Your most sacreligious sports opinion [Archive] - Sports Central Message Boards

buckeyefan78

01-26-2005, 10:21 PM

Agree with the Ripken bashers, so does that make it sacreligious? A ton of people agree with you Kevin.

For me, and we've gone over it on the boards before, it is Michael Jordan being overrated. Don't get me wrong, the guy was great, and in my top 5, but anything less than a kiss on his ass is grounds for a hanging according to the media and sports world at large.

Yes, even the media can overrate a guy clearly as great as MJ.

I can see your point on Riley doublee, but let us not forget how far he took the Knicks and Heat in the 90s with let's face it, vastly inferior rosters while battling MJ's dynasty. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve too. Who drafted Wade? Who drafted Butler on his talent that paid off, and dealt him when his ship sank? Why did Shaq go to Miami? Grant it, I expect a title from Miami in the next year or two, but I'll give him a free pass...for now.

Alex...

It's all about the Big Ten with Michigan. Overall, they have dominated Ohio State ( although the last 53 meetings are something like 26-26-1) and have won the most Big Ten titles, both shared and outright ( laid down some wood on PSU too since they've joined). They have also been to and won the most Rose Bowls of any Big Ten team (UM 8-6 OSU). Nationally speaking, Miami may have won more national titles while beating up Rutgers, but UM has the most wins in NCAA division I-A history, second highest winning percentage, a lead against their main rival in the series, and a great overall football tradition. Throw in the fact if Michigan or Ohio State didn't have to play each other in the late 60s or 70s (and numerous other times scattered about in history), each school would have had ATLEAST 6 to 7 more cracks at a national title with who knows how many wins each could have pulled off.

But we all can't be Miami, beating up Rutgers and Temple all these years. FSU either. Tough beating up those Dukies in football.

doublee

01-26-2005, 10:38 PM

Yeah, but who he drafts and trades for as GM has nothing to do with his coaching acumen. If the Heat win a title it will not be because of his ability as a coach, but his ability to recognize and bring in the right talent. Half of what you cite has little to do with his ability as a coach. Pat Riley is not the only reason Shaq came to Miami. First and foremost he wanted to play for a 'warm weather' team and secondly he already maintains a residence in Florida plus working in Miami means no state income tax.

ESP0704

01-26-2005, 11:15 PM

Originally posted by bama4256
Ripken is not a Hall of Famer or shouldn't be. Good player but not great.

By and large, I agree. I'm not sure if I would deny Ripken admission to Cooperstown, but he's definitely on the all-overrated team.

He was a plus-300 hitter with decent power. Really, his main claim to fame was that he showed up for work every day.

Well, Rich Stromberg showed up for work at Pittsburgh Spring Inc. every day, and nobody's trying to put him into the Hall of Fame.

Buckeye:

I agree with you on Jordan, too.

On my list of all-time greats, I've got him listed (depending on my mood) second - behind Magic Johnson - or third - behind Johnson and Wilt Chamberlain.

Johnson once played every position on the court in an NBA Final round - he had a more complete game than Jordan, IMO. That, I think qualifies as iconoclastic.

This week, though, I'm kinda scared to say that the Steelers should keep Plaxico Burress, because I think he and Roethlisberger have a connection, when both are healthy.

He's got my co-workers at the noosepaper really peeved -- violently so -- to the point where I'm not even bothering to say what I think.

Of course, my office had kind of grabbed onto the Steelers to ease the pain from Election Day. Now that they're done, we have nothing to live for.

Right now, we're in the "anger" phase on the stages of death and dying. Next comes bargaining (I think).

buckeyefan78

01-26-2005, 11:38 PM

doublee...

Got me on the coach/GM thing. Concede that. Your old school though ( no offense...LOL), so let me ask you this: how much more could Riley have done for NY or Miami considering the way players are today and have been since the Jordan Era erased hard work and jump shots and replaced it with airballs and egos? Even the OLD OLD schoolers from the early 80s agreed this guy cracked one hell of a whip. Ok, maybe he didn't adapt, and you can fault him for that as a coaching flaw, but IMO, I'm glad he hasn't lightened up. Isiah hasn't either for that matter. Every shot of him at the Garden makes him look like a guy ready to bash someone's skull in. The old schoolers know the RIGHT way, and won't comprimise it. Perhaps foolish, but I'll take it so the game isn't COMPLETELY in the gutter.

Shaq going to Florida...I think you're reading too much into his home being there ( in the north, by Orlando by the way) and no sales tax. Warm weather? Could have played for the Clippers? Ok, a little of a factor, but this guy was going to Miami ( Riley), Memphis ( at the time, a Hubie & West legend combo), or New York ( Isiah) IMO. When you're great and getting old, you don't have time to fool around with children, you must turn old school to have a shot.

ESP...

No surprise I agree on Magic. All around game? HA, only scoring with dunks counts, don't you know that? Even the great things MJ did ( back cuts under the hoop, post up scoring later in career) where not given their just due because of dunks and sneakers. Pathetic if you ask me.

Burress and Big Ben? Why don't you guys concentrate on getting Cowher's ass outta there?

Thinking about it, the Burgh ( I'll put you in there ESP) must be hell this winter: It's been cold, snowy, Steelers choke, no hockey ( OH GOD!), and Fred Honsberger lost a million pounds ( who will they kick around now?)

Tarkus

01-27-2005, 12:02 AM

Another one for me that's overdone to the point of ad nauseum is the '72 Dolphins perfect season.

Before any 'Phins fans start jumpin' out of the water let me point out that I still have a schedule card from the '72 season in the side pocket of my wallet. (of course more cuz I never cleaned it out than as a memento...lol)

I was a young buck who followed the 'Phins as a secondary team after the Bears more for the running duo of Csonka & Kiick.."Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid".. even tho they sucked at the time. So I watched as they worked their way thru the years up to the SB & while happy they won it, was always aware of their weak schedule that year.

While no fault of their own, they did benefit greatly from that & while taking advantage of it were still fortunate not to lose a game tho they won some real squeakers.

& while the luck of the bounce always plays a part in a seasons success, a lot of articles thru the years have embellished the "perfect season" to mythical proportions. There have been many teams thru the years that were better that didn't have perfect seasons yet at times I still read how the '72 'Phins were the "best".

When it comes to a perfect season, it's being at the right place at the right time for at least some parts of the season, not that you were unbeatable....

Originally posted by buckeyefan78 Burress and Big Ben? Why don't you guys concentrate on getting Cowher's ass outta there?

Hey Buckeye...

Snoop Doggs on the case....:D

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/3351606

buckeyefan78

01-27-2005, 12:19 AM

LOL...Good stuff Tarkus.

Fur coats and smoking pot in the locker room just might be the ticket to the Super Bowl. Who knows?

Just think Tark, you almost made it through a whole post in a semi-serious tone and then Snoop D-O-double G gets in your rant.

Tarkus

01-27-2005, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
LOL...Good stuff Tarkus.

Fur coats and smoking pot in the locker room just might be the ticket to the Super Bowl. Who knows?

Just think Tark, you almost made it through a whole post in a semi-serious tone and then Snoop D-O-double G gets in your rant.

:lol: , Buckeye...

Yea, I was moments away from a serious post & then had to ruin it by coming back with an edit...:)

I don't know, I guess I just gotta laugh or go crazy.....or wait....maybe I'm laughing cuz I already am??? ;)

HibachiDG

01-27-2005, 01:11 AM

I want to adopt a 10 year old, move to wherever snoop dogg lives and have my child play on Snoops pee wee football team.

"Snoop denied that his tactics — he reportedly deploys members of his posse to videotape rivals' games for analysis — are too competitive for such young players."

Brad O.

01-27-2005, 08:14 PM

I've got a sacrilege, and I brought some popcorn, too.

NOTHING in sports is more overrated than Super Bowl rings.

originally posted by KevinBeane
Don't get me wrong, his defense was outstanding, his offense was...alright
"His offense was...alright"??? Ripken was the greatest offensive middle infielder in the game for a decade!! He's one of seven players in MLB history with 3000 hits and 400 HR. He's the career HR leader among shortstops and trails only Honus Wagner in hits. And, as doublee pointed out, "he is also a two-time MVP and a 19 time All Star."

Ripken would be a first-ballot Hall of Famer without The Streak.

Although if anyone thinks The Streak is meaningless, you're nuts. There's a lot more to it than luck.

ESP: You've got football on the brain. The Baseball Hall of Fame is in Cooperstown.

Buckeye: Remember that great Jordan discussion (http://www.sports-central.org/community/boards/showthread.php?threadid=5689&perpage=15&highlight=&pagenumber=1) a couple years ago? I was surprised so many of us weren't buying the hype. I figured Stuart Scott and his legion of 12-year-olds would bury us.

buckeyefan78

01-27-2005, 10:35 PM

Brad...

Interestingly enough, I think Jordan's aura has worn a little thin in recent years. I watched an ESPN special on him that was pretty critical of #23. Lack of team spirit, not speaking up on the downward spiral of the game ( which is ultimately linked to his persona), and his inability to have a voice... on anything, were touched on. Still, you have to fight his image if you want to dig into the heart of what is wrong with the NBA and how to get things back on track, something the media has SLOWLY done in the last few years, but not nearly enough.

Another personal sacreligious opinon of mine, although no secret to anyone, is my stance on the importance of Ohio State winning their conference games and against Michigan over winning national titles.

Appeasing the national media is a sore spot with me overall, especially after living in the L.A. area.

KevinBeane

01-28-2005, 10:06 AM

Brad, what was your sacrilege? Or was it the Jordan thing?

I'm at work so I can't really study it, but how do Ripken's numbers compare to other shortstops when looked at from a per AB standpoint? Because his career totals are to some degree influenced by the fact that he DID play for managers who would never dare scratch him. I would venture to guess that the majority of injuries (I'll be generous and say a slight majority) have nothing to do with poor conditioning or ill-advised play, so when you factor in that and that fact that I've heard many managers (Mike Hargrove and Buck Showalter off the top of my head) say things like, "I firmly believe that you need to sit a player at least once every couple of months so he doesn't burn out," luck was a HUGE, HUGE part of the streak. I guess we will have to agree to disagree whether he would've gotten into the Hall without it, but I think his hitting TOTALS (not averages or per AB) as a shortstop would look about as impressive as hearing Jesse Orosco say, "put me in the Hall because I have more hits than any pitcher in the DH era!"

Not that he does...and hell, maybe Ripkens #'s are peerless even from a per AB standpoint, which would make me reconsider. But I doubt it.

Tarkus: I've heard some pundit, I can't remember who, say something like, "Aren't the '72 Dolphins, with they're annual celebrations when the last undefeated goes down, actually being kinda jerky?" ...and I agree.

Buckeye: I'm defining "sacreligious" as "a good majority of sports fans would strongly disagree." That doesn't mean most of SportsCentral would disagree, obviously we are a unique community like that. :) But I've gotten two dissentions about Ripken, so even there...

lmanchur.

01-28-2005, 10:28 AM

To most people it is sacreligious (ie, to Americans) to say that Wayne Gretzky was by far a greater athlete and by far had more of an impact on hockey than Mr. Jordan did. I did some lookups in past threads around here and I did the math once.....

