People loved to pick on LBJ before he won

because a. you can get hits b. in this results oriented world, you can always inteprete not ideal situation/results to your favor.

As for P. Manning, the same story goes on and on, "because he's so good, winning it all just once is unacceptabel; therefore, he's a choker". 

There is never hands-down winner in arguing greatest ever, but as one of the greatest, you can never get there being a complete choker. 

This kind of leftover meal "opinion piece" gets tiring, coz it doesn't offer anything new or useful. The game is not a square-off boxing game, but rather played by 2 teams. If you rate TB's "clutchness" at 9.5, maybe PM is at 9.0, what's the big deal?