Brett Favre -- 16 Seasons in GB, One Super Bowl Championship (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

Since the Super Bowl Loss in the late 90's, what has Favre really done? As I noted in another thread, over his last 10 playoff games (dating through that loss) Favre won only three of 10 games and tossed 19 INTs.

Doesn't matter. He proved he could win it all by actually doing it. Marino never did, and he had plenty of chances.

Of COURSE it matters.It also matters that he proved he could win it all.Then again, so has Eli Manning. I don't hear anyone saying that Eli is better than Marino because he proved that he could win it all.Had Favre retired in 2000, his legend in some ways would be greater - because people would have used past performance and an indicator of future success. He still had a bunch of prime years left, but went too gunslinger and cost his team time and time again. 4 INT in a playoff game. 6 INT in another... I hold Favre less responsible for not winning another Super Bowl than I hold him responsible for simply denying his team a chance to get there at times - even if he was also the reason they had a chance in the first place. This is why he is, in NO way, a top 5 QB, and only marginally a top 10 ever, if that.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Again, losers make excuses while winners get it done.

I guess that means the 2007 version of Tom Brady was a loser, then. Got it.

Do you think just maybe there is a correlation between a #1 defense and winning?I am done discussing this with you as you bring NOTHING to the table

You tell me, Marino had #1 defenses.

Miami NEVER finished number 1 in total defense when Marino was there. They did finish 1st in points allowed twice: in '83, his rookie year, and '98, the year no one was stopping the Denver Broncos.And from '84-'97, the Dolphins finished in the bottom half of the league in total defense 12 times, while finishing in the upper half twice.

Not only that those "great" defenses for Marino got torched in the playoffs. how many times did GB allow 30 points with their defense? In fact, name another team to allow 35 points in the playoffs and win a SB or playoff game.He is only clinging to this just like his other arguments; don't waste your time

Yeah, I don't know why I even wasted my time in the first place, as his M.O. is when he has it in for a player, he takes any opportunity he can to bash him relentlessly; same thing he is doing with Marino now, and same thing he did with Brandon Jacobs all year. Hell, I think Marino IS overrated a tad by many, but not to the extent that H.K. is saying. To say he is a loser because he never won a title is just stupid. I guess that makes guys like Barry Sanders, Dan Fouts, and L. Tomlinson losers, too, since they never won championships, either.

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

I hold Favre less responsible for not winning another Super Bowl than I hold him responsible for simply denying his team a chance to get there at times - even if he was also the reason they had a chance in the first place.

No one bother trying to make sense of this. You can't.

 

[H.K.]

Not only that those "great" defenses for Marino got torched in the playoffs. how many times did GB allow 30 points with their defense? In fact, name another team to allow 35 points in the playoffs and win a SB or playoff game.He is only clinging to this just like his other arguments; don't waste your time

Like you cling to the argument that the Dolphins' playoff failures were everyone elses fault but Marino's. The difference is that none of the evidence supports your position.The argument that Marino's defense wasn't good enough is flawed logic. Marino supporters point to everything but his performance in playoff games as the reason he didn't win a title, but ignore the negative impact he had on his defense by not sustaining drives and his turnover to TD ratio in their losses. It's extremely hard to win playoff games when the QB keeps his defense on the field , hurts TOP, and gives up field position. Nine out of ten games Marino threw at least two picks in the teams playoff losses. Football IS a team game and he hurt his by playing poorly when it mattered most. Nothing anyone can post will change that reality. If Marino were good enough to lead his team to a title, he would have by playing better. He did not. Case closed.

 

[H.K.]

Hell, I think Marino IS overrated

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I will make my comment on this without reading all the BS others wrote. First of all the poll results speak for itself. I instantly voted the majority without a second thought.

A legend retires and rides into the sunset on his own terms and that's the way it should be. I did too! I hope he picks fantasy football as I did for his hobby.

He would always be invited into my leagues!

Second as to if he's the greatest ever I will not comment. He is one of the greatest ever.

But he put more joy into my war room then any other QB ever did and he didn't even play for my favorite team. I always felt like he was one of us. He shaves when he darn well pleases. He wears what he darn well pleases. I just always related to him like he was one of us, not the legend he is.

His Jerseys are hanging in my windows. He hang them up. So did we. Thanks Brett.

You are a huge loss to the NFL and Green Bay and the football world in general and only you knew when the time was right. You will be missed and you touched ordinary people in so many ways like your never beleive!

 

[H.K.]

Since the Super Bowl Loss in the late 90's, what has Favre really done? As I noted in another thread, over his last 10 playoff games (dating through that loss) Favre won only three of 10 games and tossed 19 INTs.

Doesn't matter. He proved he could win it all by actually doing it. Marino never did, and he had plenty of chances.

Of COURSE it matters.It also matters that he proved he could win it all.Then again, so has Eli Manning. I don't hear anyone saying that Eli is better than Marino because he proved that he could win it all.Had Favre retired in 2000, his legend in some ways would be greater - because people would have used past performance and an indicator of future success. He still had a bunch of prime years left, but went too gunslinger and cost his team time and time again. 4 INT in a playoff game. 6 INT in another... I hold Favre less responsible for not winning another Super Bowl than I hold him responsible for simply denying his team a chance to get there at times - even if he was also the reason they had a chance in the first place. This is why he is, in NO way, a top 5 QB, and only marginally a top 10 ever, if that.

Eli is a good example. He threw for more TD passes than Brady and his team won.When Marino faced Montana, he was drastically outperformed and the Dolphins got beat.Give credit where it is due. Don't point fingers or make excuses like the Marino crowd.

 

[scooterg61]

I'm a Packer fan and I think it was mildly disappointing that there was only one SB win during Favre's tenure. When the first Super Bowl was won, I think he was only 27 years old and we looked like the team to beat in the NFC going forward with Dallas and the 49ers getting hit hard with free agency and their stars getting older. Don't get me wrong..it was a blast watching Favre play and the team was always a contender with him, but after Favre's first Super Bowl win, I was definitely thinking with Favre being as young as he was and with the team around him, he could bring another one or two more SBs to the Pack.

thinking with Favre being as young as he was and with the team around him................EXCUSE ME??? what team?? he had noone to throw to ever.. ever!! never had one big gun.. walker for a little bit.. but he wasnt no owens,moss,irvin,carter........ driver and jennings are best favre ever had.. and that was at END of career.. favre had nothing around him... no weapons.. he carried that team.. and they would have won 2 super bowls if HOLGREM didnt call that stupid... let em score and we can come back and win.. also.. if holgrem was a good coach.. when they played super #2 in san diego.. he wouldnt have been riding his harlrey are screwing off.. OVER CONFIDENT... holgrem was blesed to have favre.. cuz look at the rest of his career.. favre made holgrem and wolf look good.. favre brought white to green bay.. no wolfe.. no favre in green bay.. reggie NEVER would have come.. rison never would have come.... favre made that team

 

[Chicago Hooligan]

He did have Sharpe for awhile of course, but the rest of the team was nowhere near championship caliber.