Originally posted by lmanchur.
To eclipse the points record in the NBA by the same margin that Gretzky eclipsed the points record in the NHL, someone in the NBA over an 18 or 20 year career would have to average 75 points per game. Yes, SEVENTY-FIVE POINTS PER GAME. What's the record? Like, 100 points in a game... done ONCE?... and this person would have to AVERAGE 75!!! I am gonna do the math one day, and figure out how much a RB would have to run in football, or find out how many TD's a WR would have to score in order to do the same thing.

It's just impossible. How does someone even START to argue against that!? You can't! Gretzky did things and set records that no one will EVER break... EVER.

.....yet some people try to argue with that. I don't know why they try with unthinkable numbers like that.

Brad O.

01-28-2005, 04:17 PM

originally posted by ESP0704
Really, his main claim to fame was that he showed up for work every day.
Well, and that he was a 19-time All-Star, an elite defensive player for a decade and a half, retired as the greatest power-hitting shortstop in history, and won Rookie of the Year, two MVP Awards, and a World Series ring. But other than that, yeah, you're right.

Kevin, I've collected three sets of data for you. Honestly, though, is the difference between 154 games a year and 162 going to radically hurt Ripken's career totals? Not really. Anyway...

From 1982-98, here's the breakdown of Silver Slugger awards for AL shortstops:

Nomar Garciaparra 1, Travis Fryman 1, John Valentin 1, Robin Yount 1, Alex Rodriguez 2, Alan Trammell 3, Cal Ripken Jr 8
originally posted by KevinBeane
his offense was...alright
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ripken's rank among shortstops, min 450 AB
year...OBP...SLG...out of.......year...OBP...SLG...out of
1982....9........2.......19...........1983.....3.......1.......19
1984....2........1.......14...........1985.....2.......1.......15
1986....3........2.......17...........1987.....6.......3.......12
1988....2........2.......18...........1989.....5.......3.......16
1990....4........3.......13...........1991.....3.......1.......17*
1992....10......5.......14*..........1993....12......5.......17
1994....2........2.......18^.........1995....10......5.......19*
1996....7........3.......17...........1997....10......15.....17°
1998....13......19......20°

* min 400, fewer than 12 players qualified at 450
^ min 325, strike season
° third base, not shortstop

He was top-5 among qualifiers in slugging % every year he started at shortstop, and top-3 in OBP seven times.

Is it starting to become apparent how ludicrous your argument is, Kevin?

And finally, Ripken vs Every shortstop who ever won a Gold Glove, 82-96
the years I examined were 82-96, but any SS who ever won a GG is eligible
min 400 AB (top 20 in 1994)

Number of times beating Ripken
player............OBP...SLG...chances
Ozzie Smith........8.......0........13
Ozzie Guillen.......0.......0........11
Alan Trammel......7.......5........10
Barry Larkin........6.......3.........8
Tony Fernandez..3.......0.........8
Alfredo Griffin......0.......0.........8
Jay Bell..............3.......2.........7
Omar Vizquel.......3.......0.........5
Dave Concepcion..1......0.........4
Robin Yount........2.......1.........3
Larry Bowa.........0.......0.........2
Alex Rodriguez.....1.......1.........1
Derek Jeter.........1.......0.........1
Edgar Rentería.....1.......0........1
Rey Ordoñez........0......0.........1

Guillen and Griffin, in a combined 19 seasons, never beat Ripken in OBP or slugging. Ozzie, Fernandez, Vizquel, and Concepcion, in a combined 30 seasons, never topped Ripken's slugging average. Trammell, Larkin, and Yount are the only ones who come out of this even looking like they're in Ripken's ballpark offensively.

Problem is, none of them matched Ripken's consistency. Ripken outplayed them by an average of 558 games -- about 3½ seasons. His career OPS (.788) is better than Trammell's or Yount's, and Larkin has almost 1000 games to make up. Ripken leads all three (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats_historical/mlb_historical_player_stats.jsp?compare.x=&box6=XXXX117501XXXX&section1=null&statSet1=null&statType=1&sortByStat=H&timeFrame=3&timeSubFrame=0&baseballScope=mlb&isCompare=true&sitSplit=&venueID=&teamPosCode=all&HS=true&box1=XXXX121222XXXX&box2=XXXX124721XXXX&box3=XXXX123437XXXX&checkBoxTotal=0&playerLocator=Larkin) in hits, doubles, homers, RBI, runs, total bases, walks, extra-base hits, and slugging percentage. And this is the best available competition.

Ripken is the most productive shortstop in the history of Major League Baseball. Rest him once a month, plus one extra day off per year, and he loses about 115 games. He probably still would have reached 3000 and 400.

The only other guys who hit both those marks are Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, Stan Musial, Carl Yastrzemski, Eddie Murray, and Dave Winfield. And last time I checked, none of them was a Gold-Glove middle infielder.

Ripken was AL MVP twice, almost a decade apart. But if he'd taken a day off once in a while, he's not a Hall of Famer? In the immortal words of Axl Rose, "You're cra-zay."

Really, what shortstops do you put ahead of Ripken? Wagner, I would think. Ozzie, maybe. I guess maybe Joe Cronin. A-Rod, if you're projecting. Even if you put all those guys ahead of Cal -- and I wouldn't, personally -- he's the 5th-best shortstop in history. Heck, throw in Ernie Banks (and maybe Yount) if a guy only has to play half his career at the position. That's still an easy ticket to Cooperstown.

I think most or all of us would agree that The Streak is overblown, but some of you seem to be dismissing it entirely, which is absurd. It even kind of seems like you're holding it against him. In the immortal words of Axl Rose, "You're ****ing cra-zay."

===
And my sacrilege was that I think WAY too much stock is put in rating individuals by the number of Super Bowls their teams won.

And yes, I still listen to my old Guns 'n Roses albums.

KevinBeane

01-28-2005, 05:17 PM

Brad, you might have me on the "how many shortstops would you put ahead of him," argument, I'll give you that, although I think Rodriguez for sure and possible Jeter and Garciaparra will pass him when they retire in my mind.

But all of your stat sets only compare his hitting to other shortstops, and hence my Orosco argument. Shortstops are historically the weakest-hitting group there is, and the HOF committee isn't poring over pitcher's hitting records to see who to nominate for the hall.

To put it another way: Would an outfielder who missed an occasional game, whose offensive numbers matched Ripken's exactly, make the hall?

Brad O.

01-28-2005, 06:51 PM

originally posted by KevinBeane
Would an outfielder who missed an occasional game, whose offensive numbers matched Ripken's exactly, make the hall?
Kevin, how closely do you follow baseball? Shortstop, along with catcher, is probably the most demanding position in the game. Do you think teams stick their best hitters in the outfield or at first base just for the heck of it? Bill James, probably the most respected analyst of baseball players in the world, considers a good defensive shortstop about 33% more valuable than a good center fielder and about twice as valuable as another outfielder. Put Gary Sheffield or Manny Ramirez at short and they wouldn't last a week.

According to baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/ripkeca01.shtml), the five most similar players to Ripken are Hall of Famers Dave Winfield, Robin Yount, Al Kaline, Eddie Murray, and Carl Yastrzemski.

So I would have to answer "yes" to your question, even though I think it's a bad question. A really bad question.

Again, Ripken is one of seven players with 3000 hits and 400 HR. That's HOF material even if you weren't a Gold-Glove middle infielder and two-time MVP who shattered a service record most people thought would never fall.

To be honest, Kevin, I get the impression that you're a little out of your league discussing baseball. The Orosco comparison is ridiculous and your list of great shortstops tilts perilously towards guys you see on SportsCenter; where's the historical perspective?
originally posted by KevinBeane
But all of your stat sets only compare his hitting to other shortstops, and hence my Orosco argument.
I guess I misunderstood what you meant when you wrote:originally posted by KevinBeane
how do Ripken's numbers compare to other shortstops
I thought I had specifically addressed your point.

Noon

01-28-2005, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by lmanchur.
To most people it is sacreligious (ie, to Americans) to say that Wayne Gretzky was by far a greater athlete and by far had more of an impact on hockey than Mr. Jordan did.

I didn't realize Jordan played hockey....

Lee, if you're really looking for a sacraligious argument, I'd go with your Canadian hockey moment over the Miracle on Ice.

lmanchur.

01-29-2005, 12:15 AM

Let me edit my post to include the obvious missing phrase...

".....impact on hockey than Mr. Jordan did on basketball."

dirtywhiteboy

01-29-2005, 01:54 AM

Originally posted by lmanchur.
To most people it is sacreligious (ie, to Americans) to say that Wayne Gretzky was by far a greater athlete and by far had more of an impact on hockey than Mr. Jordan did.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

So, so, so sick of the "Americans don't appreciate hockey" whining. It seems as though it's every canadian's mission in life to promote, and sell hockey to the world...and flip his middle finger to those of us that don't wanna buy it.

You hockey fans should hook up with the Nascar fans. I've never met two groups out to change minds more than NHL/Neckcar fans. They'll listen to your opinion, then tell you why you're wrong. Well, make that THREE groups....I forgot republicans.

Here's my vote on this thread's topic: HOCKEY is overrated. I have ABSOLUTELY LOVED the fact that a couple hundred guys with mullets have nothing to do this winter. They're nothing but figure skaters that haven't come out of the closet, yet.

What's the crime in not liking hockey? What's that get you in Canada? Loss of your fishing license?

Yes, that's my vote for this thread. Why do so many Canadians ram their head's against brick walls in frustration over the average US citizen's lack of "appreciation" for hockey?

And did I read that right? Gretzky was a better ATHLETE than Jordan? Will you please put down your Moosehead and explain that one? You're obviously stating that Wayne was faster, stronger, could jump higher, and had more stamina than Michael Jordan...because those are the traits of an athlete. You couldn't be more wrong.

Brad O.

01-29-2005, 02:53 AM

DWB, when Lee used the term "athlete" I don't believe he meant it in the narrow and specific terms you outlined. The word "athlete" is used to refer to anyone who plays a sport. And Gretzky was certainly a better hockey player than Jordan was a basketball player. Unless I'm completely misinterpreting Lee's post, it seems like you've deliberately ignored what he meant.

That said...
Comparing a hockey player to a basketball player is apples and oranges. But when you're talking about the greatest player in the history of a physical, fast-paced sport... uh, a convincing argument can be made. Lee could be way more wrong, and IMO, has been in the past.
:)

MJ could jump higher, I'm sure. But faster, stronger, and more stamina could go either way. And Gretzky was way more skilled handling a stick than Jordan was with a basketball. Personally, I'd go with Jordan as a better pure athlete, but you don't have to be Canadian to make a case for The Great One.

dirtywhiteboy

01-29-2005, 05:51 AM

Deliberately ignored? Uh, no. Narrow and specific terms? Wrong again. I used the physical characteristics that make up an athlete. I believe that by saying "the word 'athlete' is used to refer to anyone who plays a sport", you are the one narrowing it down to specifics.

You believe that Gretzky was more skilled at handling a puck, than Joradn was in handling a basketball? That sounds ludicrous to me, but that's your opinion. You also say that comparing a hockey player to a basketball player is apples to oranges......then follow it up with the hockey stick to basketball handling comparison. Which is it? Apples, oranges, or whatever fits your argument?

