Michael Wilbon annoys me when his holier-than-thou attitude combines with a slight Steven A. streak of HEYEVERYONELOOKATME!!!. Sometimes I think Wilbon says stupid reactionary things he knows are wrong just to get attention and/or play devil's advocate. Or he could just a moron, I'm not certain. Actually, tell you what, you be the judge.
In a chat on Washingtonpost.com on Monday, Wilbon took the following question:
Roethlisberger played well in this his second Super Bowl but recall he was horrendous in his first. The Steelers won that one despite not because of him. He has never quarterbacked a top offense. Using some more advanced stats, Football Outsiders, the leader in football performance analysis, ranks Roethlisberger 25th in total value of all quarterbacks in 2008. Of course Brady was out with an injury this season so he isn't ranked, but last season (2007), Brady ranked first overall. Roethlisberger was 11th. In 2006, Brady ranked 5th and Roethlisberger was 11th. Are you sensing a trend here?
The wild-card here is obviously Brady's health, because if his knee is shot or he is limited in some way then there is some question, but the questioner says if the two are healthy; with that proviso there is only one answer logical answer: Brady. So, Wilbon, this is a pretty easy question to start off the chat with, eh?
Wha-wha-wha!
This is what I'm talking about. Here is the evidence that Wilbon cites to back up his assertion that Roethlisberger is the better quarterback, which to me requires a lot of backing up:
OK, maybe that isn't the greatest analogy. I'm a bit tired and I probably have baby poop in my hair. Let me try again. There are eleven different players on an offense so a quarterback isn't even solely responsible for how an offense plays, let alone how the defense or special teams play, or what the quality of the competition, difficulty of schedule, or the level of moronitude demonstrated by the head coach is. 'There are just too many other things at play to say the quarterback won the game.' Such an assertion is simplistic and asinine in the extreme.
But, and this is the part that kills me, even if we throw all logic off the roof of an eighth story walk-up and go by Wilbon's ridiculous measuring stick of wins, Brady still blows Roethlisberger out of the water! You may even recall that Brady was the quarterback of a team that won 21 straight games at one point!
Terrible job, Wilbon. If I could use Photoshop, I'd give you Da Nutz.
In a chat on Washingtonpost.com on Monday, Wilbon took the following question:
Washington, D.C.: Provided Tom Brady's knee is healthy, would you still take Ben Roethlisberger over him? Brady's been to five AFC Championship games, won four of them, and has gone on to win three Super Bowls.Brady has won three Super Bowl titles, and he's taken teams down the field in the final seconds to do it. He has quarterbacked what is just about the best offense the NFL has ever seen by any measure, and he is still pretty young.
Roethlisberger played well in this his second Super Bowl but recall he was horrendous in his first. The Steelers won that one despite not because of him. He has never quarterbacked a top offense. Using some more advanced stats, Football Outsiders, the leader in football performance analysis, ranks Roethlisberger 25th in total value of all quarterbacks in 2008. Of course Brady was out with an injury this season so he isn't ranked, but last season (2007), Brady ranked first overall. Roethlisberger was 11th. In 2006, Brady ranked 5th and Roethlisberger was 11th. Are you sensing a trend here?
The wild-card here is obviously Brady's health, because if his knee is shot or he is limited in some way then there is some question, but the questioner says if the two are healthy; with that proviso there is only one answer logical answer: Brady. So, Wilbon, this is a pretty easy question to start off the chat with, eh?
Michael Wilbon: Ben.
Wha-wha-wha!
I'm taking Ben. Are you kidding me? Did you watch the game? Did you pay attention to the entire season? He's 26 years old and has won two Super Bowls. What else is he supposed to do. I said in October I'm taking Ben. I said in November I'm taking Big Ben. And I'll say again now, at the beginning of February, give me Ben...
This is what I'm talking about. Here is the evidence that Wilbon cites to back up his assertion that Roethlisberger is the better quarterback, which to me requires a lot of backing up:
- He watched the game [the Super Bowl]
- He paid attention to the season
- Roethlisberger's age
- Roethlisberger's two Super Bowl wins
- He apparently said he would take Roethlisberger over Brady before the Super Bowl (#1), before the season (#2) and before (obviously) the Steelers won this most recent Super Bowl (#3).
Richmond, VA: I think Roethlisberger certainly improved his stock last night. However, you do realize that Brady has three rings (and I, personally, don't really like Brady). Also, Roethlisberger's first Super Bowl (the game itself, not the season) was obviously won in spite of him playing a terrible game. I think you are overrating him slightly. I'd take a healthy Brady and a health Peyton Manning over Roethlisberger for next season (maybe not for the duration of time, as Roethlisberger's younger).A reasonable and maybe even overly kind rebuke of Wilbon's ridiculous assertion. So, Wilbon, you goofed right?
Michael Wilbon: I understand why people would take Brady and Manning. I would take Ben. I don't care about passing #s or MVP awards. I care about winning the game. That's all. And I think Ben can win another Super Bowl or two, while I don't really believe the Cotls or Patriots will win again with Manning and Brady, who are among the greatest QBs ever...And ever. Still--let me say this again--I'd take Big Ben.Counting quarterback quality by number of wins is like saying the quality of a painting can be ascribed to the type of paint you used. Its an important but it ignores the entire rest of the painting.
OK, maybe that isn't the greatest analogy. I'm a bit tired and I probably have baby poop in my hair. Let me try again. There are eleven different players on an offense so a quarterback isn't even solely responsible for how an offense plays, let alone how the defense or special teams play, or what the quality of the competition, difficulty of schedule, or the level of moronitude demonstrated by the head coach is. 'There are just too many other things at play to say the quarterback won the game.' Such an assertion is simplistic and asinine in the extreme.
But, and this is the part that kills me, even if we throw all logic off the roof of an eighth story walk-up and go by Wilbon's ridiculous measuring stick of wins, Brady still blows Roethlisberger out of the water! You may even recall that Brady was the quarterback of a team that won 21 straight games at one point!
Terrible job, Wilbon. If I could use Photoshop, I'd give you Da Nutz.
1 comments:
That's almost as much nonsense as when he tries to write about hockey.
And he didn't even mention the best argument in Ben's favor: he has a terrible offensive line protecting him, and is the only QB who can hold onto the ball too long and still make positive plays. Without his unique talents, I don't believe the Steelers sniff the Super Bowl.
Nonetheless, if Brady returns to 90% of his earlier self, he's better.
Post a Comment