And if he never wins one - he won’t be in the GOAT conversation. That’s the way it is.
The greatest of all time may not win a title every year, but they don’t go O-fer for their career.
I get the team game argument - and it’s valid. But the QB is easily the most important position in all of sports. If we were talking about the best cornerback or guard ever then titles would be less of a measuring stick. But for a QB? Bring a ring to be part of the convo.
Sorry, you're just not making sense. Unless of course, you define GOAT quarterback as one who won a Super Bowl - but then you're just defining, not actually giving reasons.
For those who pay attention, football is a team sport. Just as important as the offense is the defense. Special teams matter too. As we've seen, a great offense isn't enough to win a Super Bowl.
Oh, and funnily enough, even if the QB is the most important player on the offense, he still needs 10 other players to perform (plus subs). You are choosing to redefine the GOAT QB criteria to ignore most team play, basically making the QB responsible for the defense, for the special teams, for the blocking, for receivers running their routes and holding onto the ball, for having a good RB or two, etc. That is a very shallow conception of a GOAT, and NOT one that everybody - or even most - would agree with, at least not after a few seconds of thought.
Marino - for instance - repeatedly elevated a team with a horrible defense and generally other holes into a playoff team. He was a dominating QB, doing basically all that a QB realistically could do with his arm and his brain. That's why many feel he is the GOAT.
