I just hate the argument that its all about rings, he doenst have one, but he is still considered a top 5 QB all time. Leave the ring talk out then.
My brother in law said he was a big bitch and blamed his line and WR when things went bad. Can anyone verify this?
Am I typing in white letters ?
Rings isnt the only argument.
Yes he was a bitch. Like Rice and Cris Carter was a big fat whiny bitch. Before the bubble burst they were labeled as fiery competitors.
All 3 were primadonnas. Any of those 3 plays in a time with twitter and 1001 internet blogs they're rep would be the same as TO/Moss/Cutler etc.
Yeah i'd still put marino top 3 all time even without the rings, but when you put him head to head vs montana it's hard to find an argument that says marino is better.
I mean yeah he threw for 20,000 more yards, but he also threw something like 3,000 more passes, when you start getting into the top top tier of players, alot of times the only thing really separating them would be rings.
Take Tom Brady and Peyton Manning right now. Two QBs who overall have had similar careers, they've both been the top 2 QBs in the lg for the last 10 years or so. But if you say who's had the more successful career so far, with them being so even as players, the next thing your gunna look at is rings, you'd be hard pressed to argue Mannings career so far has been better than Brady's
Would you say that if Vinatieri had missed a couple of those FG's?
I said it earlier, it bears repeating...
Vinatieri makes his kicks, so Brady is the ultimate winner.
If Vinatieri misses those kicks, Brady is viewed as a choke artist.
Neither is fair. Brady is a great QB, but those SB's don't make him better than Manning.
Vanderjagt missed a bunch of critical kicks for Manning, Vinatieri made all of his kicks for Brady, so Brady has a rep as the big winner. This is why the ring argument sucks.
Brady is not in the discussion. He was NOT the focal point of that team , he was NOT asked to win games. What he did to that team was take way the absolute stupid moron INT machine known as Bledsoe. Marino/Elway/Manning those guys were the catalyst to winning. None of them were on run first , defensive minded , set up good field position teams. They were all "heres the ball get us TDs and a win..thanks" guys.
Ever since the Pats defense has declined and the offense changed to the focal point Brady has put up fantastic numbers. Hes also failed to win a ring and has not delivered in anyway since being asked to win games on his own.
Brady , Bradshaw, Aikman all in the next tier of Ring bearers and great players who were game managers and counted on to be efficient and excelled.
Theres what 10 superbowls between them ???
I wouldnt put any of them above Marino. Just because your under center doesnt mean your being asked to do the same things or bear the same responsibility.
These "rings only" rebuttals need to stop.
To me, it's not a "what if" scenerio.
Vinatieri made all of those big kicks. Even if he hadn't, I would view Brady exactly the way I view him now. The problem, is most people give these QB's an upgrade for team success. I view Brady no higher or no lower based on the outcome of Adam Vinatieri's kicks.
Kurt Warner owns the three highest passing yardage totals in SB history. Three games, three highest totals ever. He's 1-2.
In the first game he lost, he drove his team down the field twice in the fourth Q to tie the game. He scored one TD himself, and threw the game tying score to Ricky Proehl. He never touched the ball again, largely because Lovie Smith siwtched to a prevent D after NE did next to nothing against the base defense for the entire second half.
In the second game Warner lost, he threw the go ahead TD with something like a minute left, only again, to have PIT score with seconds remaining on a great play by Santonio Holmes.
Warner did everything he could do in those two losses. If Kevin Dyson gains another yard, Warner is maybe looking at 0-3. It's a team game.
It would be silly to judge him based on his 1-2 SB record. He performed as well as anyone (save maybe Montana) in terms of SB play. But I can promise you, if Holmes drops the ball, and the Rams block the Vinatieri FG and run it back for the win, and Warner is 3-0, people would be saying he's one of the greatest ever. Whats the difference? His performances would still be identical.
Too much emphasis on rings, at the expense of the big picture. It's lazy analysis.
Anyone not giving Warner his due is a moron. His "best" is as good as any QB Ive ever seen. That cardinals team had no business being anywhere near a playoff game. Only thing you can say against him is longevity , it is the singular reason hes not in an all time great discussion.
Hes a better QB than 'TD' was a runner yet people will throw that guys name around every few years for the HOF.
Again...if the aliens come to challenge us...Marino and Brady are gonna be in bunkers watching on closed circuit because Montana or Warner would be no brainer picks.
What seperates Montana from Brady, to me, is that Montana stabbed teams in the fucking heart at the end of big games.
Brady put his team in FG position.
Even if he was not the focal point. Even if he wasnt "asked" to win the game. The fact
he didnt and it was all about FGs solidifies my stance.
These guys didnt leave it up to chance and just ended the games.
Thats why Vinnys the greatest kicker ever and Brady is a top 15 QB.
bama:
