QBs w/SuperBowl Rings --> Overrated?

[wwharton]

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.

McNabb couldn't get there? You mean the SB... bc I'm pretty sure he got there.

As mentioned, you can't compare NFL and NBA in this way. Definitely apples and oranges. And I can assure you that just as many people put blame on Lebron as those who wanted to pin it all on the supporting cast anyway.

Guys, if you're going to continue one on one comparisons, keep it on topic.

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

McNabb couldn't get there? You mean the SB... bc I'm pretty sure he got there. As mentioned, you can't compare NFL and NBA in this way. Definitely apples and oranges. And I can assure you that just as many people put blame on Lebron as those who wanted to pin it all on the supporting cast anyway. Guys, if you're going to continue one on one comparisons, keep it on topic.

I don't think going 1-4 in NFC title games, two losses of which were at home, is enough to say the guy's a HOF QB. And people try to act as if McNabb had nothing around him. Yeah his recieving core flat out stunk, but Brian Westbrook was a Pro Bowl RB and at one point one of the dangerous offensive weapons in the league. And you mentioned the defense which has always been one of Philly's strong points. It's not like he was playing with completely nothing, to the point where he should get the benefit of the doubt and be a HOF without HOF type production in my eyes.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

I don't think going 1-4 in NFC title games, two losses of which were at home, is enough to say the guy's a HOF QB. And people try to act as if McNabb had nothing around him. Yeah his recieving core flat out stunk, but Brian Westbrook was a Pro Bowl RB and at one point one of the dangerous offensive weapons in the league. And you mentioned the defense which has always been one of Philly's strong points. It's not like he was playing with completely nothing, to the point where he should get the benefit of the doubt and be a HOF without HOF type production in my eyes.

I don't really know what you're arguing. This isn't the "Is McNabb a HOFer?" thread.

You said "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)."

McNabb has been to a SB so I'm not sure what you mean by "couldn't even get there".

[rangerrick012]

Quote: Originally Posted by wwharton

I don't really know what you're arguing. This isn't the "Is McNabb a HOFer?" thread. You said "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)." McNabb has been to a SB so I'm not sure what you mean by "couldn't even get there".

He got there once but had 4 other chances and couldn't get there. That's what I was referring to. He had his chance in the SB and couldn't come through. That's what I was referring to.

[lonewolf371]

Quote: Originally Posted by kjcheezhead

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.

No, those QBs deserve a ton of credit. Why didn't the Cowboys win four Super Bowls? Or the Raiders? Or the Redskins? Or the Bengals? Or the Vikings? All of those teams were solid, even great, from top to bottom and had good QBs, but Bradshaw's the one sporting the hardware. Your stats comparison was just completely off with that era.

I ignored the Roethlisberger reference because quite simply it's a stronger argument and I didn't disagree with it as much. However, I will note that they wouldn't have even gotten to the Super Bowl without Roethlisberger's play in the games preceding it, and that there's no way they would've won their second Super Bowl without Roethlisberger.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by rangerrick012

He got there once but had 4 other chances and couldn't get there. That's what I was referring to. He had his chance in the SB and couldn't come through. That's what I was referring to.

That doesn't make much sense though. Are you saying it's easy to get to the SB, let alone a conference championship game? It's not like every QB is thrown in that situation and then judged on how well they do. You have to get there. We're talking about the 3 highest levels any NFL team can reach (Winning the SB, making it to the SB, making it to the conf championship game). Technically he's had 10 chances to get there if my math is correct. He's gotten at least to the conf championship game in 5 of 10 years? And another 2 or 3 years cut short bc of injury.

Looking at a 10 year span, how many QBs have gotten that far at least 50% of the time?

He didn't just "get his chance" he earned it, and there are a lot of QBs that haven't been able to even once.

[kjcheezhead]

Quote: Originally Posted by lonewolf371

No, those QBs deserve a ton of credit. Why didn't the Cowboys win four Super Bowls? Or the Raiders? Or the Redskins? Or the Bengals? Or the Vikings? All of those teams were solid, even great, from top to bottom and had good QBs, but Bradshaw's the one sporting the hardware. Your stats comparison was just completely off with that era. I ignored the Roethlisberger reference because quite simply it's a stronger argument and I didn't disagree with it as much. However, I will note that they wouldn't have even gotten to the Super Bowl without Roethlisberger's play in the games preceding it, and that there's no way they would've won their second Super Bowl without Roethlisberger.

The Steelers won 4 superbowls with the Steel Curtain defense and Franco Harris/Rocky Bleier running the ball. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Bradshaw was a scrub, but I don't think he was a great as 4 rings might imply.

Defense is usually more important to a championship than qb play. Packers of the 60's, Steelers of the 70's , Cowboys of the 90's, Patrots of th 2000's all ranked top 6 or better in points allowed. Even The Greatest Show on Turf ranked 4th in points allowed.

[Giants4Natic]

Quote: Originally Posted by steelcurtain311

Eli lost to the Pats earlier that season too.... Not quite as immature as this comment.

Eli was incredible in the SB 4th quarter. He threw 2 td's in the SB 4th quarter where great ones shine.

Not many qb's ever have thrown more then 2 td's in the 4th quarter and as great as the defense was. They gave up the lead that Eli handed to them and the Pats went up 14-10

Eli got out of the near sack. Yea the catch was lucky but that did not win the game. There were still about 30 yards away from a TD.

He had to beat the Pats with a td and not a FG. Eli was as responsible for that SB win as the defense was. Not fair to say he was not responsible for it.

You also seem to forget that he was masterful vs the Legend that is Brett favre in his house with -20 degrees and Eli was outstanding in that game.

Eli does not have to put up the crazy stats. But not many clutch qb's better then Eli when money is on the line.