Dan Marino Wouldn't Trade HOF for a Super Bowl Win (1 Viewer)

[Leroy Hoard]

It would NOT be completely unfair to characterize the question as: "Would you rather have had your career (Marino's), or Trent Dilfer's?" I don't think it's particularly selfish or unreasonable answer at all to have preferred his own and the jacket symbolizing recognition as one of the all time best.

this

 

[cstu]

I almost feel like Dilfer would have been better off NOT winning the Superbowl. I wonder what's it's like to be the guy everyone immediately mentions in discussions like this (and there are a million of them). "Hey, TRENT DILFER has a Superbowl, any clown could do it..". It must suck to have a great accomplishment like that to be so easily dismissed and looked down on. He did what the team asked him to do that year and he did it pretty well.

Here's to you Trent!

But on to the question at hand. Over a career, HOF trumps a ring, and it's not close. I'm sure some might feel differently, but I'd guess most of them would be in denial.

I would take being an actual great (Marino) over being a game manager whose job was literally not to make mistakes that lose the game (here's to you Trent).

However, I would prefer a good career and a Super Bowl win, for example Theismann, over Warren Moon's gold jacket.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I almost feel like Dilfer would have been better off NOT winning the Superbowl. I wonder what's it's like to be the guy everyone immediately mentions in discussions like this (and there are a million of them). "Hey, TRENT DILFER has a Superbowl, any clown could do it..". It must suck to have a great accomplishment like that to be so easily dismissed and looked down on. He did what the team asked him to do that year and he did it pretty well.

Here's to you Trent!

But on to the question at hand. Over a career, HOF trumps a ring, and it's not close. I'm sure some might feel differently, but I'd guess most of them would be in denial.

I would take being an actual great (Marino) over being a game manager whose job was literally not to make mistakes that lose the game (here's to you Trent).

However, I would prefer a good career and a Super Bowl win, for example Theismann, over Warren Moon's gold jacket.

And with that combo you also get a 3rd thing, a broken leg.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

I don't understand this reference. Manning was good in that game, but not great. Tuck mad just as much of an impact if not more on the outcome of that game. Strange game to imply that the QB "won by himself". I must be missing something.

And in general, almost any player on the field has the capability to change the game. QBs just get more opportunities to do so.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Surprised that there would be any controversy. HOF is the bigger individual accomplishment, and there's nothing particularly surprising about many guys who'd prefer that over a ring. It's not particularly surprising that a somewhat lesser number would prefer the championship ring.

It's more than just the specific accolades though. If it really were JUST the jacket, I'm sure plenty of guys would choose the ring, but it isn't. The HOF is for the best. If not being in the hall meant not being as good a player (but instead being on better teams), that would also mean (in most cases) less fame, less money, less of everything EXCEPT that glorious memory of having been part of winning the big one. GUys like Dilfer exemplify this...a mediocre QB who won a ring on a great team. It would NOT be completely unfair to characterize the question as: "Would you rather have had your career (Marino's), or Trent Dilfer's?" I don't think it's particularly selfish or unreasonable answer at all to have preferred his own and the jacket symbolizing recognition as one of the all time best.

Agreed. The question isn't really whether he'd trade a jacket for a ring, it's whether he'd trade his career for someone else's. Anybody with Marino's stats is going to make the HOF, so what he really is being asked is if he would prefer his career or someone like Dilfer or Doug Williams's career. Is there anyone that would really rather have Doug Williams's career over Dan Marino's?

 

[cstu]

I almost feel like Dilfer would have been better off NOT winning the Superbowl. I wonder what's it's like to be the guy everyone immediately mentions in discussions like this (and there are a million of them). "Hey, TRENT DILFER has a Superbowl, any clown could do it..". It must suck to have a great accomplishment like that to be so easily dismissed and looked down on. He did what the team asked him to do that year and he did it pretty well.

Here's to you Trent!

But on to the question at hand. Over a career, HOF trumps a ring, and it's not close. I'm sure some might feel differently, but I'd guess most of them would be in denial.

I would take being an actual great (Marino) over being a game manager whose job was literally not to make mistakes that lose the game (here's to you Trent).

However, I would prefer a good career and a Super Bowl win, for example Theismann, over Warren Moon's gold jacket.

And with that combo you also get a 3rd thing, a broken leg.

From the greatest defensive player in history!

