings, Jim Sorgi won a super bowl ring last year, guess that makes him a great all time QB... he's the back up QB on the Colts.

Stats combined with rings are the measure for greatness, along with other factors. If you judge by rings then Elway is better than Manning, but if you judge by stats then Manning is better than Elway so then what is your criteria? See you can't really judge the greatest based on one criteria it needs to be a combination. How well did the QB leadthe team? Was he clutch? Did he throw enough good passes?

Stats combined with rings are the measure for greatness, along with other factors. If you judge by rings then Elway is better than Manning, but if you judge by stats then Manning is better than Elway so then what is your criteria? See you can't really judge the greatest based on one criteria it needs to be a combination. How well did the QB leadthe team? Was he clutch? Did he throw enough good passes?

AHUGECAT

Dilfers stats werent that good, (Ravens year 2000: 12 TDs 11 INTs, 76.6 rating) - how does that equal greatness? Great running game, great defense won that super bowl for the ravens. Every QB in this years league could had won the super bowl that year with that team.

LOL... So Brett Favre with his 3 straight MVP's sucks balls compared to a 3rd string QB on a championship team? detroitpistons0

Well, that is what Brady was when hewon his first.... ;)

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]Just answer me this since i feel like i'm beating a dead horse with this topic. Forget the 4 super bowl appearances jim kelly had. Lets just concentrate on the first one against N.Y. When they were down by 2 with less than 3 min to go and Kelly marched his team down the field and put them in field goal range for norwood. Since Norwood missed that kick, it cements jim kelly as a loser in your mind correct?AHUGECAT

Kelly should've marched them a little more than he did. So basically you're telling me Kelly is the anti-Brady (unclutch) so therefore cannot be compared to the REAL great QBs (like Brady, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Warner, etc. etc.)

But if norwood made that kick then Jim Kelly is a "great" qb correct? sixringz1

He IS a great QB but he failed when it mattered the most. But not only did he fail, he did it 4 straight times. Failures cannot be considered one of the greatest. Great, yes, but not a top 10. I'm not asking him to win all 4 straight, but at least win ONE with FOUR appearances.

Can you see what i'm saying with how rediculous that sounds. sixringz1

Rediculous is one of my biggest pet peeves lol.

Why is it that another player can dictate the quarterback's greatness?sixringz1

How much is a QB worth without another player? If Kelly wanted the ring more, he wouldvemarched down more.

Kelly did all he could do in that situation. HE didn't miss the kick, it was someone else.sixringz1

It's a 60 minute game, and he had 3 other chances to win the SB.

And it's the exact same thing for Brady. Viniaterri made his kicks, but what if he was like norwood and missed those kicks, why should brady be penalized for it. sixringz1

Fact is it didn't happen with Brady, but it happened with that failure Kelly.

Brady did the same thing kelly did. He got his team in a position to win the game. sixringz1

Wrong. Difference is is that Brady's team actually won the game, Kelly's did not.

It just so happens New England's kicker made the kick and Buffalo's didn't. I see no way that kick should reflect on the qb. The qb has one job. He can't play defense or be a kicker. There is no way a qb's greateness should be dictated on things out of his control. sixringz1

There's one thing in his control: getting to the end zone. He had 57 minutes to get more points before that last kick, but he's a choker and always has been. Kelly is a good QB yes but not a legend.

And one more thing just out of curiousity. Based on your criteria of who is a "great" qb you said you would rather someone with a ring and not as many stats correct? Now i'm not gonna go crazy and name someone like dilfer or doug williams, but how about a kurt warner type player. Super bowl champ, 2 time mvp, and multiple pro bowls. In your list of "Great" quarterbacks, can you honestly tell me you feel he is a better quarterback than dan marino?

sixringz1

I would choose a 1999 Warner over an 84 Dan Marino any day. Because in the end, he gets the ring and that's what matters.

