Julian Edelman vs Calvin Johnson

[Kip Smithers]

Seriously, what are we actually doing here?

[TheGame316]

I'm amazed at how many people don't understand the premise of the question

It isn't who is the better player, or who would you rather have on your team

If you had to live in Johnson's shoes and experience all the losing, or live in Edelmans shoes and experience all the winning, which would you choose?

Take football out of it

Would you rather work a job you HATE for 200k/year, or a job you LOVE for 100k/year

 

[Tk3]

1 hour ago, TheGame316 said:

I'm amazed at how many people don't understand the premise of the question

It isn't who is the better player, or who would you rather have on your team

If you had to live in Johnson's shoes and experience all the losing, or live in Edelmans shoes and experience all the winning, which would you choose?

Take football out of it

Would you rather work a job you HATE for 200k/year, or a job you LOVE for 100k/year

Would you rather be world renowned as one of the best of all time in your field?

Or just be okay, but your company was cool

 

The premise of the question is clear: "Who had the better career?"

It is clear who had the better career. The guy who is one of the best of all time

[Tk3]

1 hour ago, TheGame316 said:

I'm amazed at how many people don't understand the premise of the question

It isn't who is the better player, or who would you rather have on your team

If you had to live in Johnson's shoes and experience all the losing, or live in Edelmans shoes and experience all the winning, which would you choose?

Take football out of it

Would you rather work a job you HATE for 200k/year, or a job you LOVE for 100k/year

 

This guy trying to tell us to "take football out of it" in a comparison of the careers of two football players

[TheGame316]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

This guy trying to tell us to "take football out of it" in a comparison of the careers of two football players

But the premise isn't to compare the players, it's to compare the careers

Would you rather have a career, where you were the best in your field but absolutely hated going to work every day to the point where you quit as soon as it was feasible, but it paid well and that's why you did it, OR, would you rather be a key contributor in a company, working a job that you loved, that paid somewhat less and you did it until you weren't capable anymore 

Even the $$ is a moot point. Johnson's 119 million vs Edelmans 44 Million. Neither guy will want for anything and it's doubtful either will ever actually be able to spend all of their career earnings

[Tk3]

1 minute ago, TheGame316 said:

But the premise isn't to compare the players, it's to compare the careers

Would you rather have a career, where you were the best in your field but absolutely hated going to work every day to the point where you quit as soon as it was feasible, but it paid well and that's why you did it, OR, would you rather be a key contributor in a company, working a job that you loved, that paid somewhat less and you did it until you weren't capable anymore 

Even the $$ is a moot point. Johnson's 119 million vs Edelmans 44 Million. Neither guy will want for anything and it's doubtful either will ever actually be able to spend all of their career earnings

It's so weird that we are talking about QOL.. I've literally never seen this before

Anyone in America would be thrilled to retire at 30 with 9 digits

Like, this is so weird.. have we ever talked about a players happiness when "comparing careers" before? Why did this turn into some weird side tangent of a debate?

[Kip Smithers]

12 hours ago, TheGame316 said:

I'm amazed at how many people don't understand the premise of the question

It isn't who is the better player, or who would you rather have on your team

If you had to live in Johnson's shoes and experience all the losing, or live in Edelmans shoes and experience all the winning, which would you choose?

Take football out of it

Would you rather work a job you HATE for 200k/year, or a job you LOVE for 100k/year

 

So would you rather be Robert Horry or Charles Barkley? 
 

Also while Calvins team success pails in comparison, the respect he has garnered from his peers is probably so much more. 

[iknowcool]

The thing is, there is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring what Johnson went through.  Why is it then portrayed as so wrong for some of us to have preferred what Edelman went through?

Yes, we know Calvin was by far the better player.  Hence why it is a matter of, would you rather be a phenomenal player on a lousy franchise or a solid player on a great franchise.  Would you rather be a HOFer with 0 playoff wins (but a lot of NFL records) or a good player that was a part of 3 championship winning teams and participated in a lot of amazing games.