 

[cstu]

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

I don't understand this reference. Manning was good in that game, but not great. Tuck mad just as much of an impact if not more on the outcome of that game. Strange game to imply that the QB "won by himself". I must be missing something.

And in general, almost any player on the field has the capability to change the game. QBs just get more opportunities to do so.

Eli completed 75% of his passes and didn't throw an interception.

On the drives the Giants didn't score, Eli drove the ball far enough that the Pats were always inside the 20 - and 3 times inside the 10.

He played a damn near perfect game.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

I don't understand this reference. Manning was good in that game, but not great. Tuck mad just as much of an impact if not more on the outcome of that game. Strange game to imply that the QB "won by himself". I must be missing something.

And in general, almost any player on the field has the capability to change the game. QBs just get more opportunities to do so.

Eli completed 75% of his passes and didn't throw an interception.

On the drives the Giants didn't score, Eli drove the ball far enough that the Pats were always inside the 20 - and 3 times inside the 10.

He played a damn near perfect game.

So did Tuck. They don't win that game without Tuck.

Eli's efficiency was great, but they didn't really light up the scoreboard either. Under 300 passing and 1 TD. I'm just saying that is an odd game to pick as the prime example of a QB winning by himself. All of surrounding Superbowls featured similar performances by the winning QB. Brees, Rodgers etc were pretty good too...

In fact, I think a case could be made that that game was illustrative of the OPPOSITE of your position. Brady could easily have won with a better team around him that year. He is certainly capable of hitting 75% of his passes too, but the Giants had Tuck and the Patriots didn't.

QBs generally matter more than any other player on the team, but they don't matter more than the rest of the players combined.

 

[zamboni]

Pulling out the NHL card, if you took a poll of hockey Hall of Famers to see if they would rather be enshrined in Toronto or have their name on the Stanley Cup, I would imagine a sizable majority would say Lord Stanley.

There just isn't the same prestige and tradition with the Lombardi trophy, and that may have to do something with Marino's comments.

 

[cstu]

So did Tuck. They don't win that game without Tuck.

Eli's efficiency was great, but they didn't really light up the scoreboard either. Under 300 passing and 1 TD. I'm just saying that is an odd game to pick as the prime example of a QB winning by himself. All of surrounding Superbowls featured similar performances by the winning QB. Brees, Rodgers etc were pretty good too...

In fact, I think a case could be made that that game was illustrative of the OPPOSITE of your position. Brady could easily have won with a better team around him that year. He is certainly capable of hitting 75% of his passes too, but the Giants had Tuck and the Patriots didn't.

QBs generally matter more than any other player on the team, but they don't matter more than the rest of the players combined.

Brady would have won had he played better - had he scored a TD instead of throwing an INT the Pats would have won the game.

That's what I mean about the game being in the QB's hands.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Pulling out the NHL card, if you took a poll of hockey Hall of Famers to see if they would rather be enshrined in Toronto or have their name on the Stanley Cup, I would imagine a sizable majority would say Lord Stanley.

There just isn't the same prestige and tradition with the Lombardi trophy, and that may have to do something with Marino's comments.

On the flip side not many people really care about or follow the Hockey Hall of Fame - heck I didn't even know it was in Toronto and I follow the sport a little at least.

 

[zamboni]

Pulling out the NHL card, if you took a poll of hockey Hall of Famers to see if they would rather be enshrined in Toronto or have their name on the Stanley Cup, I would imagine a sizable majority would say Lord Stanley.

There just isn't the same prestige and tradition with the Lombardi trophy, and that may have to do something with Marino's comments.

On the flip side not many people really care about or follow the Hockey Hall of Fame - heck I didn't even know it was in Toronto and I follow the sport a little at least.

Maybe, but really no Hall of Fame is like Cooperstown. I think it speaks more to the prestige of Lord Stanley than anything, but I digress.

 

[Freelove]

Pulling out the NHL card, if you took a poll of hockey Hall of Famers to see if they would rather be enshrined in Toronto or have their name on the Stanley Cup, I would imagine a sizable majority would say Lord Stanley.

There just isn't the same prestige and tradition with the Lombardi trophy, and that may have to do something with Marino's comments.

On the flip side not many people really care about or follow the Hockey Hall of Fame - heck I didn't even know it was in Toronto and I follow the sport a little at least.

