The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

So, this post is more for D4L, but I found the article interesting and a good reminder to myself as well.  This Bleacher Report article was written in 2008 and some of the numbers have changed since then since several of the QBs mentioned have added to their numbers since that time.  But the article still points out some really interesting and meaningful things, especially how Marino essentially carried the team on his shoulders for years since they didn't have much of a running game at all and the defense was inconsistent to say the least.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/83646-the-erroneous-perception-of-dan-marino

Marino was incredible.  You probably had to see him play to really appreciate it.  We won games we had no business of winning due to Shula and Marino....for decades.  We had a terrible D and no running game and still...the dude avoided sacks in a small space and delivered the ball very quickly in a small window.

For sure.  I was in my senior year of HS when Marino was drafted.  He made games fun to watch even when we were losing.  And of course Shula is a god to me, so nothing more need be said about that man. 

This part is bullshit.  Shula doesn't get credit for winning with a shitty defense or running game.  It was his direct responsible to have a nonshitty defense and running game.

Save the trolling for the anti-fins section.  Also, can I recommend proof reading before posting?

Belichick's record as a Head Coach before Tom Brady was 51 - 65 (or close to it).  Belichick has ridden Brady's coattails and is clearly a shitty coach.  See, I can say silly things too.    ;D    I still dig most of what you post, Hoodie, but that one was a big swing and a miss.

No, you are missing the point.

Hof coach + hof qb = multiple super bowl wins.

If hof coach + hof qb < sb win, one of them is over rated.

Shula the Coach = HOF
Shula the GM/player Personnel = was not very good

bottom line
Hof coach + hof qb - defense - running game = Marino's career

Pre-new direction me:  I don't think any of you, or most people, understand my viewpoint on Marino.  I simply do not think it is fair to compare him to other quarterbacks by Super Bowls.  There are far too many factors in play.  Even in this thread, you all completely leave out one important thing: 

Here are the main things people ignore in the quarterback discussion: 

1) WHEN YOU PLAY FOOTBALL, YOU PLAY AGAINST OPPONENTS.  WHAT THEY DO ALSO DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU WIN OR LOSE.  Brady has benefited from countless opponents hideous blunders that have left my jaw dropping.

2) You cannot say, quarterback x had so and so.  You need to actually watch the games.

3) Football is a single elimination sport.  Brady has benefited from his teams being able to overcome when he has underperformed in the playoffs.  Marino never had that luxury. 

Post-new direction me:  It's all about the quarterback.  Just as the mainstream media chose to throw flowers at Brady's feet after the Super Bowl, and ignore the real heroes of the game (The Patriot defense), I will hold this belief from now on.

Do I get credit for staying true to my word?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSBI1xtVAAAN6WO.jpg)

When you have admittedly changed once, no.

Marino was my favorite player.  He was the reason I started rooting for the Dolphins.

Pre-new direction me:  I thought Brady's performances after 2004 would show how UNreliable it is to measure quarterbacks by wins.  It has not done so.

Post-new direction me:  Brady's performances after 2004 have shown that the quarterback is responsible for the record of his team.

Edit:

I can't even tell everybody's viewpoint on this board now.  I think you guys just like having fun with me.  That's cool, I dig it.

The article posted doesn't mention Brady or Montana.  Before my new direction, I used to think Marino deserved to be mentioned in their names as one of the greatest to play the game.  Most people rank Marino ahead of the quarterbacks posted in the article.

Tenshot, when you said that my viewpoint was idiotic, did you mean pre-new direction me or post new direction me?  How do you feel about Marino?

Before my new direction, I posted a thread showing how it was unfair to compare quarterbacks by victories after the Patriots-Texans playoff game.  Everybody disagreed with me.  This leads me to another one of my pre-new direction beliefs: 

What people don't understand is that football is a single-elimination sport.  Brady has had many subpar playoff performances, but because of his teammates and his opponents his team has been able to overcome them and win the games anyway.  The usual rebuttal this gets is, "Well, that's just one game out of many."  THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.  ONE GAME IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WINNING THE SUPER BOWL AND BEING ELIMINATED IN THE PLAYOFFS. 

