BTW, the comparisons to legends are indeed inane. Of all the trends in sports analysis I have to say that one baffles me as much as anything. Somebody has a bad game and desperate scrambles are made, to pinpoint struggles from John Elway or Peyton Manning at a similar stage. How is that 1% relevant? They got to be Elway and Manning because they were obvious freak talents from a very young age. That carried over through college and to #1 draft pick status. As Jimmy Johnson always emphasized, you don't treat those players the same. You'd have to be a fool. Yet we've got no trouble pretending the comparisons are valid. I always wonder what price those posters would take, on Tannehill -- for example -- matching Peyton's career? They have no trouble comparing as rookies so what would it take, 3/1 or 5/1? If they take those numbers they are moronic. Yet if they want what they are entitled to, like 50/1 or higher, then how is the initial comparison valid when now you're telling me your guy is 2% the caliber of other one?
Johnny Miller had a great line on Phil Mickelson at Doral a few years ago, regarding Phil's tendency to attempt any risky shot. He said if he caddied for Phil he'd want a buzz collar. That's what is needed around here, whenever somebody attempts one of the simplistic and meaningless comparisons to a legend.