Horsemouth Elway and Crybaby Brady ranked higher than Marino??? Why? 'Cause they won the big game?! That's BS! Who has all the passing records (over them)? Besides, it wasn't Marino's fault he didn't have a better team (specifically a running game) around him.
not to belittle my own hero, but, when it's all said and done, Marino will be third on all the records and with no superbowl wins. going to be hard for any future generations to push Marino ahead of Elway and Brady
Brady is not going to break Marino’s records. He has the 50 TDs, that’s it. Manning might, and Manning will indeed have the Super Bowl ring to lord over Marino’s legacy, but the talk of Manning being the greatest QB of all time went away with that interception in Super Bowl XLIV. Elway will probably be considered the second best behind Montana and ahead of Marino, but at least no one’s hyping Jim Kelly as a better QB than Marino.
to be fair brady didn't have a great running game those first couple of superbowls either yet still won the big one multiple times.in fact they really don't have a great running game still.
Ummmmmmmm...yes he did. In 2001 Smith ran for 1200 yds, 12TD's with a 4.0 Y/C. In 2003 they had a mini version of Brown/Williams (not as good mind you, but pretty good) with Smith/Faulk rushing for 1300yds and 3.8 Y/C. In 2004 Dillion rushed for over 1600yds, 12TD's and a 4.7 Y/C. Besides, Marino had some good running teams, but never really a good defense to go with that running game. Historically, that's the difference between Super Bowl winning teams and non-Super Bowl winning teams. Not running games, not passing games...defense. And the Pats had a good running game and a great defense for all 3 Super Bowl wins.
Elway is NOT a better QB than Marino! Trade teams on Dan and Johnny overthrow and Marino would have rings AND records, and Elway would only have a Horses Mouth. Brady? Not even close.
The logic doesn't make sense. Brady is 21st strictly because of 3 Super Bowls. There is no other argument for him being on the list at all. He had one year that would qualify as great and that was with the help of a guy at WR who is going to rank in the top 20 on this list. The reason the logic doesn't make sense is because Terry Bradshaw has 4 SBs, yet he was much further down the list than Brady and even Elway and Marino, who combined have half his total. If SBs make Brady the 21st greatest, why don't they make Bradshaw at least equally as great? The list overall isn't being done scientifically. They are just jumbling together the players. As the OP says, there is simply no way a great guard is a better player than a great QB.
Deion was just on my radio station here in Dallas, he's pissed he was 34. Says the only good 34 was Payton. Also, if you want to piss him off, call him Neon. Says he hated it from day 1.
That's a shame b/c when he faced a real NFC opponent in the Super Bowl he lost. If only Dan's big game could have been against the Rex Grossman led Bears. Nevermind that Elway was stinking up Super Bowls long before he won one with his 2000 yard running back.
It's media-hype BS. Plain and simple. Brady, right now, is famous and "Hollywood". He has played on some GREAT TEAMS not too long ago. When they do another 100 greatest players in 20 years Brady will either be not on that list (as I think he shouldn't be) or very low. Brady is nowhere near the top 100 PLAYERS to ever play the game.
Right, I haven't been watching, but has Johnny U been in there? He sure as hell should be, and pretty damn high. Certainly higher than both Horseway and Tammy Brady
Why do people get worked up over these lists? This one in particular is very difficult to compile and is extremely subjective.
Its not extremely subjective. You can measure a lot about how effective a player was. You can't measure football as effectively as you can baseball or a more individual sport. But its not a very subjective thing like music or art.
Unitas hasn't come up yet. He'll be in the top 30. It pisses me off that people think Brady is better than Marino.
History will be kinder to Marino than the rest. He didn't break the records he crushed them in a Ruthian manner, setting a new standard. These other guys just "eclipsed" his records after the game had changed to become more offensive........ just like what happened in baseball.
