The media does not pick on Ben or Eli like they do Romo.

[AsthmaField]

Here is what I know. Giants don't win a SB without Eli Manning at QB last season. Packers don't win it without Rodgers. Saints without Drew Brees.

All those guys had great seasons and played great in the playoffs/superbowl when it counted.

Nobody gives a squat about regular season success or statistics.

The Giants might not have won it without Eli, but they also don't win it without their front four on defense... particularly in 2007. Give Eli an average defense and he doesn't even make it to the super bowl, much less beat the Patriots.

Which, oh by the way reminds me: Tom Brady, who is by all accounts a better QB than Eli has lost to him twice now in two super bowls. If, as you seem to be insinuating, the QB is what wins you the super bowl, then the Patriots would have won both their games against the Giants. Instead, it was the defense of the Giants and the pressure they were able to get on Brady that made the difference.

The same could be said for Brees and his super bowl victory. The QB on the other sideline is considered by many to be the best signal caller of all time... yet it was Brees and the Saints that sent Peyton Manning home a loser from the super bowl that year. Why did that happen? Because Brees is a better QB than Peyton? Of course not. Because Brees had a better team around him and better coaching.

That's what Nav22 is trying to tell you: Football is the ultimate team sport. It takes three units made up of 53 guys and a complete coaching staff to get to and win a super bowl. In most cases you do need a competent QB (unless you are like the 2000 Ravens and have a defense that is otherworldly), but that is no guarantee to even get to the playoffs, much less beat the best of the best and win a world championship.

Archie Manning was a terrific QB who, unfortunately for him, was surrounded by a horrible team. That doesn't make him a bad QB. Or a choker. Or not clutch. It means that he didn't have the team around him to help get to the promised land. He had some bad games because he was trying to do too much and was always playing from behind. Always had the other defense pinning its ears back and coming after him because he was always in sure passing situations. Put Archie as the QB of the 70's Steelers or the 70's Cowboys and I promise you he would have had a few super bowl wins under his belt.

This isn't rocket science. It isn't that difficult. People really should be able to see that a good QB without the right supporting cast (including coaches) is almost always going to fail to win it all because there are always other good QB's who do have the defense and the coaching to go all the way.

Just like Brady, as good as he is, couldn't overcome the Giants defense and his defenses inability to stop the other team. Just like Peyton Manning couldn't erase the fact that the Saints had much more talent surrounding Brees than Indy had around him... even though he is a better QB than Brees.

 

[Nav22]

Here is what I know. Giants don't win a SB without Eli Manning at QB last season. Packers don't win it without Rodgers. Saints without Drew Brees.

All those guys had great seasons and played great in the playoffs/superbowl when it counted.

Nobody gives a squat about regular season success or statistics.

Nice attempt at justifying your absurdly illogical stance.

You don't know that the Giants wouldn't have won the Super Bowl had their QB been, say, Matt Ryan instead of Eli Manning.

Many other QBs played well last season aside from Eli Manning, and you have no clue how any of them would've done if they were blessed with an incredible defense for a playoff run like Eli was.

Hah, "played great when it counted"...

Eli was beat up vs San Francisco but it's quite a stretch to pretend he "played great" or carried his team to the win. He didn't play particularly well at all. The 49ers, if you recall, dropped multiple INTs that hit them in the hands. And that was 2 huge punt return fumbles that the Giants special teams recovered, wasn't it?

You only think Eli "played well" because the Giants won the game. Just like Eli didn't "choke" in the first Super Bowl because Asante Samuel dropped the game-clinching INT.

Watch the sport. Pay attention. Shut out the media noise. Form your own opinions.

 

[tyke1doe]

Trent Dilfer - Dan Marino

Offering that comparison doesn't mean that much to me.

First, I'm merely addressing the perception and why people place more emphasis on the quarterback than other positions.

