Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

If Michael Jordan evolutionized the game, what are players like Kobe Bryant...

WhoRUSupposed2Be

By WhoRUSupposed2Be
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
BG, this is the biggest joke I've ever seen you post on this board....not just the big part but all of it.

See, the problem is now a days people toss out the word great or genius like they were lollipops. The term has been so watered down that great practically means nothing now. The flavor of the week is great. In my mind, you have to reach all the criteria to be a great in your field.

You have to do something better than anyone else can do.

You have to be at the top of your field for a long time.

You have to bring something to the field that hasn't really been brought before (lot of gray in this one).

You have to have dozens of heartstopping moments where your greatness was the catalyst to a nearly impossible success.

You have to be the best (win a championship... and probably more than one)

If you don't do all of those, then you are amongst the good... not the great. Despite what Tony, the Tiger says, "they can't all be great!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cyfar

cyfar

Posted
Posted
Man you gotta throw Starbury in there lololol

Oh you can't forget Fat Lever.

Seriously though, you'd have to wonder where the servicable guards of the 80s and 90s would fall in there though. The Tim Hardaways, Mark Jacksons and Alex Englishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigMike619

BigMike619

Posted
Posted
You mean as far as posting up?

nah man, he would turn around and back players all the way down.

Has anyone ever heard of Darryl Dawkins? IceMan?!

A guy that comes to my job was telling me about them.

george gervin?

dr dunk?

I actually owned this poster

438964603_65129cbffb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#98QBKiller

#98QBKiller

Posted
Posted
See, the problem is now a days people toss out the word great or genius like they were lollipops. The term has been so watered down that great practically means nothing now. The flavor of the week is great. In my mind, you have to reach all the criteria to be a great in your field.

You have to do something better than anyone else can do.

You have to be at the top of your field for a long time.

You have to bring something to the field that hasn't really been brought before (lot of gray in this one).

You have to have dozens of heartstopping moments where your greatness was the catalyst to a nearly impossible success.

You have to be the best (win a championship... and probably more than one)

If you don't do all of those, then you are amongst the good... not the great. Despite what Tony, the Tiger says, "they can't all be great!"

I know what you mean about the word being thrown around too much. But to say that Dan Marino and Patrick Ewing weren't great because they never got their rings takes away from what those athletes did in their time. They both fit nearly every one of your criteria listed above minus the championships. Can't do it all by yourself and that's what the situation is with LeBron right now (although that's another thread).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhoRUSupposed2Be

WhoRUSupposed2Be

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I know what you mean about the word being thrown around too much. But to say that Dan Marino and Patrick Ewing weren't great because they never got their rings takes away from what those athletes did in their time. They both fit nearly every one of your criteria listed above minus the championships. Can't do it all by yourself and that's what the situation is with LeBron right now (although that's another thread).

So, if we follow your logic then we would have to include Cris Carter (Minnesotta Vikings), Charles Barkley and many others because their achievements by numbers far exceeded their ultimate goal.

nah man, he would turn around and back players all the way down.

george gervin?

dr dunk?

I actually owned this poster

438964603_65129cbffb.jpg

Also, look at the range that some of these men had back then. They looked physically intimidating although not Dwight Howard imposing.

Mark Jackson had a way of setting up the defense to feed the rock to Ewing but the whole backing a man up signature move might be exaggerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
I know what you mean about the word being thrown around too much. But to say that Dan Marino and Patrick Ewing weren't great because they never got their rings takes away from what those athletes did in their time. They both fit nearly every one of your criteria listed above minus the championships. Can't do it all by yourself and that's what the situation is with LeBron right now (although that's another thread).

There's nothing wrong with being amongst the special and very good. Ewing and Marino were very good players. They weren't amongst the greats.

Now I'll admit it's pretty subjective and that your list of the "great" might have a thousand people in it whereas I might only have 15, but to me, the highest ranking... the great... the all time great... must include those who propeled everyone and themselves to their field's highest glory.

(mind you, if you talked to me tomorrow about this subject I'd probably have a different opinion. But I'm enjoying being extremist here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
#98QBKiller

#98QBKiller

Posted
Posted
So, if we follow your logic then we would have to include Cris Carter (Minnesotta Vikings), Charles Barkley and many others because their achievements by numbers far exceeded their ultimate goal.

I always hate the "If we follow your logic" arguments because they are inaccurate but just for the sake of debate, if we follow your logic (assuming you're of the opinion that you must have a championship to be great) then Trent Dilfer must be considered great because he completed the ultimate goal and propelled himself and his team to the "highest glory" as mentioned below.

There's nothing wrong with being amongst the special and very good. Ewing and Marino were very good players. They weren't amongst the greats.

Now I'll admit it's pretty subjective and that your list of the "great" might have a thousand people in it whereas I might only have 15, but to me, the highest ranking... the great... the all time great... must include those who propeled everyone and themselves to their field's highest glory.

(mind you, if you talked to me tomorrow about this subject I'd probably have a different opinion. But I'm enjoying being extremist here.)

So you're basically saying that you have multiple personality disorder and nothing you say can be trusted? :silly: Well we are on ExtremeSkins afterall.

