NoCalMike Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I think also something that has to be considered is how different teams are constructed and why they are built a certain way. No matter how it is achieved, winning a championship is something special, from the superstar down to the minimal role player. Everyone usually plays some kind of part on the team, whether they are a weapon on offense, a shut down defender, or someone who's hustle makes the difference in crunch time in various ways. It is hard to lock down a specific "blue print" of a championship team because where one team succeeds, other team will try to replicate and fail miserably. The shelf life of championship teams are also not very long because whatever formula they came up with is studied and dissected and analyzed in order to break it the following season. One of the biggest frustrations of the early-mid Snyder era years of the 'Skins was the line of thinking that you could sign players who excelled in certain systems and just decide "now that you are here, you are going to have to things this way, stuff you never good at elsewhere" Jeremiah Trotter comes to mind. He was a beast as an Eagle because of his role, and what he lacked, they had the other LBers do. We sign him, and suddenly except him to excel in other areas that he never did before. It was baffling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 For the record, I think it's very difficult to compare players from different eras and different types of players at different positions at that, especially in the NBA and NFL. So many changes and developments that make it really hard to compare. Rule changes or rules that didn't exist back then, the way they called the games and let players just play, more physical, player safety, athletes evolving (bigger, taller, stronger), improved medicine/science that lengthen careers, improved training equipment, rehab, etc. etc. etc. There is always gonna be a GOAT discussion. Someone was the GOAT before MJ (strong arguments for Wilt and Russel, Kareem, Oscar - depending on who you ask) someone is going to be in the discussion after he left (LBJ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chew Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Can't tell you how annoying the Eagles fans are in some of my facebook NFL groups. We may be without a Lombardi, but we've been owning the east since 2000! This is our division! Chip is a genius! Lombardiless butthole suckers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 I'll put it out there that Jordan elevated the players on that team and got them playing to a hire standard. Pippen may have been a journeyman type had he not played with Jordan all those years. Same with Cukoc, Cartwright, Kerr, BJ Armstrong etc. Rodman was legit. Horace and Harvey Grant—one played for the bulls and another played for the bullets. Harvey was more of a go to for the Bullets but never really was a respected player in the league. Without Rodman, I'll put it out there that the Utah Jazz beat the Jordan led Bulls in 5 games To me, Rodman is the most dominating player I saw play in that era... And 4 points was a great game for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Without Rodman, I'll put it out there that the Utah Jazz beat the Jordan led Bulls in 5 games To me, Rodman is the most dominating player I saw play in that era... And 4 points was a great game for him. He was the best rebounder and defensive player I've ever seen play, imo. Especially not to be a center and to do it for so long. Also, a lot of people forget that he could score too. He prided himself on defense and rebounding the ball. I know one season with the Pistons he averaged over 11 ppg. Also, there would be those games where he would put up 20-30 points. Not a lot of them, but he could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 He was the best rebounder and defensive player I've ever seen play, imo. Especially not to be a center and to do it for so long. Also, a lot of people forget that he could score too. He prided himself on defense and rebounding the ball. I know one season with the Pistons he averaged over 11 ppg. Also, there would be those games where he would put up 20-30 points. Not a lot of them, but he could do it. He could take out the other teams best player. I mean take them out completely, never saw anything like it Think about what that would mean if the Warriors had Rodman in his prime right now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 He could take out the other teams best player. I mean take them out completely, never saw anything like it Think about what that would mean if the Warriors had Rodman in his prime right now It would mean that their floor spacing would be a wreck probably, but they could put him on Lebron and probably have him be effective. Where Rodman would fit in today's game is an interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 It would mean that their floor spacing would be a wreck probably, but they could put him on Lebron and probably have him be effective. Where Rodman would fit in today's game is an interesting question. The game adjusts to great players, not the other way around. The reason we have a perimeter oriented game is because the talent is currently deepest there. If Duncan was 19 no one would be demanding he learn to stand in the corner and shoot threes. He'd dominate taking mid range off the glass shots and getting to the rim in one step the moment his defender tried to step out and stop him. If he were on the Warriors no one would be talking about Thompson getting so many offensive rebounds and the Cavs would be down 3-1 (or it would be over). They could play him at PF in this series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DM72 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course championships matter. Being a the very best in the entire world has to mean something. Now is Will Purdue a better player than Charles Barkley? Of course not. That's silly. But when you're considered an all-time great, rings matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Using championships to compare individuals on team sports is silly, but no championships are not overrated. With that said, the best regular season teams often don't win the championship. There is a big difference between being the best over the course of 16/82/162 games and being the best over the course of 3-4 1/5/7 game series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Patriots were that best team that season...whether they cheated or not. Giants just happened to have the confidence and game plan to throw them off for a game. I'm saying if they played a best of five...Giants only win one. Does it diminish Brady or the Patriots?, NOPE, not even a little bit. I was listening to a radio show earlier and a caller made a great point...LeBron had a great roster and young talent...He wanted Mike Miller, James Jones, and Kevin Love. He kind of put himself in this position. Not to say they wouldn't have injuries...but the potential and upside is significantly better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONTHEWARPATH93 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Rings should be used like extracurriculars are used by colleges to determine