What's the weight of rings compared to individual awards when we talk about QB legacies?

[Uncle Buck]

8 minutes ago, biggie. said:

Who has a stronger legacy? Joe Montana, the GOAT before Brady, or Dan Marino, the GOAT...to never win a Super Bowl.

1.)  Brady

2.) Montana
3.) Marino

4.) All the rest

Marino was great.  It would be interesting to see what he could do in today's NFL.  Still, Montana's ability to stay cool when it really counted means a LOT in terms of legacy in my book.  (The fact that he spotted John Candy in the crowd should be worth something too.  Hahaha.)

[SkippyX]

24 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

There is no standard weight to these things. In the records books all rings and MVP's are equal. In terms of legacy, they are not. Aaron Rodgers one Super Bowl win is more impressive than both of Manning's. All of Rodgers MVP's are more impressive than Manning's from 2003. Not to say I rank him higher but there is context to these things. Dan Marino's MVP is worth considerably more than John Elway's. Reducing the achievements to counting numbers will never work.

Peyton Manning set the TD mark in 2004 and 2013. Pretending those seasons were not incredibly impressive is a hot take.

A 121.1 rating in an 82.8 average league > a 122.5 rating in a 84.3 rating league, so 2004 Manning is better than 2011 Rodgers.

• Rodgers backup started 1 game in that 2011 season and put up a 136.4

The #1 season in terms of both TDs and passing yards is still Manning 2013, 8 years later.

The 121.5 rating in a 93.6 average league is far below Manning 2004.

The 115.1 in an 86.0 rating league is fairly close to Rodgers 2020.

 

I am fully aware of Manning's limitations as a 1-and-done artist and a mediocre playoff performer on 2 SB winners

Trying to throw dirt on 2004 and 2013 is weak sauce.

 

Edited January 15, 2022 by SkippyX

[Awsi Dooger]

As a Dolphin fan I wouldn't put Marino anywhere near third. That was an absolutely insulting era of football, at least for those of us who experienced the glory years of the early '70s. Those Dolphin teams were smart and tough and resourceful, everything that the Marino years were not. It was a despicable pantyhose passing team in an era that did not reward that type of thing.

I was living in Las Vegas as sports bettor throughout those years. The Dolphins were an absolute laughingstock in that realm. Everybody I knew would salivate to wager against the cupcake Dolphins. Every season you could isolate a handful of games in which they had no chance given the wimp style of play. When I worked as sportsbook supervisor I would at least double the Miami future book odds every season. We laughed uncontrollably at how easy that was. One sucker after another would throw away 20 bucks or 50 bucks or hundreds of bucks throughout the offseason, just because they thought they were getting a bargain rate on Dan Marino. Meanwhile the odds were still absurdly low. Las Vegas Sports Consultants would send out 10/1. We'd hang up 20/1 or 25/1. Out of my own pocket there's no way I would have taken 100/1. And this was year after year for more than a decade.

The Dolphins were still legitimate in Marino's first season of 1983. That was easily his best chance to win the Super Bowl. It was not yet a full blown cupcake team. Tough loss to the Seahawks and slithery Curt Warner in the rain. I don't think Miami could have defeated the Raiders. But somehow win that game and absolutely the Dolphins could have handled the Redskins in a rematch. That game would have had similarities to the 1984 opener.

The distinct dividing line was the loss at San Diego in November 1984. That was when the Marino Dolphins stopped running the football and surrendered to pure cupcake for the next 15 seasons. They were out rushed 40-9 by the 49ers in the Super Bowl. As that game unfolded and I was charting those rushing attempts I knew there would be year after year of money making opportunities to go against that team. Another famous example was a decade later and somehow finding a way to get out rushed 40 attempts to 8 by the Chargers in the playoffs despite leading big for the majority of the game. 

Anyway, I think it has to be Brady first and not a huge gap to Montana second. After that it's jumbled with conflicting variables. Otto Graham has to be extremely high given the astronomical YPA. Roger Staubach did not throw interceptions in an era prone to interceptions. He is just a handful of plays from being unquestionably near the absolute top, including the famous "sickest man in America" dropped touchdown. I remember Johnny Unitas but only the end of his career. My dad always insisted he was the greatest he'd ever seen. Manning is in this range and so is Steve Young, who had the greatest stretch of passer rating dominance of any quarterback of all time. Young led the league in passer rating something like 6 times in 8 seasons. My friend who is the ultimate whiz in terms of analyzing NFL stats has repeatedly said that Young is the most underrated quarterback ever.

