Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonsux013
I have been in a debate recently over the question of who is/was more impactful in their teams success: Brady or Jeter.
Now I agree that not many people can be MORE of a reason for their teams success, but I think Jeter is AS MUCH of a reason for his teams success as Brady.
I was surprised to see that my comment was perceived as idiotic among a group of friends. So I dug deeper into statistical info to find that for his first three superbowls, Tom Brady was around the 10th statistically best qb in the NFL those years. I found that Jeter was at the very top (offensively, however Brady doesn't play a lick of defense so I figured it's fair to leave fielding statistics out of this, although the fact that Jeter could contribute to his team defensively is a valid argument to make when comparing the two) of his position.
So the discussion boiled down to one main question: If neither athlete ever played for their team, who would it negatively affect most?
I was shocked to see so many say, 'The Yankees would've won despite Jeter'.
Really? Do people believe this? You take out a .300+ hitting #2 in the lineup and there is no consequence. Or the consequence is irrelevant to the team's ability to win a World Series. Really?
In the end, it may have come across that I was saying Jeter was more important to his squad. But really I was only trying to say that each player had an equal impact on their teams success. And even if the QB position is more impactful than the SS in baseball, Jeter still won 1 more title than Brady. I just didn't think it was that outlandish of a statement. Could it have anything to do with it being dead smack in the middle of a 10-0 season following a SB and not on the heals of a 3-peat by the yankees in 2000?
|
there is no way to really say because neither would be who they are without the team they had around them. they yankees won 125 games in 1998. if they didn't have jeter, they'd still win 115 and the world series because the TEAM was that well put together that year. same with the patriots. we know that a bad QB can step in and look great because matt cassell proved that. without BB's system and targets like wes welker, brady doesn't put up the numbers he did.
rings and titles are the single worst way to compare two players because there is nothing that is less individualistic in sports than a TEAM accomplishment. going by titles, eli manning is a better QB than peyton and dan marino, which is just flat our not true. he just happened to be on a TEAMS that worked well together and were lucky enough to win the superbowl.
eli won a ring because of a catch. peyton could have had the best SB performance ever and still lost to the seahawks because the defense gave up so many points. and brady owes at least a couple rings to his kicker.