Second, let's be honest here. Does anyone consider the Steelers defense which won championships with Big Ben or the Giants defense that won championships with Eli on par with the Ravens defense that won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer?

Few considered Eli Manning or Big Ben bus drivers in the way they viewed Dilfer as a bus driver.

There are more variables to the equation than to compare Dilfer to Marino as an example of a quarterback with a Super Bowl ring vs. a quarterback without one.

Besides, Dilfer really didn't do anything in his Super Bowl victory, whereas Eli in both his victories had to lead game-winning drives. The same with Big Ben in the Super Bowl against the Cardinals.

And Dan Marino ran into the team of the 80s in the 49ers and the great Joe Montana, one of the reason he's not wearing one. Dilfer had to play against the Giants with Kerry Collins at quarterback.

Eli had to duel against Tom Brady (a sure Hall of Famer), and Big Ben against Kurt Warner (another potential Hall of Famer).

Again, there are just too many variables for your Dilfer vs. Marino to work in a similar comparison to Romo vs. Big Ben or Romo vs. Eli.

I'm not knocking Romo. I've said that if you give him a team and get him out of the Dallas culture, he could do what those others have. But whether we like it or not, great quarterbacks, for the most part, are measured by Super Bowl wins.

An exception (Dilfer vs. Marino) doesn't establish the rule.

 

[tyke1doe]

It's not that simple. I have seen Matty ice and P rivers make the same time types of mistakes and not get skewered the way romo does. How many rings do they have.

But that's because Dallas attracts more media attention than Atlanta and San Diego.

I agree, though. It's not that simple. I didn't account for all of the variables. The market one plays in and the popularity of the team factor into the equation also.

 

[Nav22]

First, I'm merely addressing the perception and why people place more emphasis on the quarterback than other positions.

Until you decide, once and for all, that you will form your own opinions and will NOT be swayed by the media and public perception, your opinion isn't your own; it's what others have told you it should be.

Second, let's be honest here. Does anyone consider the Steelers defense which won championships with Big Ben or the Giants defense that won championships with Eli on par with the Ravens defense that won a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer?

Football isn't black and white.

It's perfectly acceptable to believe that Dilfer deserves X amount of credit and Eli/Ben deserve a bit more.

But to believe that being the QB of a team that won the Super Bowl automatically makes you one of the sport's best is an absurd leap. Especially when the much larger sample size (like the QB's entire career) screams otherwise.

Eli had to duel against Tom Brady (a sure Hall of Famer), and Big Ben against Kurt Warner (another potential Hall of Famer).

Wrong on so many levels.

Eli and Brady never once shared the field, nor did Ben/Warner. Eli played against the Patriots D, Brady played against the Giants D. Only if you believe those defenses were equal (which they weren't) could you make the claim that those QBs dueled against each other.

But inconveniently, football is a team sport. So it's still logically ridiculous to judge an individual player based on his team winning or losing.

Not as much fun to realize that as it is to pretend it's all about those Superhero QBs lifting 44 of their teammates and single-handedly slaying the 45 guys on the other side, is it?

 

[Signals]

The media continues to do what they always do because you keep overreacting to it the way you always have, and Jerry loves his media attention and everything continues as normal in the NFL.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Right or wrong the greatest QB's are judged by how they perform and lead under the brightest lights and biggest stage.

Even as great a QB Dan Marino was he will always be Dan Marino "but". A great QB "but" never won a Superbowl. Even with all the stats and records, Marino will always have an imaginary asterisk after his name.

Jim Kelly is another example, a great QB during his day, but without that ring his name is never associated with other great QB's of his era. It would probably be different had the Bills won one or two of those Superbowls.

Trent Dilfer was certainly a bus driver, but so was Big Ben in his first Superbowl. Had he never been to another and performed as he did, he would be thought of in the same light as Dilfer.

It's not always about raw talent, it's about how they perform and how they lead their team and what they do with that opportunity.

