• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

POLL:Does a QB have to win a Super Bowl to be considered a GREAT QB??

P

PlatinumGold

Lifer
what do you guys think??

Dan Marino and so far Peyton Manning EXTREMELY skilled and efficient QB's but are they GREAT???

If Peyton Manning ends up NOT winning a Super Bowl his entire career, will he always just be a skilled good but not great qb???

edit:

WOW, interesting results. i had thought it would be less lop sided than this.
 
in my book...yes

edit: granted, a team consists of more than a QB (obviously) but based on MY criteria of what a "great" QB has to be, being a SB winner is one of the requirements.
 
Barry Sanders never won a Super bowl and NO ONE questions his greatness. i think it is really only QB's that have this prerequisite.
 
i DON'T know.. that's a TOUGH question to handle. i GUESS you can MAKE a case either WAY. but CERTAINLY Marino AND Manning ARE great quarterBACKS
 
Nah...

The last time I checked there were 11 men on the field - on each side of the ball - for a total of 22 (including the QB.

The QB needs their help to win Super Bowls.

Marino was a great QB, and I think Warren Moon was a great QB as well. Dan Fauts was a great QB with the Chargers - who did not win a Super Bowl during his run.
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Barry Sanders never won a Super bowl and NO ONE questions his greatness. i think it is really only QB's that have this prerequisite.
Click to expand...

i think you are right about that.
 
my personal opinion is also no, but i think a qb's legacy is more tied into winning the big one than any other player in any sport.
 
voted no. i think consistency over a period of time is more important than winning the Super Bowl. a QB doesn't play defense and the defense wins games. Baltimore comes to mind.

i don't think Brad Johnson is a great QB.
I think Mariano is a great QB.
 
A person can be a great player and be stuck with the crappiest team and never even get to the playoffs. One has nothing to do with the other. At least for me.
 
Originally posted by: Sid59
voted no. i think consistency over a period of time is more important than winning the Super Bowl. a QB doesn't play defense and the defense wins games. Baltimore comes to mind.

i don't think Brad Johnson is a great QB.
I think Mariano is a great QB.
Click to expand...

agreed.

i'd take Jim Kelly or Fran tarkenton over Brad Johnson OR Doug Williams ANY DAY.
 
Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
A person can be a great player and be stuck with the crappiest team and never even get to the playoffs. One has nothing to do with the other. At least for me.
Click to expand...

here is the difference tho, QB's are tied into their systems. for eg, IF Al Davis had drafted Joe Montana to the Raiders and tried to fit him into that DOWN the field type Offense and Montana had NEVER played in the Walsh Offense, would we still consider Montana an ALL TIME great?? i'm not sure he would have made it thru 3 or 4 seasons with the Raiders.
 
Originally posted by: minendo
Originally posted by: DevilsAdvocate
Dan Fauts was a great QB with the Chargers - who did not win a Super Bowl during his run.
Click to expand...
Who is also in the Hall Of Fame.
Click to expand...

but he is a HORRIBLE announcer tho.

a good player a good announce does not necessarily make. 🙂
 
he must win at least 4 to be considered Great. Here's the breakdown

0 = Deadbeat
1 = Loser
2 = Decent
3 = Good
4 = Great
5 = Excellent
6 = Legendary
7 = Godlike
8 = Someone who plays Madden 2004 too much. (=Deadbeat)
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Sid59
voted no. i think consistency over a period of time is more important than winning the Super Bowl. a QB doesn't play defense and the defense wins games. Baltimore comes to mind.

i don't think Brad Johnson is a great QB.
I think Mariano is a great QB.
Click to expand...

agreed.

i'd take Jim Kelly or Fran tarkenton over Brad Johnson OR Doug Williams ANY DAY.
Click to expand...


winning the big game alone does not make a QB great.
 
That is ridiculous to say. Football is a team sport. Just because you are at the helm doesn't mean you can make the rest of the team go. Of course you don't have to win the super bowl to be considered great.
 
Originally posted by: y2kc
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
Originally posted by: Sid59
voted no. i think consistency over a period of time is more important than winning the Super Bowl. a QB doesn't play defense and the defense wins games. Baltimore comes to mind.

i don't think Brad Johnson is a great QB.
I think Mariano is a great QB.
Click to expand...

agreed.

i'd take Jim Kelly or Fran tarkenton over Brad Johnson OR Doug Williams ANY DAY.
Click to expand...


winning the big game alone does not make a QB great.
Click to expand...

agreed and it was me that got things off the main question as the real question is, Does a QB have to win a super bowl to be considered great and not, does winning the super bowl make one great. 🙂
 
Perhaps--A team has to win the super bowl to be great.

IMO, Players can be conisidered great by their overall performance, but be stuck on sucky teams, or marginally good teams with bad coaching, or good teams with poor execution, etc--and never win a superbowl.

 
I don't think it is required, but it is certainly the sign of a great QB if he wins multiple superbowls.
 
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
no one has commented on Joe Montana if he had been drafted by the raiders.
Click to expand...

Speculating such a thing is pointless. No one knows or will know. Montana could've gotten injured the first season and that was it for him or he could've done the same thing he did with the Niners. No possible way of knowing. Just like the people that speculate about Vick. He has the potential to be a great player but who knows till it's done.

Which reminds me of something that happened with the Dolphins. The year the Patriots won the Super Bowl, that year the Dolphins had traded 3 players with them. Those 3 players barely played and at the end of the season they all posed together and sent a picture to the Dolphins with their Rings on. They got lucky and most certainly didn't deserve those rings but now they can say they won the big game even though they didn't even play in it. Big Deal. Super Bowl is more about the greatness of a team than any individual.

Like someone else mentioned Greatness is more about consistency over a period of time than a Super Bowl win and you're out. No one will remember Kurt Warner in a couple of years(unless he makes a tremendous comeback) but people will still remember Dan Marino and Jim Kelly. Does winning a Super Bowl help the greatness? No doubt, but it sure doesn't degrade someone.
 
Originally posted by: JHoNNy1OoO
Originally posted by: PlatinumGold
no one has commented on Joe Montana if he had been drafted by the raiders.
Click to expand...

Speculating such a thing is pointless. No one knows or will know. Montana could've gotten injured the first season and that was it for him or he could've done the same thing he did with the Niners. No possible way of knowing. Just like the people that speculate about Vick. He has the potential to be a great player but who knows till it's done.
Click to expand...

speculating is what one does in a thread like this.

IF montana had been thrown in an offense that was vertical and not dump to crossing routes all the time, his weak arm would have been a real problem.

he would NOT have survived. the point here being a system can make a QB as much as a QB can make a system. vinny vs chad pennington in the Jets Offense.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top