wow now i know how all those guys on first and ten feel like when they are arguing with skip bayless. there's no way to get my point across because obviously i'm at a disadvantage. I have the need to make sense. Brady had 57 minutes to get more points in their first super bowl but he didn't. And as for kelly leading his team "further" down the field, go back and check the history books. Norwood AND viniaterri's kicks were BOTH 47 yard field goals. So by your logic Brady wanted his super bowl just as much as kelly. one kick went in one didn't, and neither kelly nor brady kicked that ball. Now as far as losing 4 super bowls, yes that is a problem, but i was just talking about the first one since one super bowl is all you need in this debate. What's funny is you even state it in your response. Brady's TEAM won the super bowl and kelly's TEAM lost it. And the final point i'm not talking about 99 warner vs 84 marino. I'm talking about 84-2000 Marino vs. 99-present Kurt Warner. You can't base a career on one or two years otherwise terrell davis would be the best running back in nfl history

[QUOTE="detroitpistons0"]LOL... So Brett Favre with his 3 straight MVP's sucks balls compared to a 3rd string QB on a championship team? KingOfKonging

Well, that is what Brady was when hewon his first.... ;)

Uhh... No. Bledsoe got injured early in the season. Brady went in and did great. Got them through the playoffs. For the Super Bowl, Bledsoe was now healthy enough to play. But Brady was put in since he got them there. That's why he beat the Rams :roll:. Also, that was the first franchise SB Win. So there's no way Brady got one while he was backup.

Also, he was backup. Not third string.

[QUOTE="KingOfKonging"]

[QUOTE="detroitpistons0"]LOL... So Brett Favre with his 3 straight MVP's sucks balls compared to a 3rd string QB on a championship team? detroitpistons0

Well, that is what Brady was when hewon his first.... ;)

Uhh... No. Bledsoe got injured early in the season. Brady went in and did great. Got them through the playoffs. For the Super Bowl, Bledsoe was now healthy enough to play. But Brady was put in since he got them there. That's why he beat the Rams :roll:. Also, that was the first franchise SB Win. So there's no way Brady got one while he was backup.

Also, he was backup. Not third string.

Do not question my incorrect recollection of history.

I do remember though, at one point or another, Brady was like 4th string or something.

[QUOTE="sixringz1"]Just answer me this since i feel like i'm beating a dead horse with this topic. Forget the 4 super bowl appearances jim kelly had. Lets just concentrate on the first one against N.Y. When they were down by 2 with less than 3 min to go and Kelly marched his team down the field and put them in field goal range for norwood. Since Norwood missed that kick, it cements jim kelly as a loser in your mind correct?AHUGECAT

Kelly should've marched them a little more than he did. So basically you're telling me Kelly is the anti-Brady (unclutch) so therefore cannot be compared to the REAL great QBs (like Brady, Montana, Elway, Bradshaw, Warner, etc. etc.)

But if norwood made that kick then Jim Kelly is a "great" qb correct? sixringz1

He IS a great QB but he failed when it mattered the most. But not only did he fail, he did it 4 straight times. Failures cannot be considered one of the greatest. Great, yes, but not a top 10. I'm not asking him to win all 4 straight, but at least win ONE with FOUR appearances.

Can you see what i'm saying with how rediculous that sounds. sixringz1

Rediculous is one of my biggest pet peeves lol.

Why is it that another player can dictate the quarterback's greatness?sixringz1

How much is a QB worth without another player? If Kelly wanted the ring more, he wouldvemarched down more.

Kelly did all he could do in that situation. HE didn't miss the kick, it was someone else.sixringz1

It's a 60 minute game, and he had 3 other chances to win the SB.

And it's the exact same thing for Brady. Viniaterri made his kicks, but what if he was like norwood and missed those kicks, why should brady be penalized for it. sixringz1

Fact is it didn't happen with Brady, but it happened with that failure Kelly.

Brady did the same thing kelly did. He got his team in a position to win the game. sixringz1

Wrong. Difference is is that Brady's team actually won the game, Kelly's did not.

