All Time Greats: Why Super Bowl Rings Are Not Neccessary For Great QB's
I am sick of hearing people say that some quarterbacks are bad because they can't win the big one. The big one of course referring to the Superbowl. I will admit it does play a factor in how good you are. I feel that Brady is better than Manning. The rings are not the whole part of it, but they do play a role in my decision.
The reason people feel that Superbowl rings are the best stat for determining how good quarterbacks are is because it is a romanticized idea. We have images such as the drive, Terry Bradshaw throwing to Lynn Swann, and the guarantee from Joe Namath.
Simply said we expect great things from quarterbacks in the Superbowl because we are shown these exciting images by ESPN, and NFL network. We think that every quarterback to win more than one ring is an astounding player worthy of the Hall of Fame. In a lot of cases it is true, like with Brady or Montana, but these guys get the team there they are the best players on their teams.
Then there are the Terry Bradshaws of the world. These are the quarterbacks that are on amazing teams full of Hall of Famers that get labeled as "great" because they were the quarterback.
Players like this include Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunket, and Joe Namath.
Go ahead guess who the best player in Superbowl III was. If you guessed Namath you are wrong his stats were a humble 17-28 for 206 yards. The correct answer is Matt Snell who rushed for 121 yards on 30 carries and scored the Jet's only touchdown. So why did Namath get the MVP award? Because he was a superstar and sex symbol and made the guarantee. People knew about as much about Snell then as they do now. So they went with a sexy pick in Namath.
Ironically Namath sucked his whole career, in fact he threw more touchdowns than interceptions twice his whole career, and finished with 47 more interceptions than touchdowns. That is weak, yet he is considered a all time great.
Bradshaw had a 70.9 passer rating, completed 51 percent of his passes, and only had four 300 yard games. He also played on a team with eight Hall of Famers.
Plunket doesn't get the love of the other two, but he won two Superbowl with the Raiders and has a small contingent of fans clamoring for his Hall of Fame induction. It will never happen, but the fact there are people who want a quarterback who threw 34 more interceptions than touchdowns in his career in the Hall because he has two rings is ridiculous.
You can win a Superbowl with an average quarterback, not a bad one, an average one. In fact you can win the big one with a very average quarterback. I can prove it.
Trent Dilfer won the Superbowl with the Baltimore Ravens in 2000. Yes he is the annoying guy on NFL Live.
He threw for 1502 yards 12 touchdowns 11 interceptions. He was asked to not screw up and let Jamal Lewis run the ball, the defense took care of the rest.
In the Superbowl the Ravens murdered the Giants 34-7. Dilfer's stats were 12-25 153 yards and a touchdown. Not very impressive, but the Ravens got the running game going, held New York to 152 yards of total offense, and forced five turnovers.
So Dilfer was a non factor the whole season. Many quarterbacks could have done what he did, quite a few could have done it better.
But none could have done a better job proving my point. You do not need a great quarterback to win a Superbowl and your not a great quarterback i f you win a few Superbowl.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?