Switch the quarterback to change history game

When 3 of the great quarterbacks were all in the AFC, Marino, Elway and Kelly, the NFC sent powerhouse after powerhouse to the Superbowl.  We all know the 13 year dominance that finally Elway himself broke against the Packers in the 97 season, helicopter play anyone? 

Would any quarterback in history inserted into the AFC rosters change history?

84: Dolphins against 49ers ( -3 1/2 ), lost 38-16
85: Patriots against Bears ( -10 ), lost 46-10
86: Broncos against Giants ( -9 1/2 ), lost 39-20
87: Broncos against Redskins ( +3 ), lost 42-10
88: Bengels against 49ers ( -7 ), lost 20-16
89: Broncos against 49ers ( -12 ), lost 55-10
90: Bills against Giants ( +7 ), lost 20-19
91: Bills against Redskins ( -7 ), lost 37-24
92: Bills against Cowboys (-6 1/2 ), lost 52-17
93: Bills against Cowboys ( -10 1/2 ), lost 30-13
94: Chargers against 49ers ( -18 1/2 ), lost 49-26
95: Steelers against Cowboys ( -13 1/2 ), lost 27-17
96: Patriots against Packers ( -14 ), lost 35-21

Many Pittsburgh fans on here, would love to hear how Terry Bradshaw would of helped one of those AFC teams win.  Or how could of Tom Brady faired against one of those teams with those casts around him?  If you dare, plug in Peyton Manning, or his now famous Brother.  Point being that Elway, Marino and Kelly were bashed because of their records during this time, but those were some of the greatest teams we've seen in the Superbowl era with a few exceptions from other years.  Your quarterback is a top 3 all time, insert him and explain, let's see if we believe you.  Added in the final betting lines for fun, only two NFC teams were underdogs, the 87 Redskins and the 90 Giants.  Enjoy.

Other than three of them, those Super Bowls were some real stinkers.  I think that if you put a better Qb on the Bengals team in 88 they could have won.  Other than that, the Chargers in 94 had Stan Humphries as their Qb if I recall correctly.  But I am not sure anyone could have beaten Steve Young and the 49er's that day.  Had the Steelers had a better QB than Neil (interception to noone) O'Donnell, they might have won against the Cowboys.

Put Marino, Elway or Kelly on the Patriots teams that won against the Rams, Panthers or Eagles and they have at least two rings, maybe all three.  Fault those three for being in their era, but award the greatest short yardage passer of all time in his because he's in this one?  Put Tom Brady in the place of those Dolphins, Broncos or Bills teams and it's the same story, well, other than he would of been out at halftime from those defenses. 

Put Eli on the Browns and they would have won like 5 titles. Eli is now the GOAT, right? I mean, if you listen to all the ridiculous talk right after the SB. He went from being a QB who got lucky in 07 to being Montanna or something in just a few weeks.

Peyton Manning could have won with any of those teams.


Eli Manning could have won on any of those teams.   

I think that if you put a better Qb on the Bengals team in 88 they could have won. 
 
I disagree. The Bengals were winning the game with 2 min to go and Montanta had one of the greatest drives in SB history there. Its not Boomers fault they didn't win that Super bowl.

I disagree. The Bengals were winning the game with 2 min to go and Montanta had one of the greatest drives in SB history there. Its not Boomers fault they didn't win that Super bowl.

I concur. 

The AFC didn't lose those Super Bowls because they had the lesser QB, they lost because they had the lesser team.

In at least half of those games, the AFC had the better QB, and they still couldn't win.

Taking out Marino, Elway, or Kelly would not have improved the AFC's chances.

Theres also this truth. If you could play each of those games over 10 times, the AFC probably wins a bunch of them, maybe even half of them. It just happened that the NFC won on the one chance they had each year. Maybe they were better that day. That's how upsets happen. A worse team beats a better team.

Either team could have won many of those games listed above. We don't give enough credence to the randomization of it. One bounce can change the outcome on that day, regardless of which team is actually better.

Sometimes you can flip a coin and it comes up heads. Doesn't mean heads is better. It just won that time. Sometimes heads comes up a bunch of times in a row. That still does not mean heads is the better side of the coin. It just worked out that way.

When teams are fairly evenly matched, the outcome is kind of like a coin flip. If they played 10 times, each team might win 5. But they only play once, so you only get to see the first outcome, which decides the champion.

How many championships would be undone in baseball if the champion was determined by the winner of Game 1, and there was no 7 game series? Baseball is better at determining a true champion, because you can lose the first game and still win the majority of games, proving you are more likely the better team than one game for the title.

