Ryan Clark Is A Dummy Vol. 1238150 - This Time He Claims Tom Brady and Peyton Manning Were NOT Generational Quarterbacks
There’s hot takes, and then there’s what Ryan Clark served up on ESPN’s First Take.
In a debate yesterday morning with Dan Orlovsky over whether Texas Longhorns quarterback Arch Manning deserves the label of “generational talent,” Clark casually dismissed two of the most accomplished quarterbacks in NFL history as mere mortals.
“I think John Elway was a generational talent. I think Patrick Mahomes is a generational talent,” Clark said. “I don’t think Tom Brady, I don’t think Drew Brees, I don’t think Peyton Manning are generational talents. I think Andrew Luck ended up being a generational talent, I don’t think there’s a ton of them out there.”
With that statementr, Clark didn’t simply move the goalposts, he picked them up, set them on fire, and launched them into space.
His refusal to classify Brady and Manning as “generational” is a masterclass in arbitrary definitions and rhetorical sleight of hand. The problem isn’t simply that his conclusion is wrong. It’s that his argument doesn’t survive even the most basic scrutiny of logic and consistency. But that's what happens when you let meaningless things like race dictate logic.
And, given Clark’s recent history of baffling proclamations, this is starting to feel like a pattern rather than a one-off slip.
For instance, Kenjac teed off in a Ryan Clark Is A Dummy blog Vol. 1238149 yesterday -
Clark’s entire premise hinges on the term “generational talent,” yet he never defines it. This leaves the debate flailing from the start. What exactly did he mean by that specific term?
This white knight on twitter seemed to think it was pretty clear, that Clark meant college QB prospects
Grok confirmed it -
But I'll still allow my spite to argue that without shared criteria, Clark’s claim has no anchor. Was he talking about pre-draft scouting hype here? Career achievements? Physical gifts? Leadership? By avoiding clarity, Clark gives himself an escape hatch while leaving his audience wondering what the fuck he was referring to.
A strong argument begins with a clear definition. Clark’s begins with smoke and mirrors. Per usual.
Consider the bizarre structure of Clark’s “exclusive” club. He includes Andrew Luck, a quarterback who, even his biggest fans would admit, never fully realized his potential. Yet he excludes Brady and Manning.
“Peyton was absolutely considered a generational talent in college. And if he had any ability to run, he would have been graded as high of a prospect as Elway and Luck were.”
At the same time, Clark claiming that Manning never qualified while admitting quarterbacks like Luck- whose career never reached Brady’s or Manning’s heights, do. This is like saying a band that never released a hit single is legendary, while dismissing The Beatles as “just another group.” It's bonkers.
If two players who transformed their position, redefined offensive football, and dominated their era don’t qualify, then the term “generational talent” has been rendered totally meaningless.
This isn’t Clark’s first trip into headline-grabbing absurdity. Just a week ago, he ignited another viral firestorm by declaring Chris Brown the greatest entertainer ever. Yes, greater than Michael Jackson.
Former NFL player and commentator Ryan Clark didn’t just praise Brown’s skillset. He went all-in, calling him “the greatest entertainer that's ever stepped on the stage” and dubbing him “the Michael Jackson of this era.”
Something I discussed in my rundown yesterday-
This tells us two things about what a moron Clark is-
Clark has an extreme tendency to elevate his personal takes to absolute truths without providing context or criteria.
his definition of greatness seems to change depending on what argument he wants to win.
If Clark can dethrone Michael Jackson- a universally acknowledged cultural icon, in favor of Chris Brown, it’s no wonder he’s comfortable dismissing Brady and Manning. The pattern isn’t analysis. It’s provocation for provocation’s sake.
Hot takes aren’t insight. They’re content disguised as argument. Which seems to be ESPNs mantra these days.
By never giving a clear definition, while dropping a bombshell claim, Clark ensures maximum outrage with minimal accountability. It’s sports debate theater, not intellectual rigor. (And yes, I fully see the irony in me blogging about this whole thing and putting a magnifying glass on both these instances.)
My brain hurts.
p.s. - props to Orlovsky for listening to this guy with a straight face