- Joined
- Apr 13, 2002
- Messages
- 27,352
- Reaction score
- 24,130
Offline
It's like comparing home run hitters from 1969 and 1990 (even pre-steroids). Yaztrzemski won the batting title in 1969 (1970?) with an average of .301, and it was a big story all year whether the winner would hit .300. You can't compare the statistics of different eras, you've got to compare them against the players in their own era.
I don't think it's entirely fair to just say (despite Bradshaw) that Archie would have been a Super Bowl QB and/or a HOF lock if he had played with a more successful franchise; we'll never know, and it's not fair to the guys who actually won the games and made the Hall.
But we also need to let this revisionist thinking on Manning go. He was the NFC MVP, or offensive player of the year, somebody else go look it up, in 1978 or 1979. On a team without a winning record, no less. In one of the league's smallest markets. Isn't that enough to let you know the world thought he was pretty damn good in his day?
I don't think it's entirely fair to just say (despite Bradshaw) that Archie would have been a Super Bowl QB and/or a HOF lock if he had played with a more successful franchise; we'll never know, and it's not fair to the guys who actually won the games and made the Hall.
But we also need to let this revisionist thinking on Manning go. He was the NFC MVP, or offensive player of the year, somebody else go look it up, in 1978 or 1979. On a team without a winning record, no less. In one of the league's smallest markets. Isn't that enough to let you know the world thought he was pretty damn good in his day?
Last edited: