Quote:
Originally Posted by R˙chean
And like it or not, right or wrong..... winning it all is the measuring stick for quarterbacks.
|
Sure, it is, in popular perception. People put Terry Bradshaw among the greats even though when you look up his stats, he looks like Drew Bledsoe with a better defense. Popular perception tends to over-emphasize results and under-emphasize the process that led to that result in all things.
Like I said before, a QB's "legacy" in popular perception isn't a measure of his intrinsic greatness, or clutchness, or whatever, but is rather a mix of that
and a bunch of random twists of fate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by R˙chean
Not to invoke the name Romo again, but he will likely hold every Cowboys passing record when he is done, but without at least 3 championships, he will always be behind Staubach and Aikman. (see Danny White)
|
In this particular case, that's appropriate, IMO. Aikman played in a less passer-friendly era, so his stats are going to look a little worse if you don't adjust them. Aikman made six straight pro bowls - that gives you a sense of his run of solid play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpiusx
It's like saying that getting 2nd place is worse than getting 3rd or 4th or 5th or simply not placing at all. Is what I'm saying making any sense or am I just sounding really stupid?
|
Sure, I agree. There is this weird thing where people look at it the other way. People made a big deal about the Pats' postseason winning streak from 2001-2005, but they tended to gloss over the fact that the Pats actually missed the playoffs in the middle of that run. Isn't that worse than losing in the playoffs?