The Chargers lost still haunts me

 

You're right. It was hard to understand that at the time. I remember reading in a magazine once where the author stated that without Marino and Shula, all of those 9 and 10 win Dolphins teams would have been 5 and 5 win teams. Back then, as a teen, it really pissed me off, but thinking about it it was absolutely true.

 

Same thing happened with Peyton Manning. There's almost a curse with that type of talent. You get a guy that is that overwhelmingly dominant and he wins you so many regular season games you forget to build a reliable running game or a good defense.

I think there are secondary effects too. When those guys do finally make the Play-offs, there is 10x more pressure on that one guy to have a great game. I don't think it's any surprise that both Manning and Marino had rather mundane Play-off records. They were the ones under the most pressure and scrutiny in those games.

 

Are you suggesting Manning didn't have a run game? He did have Edgerrin James. Arguably the best RB in football for a couple of years. Peyton Manning also had unbelievable weapons at his disposal in Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Marcus Pollard/Dallas Clark, and a slew of good slot WR's. Not to mention some very good offensive lineman. I don't think a QB has ever had an offense cast so stacked at any given moment in NFL history. That's why Peyton was constantly criticized for never winning the big game. And that's why he should continue to be criticized for his lack of PS success.

Marino had some talent in the early 80's. From 83-87 Marino had very good offenses. The line was stout, Duper, Clayton, Nat Moore, and Bruce Hardy. Unlike Manning, he lead his teams deep early on his career. Made it to the playoffs as a rookie, went to the SB in '84 and AFC championship game in '85 (how the **** did they lose...). But after 87, his teams fell apart. 'Guys retired and NFL defenses were keying up to stop the pass. He never had the run game to keep defenses off balance and exploit matchups.

And people forget the game has changed... If you look back at Peyton Manning pre-2004 (the QB ERA), wasn't even Peyton Manning yet. Like every QB who played in both the passing era (2004+) and pre-passing era (2003-), the guy had an explosion of statistical prowess. He's won 12 games or more every year but one since 2004. He won 12 games 2/6 seasons prior to 2004, despite being surrounded by NFL legends.

Anyway, I feel like I'm getting off track. Dan Marino had a limited window to win a SB (1983-1987). He came close, twice. After that, his teams were never really capable of going the distance. I don't feel the same way about Peyton Manning. Manning's window has been almost his entire career, always with loaded offenses, and rule changes that were specifically put in place for HIM (2003 Pats v. Colts game).

I love Peyton, but he and Marino are not in the same boat IMO. Too many striking differences. Manning's failures are largely on Manning. Marino's failures are largely based on those around him. That isn't 100% true 100% of the time, as Marino had plenty of faults. But certainly, Manning is more responsible for his lack of post-season success than Marino.

 

Amen.

It should also be remembered that Mannings one SB win was largely on the back of a Colts D that suddenly went from record breaking bad to very, very good between the regular season and the post-season. The Colts running game also caught fire in the playoffs.

Not many QB's get to win a SB on the back of a postseason performance of 3 TD's and 7 picks.

People act like Manning hasnt be surrounded by all-pro offensive talent his whole career.

 

The high snap threw Pete off. I was yelling NOOOOOOOOOOOO on the snap.

 

Marino had Mark Duper, Mark Clayton, Nat Moore, and Bruce Hardy and they did a good job. But how much of their success can be attributed to Marino's skills, his strong arm and accuracy. I do have to say I believe they all had good hands. He did have an excellent offensive line in those years but some of their success can also be attributed to Marino and his quick release. Marino's production started to decline in his later years but in my opinion he lost some of his effectiveness when Jimmy Johnson took away his ability to call audible's at the line of scrimmage.

 

This cartoon wins. It just wins on every level. :lol:

 

While I agree wholeheartedly about Marino, I have to disagree about what some are saying about Manning. The easiest way to prove you guys wrong is to look at his regular season and post season stats compared to any of the Super Bowl winning QB's since 1999 (including Brady's). He eclipses them all. In both respects. Now, average out those Super Bowl winning teams defenses and compare them with what Peyton had to play with.

Marino was the Dolphins for all those years and Manning was the Colts while he was there too.

IMO, currently, Rodgers is the best QB in the league. He may go down as the best ever. However, right now, P. Manning is arguably the best QB to ever play.

 

Woah, woah, woah...I didn't say Marino and Manning were the same guy. I didn't say Manning was the equal of Marino in all facets. I said the stories are very similar, and because their teams were always defensively weak that's a true statement. Both guys had weapons during the early stages of their career (as you pointed out) and were basically carrying their teams after the first 5-6 seasons.