Joe Montana probably didn't have the raw ability of Elway or arm of Marino, but he was a leader. You can say he had the better team, but was the team better because of him. You can say he had the better coach but, was the coach better because he had a QB that could execute the strategy. That game winning drive against Cincy, I don't know if anyone doubted that Montana would drive them down the field to win the game.

It's not always about the stats or records, it's about what you do when it matters most. That's probably why the greatest QB's are judged by those Superbowls.

 

[zack]

Right or wrong the greatest QB's are judged by how they perform and lead under the brightest lights and biggest stage.

Even as great a QB Dan Marino was he will always be Dan Marino "but". A great QB "but" never won a Superbowl. Even with all the stats and records, Marino will always have an imaginary asterisk after his name.

Jim Kelly is another example, a great QB during his day, but without that ring his name is never associated with other great QB's of his era. It would probably be different had the Bills won one or two of those Superbowls.

Trent Dilfer was certainly a bus driver, but so was Big Ben in his first Superbowl. Had he never been to another and performed as he did, he would be thought of in the same light as Dilfer.



It's not always about raw talent, it's about how they perform and how they lead their team and what they do with that opportunity.

Joe Montana probably didn't have the raw ability of Elway or arm of Marino, but he was a leader. You can say he had the better team, but was the team better because of him. You can say he had the better coach but, was the coach better because he had a QB that could execute the strategy. That game winning drive against Cincy, I don't know if anyone doubted that Montana would drive them down the field to win the game.

It's not always about the stats or records, it's about what you do when it matters most. That's probably why the greatest QB's are judged by those Superbowls.

It is hard to agree that Manning is elite when most of the time he is mediocre. That is the biggest issue I have with Eli. What Elite QB can go three games without throwing a single TD. I give him credit for what he did in the moments of those SB's, but I will never admit that he is an Elite or Great QB. He is average. Yeah yeah and he's got 2 SB's!:laugh2:

 

[Dhragon]

Great discussion guys.

This is a TEAM game not an individual one. The very BEST QB cannot win a Superbowl without some complimentary good/great other facets on the team. So the greatest QB of all time might NEVER win a SB. If Denver had never got lucky with Terrell Davis, Elway would not have won a single SB. He was one of the All-time greats with or without those 2 Superbowls though. QBs can't do it all by themselves.

QBs ARE however the most important factor in winning and losing, not just a 1 in 22 reason for a win or loss. They are not 100% though like some seem to think.

However, some posters are right in that the media focuses so much on SB wins for QBs that most of the fan base have bought into their line of reasoning and also will judge QBs on the hardware regardless if they had little help from the rest of their team or not. Romo could double up on his already impressive career stats and if he never wins a SB, the media will declare him a choker and enough of the fanbase will buy that to render his place in NFL history as a loser. I might think otherwise as well as many others, but we will be in the minority I'm afraid.

 

[TwoDeep3]

No crying from me. I actually find the double-standard to be quote comical.

And if you believe that Super Bowls are an individual award and not a team award, then carry on with your blissful football ignorance.

And if you think quarterbacks are not judged by everyone from owners down to ball boys by their winning Super Bowls, then you haven't noticed how Marino is treated.

There is no double standard.

There are fans who get their feelings hurt like clockwork in Swiss watches.

 

[RastaRocket]

The media has bigger concerns.... Josh Brent.

Did anybody see they had an entire Outside The Lines dedicated to Brent today? lol.

 

[tyke1doe]

Until you decide, once and for all, that you will form your own opinions and will NOT be swayed by the media and public perception, your opinion isn't your own; it's what others have told you it should be.Football isn't black and white.

I don't even know what this means. We all have our opinions influenced by others. You do as well as I do.

It's perfectly acceptable to believe that Dilfer deserves X amount of credit and Eli/Ben deserve a bit more.

Uh, yeah, okay, and????

