Author Topic: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?  (Read 7270 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #120 on: February 08, 2013, 04:47:13 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27118
  • Tommy Points: 2036
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan.  I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.

Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #121 on: February 17, 2013, 12:50:39 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan.  I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.

Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #122 on: February 17, 2013, 01:01:06 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27118
  • Tommy Points: 2036
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan.  I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.

Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s
Being a fan isn't about being a front runner eja. I've been a Celtic fan since '74. I love pointing at the championships, but that isn't what being a Celtic fan is all about. Its about tradition, and team, and the players, and the moments, both good and bad.

Did I want Bias and Lewis to die? Don't be ridiculous. Would I have rather been winning championships in the 90's? Sure.

But I am a Celtics fan and couldn't. So I embrace what did happen because its part of our legacy. And history and legacy are as important to being a fan of this team as any other.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #123 on: February 17, 2013, 01:12:13 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
I have to admit I'm a little curious how many fans here wouldn't go back in time to trade Bird for Jordan.  I'd do it in a heartbeat.
I wonder how many fans that were fans during the Reggie Lewis years would trade being a Celtic fan and missing all the heartache and mourning after he died for being a Bulls fan and winning those championships.

Living through Reggie and Lenny Bias made me the Celtic fan I am today. Championships are fine things. Being a true fan of something and enjoying everything that being a fan of that thing or hobby or sport entails is what is truly important about being a fan.
Wait a second. Are you saying you're happy they died as opposed to winning championships? Because somehow it made you a better fan? I understand the whole Sisyphus was a winner bit but I'm not sure losing can make a fan base better. Or can make you a better fan or something. I mean I'll definitely take Cubs fans over Mets fans, but one of the top things Celts fans point out is the banners, not the 90s
Being a fan isn't about being a front runner eja. I've been a Celtic fan since '74. I love pointing at the championships, but that isn't what being a Celtic fan is all about. Its about tradition, and team, and the players, and the moments, both good and bad.

Did I want Bias and Lewis to die? Don't be ridiculous. Would I have rather been winning championships in the 90's? Sure.

But I am a Celtics fan and couldn't. So I embrace what did happen because its part of our legacy. And history and legacy are as important to being a fan of this team as any other.
I understand what you're saying, but is it really all about the tradition?  About moments good and bad?

So what is the tradition? Is the tradition here ...winning?

Roy said in the OP being a fan is about more than championships.

So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Because I wouldn't support a team I thought wasn't aspiring to winning championships. The Red Sox were dead to me last year because it was clear to me they were aspiring to getting their checks and their manager fired.  If that makes me a bad fan then that's what I am.

It's interesting to me that Roy and a lot of others make the connection between Yankees fans and New England fans because I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

My issue with them is that they have no shame about buying championships. If you have the highest payroll every year you should win every year.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #124 on: February 17, 2013, 01:15:25 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #125 on: February 17, 2013, 01:26:41 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

Why even have championships? Why even have rings? Why keep score? It's so we know who was greatest when.

This stuff Lebron tried to pull last week about rings not defining a career is straight from the participation ribbon era. 

One of the things I think that gets forgotten is that in a way when a guy like Malone or Barkley gets multiple Olympic golds that in a way means more to me than an NBA ring, because that's beating the whole world. It's a little apples/oranges and the comparison doesn't happen as much any more because the world's talent is in the NBA for the most part now, but that's why I find the Olympics pretty amazing basketball. It's always amazing to me when a tiny country with little NBA talent punches our NBA players in the face and humbles them.

also according to this it really is about the ring.......also the banner of Celtics Blog says "CelticsBlog - A Boston Celtics Blog: 17 banners and counting"  It doesn't say anything about good times and bad or tradition. I have been misled!




Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #126 on: February 17, 2013, 01:37:37 PM »

Offline Kane3387

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6596
  • Tommy Points: 630
  • Intensity!!!
Maybe a better question should be, "are championships the most important thing that matters?"

DKC Sacramento Kings
'15 1st - SAC (LAC swap), BKN (ATL can swap), MEM(prot), CHR (prot)
'16 1st - best of SAC & LAC
'17 1st - SAC (DAL swap), MIA

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #127 on: February 17, 2013, 01:59:55 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27118
  • Tommy Points: 2036
I would have given up both World Series Championships to have spent the summer watching Ted Williams in 1941.

That's how great Ted Williams was. Watching his greatness would mean more to me than the titles.

Same goes for Bill Russell in the early 60's. I would give up the 2008 title to have been able to watch Russell and those early 60's Celtics for a year.

I already saw the greatest Bruins and Pats teams ever(70-72 Bruins and the 76-77 Pats) so I don't have any such wish with them.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #128 on: February 17, 2013, 02:04:34 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23650
  • Tommy Points: -29129
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.


