Seahawks vs. Redskins

[Baltimore Ravens Lets Go!]

Impossible. Between him, those pro bowl voters and virtually every stat available, one would be led to think he is a great QB.

This where you make yourself look foolish and are too dense to see it. He had a great season, especially for a rookie. However, his stats certainly tailed off after his injuries. No way anyone can be declared "great" when their body of work is not even one full NFL season. Nobody would consider aone great after just one season including Wilson and Luck. Talk about jumping the gun!!

[Slidemaster]

There are some exceptions. Alfred Morris is great. Gronk was great after his first year. Some Defensive players are at that level right away too.

[Rael]

There are some exceptions. Alfred Morris is great. Gronk was great after his first year. Some Defensive players are at that level right away too.

It may just be semantics but while you can say someone is playing great I don't think you can say they were a great player until they have played long enough so their body of work is such that if they played like crap the rest of their careers, you would still say they were a great player.

Johnny U played terribly his last couple of years but was still a great player. Had he played at that level immediately after his first great year people would never say he was a great player.

[Slidemaster]

It may just be semantics but while you can say someone is playing great I don't think you can say they were a great player until they have played long enough so their body of work is such that if they played like crap the rest of their careers, you would still say they were a great player.

Johnny U played terribly his last couple of years but was still a great player. Had he played at that level immediately after his first great year people would never say he was a great player.

The problem with that rationale is that if you use it, only hall of fame level players could ever be considered great. If Gronk was terrible for the rest of his career, we likely wouldn't consider him great, from a historical perspective. It doesn't mean that he wasn't great during his time at the top.

[Rael]

The problem with that rationale is that if you use it, only hall of fame level players could ever be considered great. If Gronk was terrible for the rest of his career, we likely wouldn't consider him great, from a historical perspective. It doesn't mean that he wasn't great during his time at the top.

Isn't that what the hall of fame is for? To separate the great players from the players who sometimes played great?

[Slidemaster]

Isn't that what the hall of fame is for? To separate the great players from the players who sometimes played great?

It distinguishes great careers from the rest, but great levels of play are met and sustained (for varying lengths of time, mind you) by many players who won't make the HoF.

I'll draw a baseball analysis, since it's more of a stat driven sport. Jose Canseco wasn't a hall of famer even before all the steroid drama. He was still as great as anyone in the last 50 years for a stretch of a few years of his career.

[bmorepunk]

Two more seasons and we'll have a good indicator of what teams got out of their rookie starting QBs. As a Seahawks fan, I'm really happy about what Wilson has brought to the team (he certainly is an upgrade over Tavaris Jackson) and hope he can build on that next season. I thought it was a bit crazy that they were starting a rookie, but it has worked quite well so far.

[Rael]

It distinguishes great careers from the rest, but great levels of play are met and sustained (for varying lengths of time, mind you) by many players who won't make the HoF.

Again, semantics, but an above average player can have a period of greatness without crossing the "great player" threshold. I am at a loss to explain with proper examples what I am talking about. I agree with what you are saying but the example we were discussing was RGIII as well as the other two exceptional rookie QBs. My contention to Hail was that it was far too early to call RG3 a "great QB" as he did. He had a great year, no doubt. Cam Newton had a great year last year but I think it is an understatement to say that the jury is still out on whether he is a "great QB". The player's greatness, as opposed to the moments greatness, is defined by the body of the work.

[bmorepunk]

Once you get out outside of Manning, Brady, Rodgers, and Brees it gets hard to tag anyone as a "great QB".

[Slidemaster]

Again, semantics, but an above average player can have a period of greatness without crossing the "great player" threshold. I am at a loss to explain with proper examples what I am talking about. I agree with what you are saying but the example we were discussing was RGIII as well as the other two exceptional rookie QBs. My contention to Hail was that it was far too early to call RG3 a "great QB" as he did. He had a great year, no doubt. Cam Newton had a great year last year but I think it is an understatement to say that the jury is still out on whether he is a "great QB". The player's greatness, as opposed to the moments greatness, is defined by the body of the work.

I guess it depends on what kind of greatness you're evaluating the player to have. I think we're largely saying the same thing, but are interpreting the scenarios differently.

To me, if a player reaches a peak that would be considered, by any reasonable measure, to be a great level of play for more than the length of a flash in the pan (1-2 seasons at least), I have no problem saying that said player is great until his performance dictates otherwise.

However, I would stop short of saying that said player is great when their career is viewed in it's entirety until a certain number of years of great play have been accomplished. Greatness in the historical sense is achieved by not just being great, but being great consistently.