But to believe that being the QB of a team that won the Super Bowl automatically makes you one of the sport's best is an absurd leap. Especially when the much larger sample size (like the QB's entire career) screams otherwise.Wrong on so many levels.

Who said that? Clearly Brad Johnson isn't a better quarterback than Dan Marino or Dan Fouts.
Nobody is saying that Super Bowls won makes you a better quarterback. But what one does in the Super Bowl, i.e., leading a winning drive, has a lot of merit in determining one measureable and that's this - who is more clutch in the biggest moment.
There's NO QUESTION Eli and Big Ben are more clutch in the biggest moment than Romo is. NO QUESTION. Now, when Romo gets there and leads a last-minute drive, that argument will be erased. But until that time, there's NO QUESTION about who is.

Eli and Brady never once shared the field, nor did Ben/Warner. Eli played against the Patriots D, Brady played against the Giants D. Only if you believe those defenses were equal (which they weren't) could you make the claim that those QBs dueled against each other.

Are we becoming Captain Obvious now? Of course, they didn't play at the same time. I think that goes without saying. My point is Dan Marino was playing against the 49ers defense and coming up short, while Montana was playing against the Dolphins defense and winning. When you get right down to it, Montana was able to do what Marino couldn't for whatever reason. But that may be because Montana was the better big game quarterback. Strike that, he was the better big game quarterback.

But inconveniently, football is a team sport. So it's still logically ridiculous to judge an individual player based on his team winning or losing.

No, it's not logically ridiculous. If that were the case, we wouldn't have individual stats. A team isn't some amorphous unit. It is a collection of individuals doing their part. We can evaluate a team and its individual parts. That's why we as fans carp so much about getting better players at other positions. If it's all about the team, then it doesn't matter who we plug in at different positions, as a functioning unit, the team should be able to overcome anything on its path to victory.

But we recognize it takes great individuals at various positions to contribute to the team win. If Romo fumbles a snap, it's not the team that fumbled, it is Romo.


Second, you just invalidated your point above if it's not about individual stats. Why point to a quarterback's entire career as some indication whether that quarterback is good? Unless that quarterback was playing by himself, even a quarterback's entire career is a team matter. Yet, you want to focus singularly on a quarterback's entire career. You can't help thinking about individual stats, i.e., a quarterback's entire career, when it suits your purpose. But when it doesn't, it's all about the team. And what I'm saying is, "Yes, it's all about team." But the individual makes up the team and that individual can do his part to ensure the team's success or defeat.

Not as much fun to realize that as it is to pretend it's all about those Superhero QBs lifting 44 of their teammates and single-handedly slaying the 45 guys on the other side, is it?

I don't even know what this means.

 

[RastaRocket]

It is hard to agree that Manning is elite when most of the time he is mediocre. That is the biggest issue I have with Eli. What Elite QB can go three games without throwing a single TD. I give him credit for what he did in the moments of those SB's, but I will never admit that he is an Elite or Great QB. He is average. Yeah yeah and he's got 2 SB's!:laugh2:

If Sanchez can get to two AFC Championships, Eli can win two superbowls. :laugh2:

 

[tyke1doe]

Great discussion guys.

This is a TEAM game not an individual one. The very BEST QB cannot win a Superbowl without some complimentary good/great other facets on the team. So the greatest QB of all time might NEVER win a SB. If Denver had never got lucky with Terrell Davis, Elway would not have won a single SB. He was one of the All-time greats with or without those 2 Superbowls though. QBs can't do it all by themselves.

QBs ARE however the most important factor in winning and losing, not just a 1 in 22 reason for a win or loss. They are not 100% though like some seem to think.

However, some posters are right in that the media focuses so much on SB wins for QBs that most of the fan base have bought into their line of reasoning and also will judge QBs on the hardware regardless if they had little help from the rest of their team or not. Romo could double up on his already impressive career stats and if he never wins a SB, the media will declare him a choker and enough of the fanbase will buy that to render his place in NFL history as a loser. I might think otherwise as well as many others, but we will be in the minority I'm afraid.

