I struggle with how to fit football players into these 'greatest' discussions across different sports, especially when championships are brought into the equation. An individual's impact varies across each sport and sometimes eras even.Popeye_Card wrote:That's actually a really tough one. Ted Williams is in the argument for best baseball player of all time. Same for Orr with hockey. Russell and Bird probably aren't in that very top tier, but in the top 10 conversation.
Brady certainly has all the rings, and great statistics to back it up. I don't know if that makes up for Teddy Ballgame and Bobby Orr playing on a completely different level than the rest of the league. I posted in another thread about Williams' career slash line (.344/.482/.634) being higher than any individual season in any category for Mike Trout (.326/.460/.629). Orr had six straight seasons over 100 points, leading the league twice. As a 21-26 year old defenseman. Again Brady has the championships, but Manning, Brees, etc. are arguably his equal or better on a performance basis in his generation.
Take Brady, he clearly has impact on the offensive side but does he win so many championships if the defense is nothing but cast off tackling dummies and they give up 50 points a game, every game? If Peyton Manning was in Brady's place would he have won as many rings? I'd say that he probably would have won just as many.
At least with hockey and basketball players directly impact the results both offensively and defensively whenever they are in the game instead of specializing in just one side/skill set. The same can kind of be said for baseball as well but then you have your pitchers and designated hitters in the American League.
So, anybody know where I was going with this? I started typing this a bit ago and got interrupted. Now I have no idea what I was even trying to say. But I typed this much so I'm going to hit Submit anyway!