Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I'm seeing a lot of threads wanting to compare player x with our all time greats or questioning whether x is the greatest player ever at that position. I think it's premature. I think that in order to be great you have to have done something. You have to win. The reason Riggins is great is about the Superbowl. Art Monk would have always been special, but it's at another level when a special player gets you to the promised land. So far, the new Redskins have delivered one playoff win and a bunch of really nice moments, but I think you have to win to be really great. That's why to me, Marino doesn't quite make the cut. Maybe you can make exceptions for the Bills who kept getting on the threshhold, but then again, folding everytime you're almost there isn't a sign of greatness. It's probably not fair, but I think to be the best you have to win it all. So right now, the Redskins have a few good players, but no one great. They haven't earned it yet. Am I wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I disagree. Dan Marino is the best example. He is one of the greatest QBs to ever play the game, yet he doesn't own a Super Bowl ring. You can currently make the same case for Peyton Manning. He is arguably the best QB in the NFL right now and he hasn't earned a SB ring yet, but he is widely considered one of the greats already. On the other hand, you have guys like Trent Dilfer who have won a Super Bowl but who will never be considered one of the greats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 See, I view Peyton's propensity to lose the big games part of why he isn't great. It's like the word genius. Lots of people throw it around pretty liberally, but there aren't many true geniuses. To me, greatness is the same thing. To be truly great, you can't have an asterick. You can't have an excuse. When the moment arrives you must sieze it. That doesn't mean they weren't really good, but to me they just aren't Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Prime Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Do I think Moss is great right now? Yep.. Is he one of the greatest? I think he can be but only time can tell.. Same goes for Portis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 See, I view Peyton's propensity to lose the big games part of why he isn't great. It's like the word genius. Lots of people throw it around pretty liberally, but there aren't many true geniuses. To me, greatness is the same thing. To be truly great, you can't have an asterick. You can't have an excuse. When the moment arrives you must sieze it. That doesn't mean they weren't really good, but to me they just aren't Great. I see your point but what about guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson who have won the big dance, but just rode their teams defenses to the show? Do they qualify as great because they have something to show for it and Peyton doesn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Good point and no they were not great. Greatness requires the win and also consistency. The place where this argument falls apart a bit is for players like Lynn Swann who had a bunch of great moments and the wins, but people say in totality he wasn't all that great. Now, I'm a bit young to remember him, but I think he's a good example of the exception to my rule based on what I've heard. However, I do think that a necessary component of being Great is winning it all. That's not the only component, but it's a big one. The Marinos, the Barry Sanders, and others make it a difficult position, but hey, I staked it out so I'll stick to it... at least in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal2Washington Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 That's why football is the greatest sport in the world, unlike every other sport where a hot player or great player can dominate an entire league or seris or game, football is a total team sport. The best team always wins the Super Bowl not the best player. Elway was a hundred times better then Doug Williams but the Redskins were better at every other position, Manning is better then Roethlisberger but Pit was the more physical and complete team. It is absolutly possible to be great and not have won a championship, ecspecially in the NFL. Unless of course Dan Marino, Barry Sanders, Eric Dickerson, Anthoney Munoz, Bruce Smith, Tim Brown, Cris Carter and Jim Kelly are considered scrubs. I'm talking about a young Bruce Smith by the way not the record seeking Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiswadeness Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I kinda think Barry Sanders was great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Two words...Timmy Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#98QBKiller Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Good point and no they were not great. Greatness requires the win and also consistency. The place where this argument falls apart a bit is for players like Lynn Swann who had a bunch of great moments and the wins, but people say in totality he wasn't all that great. Now, I'm a bit young to remember him, but I think he's a good example of the exception to my rule based on what I've heard. However, I do think that a necessary component of being Great is winning it all. That's not the only component, but it's a big one. The Marinos, the Barry Sanders, and others make it a difficult position, but hey, I staked it out so I'll stick to it... at least in this thread. Well I gotta' respect you for sticking to your guns....hopefully Santana and CP will win it all...soon!