302 replies to this topic

[You Play to Win the Game]

Gotcha. i figured as much, but I don't read the Ravens threads so I wanted to make sure. Thanks bro.

 

Honestly, in fairness to BNick, he was mostly right on Flacco over the years... and since Flacco put up that historic postseason run last year, he's softened quite a bit in his defense due to sort of being vindicated as always saying he had that in him. This year, BNick was much more even keel about Flacco and fully willing to point out his flaws and short comings, much more so than in previous years. What I can't understand is the double standard he has with Harbs and Flacco, but I don't want to get into that again - I know where he's coming from, so I don't need any clarity - I just disagree with it 100%.

[SBTarheel]

Honestly, in fairness to BNick, he was mostly right on Flacco over the years... and since Flacco put up that historic postseason run last year, he's softened quite a bit in his defense due to sort of being vindicated as always saying he had that in him. This year, BNick was much more even keel about Flacco and fully willing to point out his flaws and short comings, much more so than in previous years. What I can't understand is the double standard he has with Harbs and Flacco, but I don't want to get into that again - I know where he's coming from, so I don't need any clarity - I just disagree with it 100%.

Cool. Like I said, I don't really follow it, but have noticed a lot of people comparing his Flacco love to his LeBron hate on here, so i wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.

[bnickle]

I don't really see what's that different about it, really. If they had asked Flacco in that interview if he thinks he's good enough to be one of the best ever for the Ravens, he probably would have said, of course.

I have no problem with LeBron striving to be one of the GOAT. Hell, I don't even have a problem with him saying something like, right now Im on pace to be one of the GOAT but I still have work do do or something to that effect.

 

 

 

 

It's stating as fact that he will be one of the GOAT. At least before, it was others placing the crown on his head prematurely and he just went with it. Now, he's prematurely placing a crown on his own head.

[mweb08]

TO be clear, this is not an actual quote of mine.
 
 
 
I have no problem with confidence in yourself in the moment. It's a necessity really. That's different than looking 10 years, 10, days, 10 hours  or even 10 min down the road and stating as fact what you are or will be.

 
I don't really see what's that different about it, really. If they had asked Flacco in that interview if he thinks he's good enough to be one of the best ever for the Ravens, he probably would have said, of course.

Arrogance is arrogance whether we are talking in the present or in the future. Someone who is arrogant about themselves now is likely as you point out to be arrogant about their future. Just like Nickle is prone to say things like he is usually right, he'll also say things like that when it pertains to the future.

[Oriole85]

Kobe's Mt. Rushmore (ESPN)

 

Bryant's picks? Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson and Russell.

[SportsGuy]

Another vote for Bird.

[mweb08]

It's kinda hard to say 3 of the best 4 players ever all came into the league within 5 years if each other. I think while it's certainly possible to make a case for that, generally bias is involved when stating something like that.

[SportsGuy]

Mike..seriously...you really don't think it's a lock that LeBron is on multiple teams, beyond this season, that could/should win a title?

[mweb08]

Mike..seriously...you really don't think it's a lock that LeBron is on multiple teams, beyond this season, that could/should win a title?

Should, no. He's very likely to be on very good teams, but there are scenarios where he may not be on multiple teams that should be viewed as one of the top two or three favorites. He may also only have 3-5 or so more years as a top 3 player. He might add some titles as a diminished player because he'll still fit in really well with good teams, but those won't be considered the same by most as winning as an elite player have been.

[mweb08]

That's really not even that important to the argument to me. I just hate the idea of focusing on titles so much, which leads to minimizing everything else.

[SportsGuy]

That's really not even that important to the argument to me. I just hate the idea of focusing on titles so much, which leads to minimizing everything else.

In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you.

But when talking the 4 best ever...in the NBA..titles have to matter IMO.

[mweb08]

That's really not even that important to the argument to me. I just hate the idea of focusing on titles so much, which leads to minimizing everything else.

In the grand scheme of things, I agree with you.


But when talking the 4 best ever...in the NBA..titles have to matter IMO.

I said they do, but I think saying you need to have x amount to be on the top 4 without any consideration to anything else is wrong.

[bnickle]

Titles should mean more  when judging an NBA players legacy  more than any other sport. There is no doubt about that.

[SportsGuy]

I said they do, but I think saying you need to have x amount to be on the top 4 without any consideration to anything else is wrong.

Of course there is consideration for everything else.

To be in the conversation, you have to be great with or without titles...and one of the ways you separate them is titles.

Now, he doesn't have to have more than player X does but he has to be close.

[SportsGuy]

Titles should mean more in when judging an NBA players legacy  more than any other sport. There is no doubt about that.

Exactly. It's huge in the NBA, especially when you are one of the top handful players ever.

[mweb08]

Titles should mean more in when judging an NBA players legacy  more than any other sport. There is no doubt about that.

More than QB's? Haven't you said they're the most linked to winning.

BTW, I agree with your comment here. I think many go overboard, though.

[mweb08]

I said they do, but I think saying you need to have x amount to be on the top 4 without any consideration to anything else is wrong.

Of course there is consideration for everything else.


To be in the conversation, you have to be great with or without titles...and one of the ways you separate them is titles.


Now, he doesn't have to have more than player X does but he has to be close.

But if the player has x - 1 titles, nothing else is apparently considered because he must have x.

[bnickle]

Here is the thing. Name me a truly great NBA player that's never won a title. Whos the top 2 or 3 Malone, Stockton, Barkley??

 

 

Were they truly great players. In the pyramid of HOF players are any of them in the top 2 or 3 tiers. And lets remember that Malone and Stockton would have won titles if not going against the GOAT.

[bnickle]

QB is the most important single position in sports but they have 52 teammates. You have 11 teammates in the NBA. Even though the QB position in a vacuum is more important, the fact is its 1 of 5 starters or  1 of 12 men on an NBA roster. If it's a superstar, he  can make as big or bigger impact than a QB.

 

 

We've seen teams win NFL titles with above average or good QBs. How many NBA teams have won a title without a Superstar. The Pistons are pretty much the only example going back 30+ years now. I guess you could make a case for the last Celtics team but they had 3 future HOFers even though none may have been a Superstar at the time they won.

[mweb08]

Here is the thing. Name me a truly great NBA player that's never won a title. Whos the top 2 or 3 Malone, Stockton, Barkley??
 
 
Were they truly great players. In the pyramid of HOF players are any of them in the top 2 or 3 tiers. And lets remember that Malone and Stockton would have won titles if not going against the GOAT.

How many players are in the top 2 tiers? 3 tiers?