We agree on Jordan's ability to out jump Gretzky. Then you say that speed, stength, and stamina are all toss-ups. Now, how you can make such an outlandish claim...I have no idea. But hell, that's your opinion. Now, a toss-up would lead me to say that you would agree that: When it comes to speed, strength, and stamia Jordan and Gretzky are relatively equal? Obsurd. You then said that you'd "go with Jordan as the better pure athlete". Now if we're judging this on leaping ability, speed, strength, and stamina and you said that the only one there that Jordan was obviously stronger in (leaping ability), how can you say that Jordan was a better pure athlete? I'm in total agreement here, but can't follow your reasoning at all.

Also, my first point that I made : I'm tired of the "Americans don't appreciate hockey whining" was very appropriate. In Imachur's post, he used "(i.e. Americans)" to denote a group that would argue that MJ had more of an impact on basketball than Gretzky did on hockey......all because they are american, and not willing to be objective; due to the fact that they have no appreciation, understanding, or respect for hockey. I am tired of hearing that. There have been many discusions on several different threads as to the American outlook on hockey vs the canandian outlook. Folks up north seem to take personal offense at the fact that many americans aren't in tune with hockey. They also stereotype americans as people that are only interested in the sports that americans dominate on an international level. This suggests a certain amount of smugness that really offends me. That was my main reason for even posting a follow-up to his post. So.....when you say that I used "narrow and specific terms", and "deliberately ignored what he meant" you were way off base.

I don't think that you "completely misinterpreted Lee's post". I just think you missed the entire point of mine.

lmanchur.

01-29-2005, 07:24 AM

DWB, we've just had this debate in the past (my favorite argument with Marc) and because hockey isn't popular down there, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks the same with me down there. Gretzky didn't even make the Top 10 of SI's greatest athletes of the 1900s... that RIDICULOUS IMO. On the other hand if you were to take the general consenious in Canada, the overwhelming majority would think its IN SANE that Gretzky would NOT be anything less than #1. That, I know for certain, is a fact.

This thread asked me what is my most sacreligious sports opinion? I'm not trying to ram hockey down your throat but as your posts clearly indicate, the opinion of mine that Gretzky was by far a greater athlete than Jordan is deemed QUITE sacreligious by yourself at least.

Just look at the numbers and careers both of them had. Gretzky DOMINATED hockey way moreso than Jordan dominated basketball (did you read my points record stats??) and if it wasn't for Gretzky in 1988 moving to Los Angeles the NHL would not be a $2 billion industry with teams in markets like Anaheim, Tampa, Miami, Carolina, Dallas, Phoenix, etc.

If you want to talk athlete in terms of who can jump higher or run faster, the winner is not Jordan nor Gretzky. It is whoever won the decathalon in the Olympics this past summer... either him or the winner of the triatholon or marathon... those are my top 3 hands down.

dirtywhiteboy

01-29-2005, 08:25 AM

Fair enough. We shall disagree on the issue.

Just a side note, but right now hockey isn't any industry at all.

And as far as jumping, strength, and stamina goes...the comparison WAS between MJ and Gretzky. And yes, MJ wins.

Gretzky dominated hockey more than MJ dominated basketball? Maybe that's why MJ STILL makes more per year in endorsements ALONE than a good deal of the payrolls of most hockey teams. The guys sells more Haynes underwear than the NHL sells tickets....when they're actually playing. Ask Nike who turned it into a mult-billion dollar company almost overnight. The Air Jordan product line is still Nike's most profitable line by an overwhelmingly large margin. And guess what: the guy is retired. He hasn't played at a high level in a long time.

Look, my main problem with your post was the slant on americans. Maybe it wasn't even a slant in your eyes. But it took the tone of a scolding parent saying "you'd know I'm right if you were smarter". For whatever reason, people in the states aren't into hockey like canadians are. I can't speak for Sporst Illustrated. I can only speak for myself. But, if you really want to understand where I'm coming from, then ask yourself what you asked me. Why ISN'T Gretzky in SI's top 10 list? Perhaps the game that Gretzky helped so much didn't do a very good job of marketing it's biggest star?

There was a joke I read the other day in a major newspaper. I was fishing through the sports section, and went from football, to baseball, to basketball, and so on. When I got to the section that usually has hockey in it, there was only an editorial there. The title......"Has Anyone Really Noticed that Hockey is Gone?"

There's your answer.

lmanchur.

01-29-2005, 10:01 AM

Gretzky still makes a tonne of sponshorship dollars too and he's been retired for 6 CONSECUTIVE years.

Anyway that's not the point... you completely illustrated my point that this issue is clearly the most sacreligious item in most people's eyes, and that's what this thread is about. There are at least 2 or 3 jordan/gretzky threads I've started in the past, feel free to bring them up if you want to continue this argument because I'm happy to defend my stance :)

ESP0704

01-29-2005, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Brad O.

ESP: You've got football on the brain. The Baseball Hall of Fame is in Cooperstown.

D'oh!

I never said he didn't belong in Can -- I mean Cooperstown. And I'll even accept that he's the fifth-best shortstop of all time.

But that would make him overrated because the hype made him out to be so much more.

That's not Ripken's fault. But he's still overrated.

Marc

01-29-2005, 09:18 PM

While reading this age-old debate, I had an interesting thought that probably doesn't mean anything to anyone but me and Lee.

Lee's always defending hockey and trying to spread its appeal to people. Hockey and Canada are kind of underdogs to America, so he feels the need to do that. Likewise is how I am trying to spread the Mac religion to the Windows masses. :) When you, you're the underground and in the minority, you feel a greater need to stick up for your cause, so at least maybe you can see where I'm coming from in my urging for people to switch.

As for Jordan/Gretzky, I will admit Gretzky was probably more dominant in his sport than Jordan was, but I think Jordan is more significant in the overall sports landscape and worldwide because basketball is bigger than hockey and he is king of basketball.

dirtywhiteboy

01-29-2005, 11:01 PM

Those are some points that I can agree with.

lmanchur.

01-29-2005, 11:59 PM

I didn't state this to start this debate... just to answer the question.

And that's all I have to say about that.

buckeyefan78

01-30-2005, 10:52 PM

No real knowledge on hockey, but I can FIRMLY say Jordan's impact on basketball is quite negative overall, nevermind the athletic debate. Better athlete? Who cares? Better for his sport's health...no contest...The Great One.

Just read that over again, and before the youngsters get on me, SELLING SHOES AND JUMPING HIGH DOESN'T EQUATE TO HEALTH, MAKING JUMPERS AND KNOWING HOW TO SET A SCREEN LEGALLY DOES.

Tarkus

01-30-2005, 11:04 PM

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
I can FIRMLY say Jordan's impact on basketball is quite negative overall,

Oh Dear Lordy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Truly a sacrilegious quote if I ever read one! :eek:

Exactly what KB was looking for on this thread....a bit of blasphemy. :nod2:

& now excuse me while I go pray for your Eternal Soul....:angel:

;)

KevinBeane

01-31-2005, 12:51 AM

I wonder if it's okay to get rich playing sports in Buckeye's opinion, or accept endorsement deals.

Buckeye, is it okay to get rich playing sports or through endorsement deals?

Here's another sacreligious opinion of mine: The only time the "squib kick" should be used is when there will absolutely only be time for ONE MORE play from scrimmage after the kickoff. I cannot BELIEVE the field position some teams are willing to forsake in order to guard against the MINUSCULE chance of a big return (how minuscule? Consider that the Tampa Bay Buccaneers have never taken a regular season or playoff kickoff to the house. Ever). Let's say I am up by six with 15 seconds left, and I squib kick. Now my opponent has the ball at their own 40 with ten seconds left. A deep sideline route, 30 yard reception, out of bounds with two seconds left and now it's hardly a hail-mary to put the ball in the end zone.

Still, you may be able to defend the squib kick in that situation, because the touchdown is still unlikely (although I would argue a lot more likely then the kick return going for a touchdown, and even a big non-TD return would chew a lot of those 15 seconds off the clock)...but if you ARE tempted to defend it, consider how often you have seen a team squib kick when they are, say, up by TWO with a full MINUTE left. It just floors me that this practice stays alive.

Marc

01-31-2005, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by Tarkus
Oh Dear Lordy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Truly a sacrilegious quote if I ever read one! :eek:

Exactly what KB was looking for on this thread....a bit of blasphemy. :nod2:

& now excuse me while I go pray for your Eternal Soul....:angel:

;)
Oh dear god! Buckeye, that's just ridiculous. It needs to be re-phrased: IN YOUR MIND, MJ had a negative impact because he made youth focus more on dunks than jumpers, more on flashy shoes than defense. FINE. But if you look at the overall landscape in sports, Jordan is worshipped universally as a man who took the game to new heights and 99% of people will comment on him in a positive fashion. If you don't agree with that, go ask 10 people and at least 9 will say only good about Jordan. Bottom line: you are not satisfied with Jordan's impact like most people. Fine, but you have to admit that he had a positive impact on the game.

Diceman

01-31-2005, 01:11 AM

I think any person that can only identify the Lakers, Michael Jordan, Joe Montana, Babe Ruth, Kobe Bryant, The New York Yankees, and the Dallas Cowboys should be shot.

Keep in mind with that; it only includes those who have the audacity to call themselves sports fans by watching the playoffs or the occasional game from the stands.

dirtywhiteboy

01-31-2005, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
I can FIRMLY say Jordan's impact on basketball is quite negative overall

Get this man a bowl of Cocoa Puffs. Koo Koo.

Brad O.

01-31-2005, 09:20 PM

Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
Deliberately ignored? Uh, no. Narrow and specific terms? Wrong again. I used the physical characteristics that make up an athlete. I believe that by saying "the word 'athlete' is used to refer to anyone who plays a sport", you are the one narrowing it down to specifics.
My definition of "athlete" is probably the broadest one reasonably possible. The criteria you outlined -- jumping high, having stamina, and being fast and strong -- are all very specific. And that's a pretty narrow view of what makes up an athlete.
Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
You believe that Gretzky was more skilled at handling a puck, than Joradn was in handling a basketball? That sounds ludicrous to me, but that's your opinion.
You ever watch a basketball game? Seen Jordan palming ever time he dribbles? Taking three steps after he picked up the ball? Jason Kidd is a great ballhandler. Larry Bird was a great ballhandler. Oscar Robertson was a great ballhandler. Jordan broke the rules and broke down the rules.

And if Gretzky's stick-handling didn't impress you, perhaps you aren't impressed by stick-handling.
Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
You also say that comparing a hockey player to a basketball player is apples to oranges......then follow it up with the hockey stick to basketball handling comparison. Which is it? Apples, oranges, or whatever fits your argument?
Looking at my post, apparently it's whatever fits my argument. My rather childish defense is to point out that you started it (comparing the athletic talents of apples to the athletic prowess of oranges).

Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
Now if we're judging this on leaping ability, speed, strength, and stamina and you said that the only one there that Jordan was obviously stronger in (leaping ability), how can you say that Jordan was a better pure athlete? I'm in total agreement here, but can't follow your reasoning at all.
The problem is your assumption that we are judging athletes based on leaping ability, speed, strength, and stamina. I think those criteria are way too narrow. Although if I did agree that those are the only four criteria (I don't), and I thought three were about equal but Jordan had the edge in the fourth, wouldn't that imply that I think Jordan's ahead?