Fame in hockey means some people in Canada and Detroit care. Thus, hockey's hall of it is a comparably irrelevant deal. The people who really care are the players, and among them, the trophy obviously trumps all. It's a lot more important in a fringe sport to gain what your peers want than what the fans want.

I'm sure Shaun White is first ballot into the snowboarding HOF. Nobody cares. His gold medals? Very cool.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Dan Marino is a wise man.

It is not our place as humans to make such trades. Screwing with the universe like that never works out well. Anyone who thinks differently has never seen an episode of TV in which a genie has granted someone's wish.

 

[FUBAR]

i'd rather have a gold jacket

I'd take a very good career and a Super Bowl win.

One is a real accomplishment and the other is a popularity contest.

In Dan's case, he's clearly one of the best all time and didn't get in just because he's likable.

the only positions (in football) I judge purely on wins and championships are the coach and GM.

 

[Riffraff]

A player recognized by his peers as one of the greatest in their profession. Immortalized in a bronze bust of their image. $$$ for their image/likeness, guest speaking, and/ or commentary. $$$ for autographs. A cool jacket. A recorded speech. A significant moment in the family history. Made real good $$$ for being so good over a career. Possibly setting up a foundation and/or setting up their families for generations to come.

or

Potentially just the 53rd member, back-up special teamer, of a Super Bowl Championship team.

HOF for me please.

 

[FUBAR]

Would you rather be known as one of the best in your profession or to play / work for the #1 company in any given year?

 

[cstu]

Added a poll.

 

[FUBAR]

Added a poll.

interesting choices to list. Thiesmann is a SB winner who enjoys the fame of a HOF QB. Meanwhile Moon is a HOF QB but one of the least heralded / famous HOF QBs.

Change those to Dilfer and Marino and you'd probably get a different result.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Dan Marino is a wise man.

It is not our place as humans to make such trades. Screwing with the universe like that never works out well. Anyone who thinks differently has never seen an episode of TV in which a genie has granted someone's wish.

There were episodes where highly trained astronaut Tony Nelson was on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

 

[cstu]

Added a poll.

interesting choices to list. Thiesmann is a SB winner who enjoys the fame of a HOF QB. Meanwhile Moon is a HOF QB but one of the least heralded / famous HOF QBs.

Change those to Dilfer and Marino and you'd probably get a different result.

That was the point.

 

[Ghost Rider]

I almost feel like Dilfer would have been better off NOT winning the Superbowl. I wonder what's it's like to be the guy everyone immediately mentions in discussions like this (and there are a million of them). "Hey, TRENT DILFER has a Superbowl, any clown could do it..". It must suck to have a great accomplishment like that to be so easily dismissed and looked down on. He did what the team asked him to do that year and he did it pretty well.

Here's to you Trent!

.

Dilfer lucked into a ring and is now working for ESPN, probably make damn good money, to talk about football. Except for losing his hair, I am sure he is doing just fine.

 

[Madden Curse]

Dan Marino is right about this.

 

[FUBAR]

Dan Marino is right about this.

I don't know if there is a right or wrong really.

But comparisons to normal life is difficult. Would you rather be one of the best doctors in the world or work For the top rated hospital? voted one of the best law school professors or teach at the top school?

 

[cstu]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

 

[CalBear]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

Theismann was a slightly-above-mediocre QB (never led the NFL in any passing stat, only two Pro Bowls) who won a Super Bowl on the back of a great defense and a fullback (who was the Super Bowl MVP). He passed for just 143 yards in the Super Bowl, and threw two INTs in the second half. On the last two Washington drives, which included the classic run by Riggins, they had 14 rushing attempts and just three passes.

A notch above Trent Dilfer, but not a large notch.

Whereas Warren Moon is in Canton despite not entering the NFL until age 28 due to racism. Even starting then he went to nine Pro Bowls and finished in the top five in passing yards seven times (leading twice), and retired as the #3 QB in NFL history in passing yardage.

 

[ghostguy123]

Pulling out the NHL card, if you took a poll of hockey Hall of Famers to see if they would rather be enshrined in Toronto or have their name on the Stanley Cup, I would imagine a sizable majority would say Lord Stanley.

There just isn't the same prestige and tradition with the Lombardi trophy, and that may have to do something with Marino's comments.