For quite a stretch in the SB season he had one of his worst receiving corps, though, when everyone was hurt! That's when they brought in Rison.

But yeah, Freeman/Schroeder/Ferguson for 4/5 years = lol.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Since the Super Bowl Loss in the late 90's, what has Favre really done? As I noted in another thread, over his last 10 playoff games (dating through that loss) Favre won only three of 10 games and tossed 19 INTs.

Doesn't matter. He proved he could win it all by actually doing it. Marino never did, and he had plenty of chances.

Of COURSE it matters.It also matters that he proved he could win it all.Then again, so has Eli Manning. I don't hear anyone saying that Eli is better than Marino because he proved that he could win it all.Had Favre retired in 2000, his legend in some ways would be greater - because people would have used past performance and an indicator of future success. He still had a bunch of prime years left, but went too gunslinger and cost his team time and time again. 4 INT in a playoff game. 6 INT in another... I hold Favre less responsible for not winning another Super Bowl than I hold him responsible for simply denying his team a chance to get there at times - even if he was also the reason they had a chance in the first place. This is why he is, in NO way, a top 5 QB, and only marginally a top 10 ever, if that.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Since the Super Bowl Loss in the late 90's, what has Favre really done? As I noted in another thread, over his last 10 playoff games (dating through that loss) Favre won only three of 10 games and tossed 19 INTs.

Doesn't matter. He proved he could win it all by actually doing it. Marino never did, and he had plenty of chances.

Of COURSE it matters.It also matters that he proved he could win it all.

Then again, so has Eli Manning. I don't hear anyone saying that Eli is better than Marino because he proved that he could win it all.

Had Favre retired in 2000, his legend in some ways would be greater - because people would have used past performance and an indicator of future success. He still had a bunch of prime years left, but went too gunslinger and cost his team time and time again. 4 INT in a playoff game. 6 INT in another...

I hold Favre less responsible for not winning another Super Bowl than I hold him responsible for simply denying his team a chance to get there at times - even if he was also the reason they had a chance in the first place. This is why he is, in NO way, a top 5 QB, and only marginally a top 10 ever, if that.

Eli is a good example. He threw for more TD passes than Brady and his team won.When Marino faced Montana, he was drastically outperformed and the Dolphins got beat.

Give credit where it is due. Don't point fingers or make excuses like the Marino crowd.

By this logic string every QB that was outperformed should lose a super bowl regardless of how well his team plays. Dude you just don't get it.

Do you think going against the Dolphin D might have been a little easier than going against the Niner D? Perhaps a running attack that ran 35 times for 152 yards compared to Miami's 9 carries for 25 yards would be helpful? Perhaps if Miami's defense didn't get torched all day allowing 4 TD's in the first half, Miami wouldn't have to force the ball so much against and excellent defense? Not sure if you understand the meaning (most likely not), but SF accumulated 537 total net yards of offense (FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY SEVEN) against what you claim was a good defense. Just so you are aware, the SB record up to that point was 429 yards. SF offense blew the record up. Only a fool would blame this loss on anyone from the Miami offense.

Marino was 29-50 for 318 yards a td and 2 picks. Not a great performance but clearly when a team is forced to throw every down (Miami was almost always in that mode as they had no running attack) because they are down by a lot you will always throw more picks.

Here are SB winning performances...

Roethlisberger won a SB by going 9-21 for 123 yards with no TD's and 2 picks. (they rushed for 181 yards and only allowed 10 points)
Trent Dilfer won a SB throwing for 153 yards (His defense allowed only 7 points and caused many turnovers they also ran for for over 100 yards)
Brady beat the greatest show on turf throwing for a whopping 145 yard (They rushed for 133 yards and the defense held St. Louis to only 17 points)
Aikman won throwing for 207 yards with no TD's and a pick (Emmitt rushed for 132 and 2 TD's and the defense only allowed 13 points)
Elway won a SB throwing for 123 yards with no TD's and 1 pick (Terrell Davis rushed for 157 yards and 3 TD's)
Plunkett threw for 172 yards with 1 TD and no picks (Marcus Allen rushed for 191 yards and 2 TD's and the Raider defense allowed 9 points)
Theisman won throwing for 143 yards with 2 picks, but they ran for 276 yards!
Bradshaw won a SB throwing THREE picks, but his defense only allowed 19 points
Staubach won throwing for 183 yards with no TD's and a pick (team rushed for 143 yards and only allowed 10 points)
Griese only threw 7 passes for 73 yards (no picks or td's) but won because they rushed for almost 200 yards and the defense allowed only 7 points
Griese won a SB throwing for 88 yards with a pick and a TD, but the Dolphins ran for 184 yards and allowed no points (ST allowed 7 points)I wont even go to the 1st 5 SB's as the scoring was much less and the QB's didn't do much. There have also been a bunch of mediocre performances that have won a SB.

The theme is always a solid running attack and defense...this the TEAM concept that seems lost on you.

There are no excuses, but there are logical conclusions that are simply lost on someone without the faculties to comprehend them or the ability to want to search for the truth.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Again, losers make excuses while winners get it done.

I guess that means the 2007 version of Tom Brady was a loser, then. Got it.

Do you think just maybe there is a correlation between a #1 defense and winning?I am done discussing this with you as you bring NOTHING to the table

You tell me, Marino had #1 defenses.

Miami NEVER finished number 1 in total defense when Marino was there. They did finish 1st in points allowed twice: in '83, his rookie year, and '98, the year no one was stopping the Denver Broncos.And from '84-'97, the Dolphins finished in the bottom half of the league in total defense 12 times, while finishing in the upper half twice.

