re: Is Ben Roethlisberger the most overrated QB in NFL history?

Max Hall beat the Saints, too. Don't you remember all of the TDs he lead their offense to in that game?

quote:

---

I didn't know he was also the defensive cooridinator

---

How does he find time to play qb and dc and still rape women? Dude's underrated.

quote:

---

Yards is a horrible measure for QB quality. Rating is slightly better, but it doesn't take everything into consideration.

---

Agree that yards doesn't measure quality, but rather it better measures what a QB is asked to do for his team to win.

Rating is a pretty good measure for quality play. It measures just that... the quality of what is done on the field. He has had some horrid performances in single games, and sub-par seasons for himself.

Overall though he is a really really good player, and his numbers show that he has performed well at quarterback

quote:

---

Tell that to Dan Marino. His career was incomplete because of it...

---

Trent Dilfer has a complete career?

quote:

---

Overall though he is a really really good player, and his numbers show that he has performed well at quarterback

---

No one is disputing that.

What we're disputing is the contention that he is one of the all time greats. I contend that he's not even in the top 5 among his peers, as determined by the quarterbacks whose careers have overlapped his. Basically, I'm saying that I can name at least two quarterbacks not named Brady, Brees, or Peyton Manning who are better than Ben who had significant playing time during Ben's career.

In fact, I can name more than two.

In no particular order:

Warner
Rivers
Rodgers
Favre

And there are some others that you could really argue about, but that's another story. Bottom line is that Ben is a top ten QB of his era, which does NOT necessarily qualify him as one of the top QBs of all time. Because people want to call him one of the top five in his era and one of the top of all time, he's over rated.

Remember, "over rated" does not necessarily mean "not good" or even "not great". It just means "not as great as the hype that several people assign to this individual, but we can understand why their judgement is flawed".

quote:

---

Rings is the worst argument known to man.



Tell that to Dan Marino. His career was incomplete because of it...

---

of course everyone wants to win a SB, what Soph is saying judging a QB on that alone or even worse playoff record, is stupid, those are team accomplishments. Take Marino off the 84 Dolphins and replace him with David Woodley, they get no where near 14-2 or the SB. And the 84 49er's where just better, they had a better record and much better defense.

quote:

---

EXACTLY
the dude has won 2 superbowls LARGELY because of defense (his 2nd having the greatest defensive play in superbowl history). His 1st superbowl ring was won in spite of him....over half the qbs in the league would have won that game with that team.

---

The same exact thing could be said for Brady's first two superbowls.

quote:

---

The rings argument is overplayed when it comes to quarterback play. Brady has put up great numbers (td/int and rating) in addition to his 3 rings, which is why I think noone really has a problem with him being considered a top 10 qb of all time.

---

He also passes the laugh test. When you watch him play, you can SEE why his stats are great. In his case, the stats and the scouting supplement each other.

If the first half doesn't end in perhaps the greatest defensive play in the history of the NFL, then Ben doesn't have his second ring.

quote:

---

Given those numbers, which are somewhat inconsistent, I consider him a top 5 quarterback. It is well documented that he has many 4th quarter comeback wins, while playing on a team with the best defense of this era.

---

Plus Pitt is a heavy run first team so he doesn't get the advantage of having the defense guessing whether run or pass.

Side note, Bradshaw is thought of (and rightfully so) as being in the discussion of GOAT QB and he never had a 300 yd passing game.