There is no wrong answer.  It is a matter of preference.  With that said I'm surprised by how many people are dismissing what it means to play on a great team vs a losing team.  It is why (or one of the reasons why) Johnson retired.  Losing blows.  

I feel like people are intentionally complicating it by involving money and stuff like that.  

Edited April 18, 2021 by iknowcool

[lancerman]

13 hours ago, Tk3 said:

Would you rather be world renowned as one of the best of all time in your field?

Or just be okay, but your company was cool

 

The premise of the question is clear: "Who had the better career?"

It is clear who had the better career. The guy who is one of the best of all time

Well when you load it like that you can make the premise look ridiculous but you can frame it multiple ways. 

Would you rather be an all time great who retired early on bad terms with your team that prevented you from having any success on the biggest stages in your sport.. or would you rather be an above average guy who overachieved and had some of the most important moments in the sports history that guarantees you will be a Super Bowl hero of sorts for the rest of your life and got to retire on good terms with your franchise and region where you be celebrated as if you were one of the greatest era. 
 

Like I said in an earlier post. This is basically Dan Marino vs Eli Manning. An all time great who who for whatever reason never really got the post season success or moments his status deserved or an a over average guy who got all the storybook moments and had a picture perfect Disney like career that will earn him a place in history because it happened at the highest stage. 
 

As football fans, we understand Calvin was much better as a player. But for all intents and purposes both of them are about as well known and going forward Edelman will always be remembered and have SB highlights play forever and be associated with that while Calvin will still be an all time great 

Everyone understands Calvin is better player... but there’s a reason why Edelman got just as much press coverage when he retired. I don’t think that there’s any discernible difference in endorsement money the two can achieve in retirement either. 

Edited April 18, 2021 by lancerman

[Tk3]

20 minutes ago, lancerman said:

Well when you load it like that you can make the premise look ridiculous but you can frame it multiple ways. 

Would you rather be an all time great who retired early on bad terms with your team that prevented you from having any success on the biggest stages in your sport.. or would you rather be an above average guy who overachieved and had some of the most important moments in the sports history that guarantees you will be a Super Bowl hero of sorts for the rest of your life and got to retire on good terms with your franchise and region where you be celebrated as if you were one of the greatest era. 
 

Like I said in an earlier post. This is basically Dan Marino vs Eli Manning. An all time great who who for whatever reason never really got the post season success or moments his status deserved or an a over average guy who got all the storybook moments and had a picture perfect Disney like career that will earn him a place in history because it happened at the highest stage. 
 

As football fans, we understand Calvin was much better as a player. But for all intents and purposes both of them are about as well known and going forward Edelman will always be remembered and have SB highlights play forever and be associated with that while Calvin will still be an all time great 

Everyone understands Calvin is better player... but there’s a reason why Edelman got just as much press coverage when he retired. I don’t think that there’s any discernible difference in endorsement money the two can achieve in retirement either. 

Edelman is nowhere near the tier of WR that Eli is for QB

Eli is fringe HoF. He might get the call.

Edelman isn't even close.

Was Edelman ever a top 10 players on any of those super bowl teams? He's literally a plug and replace guy

He was a fine player. But if we're giving someone credit simply for having a bunch of rings, he's Phil Simms or Jim McMahon, not Eli Manning. He's Troy Brown, not Hines Ward. He's LeGarrette Blount, not Terrell Davis

I continue to be baffled by this conversation

[lancerman]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

Edelman is nowhere near the tier of WR that Eli is for QB

Eli is fringe HoF. He might get the call.

Edelman isn't even close.

Was Edelman ever a top 10 players on any of those super bowl teams? He's literally a plug and replace guy

He was a fine player. But if we're giving someone credit simply for having a bunch of rings, he's Phil Simms or Jim McMahon, not Eli Manning. He's Troy Brown, not Hines Ward. He's LeGarrette Blount, not Terrell Davis

I continue to be baffled by this conversation

Eli is only fringe HOF because of his SB's. He wouldn't even be considered if he didn't have them. Edelman and Eli not being close on the HOF has more to do with positoonal value than how good they were relative to their peers. Eli was average for his era. Edelman was average for his era. Both from a pure player perspective. And yeah Edelman was definitly considered one of the top 10 on his team during his SB runs. 

