I could not even begin to recount how many pitchers of beer or plates of wings, how many games of Madden, or simply how many living-room or kitchen-table discussions I have had in the past few years that have been dedicated to the almighty question of "who is the best at something in their sport right now?" Who is the best point guard in the NBA? Up and coming Chris Paul? 2 time MVP Steve Nash? 3 time NBA champion Tony Parker? Not to mention Deron Williams and Baron Davis, and I'm sure I’m forgetting a couple. Who is the best wideout in the NFL these days? Larry Fitz because of his record-setting playoff run? Randy Moss and his record 25 td's? Or a more under the radar type young-gun like one of the Johnsons? (Andre and Calvin, cmon people). Again, not to mention superstars like Greg Jennings or even big, dumb T.O. After lots of pointless banter (and even more when the conversation takes place over beers) I have always found that the crux of the argument becomes this: To be considered the best ever does one have to know the glory of a Superbowl, an NBA title or a Stanley Cup? (Baseball is for juicers).
In a simple recount of the best, it would seem the answer is yes. Who is the best hockey player of all time hands down, no questions asked? Wayne Gretzky. How many Stanley Cups? 4. Who is hands down the greatest basketball player of all time hands down, no questions asked? Michael Jordan. How many titles? 6. And then we come to what I remember may have first sprung this conversation maybe 4 years ago. "Who is the best football player of all time?" This of course is an impossible question to answer, given the nature of the sport and the difference of skills and types needed for each position. However, if judged against others at one’s position, there is one man who if any can be called the greatest football player of all time and that would be Jerry Rice (3 rings by the way). He leads the NFL in all time touchdowns and almost every receiving record known to man. So again, in a very simple and (for all you people grinding your teeth as you read this) closed-minded view, to be the best you do need to win. Thus, who is the best NFL quarterback of all time? I suggested to some friends one time, all serious football fans, that the best quartebacks of all time could certainly be limited to Joe Montana, Terry Bradshaw, or Tom Brady. I was immediately met with disgusted sighs and moans and I think someone even told me to "fuck off". But hey, you know what these guys all know how to do? Win. Joe Nameth and his guranteed Superbowl victory, Roger Staubach and his tag as perhaps the best combination of passing and sheer athleticism in a Quarterback ever, and even Peyton Manning who is hearalded for his pigskin IQ, were all brought up by my field of inferiors as guys who must be considered in the argument. But with 3 rings vs 11 rings and the most touchdowns thrown in one season record, I still believed my 3 (Montana, Bradshaw and Brady) were the cream of the crop. The conversation got me curious though and research had to be done. I was of course led to a well-known quarterback from Pittsburgh who seemed destined to play for the Steelers, but ended up finding his fins in Miami. Dan Marino. The Ace Ventura man himself. Could Dan Marino be considered maybe one of the best quarterbacks of all time? He holds the record for most passing yards in a season, but the man has never won a superbowl. Yet many critics put Danny boy in the conversation. To me, this is baffling.
I don’t know where I’m going with this people. But for god’s sake, or for Brett Favre's, someone respond. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You pose the argument that superbowls is what quantifies the best quarterback. Does that mean that Big Ben should be put into the picture? He is the youngest starting qb ever to win the bowl and has 2 rings already in his young career. The problem with using this system of making rings account for the "best ever" doesn't work that well for football because football is the ultimate team sport. If Brady was not part of the NE Patriots and was drafted elsewhere, where he doesnt have bilichek's brain, do you still think he would have won multiple superbowls? I dont. So really this theory is partly put into place by luck. Brady is a fantastic talent... but he was lucky to be put into an amazing system. I'm not doubting that brady is great, i just believe that Marino or Peyton could potentially have done what brady has done if they were in the same system. For old arguments sake... Carson palmer could haev aswell. haha. Brady definately could be the greatest ever.
ReplyDeletevery interesting. I'm never going to argue against the effectiveness of the patriots system. But yes, big ben is starting to be put in the picture because he is a winner. We hear it all the time in sports, "Yeah he's good, but he's not a winner". This is Tracy McGrady, Mats Sundin, and maybe Dan Marino. He just couldn't win the big games, even when he got there. But I like the system argument.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I hate to say this, as it seems to go against my "Chris Paul is the greatest pg on the planet" argument, the idea that championships define individual greatness is far more applicable to basketball than the other two sports mentioned.
ReplyDeleteIn hockey, the best players might play close to half of a game, and even then that tends to only be defensemen. In football, even the quarterback, who has a hand in every offensive play, can do nothing about his team's success on the defensive end (which, when comparing Brady to Manning, is a huge factor, as Brady has always played in front of solid defenses, and Manning won a Super Bowl in essentially the first year he was given a half decent defense.) In basketball, a player is capable of taking over a game or series themselves with work on both ends of the floor, as Jordan did in his prime, and Kobe has done countless times in the playoffs, and as we are starting to see Lebron do on a more regular basis.
Either way though, being involved in a quality system is vital, as you will rarely see a team dominated by one player winning championships. If a good player is involved in a good system and still can't win, like McGrady with the Rockets, who are finding more success without him, then I think it's fair to say he's not a winner. If a guy is stuck in a shitty system with shitty teammates, but continuously elevates that team above where it should be (Chris Paul, and this could be the case for Marino...I don't really know about his squad), then I think it's unfair to label them "not a winner", as they've actually won more games than they should have given the situation they've been put it.
Either way, I would say no one will ever be labeled the "best ever" without winning a championship, but I don't think it should define a player's career, as it often does. Karl Malone and Charles Barkley are arguably two of the top three power forwards of all time, and have combined for zero championships, due in large part to the era they played in and the situations they found themselves in. And just for example, if Gretzky had no championships, but still the same individual statistics, he would still have to be considered the best ever, as no one else comes close statistically. But thus far, there has been no one that hasn't won a title whose numbers are load blowingly awesome, so until that happens I suppose that argument doesn't matter.
And for the record, I still say "fuck off" to Terry Bradshaw being a top 3 quarterback. Elway and Steve Young both have SB rings, and much better stats than Bradshaw, and Marino's stats absolutely dominate his. His career TD:Int ratio is 212:210...barely positive! Those are Vince Young numbers!