I was talking about 2008. Not prior years.

Yeah, I guess so.

Give me Brees at #3 anyday of the week over Roethlisberger.

And I like Big Ben.

Everybody loves an underdog.

Big Ben is one of the league's best, but the Steelers defense is more important. Put it all together and the Steelers have another championship.

People get mad when other posters cite one game to prove a point, then they turn around and do it themselves. That's an example of taking the argument too far.

In the interest of full disclosure, I've been pretty hard on Ben in the past.

But two Sunday's ago really opened my eyes.

When they need a play, he makes it. He's clutch. He won't win with style points, but he wins.

So rings is singular?

"2. Ben Rothlisberger isn't worthy of his Super Bowl rings and anyone could have won with their defense?"

I agree on the clutch component. But his entire career he's been blessed with one of the best defenses in the NFL.

Quite simply, Big Ben is clutch because his defense puts him in opportunities to win when it matters most. They do so by protecting leads, covering up when Ben makes a mistake late in the game, and by making stops when they matter most (most of the time). Big Ben can win lots of games despite a 17-point performance. Brees or Thigpen score 17 points and they are clobbered. I just have to question if Big Ben could possibly play on a team that features a defense as poor as New Orleans. While playing for Pittsburgh demands that you be clutch in the 4th quarter, playing in New Orleans demands that you be perfect and flawless for the first 3 or else the game falls out of reach in a hurry.

Wow. That's tough.

As it stands RIGHT NOW, Ben.

This is considering Brady's knee, not knowing how that will effect him in later seasons.

Before Brady's injury, I'd go Brady - though they really are almost identical when it comes to leadership qualities and the ability to almost will their teams to win - I take Brady because he's got one more ring.

Agree. :cuss:

And you guys treat the Chiefs like the first girl you ever had a crush on. All hope, no logic.

Love the new sig.

Not as good as "The rice of passage", IMO, but solid.

But I think the big distinction is that Brady has been phenomenal throwing to receivers like Deion Branch, and even one season throwing to Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney who I believe are now mopping floors at a 7-11. Brady's also continued to win games even though his offense has progressively gotten worse--arguably, when the Pats almost pulled off a win against Indy a few years ago, the Pats had a slightly above average defense at best.

I like Big Ben too. But I think he is clearly a product of the team he is on. For as good as he is, he makes a ton of mistakes and throws a lot more INTs than the average QB, and doesn't make up for it with a ton of TDs. I still believe that Brady could take any team to the Super Bowl, but Ben wouldn't without a top 5 defense. Just my opinion.

I know what you mean because prior to this season this was a no brainer and I would have laughed at someone for asking this question.

Now after his gutsy performance in the SB I think it is a legitimate argument because Ben is still fairly young and could improve quite a bit.

Tough choice, I would probably just flip a coin and be happy either way.

That's the 'aikman doesn't belong in the hall of fame' argument. Problem is, you can say the same thing for every championship-winning QB in history. They've all had the benefit of great teams around them. Because that's exactly what it takes to win.

And Thigpen doesn't really even belong in this discussion. I'm not the world's biggest Brees fan, but he's a whole echelon above Thigpen. Maybe he'll develop into somebody that we can talk about in that context in four or five years, but his name shouldn't even be mentioned with the others at this point.