GregR_2
Footballguy
Anytime an opinion of a player with years of history in the NFL can be completely made or reversed by the results of one game, I think anyone looking at things objectively would have to believe the only thing proven was a lack of objective analysis that went into the opinion.
In a sport where changing the role that one single player out of the 90 on both rosters had, on just a single play, can change the entire outcome of a game, I think an objective person would have to question how the outcome of the game could reflect so heavily on a different single player.
Our opinion of players should be a judgement of the body of work they have done. To say Dan Fouts or Dan Marino COULD NOT WIN a Super Bowl should be obvious to everyone who watched any football during there era as being illogical. To say Dan Fouts or Dan Marino DID NOT WIN the Super Bowl is obviously true, but given the sport we're talking about I'm surprised at how often people don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "did".
The same is true of players today whether it's Peyton or Brady or anyone else. If the Ravens gave up more points in their SB and lost it, that shouldn't change our opinion of Dilfer because his ability didn't change. That the Pats have lost 3 in a row to the Colts doesn't change the quality of Brady as a QB, anymore than would it mean he'd be a worse QB if Ty Law had dropped his INT-for-a-TD in 2001 and the Pats had lost by 7 instead of kicking a game winning FG. Now when Kurt Warner can't hit the open player and can't beat the pass rush for a couple of seasons, there is a valid body of work on which to start changing an opinion of a player.
A player should be judged on the body of their work and their contribution to their team, and that doesn't equate directly with wins and losses. The worse team can win on any given day, and the player who played better can still have his team lose.
It's sad to me that so many people are looking at tomorrow's Super Bowl as if it is going to answer some question about Peyton Manning... like can he win the big game?
Of course he CAN win it. A five year old should be able to tell you that. The AFC championship game didn't change anything about Peyton, all it did was shed light on the fact that some people's opinions were not based on factors that actually reflected the quality of the player that they could be changed in one game. Others continue to cling to that same kind of opinion by defining their 'big game" differently.
Win or lose, he's the same QB on Monday that he was on Saturday. The only thing that may have changed is that opinions that it should have already been obvious weren't based on valid reasons, may be forced to be re-evaluated.
In a sport where changing the role that one single player out of the 90 on both rosters had, on just a single play, can change the entire outcome of a game, I think an objective person would have to question how the outcome of the game could reflect so heavily on a different single player.
Our opinion of players should be a judgement of the body of work they have done. To say Dan Fouts or Dan Marino COULD NOT WIN a Super Bowl should be obvious to everyone who watched any football during there era as being illogical. To say Dan Fouts or Dan Marino DID NOT WIN the Super Bowl is obviously true, but given the sport we're talking about I'm surprised at how often people don't seem to understand the difference between "can" and "did".
The same is true of players today whether it's Peyton or Brady or anyone else. If the Ravens gave up more points in their SB and lost it, that shouldn't change our opinion of Dilfer because his ability didn't change. That the Pats have lost 3 in a row to the Colts doesn't change the quality of Brady as a QB, anymore than would it mean he'd be a worse QB if Ty Law had dropped his INT-for-a-TD in 2001 and the Pats had lost by 7 instead of kicking a game winning FG. Now when Kurt Warner can't hit the open player and can't beat the pass rush for a couple of seasons, there is a valid body of work on which to start changing an opinion of a player.
A player should be judged on the body of their work and their contribution to their team, and that doesn't equate directly with wins and losses. The worse team can win on any given day, and the player who played better can still have his team lose.
It's sad to me that so many people are looking at tomorrow's Super Bowl as if it is going to answer some question about Peyton Manning... like can he win the big game?
Of course he CAN win it. A five year old should be able to tell you that. The AFC championship game didn't change anything about Peyton, all it did was shed light on the fact that some people's opinions were not based on factors that actually reflected the quality of the player that they could be changed in one game. Others continue to cling to that same kind of opinion by defining their 'big game" differently.
Win or lose, he's the same QB on Monday that he was on Saturday. The only thing that may have changed is that opinions that it should have already been obvious weren't based on valid reasons, may be forced to be re-evaluated.
Quite surprising that a patriots fan said this. It's going to really hurt when you can't say "But Brady's better because Manning has never won a Superbowl."
Typical.I'm pretty sure GregR was watching the games. I think we all watched many--if not most--of the games past and present. Why you gotta' be like this all the time?Peyton's stats certainly don't suggest that he played that differently. A lot of things contribute to wins and losses, and Peyton benefited from the performance of his teammates far more this year than any in the past. You act like this is a brand new Peyton. Are you also saying that this is a brand new Tom Brady this year? Or, were you not watching the games, either?
