10 WORST SUPER BOWL-WINNING QBS article with suprise picks.

[Kleckineau]

In the NFL, the legacy a quarterback leaves behind and their rank on the all-time list of greatest QBs is determined by a number of factors. Perhaps more so than passing yards, TDs, or career wins, the number of Super Bowl rings a QB has is one of the most significant measurements of their greatness, fair or not. While some of the greatest QBs of all time, like Dan Marino, Fran Tarkenton, and Jim Kelly, never won a ring, some far inferior gunslingers have been able to pilot very strong teams to victory in the Big Game, showing just how inaccurate a measurement “counting the rings” can be when discussing NFL history.

 http://www.pressroomvip.com/g/10-worst-super-bowl-winning-qbs/?ipp=1&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=WorstQBsUSDesktop&utm_campaign=WorstQBs

[Bugg]

HATE clickbait slideshows. 

[nyjunc]

I think rings matter when you have a SB capable team or worse.  NE was a sinking ship when Brady took over and the next thing you know they are a dynasty, peyton Manning has the most talented team in the league most of his career and in his 2 SB winning postseasons he was mediocre at best(outside of 1 half in the '06 title game).  Trent Dilfer will never be confused for a great QB but he was a perfect fit for that 2000 baltimore team and they don't win it w/o him.  same thing w/ Brad Johnson 2 years later.  Dan marino had a very brief window w/ capable talent around him, he made a SB but unfortunately for him faced one of the best teams of all time and lost.  

 

[Klecko73isGod]

Whoever put together that list can't be older than 25 and doesn't have a ******* clue. 

Any list of the worst Super Bowl winning QBs that has anyone other than Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer as 1 and 2 is a stupid list. 

[nyjunc]

Just now, Klecko73isGod said:

Whoever put together that list can't be older than 25 and doesn't have a ******* clue. 

Any list of the worst Super Bowl winning QBs that has anyone other than Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer as 1 and 2 is a stupid list. 

Brad Johnson was really good in 2002 and both he and Dilfer were vital to those runs.  Obviously both won primarily w/ D but the QBs were very important.

[Klecko73isGod]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Brad Johnson was really good in 2002 and both he and Dilfer were vital to those runs.  Obviously both won primarily w/ D but the QBs were very important.

Seriously? STFU. 

 

[Kleckineau]

6 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Whoever put together that list can't be older than 25 and doesn't have a ******* clue. 

Any list of the worst Super Bowl winning QBs that has anyone other than Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer as 1 and 2 is a stupid list. 

Agree plus the writer points out how Stabler and Bradshaw like Namath had more ints vs tds which only goes to prove how different hte game was and that greatness cannot be measured by stats alone especially when evaluating the older HOF QBs

[nyjunc]

Just now, Klecko73isGod said:

Seriously? STFU. 

 

compelling argument.  Thank you for your contribution.  Baltimore didn't score an offensive TD for about 6 weeks in 2000 until Dilfer became the QB and each postseason game he made big plays to help them win.  Brad Johnson was a PB QB in 2002,  22 TDs and 6 INTs.  I don't know where this notion comes from that he sucked.  If Denver had 2002 Brad Johnson last year they go undefeated.

 

for the simple minded folks that will refuse to read, I am not saying the D's didn't lead both of those teams.  those are 2 of the best Ds of all time BUT that doesn't mean those QBs didn't contribute a lot to those runs. 

[Klecko73isGod]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Brad Johnson was really good in 2002 and both he and Dilfer were vital to those runs.  Obviously both won primarily w/ D but the QBs were very important.

The 2000 Ravens went through a six-game stretch where they failed to score a single offensive touchdown. 

You bore me. 

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Kleckineau said:

Agree plus the writer points out how Stabler and Bradshaw like Namath had more ints vs tds which only goes to prove how different hte game was and that greatness cannot be measured by stats alone especially when evaluating the older HOF QBs

Namath was -47 TD to INT ratio, Bradshaw was +2 and Stabler -28

[nyjunc]

Just now, Klecko73isGod said:

The 2000 Ravens went through a six-game stretch where they failed to score a single offensive touchdown. 

You bore me. 

tell me who the QB was for most of those games?  You shouldn't be bored, you should pay attention and learn so you don't make the same mistakes going forward.

[Klecko73isGod]

3 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

compelling argument.  Thank you for your contribution.  Baltimore didn't score an offensive TD for about 6 weeks in 2000 until Dilfer became the QB and each postseason game he made big plays to help them win.  Brad Johnson was a PB QB in 2002,  22 TDs and 6 INTs.  I don't know where this notion comes from that he sucked.  If Denver had 2002 Brad Johnson last year they go undefeated.

 

for the simple minded folks that will refuse to read, I am not saying the D's didn't lead both of those teams.  those are 2 of the best Ds of all time BUT that doesn't mean those QBs didn't contribute a lot to those runs. 

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

tell me who the QB was for most of those games?  You shouldn't be bored, you should pay attention and learn so you don't make the same mistakes going forward.

[nyjunc]

Dilfer started ONE of those games during that TD-less streak, a 9-6 loss to Pittsburgh.  In his 8 starts Baltimore's O averaged 22 PPG.  if he started 16 games and averaged that amount that would have been good for top 10 in the NFL but please continue to post gifs to deflect.

 

[Kleckineau]

8 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Namath was -47 TD to INT ratio, Bradshaw was +2 and Stabler -28

Correct. I didnt fact check him for Bradshaw or Stabler because I knew the ints were high for both but at any rate they are both all time greats that benefitted from playing on great teams for many seasons.

Namath on the other hand became a lame legged tackling dummy when the owners stopped spending on talent.

