As I mentioned previously, I got into a rather heated exchange (well, I was on the receiving end of his "heat". I was rather cool and collected) about Carolina Panthers' quarterback Cam Newton last weekend. The person whom was speaking to me made the claim that Newton is already great and has nothing more to prove to illustrate this, as he saw it, fact. I, on the other hand, said that while Newton has gotten off to a solid start in what will hopefully be a lengthy NFL career, I'm not going to judge the guy based on 5 (4 at the time) games. So, how do we define greatness in terms of athletes? Is there one clear definition?
As usual, I think there are a variant of answers to the question of defining athletic greatness. There is such a thing as short-term greatness and while Cam Newton hasn't illustrated even short-term greatness yet, I could understand the other's (the guy at the bar) standpoint a bit better if he had alluded to this as opposed to declaring Newton is simply great and going to be great. But, I do think there is such a thing as short-term greatness. One name that immediately springs to mind is former Raiders tailback and Kansas City Royals outfielder, Bo Jackson. The guy was arguably one of most talented athletes in the history of sports. In only 38 NFL games (2.5 seasons worth), Jackson accumulated 2,782 yards rushing (5.4 per carry), with a long of 92, 352 yards receiving (8.8 average) and 18 touchdowns. So, per 16 games, Jackson averaged to rush for 1,112.8 yards, 140.8 yards receiving for a combined average of 1,253.6 yards to go along with 7.2 touchdowns. In those four seasons he played baseball as well, he hit 107 home runs (141 total), racked up 304 (415 total) RBI's and 78 (82 total) stolen bases. Unfortunately, Jackson's career came to an early halt because of an injury and it will be impossible to ever know just how great Jackson would have been long-term in both sports. For four years, though, the guy was one of the very best. At the end of the day, though, even with four great seasons under his belt in two sports, Jackson's name will be forgotten by most people. There are even shorter durations of greatness displayed, where for a season or two, a player may seemingly dominate the competition, before opponents finally adjust to his game and he's seemingly unable to re-adjust.
But, while I admit there are different nuances to greatness when it comes to the world of athletics, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that elongated success at a high level in professional sports is what constitutes greatness more than anything else. Michael Jordan wouldn't become known as arguably the greatest basketball player in NBA history if he had one great season, let alone a great quarter of a season. Some may still remember that he had a load of talent, infinite potential, but couldn't fulfill that. However, he wouldn't have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, likely wouldn't have won all those championship rings and wouldn't be named as one of the greatest, if not the greatest NBA players in the history of the sport, if his dominance was so short-lived.
Let's look at Peyton Manning for example. The guy is one of the all-time leading passers in NFL history and if he can stay healthy and play a couple more seasons or so, may hold some records to his credit. However, in Manning's first five years in the NFL, from 1998-2002, his Indianapolis Colts were just 42-38. He threw 138 touchdowns passes and was picked off 100 times. His quarterback rating, although fairly solid, was at 85.9. He averaged to throw 20 interceptions a season through his first five years of playing pro ball and his Colts played a little over .500 on average through those years. Manning has been hurt this year, but from 2003-2010, Manning led his Colts to a record of 99-29. He threw for 261 touchdowns and just 98 interceptions, to go along with a tremendous quarterback rating of 100.7. Let's look at these averages, comparing Manning's first 5 years to his last 8:
Record
1998-2002: 42-38 (average of 8.4-7.6)
2003-2010: 99-29 (average of 12.4-3.6)
Touchdowns
1998-2002: 138 (average of 27.6)
2003-2010: 261 (average of 32.6)
Interceptions
1998-2002: 100 (average of 20.0)
2003-2010: 98 (average of 12.3)
Quarterback Rating
1998-2002: 85.9
2003-2010: 100.7
Peyton Manning was an above-average NFL quarterback in his first five years. He had a fairly solid rating of close to 86.0, which would place him in the upper half of starting quarterbacks. He averaged to throw 27 touchdowns a season, which would rank him near the very top. He also averaged to throw 20 interceptions, again placing him at or near the top. Also, his team's record, going along with my previous statement about manning, was slightly above average. However, given all this information, Manning was not a Hall-of-Fame quarterback in his first five years. He wasn't dominant. He was prone to making some mistakes, given all of those interceptions. After five years, some began to wonder if Manning would ever be a truly elite quarterback. This was after five full seasons of playing professional football. In the last 8 years, Manning is one of the best, if not the best quarterback in the NFL (Tom Brady may have something to say about that). The guy has averaged to throw over 30 touchdowns, throw fewer than 13 picks, lead his team to an average of almost 13 wins and an assured playoff spot and post a quarterback rating of close to 101. In the last eight years, Manning has been the dominant force in the league some had anticipated and is a sure-fire Hall-of-Fame inductee. It was not until his 6th season that Manning began to show signs of consistent greatness. He had shown flashes in his first five, but had yet to put it all together.
So, once again, nobody can tell me Cam Newton is a great NFL quarterback. He's gotten through five measly games. One of the greatest NFL quarterback in history, the before-mentioned Manning, had five such seasons before truly progressing his game to the next level (and beyond). Newton has plenty of talent. There can be no questioning that. But, once again, I'm not going to judge the guy based on his first five games. If I had done that for Manning, he would have been seen as a bust. Through his first five games, Manning completed 93 of 169 pass attempts (55.0%) for 1,129 yards (225.8 p/g), 4 touchdowns, 12 interceptions and a quarterback rating of 55.8. Last I heard, Manning turned out okay. Newton may too be considered great one day, but let's not get too excited just yet.
