Tom Brady winning 1 of his 3 early Super Bowls
For years, Peyton Manning fans had to listen to the same old argument Tom Brady fans would argue whenever the debate on who was the better QB: ” Tom Brady is better because he has more Rings.” This argument, while it is a good measuring stick, is absolutely not the first criteria that should measure a National Football Players career. Why Not? Because Football players cannot be judged the same way basketball, baseball, hockey, hell even golf players are.The reason this is true is because football games are won and lost differently than these other sports.
In football, there are much more phases to the game than these other sports. While other sports such as hockey, baseball, and basketball have many different players that effect the outcome of the game, the assignment of individual roles is nowhere near as complicated and sophisticated as building a football team. The main difference is that there are 3 phases to a football team: Offense, defense, and special teams. Players are scouted intensely, and assigned to which team they can produce the best outcome. How is this different than any other sport? Because you are only assigned to that team! Rarely does a player contribute on both sides of the ball, which is the basis of my argument for measuring players. My first example is the one that is made 9 times out of 10 in football today. “QB A is better than QB B because QB A has more rings” What does this look like right now in the NFL? “Eli Manning is better than his brother because he has more rings, or the classic Tom Brady is better than Peyton”, or heck i’ve heard the ridiculous notion that Eli is now better than Brady, Rodgers, and Brees because of the rings he has won. Lets dissect this argument; If rings is your primary argument, how can you make that argument when a player is only responsible for one side of the ball?
Aaron Rodgers, the victim of a great QB on an awful Defense
Lets just assume that Rodgers, Brees, and Brady are the Top 3 in the league, what were the defenses of those teams ranked? Without looking, I can predict that each were 25th or worse in yards per game given up. So why does this matter? Because when making the ring argument, you are essentially throwing out the notion that championships are won by teams, not players.The perfect example of this right now is Tom Brady. I cannot stand the guy, or Bill Billicheat. But I give credit where credit is due. The reason anyone can’t stand Tom Brady is because of the blinded fans that would just yell and scream: “more rings than manning, enough said” over and over again. Why did he have more rings? Because his TEAM was better. Patriots had a solid offense, built around an incredible Defense. On the top of my head I can name: Ty Law, Vincent Wilfork, Rodney Harrison, Vrabel, Bruschi, and Richard Seymour, all pro bowlers. The point is Brady used to be a manager, and it was a great team that won 3 out of 4 Super Bowls. Go to present Tom Brady, I cannot even begin to formulate an argument on why Tom Brady has been a top 3 QB the last 3-5 years. Why? Because go to his Stats, he has had seasons of 50 td passes, and 5,000 yard passing seasons. But what is the difference? His defenses have been unable to cover anything the last 5 years. This last year is a perfect example, his Defense was ranked 29th in the league, but still got to the super bowl and lost to the giants. See the Irony is so great it makes me laugh. Why? Because Brady lovers are making the same arguments Manning fans have been making for years. But does anyone question Tom Brady’s ability to effect the outcome of a game? No! He is better than he ever was when he won Super Bowls, yet cannot win because of an awful defense. The same goes for Aaron Rodgers, during their Super Bowl run last year the defense played great, but this year different story. His defense ranked 30th in the league, and he still carried them to a 15-1 record. But what happened in the playoffs? First round outing to the modern day steel curtain. The giants, while give eli for some absolutely clutch throws, were only their because they have assembled what is essentially the scariest D-Line in the history of the league. Go to the giants Depth Chart and just look at the physique of each of the starters, all are 6-4 or taller with long arms and a killer motor. With this D-Line alone, it disrupted the best QB in the league, and ousted the best regular season team with no problem at all. Yet people are quick to thrust Eli as a better QB just because of one more damn super bowl win, and forgot all the help Eli has had, and all the crap manning had to help him on defense his entire career. These QB’s aren’t playing Defense, so don’t credit back qb’s for winning with great defenses, and don’t discredit good qb’s such as brees for being on teams with awful defenses.
Kobe Bryant, The Winner of the Most Rings in the NBA the last decade.
The ring argument is also different than the other sports, because like I said earlier players only are responsible for their team. For example: you can make the argument more in basketball because individual players can effect the outcome of a game more in basketball than football. How so? Because players are playing both sides of the ball, and are not subbed out every time the team switches to offense or defense (unless you are Ben Wallace and couldn’t throw it into the ocean). Let’s make a general consensus that most NBA fans can agree on as the top 5 players to ever play the game: (Jordan, Bird, Johnson, Russell, and Jabar. Kobe top 3 by the time he retires.) All of these players are measured as the best. Why? Because of the rings they won, because Basketball players play both sides of the ball, therefore the burden is also heavier on the greatest of all time. For example: MJ and Kobe and relied heavy on crunch time because it is expected they will perform on both sides of the ball when it matters most. Am I saying they should be measured solely on rings? No, Lebron James is the best players in the league, and anyone who would try to argue against him look at his stat line and shut up. (P.S I am the biggest Kobe lover out there but it is impossible to argue against Lebron seeing as Lebron is in his prime) but the argument is better to make for basketball since there are only 2 phases of the game.
So one last argument one would try to make for NFL greatness being measured on rings: Well isn’t winning championships all that matters in sports?” Yes, but I am not trying to argue against that. Only against it as the biggest measuring stick to a players greatness. Then how do we measure greatness? I say you put the entire career and look at it as a whole (MVP’s, Championships, Records, Heck even how the team did after the player was gone) The perfect example of this is the old Peyton Vs. Tom Brady argument. Take this last year as evidence, Peyton fans were actually loving how bad the colts were without him. Why? Because it showed how flawed his organization was in constructing a team around him. The entire offense, and even the defense was built to support how good he was. What happened when Manning was gone? The Colt’s were dreadful, and the defense showed how bad they were. What happened the previous years? Manning took the exact same team to the Super Bowl! Teams do not go from that good to bad unless it is built extremely flawed. One would argue it is because the colts had a bad backup, no, good teams can win without great QB’s (See: 49er’s, Ravens, jets etc) Nobody would try to make the argument Alex Smith or Mark Sanchez are good Qb’s, especially Alex Smith, the dude threw 15 td’s for the season. What Manning’s injury really did was open people’s eyes to how important he is. As for Tom Brady, his team was good, and won 11 games without him (don’t try to argue Matt Cassell is a good qb, dude hasn’t done anything in Kansas City). Therefore let’s measure QB’s on the entire career, including Championships. But do not count out MVP’s records, even a players brand. Doing so is an injustice to the greatest players to ever play the game (Marino). Measuring just on Championships is something that is an easy way out of an argument, watch the games and follow the careers of the players and do the eyeball test (Watch how good the player is while playing, from an unbiased perspective). I did this for Tom Brady and have new respect for how great he is now. This also helps remember some of the greats such as marino, manning, and elway. These guys are already being forgot because they had awful teams, and Elway even won 2 super bowls! Championships are important, but making an argument for careers solely based on them is an injustice to every great player who has been stuck on awful teams. (*cough- Dan Marino)
"The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed is Death" 