Taking out Marino, Elway, or Kelly would not have improved the AFC's chances.

Those 3 quarterbacks drop on most peoples "list" because they don't have rings during this time period.  Elway of course the only one out of that period to buck the trend and get some rings. 

I'd venture to say that if you took a player like Jim Kelly and place him with those Steelers teams of the 70s.  Reverse what I proposed here basically.  Does history change and you don't have 4 rings in 6 years?  Does Jim Kelly become #2 on the "list"? 

Point was that people are too set on Team rings and let them affect a ranking of players.  Could switch it up and have a list of Running Backs as well.  Is Walter Payton down on the list because he only has one, how about Barry, and so on.  NFL is so much about the team, some great players were just unlucky to be on those bad teams.

Tom Brady is someone who raises the level of his teamates, I have always said that.  Welker is the prime example.  That amount of catches, he isn't that good, come on.  System of short passes helps to, as it does to Brady.  Fair share of YAC helps.

Brady and Bradshaw found themselves higher than Marino, Elway and Kelly and many peoples lists, and personally I don't see it.

Carry on...

Oh let's have some real fun and play replace the kicker. Say Morten Anderson replaces Scott Norwood for the 90 Buffalo Bills, they may have well won 4 in a row instead of losing 4 in a row.

I picked someone from the time period but could have gone with Adam Vinateri,

This message has been removed by the administrator.

I remember all those Super Bowls the Steelers won between Bradshaw and Ben too with #1 run games and #1 defenses.

You also act like they didn't play against Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, Steve Young, Phil Simms, and Brett Favre.    

That's four hall of famers vs three and Simms I believe has come close. 

You also act like they didn't play against Joe Montana, Troy Aikman, Joe Theismann, Doug Williams, Steve Young, Phil Simms, and Brett Favre.

That's the point.  The three best AFC quarterbacks of that run there, Marino, Elway and Kelly all played tough teams and many times those teams had great quarterbacks themselves.  BUT, let's knock those three guys down the list because they lost superbowls against superior teams.  Take out Kelly from the Bills and put in Bradshaw, does history change?  My guess would be no.  Put in a better kicker for Kelly maybe, kind of like the one that Brady had.

Wait the 01' Rams suck now?

I could have sworn they were the defending champs and "one of the best offenses ever".

Now that that Pats and Brady beat them they aren't good?

Got it...

i wasn't sure if any qb from history could play on any of the teams listed but i'll say if bradshaw (or any number of others) was playing for the 95 Steelers they would have beaten the Cowboys easily because he ( or they ) wouldn't hand the cowpies a touchdown like neil o'donnel did. that was the game on that play.

also the Bengals could possibly have won against the niners, but i don't really remember that game very well. i just know they had a sh***y qb norman "boomer" esiason.

I could have sworn they were the defending champs and "one of the best offenses ever".
-
At least you didn't call it a "fact" this time. The Baltimore Ravens were the defending champions, and even if you meant Conference champions (the Giants), you were also WRONG!
-
You are the best CBS poster at being WRONG.

Put Marino, Elway or Kelly on the Patriots teams that won against the Rams, Panthers or Eagles and they have at least two rings, maybe all three.  Fault those three for being in their era, but award the greatest short yardage passer of all time in his because he's in this one?  Put Tom Brady in the place of those Dolphins, Broncos or Bills teams and it's the same story, well, other than he would of been out at halftime from those defenses. 


I bet if Marino, Elway or Kelly was on those Pats teams and played against the same competition the Pats would have won by more than three points too.

Wait the 01' Rams suck now?

I could have sworn they were the defending champs and "one of the best offenses ever".

Now that that Pats and Brady beat them they aren't good?

Got it...


The Rams had a great offense.  But they were not the defending champs.  The Ravens won the Super Bowl the year before.  Rams won two years prior.

That game was won by the Pats defense and Adam Vinetieri.  Brady drove them into FG range, but his overall numbers that game were not record setting by any standards. 

Here is an interesting stat that someone posted about Brady's 9 career TD passes.  He has never thrown a TD pass in a SB that was more than 12 yards, and that TD came the other night to Hernandez.  Most of his TD passes are from inside the 10 yard line.  I think the one to Hernandez was the only one that had double digit yardage.  I found that amazing.  That little 5 yard pass that turned into a TD is Brady's game.  Short passes and let your guys run with the ball.  There were some other interesting facts about Brady's inability to throw the long ball, at least in the SB, but I cannot remember exact details.