Tweet
What is the deal with that?
Fans and media continually drag up number of rings to compare players, but particularly QBs.
It is often said (not just by nauseating Pats fans) that Brady's 3 rings to Peyton's 1, proves that he is better.
That logic also proves that Big Ben and Eli are better than Peyton and Aaron Rodgers.
It's just stupid, sure every player wants to win the big one, but it just doesn't happen for everybody.
It may sound like a cliche when Peyton says it's not him v's Brady, it's the Broncos v's the Pats, but he's right.
Maybe Belicheat was the difference, maybe it was the stability of the D each year, maybe luck plays a huge part, but you can't pin anything on 1 player win or lose.
What about respect for the guy who is loyal and stays with his team even though they suck, or the guy who turns his team from perennial bottom feeders to winning records, he deserves respect too.
I suppose it's part of the American obsession with stats and the need to rank everything.
I have always had a healthy respect for the eye test when comparing greats and there is almost a romantic view of the great player who was unlucky to not have a great team around him, but still managed to display his greatness.
Anyway, just always bothered me a little that the presence or lack of championships in a player's resume is always the major talking point.
Fans and media continually drag up number of rings to compare players, but particularly QBs.
It is often said (not just by nauseating Pats fans) that Brady's 3 rings to Peyton's 1, proves that he is better.
That logic also proves that Big Ben and Eli are better than Peyton and Aaron Rodgers.
It's just stupid, sure every player wants to win the big one, but it just doesn't happen for everybody.
It may sound like a cliche when Peyton says it's not him v's Brady, it's the Broncos v's the Pats, but he's right.
Maybe Belicheat was the difference, maybe it was the stability of the D each year, maybe luck plays a huge part, but you can't pin anything on 1 player win or lose.
What about respect for the guy who is loyal and stays with his team even though they suck, or the guy who turns his team from perennial bottom feeders to winning records, he deserves respect too.
I suppose it's part of the American obsession with stats and the need to rank everything.
I have always had a healthy respect for the eye test when comparing greats and there is almost a romantic view of the great player who was unlucky to not have a great team around him, but still managed to display his greatness.
Anyway, just always bothered me a little that the presence or lack of championships in a player's resume is always the major talking point.
Comment