PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics]

Moderators: PaulieWal, Quotatious, Doctor MJ, Clyde Frazier, trex_8063, penbeast0

HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 19,725
And1: 15,824
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1041 » by HeartBreakKid » Wed Jul 14, 2021 12:45 am

Doctor MJ wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:from more to less, how would sports be rsnked by how much nostalgia and preference for older eras they have?

i feel like basketball and boxing would be on top and maybe soccer at the bottom

No one in basketball really matters before Magic and Bird which wasn't that long ago, and no one else during the 80s really matters either except guys who had success during the 90s.

Basketball's nostalgia doesn't go that far back because ironically most people weren't watching basketball a long time ago. Always got to laugh when a guy says "you probably were too young to see them play" and they're talking about 2005 players or something.


I'd say baseball is king of nostalgia.


Just want to specifically note that I think Wilt Chamberlain is the extra dimension here that has to be mentioned.

Y'all know that when it comes to player comparison stuff, I'm very much in the Russell>Wilt camp. But as much as I admire Russell on and off the court, I can't deny that Wilt isn't simply the #1 pre-Bird/Magic icon the sport produced, he's someone who (literally) stands out enough that people knew and know him who might never have watched a basketball game.

He was essentially seen as the super-man. More than any other athlete. That's why people still tell tales about him, and that's why we have people earnestly believe many of these tales even in hard core communities such as RealGM.

All this to say that I'd argue it's essentially because of Wilt that basketball conversations that go back to the '60s have remained fairly common, while stuff from the '50s and earlier are much less frequent, and this type of split between the '50s & '60s certainly was no given. (For baseball, by contrast, the '50s - and the '20s before that - represent the most significant decades.)

Sure, people know players before Magic/Bird (Dr.J, Chamberlain, Kareem) but they're more after thoughts. Kareem and Dr.J playing in the 80s did help their obscurity issues.

Chamberlain is reasonably popular relative to his era, but not as popular as someone like Dr.J. They still seem like two guys who's reputations would have took a massive leap if they had done what they had done later.

Regardless, with Chamberlain you still very much hear the "didn't he play against 5'9 guys?" quite often so his era is certainly used against him. It seems like people like to draw a line in terms of competition with Magic and Bird, using a clumsy false pretext that "oh, they had the 3 pointline, that's why it's modern" - even though it's really an obvious excuse just to find a convenient way to cut pre 80s guys out as that would require more thinking and research to rank them.
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 44,796
And1: 13,695
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1042 » by Doctor MJ » Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:01 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
HeartBreakKid wrote:No one in basketball really matters before Magic and Bird which wasn't that long ago, and no one else during the 80s really matters either except guys who had success during the 90s.

Basketball's nostalgia doesn't go that far back because ironically most people weren't watching basketball a long time ago. Always got to laugh when a guy says "you probably were too young to see them play" and they're talking about 2005 players or something.


I'd say baseball is king of nostalgia.


Just want to specifically note that I think Wilt Chamberlain is the extra dimension here that has to be mentioned.

Y'all know that when it comes to player comparison stuff, I'm very much in the Russell>Wilt camp. But as much as I admire Russell on and off the court, I can't deny that Wilt isn't simply the #1 pre-Bird/Magic icon the sport produced, he's someone who (literally) stands out enough that people knew and know him who might never have watched a basketball game.

He was essentially seen as the super-man. More than any other athlete. That's why people still tell tales about him, and that's why we have people earnestly believe many of these tales even in hard core communities such as RealGM.

All this to say that I'd argue it's essentially because of Wilt that basketball conversations that go back to the '60s have remained fairly common, while stuff from the '50s and earlier are much less frequent, and this type of split between the '50s & '60s certainly was no given. (For baseball, by contrast, the '50s - and the '20s before that - represent the most significant decades.)

Sure, people know players before Magic/Bird (Dr.J, Chamberlain, Kareem) but they're more after thoughts. Kareem and Dr.J playing in the 80s did help their obscurity issues.

Chamberlain is reasonably popular relative to his era, but not as popular as someone like Dr.J. They still seem like two guys who's reputations would have took a massive leap if they had done what they had done later.

Regardless, with Chamberlain you still very much hear the "didn't he play against 5'9 guys?" quite often so his era is certainly used against him. It seems like people like to draw a line in terms of competition with Magic and Bird, using a clumsy false pretext that "oh, they had the 3 pointline, that's why it's modern" - even though it's really an obvious excuse just to find a convenient way to cut pre 80s guys out as that would require more thinking and research to rank them.


Wait, you think Dr. J is more popular than Wilt? I personally love Dr. J and am well known for being critical of Wilt, but I'd have said Wilt at least a tier above Dr. J in popular awareness.

Pause, okay I just played around with Google Trends some. Here's how I tend to see the baseline curiosity about these guys - along with a few others it occurred to me to compare - in recent years:

Michael Jordan

Charles Barkley
Magic Johnson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
Larry Bird
Wilt Chamberlain
Julius Erving
Bill Russell
Karl Malone
Hakeem Olajuwon
Isiah Thomas
Patrick Ewing
Jerry West
Clyde Drexler
Bill Walton
Dominique Wilkins
Oscar Robertson
Kevin McHale
Moses Malone
Elgin Baylor
James Worthy
Bob Cousy
George Mikan
John Havlicek
Bob Pettit

First thing I'll say is that I was actually really happy to see Dr. J do as well as he did. To me, still the most graceful basketball player I've ever seen.

