Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For some, its all about the Rings. Nothing else matters. Rodgers is certainly quickly climbing the ranks of all time greats. Wilson is simply too soon into his career - Good start but geez. Roethlisberger is on the cusp if you ask me.. he needs a few more great years but another ring would certainly help his cause. Plunkett, well.. so many forget the Plunkett was not even the starter when those Raider Super Bowl seasons began.. He played well those years and certainly had great playoffs but you can't erase a decade of futility in New England even with 2 rings blinding you. I mean who were the Super Bowl MVPs for the Raiders, not Jim Plunkett.. Rod Martin and Marcus Allen..
MCO, if you say it's all about the rings, while I don't agree with that, but it's their criteria, then Roethlisberger is ahead of guys like Rodgers, Wilson, Marino, Fouts, Kelly, Tarkenton. While rings should be one aspect, it cannot be the end all be all
MCO, if you say it's all about the rings, while I don't agree with that, but it's their criteria, then Roethlisberger is ahead of guys like Rodgers, Wilson, Marino, Fouts, Kelly, Tarkenton. While rings should be one aspect, it cannot be the end all be all
NO.. not me.. for SOME its all about rings.. i do not subscribe to that theory at all.. I think rings carry some weight but in Plunkett's case, he wasn't even the MVP in those Super Bowls so his rings carry little weight, IMO. I think Eli has a much better argument than Plunkett because not only does he have 2 rings, he also has 2 MVPs sitting beside those rings so you can argue, not only did Eli's team win 2 Super Bowls but he was the main reason they won those 2 Super Bowls.
Anyone that would argue that Plunkett was a better QB than Marino simply on the basis that Plunett has 2 rings and Marino has zero, simply never watched either play.
Just a debate, you are entitled to your opinion. I think it's safe to agree that the top 10 are HOF QB's....If Rodgers career ended right now, he is not a HOFer....will he eventually be, I think so, but we are talking right now
If his career ended right now, he'd be a borderline Hall of Famer already. He would retire with the highest career passer rating in a regular season and one of the highest of all time, along with one of the highest post season passer ratings of all time. He's a 3-time pro bowler -- could use a few more of those. He's a Super Bowl winner, could probably use one more of those. If his career ended because of a serious injury or if he just unexpectedly retired now, though, people would look at his accomplishments in his 8 seasons, not so much compared to those with greater longevity. He would probably have to wait a few years before enshrinement but he'd get there eventually. He's probably the best QB in Packers history and they had at least two great ones -- Starr and Favre -- that played before he got there.
MCO, if you say it's all about the rings, while I don't agree with that, but it's their criteria, then Roethlisberger is ahead of guys like Rodgers, Wilson, Marino, Fouts, Kelly, Tarkenton. While rings should be one aspect, it cannot be the end all be all
There's no way Big Ben is better than Marino or Rodgers -- absolutely no way. Don't get me wrong - I like Big Ben's game, but Marino did more with a lot less for years. What's telling is that the Miami Dolphins instantly fell from perennial playoff contender to laughing stock of the league once Marino retired, and they've never had a sniff of the post season since. Dan Marino's greatness in one sense probably hurt the Dolphins because he was able to cover up just how awful they were. For that reason, Marino gets mad respect from me. I only rate him lower because he played at the same time as a lot of other great QBs during a time when the game was changing, and fair or not, they achieved better results. But I fully admit that my list is as subjective as anyone's. You could make an argument for Marino being number 1 or 2 as much as you could being number 8 or 9 in a top ten list of QBs who've played the last 30 or 40 years.
There's no way Big Ben is better than Marino or Rodgers -- absolutely no way. Don't get me wrong - I like Big Ben's game, but Marino did more with a lot less for years. What's telling is that the Miami Dolphins instantly fell from perennial playoff contender to laughing stock of the league once Marino retired, and they've never had a sniff of the post season since. Dan Marino's greatness in one sense probably hurt the Dolphins because he was able to cover up just how awful they were. For that reason, Marino gets mad respect from me. I only rate him lower because he played at the same time as a lot of other great QBs during a time when the game was changing, and fair or not, they achieved better results. But I fully admit that my list is as subjective as anyone's. You could make an argument for Marino being number 1 or 2 as much as you could being number 8 or 9 in a top ten list of QBs who've played the last 30 or 40 years.
I agree.....mco first posted SOME people go just by rings.....If that was the criteria, then Big Ben and Eli would be in the top 10 discussion.....Marino, Kelly, Fouts, Tarkenton, all GREAT QB's have no rings. Brad Johnson has a ring, Trent Dilfer has a ring. You cannot put those 2 QB's anywhere near this discussion. that is why rings cannot be the sole measuring stick
For some, its all about the Rings. Nothing else matters. Rodgers is certainly quickly climbing the ranks of all time greats. Wilson is simply too soon into his career - Good start but geez. Roethlisberger is on the cusp if you ask me.. he needs a few more great years but another ring would certainly help his cause. Plunkett, well.. so many forget the Plunkett was not even the starter when those Raider Super Bowl seasons began.. He played well those years and certainly had great playoffs but you can't erase a decade of futility in New England even with 2 rings blinding you. I mean who were the Super Bowl MVPs for the Raiders, not Jim Plunkett.. Rod Martin and Marcus Allen..
People who say its "all about the rings" either have an agenda because one of their favorites has a lot of rings OR they just dont know how to evaluate talent by watching games. They need to look at false flag statistics to "justify" their "opinion".
no matter how you slice it or what numbers you look at,Tom Brady is the Greatest of all time,Done !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keep It Simple
I think Montana fans could give you a debate
Quote:
Originally Posted by P47P47
So would those of us who saw Johnny Unitas in action.
I'm a Tom Brady fan, and I say he is "one of the greatest". I've never believed you can tag someone THE greatest, even if Tom wins his 4th this coming Sunday.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