No way my list of the "greats" in sports lists anywhere near 1000 or even 100 for that matter but I would be interested in polling a large group of sports historians/analysts/journalists about who the greats are in each category (sports and positions maybe?) to hear how many would include Marino or Ewing. If I were a betting man :paranoid: I'd wager that most of them would agree that both are to be included among the "greats."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted

When I was a kid, my dad was a schoolteacher and he moonlighted on weekends and in the summer at a men's clothing store. And he would bring me home all the promotional posters.

I had the Iceman poster, which will never be topped. I had a poster of Larry Bird actually sitting in a nest. I had Moses Malone dressed like Moses. I had Magic, Isiah, Mark Aquire, and Dr. J and another Larry Bird.

I was badass.

Darryl Dawkins kind of sucked. Picture Charles Barkley's physique today with the work ethic of Stephon Marbury and who had Dawkins. He had the potential to be an All Pro but never really seemed to give a damn. Great interview though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lombardi's_kid_brother

Lombardi's_kid_brother

Posted
Posted
There's nothing wrong with being amongst the special and very good. Ewing and Marino were very good players. They weren't amongst the greats.

Now I'll admit it's pretty subjective and that your list of the "great" might have a thousand people in it whereas I might only have 15, but to me, the highest ranking... the great... the all time great... must include those who propeled everyone and themselves to their field's highest glory.

(mind you, if you talked to me tomorrow about this subject I'd probably have a different opinion. But I'm enjoying being extremist here.)

So, it's Dan Marino's fault that his running backs and defense always sucked. He should have propelled them to greatness through...I dunno...his Pittsburgh charm or something.

I can sort of get behind this argument in basketball where one player can have a huge impact. But even then, you have the Iversons who never played with another All Star until he was in his 30s.

The people that make this argument in football and baseball are idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACW

ACW

Posted
Posted
I blame everything bad in basketball in the 90s and early 00s on those Knick teams.

They did to basketball what pantyhose did to finger-****ing.

:rotflmao:

BTW, FWIW I say Barkley IS, if not one of the greatest, pretty damn good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sticksboi05

Sticksboi05

Posted
Posted
There's nothing wrong with being amongst the special and very good. Ewing and Marino were very good players. They weren't amongst the greats.

Now I'll admit it's pretty subjective and that your list of the "great" might have a thousand people in it whereas I might only have 15, but to me, the highest ranking... the great... the all time great... must include those who propeled everyone and themselves to their field's highest glory.

(mind you, if you talked to me tomorrow about this subject I'd probably have a different opinion. But I'm enjoying being extremist here.)

When you are #1 all time in TDs and yards until Old Man Favre sells out just to get the records you are great. Stop with your nonsensical idea that rings = individual greatness. They put you up with the immortal but don't keep your from being great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhoRUSupposed2Be

WhoRUSupposed2Be

Posted
  • Author
Posted
you're right. they just nicknamed the rule "the mark jackson rule" because it was exaggerated.

come on man!!

What is so unique about the rule change that it isn't exaggerated.

He backed a point guard for a guaging 15 or more seconds down at a time. He was setting up the defense more like it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Jackson_(basketball)

Jackson is also notable for prompting an NBA rule change. In response to Jackson's penchant for backing down opposing point guards in the post for 15 or more seconds at a time, the league instituted the Five-second rule (basketball), sometimes referred to as the "Mark Jackson Rule," prohibiting an offensive player from dribbling with his back to the basket for more than 5 consecutive seconds when below the free throw line.

If we are making things the rule instead of the exception, why not make the same case for 3/ 5 second defensive violations to accomodate the perimeter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Burgold

Burgold

Posted
Posted
So' date=' it's Dan Marino's fault that his running backs and defense always sucked. He should have propelled them to greatness through...I dunno...his Pittsburgh charm or something.

The people that make this argument in football and baseball are idiots.[/quote']

Absolutely, how many times have we heard athletes talking about how watching Jerry Rice or Art Monk train inspired them and pushed them to be better than they were. If Marino was that great and his release was that super duper quick then there would be no one next to the line of scrimmage and his running backs would be all stars. How good was Roger Craig because he played next to Joe Montana? How much is Clinton Portis held back by the lack of a "great" passing game. Look at the first half of last year when the passing game worked versus the second

More, if Marino were truly great... opposing defenses would be so winded and offenses frustrated by always playing catch up and never being let on the field that they would have bowed to his greatness.

This is fun. I can see why some do it in political threads all the time... except I think they're wholly serious... whereas I'm 2/3 serious

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigMike619

BigMike619

Posted
Posted
What is so unique about the rule change that it isn't exaggerated.

He backed a point guard for a guaging 15 or more seconds down at a time. He was setting up the defense more like it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Jackson_(basketball)

If we are making things the rule instead of the exception, why not make the same case for 3/ 5 second defensive violations to accomodate the perimeter?

I dont get your point here. they changed the rule because of mark jackson and you just proved it. 15 out of 24 seconds is setting up the defense? for what, a nap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...