Eli Manning is now twice a champion. After beating Tom Brady and the Patriots for the second time, he has two Super Bowl rings and is securing his legacy as a top quarterback. His brother, the more highly-regarded Peyton Manning, has one ring, and is facing possibly the immediate end of his career after a series of neck surgeries. So, the question arises: which Manning is better?
The knee-jerk reaction by many is to count the rings and only the rings. Winners win championships, after all. It's not that simple, though. Aaron Rodgers has one ring and put up one of the greatest statistical seasons of all time. Drew Brees has one ring and set the single-season record for passing yardage. Looking from the other perspective, Ben Roethlisberger has two rings, but is generally considered just below the top tier (that tier being occupied by Peyton, Brady, Brees, and now Rodgers). Football is a team game: Trent Dilfer won a Super Bowl because of his team's defense. Same with Roethlisberger in his first victory. So where does this leave Eli?
Peyton is considered great not because he won the Super Bowl once, but for his remarkable consistency and high performance in the regular season and the playoffs. He helped the Colts reach the playoffs 11 times in 13 full seasons. This past season, without him playing, the Colts went 2-14. He was the team. His presence and play elevated his team beyond its limitations (which became so evident in 2011).
Eli just doesn't have the same reputation. With him as the starter, the Giants made the playoffs in five out of eight seasons, but the Giants' running game and defense receive most of the credit for their success, including that first Super Bowl victory. Eli's play has been consistently inconsistent (lots of interceptions, including 25 in the 2010 season) and often it seems like the Giants will win in spite of him. To his credit, he has improved, culminating in 2011 with 4,933 passing yards, a 29:16 TD/INT split, and a Super Bowl victory in which he outplayed Tom Brady. If this keeps up, yeah, he'll be the main Manning. But not yet.
So just how important is winning championships to judging a quarterback's legacy? Dan Marino never won a Super Bowl, but he's one of the greats. Tom Brady has three rings, but it was always a difficult argument deciding if he or Peyton was better. Regular season wins are hard to judge on the surface as well. Look at Tim Tebow. He won a lot of games. He often made the plays that let them win. He even won a playoff game. But how much of that is to his credit compared to the coaching scheme, defense, matchups, and overall team context? In terms of passing ability, he's far behind most other starting NFL quarterbacks. His attitude and drive are unquestionable, but does that make him a great quarterback? I don't know. It's too easy to look at a quarterback and say "oh, he won a bunch of games this season, he's good" when it's the coaches and defense that were responsible for those wins, and it's also easy to say "oh, he didn't win the Super Bowl a lot so he's not that great" and ignore how well he played during the season and the limitations of his team.
You can look at the stats and numbers and titles, but judging quarterbacks (or any other players) comes down to a subjective interpretation of those facts. What do you think is more important? Only you know. Thus, the debates will never truly end. Peyton vs. Brady. Peyton vs. Eli. Favre vs. Rodgers. One day, all these players will be done with their careers. The numbers will be recorded. The rings will be worn. But the conclusions will never be resolved.
No comments:
Post a Comment