Not only that those "great" defenses for Marino got torched in the playoffs. how many times did GB allow 30 points with their defense? In fact, name another team to allow 35 points in the playoffs and win a SB or playoff game.He is only clinging to this just like his other arguments; don't waste your time

Yeah, I don't know why I even wasted my time in the first place, as his M.O. is when he has it in for a player, he takes any opportunity he can to bash him relentlessly; same thing he is doing with Marino now, and same thing he did with Brandon Jacobs all year. Hell, I think Marino IS overrated a tad by many, but not to the extent that H.K. is saying. To say he is a loser because he never won a title is just stupid. I guess that makes guys like Barry Sanders, Dan Fouts, and L. Tomlinson losers, too, since they never won championships, either.

See, now I respect this a lot. I disagree with you that Marino is overrated as you can tell by what I have written (I think he did more with less around him than anyone), but I can respect an opinion when someone understands the situation and make a logical case that just happens to be different than mine. In fact, that is what I like because I might actually get a perspective that is something I hadn't thought of and I am more interested in searching for the truth than being right (like some people).

 

[Liquid Tension]

Not only that those "great" defenses for Marino got torched in the playoffs. how many times did GB allow 30 points with their defense? In fact, name another team to allow 35 points in the playoffs and win a SB or playoff game.He is only clinging to this just like his other arguments; don't waste your time

Like you cling to the argument that the Dolphins' playoff failures were everyone elses fault but Marino's. The difference is that none of the evidence supports your position.The argument that Marino's defense wasn't good enough is flawed logic. Marino supporters point to everything but his performance in playoff games as the reason he didn't win a title, but ignore the negative impact he had on his defense by not sustaining drives and his turnover to TD ratio in their losses. It's extremely hard to win playoff games when the QB keeps his defense on the field , hurts TOP, and gives up field position. Nine out of ten games Marino threw at least two picks in the teams playoff losses. Football IS a team game and he hurt his by playing poorly when it mattered most. Nothing anyone can post will change that reality. If Marino were good enough to lead his team to a title, he would have by playing better. He did not. Case closed.

Read my post about SB winning QB's to show how off target your above claims are. Marino's performance in the SB was not great, but he was also pretty good when you see that the niners were in the dime the entire game and the Dolphins simply couldn't run against it. Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year and when combined with an offense that torched the Dolphins D, do you think that maybe the blame should have gone to others when Marino was one of the few who played average (it seems everyone else played poorly). Were you aware that the Dolphins defense tied for the most rushing yards allowed in the NFL this year? I don't even think you were old enough to watch the game judging from your posts.As for the games they lost when Marino threw 2 picks, he also made some great plays. BTW, I am not sure if you realize that Montana threw FIVE picks in the two games prior to the SB, but he was bailed out by a defense that allowed only 10 TOTAL points in the two games. So if those bad picks hurt the defense how come the 49ers were able to do a good job? You have no answer except to blame Marino ...I know <_< Keep

 

[H.K.]

Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year

Marino's defense was #1 in points against twice in his career, yet you dismiss it.....but when he loses against a defense with the same ranking you try to use it as a proof statement for the quality of his competition.If you really wanted to seek the truth, you would treat things equally for both sides of an argument. Please try and show some objectivity in the future.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year

Marino's defense was #1 in points against twice in his career, yet you dismiss it.....but when he loses against a defense with the same ranking you try to use it as a proof statement for the quality of his competition.If you really wanted to seek the truth, you would treat things equally for both sides of an argument. Please try and show some objectivity in the future.

OK, so you clearly are ignoring all the information I have put forth so I can assume you have no answer and admit you don't have a leg to stand on everything but "how could Marino not have won with a good defense for those TWO years? Of course you ignore the 1000's of variables that go into a team winning the SB.Even though I have answered this already, I will do so again as this is your last chance to make your point. Marino was given a good defense twice as you mention. Neither time though was the defense #1 in points AND yards allowed like SF (I hope you can tell there is a big difference as one of those years the defense was 7th in yards allowed). But he did have a solid defense and with the defense worth as much as entire offense that is definitely a leg up. One of those years was Marino's ROOKIE year. I think it is a little disingenuous considering that perspective on rookie years (Favre did nothing and Manning and Aikman won ONE game) is a little hard to judge. But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter In this playoff game, Marino took the team down and threw a TD to take the lead, but the kicker missed the extra point. Then Seattle scored a TD, but Marino responded with his 2nd TD to take a 13-7 lead. In the 3rd quarter Marino threw a pick, but it was like a punt as it was 3rd and long and Seattle got the ball in their end of the field. In the 3rd Quarter, a Miami fumble led to a 1 yard run for Curt Warner (who rushed for 113 and 2 TD's). Marino did throw a 4th quarter Int that led to a 27 yard FG by Norm Johnson. But then Marino led the team down for a TD and the Dolphins took a fairly late lead 20-17. Seattle responded against this great defense and drove right down field and took the lead on a TD. On ensuing kickoff Marino never even got a chance as Miami fumbled the kickoff that led to a FG that ended the game. One would expect a top defense to be able to stop the team from driving down and scoring a TD late in the game but they failed. Could have Marino played better? Sure, but he played pretty well with a late TD drive in the 4th quarter and he never really got a chance after that as the defense and special teams didn't get it done. Not bad for a rookie year.BTW, in the next year the defense was not nearly as good and Marino got bounced because the defense allowed 44 points to Buffalo even though Marino and the offense put up 34 points... The other year you reference was Marino's 2nd to last year, his last full year of football, and AFTER his achilles injury and Marino was 38 years old. This is your argument? The Dolphins actually won a home game in the playoffs in this last full year before going to Denver and getting crushed 38-3. Kind of hard to blame that one just on Marino, don't you think? BTW, this great defense you talked about allowed a TD on the first 3 possessions to Denver? NAME ME ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL ANY QB HAS COME BACK FROM THAT? This is your argument that there defense was good and they allow this? Please! Denver out rushed the Dolphins 250-14!!!!Is there a theme here? The problem the Dolphins had was that they were one dimensional...all they could do was rely on throwing for offense and their defense was always shaky no matter how you want to slice it. They kept trying to draft RB's and one after another they sucked and that really hurt the team. My opinion is that the one year that Miami really could have done some damage was in 1994. This was the year I thought Marino would get a ring. Bernie Parmalee actually had a 4.0 average running the ball (which is pretty amazing that this didn't happen more with teams in the dime on Marino) and the offense gave Marino a 6' target in Irving Fryar (even though he was older). Both Clayton and Duper were good receivers, but they were not elite and they were short 5'9" whoch limited the offense. The defense was middle of the road (19th in points allowed), but this was a good time for Marino to get to the promised land because the juggernauts teams of his career were not as strong so having a weak defense and runnig attack could be overcome IMO.The Dolphins won the division, they then beat KC 27-17 and then moved on to play a solid SD team, but they were beatable. Marino played well and the team got off to a good start, but when they tried to run after being pinned in their own end Bernie Parmalee got stuffed for a safety (they simply couldn't run when they needed to). SD took that next free kick and drove slowly downfield and scored a TD. After Miami didn't score, the defense allowed Stan Humphries to drive all the way down field to take a TD lead with 35 seconds left. With almost no time left and timeouts gone Marino got the team in position to win the game. Pete Stoyanovich lined up for a GW 48 yard FG on the last play of the game. But he was not Venitieri and because he didn't make it (along with many other factors) some idiots actually think Marino is a choker??? Marino played real well completing 63% of his passes with 3 TD's and no picks, but they lost 22-21 in a heartbreaker.I rest my case!

