how much do championships determine how great a player is?

[Doug]

discuss.

consider, the greatest baseball player of our generation has none.

the "greatest quarterback" of our generation has none.

do you think more highly of joe crede and preston wilson because they have world series rings? what about kevin millar? or carl pavano for that matter.

is it more important in some sports (basketball) than others (baseball)?

it is generally looked down upon for players like ted williams, barry bonds and dan marino because they've never won chamionships. but how does this downplay their achievment as players? they're some of the greatest players in the history of their respective sports, does the fact that they have never won the "big one" make them any worse?

also consider, who are the real icons of sports?

michael jordan, babe ruth, football has no true icon, but joe montana would come pretty close.

in boston, larry bird and bill russell seem to get more praise than ted williams. david ortiz and tom brady are more iconic than paul pierce, though statistics might show that pierce is a more productive player than ortiz or brady in their sports.

what are your thoughts?

how much should championships determine how great a player is? and how much do they determine that?


i feel like i'm asking everyone to write a history essay. so i demand all answers are in a 5 paragraph essay format.

[FondestMemory]

depends on the sport, mostly, but i say no.

it's easier to hold it against basketball players. there are only five players on a given team on the floor at a time, making it much much easier for one player to take control of a game, series or season. it's not impossible for a great player with a bunch of role players to make a run all the way through and win it all.

football though is a completely different animal when it comes to that. the running back is only as good as his o-line. the qb is only as good as his wrs. the linebackers are only as good as the d-line. it's the ultimate team sport. there is no individual success on the football field, making it impossible for one player to determine the outcome. which would help explain the no iconic figure. take tom brady's defense away, he may have zero rings. take rice, craig and taylor away from montana and he may have zero rings.

championships are an easy way out when comparing players, but not a solid way of doing it. the easier way to look at it is to see their performance on the highest level. truly great players should be able to at least give their team a chance to win it all, even if they can't win it all themselves. like john elway. if he doesn't win those two super bowls his last two years, is he still a great player? absolutely. he had his team in position four previous times. marino made it with a team of nobodys, using no super bowls is an unfair knock on him.

it's a different story if a player shits the bed every postseason. if you're great enough to be considered a great player through the season where people are giving you a chance of realistically winning it, then you don't perform when it matters most, then maybe that greatness needs to be questioned.

so in short, winning championships isn't as good of a measure as how did that player perform when given the chance at winning a championship.

[mat1419]

short answer, i think it does to a point. trent dilfer has a ring...was he great? no, he was part of a system. but if you can tie a qb's effectiveness to the success of the team, brady, montana etc, then it puts them on another level.

a qb with no rings can still be great, but there will always be doubt as to whether or not they were able to lead the team as well as the other guys, and rightfully so.

[preppyak]

short answer, i think it does to a point. trent dilfer has a ring...was he great? no, he was part of a system. but if you can tie a qb's effectiveness to the success of the team, brady, montana etc, then it puts them on another level.

a qb with no rings can still be great, but there will always be doubt as to whether or not they were able to lead the team as well as the other guys, and rightfully so.
True...and I value a QB with a ring over a QB of equal talent without the ring.

For example, in any Elway/Montana/Marino argument, Marino can't come first since he didn't win the big one, while the ohters won multiple.

[xbrokendownx]

i disagree that marino cant come first in the best QB debate, but its definitely really close

[mht]

paul pierce is not better than tom brady, if he was, celtics would have won an nba championship already. its easier to lead 4 guys on the court than 10 on the field.


oh and the nfl has plenty if icons in my book, i dont know how you can say they have zero.

[Doug]

paul pierce is not better than tom brady, if he was, celtics would have won an nba championship already. its easier to lead 4 guys on the court than 10 on the field.


oh and the nfl has plenty if icons in my book, i dont know how you can say they have zero.

it's easy to lead 4 guys to championship when you have 4 other or even 2 other good players on your team.

my point was that they don't have THE icon like ruth, jordan, gretzky.

