QBs w/SuperBowl Rings --> Overrated?

[kjcheezhead]

Superbowl rings are almost meaningless for grading individual players, even qbs.

Terry Bradshaw as 4 rings and has a career qb rating of 70.9

Joe Namath is a Super Bowl MVP. His game stats were 17-28 for 206 yards 0 tds and 0 ints. His teammate Matt Snell carried the ball 30 times for 121 yards and the games only td.

Ben Rothlisberger earned his first ring with a qb rating of 22.6

Trent Dilfer and Jeff Hostetler are in the Super Bowl ring club. Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Jim Kelly, Warren Moon, and Fran Tarkenton are all Hall of Famers without a ring.

[CW McGraw]

Quote: Originally Posted by 55

The thing is, so many of the great quarterbacks of the last several decades do have rings, so it is easy to discriminate against the guys who don't have them. For instance, these are the last 18 Super Bowl winning quarterbacks: Troy Aikman - MVP Troy Aikman Steve Young - MVP Troy Aikman Brett Favre John Elway John Elway - MVP Kurt Warner - MVP Trent Dilfer Tom Brady - MVP Brad Johnson Tom Brady - MVP Tom Brady Ben Roethlisberger Peyton Manning - MVP Eli Manning - MVP Ben Roethlisberger Drew Brees - MVP Now, besides Dilfer and Johnson, the rest of those guys are pretty damn good, most of which are/were great. Also, the quarterbacks in question were the game's MVP exactly half of the time. It is getting to the point in today's NFL where it is extremely difficult to win a Super Bowl without a very good, to an elite quarterback. The fact that there are so many great quarterbacks playing right now is a testament to that. I can't think of any other time in NFL history where there were so many superb signal callers playing at the same time with a handful of young quarterbacks on the rise as well. So, to answer the question: No. Quarterbacks with Super Bowl rings are not overrated, but perhaps some of the ones without them (especially over the last several decades) are probably underrated due to the abundance of talent at the position.

You seem to be arguing that good/great QBs tend to win Super Bowls more than average QBs, but how many of those QBs are considered great solely due to the presence of rings on their fingers? Are Troy Aikman and Tom Brady Hall of Famers if they never win Super Bowls? Is John Elway widely considered a top 5 all time QB if he ends his career without a Super Bowl win? Is Eli Manning still even the QB of the New York Giants if they don't somehow manage to beat the Patriots? Is Steve Young just a poor man's Dan Marino and forever doomed to be in Montana's shadow if he doesn't win a Super Bowl? Many QBs' legacies are painted after the fact once they win a Super Bowl.

[SPTO]

Quote: Originally Posted by Dayman

I think it's a reasonable tiebreaker when comparing QB's who's stats are very close to each other's if one QB has a ring and the other doesn't. But it's not the end all, be all, because as was mentioned nobody would argue Dilfer is a better QB than Marino or something absurd like that.

I think this is a reasonable statement.

Thing is, you can't overrate QBs who win the SB for the forseeable future IMO because the game has changed so much. Everything these days is predicated on QB play while it's still a team sport everything is stacked so far towards offense and throwing the ball that team's depend on the QB more then ever before.

At least back in the day you could have an average QB ride his team to victory but nowadays if an average guy makes mistakes and such it's awfully hard to compensate. The only time you're going to see a team with an average to below average QB make it or even win the SB is if that team went through an easy schedule, got lucky or had a really great defense or running game that compensated for the QB. To put it bluntly, I doubt we'll see a Rex Grossman starting in the SB anytime soon.

[da ThRONe]

There's way too many elements in winning a SB to place so much clout in it. One of these elements is pure luck(or the tuck rule sorry Oakland fans). Ofcourse with the rule changes QB play is a great part of the equation so if QB could be represented in percertages even if it doubled from 15% to 30% that would still leave 70% of the game thats completely out of the QB's hands.

Not to mention the level of talent around a QB can mean a world of difference and not only SB's but stats.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by da ThRONe

There's way too many elements in winning a SB to place so much clout in it. One of this elements is pure luck(or the tuck rule sorry Oakland fans). Ofcourse with the rule changes QB play is a great part of the equation so if QB could be represented in percertages even if it doubled from 15% to 30% that would still leave 70% of the game thats completely out of the QB's hands. Not to mention the level of talent around a QB can mean a world of difference and not only SB's but stats.

But it's not meaningless. And I do think it's ok to downgrade certain players who had chances to do it and couldn't or couldn't even get there (McNabb).

It's similar to the 'LeBron didn't have enough talent' argument. LeBron's team was good enough to win 60+ games in the reg season, but all of a sudden the playoffs come and they lose, all the blame goes to the supporting cast? It seems like that's what people are trying to do w/ McNabb, try to blame his teammates when the team lost and give McNabb no blame at all.

It's a double edged sword.

[da ThRONe]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

But it's not meaningless. And I do think it's ok to downgrade certain players who had chances to do it and couldn't or couldn't even get there (McNabb). It's similar to the 'LeBron didn't have enough talent' argument. LeBron's team was good enough to win 60+ games in the reg season, but all of a sudden the playoffs come and they lose, all the blame goes to the supporting cast? It seems like that's what people are trying to do w/ McNabb, try to blame his teammates when the team lost and give McNabb no blame at all. It's a double edged sword.

1st two different sports. In basketball 1 individual has more control over the outcome. With that said supporting cast are huge in team sports you cant do it alone.

I have never seen a QB on a bad team do anything positive. The better the team the better the QB's production.

[lonewolf371]

Quote: Originally Posted by kjcheezhead

Terry Bradshaw as 4 rings and has a career qb rating of 70.9 Joe Namath is a Super Bowl MVP. His game stats were 17-28 for 206 yards 0 tds and 0 ints. His teammate Matt Snell carried the ball 30 times for 121 yards and the games only td.

Totally different era, man.

[kjcheezhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by lonewolf371

Totally different era, man.

The point is the same. Those qbs get way more credit than they probably deserve. Teams win superbowls, not individuals.

You also completely ignored my Ben Rothlisberger reference. Again, his 22.6 rating is the worst for a winning qb in super bowl history and James Harrison and his 99 yrd int was just as responsible as Big Ben was for his second championship. Not to mention his teams were ranked number 1 in defense both championship seasons.