Your assumption that Jordan dwarfs Gretzky in all four categories leads me to believe that you really don't know anything about Gretzky.

Originally posted by dirtywhiteboy
Gretzky dominated hockey more than MJ dominated basketball? Maybe that's why MJ STILL makes more per year in endorsements ALONE than a good deal of the payrolls of most hockey teams.
Alice in Wonderland was on tv yesterday? Maybe that's why Kevin Costner's favorite color is green.

===

KB: I'll let buckeye answer your question, but I don't see anything in his post to suggest otherwise. Do you?

I'm with you on squib kicks. Hate 'em.

Originally posted by Marc
Oh dear god! Buckeye, that's just ridiculous... Jordan is worshipped universally as a man who took the game to new heights and 99% of people will comment on him in a positive fashion. If you don't agree with that, go ask 10 people and at least 9 will say only good about Jordan. Bottom line: you are not satisfied with Jordan's impact like most people. Fine, but you have to admit that he had a positive impact on the game.
Marc, are you kidding? You've got to be kidding. You're kidding.

"Universally worshipped?" 99%? It's "ridiculous" to suggest that Jordan's "impact on basketball is quite negative overall"?

Buckeye may "have to admit that he had a positive impact on the game", but I won't do any such thing. He was good for the NBA, no doubt. For basketball? Worst thing that ever happened to the sport.

Now that's obviously just an opinion; if you like the way the game is played today, that's cool. But '78 and I and all the other cranky sports fans of the world are entitled to our opinions, and we are under no obligation to say that Jordan had a positive impact on the game of basketball. I used to like the NBA. Now all I watch are 20-year-old girls.

KevinBeane

02-01-2005, 10:21 AM

I am reading these Gretzky vs. Jordan arguments, and it seems like the arguments are coming from two completely different places.

Jordan has had a greater impact than Gretzky in terms of raising world interest in his sport and himself. I would argue that he had a greater impact on his game than Gretzky did on his from a raising interest/money/world impact standpoint.

Gretzky had a greater impact than Jordan in terms of dominating the sport in question ITSELF, IMO (Lee's numbers are pretty compelling).

In other words, the Gretzky people seem to be answering "what athlete dominated his sport to the most significan extent?" and the Jordan people seem to be answering, "Who is the most famous athlete?" It's two separate questions and issues.

As far as who the greatest true athlete is, as Brad points out, it depends on your definition. According to my definition, the greatest athlete is probably some strong, swift-footed circus contortionist somewhere.

Tarkus

02-01-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by lmanchur.
To eclipse the points record in the NBA by the same margin that Gretzky eclipsed the points record in the NHL, someone in the NBA over an 18 or 20 year career would have to average 75 points per game. Yes, SEVENTY-FIVE POINTS PER GAME. What's the record? Like, 100 points in a game... done ONCE?... and this person would have to AVERAGE 75!!! I am gonna do the math one day, and figure out how much a RB would have to run in football, or find out how many TD's a WR would have to score in order to do the same thing.

It's just impossible. How does someone even START to argue against that!? You can't! Gretzky did things and set records that no one will EVER break... EVER.

I'm not able to make the jump to comparing hockey to basketball & also wouldn't try to diminish either Gretsky or Jordan by pitting their accomplishments against one another.

I would agree both have had a tremendous impact on their respective sports. But I question where it is seen as making their sport healthy or not. Gretsky helped his sport boom just like Jordan did but the boom came from how each sport marketed them. The NBA is reduced to sand lot ball with the NHL on life support. Neither condition is directly attributed to either player IMO...

I know how some feel that MJ is personally responsible for the demise of quality play in the NBA but I just don't get it. The quality of play was directly set by Stern & Co. who saw the world wide appeal that the league marketing brought about with Jordan & decided Showtime was the way to go.

With that came the loosening of calls to make the Highlight Reels at the cost of the game itself. Salaries & companies like Nike helped influence the rookies into believing there wouldn't be a league without them. Stern & the owners created a monster by ensuring that the younger players could "entertain" with impunity & let it be known to them thru their own marketing. After that, coaches couldn't coach without looking over their shoulders or being told to "let them play" no matter how fundamentally bad they were.

The decline in the NBA is that they went to the entertainment side to make the big bucks & now they're without the quality & training they've forsaken. Superstars will take what you give them & lowering the ref standards only made it easier for the bar to be lowered for the future NBA players.

Now with less fundamentals, we find the rules ammended so defenders can't even lay hands at all so as to try to make up for the dreadful shooting skills. Too late....If it's not a dunk, it's considered a low % shot...lol So it's easy to say the lightening rod was MJ but it doesn't lay the full guilt where it belongs....on Stern & the owners.

Now Gretsky brought huge success to the league but the big difference is that hockey didn't sell its soul by destroying the rules to the point of making the next Great One like the NBA tried to make the next MJ.

The #s he ended up with are staggering but due to the differences in sports, I don't find the comparing them to other sports like "75 points in a game" or how many yards a RB has to have, etc. to be an accurate tale. In hockey terms, there is no comparison to Gretsky accomplishments. That statement alone should say enough without trying to compare him to other sports athletes.

Apples & oranges....exactly.....

#47

02-01-2005, 03:37 PM

Tarkus,

'Stern and the Owners', you hit the nail on the head there.

Fight On!

buckeyefan78

02-01-2005, 10:34 PM

Can't buy the argument Tarkus. One word: INFLUENCE.

( get ready for a rant by a senile old man)

When Jordan came into the league, his image WAS HIS PERSONALITY. He was arrogant, crude, and selfish. It reflected in his stats, play, and his image, which was correct.

While I agree that Stern marketed the game poorly ( yes profitable, but not in terms of health), the MAN ( MJ) did NOTHING to correct this trend CREATED FROM HIS IMAGE, WHICH WAS HIS PERSONALITY.

I could buy your argument if kids had posters of Stern on their wall or wore Air Jordans back in the day, but they didn't. Jordan had a responsibility to the game to mature and make things right as it's ambassador. He did it on a personal level ( see his physical and mental domination on a team level in the 90s), but said nothing of the changes around him.

You are overstating Stern's influence on kids in comparison to what Jordan could have done, if he cared, or was the man to do so. This was a guy who had the media on such a tight leash ( and a media who loved to kiss the ground he walked on to make their buck), that IMO, a half-hearted effort to move the game back in the right direction would have done wonders.

He didn't do so because he made a proit off of it. That can't be denied IMO. I'm willing to give on the degree of his ignorance, but that's about it. To me, he is almost completely guilty of it. Again... INFLUENCE.

Marc

02-01-2005, 11:22 PM

So Jordan is the scapegoat for everything that is wrong with the NBA today, huh? :rolleyes:

He came into the league and was a winner, someone who dominated and changed the game, but not intentionally. It's not his fault kids want to be like him, but when you were as good as he was, I don't blame them. I think the proliferation of high schoolers and people leaving college is more damaging than anything Jordan did.

Brad, I'm not kidding. You and buckeye are in the minority. Most people regard Jordan as the best athlete of all-time, whether that's correct or not, but it's a fact.

Tarkus

02-02-2005, 12:22 AM

Can't buy the argument Tarkus. One word: INFLUENCE.

I agree MJ had influence but I never would ask a Superstar to take on the responsibility of saving the game that had already been directed & continued to be directed into the new face of the NBA by Stern & Co. ......An entertainment, ala Harlem Globe Trotters minus the silly uniforms, a rollover team ala the Generals & the comic relief, business...

When Jordan came into the league, his image WAS HIS PERSONALITY. He was arrogant, crude, and selfish. It reflected in his stats, play, and his image, which was correct.

Exactly...That is a correct assessment of Jordan yet after stating his "attributes", you expected the same guy to be the one responsible for the saving of the NBA ???
I wouldn't have gone to Vegas with that bet in mind. Besides, having him openly challenge the business direction taken by Stern & the Owners who all sat back & watched MJ fill their coffers is giving MJ waaaay too much influence.

Of course he could have taken it to the media & worked on alienating the NBA Hierarchy & coaching staffs by pointing out they were being too lenient & accepting of the fact that all-around skills weren't necessary in the new NBA. Yea, like anyone would have listened to that one...lol Now you're really exaggerating MJs influence....

While I agree that Stern marketed the game poorly ( yes profitable, but not in terms of health), the MAN ( MJ) did NOTHING to correct this trend CREATED FROM HIS IMAGE, WHICH WAS HIS PERSONALITY.

Of course not marketed for health. That's exactly the point I've made. There was a global surge with a media increase using MJ as the poster boy that was the logical evolution, business wise, to the earlier marketing of the Showtime Lakers & the mystique of the parquet demon Boston Celtics. The ending of the competitive environment brought on by more superior & yes, fundamentally sound, players left the NBA with only one Superstar which was MJ. At that point, Stern & Co. made a critical error in losing sight & faith in the game to continue bringing success on its own merit & decided to chase the cash cow. & that's the nuts & bolts of ( sing along please...followed by a moment of silence...:) ) "The Day The NBA Died"......

I could buy your argument if kids had posters of Stern on their wall or wore Air Jordans back in the day, but they didn't. Jordan had a responsibility to the game to mature and make things right as it's ambassador. He did it on a personal level ( see his physical and mental domination on a team level in the 90s), but said nothing of the changes around him.

The marketing was about MJ, so why would David Stern be on posters in kids rooms??? lol "As an ambassador" is a slippery term. Players like Bird & Magic are known as great ambassadors to the game but in truth they just did nothing to shame the game (plus the media knew not to dig dirt either...lol) at least in the public eye.

MJ did the same ambassadorship but without his "Bird or Magic" to be the face of the NBA, the marketing was solely entertainment & solely Jordan & I can guaranty if it was Magic or Bird in those same shoes, their egos would have flown the same path as Jordan. To expect him to cry out..."Stop, the integrity of the game is suffering!!!"...is beyond asking too much. It would have been nice to hear but in no way would I expect a player in his prime to spend time philosophying about the future of the game....

You are overstating Stern's influence on kids in comparison to what Jordan could have done, if he cared, or was the man to do so. This was a guy who had the media on such a tight leash ( and a media who loved to kiss the ground he walked on to make their buck), that IMO, a half-hearted effort to move the game back in the right direction would have done wonders.

Once again it's not that Stern had more or less influence on kids. It's about the direction of the NBA by the Owners & Stern. You constantly mention Jordans huuuge ego but then you want him to have an even bigger one by taking on the Owners & Stern when it came to the direction they wanted their business to go.....

He didn't do so because he made a proit off of it. That can't be denied IMO. I'm willing to give on the degree of his ignorance, but that's about it. To me, he is almost completely guilty of it. Again... INFLUENCE.

Of course he made a profit off of it. That's why these guys play....to make boatloads of money & have their praises constantly sung. This is about the choice of the NBA Hierarchy on how they want their business run & you're trying to imply Jordan could have spoken out to the masses. The lure of "Showtime" & shoe contracts will blind any youngsters no matter what any Superstar says. Besides, that almost smacks of using sports figures as a role model. I don't expect them to be & I'm not disappointed when players like MJ don't do more to save the game of basketball that's been actively trying to self-destruct on its own....

p.s. Amen, Marc....

