SB rings mean nothing, Favre is the Greatest!!!

[PackerBlues]

Before Favre, we looked at guys like:

Dan Marino, a QB that we looked at as having done it all.... except get a SuperBowl ring. Favre is going to be putting Marino behind him in the record books.

Joe Montana. Look at his stats, they are awesome, but Favre has passed em. (except for Super Bowls, but we will get to that.)

John Elway. People were starting to ask if Elway was going to be another Marino, until his last two years, when he finally got his SuperBowl ring/s. Nevermind that he was already considered to be a sure bet for the hall of fame anyway.

( a little sarcasm here) That guy in buffalo.......you know who I am talking about......went to like four straight SuperBowls....... but never won one. You know who I am talking about. Dont you?


Im 36 years old. Those were the great QB's that I remember growing up. Other than in the number of SuperBowl rings, I am betting that a lot of their stats are pretty close for the amount of time that they played in the NFL.


Thing is, Favre is putting these guys behind him. These great QB's are going to be behind Favre in the record books. Except when it comes to the number of SB rings. You would think that that would be a knock on Favre, but think about it. QB's dont go to the Super Bowl, TEAMS go to the Super Bowl. The QB does not get a ring unless the entire team gets a ring with him. I dont think anyone should consider the number of Super Bowl rings a QB has, as a stat to judge his career on. Number of rings is a team stat, more than anything else. Look at some of the guys in the History of the NFL, who have recieved Super Bowl rings, just for being on the winning teams roster. Jim McMahon got a Super Bowl ring for being our back up QB in the 1996 Super Bowl, if you take that into consideration, I just dont think that "number of SuperBowl rings" should be a catagory to judge a QB's career on.

If that isnt very convincing, than consider this: Trent Dilfer has a Super Bowl ring. :shock: Yeah, thats right, Trent Dilfer. :knll:

Would anyone here care to step up and proclaim that Trent Dilfer is a better QB than Dan Marino ever was :worship: .......because he has more rings. :bs:

[retailguy]

U rah rah rah :cow:



you gotta cheerlead once in a while... :P

[Scott Campbell]

Yes, of course they matter. But they aren't the end all to QB evaluations.

I don't think people need to worry about Favre's legacy, and how he'll stack up against the greatest of all time. He's right up there with the very best to ever play, with some jockeying of exact order based on subjective criteria.

At the end of the day, I'm happy enough knowing that a decent argument can be made for him being #1 of all time.

[Packnut]

Rings plural do not define a QB, however I believe 1 ring adds to the total package. You need to know the QB in question can win the big one and not choke under the pressure. (Grossman).

[Scott Campbell]

Rings plural do not define a QB, however I believe 1 ring adds to the total package. You need to know the QB in question can win the big one and not choke under the pressure. (Grossman).


Rex doesn't need the big game stage to choke. He's capable of it almost anywhere at anytime.

[Charles Woodson]

A QB cant make it to a super bowl alone, if the talent around him isnt there. (Marino), if peyton manning didnt have one of the best recivers, and one of the best 2nd recivers in the league, then imo he wouldnt be as good. Marino never really had the talent around him. Even Tom brady, he didnt have quite as good offense, but his defense was nasty.

[RashanGary]

Not even worth discussing, RINGS MATTER!!

[The Leaper]

Yes, rings matter. So does the relative talent assembled around the QB during his career. I think EVERYTHING has to be factored in to some degree.

Favre did not win as many titles as Starr, Bradshaw, Montana or Aikman. Favre also did not have near the talent around him on offense that those guys had. Favre never has played for any length of time with a HOF caliber skill position player...or even OL player for that matter. He played a couple years with Sharpe, who was HOF caliber prior to a career ending injury. He played with Keith Jackson for a brief time at the end of his career, when he really was no longer HOF caliber. Past that, Favre has put up the best numbers in league history without any elite talent to help him. Probably the best player Favre has played with consistently is Ahman Green...and he's very good but probably still well shy of HOF consideration.

The only QB I can think of with numerous SB wins who played with a fairly average group of offensive players like Favre is Tom Brady.

[RashanGary]

I agree Leaper. It all factors in. Favre isn't the greatest right now IMO. Some bigger clutch winners belong above him. If he found a way to suprisingly win one more he'd probably be on the short list that is in the conversation though.

[HarveyWallbangers]

He's already on the short list in this conversation. If he happened to win another, I think he'd go to the top.

[Scott Campbell]

One of the things I love about Favre, Brady and Montana is how they emerged from relative obscurity. They weren't pre-ordained HOF locks the way Elway, Manning and to a lesser extent Marino (who would have been drafted much higher without the pot rumors) were.

[RashanGary]

He's already on the short list in this conversation. If he happened to win another, I think he'd go to the top.

I don't know Harv, I think Favre is somewhere around 4-7ish when you talk about the greatest ever. He's above Marino but below Elway, Brady, Montana and maybe a couple of other old timers. I don't think very many objective football analysts would put Favre above any of those three and those were just in the last 20 years.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I consider 4 or 5 to be on the short list. I'd go with Montana, Graham, Elway over him. Not Brady. Not yet. If he continues it, probably. I'd probably have Favre at #4. I think it's important to win a ring, but that's not the only factor. Otherwise, Starr and Bradshaw would be at the top of the list. You have to think about records, MVPs, All-Pros, and what type of talent surrounded a guy. Starr, Bradshaw, and to a lesser extent Brady were given much more talent. I realize Montana was given talent also, but he that guy was cold-blooded. In my personal opinion, I think he made some of those teams look better than they were.

[RashanGary]

I agree Harv, I'm just saying that Favre is a notch below the top rung. If he won one more SB he'd be right there, sharing the best ever arguement with the Elway and Montana.

[PackerBlues]

I agree Harv, I'm just saying that Favre is a notch below the top rung. If he won one more SB he'd be right there, sharing the best ever arguement with the Elway and Montana.

So by your logic, Jim McMahon was a better QB than Favre because he has two rings and Favre only has one. That would be ignoring where Favre sits in the record books compared to Elway and Montana. But I guess if a guy can ignore Thompsons "rebuilding", simply by saying that he isnt rebuilding.......then your logic makes perfect sense.