In order for Aaron Rodgers to be considered the best QB, he's going to have to win a Super Bowl. True of false?

Even though he has the most talent, he's going to have to win a Super Bowl to quiet the naysayers. True or false?

12 Answers

  • Rizr N
    Lv 4
    10 years ago
    Favourite answer

    I'm going to go with true AND false. It's true in the sense that Aaron Rodgers has to prove that he can perform under pressure and "when it matters." Ultimately, some people think Brady is better than Manning because of the SB ring count of 3 to 1. But like one of the answerers said earlier, since when has winning SBs become a team game? Personally, Manning played OK in the SB game vs. the Saints and it wasn't his fault.

    In an ideal world, I'd say Rodgers just needs a solid performance in the SB to be considered as one of the top 3-5 QBs. Win or lose, if it's not his fault, then how should that affect people's perception towards him?

    In reality, he'll need to win AND play well to considered a top 3-5 QB. People say that not only do you need to play well under pressure, but really good QBs like Brady and Manning can compensate for their team's shortcomings in other areas and bail them out. Personally, I've seen Manning do this a lot, but not so much Brady.

    Btw, I think the Top 5 QBs are: Manning, Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Rivers. Vick has all the tools, but he has to prove that he can replicate next year. Roethlisberger is in this debate too.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    This is true for MOST people and a lot of the so-called analysts on ESPN will say the same thing. "how many rings does he have"

    Really if Joe Montana was out there with a ton of scrubs he still would have been the best QB in the league, but would anyone have known it?

    I laugh at people that use stats and rings to describe QBs....if we didnt live in such a data-rich society nobody would care about these things other than wins and losses.

    Now, stat-wise Rodgers has been a beast this year, but he doesnt have a ring.

    He also has a very average win-loss ratio over his career.

    What I'm saying is it's too soon for me to say if he will go down in history as one of the best.

    Would Super Bowl rings help? Sure, but only because that means he's winning a lot of games.

    To me its about how a QB manages the game and how accurate he is.

  • 10 years ago

    Unfortunately true. Hays101 is right if you ask me but since the question is about quieting the naysayers the answer has to be true. There are just too many morons that think you have to win a Super Bowl to be the best. I think it is bunk because I have Dan Marino and Barry Sanders #1 in their respective positions but that is another story.

    For Rodgers to be the best in my mind, instead of a ring on his finger he will have to...

    #1 Carry the team more. Right now he carries the offense but the defense carries the team. He doesn't mean to the Packers what Peyton Manning or Drew Brees mean to their teams or what Marino and John Elway meant to theirs. You can give me the speech about how he is the leader yada yada and buy into the ESPN propaganda but the bottom line is the defense is winning the games.

    #2 Do what he has been doing for longer. He is good but staying power is hard.

    #3 He is going to have to be good even when the team around him isn't playing as well as it is today.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Rodgers doesn't have to win the Super Bowl to be considered the best QB, however it would help to shut up all the people that said and still say that the Packers should have stuck with Favre 3 years ago.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    False. Even if he does win a superbowl he has not been around long enough to be considered the best. What makes him better than Brady, Manning, or Brees? These guys have been doing this for more than a decade.

    If Rodgers keeps up his ability then sure he will be considered the best. But he has only been playing for 3 years, it takes a longer tenure to be considered the best.

  • True. He's not the best QB in the NFL yet. He's in the top five though, along with Brady, Manning, Vick, and Brees. He's looking like he might be the quarterback of the next decade though, only time will tell. If you want recognition you need to have a Super Bowl under your belt, or in Aaron's case his championship belt.


    @hays101 REVISITED Although true and a very important thing to remember, that didn't really answer what the question asked.

  • 10 years ago

    The "best" is very subjective, he can be one of the best... but the best???? Bradshaw has 4 rings was he the best? Marino has no rings and he is still considered one of the best..Kelly went to 4 consecutive SBs with inferior talent and he hardly gets a mention. People are so quick to name somebody the best. A couple of months ago they had Vick and Matty Ice in the Hall of Fame, they are at home watching the game with the rest of us. He is definitely one of the toughest if not the toughest.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago


    Knowledgeable football fans know that football's a team game. Teams win Super Bowls, not individuals. The success of a team does not validate the ability of an individual player.

    But, then again when you have dumbass ESPN analysts and phony sportswriters "rating" a player, the correct answer WOULD be "true".

  • 10 years ago

    All depends. Marino is considered by many to be the greatest QB even though he never won a Super Bowl.

  • 10 years ago

    it will make him look better, but teams win Super Bowls, not individuals

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.