Ok, I get what you are trying to say now.  But I still have to respectfully disagree because I think you are oversimplifying the equation too much.  Granted, I am biased because I think Shula walks on water because I was a little kid growing up in South Florida during the glory days of the 70s.  So I know that causes me to give Shula the ultimate free pass in all discussions.  I just think that a HOF QB and HOF Coach can't solely win Super Bowls.  There has to be at least a decent defense to go along with them.  Joe Robbie was one of the cheapest owners in NFL history which left the team trying to create a great roster on a shoestring budget. 

One last thing about Shula, the fact that the won the Super Bowls in the early 70's with a roster that was largely made up of guys who were nobodies at the time, says a lot about his ability to create a team that was much greater than its individual parts.  A lot of those guys are considered great in retrospect, but at the time, nobody found the Fins roster to be particularly outstanding.  Griese/Morrall was a "game manager" and an old man.  The RB trio of Zonk, Mercury, and Kiick were legit stars so they admittedly did carry the team a good bit.  But Warfield was considered over the hill, the offensive line was a bunch of castoffs from other teams that nobody else wanted, and the defense wasn't called the "no name" defense for nothing. 

Shula was an incredible gameday manager.  In terms of the Xs and Os -- he was going to outcoach you.

Also, perhaps this is an excuse, but the NFL used to work a little differently before the salary-cap era.  The draft was bigger, IMO, than it is now.  The Dolphins were perpetually in the latter half of the draft for a long, long time.  Now, there's less of an issue with that, because you don't have to pay guys at the bottom as much, so it kinda works out.

Yeah, but...Miami had to get past a HOF coach, HOF QB, HOF wide receiver, HOF running back, and HOF defensive player to get past the Bills teams (not to mention HOF inclement weather).  However, I agree that Miami should have won one during their tenures.  If the Bills, Jets, or Dolphins could muster a squad to oppose the Patriots like the Bills did against the Dolphins, then they wouldn't have the SB appearances that they have.

The cause of Shula's induction to the HOF was not his work from 1984-1994.  He's there primarily because of the two decades before that.

Put another way: Jimmy Johnson is a potential HOF coach, but he also won zero titles with Marino.  So what does that say about JJ?  It says Marino was past his prime.  And the same applies - in reverse - to Shula and Marino.  If Marino were on the 1970s Dolphins, the outcome is obviously different.

Well done

(https://i.giphy.com/media/ncqFxbXceoh7G/giphy.gif)

The below is fucking amazing.

Plunkett won two Super Bowls. His career totals are 25,882 yards, 164 touchdown passes, 198 interceptions, and a career quarterback rating of 67.5. Marino threw for 35,749 more yards and 265 more touchdowns than Plunkett. I'll add Troy Aikman's entire career totals of 32,942 yards and 165 touchdown passes to Plunkett's totals. Plunkett/Aikman:58,824 yards and 329 touchdown passes. So if you combine the 28 seasons and five Super Bowl Championships of those two quarterbacks your still 2,537 yards and 91 touchdown passes short of one Dan Marino.

I know Marino would have really liked to have won a superbowl, but if you could have had Plunkett's career including the 2 Super Bowls or Marino's career, I'll take Marino's thank you very much. Now Aikman that's a different story as he was on one of the best team's of all time. They asked Barry Switzer the other day how he would fix the Cowboys (this was before the Redskin's game) and he just laughed and said the team today doesn't compare to those teams that he coached. Barry admits that having the best team in the NFL makes it a bit easier to coach the team to a championship.

The general consensus on this board seems to be:  Marino was better than Plunkett and Aikman, but not as good as Montana and Brady.

