Aren't the great ones graded on Super Bowl wins

[tfunky14]

All this talk/media hoopla about what  Irsay, Manning, Polin, Helton and Dungy have said the last few days brings me to this question.

Aren't the great ones or teams graded on Super Bowl wins? 

 

Bill Polin and  John Fox have come out say "getting to the playoffs" is such a great accomplishment that it should mean something.

 

I say again Aren't the teams graded on Super Bowl wins?

 

It's nice to make the playoffs but you need to win, right?

[MFT5]

John Fox should thank Peyton Manning for making him relevant

[GoDeep]

Yes and no.

 

Dilfer is not better than Marino etc...

[antipatriot]

Rating a team/player on Super Bowl wins is one of the most ridiculous things in sports.  If Super Bowls were the be all end all for players why do we rarely hear Terry Bradshaw's name mentioned as one of the greatest QB's ever, why is Brett Favre considered one of the best ever he won one Super Bowl.

 

I have had the greatest QB argument countless times especially the Manning Brady argument and the only answer I get is he has 3 rings so in other words he won 3 games.  The Super Bowl is one game that's it.  All teams win and lose so really is one game the measure of a player or team?  Think about that argument logically and it becomes clear.

 

I still think Manning is the best QB ever hands down.  However I do think many other QB's are in the argument.

 

Anyway nuff said.

[amfootball]

Yes, the hardware separates for sure. Legacies in every sport are made in the post-season. That does not mean there aren't great players who have never won a champ. But for sure everyone plays for the hardware....

[AllYouNeedIsLuck]

Rating a team/player on Super Bowl wins is one of the most ridiculous things in sports.  If Super Bowls were the be all end all for players why do we rarely hear Terry Bradshaw's name mentioned as one of the greatest QB's ever, why is Brett Favre considered one of the best ever he won one Super Bowl.

 

I have had the greatest QB argument countless times especially the Manning Brady argument and the only answer I get is he has 3 rings so in other words he won 3 games.  The Super Bowl is one game that's it.  All teams win and lose so really is one game the measure of a player or team?  Think about that argument logically and it becomes clear.

 

I still think Manning is the best QB ever hands down.  However I do think many other QB's are in the argument.

 

Anyway nuff said.

Um player no, but team YES. That's the only way you rate a team; how many super bowls they win. 

[bayone]

All this talk/media hoopla about what  Irsay, Manning, Polin, Helton and Dungy have said the last few days brings me to this question.

Aren't the great ones or teams graded on Super Bowl wins? 

 

Bill Polin and  John Fox have come out say "getting to the playoffs" is such a great accomplishment that it should mean something.

 

I say again Aren't the teams graded on Super Bowl wins?

 

It's nice to make the playoffs but you need to win, right?

 

 

Yes and no.

 

Dilfer is not better than Marino etc...

 

 

Rating a team/player on Super Bowl wins is one of the most ridiculous things in sports.  If Super Bowls were the be all end all for players why do we rarely hear Terry Bradshaw's name mentioned as one of the greatest QB's ever, why is Brett Favre considered one of the best ever he won one Super Bowl.

 

I have had the greatest QB argument countless times especially the Manning Brady argument and the only answer I get is he has 3 rings so in other words he won 3 games.  The Super Bowl is one game that's it.  All teams win and lose so really is one game the measure of a player or team?  Think about that argument logically and it becomes clear.

 

I still think Manning is the best QB ever hands down.  However I do think many other QB's are in the argument.

 

Anyway nuff said.

 

 

Yes, the hardware separates for sure. Legacies in every sport are made in the post-season. That does not mean there aren't great players who have never won a champ. But for sure everyone plays for the hardware....

 

Mike Ditka says its not the rings as far as individuals, maybe its teams as far as rings , but whomever started that bit the player is the best only if he wins rings is wrong as its a team game

 

For individuals u got to look at all they do, not just on the field but locker room respect & how players are taught and elevated by the greatest leaders and that he hates the terms the greatest and says just look at what one is doing week in & week out & learn to appreciate what greatness is and sit back and just enjoy and for Peyton is says just watch how he moves players arounfd and finds the right play and there was one where he change the play while impossibly dissecting the D as he was not even facing them at the time, inside the NFL agreed on that last comment wanting to know how he recognized the defensive blitzer with his back turned to the defense and correctly positioned the offense for a succesful strike on that play while blocking the correct blitzer

[jskinnz]

I have tried to Google this all morning and I can't find any definitive rules on how greatness is measured in sports.  Surely there must be some hard & fast rules that everyone lives by to judge these things.  Please help me.  I mean this is so cut & dry to folks, it surely has to mean there is some official standard somewhere.