 

[H.K.]

But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter

So you credit Marino with being 8-1 as a starter, making it an individual acomplishment and proof statement of his ability. However, when I point to Marino's losing record in the playoffs, along with his multiple interception games in those losses, then all of a sudden it's a TEAM game.

 

[rock753]

Don't tell me anything about it being about team around you. Elway won AFC championships 3 times just on his talent alone. TRUST ME when I say there was nothing around him what so ever in his first 3 super bowl appearances.

 

[MarshallRob]

Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year

Marino's defense was #1 in points against twice in his career, yet you dismiss it.....but when he loses against a defense with the same ranking you try to use it as a proof statement for the quality of his competition.If you really wanted to seek the truth, you would treat things equally for both sides of an argument. Please try and show some objectivity in the future.

OK, so you clearly are ignoring all the information I have put forth so I can assume you have no answer and admit you don't have a leg to stand on everything but "how could Marino not have won with a good defense for those TWO years? Of course you ignore the 1000's of variables that go into a team winning the SB.Even though I have answered this already, I will do so again as this is your last chance to make your point. Marino was given a good defense twice as you mention. Neither time though was the defense #1 in points AND yards allowed like SF (I hope you can tell there is a big difference as one of those years the defense was 7th in yards allowed). But he did have a solid defense and with the defense worth as much as entire offense that is definitely a leg up. One of those years was Marino's ROOKIE year. I think it is a little disingenuous considering that perspective on rookie years (Favre did nothing and Manning and Aikman won ONE game) is a little hard to judge. But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter In this playoff game, Marino took the team down and threw a TD to take the lead, but the kicker missed the extra point. Then Seattle scored a TD, but Marino responded with his 2nd TD to take a 13-7 lead. In the 3rd quarter Marino threw a pick, but it was like a punt as it was 3rd and long and Seattle got the ball in their end of the field. In the 3rd Quarter, a Miami fumble led to a 1 yard run for Curt Warner (who rushed for 113 and 2 TD's). Marino did throw a 4th quarter Int that led to a 27 yard FG by Norm Johnson. But then Marino led the team down for a TD and the Dolphins took a fairly late lead 20-17. Seattle responded against this great defense and drove right down field and took the lead on a TD. On ensuing kickoff Marino never even got a chance as Miami fumbled the kickoff that led to a FG that ended the game. One would expect a top defense to be able to stop the team from driving down and scoring a TD late in the game but they failed. Could have Marino played better? Sure, but he played pretty well with a late TD drive in the 4th quarter and he never really got a chance after that as the defense and special teams didn't get it done. Not bad for a rookie year.BTW, in the next year the defense was not nearly as good and Marino got bounced because the defense allowed 44 points to Buffalo even though Marino and the offense put up 34 points... The other year you reference was Marino's 2nd to last year, his last full year of football, and AFTER his achilles injury and Marino was 38 years old. This is your argument? The Dolphins actually won a home game in the playoffs in this last full year before going to Denver and getting crushed 38-3. Kind of hard to blame that one just on Marino, don't you think? BTW, this great defense you talked about allowed a TD on the first 3 possessions to Denver? NAME ME ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL ANY QB HAS COME BACK FROM THAT? This is your argument that there defense was good and they allow this? Please! Denver out rushed the Dolphins 250-14!!!!Is there a theme here? The problem the Dolphins had was that they were one dimensional...all they could do was rely on throwing for offense and their defense was always shaky no matter how you want to slice it. They kept trying to draft RB's and one after another they sucked and that really hurt the team. My opinion is that the one year that Miami really could have done some damage was in 1994. This was the year I thought Marino would get a ring. Bernie Parmalee actually had a 4.0 average running the ball (which is pretty amazing that this didn't happen more with teams in the dime on Marino) and the offense gave Marino a 6' target in Irving Fryar (even though he was older). Both Clayton and Duper were good receivers, but they were not elite and they were short 5'9" whoch limited the offense. The defense was middle of the road (19th in points allowed), but this was a good time for Marino to get to the promised land because the juggernauts teams of his career were not as strong so having a weak defense and runnig attack could be overcome IMO.The Dolphins won the division, they then beat KC 27-17 and then moved on to play a solid SD team, but they were beatable. Marino played well and the team got off to a good start, but when they tried to run after being pinned in their own end Bernie Parmalee got stuffed for a safety (they simply couldn't run when they needed to). SD took that next free kick and drove slowly downfield and scored a TD. After Miami didn't score, the defense allowed Stan Humphries to drive all the way down field to take a TD lead with 35 seconds left. With almost no time left and timeouts gone Marino got the team in position to win the game. Pete Stoyanovich lined up for a GW 48 yard FG on the last play of the game. But he was not Venitieri and because he didn't make it (along with many other factors) some idiots actually think Marino is a choker??? Marino played real well completing 63% of his passes with 3 TD's and no picks, but they lost 22-21 in a heartbreaker.I rest my case!

