Here is a post that explains WHY Brady is superior to Manning (the argument is made via Montana being superior to Young. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/146676-montana-vs-young-a-public-service-announcement-for-peyton-manning-homers
Good find. I enjoyed this one a lot. But surely this has to be a false dichotomy: stat guy vs winner, right? If Kelly had won those superbowls during the early 1990s, does he thereby deserve to surpass Young as well? I'm sorry. I like the Bills. But it is clear to me that Kelly doesn't belong on the same stage as Montana or Young or Manning, and winning those Superbowls instead of losing them wouldn't change this.
Well, I'll chew on the later half of your comment for a bit while I figure out just where your reasoning goes awry. But are we arguing that the best ever = "those who endure", i.e., the popular consensus choice for best ever?
But for now: Sorry. No way Kelly deserves such company, even if he and his team don't choke in the 4 Bowls. I know this because I know his entire body of work. He was great. He was great in the Bill's K-Gun. He was clearly Hall of Fame. But I just don't fetishize post-season wins/loss so much. A topic for another post, perhaps.
You don't fetishize post-season wins/loss ... So, you fetishize stats and regular season wins? The ones that count are meaningless?
I suppose I would say that an entire career is the proper object of study when it came to assessing "Greatest ever". That would include, of course, playoff wins/losses as well as championships (or lack thereof), but as well as a whole hell of a lot of other snaps and downs and 4th quarter heroics (or failures) and opportunities to lead or get in the way, etc. Far from not counting, playoff games and championships count a great deal. They just aren't the only ones that count in my opinion.
"Not stats, but championships. More specific: great performances in championship games, i.e. playoffs and Super Bowls."
Well, now given what I said above it sort of seems that you are defining the very terms of our debate in such a way as to prejudice the answer in your favor.
Did you ever see that CHEERS episode where Cliff Claven and Fraiser are setting to fight and spend an entire evening drawing up terms for a fair fight?
How about we run a series of posts where one of us offers a single criteria and then defends the choice and how that criteria should be weighted compared to others? Championship games are definitely an important factor that needs to be weighed in the analysis, but let's not make your preferred choice true by definition...
Good find. I enjoyed this one a lot. But surely this has to be a false dichotomy: stat guy vs winner, right? If Kelly had won those superbowls during the early 1990s, does he thereby deserve to surpass Young as well? I'm sorry. I like the Bills. But it is clear to me that Kelly doesn't belong on the same stage as Montana or Young or Manning, and winning those Superbowls instead of losing them wouldn't change this.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'll chew on the later half of your comment for a bit while I figure out just where your reasoning goes awry. But are we arguing that the best ever = "those who endure", i.e., the popular consensus choice for best ever?
ReplyDeleteBut for now: Sorry. No way Kelly deserves such company, even if he and his team don't choke in the 4 Bowls. I know this because I know his entire body of work. He was great. He was great in the Bill's K-Gun. He was clearly Hall of Fame. But I just don't fetishize post-season wins/loss so much. A topic for another post, perhaps.
You don't fetishize post-season wins/loss ...
ReplyDeleteSo, you fetishize stats and regular season
wins? The ones that count are meaningless?
I suppose I would say that an entire career is the proper object of study when it came to assessing "Greatest ever". That would include, of course, playoff wins/losses as well as championships (or lack thereof), but as well as a whole hell of a lot of other snaps and downs and 4th quarter heroics (or failures) and opportunities to lead or get in the way, etc. Far from not counting, playoff games and championships count a great deal. They just aren't the only ones that count in my opinion.
"Not stats, but championships. More specific: great performances in championship games, i.e. playoffs and Super Bowls."
ReplyDeleteWell, now given what I said above it sort of seems that you are defining the very terms of our debate in such a way as to prejudice the answer in your favor.
Did you ever see that CHEERS episode where Cliff Claven and Fraiser are setting to fight and spend an entire evening drawing up terms for a fair fight?
How about we run a series of posts where one of us offers a single criteria and then defends the choice and how that criteria should be weighted compared to others? Championship games are definitely an important factor that needs to be weighed in the analysis, but let's not make your preferred choice true by definition...