This is my list of The Five Best Quarterbacks in the NFL.
Generally. I choose based on current performance level, plus history, and plus Super Bowls or whether they have made their team a consistent contender. I also considered: Could he perform in any system?
I do believe that these five quarterbacks have a legitimate shot at the Hall of Fame, or they are shoo-in's.
As you may have gathered from the opening slide, I choose the most ridiculous pictures that I could find.
Why? More dada-istic fun
I know, I know. Tom Brady has 3 rings to Manning's 1.
The difference to me has several layers.
For one, Manning calls the plays, so whether you prefer that or not, the fact is, the Colts have won the Super Bowl with Manning. Manning has been named the NFL MVP 3 times in comparison to Brady's 1.
Both Manning and Brady have beaten Dan Marino's single-season touchdown record. The difference in my opinion is that Brady did so by running-up the score (no class).
In the case of Manning, in the 2004 season, he had the chance to take the record against Baltimore, but took a knee instead to end the game (class).
Ray Lewis complimented Manning on the field for doing so, because Lewis knew that Manning could have easily thrown a touchdown after the Ravens had turned over the ball within fifteen yards of the endzone.
Funny thing is, the other pictures I found were fake. This one is real.
Brady has three rings, an MVP award and a stat-record, but I'm not sure about what he'd be without Bill Belichik.
Until the Patriots acquired Randy Moss in a trade that resulted from a disgruntled employee within the Raiders organization (Michael Lombardi), Brady was an average passer.
Moreover, the Patriots won the Super Bowl in the 2004-2005 season after acquiring RB Corey Dillon who had an underrated and thankless season for the Patriots that year.
He could win (sometimes, questionably), but the fact is -- the Patriots would win.
But I broke the tie between Manning and Brady, because I'm more confident in believing that Manning excersized greater control as a quarterback for the Colts, than Brady has for the Patriots.
I know that you Brady lovers out there will immediately send your hate-mail, but the fact is you can honestly question tthe career of Tom Brady, but cannot do the same with Peyton Manning.
The fact is that Matt Cassell has performed in that system. I'm not saying that anyone can win in that system, but if I built an NFL team, I'd take Manning. More class and more control.
With that said, both Manning and Brady are likely headed for the Hall of Fame, so there's really no reason for you Patsies to get your panties in a bunch.
The consumate case of quarterback that reflects a belief of mine. Winning is not luck.
People who say that winning is just luck, are just losers in hiding,
The Steelers are 51-20 with Ben Roethlisberger at quarterback.
Roethlisberger entered the league in 2004 and began by leading the Steelers to 13 straight wins, which is an unprecedented feat for a rookie quarterback.
He has since led the Steelers to two Super Bowl titles... and possibly more.
Roethlisberger hasn't had the gaudy stats though, but has proved his efficiency with 2 seasons with a passer rating over 90 and one season with a rating over 100.
The only down year so far has been 2006, which is also the year that Coach Bill Cowher retired. Roethliberger has since led the Steelers to another Super Bowl win with Coach Mike Tomlin, which tells me that Roethlisberger is not the product of a system.
In 2004, I wanted the Raiders to take Roethlisberger at second overall in the NFL Draft, instead they selected Robert Gallery. I made the argument that Roethlisberger was the type of quarterback that can take a hit and get back-up.
Questioning Oakland's decision to pass on Big Ben is partially just hindsight. However, I was absolutely right about his resilience.
Statistics aren't the only mark of a great quarterback, so is resilience. In that category, Brady and Manning can't hold a candle to Big Ben.
Another case of a resilient quarterback without the gaudy numbers. With Donovan McNabb at quarterback, the Eagles are 82-45-1, have five cumulative appearances in conference titles with four straight from the year 2001 to 2004..
His best season, statistically, was in 2004-2005 when the Eagles had first acquired Terrell Owens.
Manning has had Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne. Brady needed Randy Moss and had Deion Branch. Even Roethlisberger has had Hines Ward, Antwaan Randle El and Santonio Holmes. Kurt Warner has had Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin, Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, and Steve Breaston.
To make the argument that an above-average or great receiver obfuscates the perception of a quarterback's individual talent is just nonsense. Many great quarterbacks (with winning to show for it) have had an above-average to great receiver that could perform outside of that system.
With the exception of Owens -- McNabb has long lacked that luxury and yet the Eagles have consistently contended and proved what they could do with a big-time receiver; perhaps DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin will change that.
That one season in 2004-2005 proved what Donovan McNabb can do with a big-time receiver. Unfortunately for him, he spent much of the Super Bowl in 2004-2005 -- puking.
I'm left to wonder whether the Eagles would have won had McNabb been healthy.
Believe me that there's a big difference between soreness and infections, fevers or nausea. You can dictate soreness -- infections, fevers and nausea tend to dictate you.
The argument against Kurt Warner has been that he was the product of the system in St. Louis because he had Marshall Faulk, Orlando Pace, Isaac Bruce and Torry Holt.
Then in Arizona, Warner had Larry Fitzgerald, Anquan Boldin and Steve Breaston.
In St. Louis, the Rams offense dominated as "The Greatest Show on Turf" by becoming the only team in NFL history to score more than five hundred points in three consecutive seasons.
In that time, the Rams won the Super Bowl, appeared in another Super Bowl, and earned three NFL MVP awards, with Warner winning two and Marshall Faulk winning the other.
The Rams could have won the Super Bowl with less offense, but the fact is, that offense not only won, it dominated.
In Arizona, the Cardinals didn't dominate as the St. Louis offense did, yet still appeared in the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, the Cardinals featured three top receivers, thus people immediately questioned Kurt Warner's chances of induction into the Hall of Fame.
All Warner has done is lead two teams to the Super Bowl that had long mired in mediocrity before he started.
Moreover, Warner's career thus far has nearly mirrored that of Steve Young: 1 Super Bowl ring, 2 NFL MVP awards, and a career passer rating over 90.
At 38, Warner has only been in the NFL for eleven years, so I can imagine that Warner can still play for another four years, because he hasn't taken as many hits as other quarterbacks have, like Brett Favre.
Right now, I think Warner is a Hall of Fame quarterback, but if he can start another four seasons then I think that will silence the critics.
But what exactly does Warner have to prove to silence the critics: the length of his career? I honestly don't buy the argument that a great quarterback must have a long career, when that quarterback achieved nothing such as, Dan Marino, Dan Fouts.
In three seasons, Warner did what those two tried an entire career to do and yet never did. I guarantee you that Dan Marino and Dan Fouts would rather have what Warner has.
Winning is not luck. Those who assert as much, are just losers in hiding.