If WR's were treated the same way QB's were for the HOF, then Edelman would 100% be a HOF'er. They just aren't because of positional value. But Eli was not a better QB than Edelman was a WR. Eli never led the league in a stat that wasn't interceptions and he retired with a .500 record, never sniffed an MVP vote or was close to an All Pro. He was an average to above average guy who had two great playoffs run and you can really argue he had only one statistically good one in 2011, and then in 2007 he had a few good moments while bolstered by a strong defense. 

And here's the difference between Simms, McMahon, Brown, and Blount and Edelman. Edelman is the second most productive playoff WR after Jerry Rice, Edelman is a SB MVP (something that he has in common with Ward, Eli and Davis that the other guys you mentioned lacked and one of only 7 WR's to get the SB MVP (which is moe imrpessive than a QB getting it as they are pretty much granted that award unless they have a notably bad game). Edelman has one of the most important and famous SB catches ever, and one a game winner in another SB. You are leaving a substantial amount about his legacy out to compare him to those players. Yeah it would be baffling if you didn't know that he's probably the most prolific playoff WR after Rice and has accolades in the post season that very few players at his position achieve and has some of the most important playoff moments ever that will be played over and over again for the next 30 years. In the playoffs when you break it down by stats, when you break it down by accolades, when you break it down by moments it's Rice then Edelman at the WR position in the playoffs. That's significant either way you slice it. 

Again nobody is saying he's better than Calvin. But the idea that Edelman didn't craft an important career in the context of the NFL is insane. You don't need to downplay it. There probably isn't a single football fan or casual fan that knows Calvin Johnson and not Julian Edelman. I doubt that in retirement their is a signfiicant difference in endorsement material either one could get based off their career. Both will have highlights played forever. The only difference is Calvin got in the HOF. Which is a massively fair point in his advantage. But tangibly to the average person Calvin's one of the greatest ever and Julian's one of the greatest big game players ever. 

[AFlaccoSeagulls]

On 4/17/2021 at 5:07 PM, TheGame316 said:

I'm amazed at how many people don't understand the premise of the question

It isn't who is the better player, or who would you rather have on your team

If you had to live in Johnson's shoes and experience all the losing, or live in Edelmans shoes and experience all the winning, which would you choose?

Take football out of it

Would you rather work a job you HATE for 200k/year, or a job you LOVE for 100k/year

I'd rather retire a sure-fire HOF while making boat loads more money than a guy who retires a nobody.

[GSUeagles14]

12 hours ago, lancerman said:

Well when you load it like that you can make the premise look ridiculous but you can frame it multiple ways. 

Would you rather be an all time great who retired early on bad terms with your team that prevented you from having any success on the biggest stages in your sport.. or would you rather be an above average guy who overachieved and had some of the most important moments in the sports history that guarantees you will be a Super Bowl hero of sorts for the rest of your life and got to retire on good terms with your franchise and region where you be celebrated as if you were one of the greatest era. 
 

Like I said in an earlier post. This is basically Dan Marino vs Eli Manning. An all time great who who for whatever reason never really got the post season success or moments his status deserved or an a over average guy who got all the storybook moments and had a picture perfect Disney like career that will earn him a place in history because it happened at the highest stage. 
 

As football fans, we understand Calvin was much better as a player. But for all intents and purposes both of them are about as well known and going forward Edelman will always be remembered and have SB highlights play forever and be associated with that while Calvin will still be an all time great 

Everyone understands Calvin is better player... but there’s a reason why Edelman got just as much press coverage when he retired. I don’t think that there’s any discernible difference in endorsement money the two can achieve in retirement either. 