On the flip side not many people really care about or follow the Hockey Hall of Fame - heck I didn't even know it was in Toronto and I follow the sport a little at least.

Fame in hockey means some people in Canada and Detroit care. Thus, hockey's hall of it is a comparably irrelevant deal. The people who really care are the players, and among them, the trophy obviously trumps all. It's a lot more important in a fringe sport to gain what your peers want than what the fans want.

I'm sure Shaun White is first ballot into the snowboarding HOF. Nobody cares. His gold medals? Very cool.

So now we are comparing championships in individual sports to championships in team sports?

In individual sports the HOF is sort of irrelevant because all you have to do is look at titles and top finishes and you know who is the best. That's how individual sports work.

 

[ghostguy123]

Would you rather be known as one of the best in your profession or to play / work for the #1 company in any given year?

Add more.

What is my pay and career ladder look like in each scenario? Where are each located? Are the actual jobs the same? How much prestige is there for each scenario?

This question lacks substance just like the question asked to Marino. It was just a worthless question to create arguments about what people THINK Marino was really saying.

 

[FUBAR]

Would you rather be known as one of the best in your profession or to play / work for the #1 company in any given year?

Add more.

What is my pay and career ladder look like in each scenario? Where are each located? Are the actual jobs the same? How much prestige is there for each scenario?

This question lacks substance just like the question asked to Marino. It was just a worthless question to create arguments about what people THINK Marino was really saying.

That's kind of my point. without context people speculate more. the questions could lead to decent conversations about personal goals but instead many people just accuse the person who would rather be in the hall of fame or one of the best in their profession as selfish.

While Dan was playing, the fins were perennial playoff contenders (they missed 7 times in his 16 year career) with very few losing seasons. The career of a HoF qb usually results in a long series of exciting seasons. That's pretty good for a franchise and a city.

 

[cstu]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

Theismann was a slightly-above-mediocre QB (never led the NFL in any passing stat, only two Pro Bowls) who won a Super Bowl on the back of a great defense and a fullback (who was the Super Bowl MVP). He passed for just 143 yards in the Super Bowl, and threw two INTs in the second half. On the last two Washington drives, which included the classic run by Riggins, they had 14 rushing attempts and just three passes.

A notch above Trent Dilfer, but not a large notch.

Whereas Warren Moon is in Canton despite not entering the NFL until age 28 due to racism. Even starting then he went to nine Pro Bowls and finished in the top five in passing yards seven times (leading twice), and retired as the #3 QB in NFL history in passing yardage.

This is completely wrong - from 1979-1984 he was:

- #2 in passing TD's

- #2 in passing yards

- #5 in QB rating

- #6 in completion %

- #6 in ANY/A

- #1 in QB rushing yards

He didn't lead the league in anything because he played in an era with Montana and Fouts.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

I don't understand this reference. Manning was good in that game, but not great. Tuck mad just as much of an impact if not more on the outcome of that game. Strange game to imply that the QB "won by himself". I must be missing something.

And in general, almost any player on the field has the capability to change the game. QBs just get more opportunities to do so.

Eli completed 75% of his passes and didn't throw an interception.

On the drives the Giants didn't score, Eli drove the ball far enough that the Pats were always inside the 20 - and 3 times inside the 10.

He played a damn near perfect game.

The Giants allowed 15 net points in that game against an offense that averaged 29.25 ppg for the year. I can't get onboard with the idea of a QB single handedly winning a game where the Giants' defense held the Patriots to a season low in points, more than 14 points below their average.

Eli played really well, but 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 touchdown is not single handedly winning anything, and there are hundreds of instances of teams losing games with similar play from their QB.

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20. That means that in any other game with any other defense the Patriots win. Putting up 19 points against a team that had never scored fewer than 20 is not winning anything all by yourself, and your statement that Eli did that is nothing more than more evidence of how out of hand the narrative that QBs do everything has gotten. If you did something as simple as give the Giants' average defensive line play in that game then the Patriots probably win it going away.

 

[cstu]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

Eli played really well, but 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 touchdown is not single handedly winning anything, and there are hundreds of instances of teams losing games with similar play from their QB.

Better QB rating than all of Tom Brady's Super Bowl wins except one - and that's because he threw TD's at the 4 and 2 that could have been run in by a RB.