His numbers may have have been better if ownership hadnt "cheaped" out,

[nyjunc]

Just now, Kleckineau said:

Correct. I didnt fact check him for Bradshaw or Stabler because I knew the ints were high for both but at any rate they are both all time greats that benefitted from playing on great teams for many seasons.

Namath on the other hand became a lame legged tackling dummy when the owners stopped spending on talent.

His numbers may have have been better if ownership hadnt "cheaped" out,

Joe always threw a high # of INts.  He only had 2 seasons where he threw more TDs than INTs and one of those was his rookie year.

 

[Klecko73isGod]

12 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

Joe always threw a high # of INts.  He only had 2 seasons where he threw more TDs than INTs and one of those was his rookie year.

 

And you are acting like the dope who put together the list. How old are you? Do you realize the game was very different 40 years ago than it is now?

Not to mention how it is remotely possible to consider a guy who won four Super Bowls the 10th worst Super Bowl winning QB? That is beyond stupid. 

[nyjunc]

Just now, Klecko73isGod said:

And you are acting like the dope who put together the list. How old are you? Do you realize the game was very different 40 years ago than it is now?

Not to mention how it is remotely possible to consider a guy who won four Super Bowls the 10th worst Super Bowl winning QB? That is beyond stupid. 

I didn't even click on that list, once I saw it was a slideshow I didn't bother.  I simply stated a fact, the man threw a high # of INTs throughout his career whether he had talent around him or not.  I don't recall comparing Joe to anyone from this era so realizing the game was different back then makes no sense w/ regards to what I posted.

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

I didn't even click on that list, once I saw it was a slideshow I didn't bother.  I simply stated a fact, the man threw a high # of INTs throughout his career whether he had talent around him or not.  I don't recall comparing Joe to anyone from this era so realizing the game was different back then makes no sense w/ regards to what I posted.

So your entire argument is pointless and based on ignorance because you didn't bother to look at the list? So you are arguing for the sake of arguing? 

Why am I not surprised?

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Klecko73isGod said:

So your entire argument is pointless and based on ignorance because you didn't bother to look at the list? So you are arguing for the sake of arguing? 

Why am I not surprised?

you are all over the place just b/c you were clueless when discussing Dilfer.  Keep burying yourself deeper and deeper

[Klecko73isGod]

5 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you are all over the place just b/c you were clueless when discussing Dilfer.  Keep burying yourself deeper and deeper

Jeez you're ******* annoying. 

[nyjunc]

3 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Jeez you're ******* annoying. 

don't get involved in debates if a)you can't keep up or b)you can't keep it civil and you want have any issues w/ me.

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

don't get involved in debates if a)you can't keep up or b)you can't keep it civil and you want have any issues w/ me.

[nyjunc]

Just now, Klecko73isGod said:

that is a good strategy, just keep posting pics or gifs.

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

that is a good strategy, just keep posting pics or gifs.

You're a last word whore, too. Yeah, because that's never annoying. 

[nyjunc]

7 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

You're a last word whore, too. Yeah, because that's never annoying. 

says the guy who keeps coming back posting the last word.

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

says the guy who keeps coming back posting the last word.

Ahh... the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" technique.... 

Nice try... but your track record sucks and everyone reading this knows I'm right. 

[NYs Stepchild]

1 hour ago, nyjunc said:

I think rings matter when you have a SB capable team or worse.  NE was a sinking ship when Brady took over and the next thing you know they are a dynasty, peyton Manning has the most talented team in the league most of his career and in his 2 SB winning postseasons he was mediocre at best(outside of 1 half in the '06 title game).  Trent Dilfer will never be confused for a great QB but he was a perfect fit for that 2000 baltimore team and they don't win it w/o him.  same thing w/ Brad Johnson 2 years later.  Dan marino had a very brief window w/ capable talent around him, he made a SB but unfortunately for him faced one of the best teams of all time and lost.  

 

Peyton never had a talented team until Denver. He made them look talented. 

Yes Dilfer, and Johnson were both great at handing off. 

[nyjunc]

2 minutes ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Ahh... the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" technique.... 

Nice try... but your track record sucks and everyone reading this knows I'm right. 

the proof is in the posts, you have been wrong the entire thread and you like to deflect.

Just now, NYs Stepchild said:

Peyton never had a talented team until Denver. He made them look talented. 

Yes Dilfer, and Johnson were both great at handing off. 

 

 

poor guy had Marshall Faulk and Marvin Harrison as a rookie then Edge, Wayne, Clark, etc...  he had top 5 talent around him(and that's being kind) his entire career.  he was an all time great QB in the reg season but mediocre at best in postseason.

[Klecko73isGod]

Just now, nyjunc said:

the proof is in the posts, you have been wrong the entire thread and you like to deflect.

 

Says the guy who didn't ever read the list this thread is based on and is therefore started by arguing points nobody made. 

I can do this all day, son. 

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Klecko73isGod said:

Says the guy who didn't ever read the list this thread is based on and is therefore started by arguing points nobody made. 

I can do this all day, son. 

you can do what? be wrong and look foolish?  yo were dead wrong on Dilfer, you were just rambling about Joe.  You amuse me.

[Klecko73isGod]

6 minutes ago, nyjunc said:

you can do what? be wrong and look foolish?  yo were dead wrong on Dilfer, you were just rambling about Joe.  You amuse me.

That's great! I'm glad I amuse you because you don't amuse anyone. 

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Klecko73isGod said:

That's great! I'm glad I amuse you because you don't amuse anyone. 

those words sting, you really know how to get to me

[Klecko73isGod]

1 minute ago, nyjunc said:

those words sting, you really know how to get to me

I'm sorry you're hurt. 

[nyjunc]

1 minute ago, Klecko73isGod said:

I'm sorry you're hurt. 

why can't we all get along? we're all Jet fans and want the same thing.