#47

02-02-2005, 10:04 AM

To continue along Tarkus's path........

1. The NBA was on the upswing before Jordan, it was Magic and Bird who were leading the NBA to new heights, Jordan was the benefactor of riding on the coattails, or heels if you like, of what was already an evolving product flying upward. Those who are old enough...78, tarkus, myself, remember how the NBA was marketed back then.........Magic vs Bird, lakers vs celtics, black vs white(sorry, that is the way it went down). But it was about 2 great players, the way it was supposed to be.

2. As Tarkus has said, it was the league and it is Sterns puppy, that choose to market itself as such after Bird and Magic and used Jordan as its main focus and why not he was the best player in the league at the end of Bird and Magics careers. It was natural, but at least it was a proven great player.

3. But then, as Marc said it above, the bigger problem with the product that is now put out by the NBA, is not the people trying to copy Jordan, its the influx of so much youth, which brings with it unrefined games, no fundamentals and a huge lack of experience, thus you have a product that is lousy when compared to say the mid 80's.

4. It also appears we are going be stuck in a quagmire of sorts in this regard. The league is going to continue to allow the youth to pour in, year in and year out, when some of them finally get to the point of actually being a well rounded basketball player, there will be still yet more unrefined young players that are filling there shoes. The kids who are 14 right now see what the kind of money the 19 year old has, they are not going to worry about how there game really is, only that they can be a millionaire by that age. Its not there fault, the opportunity is as such.

Stern and his group of owners are the biggest factors in this. They choose to draft undeveloped young kids, for future potential, all the while creating a huge cycle that we are now stuck in.

They could quite simply, not do it. When a HS kid or a frosh in college wants to come into the draft, they send out feelers to find where they are slotted to go. IF, the owners and Stern were not so quick to say, "yeah you'll go in the 1st round", then more kids would go to school or stay in school. I know you have to avoid collusion, but bettering your overall product, by having more experienced personnel at your disposal, you would not have to worry about that.

An example. HS phenom Shaun Livingston, no doubt a future player in this league, was overwhelmed this summer when going head to head with Stais Boseman, who is presently one of the best players in the CBA. But Boseman cannot get a job in the league. He is better then ALOT of guys in the league, but he is also around 30 years old. Rather then have a serviceable well rounded basketball player who is ready to play right now at both ends of the floor, the NBA(Stern and its owners) would rather have a POTENTIALLY great player learning where to walk on a court.

Thus the big cycle of lousy basketball, created by the owners and Stern.

MJ dunked, he juked, he stuck his toungue out, he wore overpriced Nike's and allowed the NBA to put him on everything but Milk cartons(they were reserved for missing kids). But he didnt tell owners to draft UNready kids and he didnt tell those kids to skip school.

Stern and his cronies did that.

Fight On!

Tarkus

02-02-2005, 11:24 AM

:bow: , #47...

Well said....

Brad O.

02-02-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Marc
He came into the league and was a winner, someone who dominated and changed the game, but not intentionally. It's not his fault kids want to be like him, but when you were as good as he was, I don't blame them. I think the proliferation of high schoolers and people leaving college is more damaging than anything Jordan did.
I agree with all of that, except to note that at the beginning of his career, when Magic and Bird were in their primes, Jordan was not a winner.

Originally posted by Marc
Brad, I'm not kidding. You and buckeye are in the minority.
Being in the minority doesn't equate with "ridiculous", though. People who enjoyed a style of basketball that vanished in conjunction with Jordan's domination can reasonably say that MJ had a negative impact on the game.

He was the best player in the world for years, and it would be silly not to appreciate that. But his influence changed the way the rules are called and the pace of the game... players who would be better-suited to a different style of play adapted themselves to a Jordan-type game that only he and a handful of other people could play effectively.

Jordan was already in the NBA when you were born, so there's probably a difference in perspective. Ask people who the greatest quarterback of all time is. I'd guess almost half of them say Montana. But ask older fans and you'll hear a lot of Unitas and Graham and Baugh. Ask younger fans and you might hear Brady or Favre or Elway.

Greatest NBA player? Most people would say Jordan. But ask older fans, and you'll get a lot of votes for Chamberlain, Russell, etc.

Greatest tennis player? Pete Sampras probably gets the most votes, especially among younger fans. Ask an older sample, and I bet you hear a much broader range of opinion.

Originally posted by Marc
Most people regard Jordan as the best athlete of all-time, whether that's correct or not, but it's a fact.
Jordan might get a plurality of votes -- more than anyone else -- but "most people"? More than 50%? I doubt it.

ESPN named Jordan its Athlete of the Century, but SI chose Muhammad Ali, ABC Sports selected Jim Thorpe, and the IOC named Pele. Here on the SCMB, it seems like at least half of us in this thread wouldn't have Jordan at the top of the list.

Neither the young nor the old is necessarily wrong, but the contemporary player will always have the edge in the court of public opinion -- especially in the SportsCenter Era -- and that shouldn't be misinterpreted as the end of the debate.

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong; I just think you've exaggerated and/or misstated a couple of points.

MountaineerDave

02-02-2005, 04:59 PM

Okay, because I have SOOOO much catching up to do, I can't get deep into the Jordan debate.

Let's just say that I watched the NBA when he played for the Bulls, I thrilled everytime he took the court, was a little sad he came back to play for the Wizards to stroke his ego, yet...
I agree with just about everything 78 has to say about him and what became the state of the game in his aftermath.

Anyone here ever bother picking up the Best of American [fill in blank] writing anthologies that come out every year? The '04 Best American Sports Writing has a fantastic piece about MJ from the Washington Post Magazine (written in '03, I think) by Michael Leary entitled "All the King's Men." It pulls very few punches in describing the last several days of Jordan's playing days, and describes just how unlikeable a figure he could be. Not in a villainous, evil way. But, a bad teammate. An egomaniac. A guy who slanted the press coverage deliberately, such that the media almost never says anything bad about him.

I can't think of a truly sacriligious opinion. Although, to the college football playoff supporters, suggesting things were better ten years ago is potentia sacrilege.

And, I've never been all that hugely impressed by Dan Marino.

Take those apples, Brad. If he'd ever won a damn thing, the guy would be a true football immortal.

As it is, he'll just be a guy who threw for a buncha yards in ten years...

Dave

Brad O.

02-02-2005, 08:49 PM

Dave, I support a playoff for Division I NCAA football, but I agree that things were better ten years ago. The BCS is an abomination.

I don't have the energy to really get into Marino right now, but I'll always maintain that it's wrong-headed to hold a single player accountable for his team's results. To take one example, Joe Montana clearly outplayed Marino in Super Bowl XIX. But if you put Marino in red and gold and dressed Montana in white and blue that day, the Niners still win. Marino never had a Roger Craig or a Jerry Rice, and by the mid-80s, old-fashioned Don Shula -- himself widely perceived as incapable of winning the big one -- had nothing on innovative Bill Walsh. With the possibile exception of his first year or two in the NFL, Marino was never put in a position to succeed.

It's almost malicious the way people hold Marino personally accountable for the Dolphins never winning a Super Bowl from 1983-99. It's also insane.

If he'd ever won a damn thing, the guy would be a true football immortal.

As it is, he'll just be a guy who threw for a buncha yards in ten years...
You insult yourself with this, Dave. I know you don't really believe this BS.

buckeyefan78

02-02-2005, 11:19 PM

Everyone stop for a second and look around...Everyone is taking shots at anyone and anything....LOL...A very cool chaos here. Dave blasted Marino out of the blue for the hell of it, way to go !
Good debate.

I know I won't win with the younger guys on Jordan, but Tarkus and #47, while having valuable points, still fail to recognize Jordan's imapact. I guess we will have to agree to disagree there, because if needs be, King Jordan could have got the hoop lowered to 5 feet only for him and 10 for everyone else if he wanted, IMO. You guys know I'm kidding, but trying to hit the nail on the head.

But Mr. Tarkus ( points ruler in direction), I've got an old timer here with a lax in judgement. Ok, we aren't Hollywood PR cronies, but we all know the best way to change or scare people into action is by manipulating the media. Jordan COULD HAVE done that. The man had a microphone in his face 24/7. So what if he pisses off the NBA fat cats? In 1991, he WAS THE NBA, AND WOULD BE TIL 1998. Ok, I'm Mr. 23's head PR man, listen to my prepared statement to the media for his Airness to read...

" I think the league needs to continue to develop it's young talent more effectively and concentrate on the game's glorious past ( insert legend's name here like Magic or Isiah would have), so it can export a quality game for everyone to enjoy. I hope the game can continue to go in this direction and I'm willing to work in that direction for the NBA." Say this a few times in a few interviews. Some clever commercial work, and there you go!

At that point, mothers hold their first born up to MJ, asking him to kiss the kid's head. Mt. Rushmore is blasted, with a big #23 replacing Lincoln. I can see it now. I think you are really letting him off the hook Tarkus. It wouldn't have taken much, and he could have spun it into a profit somehow. You don't get to make more money in a one hour than I did in the 1980s by not being a wise businessman.

And while Jordan was the ambassador without a rival, the fact his game wasn't true team b-ball hurt the game. We have two guys now, T-Mac and Kobe ( sorry to introduce this trash in the same sentence as Jordan, but I'm struggling here with you guys...LOL) who wouldn't know the concept of team b-ball if it hit on one of their wives....hmmm....huh?

The fact Bird and Magic played great b-ball the way it was designed to be played was good enough to be an example, without a PR blitz. Do you guys know Magic can't even spin a basketball on his finger or dunk with a good deal of confidence when approaching the hoop from the left? But put him on the court today in his sleep, and he'll still manage a triple double.

I don't underestimate the power of Stern and Co., and agree they are evil too. You know what it is like? It's like the British Parliament ( Stern and his fat cats) destroying the political aspect of Britian ( b-ball), while the Queen ( King MJ in this case), standing by, because of no "official" power.

OFF WITH ALL OF THEIR HEADS !

Tarkus

02-03-2005, 03:05 AM

I can see agreeing to disagree is a great idea. I like ya, Buckeye, & don't want this debate to get out of hand (tho while you're reading this I'm outside lettin' the air out of your tires....:) ). But like any "student", I'll stir up the class once more on the way out on my journey to the Principles office. :)

Originally posted by buckeyefan78

I know I won't win with the younger guys on Jordan, but Tarkus and #47, while having valuable points, still fail to recognize Jordan's imapact. I guess we will have to agree to disagree there, because if needs be, King Jordan could have got the hoop lowered to 5 feet only for him and 10 for everyone else if he wanted, IMO. You guys know I'm kidding, but trying to hit the nail on the head.

It's amazin' how we're traveling on parallel paths, mrroring so many points tho destined to never meet. The difference between us is you thinking the power to direct the course of the NBA was in MJs hands (whos destruction you believe he orchestrated) while I believe MJ wielded as much influence of any one Superstar ever could but was just the vehicle Stern & the Owners used to destroy it.

There is absolutely no way IMO that MJ could have got thru to kids or NBA Hierarchy about "maintaining the integrity of the game" when big business (the NBAs) was painting the individual instead of the team concept.