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Good point and no they were not great. Greatness requires the win and also consistency. The place where this argument falls apart a bit is for players like Lynn Swann who had a bunch of great moments and the wins, but people say in totality he wasn't all that great. Now, I'm a bit young to remember him, but I think he's a good example of the exception to my rule based on what I've heard. However, I do think that a necessary component of being Great is winning it all. That's not the only component, but it's a big one. The Marinos, the Barry Sanders, and others make it a difficult position, but hey, I staked it out so I'll stick to it... at least in this thread. I think there are too many factors to weigh in to consider someone as great. Marino had bad running backs and so-so defenses in his day. He can rise up to the occassion, but the other 52 players have to also. This isn't like Tennis, where 1 person controls his own fate. To say the Marino wasn't great because he didn't "rise up" to the big one, is false. Lynn Swann was a very "Average" receiver. He was mainly a deep threat. 1970's Willie Gault. One thing Swann did was "Rise Up" in the playoffs. But you have to consider the overall Steelers team in the 70's. He couldn't have done it by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 Well I gotta' respect you for sticking to your guns....hopefully Santana and CP will win it all...soon!!!! Now that would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riggins44 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 As far as your NFL legacy, most players need to win the Super Bowl. IMO, Riggins would have been a great player to Redskin fans regardless. He was a character and the fans loved him. I would even go so far as to say they identified themselves with him. When Riggins played here, he lived the way most people would like...just afraid to. He was a free spirit that gave everything he had on Sunday. It says a lot about him when he is the only non-offensive lineman to be a member of the Hogs. The Hogs considered him as one of them. Riggins had charisma. He was that uncle (as a kid) that you always wanted to come visit, but made your parents nervous. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 I kinda think Barry Sanders was great There are some who say that Barry's dancing cost his team more than his great runs got him. He also is another example along with Eric Dickerson who was brilliant during the regular season, but somehow never did it during the playoffs or beyond. So, here's another way of looking at it. During the regular season, these guys won. They beat the good teams, the bad teams, the mediocre. They usually had enough around them or provided enough due to their own skills to reach the playoffs. If they couldn't even do that, there would never be a question of whether they deserved to be called great. Now, in the playoffs all the stakes are raised and the teams they beat before they suddenly couldn't beat. They neither could make the play, provide the inspiration, or will their team to victory. John Riggins said climb on my back boys and we rode him to the Superbowl. He willed us to the Superbowl. That's greatness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martini Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 He was that uncle (as a kid) that you always wanted to come visit, but made your parents nervous. :laugh: Why does he have to be the creepy uncle? The point of this thread is dead on. Marino may have and hold some passing records for years to come, people will always wonder just how great Barry Sanders or Bo Jackson could have or would have been on better teams. Holding the trophy means something for sure. Would you rather have had Theismann or Marino, keep in mind that Marino never wins the big game. It's a no brainer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwills1 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Just because you don't win a Superbowl or championship doesn't mean your not great. How you play on the field every Sunday defines greatness....not the number of rings on your finger. Is Trent Dilfer a better QB then Payton Manning or Dan Marino? Is Barry Sanders any less of a RB than Terrel Davis or Jerome Bettis??...... I think the strong point has been proven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loyal2Washington Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 There are some who say that Barry's dancing cost his team more than his great runs got him. OK well you start a team with Timmy Smith and Trent Dilfer, I'll take Dan Marino and Barry Sanders. Now all that could play in your favor if you have the 00 Ravens D and I have the worst D ever. Football is a team sport not a star sport. Who ever said that about Barry is on crack by the way. Barry is the only reason the were able to get their butts kicked in the playoffs by far SUPERIOR TEAMS. Without Barry they would be lucky to get 5 wins a year, that's how good he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattGeorge85 Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I see your point but what about guys like Dilfer and Brad Johnson who have won the big dance, but just rode their teams defenses to the show? Do they qualify as great because they have something to show for it and Peyton doesn't? Yes, having something to show for it is the indicator. You can go far back as 97 when Manning played for Tennessee and lost to Nebraska in their bowl game, giving NE a co-championship with Michigan (Nebraska got the coaches poll, Michigan the AP). Being a choke artist from early years. Manning will have to prove it when it matters. Getting to the big game/or postseason is great. Having a reputation for losing when it counts is not. Of cource reliable proficiency and a couple of records usually overshadows the lack of clutch play in meaningful games. Dilfer and Johnson are certainly second stringers on the greatness scale, but having a ring tends to make those who don't shut up when the bragging starts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Yes, having something to show for it is the indicator. You can go far back as 97 when Manning played for Tennessee and lost to Nebraska in their bowl game, giving NE a co-championship with Michigan (Nebraska got the coaches poll, Michigan the AP). Being a choke artist from early years. Manning will have to prove it when it matters. Getting to the big game/or postseason is great. Having a reputation for losing when it counts is not. Of cource reliable proficiency and a couple of records usually overshadows the lack of clutch play in meaningful games. Dilfer and Johnson are certainly second stringers on the greatness scale, but having a ring tends to make those who don't shut up when the bragging starts. Peyton has lost just about every "big" game he has played in. I don't think he ever beat Florida. In fact, what have any Mannings ever won besides the adoration of ESPN? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRMADD Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Football is a team sport -- no one player can win a Superbowl. So you can be a "great" player without winning one, but over the course of a long career you'd better put up some serious highlight reel plays if you want to call yourself "great" even though you can't win the big one. You guys point out Sanders, Marino, etc., as examples of "great" players who didn't win the Superbowl, but they are the exceptions that prove the rule: to be GREAT, you gotta win the big one. Look at Elway: the single-minded focus of the end of his career was winning a Superbowl. That's what made him great. He made the guys around him that much better. Barry Sanders couldn't do that. Dan Marino couldn't do that. So they're "great". But Elway is GREAT. I'll agree that their are guys who've had GREAT games (Timmy Smith), GREAT years (Terrell Davis), GREAT careers (Barry Sanders)... but they aren't great players because it takes more than individual greatness. It takes individual greatness, over a long period of time, that led to victory. That's greatness. So Riggins is great. Portis is not. Yet. But he'll get there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Peyton has lost just about every "big" game he has played in. I don't think he ever beat Florida. In fact, what have any Mannings ever won besides the adoration of ESPN? I think that's unfair criticism on Peyton. You know it takes a total team effort to win the big games. Could have been poor game planning by the coaches, the other players didn't show up, etc. Also you have to understand, if the Patriots weren't so damn good for all those years Peyton may have 2 or 3 rings by now. So I really don't think it's all Peytons fault. And yes, for the record I think he's one of the BEST QB's in the game. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted October 3, 2006 Author Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think that's unfair criticism on Peyton. You know it takes a total team effort to win the big games. Could have been poor game planning by the coaches, the other players didn't show up, etc. So, what you're saying is that given multiple years on the collegic level and pro level with different casts and different coaches... it was always the other guy's fault that he couldn't win the big one. If he couldn't do it college and he couldn't do it at the pros, despite having very good teams around him and solid coaches... then it is hard to say he's one of the Greats. Now, one day he might be, but that black cloud swirling over his head is mighty thick. It's sort of like the Eagles of the last several years. They've won a bunch of NFC East titles, but then choked away several playoff games and lost in a Superbowl. Will you mark them down as one of the great teams? It wasn't their fault that they lost. Losing shouldn't matter in sports... shouldn't be used as a grading measure. Was Doug Williams Strike team a great team. Hell yes! Why? Because they perservered and even as severe underdogs prevailed magnificently. That's Greatness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Straight up--no. Some good reasons and examples have already been given. Just one more would be watching Steve Largent out here his whole career--that guy was great. Football is too much a team sport with a large number of players involved and coaches and FO's and so many variables that recognizing the greatness of an individual talent should not ruled by the team's final rankings. As has been said, longevitiy of the player is a factor, along with pure ability, and the rest of his measure is of course taken against his peer competition and his on-field performance. And when his credit for greatness is given, he will still owe some of it to many of those same surrounding variables. Now doing well in Championship contests certainly adds to the individual luster, and quite legitimately, because of having to performan under pressure after a long campaign against your strongest adversary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskins Diehard Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 I think that's unfair criticism on Peyton. You know it takes a total team effort to win the big games. Could have been poor game planning by the coaches, the other players didn't show up, etc. Also you have to understand, if the Patriots weren't so damn good for all those years Peyton may have 2 or 3 rings by now. So I really don't think it's all Peytons fault. And yes, for the record I think he's one of the BEST QB's in the game. Period. The Patriots....and the Steelers...and the Gators. Find one instance where he did come up big in a big game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dallsux Posted October 3, 2006 Share Posted October 3, 2006 Am I wrong? I don't think so. I agree with you. Look at Andy Reid & McNabb. People call them great all the time, but are they? They choked under pressure & one COULD argue that at the time the Eagles went on a rampage winning regular season games, the rest of the NFC (East, especially) was really kinda weak. The NFCE had been somewhat of a joke over the last 10 years. Of course the bottom-dwellers are gonna look good. But not great. The Bills. While good, same scenario. Failed to win when it really counted in a league where the AFC was struggling to find descent teams to face the NFC ones. However, I also realize that there are always exceptions to the rule. Barry Sanders is the first name that comes to my mind. I was never really a fan of his, but Dan Marino also comes to mind. Peyton Manning may one day fit in there, if the Colts never win One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.