Pre-new direction me:  I disagree.  I believe Marino is in the same tier as Brady and Montana

Post-new direction me: I agree 

^^^ I believe Marino was on the same level as Montana, and had Marino played on those 49er teams they would have won the same number of SB's (if not more).  However, Brady is better than Marino was.

Wait, why would you agree that Marino is better than Plunkett and Aikman?  I thought the "new direction" you would say that Terry Bradshaw is better than Troy Aikman, who is better than Jim Plunkett, who is better than Jeff Hostetler, who is better than Dan Marino.  Now I'm confused.

Among QBs without a ring he is #1.  Among all QBs he is in the top 20, but not top 10.  He is better than many QBs and even one two time sbmvp (eli)

Trolling more than ever I see.  Please name 10 QBS you think are better than Marino.

It's for the same reason that Barry Sanders is not a top 10 RB, Randy Moss is not a top 10 WR, Tony Gonzales is not a top 10 TE, Dick Butkus is not a top 10 LB, etc.

When I said I agree I meant with Brady and Montana both being better than Marino.

I will go the whole new yards and say that quarterbacks are ranked by Super Bowl victories.

This is another way of saying, I surrender. 

I always thought that it is silly to measure quarterbacks by victories.  As I have watched Brady's career, this belief seemed to be reinforced with me.

I have watched him turn in countless subpar playoff performances, yet still come away with the victory because of his teammates and/or his opponents. 

After Super Bowl 51, I thought it would be clear.

The Patriots defense forced a three and out when the Falcons getting one first down would have locked up the game.

The Patriots defense forced a turnover when anything EXCEPT a turnover would have sealed the game for the Falcons.

And as if that was not enough, they then forced the Falcons to lose over 20 yards, when even only forcing them to lose 10 yards still would sealed the game.

Brady's first two scoring drives of that comeback were against a prevent defense trading yards for time thinking they had the game locked up.

Then, he led a short touchdown drive set up by a turnover.

The final two scoring drives were against a shell-shocked and exhausted Falcon defense that couldn't believe that they were having to protect a lead and keep playing at the point.  I don't think they could have stopped Ryan Leaf in that situation.

Was not to be, so I gave in.

Only Super Bowls matter.  Don't look at anything else.

Therefore, Marino falls down the list everytime a new quarterback earns a ring.

29 different QBs have won the Superbowl.  Are you really telling me that Marino is at least the 30th best QB of all time?

Why are you guys even going down this road with him?

Boredom

If Brady is better than Marino, so is every quarterback who has won a Super Bowl.

"If Dan Marino is better than Bob Griese, so is every other quarterback who has never won a Super Bowl."

I LIKE ABSOLUTES

This is like asking someone, "Do you pack your lunch or walk to school?" One has no  bearing on the other.

What does the number purple taste like?

My question is less nonsensical than your statement.

Pre-new direction:  What is nonsensical is to compare quarterbacks by a team statistic that is also influenced by their opponents. 

I have never heard anybody say anything to say Brady is the GOAT except for his Super Bowl wins.  His stats are never mentioned. 

Post-new direction: Rank quarterbacks by Super Bowl wins and always give the quarterback credit for everything.  Thank you.

I would like to apologize to everyone for starting this thread.  I believe we are all a little dumber now from having read one specific person's replies.  The next time the board members come to Texas, I owe you all a beer for putting you through this. 

Don't worry about it.  The responses entertain me, the same way watching Sharknado entertains me...because it's so bad.

I can't understand the attraction at all

That would be the normal, sane response.

You may wish to consult with an Audiologist.  Actually the strongest argument in favor of Brady surpassing Joe Montana as the GOAT, is not the number of rings but Brady's consistent success with nobody wide receivers.  Other than 2 year with Randy Moss, Brady has never had any top tier wide receivers.  Unless you are counting an UDFA they got in trade from Miami or a 7th round draft pick that converted from QB to wide receiver has top tier.

Not to take anything away from Brady, but his receivers have been vastly under appreciated.