I'm not sure if anyone has drawn attention to it but an article was written by Josh Dhani on nfltouchdown.com about a week ago in which he made his case for why Manning's 2004 season was better than Brady's 2007 season. Although I agree with his stance, I feel that his case for Manning is biased and poorly constructed. This post isn't to stir up any endless Manning vs. Brady arguments. It's more intended to say that underdeveloped or down right inept arguments can strip away the significance and greatness of each player's performance. Each new record or each new accomplishment is somewhat weighted down by its predecessor. This is merely a fact of life, but it would be beneficial if fans and observers can understand and appreciate each milestone's place in and connection to history without distorting it.
Additionally, these poor arguments reflect negatively on each team's fan base. Rivalries are healthy and exciting. They bring another dimension to fanhood; however, it is important to remember than one fan's opinion does not represent the group as a whole. By no means do homerism and bias have to be eliminated but they should be regulated if an argument is intended to be objective and valid. My points are trite, but the more involved I get with message boards and blogs, the more I realize some people need to be reminded of a few things.
Please continue being fans and voicing your opinions while keeping this in mind.