Man, some people are working so hard, Id rather be the best. This is honestly just getting silly.  Whats next, comparing Dan Orlovskys career with Phillip Rivers? Sure, one was a 15 year starter, but the other has a very promising career at ESPN, sooooo..... its a toss up.

[lancerman]

7 minutes ago, GSUeagles14 said:

Man, some people are working so hard, Id rather be the best. This is honestly just getting silly.  Whats next, comparing Dan Orlovskys career with Phillip Rivers? Sure, one was a 15 year starter, but the other has a very promising career at ESPN, sooooo..... its a toss up.

No it’s just some people are being sensitive as to what the point of the thread is because the idea that an inferior player might have made our better is something beyond what they considered. 
 

Nobody would ever say Eli Manning is better as a QB than Dan Marino.... but Dan Marino for the rest of his life has been saddled with the “yeah he’s great... but he’s the guy that never got it done” while Eli is the SB hero of NYC  and will be lionized for ever and be remembered for his post heroics as long as the sport is relevant. That’s despite Dan Marino being one of the greatest players at his position ever. And I doubt Eli would trade careers or that NY fans would want Dan’s career and results over what they got in a lesser QB in Eli.

This isn’t a complicated thing. Being the better player doesn’t necessarily equal the better outcome. Calvin was better but he never had a showcase on a big stage and retired early on bad terms with his team and didn’t really have the fanfare befitting of a player of his caliber. Meanwhile Edelman’s the best playoff WR of his era and probably since the 80’s and will be remembered for some of the biggest plays and performances ever and despite being worse than Calvin got a picture perfect send off with his team and region lionizing him as a hero and his exploits being notable enough to gain widespread media attention when he retired and when you think of championships, Edelman had a bigger impact on that aspect of the game than any of his peers. That’s an interesting comparison.

Its not hard, the question isn’t who is the better player. It’s who had the better outcome. Would you rather be above average but have the Disney like SB career with all the flashy moments that will live in history or would you rather be the better player who wallowed around on a mediocre team that held you back and then retired early with whimper.

 

[GSUeagles14]

3 minutes ago, lancerman said:

No it’s just some people are being sensitive as to what the point of the thread is because the idea that an inferior player might have made our better is something beyond what they considered. 
 

Nobody would ever say Eli Manning is better as a QB than Dan Marino.... but Dan Marino for the rest of his life has been saddled with the “yeah he’s great... but he’s the guy that never got it done” while Eli is the SB hero of NYC  and will be lionized for ever and be remembered for his post heroics as long as the sport is relevant. That’s despite Dan Marino being one of the greatest players at his position ever. And I doubt Eli would trade careers or that NY fans would want Dan’s career and results over what they got in a lesser QB in Eli.

This isn’t a complicated thing. Being the better player doesn’t necessarily equal the better outcome. Calvin was better but he never had a showcase on a big stage and retired early on bad terms with his team and didn’t really have the fanfare befitting of a player of his caliber. Meanwhile Edelman’s the best playoff WR of his era and probably since the 80’s and will be remembered for some of the biggest plays and performances ever and despite being worse than Calvin got a picture perfect send off with his team and region lionizing him as a hero and his exploits being notable enough to gain widespread media attention when he retired and when you think of championships, Edelman had a bigger impact on that aspect of the game than any of his peers. That’s an interesting comparison.

Its not hard, the question isn’t who is the better player. It’s who had the better outcome. Would you rather be above average but have the Disney like SB career with all the flashy moments that will live in history or would you rather be the better player who wallowed around on a mediocre team that held you back and then retired early with whimper.

 

I already answered this, id rather be the best. Its a very easy answer. Not many athletes want to be just a guy on a really good team, which is mostly what Edelman was. And i care about his playoff performances as much as i do hines ward or deion branch or whatever right guard that made a couple really good blocks one game... which is not much. 

 

Theres a reason why this vote is so lopesided. The answer is obvious. But i am curious about the Orlovsky or Rivers thing in your eyes. Orlovsky certainly had a much easier job, work life balance was better almost certainly better and he parlayed it into a strong career at ESPN. Which do you prefer?