[Doug]

if paul pierce had played with shaq, he would have three nba championships.

i'm just throwing that out there.

take it or leave it.

[mikeford]

ultimately, i feel like if youre a winner, you will win. if your team is not putting you in a place to win, you will leave and find a place that WILL put you in a place to win (hello rodney harrison...).

[the_champ_is_here]

Dan Marino is not the greatest QB of our Generation


Coy Detmer bitches

[xbrokendownx]

Dan Marino is not the greatest QB of our Generation


Coy Detmer bitches







next time you make an attempt at humor, you might wanna try spelling the dudes name right...

[Spicoli hey bud]

It all depends...

Certain guys are great regardless of championships...AKA DAN MARINO

Certain guys are great because of championships...AKA TOM BRADY

don't get me wrong, brady is a great quarterback, but his respect level would not be nearly what it is now if the guy never won.

[mikeford]

all brady does is win games so that statement is pointless. if he didnt win anything, he'd suck and be a loser.

if he lost all 3 superbowls cuz adam v shanked the field goals, i think he'd still be in the coversation for best QB in the league. people would definitely give peyton the edge but he'd still be top 5.

[Spicoli hey bud]

kind of like big ben, although he did win 1 already.

[dont you move]

ultimately, i feel like if youre a winner, you will win. if your team is not putting you in a place to win, you will leave and find a place that WILL put you in a place to win (hello rodney harrison...).

isn't that the reason you said you hated ray borque?

[Spicoli hey bud]

but yea, mike, that's the point..like i said.

Certain guys are great regardless of championships...AKA DAN MARINO

Certain guys are great because of championships...AKA TOM BRADY

the argument will always be there as to whether brady would be good without those wins, but i agree with you, although not to that extreme of a level. He'd be average. If a guy like Jake Delhomme won championships people would be all over him too, but since he didn't he's average, not a loser.

[mikeford]

isn't that the reason you said you hated ray borque?
he said he would never leave boston.

he is a liar.

thats why i hate ray bourque.

[dont you move]

he said he would never leave boston.

he is a liar.

thats why i hate ray bourque.

alright i missed that part.

[Chris Fallon]

short answer, i think it does to a point. trent dilfer has a ring...was he great? no, he was part of a system. but if you can tie a qb's effectiveness to the success of the team, brady, montana etc, then it puts them on another level.

a qb with no rings can still be great, but there will always be doubt as to whether or not they were able to lead the team as well as the other guys, and rightfully so.

You said it best.

[Broken Parachute]

It's different in the NBA. That's the ultimate team sport. Look at the 90's Bulls teams and those 80's Celtics teams. The entire team was made of great players and thye just happened to have guys like Bird and Jordan, the greatest players ever.

In the NFL it's tough, I dunno.

In the MLB l I think it's all about personal play. Look at Carlos Zambrano. Easily one of the best pitchers in the NL, Top 5, yet his team is absolute GARBAGE..worst in the NL, yet he won 16 games. Guys like that who a lot of times won't win a title but have great stats can be compared to some of the greats.

In the NHL, Stanley Cups are pretty important. Look at the greatest players: Lemieux, Messier, Gretzky, Howe, Yzerman, Coffey, Kurri, Borque, etc. What do they all have? Stanley Cups. Ray Borque got his in his last year playing (22 years playing ahahaha lucky bitch). Then look at the players still active who have cups: Jagr, Sakic, Federov, Recchi, Shanahan, etc. All future Hall of Famers, all have cups.

[Scott Weber]

It's different in the NBA. That's the ultimate team sport. Look at the 90's Bulls teams and those 80's Celtics teams. The entire team was made of great players and thye just happened to have guys like Bird and Jordan, the greatest players ever.

In the NFL it's tough, I dunno.

In the MLB l I think it's all about personal play. Look at Carlos Zambrano. Easily one of the best pitchers in the NL, Top 5, yet his team is absolute GARBAGE..worst in the NL, yet he won 16 games. Guys like that who a lot of times won't win a title but have great stats can be compared to some of the greats.

