Andre Johnson in MMQB

by JimboTexan on Aug 9, 2010 2:23 PM CDT

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/peter_king/08/08/mmqb/index.html?eref=sihp

I saw in MMQB that Peter King picked Larry Fitzgerald over AJ as the receiver he'd most like to have on his imaginary team. The quarterback on that team is probably Brett Favre. He did so based partially on age (which I think is the only area where Fitzgerald has a legitimate advantage over AJ) but based the rest of his decision almost entirely on Fitzgerald's stellar playoff run two years ago. As you may know, AJ has not been to the playoffs, and therefore does not have a comparable body of work. Fitzgerald also never had Zoolander "throwing" to him.

I don't actually respect his opinion, but it still annoyed me. "Hey, this guy was really good in the playoffs and this other guy's never gotten a chance to play in the playoffs! Obviously, that first guy is better!" There's a word for this. In fact, an entire discipline to dedicated to explaining how wrong this is. The discipline is rhetoric, and the word is fallacy. I would heartily recommend that Mr. King consult this wikipedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy . I'd argue that Mr. King is engaging in generalization here, but honestly this argument is probably susceptible to several catergorizations.

Just for comparison's sake, when Andre was Fitzgerald's age at the time of his playoff run, the Texan's leading passer was Zoolander and their leading rusher was Ron Dayne. Instead of starting across from Anquan Boldin, AJ lined up with late-period Eric Moulds. The year was 2006, and while we were just stepping back from the ledge, the bottle of bleach was still firmly in hand. Even now I'd say it's still in the back of the fridge, just in case. So forgive Andre if he didn't make it to the super bowl and have a dazzling performance in the post season that year. I'm sure he would've loved to do that. Frankly, I think there's a point to be made of the fact that AJ still plays for us despite the fact that until recently, he's been the best player on one of the worst teams in football. We're lucky to have him. I think we're luckier than the Cardinals, but I'm no Peter King.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I summarize the conclusion thusly

Fuck PK.

/end rant

by grungedave on Aug 9, 2010 2:26 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

I may be blind, but where do you see this.

I agree grunde, Fuck him.

my argument that just reiterates what Jimbo said

Earl Campbell is the perfect combination of assmass and weightspeed. - Papabear

by Schlauton on Aug 9, 2010 4:51 PM CDT reply actions

ehhh

if you are being a non-homer, there is certainly a legitimate argument for LJ over AJ. There is the age thing. But there is also the TD thing, where LJ has a definite advantage over AJ. Yards is a wash, receptions is (slightly) for AJ, but not by much.

So, they are basically even statistically in the regular season, except LJ has more touchdowns. Add in LJ’s younger age, and his (if you are honest) his amazing playoff performance, and you can certainly see how an objective outsider would go with Larry Johnson. I wouldn’t, but its hardly that little bit is hardly the height of douchebaggery

by killtacular on Aug 10, 2010 10:46 PM CDT reply actions 1 recs

Rec'd.

For non-homerism.

Yes, as Texans fans we get to watch Andre Johnson’s brilliance every week, so we’re inclined to think he’s the best in the game. But while Peter King might be a bit of a douche, most of the numbers tend to support his claim. Fitz has put up numbers equal to or better than Johnson’s over the course of his career, and his team has had more success. Andre dealt with Zoolander, but Fitz had to deal with the likes of Josh McCown and Matt Leinart.

Let’s just be happy that we have one of the best receivers in the game and leave it at that.

by Nashmeister on Aug 10, 2010 10:56 PM CDT up reply actions

I think there's a very valid argument to make about Fitzgerald being better than Dre

And I for one would love it if someone made an argument along the lines of what killtacular said. But that’s not what PK said. He said that Fitzgerald is better because he had a good playoff run two years ago.

I’d say that’s somewhat of a non sequitur.

I'll eliminate you like I eliminate gluten from my diet.

by tehGrindCrusher on Aug 11, 2010 12:39 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

Re: non sequitur

I think it’s more like a comment that, because of its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing.

Wikipedia FTW!

"I like watching the old naked couple on public access...until the guy stands up, then it sux." ~ BFD

by LoneSpot on Aug 11, 2010 2:32 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs

See

but that isn’t really that true. Here is PK’s quote:

“I like Johnson; who wouldn’t? But Fitzgerald is two years younger. He has already had the best playoff season (arguably) by a receiver ever, two years ago. And he’s been a more prolific scorer. Give me Fitzgerald.”

So, he points out Fitzgeralds age, Fitzgeralds better TD numbers, and Fitzgeralds (admittedly) amazing post-season two years ago. Say what you like, but that isn’t saying he is better just because of the playoff run.

by killtacular on Aug 12, 2010 2:55 AM CDT up reply actions