Author Topic: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?  (Read 6686 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #135 on: February 17, 2013, 04:46:46 PM »

Offline eja117

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11151
  • Tommy Points: 581
    • 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.

  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.
Well there's the combine where they get measured against each other. He didn't do very well at the combine. There's also those QB feats competitions where they throw at stuff. He might very well lose there.

So I ask myself.  If you trade Brady for Manning straight up which team gets better and which gets worse. You could ask it about Montana or Marino too. You could ask it about DiMaggio and Ted too. 

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #136 on: February 17, 2013, 05:10:51 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22128
  • Tommy Points: 1009
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.
Well there's the combine where they get measured against each other. He didn't do very well at the combine. There's also those QB feats competitions where they throw at stuff. He might very well lose there.

So I ask myself.  If you trade Brady for Manning straight up which team gets better and which gets worse. You could ask it about Montana or Marino too. You could ask it about DiMaggio and Ted too.

  Yes, you could ask it about Williams and DiMaggio, but the answer wouldn't be anywhere near the landslide for DiMaggio that you claimed it would.

Re: As a fan, are championships the only thing that matter?
« Reply #137 on: February 19, 2013, 04:15:29 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9385
  • Tommy Points: 410
Ted Williams is a better player than Joe Dimaggio.  I don't even think it is close.  In fact, most experts put Ted Williams in the top 4 position players all time right there with Ruth, Mays, and Bonds (at least those that still recognize Bonds).

EDIT:  And just so you know I'm not making stuff up, here is the ESPN list of the 100 greatest players of all time.  http://espn.go.com/mlb/feature/video/_/id/8652210/espn-hall-100-ranking-all-time-greatest-mlb-players  Ruth, Mays, Bonds, Williams are the top 4. Aaron is 5th.  Followed by Cobb, Clemens, Musial, Mantle, and Wagner.  Joe D. is 21st on the list.  This was made December 4, 2012 so it is recent and obviously doesn't discount the PED era.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2013, 04:22:21 PM by Moranis »
2014 Pick 2 Draft 18th pick of 20
Sacramento Kings
Starters - Isaiah Thomas, Eric Gordon, Jimmy Butler, Dirk Nowitzki, Demarcus Cousins
Bench - Kendall Marshall, Michael Carter-Williams, Vince Carter, Wesley Johnson, Marcus Morris, Miles Plumlee, Nerlens Noel

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.

Welcome to CelticsBlog