By: pqlqi

pqlqi — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 03:54:00 +0000

In reply to Andrew. most reasoned response i've seen on the interwebs in months. kudos

By: Andrew

Andrew — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 07:44:46 +0000

Well, I think “clutchness” (I’m nearly certain that’s not a word) is hugely subjective. That being said, some of these names aren’t that surprising. Aikman played poorly in the Superbowl, and labeling him a “choker” because of that doesn’t seem to be that unreasonable. On the flipside, what about losses accrued because you defense was terrible or because you didn’t get an opportunity due to the sudden death rule? I tend to think that wins and losses, both regular season and in big post-season games, are immensly over-valued metrics for QB skill. There are 21 other starters, and numerous others who play throughout the game. Being the most important player on the field (in the current era, that is) doesn’t mean that any success or failure is your sole responsibility. I hate that everyone is fawning over Eli Manning now that he has two SB rings, even going so far as to suggest that he’s therefore a better QB than Peyton, but no one says Justin Tuck is the best pass rusher because of his rings. Terry Bradshaw has a ton of SB rings, but I don’t think of him as an all-time great at QB. His numbers simply don’t warrant it, and those SBs weren’t won on the strength of his arm. On the flipside, would you prefer a great QB who never won a SB, a la Marino, or a pretty good one who has won multiple rings, like Bradshaw or Eli Manning? I don’t know if that question has a right answer.

Comments on: Quarterback wins over Pythagoras

By: pqlqi

By: Andrew