[bayone]

BTW Mike Ditka is only ESPN analyst taking the Colts

 

 

 

Mike Ditka says its not the rings as far as individuals, maybe its teams as far as rings , but whomever started that bit the player is the best only if he wins rings is wrong as its a team game

 

For individuals u got to look at all they do, not just on the field but locker room respect & how players are taught and elevated by the greatest leaders and that he hates the terms the greatest and says just look at what one is doing week in & week out & learn to appreciate what greatness is and sit back and just enjoy and for Peyton is says just watch how he moves players arounfd and finds the right play and there was one where he change the play while impossibly dissecting the D as he was not even facing them at the time, inside the NFL agreed on that last comment wanting to know how he recognized the defensive blitzer with his back turned to the defense and correctly positioned the offense for a succesful strike on that play while blocking the correct blitzer

[SteelCityColt]

Yes, the hardware separates for sure. Legacies in every American sport are made in the post-season. That does not mean there aren't great players who have never won a champ. But for sure everyone plays for the hardware....

 

Fixed that for you  

[amfootball]

Fixed that for you

lol. There are pro sports in other countries?? 

[WastedColt]

I'm just going to say that grading individual players on Superbowl wins makes no sense. For example McMahon and Dilfer won Superbowls. Marino and Fouts didn't. Its because defense matters. Same reason that Peyton has only 1.

[crazycolt1]

Rating the greatest player is all an individual opinion. The is no clear cut answer. Common knowledge will say that Gonzo is the greatest TE who ever played. He has no rings. I think the greatest debate only becomes an issue when people are at a dead end in their debate and then it's down to saying that instead of seeing the other point of view. Colts fans think Manning is the greatest while Pats fans think Brady is the greatest. Steeler fans think Bradshaw, Jets fans say Namath. Fans are generally prone to arguments on their point of views and are unwilling to budge on what they think. The word fan is short for fanatic and being fanatic makes you exactly that.

[bayone]

I have tried to Google this all morning and I can't find any definitive rules on how greatness is measured in sports.  Surely there must be some hard & fast rules that everyone lives by to judge these things.  Please help me.  I mean this is so cut & dry to folks, it surely has to mean there is some official standard somewhere.

 

u must of come across this beaut

 

Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person, object, or place. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage. As a descriptive term it is most often applied to a person or their work, and may be qualified or unqualified. An example of an expression of the concept in a qualified sense would be "Winston Churchill was one of the greatest wartime leaders". In the unqualified sense it might be stated "Winston Churchill achieved greatness within his own lifetime", thus implying that "greatness" is a definite and identifiable quality. 

 

Application of the terms "great" and "greatness" is dependent on the perspective and subjective judgements of those who apply them.^[1] 

 

Whereas in some cases the perceived "greatness" of a person, place or object might be agreed upon by many, this is not necessarily the case, and the perception of "greatness" may be both fiercely contested and highly individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness

[Mameluc]

lol. There are pro sports in other countries?? 

HECK YEA!

[SteelCityColt]

lol. There are pro sports in other countries?? 

 

Oh yeah , the Shin Kicking league is big money over here. 

[YellScreamGoColts]

Make money money!

[Blueblazes]

Rating a team/player on Super Bowl wins is one of the most ridiculous things in sports.  If Super Bowls were the be all end all for players why do we rarely hear Terry Bradshaw's name mentioned as one of the greatest QB's ever, why is Brett Favre considered one of the best ever he won one Super Bowl.

 

I have had the greatest QB argument countless times especially the Manning Brady argument and the only answer I get is he has 3 rings so in other words he won 3 games.  The Super Bowl is one game that's it.  All teams win and lose so really is one game the measure of a player or team?  Think about that argument logically and it becomes clear.

 

I still think Manning is the best QB ever hands down.  However I do think many other QB's are in the argument.

 

Anyway nuff said.

Exactly. Rating teams based on championships is exactly right, but rating players based on that is not applicable. Football is so much the team sport. Yes, individuals, especially QBs can have a great affect, but ultimately its the complete team effort.

[chrisfarley]

Dan Marino, Jim Kelly (two GREATS, zero Super Bowl rings)

[MIColtsFan]

u must of come across this beaut

 

Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person, object, or place. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage. As a descriptive term it is most often applied to a person or their work, and may be qualified or unqualified. An example of an expression of the concept in a qualified sense would be "Winston Churchill was one of the greatest wartime leaders". In the unqualified sense it might be stated "Winston Churchill achieved greatness within his own lifetime", thus implying that "greatness" is a definite and identifiable quality. 

 

Application of the terms "great" and "greatness" is dependent on the perspective and subjective judgements of those who apply them.^[1] 

 

Whereas in some cases the perceived "greatness" of a person, place or object might be agreed upon by many, this is not necessarily the case, and the perception of "greatness" may be both fiercely contested and highly individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness

And interestingly enough, most of the greatest quotes come from Winston Churchill!