But yeah, Wilt still tops him, and then you can see that Russell tops basically everyone from that '80s era except Bird, Magic, Mike, and the ol' Roun' Moun' - who is the first clue that other things loom larger than past career on this list.

I should I totally agree that Kareem's status has so much to do with him not just being around in the '80s, but being on the Showtime Lakers as one of the two stars. I'm quite sure that Kareem would be way lower on this list if he'd been even better in the '70s but was Artis Gilmore in the '80s.

A similarly, I think it's clear that Cousy having a bigger stature than Mikan & Pettit really wasn't about his good years in the early-to-mid 50s, but rather his presence as a prominent early face of the Celtic Dynasty.

I want to highlight Olajuwon specifically here, though it breaks my heart a bit, to illustrate the case in point. A recurring them of conversation on this board is whether Olajuwon was flat out better than Russell, yet despite achieving the peak that makes us think this 30 years later than Russell peaked, Russell's a bigger deal by this approach, and frankly that sounds absolutely correct.

I think Russell remains a bigger deal to the masses than Olajuwon, and that speaks to how significant the '60s were.

It frankly just bums me out thought that the Mailman is a bigger deal by this metric than Dream, and I find myself thinking not for the first time, that the basketball hero factory just wasn't ready for a foreign mega-star with a strange name...because when you watch him play, he's just so jaw-dropping, he should have inspired Spike Lee-like shoe commercials.

Here's hoping that as the years go on and more of historic basketball is consumed through YouTube, that people will fall in love with his game like it was Shawshank Redemption.
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
kayess
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,674
And1: 898
Joined: Sep 29, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1043 » by kayess » Wed Jul 14, 2021 10:28 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
falcolombardi wrote:before the suoerbowl and longevity difference became too wide brady was kinda like the kobe to peyton's lebron back in the days

everyone knew peyton was "more good" but pundits elevted brady for perceived clutchness and more rings (only missed the killer instinct part)


Maybe during first three Patriots superbowls but by 2007 on there isn’t really that much between them in terms of regular season performance in my opinion, Brady’s MVP seasons in 07 and 10 are up there with any Manning ones. I think Bird being originally rated higher than Magic but it flipping in 87 may be a better comp than Lebron v Kobe.


Yeah, to me the idea that Brady was a mere game manager ended in 2007.

I think that what you can say is that if you just take average quality of playoff performance, that's Joe Montana. I don't have any particular reason to rank Manning over Brady by any rationale. I can see some measures saying it's debatable, but the argument that we'd expect Manning to achieve comparable success to Brady if he'd only been drafted onto the Patriots doesn't seem realistic at this point.

Agreed also that a Bird/Magic comparison is closer to the mark than LeBron/Kobe, though in football, just as in basketball, there really is no one anywhere that is a close comparison to Bird. (Manning & Brady both play more like Magic.)


Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 51,966
And1: 12,940
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1044 » by Dr Positivity » Thu Jul 15, 2021 12:52 am

kayess wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
Maybe during first three Patriots superbowls but by 2007 on there isn’t really that much between them in terms of regular season performance in my opinion, Brady’s MVP seasons in 07 and 10 are up there with any Manning ones. I think Bird being originally rated higher than Magic but it flipping in 87 may be a better comp than Lebron v Kobe.


Yeah, to me the idea that Brady was a mere game manager ended in 2007.

I think that what you can say is that if you just take average quality of playoff performance, that's Joe Montana. I don't have any particular reason to rank Manning over Brady by any rationale. I can see some measures saying it's debatable, but the argument that we'd expect Manning to achieve comparable success to Brady if he'd only been drafted onto the Patriots doesn't seem realistic at this point.

Agreed also that a Bird/Magic comparison is closer to the mark than LeBron/Kobe, though in football, just as in basketball, there really is no one anywhere that is a close comparison to Bird. (Manning & Brady both play more like Magic.)


Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.


All i can say I think you're underrating Brady's "baseline" and how high he peaked even without the rings.

To use a simplistic measure Manning - 5 MVPs, Brady - 3, Rodgers - 3, Brees - 0 (despite how good his career was), however Manning won two by thinnest of margins as one of his wins is a literal tie with McNair and the other was basically a toss-up with Brees. As I said I would take 07 and 10 seasons by Brady up there with any of the Manning/Rodgers ones. 10 does not have as eye popping numbers as 07 but I believe it was a historic offensive team by advanced stats with the most unstoppable short passing team of all time basically. 17 I wasn't watching as much honestly but it seems like another good season and the best Patriots offensive team of their 14-18 run (but worst defensively).

