The result was a landslide for Peyton Manning. He won 13.5 to 3.5. Four members abstained. What the hell is the 0.5 at the end of those figures? Joe Montana split his vote. He said he would start Brady in the first half and Manning in the second half. Rodney Harrison violently objected to that. He believes Brady finishes better than Manning. Not last Sunday he didn't. Maybe Joe actually knows a thing or two about Quarterbacking.
I would not have commented on this poll were it not for the shocking fact that so many took umbrage over it. Their simple argument is so simple that it must come from a simpleton: Brady has 3 rings, Manning has 1, ergo Brady must be the better QB.
This is a classic example of how the QB gets too much credit when things go well, and too much blame when things go badly. Folks, I cannot say it loudly enough. No quarterback ever won a Super Bowl. Those who use this terminology radio & TV put their massive ignorance on parade before the public. Quarterbacks do not win championships, teams do. It takes 40 men together, plus some luck, plus a bad call or two, to put a Super Bowl ring on your finger. If you think quarterbacks win Super Bowls, you are a fucked up bitch indeed.
Everybody who knows and understands the sport of football knows Manning plays better than Brady. This is evidenced by the landslide victory Peyton just won among the Hall of Fame Quarterbacks. This has been true for a long time.
So why does Brady have more championships? Because he had the better defense, that's why. If you know and understand football, you know that offense wins games, and defense wins championships. In the first half of the 2000s, the Patriots had the most consistently excellent defense in the NFL. Sorry Ravens, you weren't consistently great during that stretch. The Patriot offense was nothing special. Brady would do enough to win, not a lot more. The defense was pretty stellar. Belichick's defense won those championships.
On the other hand, the Colts did not have a consistently good defense. They were not expected to be a factor at all in 2006 because their defense was collapsing as they went into the post season. Nobody could have predicted that that defense would go on one of the most dominant tears we had ever seen during that 2006 tournament. Guess what? The Colts won the Super Bowl that year. Offense wins games. Defense wins championships.
If I were to consistently apply your fallacious logic, I would have to say Trent Dillford was a better QB than Dan Fouts because he has a ring and Dan doesn't. I would also have to say that Terry Bradshaw is a better QB than John Unitas because Bradshaw has 4 rings and Unitas only had 1. I would have to say that Brad Johnson is a better QB that Dan Marino because Johnson got one with Tampa, and Marino got none with Miami.
Naturally, each and every one of those statements is absolute bullshit. You cannot judge a QB by his jewelry. Any attempt to do so is a homosexual assessment indeed.
Also, Bart Starr is better than Brett Favre because Bart got 2 rings and Brett only got 1. It should be noted that Bart doesn't even claim that. Bart Starr has said many times, in public, that Brett can throw the ball on his knees better than Bart can standing up.
Dynasty pilots get way too much credit folks. Bart Starr got a hell of a lot of credit because his Packers won a hell of a lot of championships. Everybody knows that was a running team folks. Some tried to say he was a better QB than Unitas. Why? Because he handed off more frequently?
I am sorry to say this about my fellow Virgo, born on September 2nd just like me, but Terry Bradshaw is the ultimate case of title inflation. While Bradshaw remains one of my favorite characters around the league, truth be told, he wasn't that good of quarterback. The Steelers were a running team. Bradshaw only had 4 games where he passed for 300 or more yards. That was for his entire career. Further, you should know that he was considered a serious draft bust until 1976. The pressure turned off when the Steelers won their 2nd Super Bowl. Bradshaw didn't turn into a quality quarterback until the 1978 rules changes suddenly transformed him into the Blond-Bomber. Even then, he averaged about 27 TDs and about 25 Ints per year.
During the time he played, everybody knew Staubach and Stabler were better than Bradshaw. Still, 'Bradshaw often beat' these guys in head to head competition. Guess why? Bradshaw had the better defense. He won more championships because he had a better defense. Offense wins games. Defense wins championships.
Then we go forward to Joe Montana. I have already blogged about the NFL's greatest myth. Look it up on my blog. Folks, everybody who watched football during the 1980s knew Joe was a good quarterback, but we also knew Elway and Marino were better. Now the 49ers never had any defense, right? BULLSHIT! BULL FUCKING SHIT! You go check out the statistics my friend. The 49ers were #2 in total team defense in 1981, the year they first won the Super Bowl. That defense was so good, they were able to overcome 4 turnovers by Joe in the NFC championship game against Dallas. You go check out the film. You will see Joe throw a few dastardly picks during that game.
What about Aikman? Well, that was truly a stellar QB on a running team. Aikman had limited statistical success in the league because the Dallas offense was about muscling it down your throat with Moose Johnston and Emit Smith. Still, everybody who saw him play knew he could be called upon to any extent you needed to make any throw in the book at any time. It should be noted that he had a Hellacious defense in his back-pocket also.
Tom is a good guy, but like several before him, he was very fortunate to be in the right place at the right time. Similar to Joe Montana, many believe he would not have been successful anywhere else in the league. On the other hand, Manning would have piloted New England to 4 or 5 championships easy.