Originally, I wasn't planning on writing about the Super Bowl. I just didn't think there was anything unique or insightful that I could add to the conversation. Yes, it was a fantastic day for the city of New Orleans. Yes, Drew Brees and Sean Payton are very good at what they do. No, Reggie Bush is not.
You don't need me to tell you any of that.
But over the past few days, I've heard a lot of criticism of Peyton Manning. A man who was being called the greatest quarterback in history a week ago is now being referred to as a choke artist — again — and as a guy whose place in history is in question due to his 9−9 career playoff record. Hell, John Harris of the Pittsburgh Tribune−Review wrote that he'd take Ben Roethlisberger, who has never even come close to sniffing an MVP award, over Manning.
So apparently, I've got some defending to do.
Let's start with the basics: 50,128 passing yards (fourth all−time), 366 passing TDs (third), 64.8 completion percentage (fourth) and 10 Pro Bowls. He's the only player in league history to pass for 4,000 yards in a season 10 times, and he's also the only player to rack up four MVP awards.
Those numbers alone should be enough to put Manning far and away past any active quarterback in the league — yes, even that guy named Brady. But to many people, the only thing that matters is championship rings, and Manning only has one. So how can he be among the greatest?
To that, I make one simple, albeit controversial, claim: Winning isn't everything. It's a team game, after all, so how can you determine one person's legacy when the teammates around him determine so much about his postseason success?
Are Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson both better than Dan Marino because they each won Super Bowls on tremendous defensive teams? Is Ramiro Mendoza one of the greatest relievers in the history of baseball because he has five World Series rings? Steve Kerr racked up five NBA titles. That means he's better than Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant, right?
I can already imagine the dissenters bubbling at the mouth to respond: "Yes, it is a team game, but the quarterback position is arguably the most important in any sport."
Fair point, dissenters. I can't argue with that, so instead I'll take it a step further. On which team do you think the quarterback is the most indispensable? That's right, the Colts.
When Tom Brady went down in the first game last year, the Patriots put in backup quarterback Matt Cassel and went on to win 11 games. This year, when Brady came back, they won 10 (and if you think that's a testament to Cassel and not the Pats' system, check out his numbers with the Chiefs this year and get back to me).
Can you imagine the Colts winning 11 games without Manning? The guy runs their offense. If he went down, they'd win four games — maybe — and they'd probably come against the Raiders, Lions, Rams and Redskins.
I'll give another example. Last year, Brees had an MVP−caliber season, racking up over 5,000 passing yards and 34 touchdowns. But the Saints went 8−8 and finished last in the division.
That does not happen to Peyton Manning. The Colts have made the playoffs for eight consecutive years and for 10 of the past 11.
If you still need more convincing, consider the fact that Manning has taken 34 pass attempts per game for his career (fourth all time) and has completed on average 22 of them (second). The Colts have never had a top−notch defense, and their run game is rarely among the best in the league. They rely almost entirely on Manning, and year after year, he delivers.
As I said before, it's a team game. But when you've got someone like Manning, your team is already pretty much set.
--
David Heck is a senior majoring in philosophy. He can be reached at David.Heck@tufts.edu