 

[CalBear]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

Theismann was a slightly-above-mediocre QB (never led the NFL in any passing stat, only two Pro Bowls) who won a Super Bowl on the back of a great defense and a fullback (who was the Super Bowl MVP). He passed for just 143 yards in the Super Bowl, and threw two INTs in the second half. On the last two Washington drives, which included the classic run by Riggins, they had 14 rushing attempts and just three passes.

A notch above Trent Dilfer, but not a large notch.

Whereas Warren Moon is in Canton despite not entering the NFL until age 28 due to racism. Even starting then he went to nine Pro Bowls and finished in the top five in passing yards seven times (leading twice), and retired as the #3 QB in NFL history in passing yardage.

This is completely wrong - from 1979-1984 he was:

- #2 in passing TD's

- #2 in passing yards

- #5 in QB rating

- #6 in completion %

- #6 in ANY/A

- #1 in QB rushing yards

He didn't lead the league in anything because he played in an era with Montana and Fouts.

1979-1984 is multiple endpoints fallacy; you can't choose the specific portion of his career that looks best and call it good, because much of his competition didn't play for all of those years. Here are his finishes in each of those years:

1979: Yardage #13, TD #9

1980: Yardage #17, TD #17

1981: Yardage #7, TD #19

1982: Yardage #9, TD #8

1983: Yardage #5, TD #3

1984: Yardage #9, TD #6

So in that phase he had exactly one season where he was in the top five in any category. He's behind guys like Danny White, Richard Todd, Tommy Kramer, oh, and hey, Doug Williams, another Super Bowl winner.

 

[cstu]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

Theismann was a slightly-above-mediocre QB (never led the NFL in any passing stat, only two Pro Bowls) who won a Super Bowl on the back of a great defense and a fullback (who was the Super Bowl MVP). He passed for just 143 yards in the Super Bowl, and threw two INTs in the second half. On the last two Washington drives, which included the classic run by Riggins, they had 14 rushing attempts and just three passes.

A notch above Trent Dilfer, but not a large notch.

Whereas Warren Moon is in Canton despite not entering the NFL until age 28 due to racism. Even starting then he went to nine Pro Bowls and finished in the top five in passing yards seven times (leading twice), and retired as the #3 QB in NFL history in passing yardage.

This is completely wrong - from 1979-1984 he was:

- #2 in passing TD's

- #2 in passing yards

- #5 in QB rating

- #6 in completion %

- #6 in ANY/A

- #1 in QB rushing yards

He didn't lead the league in anything because he played in an era with Montana and Fouts.

1979-1984 is multiple endpoints fallacy; you can't choose the specific portion of his career that looks best and call it good, because much of his competition didn't play for all of those years. Here are his finishes in each of those years:

1979: Yardage #13, TD #9

1980: Yardage #17, TD #17

1981: Yardage #7, TD #19

1982: Yardage #9, TD #8

1983: Yardage #5, TD #3

1984: Yardage #9, TD #6

So in that phase he had exactly one season where he was in the top five in any category. He's behind guys like Danny White, Richard Todd, Tommy Kramer, oh, and hey, Doug Williams, another Super Bowl winner.

1979: Yardage #13, TD tied for #8 (not #9), QB rating #2

1980: Yardage #17, TD #17

1981: Yardage #7, TD #19

1982: Yardage #9, TD #8, QB rating #3

1983: Yardage #5, TD #2 (not #3), QB rating #2

1984: Yardage #9, TD #6, QB rating #6

Looks a lot like Eli Manning's career.

 

[CalBear]

Looks a lot like Eli Manning's career.

And that's supposed to be good?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I have a hard time believing you guys would choose Moon's career over Theismann's.

That really has very little to do with this actual topic.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Added a poll.

interesting choices to list. Thiesmann is a SB winner who enjoys the fame of a HOF QB. Meanwhile Moon is a HOF QB but one of the least heralded / famous HOF QBs.

Change those to Dilfer and Marino and you'd probably get a different result.

That was the point.

No it's not. The point is that Dan Marino would not trade his Hall of Fame career for a championship ring. Something you take issue with for some reason.

Theisman v. Moon is not really the topic and has many mitigating factors.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

New England didn't score 2 points below their season average. They scored FOURTEEN below. There's a lot more to that than field position. Not to mention the special teams had a lot to do with the starting field position as well as Weatherford pinned 3 punts inside the 10 on 4 tries (only 1 touchback) and the Giants were 5/5 on keeping NE inside the 20 on kickoffs. And remember, this was before they moved the kickoff spot up.