The biggest point to remember here is I'm not like Shawn who believes in the goodness of Kobes heart & tries to "explain" his actions. I know MJ was an egotistical "King in his perceived Kingdom". I just believe he's a secondary situation that while would have had a minor influence in slowing the damage, still was just the vehicle used by the NBA Hierarchy to make as much money at the cost of the foundation of the game.

But Mr. Tarkus ( points ruler in direction), I've got an old timer here with a lax in judgement. Ok, we aren't Hollywood PR cronies, but we all know the best way to change or scare people into action is by manipulating the media. Jordan COULD HAVE done that. The man had a microphone in his face 24/7. So what if he pisses off the NBA fat cats? In 1991, he WAS THE NBA, AND WOULD BE TIL 1998. Ok, I'm Mr. 23's head PR man, listen to my prepared statement to the media for his Airness to read...

" I think the league needs to continue to develop it's young talent more effectively and concentrate on the game's glorious past ( insert legend's name here like Magic or Isiah would have), so it can export a quality game for everyone to enjoy. I hope the game can continue to go in this direction and I'm willing to work in that direction for the NBA." Say this a few times in a few interviews. Some clever commercial work, and there you go!

At that point, mothers hold their first born up to MJ, asking him to kiss the kid's head. Mt. Rushmore is blasted, with a big #23 replacing Lincoln. I can see it now. I think you are really letting him off the hook Tarkus. It wouldn't have taken much, and he could have spun it into a profit somehow. You don't get to make more money in a one hour than I did in the 1980s by not being a wise businessman.

& actually here I don't believe we have "an old timer here with a lax in judgement" as much as we have an old timer who's lost the lesson of "cause & effect". Cause= The conscious decision by the NBA Hierarchy to replace the ad campaign of promoting the Superstar duels & team rivalry to choosing to spotlight an individuals talent (MJs) instead. Effect= the breaking down of all fundamentals in the game with an inordinate influx of "Not Ready For Prime Time" players (ie...HSers & early leaving collegates), all in search of catching more lightening in the bottle, MJ style....

& while that MJ Press conference would all be great if it happened, Buckeye, but once again in your scenario, it's obvious that the storyline is one of MJ trying to "save the day & NBA" from utter ruin brought on by who??? The NBA Hierarchy...

I lament that MJ wasn't more of a savior but I can't deny that I've always known him to be as egotistical & self-centered as they come. That alone preempts the savior possibility right off the bat. I'm not letting him off the hook when it comes to responsibility to the game, just to being THE cause of the destruction of the NBA.

Now if you want to start a thread about wasted opportunities on bettering or at least stabilizing the NBA, I'll be the first to throw MJs name in there but the direction chosen for the NBA always was & still is with the ones who make the money & market the game......Stern & the Owners...

Remember that well when you start pointing the finger at a looong gone MJ for the destruction of the NBA while the next busload of 17 year old "Superstars" pulls in to WOW us with their multi-million dollar talent & fresh shoe contracts......

And while Jordan was the ambassador without a rival, the fact his game wasn't true team b-ball hurt the game. We have two guys now, T-Mac and Kobe ( sorry to introduce this trash in the same sentence as Jordan, but I'm struggling here with you guys...LOL) who wouldn't know the concept of team b-ball if it hit on one of their wives....hmmm....huh?

You make it sound as tho the NBA never had a talent who was selfish before. MJs game wasn't team oriented until he bought into the triangle & started winning Championships. That in itself is a testament on how "team" always pays off as opposed to "individual". Even MJs critics pointed it out thru the years just to rub Jordans nose in the fact he didn't get it done alone but only when he started playing team ball.

The fact Bird and Magic played great b-ball the way it was designed to be played was good enough to be an example, without a PR blitz. Do you guys know Magic can't even spin a basketball on his finger or dunk with a good deal of confidence when approaching the hoop from the left? But put him on the court today in his sleep, and he'll still manage a triple double.

The main reason those guys played great team ball was based on who their teammates were & their successes. It's ludicrous to compare MJs teammates to the likes of those Laker & Celtic Title teams. That's why MJ was touted the way he was. His talent & the triangle could make up for having average players around him. Neither Bird nor Magic had the speed to blow past numerous defenders like MJ but I'm sure if they did, we would have seen a few less passes....lol

I don't underestimate the power of Stern and Co., and agree they are evil too. You know what it is like? It's like the British Parliament ( Stern and his fat cats) destroying the political aspect of Britian ( b-ball), while the Queen ( King MJ in this case), standing by, because of no "official" power.

OFF WITH ALL OF THEIR HEADS !

lol, always like the teacher....

I draw the picture a bit differently. In mine it's like more like MJs the Kings Champion (Stern & his fat cat cronies...lol) & while I'd have loved for him to right the wrong & slay the King & His Court, I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the Kings Champion....

buckeyefan78

02-03-2005, 06:21 PM

I'll meet ya half way Tark, and call off the dogs. Truth be told, I think we're both old hats ticked off at the way the game has gone downhill. I wish more of the old school players would exert their influence and energy to right the ship, but alas, it's not to be. I fear...no, make that I KNOW, it is too late. A shame too, it was once a great game.

Brad O.

02-03-2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by buckeyefan78
Everyone stop for a second and look around...Everyone is taking shots at anyone and anything....LOL...A very cool chaos here. Dave blasted Marino out of the blue for the hell of it, way to go !
Good debate.
Hear, hear!
Hats off to Kevin for starting a thread like this.

Originally posted by Tarkus
There is absolutely no way IMO that MJ could have got thru to kids or NBA Hierarchy about "maintaining the integrity of the game" when big business (the NBAs) was painting the individual instead of the team concept.
That's probably true, but it's tough to think he couldn't have made some difference.

I also find it surprising that while both of you have hit on Jordan and Stern, neither of you has mentioned SportsCenter. Get rid of games summarized in 30 seconds for short attention span, 2-second highlights of drives and dunks (instead of 20-second shots of team play), and the endless sycophancy of the anchors, and the whole phenomenon would have developed a lot more slowly.

Originally posted by Tarkus
The main reason those guys played great team ball was based on who their teammates were & their successes. It's ludicrous to compare MJs teammates to the likes of those Laker & Celtic Title teams.
In the 78-79 season, Boston went 29-53, finished 25 games back, and missed the playoffs.

In the 79-80 season, Boston went 61-21 -- an NBA record 32-game single-season improvement -- won the Atlantic Division, and made it to the Eastern Finals before losing 4-1 to Dr. J's 76ers.

In the 78-79 season, the Lakers went 47-35, finished 5 games back, and lost 4-1 to Seattle in the second round of the playoffs.

In the 79-80 season, the Lakers went 60-22, won the Pacific Division, and beat Philadelphia 4-2 for its first championship in almost a decade.

Bird and Magic made their whole teams better.

In the 83-84 season, Chicago went 27-55, finished 23 games back, and missed the playoffs.

In the 84-85 season, Chicago went 38-44, finished 21 games back, and lost 3-1 to Milwaukee in the first round of the playoffs.

Jordan may not have had the same caliber of teammates as Magic or Bird, but the Celtics -- and to a lesser extent, Lakers -- weren't doing much before Michigan State-Indiana State. Then they took off. The Bulls still weren't doing much until Phil Jackson showed up.

Jordan never played with a dominant center, but Scottie Pippen is right there with McHale and Worthy, probably better than either of them. And while Magic and Bird had to face each other, Dr. J's Sixers, Moses Malone's Rockets, and the Bad Boy Pistons... Jordan had Stockton and Malone's Jazz and... um... Barkley with Philly and Phoenix? Ewing's Knicks?

Jordan just never faced the same kind of competition. That's not something to be held against him, but put his accomplishments in context.
The main reason those guys played great team ball was based on who their teammates were & their successes. It's ludicrous to compare MJs teammates to the likes of those Laker & Celtic Title teams.
Given the competition, Jordan didn't need the same caliber teammates Bird and Magic had.

Was Jordan a better player than Magic and Bird? IMO, yes. But he wasn't nearly as complete a player. Magic and Bird changed the quality of the game; Jordan changed the style of the game.

KevinBeane

02-03-2005, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Brad O.
Hear, hear!

I also find it surprising that while both of you have hit on Jordan and Stern, neither of you has mentioned SportsCenter. Get rid of games summarized in 30 seconds for short attention span, 2-second highlights of drives and dunks (instead of 20-second shots of team play), and the endless sycophancy of the anchors, and the whole phenomenon would have developed a lot more slowly.

I wanted to touch on this...me and Buckeye have argued about this before, but I maintain that popular opinion drives the media FAR more than the other way around. If we want a more mature sportscenter, we could have one if we could get everyone to complain and boycott SC, and their advertisers, for their puff pieces. We will be able to do that as soon as we can convince John Q. Public he should stop likin' dunks.

As far as ESPNs sycophancy (is that a word?) goes, remember Playmakers? The show? I liked it. Got decent (not great) ratings. The NFL hated it. Insinuated they would consider pulling Sunday Nights from ESPN, (their biggest moneymaker) if they didn't cancel Playmakers. They did.

For good or ill, we are a capitalist nation, and a lot of these complaints against the media, such as this one, are at root a complaint that networls aren't bucking the system and doing (what may be) the right thing at a TREMENDOUS financial cost, when in fact very few of us are this heroic in real life. It seems to be a bit presumptuous to excorciate ESPN for not saying, "We are going to say and do what we want about the NFL/NBA/NHL/MLB, and if they don't like it, they can take their broadcasting rights elsewhere! We don't care about the untold amounts of money we would lose in ad revenue by doing so!"

C'mon.

buckeyefan78

02-04-2005, 01:45 AM

Excellent post Brad. You're almost there on the Magic-Bird-Jordan comparison. When you put into context that basketball is all about the team concept, and to be the best, one must be the best fit into the way the game was intended to be played, then you can declare Magic a better player than Jordan.

Throw in Bird over Jordan if you want as well. This old Laker fan won't mind love for the Larry Legend at this point.

You'll come around Brad, I can see the light...LOL.

Damn you Kevin. That too was a good post. You've damaged my argument ! Especially since I can't give any real concrete proof on why I think the media influences the popular opinon more than the other way around. Kind of an abstract thing, and my conspiracy mind may be working that theory....but, I'll stick to it, even if I'm the only one who believes it when I publish my manifesto...LOL.

Oh well, you like Playmakers KB. I'm going to sit back and watch Dave rip you if he comes in here! :lol:

Tarkus

02-04-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by Brad O.

That's probably true, but it's tough to think he couldn't have made some difference.

I also find it surprising that while both of you have hit on Jordan and Stern, neither of you has mentioned SportsCenter. Get rid of games summarized in 30 seconds for short attention span, 2-second highlights of drives and dunks (instead of 20-second shots of team play), and the endless sycophancy of the anchors, and the whole phenomenon would have developed a lot more slowly.

Oh, I don't doubt that he could have made some ripples in the NBA pond but like you ended....Look what the public's being fed with. Once the onslaught of highlight reel sports kicked into gear, Stern & Co. saw the public reaction, they saw the next wave of marketing & potential revenue. & that's where the integrity of the game was compromised IMO.
Great catch on the Sportscenter point....