A truly awesome post. A small correction to your recap of Marino's first playoff game (and tenth career start): Miami actually fumbled on both of their last two kickoffs. Marino never saw the ball again after he gave his team the lead. I'd also note that Marino's two Super Bowl interceptions came with the score already 38-16. Down by that much he had to force some throws but the picks played no role in that defeat. Marino played fairly well in that game all things considered. I'd say his biggest postseason failures were the 1985 and 1992 AFC Championship Games. Miami lost both despite home field advantage and Marino played poorly in both (as did the rest of his team it must be said). He deserves his share of the blame for those missed opportunities. Yes, there's no doubt Marino was an inconsistent postseason QB. And you know who else was? Brett Favre.Favre's probably thrown more memorable big-game interceptions than just about anybody. Yet to H.K. it doesn't matter because Favre won a championship. So that proves he was a championship caliber QB. Apparently the inability to win a title is the result of some sort of genetic defect. Yet we can't know if the QB carries that defect until the day his career is over and he either has or has not won a championship. It's a little like Predestination or maybe Huntington's Chorea. Favre can go 11 straight years without winning a Super Bowl but he's not flawed because he'd once proven he could in fact do such a thing. Ditto for Johnny Unitas who spent the last 14 years of his career playing poorly in big games after winning his first two. After 14 seasons of frustration, you might have thought John Elway carried the loser chromosome but you would have been wrong. It turns out he was capable of winning a championship all along. We just didn't know it until he actually did it. Had he retired after the 1996 season we would have assumed he did lack that essential something. Luckily he stayed around two more years to prove us wrong. Turns out all those times he didn't win it were not the results of the loser disease, it was just bad stuff that happened. Favre too. But not Marino who never won because he carried the loser chromosome making it impossible for him to have ever won it all no matter who his teammates might have been. Jim Kelly too. Though strangely if Scott Norwood had made that field goal it would have turned out that Kelly did not in fact carry the chromosome after all. Anyway, yet again a thread about somebody not named Dan Marino has been turned into a thread about Dan Marino. As for Favre, it has to be at least mildly disappointing that he didn't get at least one more ring. The 1995-1997 Packers could have gone down as a dynasty but they only won the one Super Bowl. Favre was at his best in those years but in 1995 he threw a horrible 4th quarter pick to kill a potential lead-changing drive in the 4th quarter of the NFC Championship Game. In 1997 his heavily favored Packers blew their chance for a second-straight title and Favre must shoulder some blame for that because he turned it over a few times and because he couldn't lead his team to a score on any of their final three drives of the game.

 

[Liquid Tension]

But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter

So you credit Marino with being 8-1 as a starter, making it an individual acomplishment and proof statement of his ability. However, when I point to Marino's losing record in the playoffs, along with his multiple interception games in those losses, then all of a sudden it's a TEAM game.

This is what I thought...YOU GOT NOTHIN'

 

[H.K.]

I'd also note that Marino's two Super Bowl interceptions came with the score already 38-16. Down by that much he had to force some throws but the picks played no role in that defeat. Marino played fairly well in that game all things considered.

Facts only, please. Marino had a 66.9 QB rating in that Super Bowl. He did not play well. He threw for one TD pass early and failed to keep any pressure on the opposing defense or his counterpart QB by forcing Montana to match him.

In stark contrast, Montana had a 127.2 QB rating in that game. He threw 3 TD passes and 0 Ints. This is why Joe Montana is Joe Montana and has four Super Bowl rings.

Find me one Super Bowl champion QB who won the game and got outplayed by that wide a margin by the losing QB.

The party line line for Marino apologists is that he would have a ring IF his team had a better running game or a better defense. Do the apologists ever recognize his stats would have suffered greatly in this ficticious scenario? Of course not. The same way they don't recognize that his defense and running game suffered because he threw so much in the first place.

This is why Marino fans get so angry and lose their composure. They know there is only one IF about Marino earning a ring: IF Marino had played better when he had the opportunity then he would have a ring. He didn't, so he doesn't. Nothing posted here will ever change that fact.

 

[Horses Mouth]

I'll take the one Championship year and cherish it, just like I'll cherish the fact that I saw my first Favre start as a kid, and watched his last start with my kids.

that is AWESOME.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year

Marino's defense was #1 in points against twice in his career, yet you dismiss it.....but when he loses against a defense with the same ranking you try to use it as a proof statement for the quality of his competition.If you really wanted to seek the truth, you would treat things equally for both sides of an argument. Please try and show some objectivity in the future.

OK, so you clearly are ignoring all the information I have put forth so I can assume you have no answer and admit you don't have a leg to stand on everything but "how could Marino not have won with a good defense for those TWO years? Of course you ignore the 1000's of variables that go into a team winning the SB.Even though I have answered this already, I will do so again as this is your last chance to make your point. Marino was given a good defense twice as you mention. Neither time though was the defense #1 in points AND yards allowed like SF (I hope you can tell there is a big difference as one of those years the defense was 7th in yards allowed). But he did have a solid defense and with the defense worth as much as entire offense that is definitely a leg up. One of those years was Marino's ROOKIE year. I think it is a little disingenuous considering that perspective on rookie years (Favre did nothing and Manning and Aikman won ONE game) is a little hard to judge. But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter In this playoff game, Marino took the team down and threw a TD to take the lead, but the kicker missed the extra point. Then Seattle scored a TD, but Marino responded with his 2nd TD to take a 13-7 lead. In the 3rd quarter Marino threw a pick, but it was like a punt as it was 3rd and long and Seattle got the ball in their end of the field. In the 3rd Quarter, a Miami fumble led to a 1 yard run for Curt Warner (who rushed for 113 and 2 TD's). Marino did throw a 4th quarter Int that led to a 27 yard FG by Norm Johnson. But then Marino led the team down for a TD and the Dolphins took a fairly late lead 20-17. Seattle responded against this great defense and drove right down field and took the lead on a TD. On ensuing kickoff Marino never even got a chance as Miami fumbled the kickoff that led to a FG that ended the game. One would expect a top defense to be able to stop the team from driving down and scoring a TD late in the game but they failed. Could have Marino played better? Sure, but he played pretty well with a late TD drive in the 4th quarter and he never really got a chance after that as the defense and special teams didn't get it done. Not bad for a rookie year.BTW, in the next year the defense was not nearly as good and Marino got bounced because the defense allowed 44 points to Buffalo even though Marino and the offense put up 34 points... The other year you reference was Marino's 2nd to last year, his last full year of football, and AFTER his achilles injury and Marino was 38 years old. This is your argument? The Dolphins actually won a home game in the playoffs in this last full year before going to Denver and getting crushed 38-3. Kind of hard to blame that one just on Marino, don't you think? BTW, this great defense you talked about allowed a TD on the first 3 possessions to Denver? NAME ME ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL ANY QB HAS COME BACK FROM THAT? This is your argument that there defense was good and they allow this? Please! Denver out rushed the Dolphins 250-14!!!!Is there a theme here? The problem the Dolphins had was that they were one dimensional...all they could do was rely on throwing for offense and their defense was always shaky no matter how you want to slice it. They kept trying to draft RB's and one after another they sucked and that really hurt the team. My opinion is that the one year that Miami really could have done some damage was in 1994. This was the year I thought Marino would get a ring. Bernie Parmalee actually had a 4.0 average running the ball (which is pretty amazing that this didn't happen more with teams in the dime on Marino) and the offense gave Marino a 6' target in Irving Fryar (even though he was older). Both Clayton and Duper were good receivers, but they were not elite and they were short 5'9" whoch limited the offense. The defense was middle of the road (19th in points allowed), but this was a good time for Marino to get to the promised land because the juggernauts teams of his career were not as strong so having a weak defense and runnig attack could be overcome IMO.The Dolphins won the division, they then beat KC 27-17 and then moved on to play a solid SD team, but they were beatable. Marino played well and the team got off to a good start, but when they tried to run after being pinned in their own end Bernie Parmalee got stuffed for a safety (they simply couldn't run when they needed to). SD took that next free kick and drove slowly downfield and scored a TD. After Miami didn't score, the defense allowed Stan Humphries to drive all the way down field to take a TD lead with 35 seconds left. With almost no time left and timeouts gone Marino got the team in position to win the game. Pete Stoyanovich lined up for a GW 48 yard FG on the last play of the game. But he was not Venitieri and because he didn't make it (along with many other factors) some idiots actually think Marino is a choker??? Marino played real well completing 63% of his passes with 3 TD's and no picks, but they lost 22-21 in a heartbreaker.I rest my case!

