71 replies to this topic

[SBTarheel]

Part 2 taping tomorrow night...

 

Can't wait to hear Rob's reaction when I announce Shane Battier as my #1

[mweb08]

 There is no doubt about that. I've said that for a long time and my perfect example is Brady.

 

 

He's 3 Vinateri FGs away from being 0-5 in Super Bowls. Whats his legacy if he's 0-5 in SBs right now???

 

On the other hand he's a dropped INT and miracle Tyree catch from completing the only 19-0 football season and a 4th ring. Then as icing on the cake a 5th ring was a few minutes away again a few years ago before another late drive by Eli.

 

 

 

Now, let that sink in. All of his SB games came down to the wire. Could have went either way in the final minutes. If he loses all 5 he is still a HOF QB but  has to be viewed as a choker and unable to get over the hump. Sorta like Elway before his rings. On the other hand, if he has 5 rings with a perfect season to boot, he is not just looked at as one of the best Qbs of all time, but probably one of the best athletes of all time. When they would do a SportsCentury ranking in 2050 is there any doubt he would be Top 5 from 2000-2050. I mean I dont know what athletes are gonna pop up over the next 35 years but it's hard to believe 5 would kick Brady out.

 

I'm out sick today and just looking at some of these old Best Athletes of Our Lifetime threads and came across this, which obviously is relevant to another discussion going on. 

 

Anyway, good post Nickle!

[bnickle]

BTW...Weber is right. Going back to Cle IMO hurts LeBron. He moves again, going to a better up in coming team presumably leaving an aging Wade and Bosh behind.

 

 

IMO, it's better if he stays in Miami and lets players come to him or even goes to LA as the man the Lakers build around. Not back to Cle with a terrific young Irving and who knows who else has developed by then Waiters, Thompson, Bennett. Plus cap space to add another good player besides Lebron and Irving. Its like Miami all over again.

 

 

We discussed this before and I think Weber even agreed. the more LeBron moves around the more it hurts his perception, even if it is "going home to Cle".

 

BTW....is LeBron  really going to go back to that douchebag of an owner after the way he acted after he left. I just dont see it. The way things are playing out in LA, I think that is where he ends up after next year.

Apparently you said going back to Cle hurts James. Good post Weber. 

[bnickle]

I'm out sick today and just looking at some of these old Best Athletes of Our Lifetime threads and came across this, which obviously is relevant to another discussion going on. 

 

Anyway, good post Nickle!

When you are talking about the elite of the elite rings play a big part. BTW....with Brady completing that perfect season really would have been a feather in his cap. Maybe moreso than an extra ring in general.

 

 

 

Anyway, I made the same point in the current thread. he could be 0-6 or 6-0. More likely with variance and such he probably deserves to be 3-3. Either way a top 3 QB of all time.  

[mweb08]

Apparently you said going back to Cle hurts James. Good post Weber. 

 

If I did say that, I would have been speaking more about how other's perceive him.

[mweb08]

When you are talking about the elite of the elite rings play a big part. BTW....with Brady completing that perfect season really would have been a feather in his cap. Maybe moreso than an extra ring in general.

 

 

 

Anyway, I made the same point in the current thread. he could be 0-6 or 6-0. More likely with variance and such he probably deserves to be 3-3. Either way a top 3 QB of all time.  

 

0-6 or 0-4 (because this variance happens before the SB too) and he's in the top 3 ever? 1-4/5 and he's in the top 3 ever? No way would that be a common opinion. I don't even think it's common at 2-4. And 5-1 or better yet, 6-0 and him being the best ever is a very popular opinion.

[bnickle]

Manning is 1/3 and is in the TOp 3 ever. You had Manning ranked as the 5th best NFL player since 79 last year. Not just QBs.  Brady would be in the top 3 QBs if he was 3-3 or even 2-4. 

[mweb08]

Manning is 1/3 and is in the TOp 3 ever. You had Manning ranked as the 5th best NFL player since 79 last year. Not just QBs.  Brady would be in the top 3 QBs if he was 3-3 or even 2-4. 

 

Not everyone has Manning in the top 3 ever because of the lack of titles. Also, the biggest argument for Brady being as high or higher than Manning is the big SB disparity. There's not much of an argument otherwise. Brady's case would take a huge hit if he had two or fewer titles. 

[bnickle]

I disagree. He's gone to 6. 2 more than anybody else. 2-4 and hes still right behind Manning and Montana. WHo is even close to him?? 

[mweb08]

I disagree. He's gone to 6. 2 more than anybody else. 2-4 and hes still right behind Manning and Montana. WHo is even close to him??

Saying he's gone to 6 plays right into my argument too. That's not evaluating his play, it's evaluating the entire teams success. He plays a big part in that, but with a lesser supporting cast and/or some breaks going the other way, he doesn't have that on his resume.

And you keep saying that I'm overestimating the importance people place on titles, but then your own arguments are centered around his teams success in reaching the SB and winning some of them.

How about Otto Graham? He won 7 titles.

What about Unitas? He won 3 titles.

Bart Starr won 5 titles.

Elway would be close if Brady was 2-4.

Can anyone else be considered or is Manning the only guy with less than 2 rings than can even be considered?

[mweb08]

Here's some talk of Brady's legacy after winning his 4th ring: http://www.nfl.com/n...-in-nfl-history

[Pedro Cerrano]

Dredging up posts from two years ago is such dirty pool.  People's opinions can change.

[mweb08]

Dredging up posts from two years ago is such dirty pool.  People's opinions can change.

 

And then they can say it has changed. What's the problem?

[Pedro Cerrano]

And then they can say it has changed. What's the problem?

 

It's just lame that's all.

[mweb08]

It's just lame that's all.

 

Don't see why.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Of course not, it's more stuff to argue about.

[bnickle]

I do feel like Weber was trying to get me but thats fine. Anyway, Ive never said he doesn't have a point about Brady. He just overstates it.  

[mweb08]

Of course not, it's more stuff to argue about.

 

You have a really good time ribbing me for something that can easily be said about you.

[mweb08]

I do feel like Weber was trying to get me but thats fine. Anyway, Ive never said he doesn't have a point about Brady. He just overstates it.  

 

I wasn't trying to be an ass or anything. I was looking back at some old MBW threads and this seemed quite relevant to the current discussion here. 

[Pedro Cerrano]

I wasn't trying to be an ass or anything. I was looking back at some old MBW threads and this seemed quite relevant to the current discussion here. 

 

It depends on your actual reasoning for bringing these threads up.

 

If they're just "interesting" because they are related to the debate, that's fine.

 

But if you're going for the "oh, got you!" angle that's just dirty pool.

 

And your "Good Post Nickle" comment suggests that that the latter was your actual motivation.

 

But hey, maybe I'm wrong.