Rings are NOT the most important thing when measuring greatness (1 Viewer)

[JohnnyU]

It bothers me when people measure a players worth based upon how many rings he has. Too many factors go into the equation of champions, many of which are out of the control of the player. Here is a post I dug up somewhere that expresses how I feel about the subject.

"Pistol Pete average over 44 points a game in college without a 3 point shot line. He was obe of the greatest basketball players to ever walk on the court. No rings. Dan Marino, no rings. Elgin Baylor, no rings. Ernie Banks, no rings. Gale Sayers, no rings. **** Butkus, no rings. Karl Malone, no rings, John Stockton, no rings. Todd Cruz has a ring. Happy Hairston has a ring. Don McCafferty coached a Super team has a ring. Joe Altobelli managed World Series team has a ring. SO WHAT’S YOUR POINT? MINE IS OBVIOUS. By the way if you have read several stories about Rubio, there are several “experts” who predict greatness. That said, who cares what is the difference what any of these people say? It all comes down to what the player does when he gets on the floor. How many first round picks have been a wasted first round pick despite what the experts predicted? How about Kwame Brown, Desagana Diop, Steven Hood, Melvin Ely, Juan Dixon, Mike Sweeney, Aam Morrison. There’s not enough room on this website to list all the first round busts."

Edited to change the title to say rings are not the most important thing. Previously I said they are not important. That's totally different from what I intended the thread to be.

 

[PatsWillWin]

Of course they are.

 

[Jason Wood]

Johnny,

I understand your point, which is to say that a player can be truly great without ever hoisting a championship trophy; and flip side, there have been players in every sport that have multiple championship rings that would never objectively be called great players.

But I do think championships matter to a player's LEGACY. I can't imagine, in an honest moment, you will find many athletes that would choose a Hall of Fame induction over a championship title or two. They're all chasing the title, so to say it doesn't matter is simply inaccurate.

To say titles aren't the ONLY criteria to decide a player's legacy is 100% accurate. And if you want to argue that sometimes championships (or lack thereof) can unfairly color a person's achievements is also true, at times.

But they definitely matter. Why play the game if they didn't?

The Pro Football Hall of Fame has a litany of players that fit different bills. Would Terry Bradshaw be in the Hall of Fame without all those rings? Probably not, but he HAS those rings, and people remember him as the leader of one of the great teams of all times. But Jim Kelly and Dan Fouts are in the Hall, too, as is Dan Marino and they don't have rings. I would imagine most football fans consider most, if not all, of those guys great players with worthy legacies.

 

[JohnnyU]

Johnny,I understand your point, which is to say that a player can be truly great without ever hoisting a championship trophy; and flip side, there have been players in every sport that have multiple championship rings that would never objectively be called great players.But I do think championships matter to a player's LEGACY. I can't imagine, in an honest moment, you will find many athletes that would choose a Hall of Fame induction over a championship title or two. They're all chasing the title, so to say it doesn't matter is simply inaccurate.To say titles aren't the ONLY criteria to decide a player's legacy is 100% accurate. And if you want to argue that sometimes championships (or lack thereof) can unfairly color a person's achievements is also true, at times. But they definitely matter. Why play the game if they didn't?The Pro Football Hall of Fame has a litany of players that fit different bills. Would Terry Bradshaw be in the Hall of Fame without all those rings? Probably not, but he HAS those rings, and people remember him as the leader of one of the great teams of all times. But Jim Kelly and Dan Fouts are in the Hall, too, as is Dan Marino and they don't have rings. I would imagine most football fans consider most, if not all, of those guys great players with worthy legacies.

How many would consider Bradshaw better than Fouts or Marino because of those rings he has?

 

[David Yudkin]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

 

[Chase Stuart]

The Pro Football Hall of Fame has a litany of players that fit different bills. Would Terry Bradshaw be in the Hall of Fame without all those rings? Probably not, but he HAS those rings, and people remember him as the leader of one of the great teams of all times. But Jim Kelly and Dan Fouts are in the Hall, too, as is Dan Marino and they don't have rings. I would imagine most football fans consider most, if not all, of those guys great players with worthy legacies.