The Giants got good play out of their quarterback, special teams, and especially defense line. To say that Eli Manning won that "all by himself" because he completed a bunch of safe short passes (only 7.4ypa despite 75% completion pct) and didn't turn the ball over is absurd. He was a part of a great team effort that would have collapsed if any number of players didn't play really really well.

I can't even believe we're having this discussion. "Winning a game by yourself", if it even exists, is 415 yards at 8.5ypa with 5 TDs in a 48-45 shootout where your defense couldn't stop the other team. It's not 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 TD in a low scoring slugfest where the story of the game is that your defensive line made one of the greatest QBs of all time look like an average joe.

 

[Bri]

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

I don't understand this reference. Manning was good in that game, but not great. Tuck mad just as much of an impact if not more on the outcome of that game. Strange game to imply that the QB "won by himself". I must be missing something.

And in general, almost any player on the field has the capability to change the game. QBs just get more opportunities to do so.

Eli completed 75% of his passes and didn't throw an interception.

On the drives the Giants didn't score, Eli drove the ball far enough that the Pats were always inside the 20 - and 3 times inside the 10.

He played a damn near perfect game.

So did Tuck. They don't win that game without Tuck.

Eli's efficiency was great, but they didn't really light up the scoreboard either. Under 300 passing and 1 TD. I'm just saying that is an odd game to pick as the prime example of a QB winning by himself. All of surrounding Superbowls featured similar performances by the winning QB. Brees, Rodgers etc were pretty good too...

In fact, I think a case could be made that that game was illustrative of the OPPOSITE of your position. Brady could easily have won with a better team around him that year. He is certainly capable of hitting 75% of his passes too, but the Giants had Tuck and the Patriots didn't.

QBs generally matter more than any other player on the team, but they don't matter more than the rest of the players combined.

People have quickly forgotten the 4 DE package. It's a shame with this being a HOF thread and Strahan one of them.

It was extremely unique.

It shows how much the announcers are tuned and out and how many Supe parties have muted sound. They spoke of the 4 DE package all game long and how quick they disrupted things.

 

[Shutout]

I would choose the same as Marino.

 

[cstu]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

New England didn't score 2 points below their season average. They scored FOURTEEN below. There's a lot more to that than field position. Not to mention the special teams had a lot to do with the starting field position as well as Weatherford pinned 3 punts inside the 10 on 4 tries (only 1 touchback) and the Giants were 5/5 on keeping NE inside the 20 on kickoffs. And remember, this was before they moved the kickoff spot up.

The Giants got good play out of their quarterback, special teams, and especially defense line. To say that Eli Manning won that "all by himself" because he completed a bunch of safe short passes (only 7.4ypa despite 75% completion pct) and didn't turn the ball over is absurd. He was a part of a great team effort that would have collapsed if any number of players didn't play really really well.

I can't even believe we're having this discussion. "Winning a game by yourself", if it even exists, is 415 yards at 8.5ypa with 5 TDs in a 48-45 shootout where your defense couldn't stop the other team. It's not 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 TD in a low scoring slugfest where the story of the game is that your defensive line made one of the greatest QBs of all time look like an average joe.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he played a nearly perfect game.

Brady has played worse Super Bowls and won.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

New England didn't score 2 points below their season average. They scored FOURTEEN below. There's a lot more to that than field position. Not to mention the special teams had a lot to do with the starting field position as well as Weatherford pinned 3 punts inside the 10 on 4 tries (only 1 touchback) and the Giants were 5/5 on keeping NE inside the 20 on kickoffs. And remember, this was before they moved the kickoff spot up.

The Giants got good play out of their quarterback, special teams, and especially defense line. To say that Eli Manning won that "all by himself" because he completed a bunch of safe short passes (only 7.4ypa despite 75% completion pct) and didn't turn the ball over is absurd. He was a part of a great team effort that would have collapsed if any number of players didn't play really really well.

I can't even believe we're having this discussion. "Winning a game by yourself", if it even exists, is 415 yards at 8.5ypa with 5 TDs in a 48-45 shootout where your defense couldn't stop the other team. It's not 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 TD in a low scoring slugfest where the story of the game is that your defensive line made one of the greatest QBs of all time look like an average joe.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he played a nearly perfect game.