[Yehoodi]

All this talk/media hoopla about what  Irsay, Manning, Polin, Helton and Dungy have said the last few days brings me to this question.

Aren't the great ones or teams graded on Super Bowl wins? 

 

Bill Polin and  John Fox have come out say "getting to the playoffs" is such a great accomplishment that it should mean something.

 

I say again Aren't the teams graded on Super Bowl wins?

 

It's nice to make the playoffs but you need to win, right?

 

It is a factor and one of the elements one looks at when viewing greatness . . . after all when we look at all of the greats in our sports or overseas, all of them have championships in some number . . .  be it team sports or individual sports . . . to deny this is really not seeing the whole picture . . . are the be all end all, no . . . but as the ultimate goal in all of the sports is to win the championship then it is inferred that all are trying; and as such, the ones that succeed more often than not will be viewed as the better one . . . that is the ones that are "better" are not going to take a vacation but will try to win . . .

 

I view them as tiebreakers or weighed attributes when comparing players . . . also I view them in light of any other accomplishments, like a tip of an iceberg if you will . . . is the iceberg thick below the surface (that is a lot of accomplishments below the water line and not part of the tip - that is the championships) or is the iceberg thin below the water line, like the player just broke through for one win, broke the surface of the water, but there is not much beyond this - like Trent Dilfer . . .

 

When I look at this type of things it reminds me of Jack Nicholas and his 18 major wins, but if one looks just a little beyond one sees an equal number of 2nd place finishes . . . so in his career and over a 20 year period in which he was competitive he was either one or two about half the time he was in a major (40 or so) . . . which is really impressive . . . it was not just 18 wins and bunch of finishes south of 5th . . .  

 

The same can be said for Brady and Manning, Brady has 3 rings and about 3 more close 2nds, and Manning has 1 ring a 1-2 more close seconds . . . yes luck does come into play, but quiet often the great ones have close finishes in addition to their championships and as such, the championship are reflective of the entire body of work . . . meaning many times it comes down to a coin flip and in order to get 1 win, you need to be their twice, and to get two wins, you need to be there 4 times, and so on . . .

[Yehoodi]

Rating a team/player on Super Bowl wins is one of the most ridiculous things in sports.  If Super Bowls were the be all end all for players why do we rarely hear Terry Bradshaw's name mentioned as one of the greatest QB's ever, why is Brett Favre considered one of the best ever he won one Super Bowl.

 

I have had the greatest QB argument countless times especially the Manning Brady argument and the only answer I get is he has 3 rings so in other words he won 3 games.  The Super Bowl is one game that's it.  All teams win and lose so really is one game the measure of a player or team?  Think about that argument logically and it becomes clear.

 

I still think Manning is the best QB ever hands down.  However I do think many other QB's are in the argument.

 

Anyway nuff said.

 

I for one think that Bradshaw should be in the discussion of one of the all time greats . .. for the record I am not a big Montana fan, I think he gets too much love . . . I think a lot of people put Montana near the top of all time greats, and I think is the mainly due to the 4 titles, . . . I do not agree with this crowd, but some do fair or not . . . I know you did not mention Montana, I just added him as reflective of Bradshaw . . .

 

On a final note, I am sure if you have had many Brady-Manning discussions, more was brought up than just 3 vs. 1 rings . . .

[antipatriot]

I for one think that Bradshaw should be in the discussion of one of the all time greats . .. for the record I am not a big Montana fan, I think he gets too much love . . . I think a lot of people put Montana near the top of all time greats, and I think is the mainly due to the 4 titles, . . . I do not agree with this crowd, but some do fair or not . . . I know you did not mention Montana, I just added him as reflective of Bradshaw . . .

 

On a final note, I am sure if you have had many Brady-Manning discussions, more was brought up than just 3 vs. 1 rings . . .

Yes much more than 3 v 1 however that is generally how the argument is thought to be won by those I have the discussion with it always comes down to that being some discussion ending statement.

[buccolts]

Players? They unfortunately are, but it's not right. Warren Moon, as well as others already mentioned come to mind.

 

Teams? Pre-Salary Cap era, yes. Not as much now. Too much turnover. So judging over the span of 5 - 10 years becomes pretty diluted. 80% of a roster could have turned over in that time frame. 

[Gabriel Alexander Morillo]

Oh yeah , the Shin Kicking league is big money over here. 

ya blew it. 

[dudeski]

All this talk/media hoopla about what  Irsay, Manning, Polin, Helton and Dungy have said the last few days brings me to this question.

Aren't the great ones or teams graded on Super Bowl wins? 

 

Bill Polin and  John Fox have come out say "getting to the playoffs" is such a great accomplishment that it should mean something.

 

I say again Aren't the teams graded on Super Bowl wins?

 

It's nice to make the playoffs but you need to win, right?

teams yes

 

players no