An important but rarely recognized distinction is what you do to get those rings. Terry Bradshaw isn't in the HOF because he was carried to 4 SBs; Bradshaw is in the HOF because he led his team to 4 SBs. He had some terrific post-season performances. Just getting the ring is pretty meaningless in my book. Even being the starter on the team doesn't mean much, but playing at an elite level to help your team win a ring means a lot. That's why Riggins and Csonka are in the HOF.Bob Griese didn't do too much to win his rings; ditto Brady in '01 or Brad Johnson in '02. You could say the same about Dilfer if you want to give Shannon Sharpe the credit, but at least Dilfer put up good numbers. Ironically, Peyton Manning (entire playoffs except for one half against the Pats) and Ben Roethlisberger (1st SB) did the least to win their rings, but I don't think people will remember that too much. But Troy Aikman and Bart Starr were outstanding playoff QBs and led their teams to titles, and that's an important part of their legacies. Saying they wouldn't be in the HOF without those rings makes it sound like they weren't the reason they won the rings, which would be inaccurate.Of course, you can be an all-time great and the best at your position and still never win a ring.

 

[PatsWillWin]

How many would consider Bradshaw better than Fouts or Marino because of those rings he has?

Nobody.Did anyone say that rings are the only criteria to measure greatness? Or are people responding to the notion that they aren't even "important?"It's not that complicated.

 

[JohnnyU]

How many would consider Bradshaw better than Fouts or Marino because of those rings he has?

Nobody.Did anyone say that rings are the only criteria to measure greatness? Or are people responding to the notion that they aren't even "important?"It's not that complicated.

I think there are those that put more weight to rings than other factors when judging a player's worth.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

 

[PatsWillWin]

How many would consider Bradshaw better than Fouts or Marino because of those rings he has?

Nobody.Did anyone say that rings are the only criteria to measure greatness? Or are people responding to the notion that they aren't even "important?"It's not that complicated.

I think there are those that put more weight to rings than other factors when judging a player's worth.

Be more vague.

 

[JohnnyU]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

 

[David Yudkin]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

But if Jeter wasn't a multi-time champion and Yankee the perception would be that he was just another player. Winning all those titles elevated his stature.If Michael Jordan had the same numbers on the Clippers and not on the Bulls, would he still be considered by many as the greatest player ever? Most emphatically NO.There's no doubt that being a great player AND winning titles elevates a player's position on the pantheon of his sports greats.

 

[Fiddles]

says the colts fan

 

[Wu-banger]

It bothers me when people measure a players worth based upon how many rings he has. Too many factors go into the equation of champions, many of which are out of the control of the player. Here is a post I dug up somewhere that expresses how I feel about the subject."Pistol Pete average over 44 points a game in college without a 3 point shot line. He was obe of the greatest basketball players to ever walk on the court. No rings. Dan Marino, no rings. Elgin Baylor, no rings. Ernie Banks, no rings. Gale Sayers, no rings. **** Butkus, no rings. Karl Malone, no rings, John Stockton, no rings. Todd Cruz has a ring. Happy Hairston has a ring. Don McCafferty coached a Super team has a ring. Joe Altobelli managed World Series team has a ring. SO WHAT’S YOUR POINT? MINE IS OBVIOUS. By the way if you have read several stories about Rubio, there are several “experts” who predict greatness. That said, who cares what is the difference what any of these people say? It all comes down to what the player does when he gets on the floor. How many first round picks have been a wasted first round pick despite what the experts predicted? How about Kwame Brown, Desagana Diop, Steven Hood, Melvin Ely, Juan Dixon, Mike Sweeney, [b]Aam Morrison. There’s not enough room on this website to list all the first round busts."Edited to change the title to say rings are not the most important thing. Previously I said they are not important. That's totally different from what I intended the thread to be.

Adam Morrison HAS A RING ...!!!! His 1st Rd pick status is now validated ..LOL

 

[JohnnyU]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

But if Jeter wasn't a multi-time champion and Yankee the perception would be that he was just another player. Winning all those titles elevated his stature.If Michael Jordan had the same numbers on the Clippers and not on the Bulls, would he still be considered by many as the greatest player ever? Most emphatically NO.There's no doubt that being a great player AND winning titles elevates a player's position on the pantheon of his sports greats.

I think Jordan would still be considered the best ever. At least in my mind he would. Jeter is a good example of a good player that had his value elevated because of where he plays. Does that validate his greatness? I don't think it does.

 

[Adebisi]

says the colts fan

 

[JohnnyU]

says the colts fan

Last time I checked the Colts have won a SB in the last 3 years. That statement is irrlevant.

 

[PatsWillWin]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.

The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

But if Jeter wasn't a multi-time champion and Yankee the perception would be that he was just another player. Winning all those titles elevated his stature.If Michael Jordan had the same numbers on the Clippers and not on the Bulls, would he still be considered by many as the greatest player ever? Most emphatically NO.

