DCMONEY Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 We all compare players at different times. I for one tend to look at just a person's body of work period. When we use Champsionships as part of the equation in team sports to me, it seems silly. I mean if a player goes out and plays his guts out in any sport and his team is bad, what can he do? He may put up monster #'s but wil get robbed of his just due. An average player like say John Sally in the NBA has several Championship rings and he was average at best. I mean a player is what he is. If we we're talking about bowling, boxing, tennis, golf etc, where you control your own destiny, I could see the championship criteria being used. Me and some friends debated Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith. The 1st thing someone says is how many rings does Emmitt have? WTF does that have to do with anything? Is Mark Rypien or Tom Brady better than Dan Marino because the have rings? Its a flawed criteria yet people use it all the time. Bottom line to me is that in team sports we can't control our own destiny because its a team sport. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsngibbs4life Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The only people that you can use championships to compare are coaches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talk show host Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The only people that you can use championships to compare are coaches... Absolutely. No one player makes the difference in whether a team will or will not make, and win, the superbowl. Players do have an impact, though. For example, last year pretty much proved that the eagles are crap without McNabb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The only people that you can use championships to compare are coaches... Bingo. Championships for players only matter when considering the Hall, which is still stupid as Marino has none yet is in there/a lock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langford78 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The only people that you can use championships to compare are coaches... I agree. I think football is more of a team sport than many of the other "mainstream sports". So I think championships are a better measure of coaches and how good a team is over a period of time. (Patriots a couple of years ago, the Steelers in the 70s, etc) :dallasuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 So what do you use to compare a player? Stats? Those can be biased as well. If the team is doing well, and Hines Ward isn't catchin a lot of balls and getting over 1000 yards does that mean he's not as good as Moss last year who caught ..89? passes for over 1400 yards? Then again you could take a player like Boldin (WR cards) and say he plays on a crap team but still manages to catch a lot of passes... Tough call. I agree with you though, you can't use Championships! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SloppyOneXXVI Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 Bingo. Championships for players only matter when considering the Hall, which is still stupid as Marino has none yet is in there/a lock. I agree with everyone else on the field but quarterback. Yes, Marino is the best QB to never get a ring. But riddle me this...... Out of the three great QB's of the 80's (Montana, Elway, and Marino) which one would you want??? Marino has all the superior stats in every category, but I would rank them Montana, Elway, Marino. Montana and Elway took over playoff games on a regular basis. Marino never pulled that off. Therefore, I think championships do matter for quarterbacks. The same arguement goes for Brady and Manning now. Sure Manning is a superior passer, but Brady has taken over, and won crucial games in his career. Marino didn't do that, neither has Manning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaliforniaSkin Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I agree that championships are often _way_ overrated but I don't know if they should be discounted entirely. I suppose a better way to look at it is how did the player perform in their biggest games. Montana might be the best QB of all time, if so it's largely because of how he played when the pressure was on. Right now, by the numbers, Peyton is the best QB. But in the playoffs I'm not at all sure that I wouldn't rather have Brady behind center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllAboutSkins08 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 definitely agree. a team is only as good as the team. although a player can bring a team up and improve them, they can't take them to the championship by themselves. rings don't matter when grading a player. stats and in-game effectiveness do matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz89 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 The only people that you can use championships to compare are coaches... True, thats the only thing that you can use championships to compare people Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FBChick Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I agree that championships are often _way_ overrated but I don't know if they should be discounted entirely. I suppose a better way to look at it is how did the player perform in their biggest games. Montana might be the best QB of all time, if so it's largely because of how he