Any conversation that starts with the number of championship rings a player has is about as bad a starting place imaginable in any sport EXCEPT perhaps a starter in the NBA. Yes, the quarterback does touch the ball every play, but in general terms you're going to need a REALLY good quarterback to win more than one Super Bowl. I mean, if rings matter then why wasn't Bart Starr considered the greatest QB prior to Tom Brady? The man won five NFL championships in a 7-year span (and lost another infamous one in 1960). The name I always heard was Joe Montana, who certainly has a case.
But why did nobody EVER mention Starr as the greatest QB ever after he retired? The tale - very similar to the one we heard with Terry Bradshaw - was, "yeah, but anybody could win with all of those Hall of Famers on that team and Lombardi (or Noll) coaching." But Chuck Noll didn't do jack squat after that one round of phenomenal draft picks got old, and Lombardi only coached one year outside of Green Bay before his tragic early death from cancer. Washington improved by one game so whatever. It's like George Seifert or Jimmy Johnson or so many other guys - after their power run, they're not that good. (Andy Reid is quite an exception to this rule).
But it seems to me "won X Super Bowls" is a better CLOSING argument, a final point to make rather than "this one point settles the case." Jim Plunkett and Eli Manning were both mediocre quarterbacks in the NFL, Plunkett getting fired twice before his first win, getting benched in 1983 and then basically taking snaps because his poor replacement (Marc Wilson) got hurt. Plunkett had a really good half of a season in 1980 and Eli DID have a really good 2011 season.
But nobody would ever say Eli is a better QB than was Dan Marino, not anyone who should be taken seriously anyway.
Yet how is that any different than Montana 4 Mahomes 3?
It's the exact same argument.
I know we pick on Joe Namath, which is easy to do with modern eyes, but here's a counterargument in Broadway's favor - in his seven "full" seasons as a starter, Namath led the league in passing yardage THREE times and touchdowns ONCE. Namath was a phenomenal athlete who was undone by injuries, but he still managed to lead the league in passing yards with names out of a phone book except for Hall of Famer Don Maynard. Let's face it, Namath is largely in the HOF due to perhaps the most famous win in NFL history, but the Eli Manning clique tries to argue "but Namath," ignoring the fact Eli never led the league in passing yards 3 times.
And btw - Namath's 4007 yards in 1968 beat EIGHT SEASONS of Eli's passing yardage despite the fact he played TWO FEWER GAMES.
But for simpletons it's easy: Eli 2, Namath 1, therefore, Eli better.
Don't get me wrong: Tom Brady is PROBABLY the greatest QB ever. He would be my candidate.
But is he?
Put him on the late 1980s Broncos and give Elway Brady's time frame and teams, and who wins more rings? I'm not saying this is OBVIOUS, but it's still relevant. Or what if you trade Peyton Manning and Tom across the same years?
As for Mahomes, who is incredibly likeable, I'm not certain he's been better the last several years than Lamar or Allen - or even Joe Burrow in the years he's played - but the simplistic view ("but he won the ring") prevails.