There's no doubt that being a great player AND winning titles elevates a player's position on the pantheon of his sports greats.

I think Jordan would still be considered the best ever. At least in my mind he would. Jeter is a good example of a good player that had his value elevated because of where he plays. Does that validate his greatness? I don't think it does.

Jeter has been elevated because of what he's done in NY, not just simply for being there. He's been clutch for a number of years in the biggest situations of his sport, a leader on a decade-dominating team, and a consistent, gritty player.No, he wouldn't have had those opportunities in Pittsburgh, but that does not take away from his accomplishments in NY.

ETA: Big middle finger for making me compliment Jeter like this.

 

[Ray_T]

I know a Ring is not the only way to determine a great player.... but there is the thought that when a team gets close to winning, a truly great player will elevate his game to a point where he practically carries the team.

I know that there are only a handful of documented cases of this, but when it does happen that player truly gets defined as one of the all time great 'money' players of all time.

dont get me wrong, there are cases where the great player who didnt win was surrounded by a supporting cast that was adequate at best (ie. Fouts, Marino) and the said great player did an amazing job just to get their team to a position where they could win.

however, with that being said, I dont think there is any doubt that if Marino had Led a 4th quarter comeback in his one Superbowl appearance, people would see him in a different light.

 

[JohnnyU]

I know a Ring is not the only way to determine a great player.... but there is the thought that when a team gets close to winning, a truly great player will elevate his game to a point where he practically carries the team.

I know that there are only a handful of documented cases of this, but when it does happen that player truly gets defined as one of the all time great 'money' players of all time.

dont get me wrong, there are cases where the great player who didnt win was surrounded by a supporting cast that was adequate at best (ie. Fouts, Marino) and the said great player did an amazing job just to get their team to a position where they could win.

however, with that being said, I dont think there is any doubt that if Marino had Led a 4th quarter comeback in his one Superbowl appearance, people would see him in a different light.

Therein lies one of the problems. Obviously that's the way it is, but it doesn't make it right.

 

[David Yudkin]

Part of the problem if a guy doesn't win a title or titles is that the question comes up as to WHY.

If a team constantly made the playoffs and fell short, then the guy would be a choker (even if he had decent stats in the post season).

If a team hardly ever made the playoffs, he would never have the chance to showcase his skills in the bright lights in crunch time, so guys that DID win that DID perform in those situations will surpase them in folklore.

If Michael Jordan averaged 30 points a night for the Clippers and they still went nowhere, I don't see how people could say he was the best to play the game, as the will to win and win titles is what put him in the upper strata. Otherwise, he'd be only slightly better perceptionwise than Allen Iverson.

 

[JohnnyU]

Part of the problem if a guy doesn't win a title or titles is that the question comes up as to WHY.

If a team constantly made the playoffs and fell short, then the guy would be a choker (even if he had decent stats in the post season).

If a team hardly ever made the playoffs, he would never have the chance to showcase his skills in the bright lights in crunch time, so guys that DID win that DID perform in those situations will surpase them in folklore.

If Michael Jordan averaged 30 points a night for the Clippers and they still went nowhere, I don't see how people could say he was the best to play the game, as the will to win and win titles is what put him in the upper strata. Otherwise, he'd be only slightly better perceptionwise than Allen Iverson.

Problems 3 and 4.

 

[Ghost Rider]

For many, rings are the tiebreaker when comparing players who are on a similar historical level.

For example, in 1996, the great majority thought Dan Marino was higher than John Elway all-time, but once Elway won two rings, and Marino retired without winning one, most started putting Elway above him, and to this day, it seems like most still put Elway above him.

 

[Chase Stuart]

For many, rings are the tiebreaker when comparing players who are on a similar historical level. For example, in 1996, the great majority thought Dan Marino was higher than John Elway all-time, but once Elway won two rings, and Marino retired without winning one, most started putting Elway above him, and to this day, it seems like most still put Elway above him.

I think most football historians put Marino over Elway.

 

[JohnnyU]

For many, rings are the tiebreaker when comparing players who are on a similar historical level. For example, in 1996, the great majority thought Dan Marino was higher than John Elway all-time, but once Elway won two rings, and Marino retired without winning one, most started putting Elway above him, and to this day, it seems like most still put Elway above him.

"The Drive" probably has more to do with that than the rings. He was well past his prime when he won the Super Bowls. Everyone loves clutch.

