Sports: NFL

[Warlord Alpha]

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?

-scorp

No, it makes plenty of sense. It's like, at absolute most, the QB is responsible for 1/3rd of a team's success. The QB is the biggest part of the offense, sure, but there's also the defense and the special teams. You can be the best QB ever but if your defense is terrible or if your special teams can't make a field goal or punt then you're never going to win.

Numbers like completion percentage and average yards per drive and such don't capture the imagination as much as "SUPER BOWL WINS" does, but which is a more fair indication of the skill of the quarterback?

[IAmBatman]

If Lebron James wins 6 championships in his remaining years, do you think folks will legitimately be able to say he's as good as Jordan?

Jordan was an assassin in every one of the 6 championship series he was in and people remember that. Just like people will always remember James choking away his second chance at a title and coming up small in his first chance and putting that up against 6 for 6 just makes 6 for 8 less impressive. (Not that I think Lebron will end up with 6 titles, fwiw).

[dok]

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

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.

Originally Posted by Rÿchean

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.

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?

[dok]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

If Lebron James wins 6 championships in his remaining years, do you think folks will legitimately be able to say he's as good as Jordan?

Jordan was an assassin in every one of the 6 championship series he was in and people remember that. Just like people will always remember James choking away his second chance at a title and coming up small in his first chance and putting that up against 6 for 6 just makes 6 for 8 less impressive. (Not that I think Lebron will end up with 6 titles, fwiw).

Of course, Jordan took his lumps early in his career, too... he just lost repeatedly to the Celtics and Pistons instead of beating them and losing to the Lakers. I don't personally find that more impressive. My esteem for Jordan is not based on his perfect record in the years where his team was good enough to reach the finals.

[scorpiusx]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

If Lebron James wins 6 championships in his remaining years, do you think folks will legitimately be able to say he's as good as Jordan?

Jordan was an assassin in every one of the 6 championship series he was in and people remember that. Just like people will always remember James choking away his second chance at a title and coming up small in his first chance and putting that up against 6 for 6 just makes 6 for 8 less impressive. (Not that I think Lebron will end up with 6 titles, fwiw).

I don't think so, but not so much for the reasons of him choking as it is why movie critics will probably never have a motion picture be considered better than "Citizen Kane", or why music critics will never think there will be a band greater than The Beatles. They've been the legendary number 1 for such a long time and are considered so classic in this era that to say that anyone would top them would be blasphemy. I don't watch the NBA, but Jordan is likely going to be stated as the best basketball player possibly forever, and Joe Montana is probably going to be that way in the NFL.

I understand WHAT you're saying, I'm just saying that it seems like a faulty way to look at things. For centuries people thought that the Earth was flat too, doesn't mean that their thinking was accurate.

-scorp

[IAmBatman]

I'm not saying it's a completely fair way to look at things - just that it's likely how folks will look at them. Honestly, I wouldn't really have been that impressed with the victory had it happened because:

1) Brady didn't play all that well (don't know the stats, but I know what I saw when I watched the game - not that his receivers helped him any)

2) The AFC was a weak conference this year

3) The division the Patriots are in was weak this year

4) The Ravens would have been in the Superbowl instead had they been able to make a chip shot field goal

5) Tebow took out their worst match up in overtime and ended up being probably their best match up on paper (nice breaks all around there).

[scorpiusx]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

I'm not saying it's a completely fair way to look at things - just that it's likely how folks will look at them. Honestly, I wouldn't really have been that impressed with the victory had it happened because:

1) Brady didn't play all that well (don't know the stats, but I know what I saw when I watched the game - not that his receivers helped him any)

27/41, 276 Yards, 2 TD, 1 INT, plus he caused that Safety. Set an NFL record for post consecutive completions in a Superbowl (16), tied a record for longest TD Drive (96 yards). I find those pretty good stats, especially when you consider how many of his late passes were likely to come up emptyhanded due to clutchtime/receiver drops.

2) The AFC was a weak conference this year

Maybe so, but it's still the flippin' SUPERBOWL.

3) The division the Patriots are in was weak this year

And the Giants managed to get in on an 8-8 record. Philadelphia and Dallas aren't as bad as their records indicated, but still.

4) The Ravens would have been in the Superbowl instead had they been able to make a chip shot field goal

1.) They would have gone into Overtime. That's not the same as a win, that just means that their odds of losing that game decrease.

2.) IF they made that field goal. But they didn't. You can argue that Cundiff should have made that 100% of the time, but he obviously proved that statistic wrong. If we want to do this, I can say that if Welker caught that ball, the Patriots would have won, or whatever. Every game has "what if" moments in them.

5) Tebow took out their worst match up in overtime and ended up being probably their best match up on paper (nice breaks all around there).

Hard to disagree here, even though I think that the Giants would be a worse matchup for the Pats than the Steelers were. But again, we're talking about making it to a flippin' SUPERBOWL.

Comments added in blue.

-scorp

[IAmBatman]

My point is that winning hides a lot of warts that people start thinking about when you lose.

[scorpiusx]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

My point is that winning hides a lot of warts that people start thinking about when you lose.

Oh I understand. I'm just saying that to lose in a Superbowl, you still have to be 80-90+% better than the rest of the teams out there anyway.

-scorp

[IAmBatman]

Originally Posted by scorpiusx

Oh I understand. I'm just saying that to lose in a Superbowl, you still have to be 80-90+% better than the rest of the teams out there anyway.

-scorp

Not the rest of the teams ... just the ones you see in the playoffs in your weak conference.

[scorpiusx]

Originally Posted by IAmBatman

Not the rest of the teams ... just the ones you see in the playoffs in your weak conference.

:P

I guess the NFC does have multiple teams you could debate were better than the Patriots this season, (Giants, Packers, Saints, 49ers, am I missing anybody?) Most years, though, that's not really the case.

-scorp

[ABOMINATION]

Originally Posted by scorpiusx

:P

I guess the NFC does have multiple teams you could debate were better than the Patriots this season, (Giants, Packers, Saints, 49ers, am I missing anybody?) Most years, though, that's not really the case.

-scorp

I have a feeling that the NFC is going to become the powerhouse for a couple of years now. The AFC was clearly the better conference for the early 2000's, and now the scales have tipped the other way.

As for the Super Bowl, I wasn't invested in either team, but I would've rather seen the Patriots win. I honestly can't stomach the Giants, and I respect how the Patriots have been a great team year in and year out.