Im sure youll point out to the fumble play in which Romo was playing out of position for him not being "clutch"
30 Team Stadium Checklist: 10 to go
1) Yankees 2) Orioles 3) Rays 4) Red Sox 5) Mets 6) Braves 7) Phillies 8) Nationals 9) Marlins 10) Pirates 11) Padres 12) Astros 13) Mariners 14) Twins 15) Cubs 16) White Sox 17) Cardinals 18) Indians 19) Tigers 20) Royals
I hate Rivers' throwing motion.
2014 Adopt-A-Lion: Golden Tate
How many times have you heard "your legacy is made in the playoffs". Steve Young was just a good QB until he won it. Manning was just another gaudy stats QB until he got his ring. Drew Brees winning a ring solidified him as a top tier QB.
Playing well in the playoffs matter. It is the difference between just another good stat QB and an all-time great.
Then look at Brady. Not many considered him a top 10 qb all time until his record breaking season.
Manning played pretty damn poor the year he won The playoffs. 3 tds to 7 int. Yet, he's viewed as great because "he" won a ring.
Regardless of what ESPN and the media like to make.people think, its a team sport. No single player wins and no single player loses.
And I'll agree 4/11 Quarterbacks with multiple rings isn't exactly an overwhelming majority, but I'd say it's a lot better % than the number of Quarterbacks who haven't won a ring and are in the Top 10 best ever (something like 1/2000+). So once again we see that winning a ring or multiple rings goes a long way in determining your legacy.
Right now, where do you think Tony Romo shows up all time in NFL history for Quarterbacks? Top 10? Top 20? Top 30? Why is that do you wonder? His stats are very, very good, so why isn't that enough to put him into the Top echelon of Quarterbacks all-time?
Sure if you say Marino out of all qbs ever. Problem is, there's a list shorter then those with multiple rings that actually even compare to Marino. There's maybe ~6. And guess what? Every single one of them are widely considered top 10. While out of the qbs who have won 60% of the super bowls, only 4 of them are widely considered top 10.
If Montana wasn't statistically as great as he was, say closer to Terry Bradshaw and still had 4 rings, where would he be ranked? Prolly about the same as Bradshaw. Favre would still be considered up there without his super bowl. Without Brady's seasons from 07-present and he continued producing like he did in his earlier years, very slim chance he ever cracks the top ten either.
Bosox - you completely ignored my point once again. Marino is the only QB without a SB ring that is considered top 10. So that's 1/2000+ qbs.
My entire point, as I've said many times, is it takes both good regular season numbers and superbowls/playoff success to be an all-time great. Marino was the exception, not the rule.
John Elways stats aren't so great, he did go to 5 SBs and win 2. Dan fouts had great regular season stats but didn't do so well in the playoffs, guess which one is considered top 10?
Do you think Fouts is superior to Elway?
I didn't ignore your point. You just completely missed my point. There's no other qbs in the top 10 without a ring because there's no qbs of that stature without one. If you think favre, young or Manning wouldn't be considered among the greatest without winning a ring, your fooling yourself.
Fouts wasn't even that much better then elway, if at all. Fouts also had better recivers. Plus I don't have elway in my top 10 anyway.
With accounting for eras, elway wasn't all that much better then Bradshaw. Yet Bradshaw has two more rings and yet have never seen him on a top 10 list. Elway must have been a media darling to get the status he does.