A truly awesome post. A small correction to your recap of Marino's first playoff game (and tenth career start): Miami actually fumbled on both of their last two kickoffs. Marino never saw the ball again after he gave his team the lead. I'd also note that Marino's two Super Bowl interceptions came with the score already 38-16. Down by that much he had to force some throws but the picks played no role in that defeat. Marino played fairly well in that game all things considered. I'd say his biggest postseason failures were the 1985 and 1992 AFC Championship Games. Miami lost both despite home field advantage and Marino played poorly in both (as did the rest of his team it must be said). He deserves his share of the blame for those missed opportunities. Yes, there's no doubt Marino was an inconsistent postseason QB. And you know who else was? Brett Favre.Favre's probably thrown more memorable big-game interceptions than just about anybody. Yet to H.K. it doesn't matter because Favre won a championship. So that proves he was a championship caliber QB. Apparently the inability to win a title is the result of some sort of genetic defect. Yet we can't know if the QB carries that defect until the day his career is over and he either has or has not won a championship. It's a little like Predestination or maybe Huntington's Chorea. Favre can go 11 straight years without winning a Super Bowl but he's not flawed because he'd once proven he could in fact do such a thing. Ditto for Johnny Unitas who spent the last 14 years of his career playing poorly in big games after winning his first two. After 14 seasons of frustration, you might have thought John Elway carried the loser chromosome but you would have been wrong. It turns out he was capable of winning a championship all along. We just didn't know it until he actually did it. Had he retired after the 1996 season we would have assumed he did lack that essential something. Luckily he stayed around two more years to prove us wrong. Turns out all those times he didn't win it were not the results of the loser disease, it was just bad stuff that happened. Favre too. But not Marino who never won because he carried the loser chromosome making it impossible for him to have ever won it all no matter who his teammates might have been. Jim Kelly too. Though strangely if Scott Norwood had made that field goal it would have turned out that Kelly did not in fact carry the chromosome after all. Anyway, yet again a thread about somebody not named Dan Marino has been turned into a thread about Dan Marino. As for Favre, it has to be at least mildly disappointing that he didn't get at least one more ring. The 1995-1997 Packers could have gone down as a dynasty but they only won the one Super Bowl. Favre was at his best in those years but in 1995 he threw a horrible 4th quarter pick to kill a potential lead-changing drive in the 4th quarter of the NFC Championship Game. In 1997 his heavily favored Packers blew their chance for a second-straight title and Favre must shoulder some blame for that because he turned it over a few times and because he couldn't lead his team to a score on any of their final three drives of the game.

Thanks Marshall. Also, thanks for the correction about 2 straight special teams turnovers; my memory didn't serve me well and it isn't easy to get play by play from that far back.I am in 100% agreement about how people look at what actually happened and then recreate the "loser" or "clutch" factors of players. Examples are everywhere...Brady gets thrown into the mix as clutch because his FG kicker came through, though Brady is considered not getting it done once he gets some pressure this year because Eli drove the team down for a GW TD. If Eli didn't do that, people would be falling all over themselves talking about how Brady got off the canvas time and time again to drive his team down for the winning TD.I don't understand how people can't see the middle ground and more importantly how critical all the players on the field are. Yes the QB is the most important ONE position on the field, but NO QB can do it by himself or even with just a few players to help. This is not baseball folks. My sig gives a breakdown that is at least fairly close even if one wants to nit pick certain areas.

 

[H.K.]

But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter

So you credit Marino with being 8-1 as a starter, making it an individual acomplishment and proof statement of his ability. However, when I point to Marino's losing record in the playoffs, along with his multiple interception games in those losses, then all of a sudden it's a TEAM game.

This is what I thought...YOU GOT NOTHIN'

Sweet! That's the same number of rings Marino has!!!!!

 

[Liquid Tension]

I'd also note that Marino's two Super Bowl interceptions came with the score already 38-16. Down by that much he had to force some throws but the picks played no role in that defeat. Marino played fairly well in that game all things considered.

Facts only, please. Marino had a 66.9 QB rating in that Super Bowl. He did not play well. He threw for one TD pass early and failed to keep any pressure on the opposing defense or his counterpart QB by forcing Montana to match him.

In stark contrast, Montana had a 127.2 QB rating in that game. He threw 3 TD passes and 0 Ints. This is why Joe Montana is Joe Montana and has four Super Bowl rings.

Find me one Super Bowl champion QB who won the game and got outplayed by that wide a margin by the losing QB.