played when the pressure was on.Right now, by the numbers, Peyton is the best QB. But in the playoffs I'm not at all sure that I wouldn't rather have Brady behind center. I agree... there's comparing apples to oranges where championships don't matter at all. Emmitt Smith and Barry Saunders fit that category. Emmitt was a very good running back with a long and lustrious career. Yes he has rings, but he played on a team stacked with players. Barry Saunders was just something to watch. He played on (for the most part) a piss poor team, with virtually no support at all and just shone! There is no way Emmitt Smith could have done what Barry did on that Lions team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeownU Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 This is a good topic. One that I always debated with freinds. I've always said it was ridiculous to compare championships from player to player, in any sport. Dan Marino.......0 championships Trent Dilfer.......1 championship Who's the better QB? Look at how many guys have rings because they were on the same team as Micheal Jordan. It doesn't mean anything when comparing players It takes a team to win a championship, no single player is so good that they can win a championship by themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I agree with everyone else on the field but quarterback. Yes, Marino is the best QB to never get a ring. But riddle me this...... Out of the three great QB's of the 80's (Montana, Elway, and Marino) which one would you want??? Marino has all the superior stats in every category, but I would rank them Montana, Elway, Marino. Montana and Elway took over playoff games on a regular basis. Marino never pulled that off. Therefore, I think championships do matter for quarterbacks. The same arguement goes for Brady and Manning now. Sure Manning is a superior passer, but Brady has taken over, and won crucial games in his career. Marino didn't do that, neither has Manning. You have a great point, but also keep in mind that there have been very, very few quarterbacks who have won a Super Bowl. I mean Aikman and Brady have won a seventh of them combined, you know? There are also "lucky" quarterbacks that have won the Super Bowl, i.e. Dilfer. Montana, Brady, and Elway had superior teams to Marino, too. Marino's teams never had a running game and he STILL had the best numbers ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted May 23, 2006 Author Share Posted May 23, 2006 I agree with everyone else on the field but quarterback. Yes, Marino is the best QB to never get a ring. But riddle me this...... Out of the three great QB's of the 80's (Montana, Elway, and Marino) which one would you want??? Marino has all the superior stats in every category, but I would rank them Montana, Elway, Marino. Montana and Elway took over playoff games on a regular basis. Marino never pulled that off. Therefore, I think championships do matter for quarterbacks. The same arguement goes for Brady and Manning now. Sure Manning is a superior passer, but Brady has taken over, and won crucial games in his career. Marino didn't do that, neither has Manning. You pose a good question. I stand corrected but another thing that was impressive about Marino is that I don't think he ever had a 1000 yd back. Everyone knew the Dolphins had to put it up. A running game does sometimes make a team stay honest. I think I'd take Elway 1st. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I've always said it was ridiculous to compare championships from player to player, in any sport.Look at how many guys have rings because they were on the same team as Micheal Jordan. It doesn't mean anything when comparing players It takes a team to win a championship, no single player is so good that they can win a championship by themselves. I think it's a slippery slope when you start comparing sports. Michael Jordan was good enough to take over a game by himself. No, I agree he couldn't have won any championships alone, but put him on another team and I think he could have won championships with them as well. He really was just that good. :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeownU Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I think it's a slippery slope when you start comparing sports. Michael Jordan was good enough to take over a game by himself. No, I agree he couldn't have won any championships alone, but put him on another team and I think he could have won championships with them as well. He really was just that good. :notworthy You might be right. But the point was to show that joe shmoe backup had a few rings too so thats why I don't put much stock in "how many championships" someone has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoBob Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I think it's a slippery slope when you start comparing sports. Michael Jordan was good enough to take over a game by himself. No, I agree he couldn't have won any championships alone, but put him on another team and I think he could have won championships with them as well. He really was just that good. :notworthy I think this is the key point - Championships matter when you are comparing "the best of the best" in a given sport. I'm not talking about hall of fame level guys, but rather the top 2 or 3 players ever (Jordan, Magic, etc.). Of course this is much more pronounced in basketball than in football. So I probably agree with the previous posters that limited it to QB's in football. That is probably the only position capable of having enough impact.