GOAT
-
@Chester-Draws in this case I believe you can.
But it's all subjective so by all means, take Rodgers
I'll take Brady. And we'll win.
-
-
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
-
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
It's definitely a mabo thing.
For me, Dan Carter is the best rugby player of all time.
However, Richie McCaw is the greatest rugby player of all time.
By miles. -
This post is deleted!
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (**As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
**
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.Did you throw up a little in your mouth typing that?
-
@MajorRage said in GOAT:
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
What the hell has Sergio Parisse got to do with any kind of GOAT discussion???
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
So Tiger is the greatest, despite not having the most majors. But Brady is because he has the most?
Do you not see the inconsistency?
I've watched Tom Brady play, and I've watched Aaron Rodgers play. At no point did I think, hey that Brady guy throws the ball so much better. Because he doesn't. If Brady is better, it is by inches. If he's so much better, why are his stats so much worse?
Which means he is not in the league of Gretsky or Pele. Guys who everyone who watched acknowledged were a class above the rest.
-
@MajorRage said in GOAT:
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
Rings, rings, rings. You can't judge individuals on team performances.
Why does the number of rings supersede the number of MVPs? One is team performance, (multiplied by longevity) and the other is individual brilliance.
By that logic Tiger Woods should not be in the running. He doesn't have the most majors -- end of story.
By that standard, then we can't include team members as the GOAT?
Definitely don't agree with that.
The best players are those that step up when the most is in the line. This is why I don't fall into line with the Sergio Parisse praise.
What the hell has Sergio Parisse got to do with any kind of GOAT discussion???
That’s exactly my point!
-
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (**As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
**
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.Did you throw up a little in your mouth typing that?
Nah I love watching great players doing great things
-
@Chester-Draws said in GOAT:
@mariner4life said in GOAT:
But to answer your point
No, it's not just the winning (anyone mentioned Steve Kerr?) It's how and why and how much
Tiger probably isn't the greatest. But he's by a million miles the greatest I have seen. Seriously, look at the major numbers from to any of his peers over the length of his career. It's daylight 2nd. His ability to win and keep winning hasn't come close to being replicated.
Brady is in a league of his own at winning, as the key guy in those wins.
Jordan is just as great for his not winning as his winning. (As an aside one of the greatest individual series I've seen is LBJ losing a finals to the warriors but doing everything possible to put the cavs on his back)
Greatness is not just winning. It's also not just physical gifts (lomu is not the goat). It's a mix of all of them.
So Tiger is the greatest, despite not having the most majors. But Brady is because he has the most?
Do you not see the inconsistency?
I've watched Tom Brady play, and I've watched Aaron Rodgers play. At no point did I think, hey that Brady guy throws the ball so much better. Because he doesn't. If Brady is better, it is by inches. If he's so much better, why are his stats so much worse?
Which means he is not in the league of Gretsky or Pele. Guys who everyone who watched acknowledged were a class above the rest.
Read it again
-
Cases for both sides here.
MVP is voted for, so prone to shit decisions (Rusty, Nash x 2, Malone etc)
Rings are absolute but require team effort, and many have won rings that are less deserved than some who haven't (Horry v Barkley?)
No right answer
The thing about team sport MVP selections is that every one of them needed their team mates to win it.
Russ got it because he averaged a TD over the course of an 82 game season. He needed his team mates to make shots on his passes and get out of the way with all those defensive rebounds he got.
Malone needed a player of Stockton’s ability and selflessness to feed him the ball at the right place and time. Still the greatest number of passes from one player to another in NBA history.
Team sport MVPs for sports like basketball, football/soccer, rugby and even NFL are a bit of a misnomer because of the reliance on others. A QB still needs a damn good offensive line and decent receivers to do their thing. Great Ice Hockey centres still need players to set screens and get them the puck.
A team sport like baseball and even cricket to a large extent where the key activities in the game are so heavily individualised, you can more easily focus on standout players and their own impact on the sport.
Slightly OT - I’ve always found the big egos of sportspeople in team sports really interesting. So much of your success is not in your control yet they approach it as if it is. Quite the mindset or is it just huff and bluster.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in GOAT:
Cases for both sides here.
MVP is voted for, so prone to shit decisions (Rusty, Nash x 2, Malone etc)
Rings are absolute but require team effort, and many have won rings that are less deserved than some who haven't (Horry v Barkley?)
No right answer
The thing about team sport MVP selections is that every one of them needed their team mates to win it.
Russ got it because he averaged a TD over the course of an 82 game season. He needed his team mates to make shots on his passes and get out of the way with all those defensive rebounds he got.
Malone needed a player of Stockton’s ability and selflessness to feed him the ball at the right place and time. Still the greatest number of passes from one player to another in NBA history.
Team sport MVPs for sports like basketball, football/soccer, rugby and even NFL are a bit of a misnomer because of the reliance on others. A QB still needs a damn good offensive line and decent receivers to do their thing. Great Ice Hockey centres still need players to set screens and get them the puck.
A team sport like baseball and even cricket to a large extent where the key activities in the game are so heavily individualised, you can more easily focus on standout players and their own impact on the sport.
Slightly OT - I’ve always found the big egos of sportspeople in team sports really interesting. So much of your success is not in your control yet they approach it as if it is. Quite the mindset or is it just huff and bluster.
I always found it interesting reading how Sir Paddles ( an absolute pro and our best cricketer ever ) got on with his teammates ( many of whom were journeymen and amateurs )
The car fiasco sounds exactly that.