 

[Ghost Rider]

For many, rings are the tiebreaker when comparing players who are on a similar historical level. For example, in 1996, the great majority thought Dan Marino was higher than John Elway all-time, but once Elway won two rings, and Marino retired without winning one, most started putting Elway above him, and to this day, it seems like most still put Elway above him.

I think most football historians put Marino over Elway.

I doubt it.

For many, rings are the tiebreaker when comparing players who are on a similar historical level. For example, in 1996, the great majority thought Dan Marino was higher than John Elway all-time, but once Elway won two rings, and Marino retired without winning one, most started putting Elway above him, and to this day, it seems like most still put Elway above him.

"The Drive" probably has more to do with that than the rings. He was well past his prime when he won the Super Bowls. Everyone loves clutch.

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Let's review QB, Jim Kelly for a moment ...

He played in 14 PlayOff games; 4 of which were the Super Bowl.

In his 14 appearances he ended up with an 8-6 record [0-4 in the Super Bowl].

He outperformed his opposing QB only 6 times in those 14 appearances. He won 3 games with a worse QB rating, and lost 1 game with a better QB rating, however he played worse than the opposing QB in all 4 Super Bowls.

What can you conclude?

Although it is a team game, Kelly did not rise to the occasion and elevate his performance with the game on the line.

This does not make Kelly a bad man, or a bad QB. Simply that he pretty much choked repeatedly on the biggest stage of football.

Contrast this with Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana ... IMO he should not be considered in the same breath as them regarding greatness.

 

[JohnnyU]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

 

[Ozymandias]

Joe Montana is overrated because of the rings. He was one of the greatest QBs, but he tends to be overrated.

 

[dgreen]

So what is the most important thing?

 

[dgreen]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

 

[JohnnyU]

So what is the most important thing?

I think it's an accumulation of many things. That would include statistics, was he a leader, clutch drives that define the player, how well rounded was his entire game.

 

[David Yudkin]

So what is the most important thing?

If it's statistics, than Shaun Alexander was one of the best ever.

 

[JohnnyU]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Johnny Unitas started 12 games or less 9 times in his career.

 

[dgreen]

So what is the most important thing?

I think it's an accumulation of many things.

I agree. But, which of those many things, if not Rings, is the most important?

 

[JohnnyU]

So what is the most important thing?

If it's statistics, than Shaun Alexander was one of the best ever.

SA doesn't rank in the top 25 in rushing.

 

[sho nuff]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

But if Jeter wasn't a multi-time champion and Yankee the perception would be that he was just another player. Winning all those titles elevated his stature.If Michael Jordan had the same numbers on the Clippers and not on the Bulls, would he still be considered by many as the greatest player ever? Most emphatically NO.There's no doubt that being a great player AND winning titles elevates a player's position on the pantheon of his sports greats.

I think Jordan would still be considered the best ever. At least in my mind he would. Jeter is a good example of a good player that had his value elevated because of where he plays. Does that validate his greatness? I don't think it does.

His status is elevated not just because of where he plays...but how he peformed in the clutch and postseason to win at the highest level.

 

[JohnnyU]

So what is the most important thing?

I think it's an accumulation of many things.

I agree. But, which of those many things, if not Rings, is the most important?

Read my reply again. I hadn't finished my post before posting it the first time.

 

[Ghost Rider]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Thank you. And in one of those games, he played one drive (the SD game where he got hurt), so, really, he played a full 11 games. And he still finished in the top 5 in yards per attempt and touchdown percentage.Besides, this is demonstrating again why you cannot always look at JUST statistics. Players are sometimes better than their stats look, and players are sometimes not as good as their statistics look.

 

[JohnnyU]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Thank you. And in one of those games, he played one drive (the SD game where he got hurt), so, really, he played a full 11 games. And he still finished in the top 5 in yards per attempt and touchdown percentage.

Now you're reaching. Thank God for pro-football reference, right?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If Derek Jeter had a lifetime .316 average for the Pirates would many people even know his name?

Well, that's kind of the point. He'd still be the exact same player, at the exact same skill and talent level, but people would have a completely different perception of how good he was because of something that is completely out of his control.People's perception and their inability to see beyond things like this is the issue here.The other issue is the way people pick and choose when it applies and when it doesn't for arbitrary reasons.

Exactly !! He validates my point.

But if Jeter wasn't a multi-time champion and Yankee the perception would be that he was just another player. Winning all those titles elevated his stature.If Michael Jordan had the same numbers on the Clippers and not on the Bulls, would he still be considered by many as the greatest player ever? Most emphatically NO.There's no doubt that being a great player AND winning titles elevates a player's position on the pantheon of his sports greats.