You think so? I hope you're right, but I have a feeling that as time passes and fewer of the people doing these sorts of lists were even alive during Marino's career, he will fade a bit in estimation. It happens, even to the greatest; look at Unitas, who was one of the best ever, yet gets shuffled to the back of the line behind the modern-era guys who are fresher in young memories. Marino will always endure the judgment of never having won the SB; more so because of the poor showing of his teams in the big show - very little of which could be blamed on him. And I read someone say that Marino had a good running game behind him once...I'm here to tell you: NEVER. He may have had a Back with some decent stats here and there (infrequently) but he never had a guy who could lower his shoulder and get you 4 when you had to have it, nor a line that could help make it happen. EVER. The greatest testament to Marino is that did everything he did on his own, with Defenses knowing full well what he was going to do, and beating them just the same. Those of us who were lucky enough to be blessed to watch him live, to live those games with all their emotional Everests and Grand Canyons, will tell you that we wouldn't trade anything for that experience.
Or look at Don Hutson. That guy was outstanding. he would have more yards receiving than entire football teams. Plus if they go by championships no better player than Otto Graham.
Actually as I look at the fan list I find myself in more agreement with that list than I do the "experts" list. To me, the list put together by the "experts" looks crafted to make they look all expertlly. Like, John Hannah, a guard, over Dan Marino. Every fan that sees that is going to have the same immediate reaction, head cocked to the side, bewildered look in eyes, like a dog seeing humans have sex. But that gives the experts the opportunity to be all expertly and start talking around in circles about how Hannah was that good (which you didn't know, because they're the experts and you're not). You see it with draft rankings and draft analysts. Guys throwing crazy stuff out there that completely goes against mass opinion, a tool for the "expert" to differentiate himself from the masses. Sometimes they do that because they have real reasons. Sometimes they do it just to do it.
I said he had some good running games. And he did a few different times. 1984- 1900yds 4.7 Y/C. 1985- 1700yds 4.0 Y/C 1986- 1500yda 4.4 Y/C 1994- 1600yds 4.0 Y/C
In my first post I said Brady was helped by Moss, who would be in the top 20. Apparently I missed the episode where they ranked Moss 65. That's pretty crazy. I think Moss is a top 10 player in my lifetime. Look at the offenses he has been a part of. He has made average Qbs look very good and very good Qbs look great.
"Media is a bunch of suckas" Tell 'em old school overrated terrible rapper Ice T, because this here is a garbage list and it doesn't surprise me.
http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-netwo...-ranked-No-21-of-all-time?module=HP_headlines This has already been posted. But my God Rod Woodson is right. HOF CB/Safety who played against all three of em is telling you what he knows.
The experts also apparently didn't place in a handicap for stats by the era. There was no point value system. This is simply one glorified eye test.
It's supposed to be about players not teams, meaning it's more about individual ability and as far as that goes Marino is in the top ten without a doubt. It's a pretty heavy discredit to put him so low in the rankings but it just goes to show as time passes the memory fades then throw in all the youngsters that never got to watch Marino play the game and I guess it all comes down to the statistics on paper. It's pretty sad...really wish Marino could have gotten a ring in his time with us, I can't think of any player that deserved it more.
If they are going to base this on statistics, championships and accomplishments then Bart Starr should be the greatest QB of all times. Five straight NFL championships, (the only QB to accomplish such) and he won the first two superbowls and was MVP in each. I am not lobbying for Bart Starr but if they are going to use the same criteria for all why isn't he at the top? Sorry but they can say what they want but Dan Marino was the greatest and he basically carried his team in his career
All I’m saying is that any talk of Manning being the greatest of all time abruptly ended after Super Bowl XLIV. People couldn’t shut up about the idea last season, and now, nothing. My personal view is that a QB who chokes as often in the postseason as Manning can’t legitimately be considered the greatest of all time. Stomping all over the other 31 teams in the regular season becomes less impressive when routinely failing to replicate that pattern in the postseason. As far as this list goes, any inclusion of any contemporary player in a slot higher than #30 is just frontrunning, in my view. I can name plenty of retired QBs I’d rather have on my team than Peyton Manning or Tom Brady. Bart Starr, Otto Graham, Johnny Unitas, Warren Moon, Steve Young, even Kurt Warner.