This thread was inspired by Peyton Manning, but feel free to replace his name with Fran Tarkenton’s or Jim Kelly’s or anyone else you like.
Suppose, just SUPPOSE that the Broncos had beaten the Colts in today’s playoff game. Is there any doubt that Peyton Manning’s detractors would be calling radio talk shows and making posts on Internet message boards saying, “You see? We TOLD you- Manning can’t win the big games.” Nope, there’s no doubt at all.
But Manning DID win today’s playoff game. So… doesn’t that mean this was a “big one”?
The answer is, of course, no! Today’s game isn’t a big one because Manning won it. It would only have been a “big one” to Manning haters if he’d lost it.
If the Colts lose next week to the Patriots, of course, Manning’s detractors will again say, “What do you expect? Manning can’t win the big one.” Of course, if he beats the Pats next week, but falls to the Steelers the following week, the victory over the Pats will be discounted! That game will only be a “big one” if Manning loses!
My general point, of course, is that quarterbacks have to win LOADS of “big ones” just to GET to the playoffs, just to GET to the conference finals, and just to GET to a Super Bowl. But somehow, the “big one” always seems to mean just the last game you lose.
After all, if Manning “can’t win the big one” because he lost in the AFC finals last year… well, Jim Kelly and Fran Tarkenton both won their conference championship games numerous times! Doesn’t that prove that Kelly and Tarkenton could and DID win “big ones”? Nope, not in the eyes of their detractors.
Personally, I’d like to see the phrase “can’t win the big one” abolished from sports chat. But IF the phrase must be used…
-
Can we at least agree on what “the big one” is?
-
Can someone explain why SOME guys in SOME sports (Ernie Banks, for one) received so much sympathy for their failure to win championships, while others receive only scorn?