As usual, I think there are a variant of answers to the question of defining athletic greatness. There is such a thing as short-term greatness and while Cam Newton hasn't illustrated even short-term greatness yet, I could understand the other's (the guy at the bar) standpoint a bit better if he had alluded to this as opposed to declaring Newton is simply great and going to be great. But, I do think there is such a thing as short-term greatness. One name that immediately springs to mind is former Raiders tailback and Kansas City Royals outfielder, Bo Jackson. The guy was arguably one of most talented athletes in the history of sports. In only 38 NFL games (2.5 seasons worth), Jackson accumulated 2,782 yards rushing (5.4 per carry), with a long of 92, 352 yards receiving (8.8 average) and 18 touchdowns. So, per 16 games, Jackson averaged to rush for 1,112.8 yards, 140.8 yards receiving for a combined average of 1,253.6 yards to go along with 7.2 touchdowns. In those four seasons he played baseball as well, he hit 107 home runs (141 total), racked up 304 (415 total) RBI's and 78 (82 total) stolen bases. Unfortunately, Jackson's career came to an early halt because of an injury and it will be impossible to ever know just how great Jackson would have been long-term in both sports. For four years, though, the guy was one of the very best. At the end of the day, though, even with four great seasons under his belt in two sports, Jackson's name will be forgotten by most people. There are even shorter durations of greatness displayed, where for a season or two, a player may seemingly dominate the competition, before opponents finally adjust to his game and he's seemingly unable to re-adjust.
But, while I admit there are different nuances to greatness when it comes to the world of athletics, I'd be remiss if I didn't say that elongated success at a high level in professional sports is what constitutes greatness more than anything else. Michael Jordan wouldn't become known as arguably the greatest basketball player in NBA history if he had one great season, let alone a great quarter of a season. Some may still remember that he had a load of talent, infinite potential, but couldn't fulfill that. However, he wouldn't have been inducted into the Hall of Fame, likely wouldn't have won all those championship rings and wouldn't be named as one of the greatest, if not the greatest NBA players in the history of the sport, if his dominance was so short-lived.
Let's look at Peyton Manning for example. The guy is one of the all-time leading passers in NFL history and if he can stay healthy and play a couple more seasons or so, may hold some records to his credit. However, in Manning's first five years in the NFL, from 1998-2002, his Indianapolis Colts were just 42-38. He threw 138 touchdowns passes and was picked off 100 times. His quarterback rating, although fairly solid, was at 85.9. He averaged to throw 20 interceptions a season through his first five years of playing pro ball and his Colts played a little over .500 on average through those years. Manning has been hurt this year, but from 2003-2010, Manning led his Colts to a record of 99-29. He threw for 261 touchdowns and just 98 interceptions, to go along with a tremendous quarterback rating of 100.7. Let's look at these averages, comparing Manning's first 5 years to his last 8:
Record
1998-2002: 42-38 (average of 8.4-7.6)
2003-2010: 99-29 (average of 12.4-3.6)
Touchdowns
1998-2002: 138 (average of 27.6)
2003-2010: 261 (average of 32.6)
Interceptions
1998-2002: 100 (average of 20.0)
2003-2010: 98 (average of 12.3)
Quarterback Rating
1998-2002: 85.9
2003-2010: 100.7
Peyton Manning was an above-average NFL quarterback in his first five years. He had a fairly solid rating of close to 86.0, which would place him in the upper half of starting quarterbacks. He averaged to throw 27 touchdowns a season, which would rank him near the very top. He also averaged to throw 20 interceptions, again placing him at or near the top. Also, his team's record, going along with my previous statement about manning, was slightly above average. However, given all this information, Manning was not a Hall-of-Fame quarterback in his first five years. He wasn't dominant. He was prone to making some mistakes, given all of those interceptions. After five years, some began to wonder if Manning would ever be a truly elite quarterback. This was after five full seasons of playing professional football. In the last 8 years, Manning is one of the best, if not the best quarterback in the NFL (Tom Brady may have something to say about that). The guy has averaged to throw over 30 touchdowns, throw fewer than 13 picks, lead his team to an average of almost 13 wins and an assured playoff spot and post a quarterback rating of close to 101. In the last eight years, Manning has been the dominant force in the league some had anticipated and is a sure-fire Hall-of-Fame inductee. It was not until his 6th season that Manning began to show signs of consistent greatness. He had shown flashes in his first five, but had yet to put it all together.
So, once again, nobody can tell me Cam Newton is a great NFL quarterback. He's gotten through five measly games. One of the greatest NFL quarterback in history, the before-mentioned Manning, had five such seasons before truly progressing his game to the next level (and beyond). Newton has plenty of talent. There can be no questioning that. But, once again, I'm not going to judge the guy based on his first five games. If I had done that for Manning, he would have been seen as a bust. Through his first five games, Manning completed 93 of 169 pass attempts (55.0%) for 1,129 yards (225.8 p/g), 4 touchdowns, 12 interceptions and a quarterback rating of 55.8. Last I heard, Manning turned out okay. Newton may too be considered great one day, but let's not get too excited just yet.
Comments
Post a Comment