Any argument that plays to an exception, rather than a rule, annoys me. In sports, I don't hear any example more than when someone says that any lousy quarterback can win a Super Bowl, and point to Trent Dilfer. I have no choice but to veto its use in any discussion.
Dilfer played with perhaps the best defense ever assembled. But was he really that bad? Let's compare him to the man generally known as the best QB never to win a Super Bowl, Dan Marino...
Dilfer 2000-01 playoff stats (fun with small sample sizes): 3 TD, 1 INT, 83.7 Rating.
Marino career playoff stats: 32 TD, 24 INT, 77.1 Rating. (8-10 career playoff record)
For comparison, Marino's career regular season record was 147-93, with 420 TDs to 252 INTs, and an 86.4 QB rating.
Dilfer had an okay career, but this speaks to the importance of playing your best in the postseason, and especially the Super Bowl.
And even if you still consider him a scrub, using the Dilfer argument just affirms that you realize 43 of the other 44 Super Bowls were won with a good-to-great QB. Take any other QB who won even one ring in his career, and I have respect for him as a champion. Doug Williams, Len Dawson, Ken Stabler, anyone...except Tom Brady who was cheating.
Yes, this is the kind of worthless sports drivel I occupy my mind with while the NFL is locked out. Next week, helmet power rankings! Wait, never mind, that's already been done. Uuuggghhhh.
No comments:
Post a Comment