I read a lot of nonsense about So and So being the greatest QB(for example) ever because he's won Xamount of Super Bowls
or
"So and So is the best QB of ALL TIME if he wins the Super Bowl this year??"
Wouldn't that mean he's had a great career, not necessarily that he is great?
Charles Haley has won more Super Bowls than anybody in the history of the NFL (I know....I'm repeating myself)
that doesn't mean he's the greatest player ever, that means he's had one of the greatest careers ever...as, if I understand things correctly, the goal of most players is to win rings.
so, my questions:
Am I wrong here?
and since we all know that isn't the case....haha
Why can't people distinguish between the two categories of greatness?
2007-10-23 07:39:23 · 14 answers · asked by retired 6 in Sports ➔ Football (American)
Tipper
Football is a team sport
Dan Marino did not have a Super Bowl caliber team around him for almost all of his career.
If everyone in the world agreed on one man being the greatest QB ever, and we put him on this years Dolphins or Rams, they would not win the Super Bowl
am I wrong?
2007-10-23 07:58:12 · update #1
Cool it down, thats to much for some of these people here to follow. But I agree. Just because you have a great career doesnt mean you are a great player. Matt Stover has had a great career but would you call him a great player, I doubt it. Carson Palmer is a great player but he isnt having the best career so far. I think people refuse to distinguish the two because a lot of great players do have great careers. Also, the media cant really seem to tell the difference between the two.
2007-10-23 07:54:09 · answer #1 · answered by MJMGrand 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think there are many "categories of greatness."
I agree with you in that a player can have a great career, but not necessarily be that great of a player. Charles Haley is essentially a perfect example, and he brings up the point that cannot be overlooked when people use the Super Bowl argument - Football is a team sport. Haley was a decent enough end, but by no means would I list him among the "greats." Yet he did have a great career - evidence of his hand-full of rings, which clearly was not done purely on his efforts.
Another category would be the "potential greats" category. The guys that would have, could have, should have, but for whatever reason, never did. Prime example would be Terrell Davis. He was on pace to be the best running back ever to play in the NFL, and he already had two rings, and then he was injured and never was the same. Was he really going to be the best? We'll never know, but I still think he was a great player with a great (but short) career.
What about people who had "great" seasons, and then for one reason or another never were able to do it again? They were great players (briefly), but they were not "all time" greats, nor did they have great careers. My personal favorite player, Randall Cunningham could be put in this category (1990 - 30 TD's only 13 INT's, just under 3500 yards, and then ran for another 942 yards and 5 TD's). He had a few great to good seasons besides that, but the versatility and effectiveness with which he played make that one of the greatest seasons a qb has ever had (in my opinion at least). Yet, he would not be close to being an all time great.
2007-10-23 08:06:52 · answer #2 · answered by Jim Baw 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, I really was getting annoyed by all the talk for the last few years about Peyton not being able to be called a "great QB" until he won a Super Bowl. It was pretty obvious he was a great PLAYER right from the start because he could get the ball in the end zone almost at will, no one could really argue against that. But you could still argue about him not having a great CAREER until he broke the TD record and won a Super Bowl.
2007-10-23 07:54:02 · answer #3 · answered by bagalagalaga 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You are correct that the greatest Quarterback of all time would probably not win the Super Bowl with this years' miami or Rams teams. But the question is - who would you identify as the greatest of all time??? Dan Marino - or Tom Brady - or Brett Favre - or Warren Moon - or Jim Kelly - or Joe Montana???
My guess is you would narrow it down to Brady or Montana - the two who won multiple championships.
Sure it's a team sport - but great players on great teams get the opportunity to be identified as great.
Did Marino have a great career??? - Yes. Was he a great player??? - Yes. Was he the best ever??? - we'll probably never know. With Brady and Montana - at least we know.
2007-10-23 14:59:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree. Best all time is something that nobody even experts will agree on, especally when looking at current player. Who know what the future will bring. The QB's of this era don't even play the same game for the most part. Leading you team through adversity to a super bowl win does count for something. though.
2007-10-23 07:53:10 · answer #5 · answered by Jerbson 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If people started looking at an entire player, they wood be able to better distinguish the difference. Meaning that a players performance on the field will eventually label his
career.
But it's what a player does off the field that determines what
level of player he is. For example, what does a player give back to the game that has given so much to him? Has he utilized his fortune and fame to better his community, and not just his bank account?
Here's my votes.
1.Walter Payton
2. Pat Tillman
3.Joe Theisman
4.Dan Marino
5John Elway
Just a few players whose professional career paled in comparison to there caliber as men.
2007-10-23 19:43:27 · answer #6 · answered by 9iron 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i'm having a good Euro common, yet even i be attentive to Ozil isn't as good as Iniesta yet. they have the two had large tournaments regardless of the undeniable fact that. Ozil isn't the large participant on Germany, Schweinsteiger is many people's sought after on Germany, Mario Gomez & Klose are large too. it relatively is kinda unfair approximately Messi, he's getting CRITICIZED after CR7 has a good overall performance interior the Euros, for crying out loud he's no longer even enjoying! If the Copa u.s. grew to become into held this year, i'm constructive Messi could be scoring a pair aims at this point too.
2016-10-07 11:35:55 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, you're not wrong, but I doubt your argument is going to sway anyone who feels differently.
I agree that there's a difference, and I see these arguments made in every sport. I don't know how many times I've read that a certain baseball player can't be considered truly great "until he wins a ring." To me, that's a pretty lame measuring stick in any team sport, considering that no one player is going to win the game on their own.
Charles Haley is not the greatest defensive player ever because of those rings, just as Frankie Crosetti isn't the greatest shortstop ever despite his 8 World Series rings. You make a good argument, but it's tough to change minds.
2007-10-23 07:51:47 · answer #8 · answered by Craig S 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I totally agree. I mean some people EARN the title of great player. Others just get it thrown on them, thing is I find it hard to say that while they are still playing.
2007-10-23 09:39:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To answer your question, because people are stupid.
When I was in Houston girls liked David Carr cause he was "hott...."
Most people who follow football know only as far as there ESPN knowledge will let them. They repeat what they hear on the TV.
2007-10-23 08:04:07 · answer #10 · answered by HamThugger 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