Rodgers needs another Super Bowl win. I cannot forgive the 5 incredibly lazy seasons from 2015 through 2019. As already pointed out in this thread, Rodgers has primarily lived off the low interception percentage but otherwise has not nearly been as dominant as should be available to him, given the rules of this era.

 

 

[HerbertGOAT]

It's case by case. I prefer to look at how the QBs actually perform in their respective seasons/games, instead of simply chalking up the number of rings or accolades. Brady threw for 500 yards and lost to Nick Foles in the Super Bowl. Should that loss really be weighted against him? Brady has also had his fair share of stinkers in the playoffs, but was bailed out by refs or his defense. Rodgers played circles around Brady in the NFC Championship game. Should Rodgers be labeled as a choker just because Kevin King decided to play like a Division 3 freshman that day? Not to mention Rodgers playing abysmally in the 2010 NFC Championship game, which of course opened the doors for his lone SB win.

 It's case by case, especially in terms of W-L record/Rings. I tend to weigh awards more just because there are so many factors of deciding a game beyond the QB's control. There's no way you can watch the Chargers-Raiders game last week and tell me with a straight face that Derek Carr is a better QB than Justin Herbert because his team won. Although, I still take those with a grain of salt because the voters can REALLY screw it up. There's no way in hell that Manning should've gotten his 2003 MVP, that should've been McNair's alone. However, the voters made them split it. Drew Brees having no MVPs is a crime. Voters can be fickle and biased. If I have to choose, I look at awards/accolades more highly than rings, but I prefer the eye test relative to their peers above all.

[HerbertGOAT]

4 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Peyton Manning set the TD mark in 2004 and 2013. Pretending those seasons were not incredibly impressive is a hot take.

A 121.1 rating in an 82.8 average league > a 122.5 rating in a 84.3 rating league, so 2004 Manning is better than 2011 Rodgers.

• Rodgers backup started 1 game in that 2011 season and put up a 136.4

The #1 season in terms of both TDs and passing yards is still Manning 2013, 8 years later.

The 121.5 rating in a 93.6 average league is far below Manning 2004.

The 115.1 in an 86.0 rating league is fairly close to Rodgers 2020.

 

I am fully aware of Manning's limitations as a 1-and-done artist and a mediocre playoff performer on 2 SB winners

Trying to throw dirt on 2004 and 2013 is weak sauce.

 

He was talking specifically about Manning's 2003 MVP. Not all of his MVP's since 2003.

[SkippyX]

11 minutes ago, HerbertGOAT said:

He was talking specifically about Manning's 2003 MVP. Not all of his MVP's since 2003.

2003 was the last year that DBs were allowed to assault WRs.

Strange how the numbers were lower than 2011 or 2014 or 2020.

 

Rich Gannon's 2002 numbers were better than Montana's 1990 numbers.  Is that somehow meaningful?

[Mox]

6 hours ago, SkippyX said:

Peyton Manning set the TD mark in 2004 and 2013. Pretending those seasons were not incredibly impressive is a hot take.

A 121.1 rating in an 82.8 average league > a 122.5 rating in a 84.3 rating league, so 2004 Manning is better than 2011 Rodgers.

• Rodgers backup started 1 game in that 2011 season and put up a 136.4

The #1 season in terms of both TDs and passing yards is still Manning 2013, 8 years later.

The 121.5 rating in a 93.6 average league is far below Manning 2004.

The 115.1 in an 86.0 rating league is fairly close to Rodgers 2020.

 

I am fully aware of Manning's limitations as a 1-and-done artist and a mediocre playoff performer on 2 SB winners

Trying to throw dirt on 2004 and 2013 is weak sauce.

 

I didn't do that. I specifically said 2003.

[SkippyX]

11 hours ago, Bullet Club said:

I didn't do that. I specifically said 2003.

See above. That does not work either.

[Mox]

33 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

See above. That does not work either.

Yes, it does. Rules being different doesn't elevate it from a weak MVP to a strong one. Your responses have been ridiculous.

[SkippyX]

27 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

Yes, it does. Rules being different doesn't elevate it from a weak MVP to a strong one. Your responses have been ridiculous.

Statistics are based off of the league average. A 99 rating in 2003 is 20.3 points or 25.9% above the average of 78.3.

Only 3 teams had a passer rating above 92.3. DBs were allowed to hold like crazy that year.

11 teams had a rating above 92.3 in 2014.

