First Take Actualizes Its Purpose, Goes Ham On Rodgers Vs. Brady Debate
Sports rankings are wholly pointless. Not only are they generally impossible -- they're subjective, after all -- but the consensus "best" is subject to change when the game inevitably evolves or the next major talent grabs the spotlight. The only really measure of success in sports are championships, but those aren't inherently measures of deservedness, either. I'm a New York Giants fan, I should know. I saw my guys steal two Super Bowls from better teams.
That being said, it's still fucking thrilling to fire off hypotheticals as undeniable proof that so-and-so has earned the G.O.A.T. distinction. Not all the time, of course -- that'd be insufferable -- but we're irrational, competitive creatures and sports don't really matter, so what's wrong with indulging in a little semantic debate from time to time? Best case scenario it's cathartic, worst case is some elevated blood pressure.
Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless exist for this exact reason: people, specifically sports fans, crave over-the-top emotional arguments. Ninty-nine percent of what they bicker about is fabricated bullshit that we all love to point and laugh at, but we still tune in because it's just so much fun watching what amounts to rhetorical professional wrestling. Sometimes, though, the sports Gods hang a curveball, and these dudes get a chance to crush it off the scoreboard. We basically get to watch the most entertaining, surprisingly insightful argument you've ever heard in the men's room at Buffalo Wild Wings on live television. For what it's worth, that's fun as hell.
Tuesday morning, ESPN's Stadler and Waldorf went toe-to-toe in an Aaron Rodgers-Tom Brady pissing contest that highlighted two legitimate schools of thought on the "greatest quarterback of all-time" debate.
The Stephen A. Smith camp:
"What I'm saying to you is this, tom brady has been around longer, starting longer, the same system, the continuity with bill belichick, the way bill Belichick continuously gets no names and makes them look great on both sides of the football."
TRANSLATION: Judging by his unparalleled skill set, it can be assumed that had Aaron Rodgers been in Tom Brady's cushy position on the New England Patriots, he'd have had just as much success as Brady, if not more.
The Skip Bayless camp:
"Aaron Rodgers, is 6-5 in the postseason. That includes four straight wins as a wild card team to win his lone Super Bowl...I will take Tom Brady any day of the week especially on Sunday over Aaron Rodgers. Tom Brady is 21-8 in the postseason."
TRANSLATION: A quarterback's value is determined by the number of games his team wins, and Brady has significantly more than Rodgers, therefore he's better.
Obviously, there are massive problems with both arguments -- attributing an professional football team's success to one player is naive and the other is pure conjecture -- but that only makes the debate better. No one can be right without also being wrong.
Watch two grown men treat the Brady vs. Rodgers conundrum as if there's a correct answer to be had, below...
Be the first to know
Want FREE Fantasy and Gaming Advice and Savings Delivered to your Inbox? Sign up for our Newsletter.