With all the discussion about the greatest player/team here it always seems to come down to winning super bowls to many people. Of course that ignores most of the history of the NFL but that is another discussion. Here, I would like to know is winning the super bowl the indicator of greatness or is just getting there good enough? This comes about in a discussion about Mr. Favre and his win loss record in the Super Bowl with a poster claiming Eli Manning is a better quarterback since he went to one and won it a 100 percent winning rate and Mr. Favre has lost one and won one a 50 percent winning rate.
This is not a discussion of Mr. Favre but it does bring to mind some quarterbacks that I would rank high on my list of greatest quarterbacks, Jim Kelly being a good example. Never won a Super Bowl but went four times, in a row! He played well in two, was a non-factor in one and probably lost another. But I still consider him one of the greatest Super Bowl era quarterbacks. I certainly believe winning one Super Bowl does not make you the greatest anything. Any one game can be determined by luck. That is why this question is being asked. I believe if you are able to bring your team to the Super Bowl repeatedly, you deserve to be discussed among the greatest players/teams.
For the record I think looking only at the Super Bowl era is a stupid way of looking at this topic. Some of the greatest players in the history of pro football are ignored. However, push come to shove, I think Mr. Montana was the greatest Super Bowl era quarterback and Mr. Starr the greatest NFL Championship quarterback of all time. So, is winning one Super Bowl like Eli Manning make him a greater quarterback than Jim Kelly?