 

In 2014 Rodgers was also 2nd in passer rating. A non-QB JJ Watt was worthy of the MVP (Like Priest Holmes in 2003) 

His 112 passer rating was 23.1 points or 26% above the average of 88.9 (almost identical % to Manning 2003)

Unlinke Manning in 2003, Rodgers did not lead the league in completion % and passing yards. he led in the Aaron Rodgers stat (low int%)

Brees led the league in yards, Luck in TDs (Manning 2nd, Rodgers 3rd), Romo led in completion % and rating 

Rodgers 2014 was not special in any way. It was on par with Manning 2003.

 

 

You can stay in your Rodgers cult all day long. It does not change reality.

Edited January 15, 2022 by SkippyX

[Mox]

4 minutes ago, SkippyX said:

Statistics are based off of the league average. A 99 rating in 2003 is 20.3 points or 25.9% above the average of 78.3.

Only 3 teams had a passer rating above 92.3. DBs were allowed to hold like crazy that year.

11 teams had a rating above 92.3 in 2014.

 

In 2014 Rodgers was also 2nd in passer rating. A non-QB JJ Watt was worthy of the MVP (Like Priest Holmes in 2003) 

His 112 passer rating was 23.1 points or 26% above the average of 88.9 (almost identical % to Manning 2003)

Unlinke Manning in 2003, Rodgers did not lead the league in completion % and passing yards. he led in the Aaron Rodgers stat (low int%)

Brees led the league in yards, Luck in TDs (Manning 2nd, Rodgers 3rd), Romo led in completion % and rating 

Rodgers 2014 was not special in any way. It was on par with Manning 2003.

 

 

You can stay in your Rodgers cult all day long. It does not change reality.

It's not an Aaron Rodgers cult. It's reality. It's not my fault you can't discuss the guy objectively because you don't like him. So much so that your first response to me had nothing to do with what I actually said.

[SkippyX]

2 minutes ago, Bullet Club said:

It's not an Aaron Rodgers cult. It's reality. It's not my fault you can't discuss the guy objectively because you don't like him. So much so that your first response to me had nothing to do with what I actually said.

I just proved that the seasons were equivalent but you love your boy.

Are you now telling me that 25.9% better is crap but 26% better is awesome?

 

Rodgers 2011 and 2020 were amazing runaway MVP seasons. Anyone can see that objectively. Bully for him on those epic years.

They were on that Manning 2004, 2013, and Brady 2007 level. Rodgers was dominant. It was not close.

Pretending 2014 and 2021 are the same is fanatic based delusion.

Pretending Manning 2003 was Elway 1987 is also delusion. (I don't like Manning, but I'm a big fan of reality)

 

Rodgers is a clear first ballot HoF QB, a multiple MVP award winner, and most likely a top 5 all-time QB (3 or 4 or 6 is up to personal taste)

He does not need a message board propaganda minister pretending 2014 was incredible while Manning 2003 was weak.

[HerbertGOAT]

18 hours ago, SkippyX said:

2003 was the last year that DBs were allowed to assault WRs.

Strange how the numbers were lower than 2011 or 2014 or 2020.

 

Rich Gannon's 2002 numbers were better than Montana's 1990 numbers.  Is that somehow meaningful?

I think he was referring to how Rodgers was indisputably the best QB in 2011, while McNair arguably had a better year than Manning. They split the MVP that year. I don't think his argument was stats based, but rather dominance based.

[Tk3]

The more of one you have, the fewer of the other you need. And I think having a few of both means more than having zero of one and a lot of the other

I'd take a guy with 5 rings and 5 MVPs over Brady's 7/3 or Peyton's 2/5(7 All Pro)

All that said, I'd lean MVP over the rings.. Rings are much more variable. You need a good team around you and a LOT of luck. If you're the best QB out there, it will show itself more naturally in MVPs than rings. Brady is the outlier, which is why he's the GOAT, but generally speaking, I think MVPs tell you more

Since 2000, Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, Nick Foles have rings. 

The worst MVP winner in that same period is probably Matt Ryan, who is light years ahead of those other 3. You can get lucky and get on one list, but you can't be lucky enough to win MVP

[SkippyX]

I was curious if anyone was doing this and of course someone was:

http://www.footballperspective.com/adjusting-passer-rating-for-era-updated-2019-career-ratings/

 

We can know that Rodgers is 2 in passer rating but Mahomes got most of his stats in a friendlier passing era than Rodgers. (one example)

It looks like someone made a passer rating adjusted for Era chart.

Its not gospel, just another measuring stick.