Quote:
Originally Posted by wilsowilso
Oh don't worry. I knew great quarterbacks win in the postseason had no merit with you. 1) Yes winning championships is vital to my argument.
2) Winning champioships is the ultimate goal in sports. True or not. If it is the most important thing there is and I use it as an argument does that make me wrong?
|
Okay, I will give you this. Winning championships are the ultimate goal in sports. I agree. Brady has accomplished this three times, which is a great career, and he's still playing.
Now. Let's expound on this idea. If the ultimate goal is to win championships, as a team, then can we conclusively say that the quarterback who is on the team who wins the most championships is conclusively the best?
If the goal in the world of business is to make money, and the C.E.O. has the most critical role in making money for his business, then can it be said (absolutely conclusively) that whichever company is the most profitable has the best C.E.O.?
Why not? Because the C.E.O. is not directly responsible for many of the things that go into great business. Maybe he had great advisors, or a great business plan he stole (videotaped? too soon?) from another unit. Or maybe it was just the circumstance of the situation and he was simply in a really, really favorable market.
You don't know. Therefore, you can not conclusively say that the best C.E.O. in the world is the one who has the most profitable company. You can't say "there are millions of factors that go into determining profitability, but the only one that counts is who our C.E.O. is."
And you can not say that Brady is the best QB in the NFL simply because his team accomplished the ultimate goal. You can use it in your argument, but by itself is simply a terrible application of cause and effect. To my knowledge, that IS your argument, as you haven't bothered to dig any deeper.
I don't know who the C.E.O. of Google is, but I can only assume that he is the best executive officer in business? Does this make sense?