It just so happens New England's kicker made the kick and Buffalo's didn't. I see no way that kick should reflect on the qb. The qb has one job. He can't play defense or be a kicker. There is no way a qb's greateness should be dictated on things out of his control. sixringz1

There's one thing in his control: getting to the end zone. He had 57 minutes to get more points before that last kick, but he's a choker and always has been. Kelly is a good QB yes but not a legend.

And one more thing just out of curiousity. Based on your criteria of who is a "great" qb you said you would rather someone with a ring and not as many stats correct? Now i'm not gonna go crazy and name someone like dilfer or doug williams, but how about a kurt warner type player. Super bowl champ, 2 time mvp, and multiple pro bowls. In your list of "Great" quarterbacks, can you honestly tell me you feel he is a better quarterback than dan marino?

sixringz1

I would choose a 1999 Warner over an 84 Dan Marino any day. Because in the end, he gets the ring and that's what matters.

[QUOTE="mrgab"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"][QUOTE="mrgab"][QUOTE="AHUGECAT"]

A loser cannot be a top whatever.

Stats mean nothing. Marino can have 600350350350320532964326 touchdown passes in ONE GAME and yet he is still a loser. Yeah, Marino, "Greatest quarterback ever... but he's a loser." Doesn't sound right.

Someone mentioned they'd rather take Jim Kelly over Trent Dilfer - well guess what- that's dumb. Why take a loser quarterback like Kelly over Dilfer? "Oh... Dilfer got lucky the Ravens defense was da bomb!" Well Dilfer did throw for a touchdown and had no interceptions. I'd rather take a winner like Dilfer over Jim "Went to 4 Straight Super Bowls AND LOST ALL OF THEM!" Kelly any day.

Wins matter. Trophies matter. Not stats. You should at least win ONE before you can be talked about as one of the greatest. You don't need to win 5 or 6 just one at least.

Marino isn't a top 10 and neither is Kelly due to their lack of rings.

AHUGECAT

Lets see Jim Kelly in the HOF, Dilfer(113 TDS, 129 INTs).... no chance in heck of ever being in the HOF, unless he buys a ticket to visit it. Dont even try to compare this apples to rotten oranges anymore.

Let's see - Dilfer a Super Bowl Champion... Jim Kelly... ummm.... 4 straight losses in the Super Bowl?

I'd take 113 and 129 over 4 straight losses in a super bowl any day. Stats are meaningless (until you finally get the ring).

Jim Kelly with that Ravens defense = easy super bowl win. Also how many times did Dilferquarterback(not lead)that great Ravens team to super bowl other than that one time? Stats are how individual players are measured. Rings is how teams are measured.

Heck, if you want to go by rings, Jim Sorgi won a super bowl ring last year, guess that makes him a great all time QB... he's the back up QB on the Colts.

Stats combined with rings are the measure for greatness, along with other factors. If you judge by rings then Elway is better than Manning, but if you judge by stats then Manning is better than Elway so then what is your criteria? See you can't really judge the greatest based on one criteria it needs to be a combination. How well did the QB leadthe team? Was he clutch? Did he throw enough good passes?

[QUOTE="detroitpistons0"][QUOTE="KingOfKonging"]

[QUOTE="detroitpistons0"]LOL... So Brett Favre with his 3 straight MVP's sucks balls compared to a 3rd string QB on a championship team? KingOfKonging

Well, that is what Brady was when hewon his first.... ;)

Uhh... No. Bledsoe got injured early in the season. Brady went in and did great. Got them through the playoffs. For the Super Bowl, Bledsoe was now healthy enough to play. But Brady was put in since he got them there. That's why he beat the Rams :roll:. Also, that was the first franchise SB Win. So there's no way Brady got one while he was backup.

Also, he was backup. Not third string.

Do not question my incorrect recollection of history.

I do remember though, at one point or another, Brady was like 4th string or something.