Brady has played worse Super Bowls and won.

Nobody is putting words in your mouth. Someone said "a QB can't win by himself" and you replied that Eli Manning did exactly that in 2011. You literally brought him into the discussion as an example of a QB winning all by himself. Those words, exactly. It's the whole premise of this discussion and now you're trying to change it to "oh all I was saying is that Eli Manning played well"? No one is disputing that.

And what the heck does Brady winning Super Bowls while playing worse have ANYTHING to do with that? What a random factoid.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

New England didn't score 2 points below their season average. They scored FOURTEEN below. There's a lot more to that than field position. Not to mention the special teams had a lot to do with the starting field position as well as Weatherford pinned 3 punts inside the 10 on 4 tries (only 1 touchback) and the Giants were 5/5 on keeping NE inside the 20 on kickoffs. And remember, this was before they moved the kickoff spot up.

The Giants got good play out of their quarterback, special teams, and especially defense line. To say that Eli Manning won that "all by himself" because he completed a bunch of safe short passes (only 7.4ypa despite 75% completion pct) and didn't turn the ball over is absurd. He was a part of a great team effort that would have collapsed if any number of players didn't play really really well.

I can't even believe we're having this discussion. "Winning a game by yourself", if it even exists, is 415 yards at 8.5ypa with 5 TDs in a 48-45 shootout where your defense couldn't stop the other team. It's not 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 TD in a low scoring slugfest where the story of the game is that your defensive line made one of the greatest QBs of all time look like an average joe.

You're putting words in my mouth. I said he played a nearly perfect game.

Brady has played worse Super Bowls and won.

While making the HOF is wonderful, not being able to experience the #1 goal that you set out for would be disappointing - especially at QB where winning is literally at your fingertips.

This is just blatantly not true.

The quality of a team's entire passing game accounts for something like 30% of their W-L record. And that counts the QB, blockers and receivers.

So a QB might be worth 10x as much as an average player, but he still can't win by himself.

Eli Manning - 2011.

Obviously the rest of the team needs to play decent enough to keep the game close, but a QB has the ability to win the game simply by his own play.

 

[espnespn]

The Giants' offense scored 19 points in that game. The fewest points the Patriots had scored all year was 20.

In how many games did the opposing QB put in the position that they had to start from the 20 or worse every possession?

Eli played really well, but 296 yards at 7.4ypa with 1 touchdown is not single handedly winning anything, and there are hundreds of instances of teams losing games with similar play from their QB.

Better QB rating than all of Tom Brady's Super Bowl wins except one - and that's because he threw TD's at the 4 and 2 that could have been run in by a RB.

Not sure what Eli's playoff QB rating proves, beyond the randomness of small sample sizes. Sure Eli did well in the playoffs, but he had 11 playoff games with a QB rating of 89.3. Are you saying that we can ignore his mediocre 11 year career QB rating of 82.4, and put him in the HOF just based on his playoff stats?

What about a Mystery QB who has 6 playoff games with a QB rating of 94.3? Can we ignore his mediocre 6 year career QB rating of 74.1, and put him in the HOF just based on his playoff stats (which are even better than Eli's)?

P.S. The Mystery QB is Mark Sanchez.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What about a Mystery QB who has 6 playoff games with a QB rating of 94.3? Can we ignore his mediocre 6 year career QB rating of 74.1, and put him in the HOF just based on his playoff stats (which are even better than Eli's)?

P.S. The Mystery QB is Mark Sanchez.

Are you Sherlock Holmes?

 

[espnespn]

What about a Mystery QB who has 6 playoff games with a QB rating of 94.3? Can we ignore his mediocre 6 year career QB rating of 74.1, and put him in the HOF just based on his playoff stats (which are even better than Eli's)?

P.S. The Mystery QB is Mark Sanchez.

Are you Sherlock Holmes?

Are you a disappointed Jets fan who pines for Mark Sanchez?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

What about a Mystery QB who has 6 playoff games with a QB rating of 94.3? Can we ignore his mediocre 6 year career QB rating of 74.1, and put him in the HOF just based on his playoff stats (which are even better than Eli's)?

P.S. The Mystery QB is Mark Sanchez.

Are you Sherlock Holmes?

Are you a disappointed Jets fan who pines for Mark Sanchez?

Yes and yes :(