The party line line for Marino apologists is that he would have a ring IF his team had a better running game or a better defense. Do the apologists ever recognize his stats would have suffered greatly in this ficticious scenario? Of course not. The same way they don't recognize that his defense and running game suffered because he threw so much in the first place.

This is why Marino fans get so angry and lose their composure. They know there is only one IF about Marino earning a ring: IF Marino had played better when he had the opportunity then he would have a ring. He didn't, so he doesn't. Nothing posted here will ever change that fact.

I will give you one more chance to prove to anybody who reads this thread that you are not as dumb as you post. How did all those QB's who had poor performance win a SB if you have to be great to win a SB? Two more questions, do you think playing against a weaker defense that is overmatched can make it easier to play well as a QB? Don't you think that a running attack that is a huge threat opens up play action passing?As for Marino's stats, this is why you and I are talking on two different levels. The stats by themselves are not what I am basing Marino's greatness on. Yes he was the most prolific passer up until these new rules, but he was forced into it. I remember him saying that he would love to be able to have linebackers in the game more often instead of dime coverage most of the time and I remember him saying that it would be great to hand off a lot more to stop the beatings and control the game. He also said he had extreme confidence in his own ability to make things happen and his team never gave him a running attack. Having less stats would not have taken away from the guy who had great pocket presence, the quickest release we have seen, a strong and extremely accurate arm and a smart player. Marino was a gun slinger without the really dumb passes that gunslingers make. Marino was smart enough to not throw a pick in the end zone when a FG would win the game.

HK, how did all those QB's with lousy performance win SB's?

 

[Liquid Tension]

Are you aware the the Niners defense was #1 in points allowed that year

Marino's defense was #1 in points against twice in his career, yet you dismiss it.....but when he loses against a defense with the same ranking you try to use it as a proof statement for the quality of his competition.If you really wanted to seek the truth, you would treat things equally for both sides of an argument. Please try and show some objectivity in the future.

OK, so you clearly are ignoring all the information I have put forth so I can assume you have no answer and admit you don't have a leg to stand on everything but "how could Marino not have won with a good defense for those TWO years? Of course you ignore the 1000's of variables that go into a team winning the SB.Even though I have answered this already, I will do so again as this is your last chance to make your point. Marino was given a good defense twice as you mention. Neither time though was the defense #1 in points AND yards allowed like SF (I hope you can tell there is a big difference as one of those years the defense was 7th in yards allowed). But he did have a solid defense and with the defense worth as much as entire offense that is definitely a leg up. One of those years was Marino's ROOKIE year. I think it is a little disingenuous considering that perspective on rookie years (Favre did nothing and Manning and Aikman won ONE game) is a little hard to judge. But OK, as I stated before Marino took over a team that started 3-3. It shows Marino was in 11 games and he started 9 of them. It appears he was 8-1 as a starter In this playoff game, Marino took the team down and threw a TD to take the lead, but the kicker missed the extra point. Then Seattle scored a TD, but Marino responded with his 2nd TD to take a 13-7 lead. In the 3rd quarter Marino threw a pick, but it was like a punt as it was 3rd and long and Seattle got the ball in their end of the field. In the 3rd Quarter, a Miami fumble led to a 1 yard run for Curt Warner (who rushed for 113 and 2 TD's). Marino did throw a 4th quarter Int that led to a 27 yard FG by Norm Johnson. But then Marino led the team down for a TD and the Dolphins took a fairly late lead 20-17. Seattle responded against this great defense and drove right down field and took the lead on a TD. On ensuing kickoff Marino never even got a chance as Miami fumbled the kickoff that led to a FG that ended the game. One would expect a top defense to be able to stop the team from driving down and scoring a TD late in the game but they failed. Could have Marino played better? Sure, but he played pretty well with a late TD drive in the 4th quarter and he never really got a chance after that as the defense and special teams didn't get it done. Not bad for a rookie year.BTW, in the next year the defense was not nearly as good and Marino got bounced because the defense allowed 44 points to Buffalo even though Marino and the offense put up 34 points... The other year you reference was Marino's 2nd to last year, his last full year of football, and AFTER his achilles injury and Marino was 38 years old. This is your argument? The Dolphins actually won a home game in the playoffs in this last full year before going to Denver and getting crushed 38-3. Kind of hard to blame that one just on Marino, don't you think? BTW, this great defense you talked about allowed a TD on the first 3 possessions to Denver? NAME ME ONE TIME IN THE HISTORY OF FOOTBALL ANY QB HAS COME BACK FROM THAT? This is your argument that there defense was good and they allow this? Please! Denver out rushed the Dolphins 250-14!!!!Is there a theme here? The problem the Dolphins had was that they were one dimensional...all they could do was rely on throwing for offense and their defense was always shaky no matter how you want to slice it. They kept trying to draft RB's and one after another they sucked and that really hurt the team. My opinion is that the one year that Miami really could have done some damage was in 1994. This was the year I thought Marino would get a ring. Bernie Parmalee actually had a 4.0 average running the ball (which is pretty amazing that this didn't happen more with teams in the dime on Marino) and the offense gave Marino a 6' target in Irving Fryar (even though he was older). Both Clayton and Duper were good receivers, but they were not elite and they were short 5'9" whoch limited the offense. The defense was middle of the road (19th in points allowed), but this was a good time for Marino to get to the promised land because the juggernauts teams of his career were not as strong so having a weak defense and runnig attack could be overcome IMO.The Dolphins won the division, they then beat KC 27-17 and then moved on to play a solid SD team, but they were beatable. Marino played well and the team got off to a good start, but when they tried to run after being pinned in their own end Bernie Parmalee got stuffed for a safety (they simply couldn't run when they needed to). SD took that next free kick and drove slowly downfield and scored a TD. After Miami didn't score, the defense allowed Stan Humphries to drive all the way down field to take a TD lead with 35 seconds left. With almost no time left and timeouts gone Marino got the team in position to win the game. Pete Stoyanovich lined up for a GW 48 yard FG on the last play of the game. But he was not Venitieri and because he didn't make it (along with many other factors) some idiots actually think Marino is a choker??? Marino played real well completing 63% of his passes with 3 TD's and no picks, but they lost 22-21 in a heartbreaker.I rest my case!

