Thursday, February 08, 2007
Hooray for Peyton!
Now that the Colts have won the Super Bowl I have free reign to gloat over my Pat loving friends, and I intend to exploit this opportunity to the fullest. First of all, to Jason and Wes, who taunted me throughout the first half of the amazing Pats-Colts championship game: Fuck you. I warned you not to taunt too early or you would jinx your team. Congradulations. How does it feel to have cursed your own team? Mmm? Wes didn't learn his lesson and sent me another hateful text message before the Super Bowl, something about how Peyton Manning will always be Dan Marino. What's that Wesley? Curse reversed. Here's what was so great about Indy's postseason run: This was their worst team in the last three years, Manning played like shit the first ten quarters, and they managed to win it all anyway. They were down 18 points against their nemesis and then turned it on the second half and completely bowled over one of the best defenses in the league. Just destroyed them. It was a pleasure to watch, and a feat the Pats could never have managed with their grind-it-out style of play. I've said it once and I'll say it again: The Colts are the most exciting team in football in the last five years. The Pats win (sorry, won), but the Colts make winning fun.
Now that the Colts have won it all, I'm going to have to restart the Brady/Manning comparisons. Previously, any attempt on my part was met with the "Brady has three rings and Peyton has none" argument, which has now lost some of its power. Pats fans like to make this argument because, well, it's a good argument; there is no defense. Peyton hadn't won a ring. I won't argue here the reasons why I think Manning is better than Brady, though I will say a quarterback's worth isn't purely a matter of counting Super Bowl trophies. Brady won three Super Bowls with a much better defense than Manning ever had. Dan Marino is one of the top ten QB's of all time, probably top five, but would, say, two rings really move him up that much farther on the list? Maybe a couple spaces. There is not enough respect for what happens during the regular season. At any rate we'll save the Brady-Manning debate for another time.
But it's worth bringing up a new classification of athletic quality, the argument I used before Manning and the Colts won it all, and that is the difference between a solid, consistent player like Tom Brady, and a more explosive, momentum-dependent player like Peyton Manning. My argument was basically: Tom Brady has accomplished more, but Peyton Manning playing at his peak is better than Brady playing at his. I think this is a significant qualifier. Michael Jordan was the best basketball player pretty much all the time. Ditto Roger Federer and Tiger Woods: They are better in general, and at their peak no one can touch them. Brady is one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL week to week, but a few quarterbacks are better than him when they play their best, guys like Carson Palmer and Drew Brees. Steve Young only won one Super Bowl so a lot of people would say Tom Brady's had a better career. And even though I object to the "Brady has three rings" argument, I might agree. Young only really played eight seasons while Brady is about to start his seventh, with many in front of him. However, Young playing his best was better than Brady at his best. Young was insanely good from 1991-94: 106 TDs to 41 INTs; a low QB rating of 101.5-- a higher rating by nearly ten points than Brady's career high; 537 rushing yards in 1992, more than Brady's career total. Tom Brady wins the big games, and you can't argue with that. But still--- I would take the Steve Young of 1994 (35 TD/10 INT, 112.8 rating, Super Bowl ring) over Brady of any year. I suppose you could call this the Wow factor, or the Wow years-- an athlete at the peak of his power.
Here's why I have a huge problem with using rings so sternly as career measurement: The Steve Young-led 49ers made it to the NFC championship game four times, as have the Brady-led Pats to the AFC championship. The Pats won three of these games, the Niners one. Twice the Niners lost to the great Dallas teams that won 3 rings in four years. It's safe to say the Niners would have won the Super Bowl against the AFC teams; commentators often referred to those NFC championship games as the real Super Bowl (Dallas proceeded to blow away the Bills). Without those Cowboy teams, which were some of the best teams to ever play in the NFL, the Niners win three Super Bowls, and Young is considered one of the all time greats. Those Niner teams had the unfortunate luck of being great when Dallas was slightly greater. The Pats never had such an obstacle. So because of two games that Steve Young's Niners did not win, this automatically makes Brady the better QB? I say No. What about the other 120 games or so that Young played? They cannot be discounted only because there was no ring involved. To use rings as a pure measurement of accomplishment is short-sighted and simplistic. Football is a team sport. Only in individual sports like tennis and golf can major championships truly be the measure of an athlete.
Now that the Colts have won, Peyton will earn the respect he deserved in the first place, but he was a Hall of Fame quarterback before the Colts beat the Bears. It was a silly, unpredictable year in the NFL with upsets and comebacks at every turn, capped by the Niners knocking out the Broncos in Denver in the last game of the year. Hopefully an indicator of things to come.
