Why Luck is the Greatest Quarterback of All-time
This isn’t about Andrew or even Oliver. It is about the force that is involved in all our lives, even the greatest of quarterbacks.
This sounds like the beginning of a spiteful column Jim Irsay would have written after a few drinks to show Peyton Manning what he thinks of him, doesn’t it? Well I am not talking about Andrew. I surely am not talking about Oliver. I am talking about that essence or force that seems to be involved in all of our lives, even the greatest quarterbacks in the history of the NFL. Now lets make sure we are clear on one thing: numbers can lie. Numbers do lie. I will show you. Here are the best seasons (in my humblest of opinions) of some of four Quarterbacks that are very different.
Player A: 3054 yards — 31 TDs — 13 INTs
Player B: 5038 yards — 41 TDs — 16 INTs
Player C: 4410 yards — 30 TDs — 14 INTs
Player D: 3844 yards — 33 TDs — 17 INTs
Now here may be some conclusions you may make if you went by the Numbers: Player B is an all-time great, Player A is pretty good, Player D is a little better than A, and Player C put together a successful season to say the least.
Joe Montana 1987 Season: 3054 yards — 31 TDs — 13 INTs
Matthew Stafford 2011 Season: 5038 yards — 41 TDs — 16 INTs
Eli Manning 2014 Season: 4410 yards — 30 TDs — 14 INTs
Jim Kelly 1991 Season: 3844 yards — 33 TDs — 17 INTs
Now bias has infiltrated your pure mind and you no longer think Player B, Matthew Stafford, is the greatest Quarterback of All-Time. Well you shouldn’t, because numbers lie. How many of you, non-Giants fans, would have said that “Hey, you know what? Eli had a great season this past year.” I am willing to bet a six-pack, that nobody would. Please find me the guy living outside of Buffalo (and Miami) that would tell me that Jim Kelly is the G.O.A.T when it comes to QBs and not Montana. Enough on my attack of numbers, because they are actually quite useful, when utilized with context and a brain. Another pathological liar is number of rings. I could do the whole mystery player thing with this but many of you have seen some quarterbacks very recently put together some terrible regular seasons, and then follow it up with a stellar Super Bowl run (cough looking at you Eli and you too Flacco). Now look away Giants fans, but WHAT IF, instead of sticking to David Tyree’s helmet, that pass touches the ground and the Giants lose that game? What if Raheem Moore bats down the hail mary Flacco throws to Jacoby Jones? What if Scott Norwood does not kick that Field Goal “wide right” and the Bills win that game?
Finally, to the point of the article, what if the Tuck Rule call goes against Brady? What if Vinateri misses the FG to the tie that game or the one in overtime to win it? What if he misses the game-winner in that Super Bowl against the Rams? What if he misses the field goal two years later against the Panthers? I know these are just “what-ifs” and it happened the way it happened, but this is just an exercise in discovering the fragility of our definitive legacies of a few players. We could be talking about no rings for Flacco and Eli and Jim Kelly not being known as a complete choker. Now am I saying Brady is overrated? Not even a little. I believe he is the second greatest quarterback of all-time and is in the conversation to surpass Jim Kelly (just kidding, Joe Montana). The point is, some of those other “what ifs” could have caused shifts in the paradigms of quarterback legacies, and when it comes to Brady and Montana, there are a few more “what-ifs” for Brady and hence why he is still looking up at Montana…for now.
