Ned Macey: A little over an hour after the game, I haven’t exactly figured everything out, but I just wonder if anyone can make a coherent “rings = greatness” argument anymore for individual players. Tom Brady in 2001 and 2003 was nowhere near the QB that Tom Brady is in 2005-2010. If Tom Brady had the defense he’s had since 2004 in 2001 and 2003, I guarantee he would have lost in both of those years. After all the time I feel we’ve (and anyone with any sense of objectivity) beaten our heads against the wall on this, and with all the evidence that no individual player wins Super Bowls, it just won’t die. Instead, the lesson is going to be that Sanchez, thanks to two successful playoffs (for his team) with a great defense (this year’s may not be great but played great over the past two weeks) is now a “winner,” while Brady must have lost something. It just is really dumb and intellectually embarrassing for whoever does it. I suggest keeping a list of anyone who writes it and then remembering to never take anything they say seriously again.
Eagles 4hr ago
It became apparent very early in the game that the Eagles defense was not only bending but breaking. Something about Sean McVay’s pre-snap (…)
Red's Army 15hr ago
Every morning, we compile the links of the day and dump them here… highlighting the big storyline. Because there’s nothing (…)
Mets 16hr ago
The New York Mets (24-28) got a huge pitching performance from rookie left-hander David Peterson last night. Peterson stepped up and gave (…)