Super Bowl Barometer

Jeff Smith
2/11/10


Before this past Sunday’s Super Bowl, which we all know was captured by the New Orleans Saints in a dramatic 31-17 victory, much of the chatter swirled around Peyton Manning and the impact the game would have on his legacy. The general consensus was that a win would have solidified a place on the Mt. Rushmore of all-time great NFL quarterbacks, with many theorizing that a second Lombardi Trophy would have vaulted him into “The Greatest of All Time” territory. In the days since the Colts loss, opinions have been flying about its impact on the Manning legacy. It’s difficult to recall another game in NFL history in which a single player’s historical status took more of a hit. How could a four time regular season MVP, who is on pace to hold every significant NFL passing record, only secure one Super Bowl ring in a decade which his team posted more wins than any other team in history. Despite his other accolades, how can we place Peyton in the same rarified air as other Hall of Famers such as Joe Montana, who won four Super Bowls? If my mathematical skills serve me correctly, Manning’s one Super Bowl title is only ¼ of the total posted by Montana, thus Peyton Manning can be no more than ¼ the football player that Joe Montana was.
Nearly all of the media, and the majority of the general public, have adopted the Super Bowl Barometer (or SBB as I refer to it) as the primary system for sifting through the greatness of NFL quarterbacks. That’s an awfully lofty (not to mention unfair) benchmark by which to evaluate these field generals, who are ultimately only one of twenty-two players and numerous coaches on the field who impact the outcome of each game. Each and every play relies on every one of the eleven guys on the field performing their individual assignment to near perfection in order to move the football, or to stop the other team from doing so. Ultimately, a single superstar football player, like Peyton Manning, has no more ability to impact the final score of a game than the man who snaps the ball to him, the place kicker, or even the coaches making the offensive and defensive adjustments. The outcome of a football game is simply out of the control of any single player or coach and rests solely on the performance of the team as a cohesive unit.
Despite these realities, in terms of all-time greatness and Hall of Fame status, quarterbacks with more rings continue to get more respect. When examining the active signal callers, most still give the edge to Tom Brady over Peyton Manning based solely on his three Super Bowl rings, despite the fact that Manning has a higher career completion percentage, a higher QB rating, almost 20,000 more passing yards and 141 more TD passes. When it comes to comparing retired legends the same ridiculous Super Bowl Barometer is widely used. According to most, Dan Marino’s all-time greatness pails in comparison to that of Joe Montana, even though Marino outpaced Joe Cool by over 20,000 passing yards and nearly 150 touchdowns during their careers. Montana is widely accepted as the best quarterback to ever play simply because he was fortunate enough to be a member of four teams that won the Super Bowl, while Marino’s misfortune of never winning a championship leaves him seldom mentioned in the “Greatest Ever” conversation.
Furthering the bias of the SBB is its uneven application amongst players of all positions. Anthony Munoz and Bruce Matthews are widely considered to be two of the greatest offensive lineman in the history of the sport, yet when coming up with rationale to support this claim, Super Bowls are never mentioned. These two outstanding players had every opportunity to impact their respective offenses as much as the quarterbacks they protected, yet with no championships between them in a combined 32 seasons, their legacies remain untarnished. Hall of Famers such as Munoz and Matthews are portrayed as victims who were never fortunate enough to be paired with a top tier quarterback, yet quarterbacks such as Marino, and Manning, are criticized for not elevating the performance of mediocre teammates to a championship level.
When comparing the greatness of quarterbacks we could all use a reality check. I’m not proposing a complete overhaul of the system, as my own “greatness meter” would see many of the usual suspects claiming the top spots, but let’s not forget that every one of the twenty two players on the field have equal opportunity to impact the outcome of a game. We can’t patronize certain players for never playing with a great quarterback then turn around and place the blame for the shortcomings of an entire team on a quarterback’s shoulders. Remember, numbers never lie, and they are the best gauge that we have for determining the successfulness of a player as an individual. In a sport where a single player is able to have less impact on his team’s success than any other, I don’t want to diminish the Super Bowl accomplishments of Montana, Bradshaw, and Brady, let’s just remember not to minimize the greatness of quarterbacks such as Manning and Marino who weren’t quite as fortunate.