admission. Not the biggest factor like grades and test scores but as something that can get someone "over the hump" so to speak That's my opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I think also something that has to be considered is how different teams are constructed and why they are built a certain way. No matter how it is achieved, winning a championship is something special, from the superstar down to the minimal role player. Everyone usually plays some kind of part on the team, whether they are a weapon on offense, a shut down defender, or someone who's hustle makes the difference in crunch time in various ways. It is hard to lock down a specific "blue print" of a championship team because where one team succeeds, other team will try to replicate and fail miserably. The shelf life of championship teams are also not very long because whatever formula they came up with is studied and dissected and analyzed in order to break it the following season. One of the biggest frustrations of the early-mid Snyder era years of the 'Skins was the line of thinking that you could sign players who excelled in certain systems and just decide "now that you are here, you are going to have to things this way, stuff you never good at elsewhere" Jeremiah Trotter comes to mind. He was a beast as an Eagle because of his role, and what he lacked, they had the other LBers do. We sign him, and suddenly except him to excel in other areas that he never did before. It was baffling. I don't think there is a specific formula either, in any sport really. With the exception of the NBA, the goal should be to just make the playoffs consistently year in and year out, and hope that one year the balls bounce your way and the stars align and you can go all the way. The teams that win are typically the teams that are there all the time so they get more chances. The NBA is the one league where there is little to no parody in the playoffs. Typically the teams in the Finals are the two best or two of the three or four best teams in the league. You actively need to try to build a top 3 roster to try to win a title in the NBA, while in the other sports you just want a team that can sustain success year in and year out and give yourself more chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Yes - absolutely! I watch the games to be entertained. Vince Mcmahon had it absolutely correct when he coined the phrase "Sports Entertainment" for wrestling (not sure if he did it but I attribute that to the WWF/WWE). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 In terms of evaluating a player, worrying about the out come of a few specific games for people that play in hundreds of games makes no sense. As a fan watching and rooting for a team, there is nothing more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ixcuincle Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 if championships are overrated why is DC so hungry for one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Does anyone think the Grizzly would have beat the Cavs ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 On winning championships ... Completely overrated in every sport except basketball where one player means so much. If Marino is drafted to San Francisco, the best QB ever discussion is irrelevant. Then why isn't Bill Russell considered the GOAT? He has the most rings. Same with Yogi Berra. Charles Haley. If rings really did matter, then why aren't the guys with the most the GOATs for their sport? Because Bill Russell played with a zillion Hall of Famers in an era with a handful of teams where more talented players were at Rucker Park in NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 Well I guess you can pose the scenario like this. The Eagles vs. The Rest of the NFC East. The Eagles for the most part, since the McNabb era have probably been the most consistent team in the NFC East. They have won the division a bunch, playoff appearances, Superbowl berth. They have been pretty dominant against the NFC East opponents in that era too. However the one thing that has eluded them is an actual title. Contrast that with the NYG who have won 2 superbowls, but outside of those two seasons they have often been bad. If the Eagles had been able to come away with at least 1 championship, then I think it changes the conversation about their run. What is more important in the sports world? To go all the way or to at least be in the conversation year in and year out? To me it is a close call. Championships provide nice looking jewelry but they are also quickly yesterday's news once the the following season begins. Of course fan bases are proud of their team winning it all, but there is also something I would say equally impressive about a franchise that manages to be competitive and "in the hunt" year in and year out. So many factors and coincidences go into winning the championship. Especially in today's NFL where you don't have the kind of dominant teams that just blow the rest of the league away. In the modern NFL the line between mediocre-decent-good-great-champion is more thin then ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 13, 2015 Share Posted June 13, 2015 I'd rather be the Giants. Division titles don't mean ****. Talk about yesterday's news. The Giants win in Superbowl 42 is talked about every year still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 On winning championships ... Completely overrated in every sport except basketball where one player means so much. If Marino is drafted to San Francisco, the best QB ever discussion is irrelevant. Considering Marino was drafted 4 years after Montana...not a likely scenario to begin with. I disagree about one player thing in the NBA also...2 players minimum and a good coach is the minimum, mediocre coach...you need 3 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redskin4ever Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 If championships are overrated, why even play. You want to be the team that wins the last game. It's why you play the game, to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 14, 2015 Share Posted June 14, 2015 If championships are overrated, why even play. You want to be the team that wins the last game. It's why you play the game, to win. How would he know ? He never won while with the Eagles...or as a coach (at any level). Maybe in pee-wee or HS... I don't think so though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 15, 2015 Share Posted June 15, 2015 Considering Marino was drafted 4 years after Montana...not a likely scenario to begin with. I disagree about one player thing in the NBA also...2 players minimum and a good coach is the minimum, mediocre coach...you need 3 players. Irrelevant. The point was if you are drafted into a great organization, you have a better chance to win. You cannot control where you are drafted unless you go Eric Lindros. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosher Ham Posted June 16, 2015 Share Posted June 16, 2015 Not really. San Fran was merely a decent organization before Montana drafted by DeBartolo as a new owner and Walsh as a new HC. Several players have denied and control where they go. In pretty much all sports. Manning, Elway, Kobe, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.