Pretty arbitrary line Easterbrook draws between what’s meaningful and what’s worthless. After all, the Dolphins got their butts kicked in the Super Bowl by San Francisco. Second place = first loser and all that. No Lombardi, what’s the point, right? Isn’t that what people like to thump their chests about when trying to diminish an accomplishment?

But apparently Easterbrook wants to grade on a curve for Marino, for whatever reason. The line between meaningful and “stunt” is wherever it needs to be, I guess. Nevermind that both of Marino’s starting wideouts were pro bowlers that year, as was his center. They were 16th in the league in rushing. And the Dolphins’ defense that year ranked 7th in points allowed and 12th in takeaways, and featured two more pro bowlers (including THE GREAT Adam Joseph Duhe.)

Seems ass backwards to me to credit Marino for being surrounded by a better team, and penalize Drew because he was unable to carry a far lesser team to the same result. Marino had a LOT more help in 1984, which is why the TEAM made the Super Bowl.

If Easterbook had said that Marino still had the better year, then I don’t think anybody would argue with that. I think that much is clear. But “pressure games?” The Dolphins won a whopping 2 games that year by a margin of <7, against last-place Buffalo and last-place Philadelphia. 9 of their wins were by a margin of 2+ touchdowns.

Pressure games? They cruised all year. They won their division by 5 games. They clinched in November, for crying out loud.

And in the end, what you (SaintBevo) said is exactly right. How can Marino’s be legit and Drew’s be a “stunt”? Marino didn’t bring home a Lombardi that year, so what good did going to the playoffs do?