I mentioned yesterday that I'd host a discussion about this key question in the sports world, and today I'm tackling it head on:
Would you rather have an amazing player who struggles in the clutch, or an average (or less amazing, at least) one who is known to have the ability to come up big in a dramatic moment?
For me, Peyton Manning has to be mentioned in this discussion.
His numbers paint the picture of far and away a top 5 QB of all time. To be honest, it's not difficult to argue that based on the numbers, he is the best quarterback to ever play the game. He leads the NFL in countless categories, both career-long and single-season statistics. He's won a Super Bowl and multiple MVP awards and has been a face of the NFL for years and years.
But there's just one thing. He isn't known for being clutch. While he won 1 Super Bowl, he has lost twice, including getting crushed by the Seahawks in 2014, when Peyton played terribly.
On the other end of this debate sits Tom Brady.
It's not to say that Brady's numbers are bad - they aren't.... like, at all, but they don't quite match Peyton's. On stats alone, Brady is still a top 5 QB ever, but it's tough to argue that he's the best ever based on numbers.
There's something intangible about Brady - when the game is on the line and he's got the ball, you just have tons of faith that he can come up with what is needed.
So, I'm curious to know what the community thinks about this. Would you rather have a player who is unquestionably amazing, possibly the best of all time, but who has historically struggled to come up big?
Or are you willing to sacrifice some quality and talent for the ice that runs through the veins of a clutch player?