Ranking the Super Bowl MVPs

[onlinebeginner]

i'm too lazy dnh... split it up into positions

[selurah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Jerry Rice WR- SF
2. Joe Montana QB- SF
3. Peyton Manning QB- IND
4. Emmitt Smith RB- DAL
5. John Elway QB- DEN
6. Tom Brady QB- NE
7. Steve Young QB- SF
8. Roger Staubach QB- DAL

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading at that point.

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah me too. Tom Brady is ranked way too [censored] high for this list to be any good.

[dnh83]

Brady it's kind of a projection of where he'll end up when all is said and done. That being said, right now Brady has 21,564 yards and 147 TDs. Staubach had 22,700 yards and 153 TDs. Remember Staubach and Young weren't starters for that long during their career. They each had about 8 or 9 years of starting experience and Brady already has 6. Brady will be a starter for another 8 years or so barring injury. I'd say there's a 70% chance he gets another ring, maybe 30% he gets another 2. He's got a really good chance at 50,000 passing yards. And the guy has been unbelievable in the postseason. I hate the Pats and wish this wasn't the case but I've got to give the guy his due.

[DMBFan23]

if this has anything to do with their actual performance in the superbowl then I think Peyton is ranked too high...he didn't have that great a game especially by his standards

[Artdogg]

This list sucks, Brady is the greatest player in the history.

[PokerFink]

I thought the list was, more or less, pretty good. But if you're giving Brady credit for what he will eventually accomplish, then you have to do the same for Peyton and put him above Montana.

[MacGuyV]

Decent list. My biggest quibbles would be putting Dawson ahead of the 4 next guys below him & Otis Anderson ahead of Swann (everyone knows Thurman was the real mvp of XXV anyway [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] ).

[dnh83]

When I was looking at the numbers Dawson's surprised me at how good they were. I wouldn't have thought beforehand I'd put him that high either. Starr's numbers were somewhat underwhelming even for his era, and GB was such a great running team. Then again, no quarterback won games like Starr in the history of the NFL really. Tough to say as they were both before my time.

Allen and Csonka were interesting. They kind of had the exact opposite career. Allen only had three 1000 yard seasons in his entire career, all early on, but he was a productive player and very steady for 15 years. Csonka was a beast for a few years and I think more dominant in his day than Allen was in his, but Zonk didn't last all that long.

Swann, I don't know, I think he just annoys me as a commentator with his weird voice and I hate the fact that he got into the Hall of Fame so maybe I put him too low. I'm a Giants fan so I had to give OJ some love.

Also, I was 7 years old for Super Bowl XXV when the Giants beat the Bills. I taped the game on VCR. I found the tape somewhere in the basement a few years ago and watched the game, the first thought I had was, "Holy [censored], Thurman Thomas was incredible." So I agree MacGuyV, Thurman would probably be somewhere in the teens if he had won it.

[MacGuyV]

Nice post. I understand why some people don't like Swann but IMO he was like the only sideline reporter who ever added a shred of insight to the game. I'm not sure if it's a thankless job or if everyone just sucks at it?

[dnh83]

Yeah, he does actually had insight, you're right. I'm just a cynical bastard who hates everyone in the media. He just strikes me as a little cocky.

But mainly, I tried to keep it about football. Here are Swann's career stats:

http://www.pro-football-reference.co...s/SwanLy00.htm

Even if you're a pro-Swann guy, at best his "prime" lasted 7 years. For the most part John Stallworth out-performed him during these years. It just seems to me he's made his reputation off of 3 or 4 sick catches in the Super Bowl.