Interesting stuff from Greg Cosell, and it basically sums up why I avoid making superlative statements about any NFL players. It’s human nature to put everyone and every thing in a box. There must be a greatest of all time regardless of the teams that surrounded them or the circumstances they did or didn’t have to overcome.
Of course everyone can agree that Brady is one of the greatest QBs of all time, and there’s no fun when everyone agrees. So I get why we get an unending stream of Brady vs. Manning-type articles every day. But that doesn’t mean I have to link to them.
“He’s a winner.” What exactly does that mean? Is it simply an “access to the result” verdict, without much thought given to the process? Again, let’s relate it to Brady. Think back to his first Super Bowl victory against the St. Louis Rams. New England won that game with an Adam Vinatieri field goal on the final play. Two years later, Vinatieri essentially did the same thing against the Carolina Panthers in Super Bowl XXXVIII. For the sake of discussion, let’s say Vinatieri missed both of those kicks (each was more than 40 yards). Then the Rams and the Panthers, respectively, won the toss in overtime and the Patriots never got the ball back. Would Brady’s performance have been any less impressive in those games? Obviously not. What would be different is our collective perception of his performance. He would not have been acclaimed a “winner.”