The kick return and int return have nothing to do with this. I'm just talking about the bad calls by the refs, not other things from the game.

mjwickstrom1

No it has everything to do with this. In your original post your exact words were "the refs lost the game for the steelers". I said it once and i'll say it again, if your team didn't give up a 96 yard kick return to the goaline, if your quarterback didn't throw and INT returned for a 70 yard td, if your team didn't give up a 50 yard td pass to a scat back, and most importantly if your defense didn't give up a 30 yard run on 4th down to the qb in the last minute of the game, all this talk about the refs blowing the game would be pointless. Once again i understand you're a fan and it's always easy to blame the refs but the bottom line is that there are FAR too many plays throughout the course of the game that help to decide the outcome more than the handfull of bad calls that the refs make. I said it once and i'll say it again, teams win or lose games NOT REFS

[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

^^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="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?

[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