Recently,
Eli Manning, Peyton’s brother, said something in an interview that I thought was so insightful. He said that
Peyton doesn’t need a second Super Bowl ring to secure his legacy. “Honestly, I think there’s maybe too much
placed on rings and Super Bowl championships just because it’s not one player,” Eli declared.
“The quarterback is not the sole reason that you win a championship, it’s
the team. I hope he can win, but his
impact has already been made and his legacy…shouldn’t be affected by one game.” Kudos to Eli Manning (as usual,
I have the link that I’ve quoted from below).
Football
is a team sport. So why do we throw Super Bowl wins into the conversation of a quarterback's legacy? Look at Dan Marino, for
example, he put up dazzling statistics; he set records in his heyday that stood
for decades. In the course of his
career, he played in one Super Bowl, and lost.
But this doesn’t in any way minimize Marino’s accomplishments. This simply shows that he didn’t have the team
around him to bring a world championship to Miami.
Let’s
look at the other side of the coin. In 2000, the
Ravens proved that the adage “defense win championships” has merit. They
posted one the greatest defensive seasons in NFL history. Trent Dilfer was the quarterback; he did his part to help that team,
and he was rewarded with a ring. But with
all due respect to Dilfer, he is not a better quarterback than Dan Marino or
other quarterbacks who have never won a Super Bowl.
You can’t gauge a quarterback based solely on the Super Bowl rings they
wear.
I
agree with Eli. Peyton Manning has had a
remarkable career. It’s been a joy to
watch him play the game. Whether the
Broncos win Super Bowl 50 or not, Peyton is, without a doubt, one of the greatest
quarterbacks to have ever played the game of football. I don’t see how that statement can be debated. To throw Super Bowl wins into the
conversation, in my opinion, misses the point entirely.
Kevin
No comments:
Post a Comment