Rings Define A Great Quarterback Better Than Stats

Ahmad RashadAnalyst IFebruary 16, 2010

In some of my articles, several comments have been made about stats and rings and how they define a great QB. Some have said they prefer the stats, others have said they prefer the rings. I think rings better define a great QB and I'll tell you why.

People seem to think that you need high stats just to be a great QB. Let me tell you, this is false. You can have average stats and still be a great QB.

Think about it. What's the difference between winning by scoring 30 points than scoring 20? Nothing. At the end of the day, it's still a win.

It's called getting the job done when it matters most. In this case it's getting through the playoffs and winning the superbowl. You can amass all the stats you want during the regular season but if it doesn't carry into the postseason and lead to a title, they're worthless.

Some may disagree but it's true. Look at the Peyton Manning.

He has great regular seasons just about every year. When the playoffs come what happens? Choke.

Now look at Big Ben.

He maynot be the flashiest QB during the regular season, but he gets the job done and it carries into the postseason which is why he has 2 rings in 6 years.

Look at Tom Brady.

He has 3 rings and no one can deny that the Patriots depend on Brady for their survival.

That's why rings define a great QB better. They prove that the QB could get the job done when it mattered most.

Now I know occasionally the defense will bail a few out, but usually it has to do with the QB.

Now don't get me wrong stats also define a great QB. But more often than not, they don't lead to rings with Marino and Manning being prime examples.

But for some reason people seem to prefer those Qb's over one's with rings.

So my whole point it is, getting the job done when it matters most defines a QB better than stats.