the author clearly is ranking the careers of QBs who have been in SBs, not how they rank in SB performance. If the latter, Eli has to be top 5 and Phil top 10. As structured I have some quibbles, but no fundamental disagreement.
it's basically a ranking of regular season careers of QBs who have started in the Super Bowl. Not only does it not rank their Super Bowl play, but it seemingly barely takes it into account at all.
Other than the confusing (if not intentionally misleading) headline, another issue I have is the "In (or should be in) the Hall of Fame" tier name. Sorry, but even though Super Bowl accomplishments like 2 MVPs don't count in your rankings, they certainly do count for HoF consideration.
Not that I would have been REALLY that upset if this ranking was strictly on SB performance for the reason that its just some idiots ranking, no more relevant than the drunk at the end of the bar; in other words, nothing really worth getting all riled up about, but we really should read the article before jumping to the rankings. For those who still dont want to do that, here is what he based his ranking on:
"I ranked all quarterbacks based on career achievements, with regular-season excellence, All-Pro/Pro Bowl appearances and seasons as top-five and top-10 players at the position carrying more weight than just Super Bowl success....."
It's based on regular season accomplishments. Such nonsense.
It’s just his ranking of all time career qbs who happened to appear in a Super Bowl. Just garbage. It should be Super Bowl QB performances or else why bother...
Part of the USA Today Sports Media Group
BigBlueInteractiveSM provides news, analysis, and discussion on the New York Football Giants. This site is owned and operated by Big Blue Interactive, LLC. If you
have any questions or comments about this website, please see our contact information page.