I think Jordan would still be considered the best ever. At least in my mind he would. Jeter is a good example of a good player that had his value elevated because of where he plays. Does that validate his greatness? I don't think it does.

Obviously the rings helped elevate Jeter's status, but do you think he had nothing to do with helping his team win those rings? Jeter is like Tom Brady (prior to his 2007 season), a quick glance at the stats says he's better than average but nothing special. However watching them play on a consistent basis you see the little things they do that make them great.I truly doubt Jordan would be considered "the best ever" if he didn't win his rings. Part of his greatness (especially in a sport like basketball where one player has a greater affect on a game) if he didn't lead a team to championships. Allen Iverson scored like Jordan but didn't do all the things that Jordan did to help his teams win consistently.

 

[JohnnyU]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Thank you. And in one of those games, he played one drive (the SD game where he got hurt), so, really, he played a full 11 games. And he still finished in the top 5 in yards per attempt and touchdown percentage.Besides, this is demonstrating again why you cannot always look at JUST statistics. Players are sometimes better than their stats look, and players are sometimes not as good as their statistics look.

I never said that we should JUST base their greatness on stats.

 

[dgreen]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Johnny Unitas started 12 games or less 9 times in his career.

 

[JohnnyU]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Johnny Unitas started 12 games or less 9 times in his career.

I thought you would like that one

 

[Ghost Rider]

He was past his prime, but still really, really good. He was still a top 5 NFL QB when he retired.

He wasn't in the top 10 in passes completed or passing yds, and was 9th in tds. If you want to put that 93 passer rating (#5) as being the main statistic for a top passer, then knock yourself out.

He only started 12 games that final year.

Thank you. And in one of those games, he played one drive (the SD game where he got hurt), so, really, he played a full 11 games. And he still finished in the top 5 in yards per attempt and touchdown percentage.

Now you're reaching. Thank God for pro-football reference, right?

I got that info from pro-football reference, junior. Top 5 in TD percentage:

Cunningham 8.0

Chandler 7.6

Young 7.0

Testaverde 6.9

Elway 6.2

Top 5 in yards per attempt:

Chandler 9.6

Cunningham 8.7

Young 8.1

Elway 7.9

Flutie 7.7

And you're the one spouting off about he didn't finish very high in certain categories, while ignoring the fact that he missed nearly 5 full games, causing him to not finish that high in cumulative categories, but when we present numbers that indicate he was still top tier, you cry about it. Sounds about right.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Part of the problem if a guy doesn't win a title or titles is that the question comes up as to WHY.

If a team constantly made the playoffs and fell short, then the guy would be a choker (even if he had decent stats in the post season).

If a team hardly ever made the playoffs, he would never have the chance to showcase his skills in the bright lights in crunch time, so guys that DID win that DID perform in those situations will surpase them in folklore.

If Michael Jordan averaged 30 points a night for the Clippers and they still went nowhere, I don't see how people could say he was the best to play the game, as the will to win and win titles is what put him in the upper strata. Otherwise, he'd be only slightly better perceptionwise than Allen Iverson.

Wow. I wrote my post before reading down this far but made the exact same comparison.

 

[Dancing Bear]

Let's review QB, Terry Bradshaw for a moment ...

He played in 19 PlayOff games; 4 of which were the Super Bowl.

In his 19 appearances he ended up with an 14-5 record [4-0 in the Super Bowl].

He outperformed his opposing QB 14 times in those 19 appearances. He won all 14 games when he had a better QB rating, and lost all 5 games when he had a worse QB rating.

What can you conclude?

Although it is a team game, Bradshaw did rise to the occasion and he elevated his performance with the game on the line.

This does not make Bradshaw a better man, but it absolutely makes him a better QB.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Let's review QB, Jim Kelly for a moment ...He played in 14 PlayOff games; 4 of which were the Super Bowl.In his 14 appearances he ended up with an 8-6 record [0-4 in the Super Bowl].He outperformed his opposing QB only 6 times in those 14 appearances. He won 3 games with a worse QB rating, and lost 1 game with a better QB rating, however he played worse than the opposing QB in all 4 Super Bowls.What can you conclude?

That the defense playing against the Bills in those Super Bowls were better than the Bills defense?

 

[Tom Servo]

OK, so which Colts career are we trying to validate here?

 

[Ghost Rider]

OK, so which Colts career are we trying to validate here?

Given his posting history, I am waiting for it to turn into Manning vs. Brady.