The quarterback position is unique in the realm of sports. There is no other position in any major team sport that has as big an impact on a team’s success or failure. Quarterbacks are often judged by the success of their teams in a manner that is not applied to any other positions. That’s why wins and Super Bowl championships are considered quarterback stats.
Advertisement
The legacy of a running back, wide receiver, or pass rusher is not defined by the number of Super Bowl rings they have. The same cannot be said for QBs. Their legacies often begin and end with the Super Bowl conversation. Think Barry Sanders, LaDainian Tomlinson, Randy Moss, Terrell Owens, Deacon Jones, and Alan Page. None won Super Bowls, but they are all considered among the greatest at their position.
On the other hand, quarterbacks that never won championships like Philip Rivers and Matt Ryan are not even mentioned in the conversation because they never won the Big One. Meanwhile, QBs with lesser stats and individual accomplishments who did win a Super Bowl, like Eli Manning, are shown a lot more love despite mediocre stats.
Manning’s case for the Hall of Fame is widely viewed as much stronger than that of Rivers or Ryan because he won two Super Bowls. And they weren’t just any Super Bowl wins, they were wins over Tom Brady. However, Ryan and Rivers have more passing yards, more TD passes, fewer interceptions, higher completion percentages, and higher passer ratings than Manning. Not to mention Manning only had a .500 record as a starter.
However, he was masterful during those two Super Bowl runs. And for many, that’s all that really counts when discussing which QBs deserve a bronze bust in Canton. A recent Reddit post looked into this phenomenon. They put forth a few QBs whose legacies would be wildly different if they had or hadn’t won a Super Bowl.
“A Super Bowl is a metric that defines a legacy, especially for quarterbacks. How does that affect the following if they win one and if they don’t? Legacy changes winning a ring: Matt Ryan, Cam Newton and Philp Rivers. Legacy changes with no ring: Russell Wilson, Eli Manning and Aaron Rodgers.”
One Redditor, interestingly argued that for Rivers, it would depend on when he won the ring. If he’d won it early he’d be viewed like a Kurt Warner. But, if it came later when he was with the Indianapolis Colts, his legacy would be more akin to Matthew Stafford’s. For us, he’s a HOF shoo-in if he’d won a ring, no matter when.
“Rivers winning a ring depends on when he did it. 2006 rivers becomes like Kurt Warner and his career after that solidifies a strong HOF resume. Colts Rivers becomes like Stafford, a guy who put up numbers on a mismanaged team for a long time and eventually got it done once he had the infrastructure to support him. Still maybe makes the hall of fame but maybe not a lock.”
There were a lot more interesting comparisons made by the netizens on Reddit. One argued, “Eli Manning without a ring is Vinny Testaverde.” Another replied backing up their point, saying that Manning’s legacy is largely based on those two Super Bowl runs. However, they did also acknowledge that “Super Bowls do matter for QBs though.”
Another said that Aaron Rodgers would be viewed like Dan Marino—probably the best QB to never win the Big One—if he hadn’t gotten his one ring back in 2010. However, we believe Rodgers is already somewhat viewed like Marino, just based on how talented he was in his prime.
We subscribe to the notion that Super Bowl wins have a massive impact on a QB’s legacy. However, Rodgers has been so good for so long that we think he’d still be considered one of the greats even without that ring.