In the NHL, Stanley Cups are pretty important. Look at the greatest players: Lemieux, Messier, Gretzky, Howe, Yzerman, Coffey, Kurri, Borque, etc. What do they all have? Stanley Cups. Ray Borque got his in his last year playing (22 years playing ahahaha lucky bitch). Then look at the players still active who have cups: Jagr, Sakic, Federov, Recchi, Shanahan, etc. All future Hall of Famers, all have cups.
I disagree. Football is far more of a team sport than basketball is. It takes 22 to win football games, and it takes 5 to win in basketball. You have position players that only do specific things. Block. Throw. Defend. An o-line opens up holes for the RB. Wrs catch balls and block downfield. It goes on and on...

[Broken Parachute]

I disagree. Football is far more of a team sport than basketball is. It takes 22 to win football games, and it takes 5 to win in basketball. You have position players that only do specific things. Block. Throw. Defend. An o-line opens up holes for the RB. Wrs catch balls and block downfield. It goes on and on...
Well yeah, I'm just saying the NBA is a teap sport too. I know the NFL is more of a team sport though. I forgot the NFL and went to add them in, and I just didn't feel like typing. Honestly, I think offenseive lineman are vastly underappreciated. They have the most important jobs I think, it takes alot of skill to play football.

[FondestMemory]

Well yeah, I'm just saying the NBA is a teap sport too. I know the NFL is more of a team sport though. I forgot the NFL and went to add them in, and I just didn't feel like typing. Honestly, I think offenseive lineman are vastly underappreciated. They have the most important jobs I think, it takes alot of skill to play football.

of course basketball is a team sport too. but of the team sports, it's the easiest for one player to almost take complete control of a game.

[Doug]

if you have one amazing player and even one really good player or two good players in basketball, you can win an nba championship.

[mikeford]

Borque, etc. What do they all have? Stanley Cups. Ray Borque got his in his last year playing (22 years playing ahahaha lucky bitch).

LUCK?
YOU THINK THAT WAS LUCK?

OWEgfiualsdrhkfaweirugeruehrlaiwuge hewr

im gonna have a fucking anyeurism.

[Broken Parachute]

LUCK?
YOU THINK THAT WAS LUCK?

OWEgfiualsdrhkfaweirugeruehrlaiwuge hewr

im gonna have a fucking anyeurism.
Ummm....it was a joke...

I find it funny that the best defenseman ever got his only Stanley Cup in his last season..

[hockey0001]

paul pierce is not better than tom brady, if he was, celtics would have won an nba championship already. its easier to lead 4 guys on the court than 10 on the field.


oh and the nfl has plenty if icons in my book, i dont know how you can say they have zero.

I think that out of the major sports, championships matter the least. Football is the only sport where you only effect one side of the ball, offense or defense. Winning one superbowl can be considered a fluke but wont really help your legacy (ex. trent dilfer), but once you win multiple it helps suport your legacy (ex. tom brady).

In all other sports, i think that championships can be used to debate who is the better player since they have an impact on both offense and defense (unless your a goalie).

[hockey0001]

Ummm....it was a joke...

I find it funny that the best defenseman ever got his only Stanley Cup in his last season..

well he had to deal with harry sinden and jeremy fucking jacobs not giving a shit about winning and have their focus on making money

[mikeford]

Ummm....it was a joke...

I find it funny that the best defenseman ever got his only Stanley Cup in his last season..

bobby orr got one in his 5th season, what are you talking about

[hockey0001]

bobby orr = greatest player ever. I dont give a shit what people say to convince me that Gretzky is (although they certainly do have a legit case)

[xbrokendownx]

ray bourque is not the best defenseman ever



lets not get into this again

[mikeford]

Lemieux 66 = G.O.A.T

[bigmike]

Ummm....it was a joke...

I find it funny that the best defenseman ever got his only Stanley Cup in his last season..
Yeah, he's definitely not the best defenseman ever. He wasn't even the best defenseman of his era.