Bird and Magic made their whole teams better. [/B]

Without a doubt & that's why they're in my top 5 of all time.

Jordan may not have had the same caliber of teammates as Magic or Bird, but the Celtics -- and to a lesser extent, Lakers -- weren't doing much before Michigan State-Indiana State. Then they took off. The Bulls still weren't doing much until Phil Jackson showed up. [/B]

If MJ never had Jackson & the triangle, he would have just ended up being a perennial scoring Champ with great highlights till the end of his career. But to his credit, he opened his eyes enough to see a change had to happen if he wanted Titles.

However, part of what helped Birds & Magics game is the fact they didn't have the speed & leaping ability. I don't doubt that if either had those attributes, the lure of the hoop & success they would enjoy goin' it alone, would have drastically altered their game. In MJs case, it's what retarded his growth as a player & even in success, he wasn't as complete in some areas as those two.

Jordan never played with a dominant center, but Scottie Pippen is right there with McHale and Worthy, probably better than either of them. And while Magic and Bird had to face each other, Dr. J's Sixers, Moses Malone's Rockets, and the Bad Boy Pistons... Jordan had Stockton and Malone's Jazz and... um... Barkley with Philly and Phoenix? Ewing's Knicks?

Jordan just never faced the same kind of competition. That's not something to be held against him, but put his accomplishments in context. [/B]

True, that's why naming the greatest is so subjective IMO. There are so many changes in a greatest list depending on the criteria used. MJ is tops on my list at times cuz of his talent & maniacal drive (plus he's a hometown hero...lol) & at other times I'd argue Magic for the floor General he was. Hell, I even throw Bill Russel up in the catbird seat at times...lol

Given the competition, Jordan didn't need the same caliber teammates Bird and Magic had. [/B]

No argument here but conversely if the competition was there, he would've had a piss poor group to battle them with...lol

Was Jordan a better player than Magic and Bird? IMO, yes. But he wasn't nearly as complete a player. Magic and Bird changed the quality of the game; Jordan changed the style of the game. [/B]

I like your style, Brad. That's an excellent way to capsulate this subject....

MountaineerDave

02-04-2005, 02:59 PM

Playmakers ratings were awful. Not good. Not approaching good. They were okay for a cable television show, but still way down on even cable TV lists...

I can't say anything about the show itself, because I watched all of the final ten minutes of its original run (I believe that such a show will eventually be broadcast, but NBC or someone like MTV will be the carrier).

KB's right for pointing out that SC and ESPN as a whole is beholden to a certain degree by their desire to hold down television contracts. That need/desire doesn't excuse the fact that if they could actually broadcast it, Stuart Scott would go down on Mike Vick, Kobe Bryant and Tiger Woods in a replay of the BJ-training scene from Misty Beethoven.

And while this isn't really on-topic, I think to suggest that the media-public opinion interaction is remotely one-sided is naivete to the nth degree.

The public held a generally disrespectful view of folks who tested positive on an AIDS test. And then, Magic Johnson made his ground-breaking announcement.

Suddenly, not EVERYONE who tested positive was a complete pariah and labeled as a lying f**. The media in general held Magic out there as a reason NOT to hate HIV-positive people. Sure, there's the interplay of a "hero" at work here, but the media voices decrying Magic as anything but "heroic" for coming out and announcing his "affliction" were loud and strong and overwhelmed the bigoted antagonists that were, mostly, everywhere.

Dave

KevinBeane

02-05-2005, 12:40 AM

Dave, I think you're proving my point about stupid masses driving stupid media decisions. All the media had to do was report Magic had AIDS. Then the stupid masses said, "Wha? Somone I LIKE has AIDS? Okay, I will now stop treating everyone with AIDS like a pariah." In other words, the attitude changed because the public already liked Magic, not because the media told them to change their attitudes.

I'm not saying Playmakers was GOOD, I'm saying I LIKED IT. And I stand corrected about its ratings.

Brad O.

02-05-2005, 04:02 PM

I usually try to stay out of non-sports issues, so I'll keep this brief (for me). This is a chicken-or-the-egg argument. Dave and Kevin make equally valid points.

Obviously we all acknowledge that it's some combination, but as someone with a background in totalitarian politics and literature, I think Kevin is way off. He has completely (to use the parlance of our times) misunderestimated the role of the media in crafting public opinion.

Works both ways, obviously. But I think the chicken probably came before the egg, and I believe the media plays a much larger role in telling the public what to think, than the public does in telling the media what to do. My two cents.

Troy Aikman doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame.

KevinBeane

02-05-2005, 05:33 PM

Okay, so the media is so powerful that they don't need to pander to public opinion to make big huge amounts of money, right? They can make bucketloads of money and STILL tell the public what to think, yes? So then what is it that is driving the media's message (one that we all are criticizing)? Just simple, pure evil?

This is getting philisophical, but it seems to me that if you are coming from the position that the media drives public opinion, as opposed to holding up a mirror to the public, then what would the reason by other than, "Well, they're just bad people?"

MountaineerDave

02-07-2005, 04:55 PM

Ah... KB, you're off on the Magic and AIDS thing. If the media had harped on what a horrible person his filandering had made him, and how he deserved his affliction (which I'm sure a not-fully potent Rush Limbaugh did), I submit that the public opinion would very much have swayed toward disdain for Magic.

Instead, the media, being, at the time, mostly liberal, hailed him as heroic for 'fessing up. Along come the masses...

Brad:Neither does Jimmy Johnson.

Oh, and the egg came first, but the chicken inside proscribes what's coming out of the egg.

Dave

MountaineerDave

02-09-2005, 03:09 PM

How could I have forgotten my most sacriligious of sports beliefs? Especially here, on these boards!

Brett Favre is the most overrated QB since... Joe Namath.

There. I said it. Yes, I feel better.
Dave

Brad O.

02-09-2005, 04:04 PM

The chicken clearly came first. Otherwise what the hell laid the egg?
originally posted by KevinBeane
Okay, so the media is so powerful that they don't need to pander to public opinion to make big huge amounts of money, right? They can make bucketloads of money and STILL tell the public what to think, yes?
Sure, that's exactly what they do. Again, this is chicken or the egg stuff. You think the public is much pickier and much more discerning than I do.
originally posted by KevinBeane
This is getting philisophical, but it seems to me that if you are coming from the position that the media drives public opinion, as opposed to holding up a mirror to the public, then what would the reason by other than, "Well, they're just bad people?"
Or maybe it's a matter of short-term vs. long-term interests.

Not to mention conflicting interests. If you move from sports to politics, it's always worth turning off a couple of viewers to dispense propaganda that reaches millions of people, as when GE killed an NBC expose on nuclear power in the 80s. Read FAIR (http://www.fair.org) regularly for a few months; that sort of thing happens all the time.

originally posted by MountaineerDave
Brett Favre is the most overrated QB since... Joe Namath.
Namath is overrated. He had three great years or so and was pretty ordinary (on the field) after that.

Favre probably is overrated because he receives so much adoring coverage. No one ever seems to criticize anything remotely related to Favre. But IMO he's one of the very best quarterbacks in history. And you seldom hear anyone call Favre the greatest ever, because no one is allowed to touch a microphone until s/he swears to proclaim to the world that Joe Montana stands alone at the top.

My candidates for most overrated QB since Namath:
Troy Aikman, Drew Bledsoe, Tom Brady, John Elway, Joe Montana

originally posted by MountaineerDave
Neither does Jimmy Johnson.
I agree. So do the voters. Johnson gets nominated every year, but he's never been a finalist.

From the great Dallas teams of 90s, I'd take Emmitt and Larry Allen and (grumble) Deion, and maybe Michael Irvin or Darren Woodson or even Moose Johnston, the best modern fullback since that became an almost exclusively blocking position.

MountaineerDave

02-09-2005, 04:39 PM

What laid the egg? The thing that became the chicken.

Joe Montana does stand alone at the top. And only Marino lovers would suggest otherwise. (All in good fun, of course, Brad. All in good fun.)

Dave

Brad O.

02-09-2005, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by MountaineerDave
What laid the egg? The thing that became the chicken.
Fine, but if the proto-chicken came before the egg, I still claim a moral victory.

Originally posted by MountaineerDave
Joe Montana does stand alone at the top. And only Marino lovers would suggest otherwise. (All in good fun, of course, Brad. All in good fun.)
Taken as such. One day I'll post my list of the Top 12 QBs in NFL history and really shake things up around here. It's so sacreligous, the most sacreligious sports opinion thread can't handle it.

I will add: I don't think Montana is #1, but I don't have a problem with people who do, as long as they know their stuff. I do have a problem with ESPN, both on television and .com, stating that Montana was the best ever as fact.

KevinBeane

02-09-2005, 08:50 PM

Brad, I will give you credit for beating me down on the Ripken thing (how often do you hear THAT kind of concession areound here)? But one thing you said in it was, "It's almost like you are holding the streak AGAINST Ripken." Now I'm looking at your list of quarterbacks and thinking, "It's almost like he's holding Super Bowl victories AGAINST certain quarterbacks."

Not that I'm in love with any of those guys except, yes, Montana. Didn't he retire with the best career QB rating ever? I mean, I don't remember the QB rating formula, but I bet you do...but is it just complete hogwash in terms of assessing a quarterback?

I mean, I do know it factors in a lot of stats, so if STATS (or stats used to compile QB ratings) isn't much of a measure of a good qb, and if WINNING (as you have implied with your Super Bowl sacrilege) isn't much of a measure either, what the heck is left?

Tarkus

02-09-2005, 10:07 PM

You started it so I'll get a backbone (lol) & throw out....As much discussion as there is about Manning, I'd take a winner like Brady over him any day. With me it's not just the stats but the intangibles & while Manning has gotten better & had a fantastic year (stat-wise), the intangibles are what he has yet to show me. That doesn't put the Colts lack of success on his shoulders alone but what he does as a QB.

Now if that's not sacreligious, I don't know what is....lol

MountaineerDave

02-09-2005, 10:32 PM

I half expect Brad's top 12 to look a little like this:

Dan Marino (it's a given, isn't it?)
Peyton Manning
Stan Humphries
Danny White
Ken Stabler
Archie Manning
Fran Tarkenton
Warren Moon (or will his Grey Cups make him ineligible?)
Eli Manning...

;)

Brad, we'll be needing your Top 12 over in the NFL forum in about a week, so...

Dave

Brad O.

02-10-2005, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by MountaineerDave
I half expect Brad's top 12 to look a little like this:

Dan Marino (it's a given, isn't it?)
Peyton Manning
Stan Humphries
Danny White
Ken Stabler
Archie Manning
Fran Tarkenton
Warren Moon (or will his Grey Cups make him ineligible?)
Eli Manning...

;)

Brad, we'll be needing your Top 12 over in the NFL forum in about a week, so...

Dave

:lol:

You forgot Craig Morton!

Actually, both you and Kevin should remember that my #1 is the consumate winning quarterback.

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Now I'm looking at your list of quarterbacks and thinking, "It's almost like he's holding Super Bowl victories AGAINST certain quarterbacks."
I guess I can see where you'd get that. My "overrated" list isn't a good place to draw conclusions about my feelings about quarterbacks so much as my feelings about sports media and conventional wisdom.

