And despite having two Super Bowls, Eli's overall career up to this point doesn't have the same level of greatness that Marino's did which is why most people wouldn't put Eli in the same category with Marino.
One of these teams is not like the others
The issue is having guys like Starr, Unitas, Montana, Marino, vs guys like Brady, Manning, Rodgers, Brees ect. Its a completely different game now.
Eli Manning is better than your quarterback.
Otto Graham has to be on any list.
"Phil Simms is the greatest QB in Giants history" ........Mahatma Gandhi
off the top of my head....
peyton - crazy stats on multiple teams but only 1 ring
montanna - crazy stats, multiple teams and multiple rings
brady - crazy stats and multiple rings.
marino - the originator of crazy stats but no rings
bradshaw - mediocre stats but has the rings
farve - yeah, he was a compiler but one must be very good to compile such stats. plus he has a ring and was mvp
elway - FINALLY got it done and was a consummate competitor.
unitas - better stats than bradshaw but im partial to terry.
brees - another ring and the top 5 gets messy.
thing is, the game has changed since the Namath days to now. and what is the criteria ? rings or stats or both......
marino, moon, kelley, fouts, mcnabb, and rivers have the stats but no jewelry.
guru peyton and brees have crazy stats but only 1 ring. same amount as simms, dilfer and williams..
scrubby namath is a legend due to that one really good/fluky season.
brady has 3 during a time of scandal and none since (0-2).
then you have guys like bradshaw and aikman are proven winners with mediocre stats (avg 170 ypg and 200 ypg)
eli avg 230 ypg and has 2 rings yet is scoffed at being a HOF type qb
as with pitchers, the win stat is bloated. teams win. could a brady ''win'' if hes on a team not known for winning ? or will he need a lot of help, thus, making it a team win ?
the top of my head list is pretty much the list id go by, come to think of it.