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewCliche21 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I think it's a slippery slope when you start comparing sports. Michael Jordan was good enough to take over a game by himself. No, I agree he couldn't have won any championships alone, but put him on another team and I think he could have won championships with them as well. He really was just that good. :notworthy Didn't Jordan try that with the Wizards and failed? Or do you just mean in his prime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santana_Fan Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 This is a good topic. One that I always debated with freinds. I've always said it was ridiculous to compare championships from player to player, in any sport.Dan Marino.......0 championships Trent Dilfer.......1 championship Who's the better QB? Look at how many guys have rings because they were on the same team as Micheal Jordan. It doesn't mean anything when comparing players It takes a team to win a championship, no single player is so good that they can win a championship by themselves. Great example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smalex41 Posted May 23, 2006 Share Posted May 23, 2006 I'm in agreement with you and I also harbor your thoughts. In a case of this nature, I believe that it is acceptable to consider the players individual stats and accomplishments to deem his/her status while par- ticipating in a "team sport". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 This is a good topic. One that I always debated with freinds. I've always said it was ridiculous to compare championships from player to player, in any sport.Dan Marino.......0 championships Trent Dilfer.......1 championship Who's the better QB? Look at how many guys have rings because they were on the same team as Micheal Jordan. It doesn't mean anything when comparing players It takes a team to win a championship, no single player is so good that they can win a championship by themselves. You're exactly right. People all the time though bring rings into the equation when debating individual players. Or they will bring up another team's record. Recently I made a remark that wow Kevin Garnett in the NBA didn't make 1st, 2nd, or 3rd team all NBA. I was like I find it hard to believe that 15 players had a better season than him. I guess because the T-wolves had a losing season he didn't get props. Thats ridiculous. His #'s were outstanding. The guy had an outstanding season across the board. I mean I always just judge someone on thier body of work when it comes to team sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thirtyfive2seven Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Didn't Jordan try that with the Wizards and failed? Or do you just mean in his prime? Yah, I guess you could say that he tried that in Washington and failed, but you could also look at it as he revitalized a dead organization. Pre-Jordan the Wiz were just gawd-awful. They had one decent season back when they had Strickland, Juwan Howard, Chirs Webber, et all and went to the playoffs but after that there was nothing. Jordan came back and the Wizards didn't exactly become a force in the NBA however he really did jump start the fans with excitement and got the team on the right track. But in my example I was talking about Jordan in his prime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 Barry Sanders. As far as I know never got super close to a championship, yet id easily put him as the best RB ever. I know some people will disagree, but man, to watch him run... wow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrimReefa Posted May 24, 2006 Share Posted May 24, 2006 It's much easier to compare players in basketball, baseball, and hockey than football because the stats are much more meaningful in those sports. In football, stats can be misleading, and how good one player's stats are depends a lot on what team he is playing for. Ultimately, there is no foolproof way to compare the effectiveness of various players. So my rule of thumb is, use whatever arguement that makes the Redskin look the best... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCMONEY Posted May 24, 2006 Author Share Posted May 24, 2006 Barry Sanders. As far as I know never got super close to a championship, yet id easily put him as the best RB ever. I know some people will disagree, but man, to watch him run... wow I agree with you. Cowbum fans will always shoot back about Emmitt's rings. My reasoning being Barry Sanders played the majority of his career without TE's and FB's. Gale Sayers once said if Barry had played with a FB and TE during his tenure the question wouldn't be could he(Barry) gain 2000 yds it would be how many times could he do it. Well the next season Bobby Ross(Terps old coach) tok over in Detroit. He had the standard FB,RB, TE, and 2 WR sets in his offense. Barry that season gained 2000. yds. Also I stand corrected but I can't recall a RB ever gaining 1500 yds playing in the run and shoot offense but Barry. I think Mike Rozier got 1000yds once. Its not easy. I used to laugh when people would say Barry couldn't run north south. Hell most of his career had to run to daylight in the particular offense they ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.