D. Cousins / F. Ezeli / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / V. Carter / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / M. Ginobil / B. Gordon
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #129 on: February 17, 2013, 02:46:01 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

And I absolutely would not ever have given up watching a championship to watch a season of Ted. Talk about not being able to take things seriously.

Are we not taking people seriously who are saying we should trade KG and/or Pierce for Bledsoe/Jordan because that's not what Red did or it's not traditional enough?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2013, 02:52:30 PM by eja117 »

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #130 on: February 17, 2013, 03:16:37 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

  You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #131 on: February 17, 2013, 03:44:41 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

  You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to.  I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #132 on: February 17, 2013, 04:04:05 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

  You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to.  I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.

  The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?

  And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #133 on: February 17, 2013, 04:13:05 PM »

Online eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11682
  • Tommy Points: 623
    • Celtics Green myspace
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

  You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to.  I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.

  The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?

  And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others.  And yes. Dirk had a better year the year he won a ring than the year he won the MVP but was knocked from the playoffs by the 8th seed Warriors.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #134 on: February 17, 2013, 04:38:35 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22674
  • Tommy Points: 1042
Quote
So if Ainge came out and said tomorrow "Well. We have a trade or two on the table that would clearly lead us towards some championships but ...it's just about championships. We don't really aspire to that here. Here it's about tradition and moments good and bad. And it just didn't seem traditional to trade these guys at this time".  that would be ok?

Championships are never guaranteed.  Red held on to McHale and Bird.  If tradition and loyalty are good enough for him, they're good enough for me.

Quote
I'm sure that for a long time whenever Sox fans mentioned Ted Williams as an all time great they must have rolled their eyes and I don't blame them at all.

Anybody who doesn't consider Ted Williams an all-time great clearly doesn't know what they're talking about.
There is just no way on Earth Ted can be considered in the same sentence with Babe Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, or even Jeter. No way. He's Marino. They're all Montanas.  There's a difference between an all time great talent and all time great player.

It's getting harder and harder to take you seriously.
Well can rings be taken seriously?  I mean you drew the comparison between NE fans and Yankees fans. Do you not take Yankees fans or the Yankees seriously? Are or you just sorta in awe of the Milwaukee Brewers because you can take them more seriously?  I get that it's universally agreed that Ted was historically talented and a gift to the game. So was Marino and Patrick Ewing.

  You get that Ted was historically talented player but you claim that he can't be mentioned in the same breath as players like DiMaggio or Mantle or Jeter. Are you claiming that those players were significantly better individual players than Williams, or that they were on more successful teams than he was? If it's based on team success then you're claiming that he can't be mentioned in the same breath with other players because they had better teammates than he did. Which would be, as Roy mentioned, tough to take seriously.
Yeah. Somehow Jeter just happened to have better teammates again and again and again. And MJ too. He's so lucky he had Scottie Pippen and Steve Kerr and Horace Grant. He totally owes his success to them. And Brady. Man is he lucky that he had Deion Branch to pass to.  I don't know what I was thinking or how I could be taken seriously to suggest DiMaggio or Babe Ruth were better than Ted. How silly all those Japanese were when they yelled to heck with Babe Ruth. They should have been yelling to heck with Ted. Granted Ted was trying to shoot them down, but still.

  The Yanks have the highest payroll in the league. Are you certain that Jeter didn't have the better teammates?

  And we've all seen Brady fall short of winning a title when he didn't have top level receivers, the year the Pats dumped Branch is a prime example of it. And just out of curiosity, since Brady hasn't won a title in a while, are you claiming that he began regressing as a player the year he won his last title and he's never been able to play at as high a level as he did during those years? That he was a significantly better qb in 2003 than he was in the years that he had more touchdowns, fewer interceptions and a higher completion percentage and qb rating?
Brady has definitely not played as well in the Super Bowl or the playoffs since 2003. Especially the last Super Bowl. Especially when Mark Sanchez was beating the crud out of him. Especially when the Ravens beat the crud out of him this year. Yes. When it mattered he has positively come up very Manningish. Montana didn't win every year out either. Great ones do have primes and decline. It happens. Some differently than others.

  I guess declining before you enter your prime would count as differently than others. Again, a couple of plays break the other way in 3-4 of Brady's super bowls and the results change, as does your opinion of when Brady was "Montanaish" or "Manningish" at the time. Not necessarily plays that Brady made or didn't make, but plays his teammates made or didn't make. Your opinion of him as an individual player is directly related to the performance of other players on the team, including defensive and special team players or even coaches. Same with your opinion of other players.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog