These two guys come up pretty consistently when people talk about bad/below average QB's who managed to win Superbowls. That being said, I think it's pretty ridiculous that people lump them together as if Dilfer was Brad Johnson's equal. Brad Johnson Years played - 15 Comp - 2,668 Comp PCT - 61.7 Yards - 29,054 Y/A - 6.7 TD - 166 INT - 122 Rush yards - 657 Rush Avg - 2.4 Rush TD - 8 Other accolades - 1 Superbowl, 2 pro bowls Trent Dilfer Years played - 13 Comp - 1,759 Comp PCT - 55.5 Yards - 20,518 Y/A - 6.5 TD - 113 INT - 129 Rush yards - 248 Rush Avg - 3.4 Rush TD - 5 Other accolades - 1 Superbowl, 1 pro bowl Their postseason success is similar. Both played in the same era. Overall, Johnson has the statistics of legitimate starting QB, albeit an average one. Dilfer on the other hand has the stats of a firmly backup level QB who could play decently at times, but a backup level QB none the less. Johnson has Dilfer handily beaten in every meaningful statistic - most notably, Dilfer's TD/INT ratio is also not only negative, but he literally threw 7 more INT's in 13 years than Johnson did in 15. Meanwhile, Johnson's TD's outnumbered his own INT's by 44. I'm not arguing that Johnson was a great QB, but let's stop acting like he was worse than he really was when he had a reasonably solid career in reality.