A truly awesome post. A small correction to your recap of Marino's first playoff game (and tenth career start): Miami actually fumbled on both of their last two kickoffs. Marino never saw the ball again after he gave his team the lead. I'd also note that Marino's two Super Bowl interceptions came with the score already 38-16. Down by that much he had to force some throws but the picks played no role in that defeat. Marino played fairly well in that game all things considered. I'd say his biggest postseason failures were the 1985 and 1992 AFC Championship Games. Miami lost both despite home field advantage and Marino played poorly in both (as did the rest of his team it must be said). He deserves his share of the blame for those missed opportunities. Yes, there's no doubt Marino was an inconsistent postseason QB. And you know who else was? Brett Favre.Favre's probably thrown more memorable big-game interceptions than just about anybody. Yet to H.K. it doesn't matter because Favre won a championship. So that proves he was a championship caliber QB. Apparently the inability to win a title is the result of some sort of genetic defect. Yet we can't know if the QB carries that defect until the day his career is over and he either has or has not won a championship. It's a little like Predestination or maybe Huntington's Chorea. Favre can go 11 straight years without winning a Super Bowl but he's not flawed because he'd once proven he could in fact do such a thing. Ditto for Johnny Unitas who spent the last 14 years of his career playing poorly in big games after winning his first two. After 14 seasons of frustration, you might have thought John Elway carried the loser chromosome but you would have been wrong. It turns out he was capable of winning a championship all along. We just didn't know it until he actually did it. Had he retired after the 1996 season we would have assumed he did lack that essential something. Luckily he stayed around two more years to prove us wrong. Turns out all those times he didn't win it were not the results of the loser disease, it was just bad stuff that happened. Favre too. But not Marino who never won because he carried the loser chromosome making it impossible for him to have ever won it all no matter who his teammates might have been. Jim Kelly too. Though strangely if Scott Norwood had made that field goal it would have turned out that Kelly did not in fact carry the chromosome after all.

Marshall, just a note on the NE game you mentioned that Miami should have won. On the Dolphins FIRST play from scrimmage Tony Nathan fumbled the ball away and the Dolphins fell behind. Marino drove the Dolphins 80 yards to take a lead for a TD only to see the Dolphin defense allow NE to come right back and score a TD. To start the 2nd half the Dolphins fumbled the kickoff (Miami had FOUR fumbles lost that game). That is tough to overcome.Interestingly, Miami's special teams really came up poor again as I look at the other game you referenced (Buffalo 1992 season), Miami had 3 fumbles in that game with one being the special teams on the opening kick off of the 2nd half! Buffalo took the fumble and went 25 yards for a TD that pretty much sealed the game. Man, that is pretty frustrating. I know somehow Marino caused it Somebody like HK will say Marino should have played better, but as you stated, if he never gets the ball back he didn't even have a chance. The key is that all the QB's have some average games, but having a great team bails them out. Marino never/rarely had the luxury of being average because his team wasn't good enough to bail him out. We have even seen times where Marino was excellent and still lost. That didn't happen to other QB's mentioned as the best ever, because their teams were too solid. Montana had plenty of mediocre games, but people forget them because they won. Montana had some great game too, and this is not to take away anything from Montana because he was the best or one of the best without question.

 

[H.K.]

As for Marino's stats, this is why you and I are talking on two different levels. The stats by themselves are not what I am basing Marino's greatness on. Yes he was the most prolific passer up until these new rules, but he was forced into it.

He wasn't exactly forced into it. He was a great passer and the Dolphins tried to utilize his strengths to win games. Shula knew what he had and he tried to leverage it, there is no shame in admitting that, it's a credit to Marino.

HK, how did all those QB's with lousy performance win SB's?

How did their counterparts perform in those games? I know Dilfer has a ring because he didn't make mistakes and Collins threw four picks and 0 TD's. I know Big Ben played poorly but ran for as many scores as his counterpart Hasselbeck had TD passes.

I guess the one area where we differ is I don't judge Marino based on what happened in Trent Dilfer's or Big Ben's Super Bowl win. I evaluate Marino solely on his personal performance when he was actually responsible for his legacy. Again, in that instance:

Marino had a 66.9 QB rating in his Super Bowl. He threw for one TD pass and 2 Int's.

Montana had a 127.2 QB rating in that game. He threw 3 TD passes and 0 Ints.

Liquid Tension - here is my question for you:

Is there one Super Bowl team who won the game despite the losing QB having a 60+ point differential advantage in QB rating?

 

[Liquid Tension]

As for Marino's stats, this is why you and I are talking on two different levels. The stats by themselves are not what I am basing Marino's greatness on. Yes he was the most prolific passer up until these new rules, but he was forced into it.

He wasn't exactly forced into it. He was a great passer and the Dolphins tried to utilize his strengths to win games. Shula knew what he had and he tried to leverage it, there is no shame in admitting that, it's a credit to Marino.

HK, how did all those QB's with lousy performance win SB's?

How did their counterparts perform in those games? I know Dilfer has a ring because he didn't make mistakes and Collins threw four picks and 0 TD's. I know Big Ben played poorly but ran for as many scores as his counterpart Hasselbeck had TD passes.

I guess the one area where we differ is I don't judge Marino based on what happened in Trent Dilfer's or Big Ben's Super Bowl win. I evaluate Marino solely on his personal performance when he was actually responsible for his legacy. Again, in that instance:

Marino had a 66.9 QB rating in his Super Bowl. He threw for one TD pass and 2 Int's.

Montana had a 127.2 QB rating in that game. He threw 3 TD passes and 0 Ints.

Liquid Tension - here is my question for you:

Is there one Super Bowl team who won the game despite the losing QB having a 60+ point differential advantage in QB rating?

Considering you never answered any of my questions (Obviously you can't), I will give you the courtesy of a response. No, but winning QB's have done much worse than Marino did. You should first know that your question isn't logical in that compiling a QB rating is based on what the opposing defense does against you. If you don't feel that matters, then you obviously don't understand the sport. That being said, are you aware that both of Marino's picks came after all the scoring was done in the SB and the game was already over? Do you know that his QB rating would have been about 85-90? None of that really matters though, SF torched the Dolphin defense all day and the #1 SF defense held Miami down as Marino's OL stunk, had NO help from the running game and Marino played similarly to Brady this year; well enough to win if the players around him played better. Montana is a fantastic QB but just the fact that Young came in and did even better shows that a good team is much easier to run. yes, Young did do better than Montana.