Originally posted by KevinBeane
Not that I'm in love with any of those guys except, yes, Montana. Didn't he retire with the best career QB rating ever? I mean, I don't remember the QB rating formula, but I bet you do...but is it just complete hogwash in terms of assessing a quarterback?
Montana retired as #2 (behind Young). The formula (http://www.nfl.com/news/981202qbrate.html) is okay. Way too much emphasis on completion percentage, and it doesn't translate across eras at all. I actually created my own system once upon a time, but I don't use it any more.

Originally posted by KevinBeane
I mean, I do know it factors in a lot of stats, so if STATS (or stats used to compile QB ratings) isn't much of a measure of a good qb, and if WINNING (as you have implied with your Super Bowl sacrilege) isn't much of a measure either, what the heck is left?
Well, I do look at stats pretty extensively. On an old computer, I have the top 10 statistical QBs for every year from 1946-2002, according to another since-discarded system I invented. I haven't been able to get to any of my data for the last few months, and it's driving me crazy.

I've seen a zillion NFL films and a bunch of old Super Bowls and playoff games, but it's tough to assess a 15-year vet from the one game you've seen him in plus some highlight reels. So for anyone pre-1980, I rely almost exclusively on a combination of stats and the opinions of trustworthy football people.

One thing I take into account pretty heavily that I think many people disregard or underestimate, is personnel. Playing for someone like Walsh or Don Coryell will do wonders for your accomplishments on paper. Throwing to guys like Bobby Mitchell and Charley Taylor doesn't hurt, either.

Going purely by the stats, Dan Fouts is easily top-ten, maybe as high as 2nd or 3rd. I put him more like 20th. Come to think of it, Dave, why isn't Fouts on my list?
;)

Seriously, there are also a lot of intangibles that don't necessarily show up on the stat sheet. Guys like Doug Flutie and Steve McNair are way better than their numbers, for instance. Bob Griese didn't put up huge numbers because of the system in which he played.

It's meaningful to me that Bobby Layne was considered pretty much someone who couldn't lose. Sonny Jurgensen is widely considered the greatest pure passer in the history of the game. Marino's quick release and believable play-action even in the absence of a running game always impressed me.

The thing with my top 12 list is, it's in order, but I believe a reasonable argument can be made for any of the 12 as the greatest ever.

I'll tell you right now, only four of my 12 played in the 1990s, and if I post the list in the NFL forum, I'll get eaten alive for not having five, six, seven, eight on there. I could see this happening:

Montana, Elway, Favre, Brady, Aikman, Marino, Young, Moon, Manning, Kelly, Bledsoe, Simms.

Actually, I think that's Sean Salisbury's list.

MountaineerDave

02-10-2005, 02:18 PM

What an incredible oversight on my part! Dan Fouts has to be your #3, right?

I know that I should remember your number one, if it's not Marino, but I don't. And maybe it's Montana, but I doubt.

As for KB's remark regarding Montana's QB rating when he retired being number one, I think that's prolly accurate. Young didn't overtake Montana till after Joe hung 'em up, I don't believe. I'll defer to you as to the chronology, but... I might like a reference, though.

(BTW, what the hell happened nflarchives.com?!! I'm dead in discussions about even recent history with you without it. DEAD!)

:)

Dave

Brad O.

02-10-2005, 03:31 PM

Dave, my top choice is Otto Graham.

You wanna know how desperate things are over here?
I don't have a working spreadsheet program on this computer, so I can't just type stats in and get a passer rating. I looked up Young's statistics through 1994, computed his completion%, yards/att, td%, and int%, then ran each individual step of the passer rating system using Calculator. His rating was 96.2 or something. Montana retired at 92.3. From 91-94, Young led the NFL in passer rating -- over 100 each year -- and he only had about 500 attempts in TB to drag him down.

I'm afraid the only reference I can give you is that you can find Young's stats at any one of several sites (or TF II) and run the numbers yourself. The Pro Football Hall of Fame is often helpful on this kind of thing, as well.

MountaineerDave

02-10-2005, 03:50 PM

You're right. I don't think Sean Salisbury's even heard of Otto Graham.

I won't remark poorly on our reg'lars over on the NFL forum. Except to say they've likely heard of him. And that puts them ahead of Salisbury... :)

Sounds like you need a new computer or something...
Should we start taking donations for such a thing.
I can't afford but a dime today, but maybe next week... :)

Dave

Billy D

02-18-2005, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by MountaineerDave
Brett Favre is the most overrated QB since... Joe Namath.

I was reading through this thread wondering when it would come up. Don't know about most overrated, but Favre's definitely overrated (which is extra sacrilegious coming from a Packer fan like myself). Favre wins games for us, and he loses games for us. Certainly has an impact on the game i guess.

My Short List of Sacrilege
* The NFL Combine is overrated. Maybe not by us, but definitely by coaches/GMs. Kyle Boller can throw a ball through goalposts from his knees at the 50. Wow, that's really paid off for him as a pro.

* Steve Young had a more impressive career than St. Joe Montana.

* John Madden is rarely funny and rarely informative... but frequently repetitive. I preferred Dan Fouts and Dennis Miller.

* Red Sox fans are whiners. Try being a Chicago baseball fan-- neither team has won the WS in over 80 years. I only cheered for the BoSox cuz they're the anti-Yankees.

* Rupp Arena was not that much of a crazy college b-ball environment for a long time. Lately it has changed since the student section is behind the basket instead of tucked in the corner of the upper deck like when i attended UK. Vitale repeated it so many times people thought it was true ("Rupp's a tough environment"), but the aura used to be similar to an NBA arena with all the rich alums arriving late and sitting silently throughout. Sure, fans could get excited on occasion, but it wasn't the norm, it wasn't like some other tough places. I wish I lived there now.

* Soccer is entertaining. And, yes, I am an American. I eat meat, I watch the NFL, I dig chicks. And yet I enjoy soccer.

Is all of this really sacrilege? You be the judge

#47

02-18-2005, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by Billy D

* Steve Young had a more impressive career than St. Joe Montana.

Except when it counted most, in the BIG games, which is far more important then looking at stats like yards passed and yards gained rushing.

Young started in 9 playoff games for the 49ers, with 7 at HOME and was a whopping 5-4 in those games. Add his SB win(a great performance though it was) and he jumps to 6-4. He was 1-3 in NFC title games(3 at HOME).

Montana started 15 playoff games, with 11 at HOME. He was 10-5 in playoff games, add in his 4 SB wins and he was 14-5. He was 4-2 in NFC title games(4 at HOME).

If you call winning less more impressive, your right, Young was more impressive.

Fight On!

MountaineerDave

02-18-2005, 05:26 PM

That was pretty good, 47. I liked that. Anything that protects that Saint from that horrible mormon-school-attending loudmouth. (I want to like Young in his aftercareerlife, but I just can't.)

As for Billy D's other sacriligious beliefs:
1. I think the combine is falling off the importance map for a couple of reasons. For one, most of the top kids expecting to go really high in the draft don't bother with the combine, fearing injury or a bad showing, and hurting their millions-to come. For another, there's been a glacially slow but still occurring (I think) trend toward drafting football players, and not necessarily height/weight/speed/drill performers. All that stuff helps, but the interviews the teams conduct are weighing more heavily now than I believe they ever have.

2. We've covered this particular sacrilige. And yes, by giving it voice, you've doomed yourself to football hell.

3. It was my impression that the Madden portion of the comment was the common belief. I'm pretty sure Rudy Martke (sic) is the only guy who gets anything from listening to that fat man babble. I'd do it for a tenth of the price Madden does it for, but no one asked me. As for Fouts/Miller, well, that might be sacrilege. I like Fouts. Never really bought into Miller in the MNF booth, though.

4. Yes. And they (being the ones born here) know it. But, they insist that they're done whining. Time (that is, in two months) will tell. I'm not sure this is a sacrilegious opinion. It is fact.

5. Okay. I don't know, so... Okay.

6. I suppose this is sacriligious. I don't run around telling people I like soccer. I don't hide from it, though. I detest MLS, though. It's only watchable in five to ten minute doses. Premiership, even Bundesliga, are way more interesting to watch. I just watched Liverpool get their asses whomped by Birmingham the other day on Fox Soccer Channel...

Dave

#47

02-18-2005, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by MountaineerDave

6. I suppose this is sacriligious. I don't run around telling people I like soccer. I don't hide from it, though. I detest MLS, though. It's only watchable in five to ten minute doses. Premiership, even Bundesliga, are way more interesting to watch. I just watched Liverpool get their asses whomped by Birmingham the other day on Fox Soccer Channel...

Dave

Can someone answer me a soccer related question.

1st a little background. I never played soccer and never cared for the game that much in all honesty growing up. But I have had to watch my son, who is a sophomore in HS, play the game for years(indoor, outdoor, travel teams, etc) and presently plays in HS, I have had to deal with it.................I havent slapped him upside head for playing it and not football..............really I havent!

But why is it, I can sit down and watch a little soccer from Europe and the World Cup(and root like crazy for Germany), but I cannot watch a MLS game even for a second?

Is this odd?

Fight On!

MountaineerDave

02-18-2005, 07:49 PM

It's not odd. It's reality.

Of course, maybe the odd thing is rooting for a bunch of overrated twerps like the Krauts, but that's a debate for another thread and another time. ;) (Kidding, Germany fans. Kidding. Well, sort of.)

In my opinion, there are a couple of reasons for this, but really, it's just one thing:

Talent.

The talent level, especially in the World Cup, is extraordinarily high. The players at that level of talent move better, see the field better, know the nuances of the ball, the pitch, the wind, etc., better than the collection of men who take the field in MLS.

Yes, MLS has some players of varying degrees of talent and ability, but for the most part, MLS players play in MLS because the other options aren't any better. For the vast majority of MLS players, they either will never be good enough to play in Europe or South America (particularly Argentina and Brazil), or have played there and are in their career's decline.

I've probably brought it up a couple times on this board, but the difference in games played abroad and at home could never have been more clear and obvious to me than the evening I watched Barcelona (Spain) v Juventus (Italy) at Gillette Stadium a couple years back.

The game had pace. The players had skill. And it was evident throughout, even when both clubs went to their benches in the second half. The players were fast. They could pass the ball to within inches of their intended receipient. They clearly saw the flow of the game in ways that I'd never noticed on television before.

After that game, the Revolution took on DC United. I nearly fell asleep. NOTHING happened. Passes were always off the mark. Players repeatedly bumped into one another resulting in unseemly stoppages for free kicks. They couldn't shoot. No one showed any clear on-the-ball skill (the Revs one great player was struggling throug an injury, and was mostly a non-factor) and absolutley no one could run. It was rather like watching a New Jersey Devils hockey game. Lots of needless clutching and grabbing, lots of ill-timed/ill-fated/ill-conceived passing, lots of boredom for the fans. I got up at halftime, and while I didn't leave the stadium until five minutes to go, I never returned to a seat, choosing to glance every so often at the jumbotron to see what was causing the fifteen remaining spectators to make sounds when they made them. I spent the rest of the night basking in the glow of the first game, the real game, (to steal a phrase) The Beautiful Game.

What I th