I don't think a 1st or 2nd year QB could (on the strength of their arm talent and passing ability along) take a team to the Super Bowl in today's game, or the game as it were around 2000. What Marino did in the early-mid 1980s is really a comment on how football was played at that point. Most defenses were archaic compared to what's out there now.

The only significant difference to me is really in the final stages of the two players' careers. Peyton has had every chance in the world to get another ring while in Denver. As we all know, Dan's final teams were some of the worst.

Listen, I agree with you, but I'm talking in general terms here. If I had to have one I'd take Marino all day because Manning has had chances and has choked for the whole world to see and I honestly don't remember Dan Marino having that quality, but in a more general sense, history will paint them as similar QBs who never had the defensive help to get them over the hump which is all I said.

 

I'll respectfully agree to disagree with you there.

 

So who do you believe is the GOAT QB?

 

I think if I had to rank QB's, I'd put Brady at the top for overall accomplishments, but I'd take an in-prime Peyton Manning over all others because he more than anyone else makes an OC unnecessary. Marino in his early years I think may have been the most impressive QB when compared to what QB's before him did, but his body of work isn't enough for me to put him at Brady/Manning level.

 

:angry:

 

I've actually noticed a resurgence in perception from the national scene on marino..

 

Marino is over-rated.

 

What "accomplishments" has Brady achieved? Superbowl wins? Because he has not one major passing record. Marino and Manning, IMO, are light years ahead of Brady. Brady is a HoF QB, but so are Bradshaw, Namath, and Griese and they are never in the "Who is the GOAT" debate.

 

The thing with Marino is that he changed the game. Manning has also changed the game. Rodgers has changed the game in the sense that he's an excellent passer AND runner. Brady never changed the game.

 

Superbowls do count. And one key stat where Brady is #1 is in playoff wins (and he's pretty high on win % for the # of playoff games he's been in.. ~72.5%). The guy is deadly where it counts the most, which is something you can't say for Manning or Marino.

And I don't think it's fair to say he has no major passing record without pointing out he's #2 on the list of most TD's in a season (behind Manning) and #3 on the list for most yards in a season. Over a career, he'll soon pass Marino for (career) TD's.

And while you're right that Bradshaw, Namath and Griese aren't in the GOAT debate, you do realize Brady is right?

 

You're forgetting Steve Young, who I think is better than Aaron Rodgers, given the era the two played in.

 

i agree with everything but your comment about brady..brady is as good as any of them..

 

whys that?

can you name me the all pros's he played with, the running backs in particular, all the all pro receivers?, how bout those defenses..lol

the front office of that era was as bad as it has been the past decade.

marino had sh%$ to play, absolute sh*&....clayton and duper and a an aging irving fryar were his best receivers during his tenure., an old *** keith jackson as his best tight end, never had a really good running back to hand off to, never, and always had un talented defenses playing behind him.

the guys di^% should be bronzed..

 

just have to go back to Brady...the guy turns chicken sh&^ into chicken salad..

lol at folks saying he was washed up early last year, and the year before.

 

In all fairness, NE's system is based on dinking and dunking. It has been every year, except the short lived Randy Moss era. I'm not saying TB12 isn't great. He is. Super smart, good decision maker, etc... Worthy of all the accolades and accomplishments he's earned throughout his career. But let's not forget Matt Cassel looked like a budding star in that offense. I do think it's fair to say Brady hasn't changed the game. Joe Montana didn't either, and he was pretty good.

 

I agree that Superbowls count. IMO, they count very little when discussing individual performance. "Wins" of any sort are not individual accomplishments and, again IMO, nothing more than pundit talking points that fans eat up.

"Deadly where it counts" is an argument for "clutch". There is no such thing as clutch. Every game played is "when it counts". And if you look at both Manning's and Brady's overall career Manning trumps Brady everywhere. Even if you look just at their playoff stats they are nearly exactly the same. However, Manning has done this with much worse teams.

I'm glad you brought up TD's in a season. When Marino played a 20-25 TD season was considered elite. He shattered the previous TD record by something like 12 TD's. Brady has beaten Marino's record by 2. Manning has beaten Marino's record by 6. When Marino played something like 3000-4000 yd seasons were considered elite. Nowadays you're hard pressed to find a QB not throwing for at least 3000 yds and nearly half the league throws for 4000 or more. Brady isn't doing anything that nearly half the league is doing.

 

When his defense plays badly he looks like crap.

 

When I was a kid, I remember their were QB competitions that were pretty fun to watch. They had strongest arm, best accuracy, etc... I remember Randal Cunningham winning the strongest arm portion. I think he threw the ball 77 yds.