Good post.

 

[tyke1doe]

And if you think quarterbacks are not judged by everyone from owners down to ball boys by their winning Super Bowls, then you haven't noticed how Marino is treated.

There is no double standard.

There are fans who get their feelings hurt like clockwork in Swiss watches.

If Romo had two Super Bowls by now and Eli was ringless, you'd likely hear about how Romo is far superior to Eli in every way imaginable. I doubt you'd hear the, but, but, Romo is just good because of his defense line we hear when Eli is mentioned.

Rings don't matter when you don't have them. When you do, it's all about the championships.

That used to be the argument with Aikman. I can recall many Cowboys fans arguing that he doesn't have the numbers, but he has the rings when it came to comparisons with Steve Young, Brett Favre or even Jim Kelly.

Again, if your favorite quarterback has rings, you make that a part of his defense.

If he doesn't, it's because he doesn't have a great defense, a great running back, a great coach, a hot wife ... but he has great stats. Sigh.

 

[DFWJC]

Some of this all or nothing type talk about QBs and Superbowls is beyond dumb.

Yes, all else even close to equal and that SB will give a QB the edge almost all the time in basic discussions.
But come on, guys like Dilfer or Doug Williams will never be considered in any intelligent circle to be close to as good as Marino, Moon, Kelly and some others.
SB winners like Theisman and Plunket also are a notch down.
Certainly Eli is too.
There are tiers that sometimes are separated by SB wins, but there's plenty mixed in and some near the top that have not won one.

 

[DFWJC]

If Romo had two Super Bowls by now and Eli was ringless, you'd likely hear about how Romo is far superior to Eli in every way imaginable. I doubt you'd hear the, but, but, Romo is just good because of his defense line we hear when Eli is

The problem with that statement is that if Romo had the rings, there really would be no argument for Eli, because Romo would have the advantage in just about any stat category AND would have the rings. The other way around, as it is now, there can be a discussion because the only thing Eli has on Romo are the rings.

 

[Zordon]

These types of post can be counted on like clockwork here on CZ whenever a player like Brady, Brees, Eli Manning, Big Ben have bad games.

And everyone here knows these types of posts aren't about those guys at all -- they are really about the insecurity that Romo-sexuals have with Romo.

Don't you understand that these posts are so transparent?

Just say it man.... "Why don't those guys get criticized like our guy Romo?..... it's not fair...... it's not fair...... it's not fair....." :cry2:

The answer seems so obvious -- those two guys have 4 rings between them -- they won almost half of the Superbowls since they entered the league.

 

[Nav22]

And if you think quarterbacks are not judged by everyone from owners down to ball boys by their winning Super Bowls, then you haven't noticed how Marino is treated.

And if YOUR opinion is based on the perception of others, then you're nothing but a sheep.

How is Marino treated? Better question: who cares? Anyone with half a brain knows he was an absolute stud and one of the best QBs ever.

The problem with that statement is that if Romo had the rings, there really would be no argument for Eli, because Romo would have the advantage in just about any stat category AND would have the rings. The other way around, as it is now, there can be a discussion because the only thing Eli has on Romo are the rings.

Nailed it.

But what one does in the Super Bowl, i.e., leading a winning drive, has a lot of merit in determining one measureable and that's this - who is more clutch in the biggest moment.
There's NO QUESTION Eli and Big Ben are more clutch in the biggest moment than Romo is. NO QUESTION. Now, when Romo gets there and leads a last-minute drive, that argument will be erased. But until that time, there's NO QUESTION about who is.

When all else fails, here comes the "clutch" crutch! Numbers be damned! Burn all facts!

 

[dadymat]

The answer seems so obvious -- those two guys have 4 rings between them -- they won almost half of the Superbowls since they entered the league.

fair enough....now explain matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, and Jsoh Freeman...