Now that the Colts have won it all, I'm going to have to restart the Brady/Manning comparisons. Previously, any attempt on my part was met with the "Brady has three rings and Peyton has none" argument, which has now lost some of its power. Pats fans like to make this argument because, well, it's a good argument; there is no defense. Peyton hadn't won a ring. I won't argue here the reasons why I think Manning is better than Brady, though I will say a quarterback's worth isn't purely a matter of counting Super Bowl trophies. Brady won three Super Bowls with a much better defense than Manning ever had. Dan Marino is one of the top ten QB's of all time, probably top five, but would, say, two rings really move him up that much farther on the list? Maybe a couple spaces. There is not enough respect for what happens during the regular season. At any rate we'll save the Brady-Manning debate for another time.
But it's worth bringing up a new classification of athletic quality, the argument I used before Manning and the Colts won it all, and that is the difference between a solid, consistent player like Tom Brady, and a more explosive, momentum-dependent player like Peyton Manning. My argument was basically: Tom Brady has accomplished more, but Peyton Manning playing at his peak is better than Brady playing at his. I think this is a significant qualifier. Michael Jordan was the best basketball player pretty much all the time. Ditto Roger Federer and Tiger Woods: They are better in general, and at their peak no one can touch them. Brady is one of the best quarterbacks in the NFL week to week, but a few quarterbacks are better than him when they play their best, guys like Carson Palmer and Drew Brees. Steve Young only won one Super Bowl so a lot of people would say Tom Brady's had a better career. And even though I object to the "Brady has three rings" argument, I might agree. Young only really played eight seasons while Brady is about to start his seventh, with many in front of him. However, Young playing his best was better than Brady at his best. Young was insanely good from 1991-94: 106 TDs to 41 INTs; a low QB rating of 101.5-- a higher rating by nearly ten points than Brady's career high; 537 rushing yards in 1992, more than Brady's career total. Tom Brady wins the big games, and you can't argue with that. But still--- I would take the Steve Young of 1994 (35 TD/10 INT, 112.8 rating, Super Bowl ring) over Brady of any year. I suppose you could call this the Wow factor, or the Wow years-- an athlete at the peak of his power.
Here's why I have a huge problem with using rings so sternly as career measurement: The Steve Young-led 49ers made it to the NFC championship game four times, as have the Brady-led Pats to the AFC championship. The Pats won three of these games, the Niners one. Twice the Niners lost to the great Dallas teams that won 3 rings in four years. It's safe to say the Niners would have won the Super Bowl against the AFC teams; commentators often referred to those NFC championship games as the real Super Bowl (Dallas proceeded to blow away the Bills). Without those Cowboy teams, which were some of the best teams to ever play in the NFL, the Niners win three Super Bowls, and Young is considered one of the all time greats. Those Niner teams had the unfortunate luck of being great when Dallas was slightly greater. The Pats never had such an obstacle. So because of two games that Steve Young's Niners did not win, this automatically makes Brady the better QB? I say No. What about the other 120 games or so that Young played? They cannot be discounted only because there was no ring involved. To use rings as a pure measurement of accomplishment is short-sighted and simplistic. Football is a team sport. Only in individual sports like tennis and golf can major championships truly be the measure of an athlete.
Now that the Colts have won, Peyton will earn the respect he deserved in the first place, but he was a Hall of Fame quarterback before the Colts beat the Bears. It was a silly, unpredictable year in the NFL with upsets and comebacks at every turn, capped by the Niners knocking out the Broncos in Denver in the last game of the year. Hopefully an indicator of things to come.
Unimpressive
Former NBA player Don Amaechi has just come out of the closet, and I'm starting to get a little annoyed. This is becoming a new media routine: Retired athlete comes out of the closet, writes a book about what it's like to be in the closet (Surprise! It's not fun!), and is lauded by sportswriters as brave while ex-teammates scratch their heads and say things like, "I had no idea!" Well, that's because your old friend dedicated a large portion of his life to not letting you have any idea. At any rate, it's time to stop calling athletes who come out after they retire brave. Because they are not. The first ex-athlete came out in 1977. That's thirty years with basically no progress. It was less than five years ago that Mike Piazza held a special news conference to announce that he wasn't gay. Meanwhile, in the real world, gay people enjoy greater accpetance with each passing month. The great world of sports remains one of the last barriers, the Berlin Wall holding apart the nonexistent gap between athletic masculinity and homosexuality. Homo haters love to point out how annoyingly effeminate gay men are, how they aren't "real men." The athlete who tries to quash this poisonous theory once and for all during his career would truly be brave. It would be brave to risk a career in the NBA, the wrath of your teammates, the catcalls of the fans; it's not brave when you decide to hold it in, especially when you know there is praise and a cushy book deal waiting for you. Mr. Amaechi is not a bad person for waiting. But let's please hold the applause for someone who actually risks something.