Funny thing about that competition is that I remember one year Marino had the best score on a drill that had QBs throwing while on the run. That guy was so underrated for him ability to throw on the move and maneuver around the pocket in general.

I am completely biased but I think Marino is the GOAT. In terms of pure passing, he has to be #1. He threw lasers. When I watch old videos of his games from the 80's I am amazed by him all over again. If you haven't watched one lately, I suggest going on YouTube and pulling up a couple. I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

Its hard to compare QBs from different eras. IMO Manning is the best of this generation. His combination of passing skills and leadership skills are unmatched. Rodgers is definitely in the conversation though.

Marino dominated his era at a time where there were many HOF QBs. He shattered so many passing records that held up 25+ years. The championships never came but it seems unfair to rank him lower because of it. What else could he have done? Would Montana, Elway, Kelly, Young, Aikman, Sims, or Favre won a SB with the roster Marino had?

Gotta watch some Marino highlights if you get a chance. Those subtle side steps, that crazy quick release, those on target laser beams........amazing

 

Well, you're not finding any disagreement with me that Marino changed the game. I said in my first post in this thread that what he did in his early years was the most impressive of any QB relative to what came before him. But you don't need to change the game to be great. You can be great just by doing what others are doing much better for a longer period of time, and that's what Brady and Montana did (still doing in Brady's case).

Where you and I disagree is how much team success depends on the QB. Especially in today's game, the QB has outsized importance, which is why you'll see such high correlations between various QB metrics and win %. And if you are a team that can go deep into the playoffs, arguments about overall team ability start to go away. It becomes a question of how you play at crucial moments of the game (not all snaps are equal), so playoff win % does tell you something about "clutch".

Either way, this kind of debate is not something you settle through a metric, it just tells you how different people value things. I (as well as many others) think guys like Brady and Montana deserve to be in the conversation of GOAT because of overall accomplishments even if they didn't introduce something revolutionary to the game (just like Walter Peyton vs. Barry Sanders.. both are great even though Sanders was clearly more revolutionary).

 

are we just going to ignore the system Brady plays in? The same system that made matt cassel look like an all pro? C'mon. Bradys success is tied to the system. Take Brady out of NE and put him in Miami for his career and he would be out of the league already.

 

Marino didn't play in "today's game" though. If he did, No doubt he would be throwing for 5,000 yards like it was 4,000. And he likely would have more playoff success with the rules and structure of the game. Comparing win % in the playoffs is irrelevant given the two separate eras.

 

Well, if you're going to mention Cassel, you should mention what the Patriots were like with Belichick but before Brady. Belichick had a losing record in Cleveland, then had a losing record in NE, and went 5-11 in 2000 in the "same" system before Brady started in 2001 and led them to a 14-2 season with a Super Bowl victory.

Also, you can play games like that Cassel example with Marino too. After leading his team to 11-5 in the 1992 season, Marino got injured in 1993 in the 5th game of the season, and two no-name QB's led the Dolphins to a 6-6 record after that (translated to 8 wins per season without Marino). Matt Cassel led the Patriots to 11-5 (in both examples, including the game the starting QB was injured) after Tom Brady had led the team to 16-0 the previous season. So, with Marino gone, you lost 3 wins per season, but with Brady gone, you lost 5.

 

Doesn't matter. Brady still has the stats he has. He still has the wins. He still has the Super Bowls. He is one of the greatest of all time.

 

I tend to agree Marino would do better in today's NFL, which favors passing, but that doesn't mean win % in the playoffs is suddenly irrelevant. Do you think Marino would have succeeded against Seattle last year in the SB if he was Denver's QB? Who knows. Also, don't forget that pass defenses are far better today, both in terms of personnel and in terms of scheme than they were in Marino's time. We don't know how that offsets the rule differences, though like I said I think on balance Marino would have put up better stats. But come playoff time (especially deep in the playoffs), you're dealing with good teams all around, and there's no way to know Marino would be what puts a team over the top.

 

Respectfully disagree...he is the model of a system guy, with the luck to be on a VERY great overall team...his stats aside from record aren't all that impressive if you're talking GOAT or close to it. He's not even top 5 IMO. Granted, those stats were good, and got the job done, but they weren't earthshaking.

 

And the Hall of Fame voters will agree, when he no doubt enters in his first year eligible.

 

It's fine to disagree. Simply watching Brady play in the playoffs over his career, I can't get on-board with him not being an all-time great. He just gets the job done. Whether it was moving down the field to get in field goal range, or throwing tds, he just does it. When he's had weapons like other QBs (Manning/Brees) he puts up crazy numbers. Too bad Brady has almost never had have changing talent around him on offense.

One other thing: If Brady is barely average, and it is so easy to do what they do, why doesn't every team follow their model?