In terms of luck I don't believe Brady is Russell who won nearly every title he has a chance to. He has several horrible losses to Giants and Eagles in superbowl, he could have had both of Manning's rings (the one with Rex Grossman in the finals was especially the real superbowl in the conference finals), then there is some wacky losses like losing with 14-2 team to the Jets because unlike the NBA when you can just reverse sweep a team after losing Game 1 it's just over.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 19,725
And1: 15,824
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1045 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Jul 15, 2021 1:55 am

Dr Positivity wrote:
kayess wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:
Yeah, to me the idea that Brady was a mere game manager ended in 2007.

I think that what you can say is that if you just take average quality of playoff performance, that's Joe Montana. I don't have any particular reason to rank Manning over Brady by any rationale. I can see some measures saying it's debatable, but the argument that we'd expect Manning to achieve comparable success to Brady if he'd only been drafted onto the Patriots doesn't seem realistic at this point.

Agreed also that a Bird/Magic comparison is closer to the mark than LeBron/Kobe, though in football, just as in basketball, there really is no one anywhere that is a close comparison to Bird. (Manning & Brady both play more like Magic.)


Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.


All i can say I think you're underrating Brady's "baseline" and how high he peaked even without the rings.

To use a simplistic measure Manning - 5 MVPs, Brady - 3, Rodgers - 3, Brees - 0 (despite how good his career was), however Manning won two by thinnest of margins as one of his wins is a literal tie with McNair and the other was basically a toss-up with Brees. As I said I would take 07 and 10 seasons by Brady up there with any of the Manning/Rodgers ones. 10 does not have as eye popping numbers as 07 but I believe it was a historic offensive team by advanced stats with the most unstoppable short passing team of all time basically. 17 I wasn't watching as much honestly but it seems like another good season and the best Patriots offensive team of their 14-18 run (but worst defensively).

In terms of luck I don't believe Brady is Russell who won nearly every title he has a chance to. He has several horrible losses to Giants and Eagles in superbowl, he could have had both of Manning's rings (the one with Rex Grossman in the finals was especially the real superbowl in the conference finals), then there is some wacky losses like losing with 14-2 team to the Jets because unlike the NBA when you can just reverse sweep a team after losing Game 1 it's just over.


Brady is in position to win MVP's more for two reasons

1) He played for longer than both of those guys

2) His team on average has objectively been better than both of their guys, especially relative to their competition

The Patriots have been divisional winners for Brady's entire run more or less. While you should say they are dominant because they have Brady, one also has to acknowledge that the competition is objectively very weak outside of the Patriots. It is the weakest division in football during Brady's tenure as a player off the top of my head.

Rodgers for example hasn't had record's good enough for his MVP contention to be taken seriously, which is why he randomly got one at an older age because it just happens his team wasn't trash that year. The Packers for years were glass cannons, having bottom of the barrel defenses for years (same thing with Brees if I can recall). Patriots were never imbalanced, and have won games even when their offense wasn't playing well.


So while Brady is "good" enough to win an MVP, it doesn't really mean that he is on the same level as Manning and Rodgers during the RS. I am pretty sure last time I checked Rodgers and Manning's best regular season were quite a bit better than Brady's.
kayess
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,674
And1: 898
Joined: Sep 29, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1046 » by kayess » Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:18 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
kayess wrote:
Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.


All i can say I think you're underrating Brady's "baseline" and how high he peaked even without the rings.

To use a simplistic measure Manning - 5 MVPs, Brady - 3, Rodgers - 3, Brees - 0 (despite how good his career was), however Manning won two by thinnest of margins as one of his wins is a literal tie with McNair and the other was basically a toss-up with Brees. As I said I would take 07 and 10 seasons by Brady up there with any of the Manning/Rodgers ones. 10 does not have as eye popping numbers as 07 but I believe it was a historic offensive team by advanced stats with the most unstoppable short passing team of all time basically. 17 I wasn't watching as much honestly but it seems like another good season and the best Patriots offensive team of their 14-18 run (but worst defensively).

In terms of luck I don't believe Brady is Russell who won nearly every title he has a chance to. He has several horrible losses to Giants and Eagles in superbowl, he could have had both of Manning's rings (the one with Rex Grossman in the finals was especially the real superbowl in the conference finals), then there is some wacky losses like losing with 14-2 team to the Jets because unlike the NBA when you can just reverse sweep a team after losing Game 1 it's just over.


Brady is in position to win MVP's more for two reasons

1) He played for longer than both of those guys

2) His team on average has objectively been better than both of their guys, especially relative to their competition

The Patriots have been divisional winners for Brady's entire run more or less. While you should say they are dominant because they have Brady, one also has to acknowledge that the competition is objectively very weak outside of the Patriots. It is the weakest division in football during Brady's tenure as a player off the top of my head.

Rodgers for example hasn't had record's good enough for his MVP contention to be taken seriously, which is why he randomly got one at an older age because it just happens his team wasn't trash that year. The Packers for years were glass cannons, having bottom of the barrel defenses for years (same thing with Brees if I can recall). Patriots were never imbalanced, and have won games even when their offense wasn't playing well.


So while Brady is "good" enough to win an MVP, it doesn't really mean that he is on the same level as Manning and Rodgers during the RS. I am pretty sure last time I checked Rodgers and Manning's best regular season were quite a bit better than Brady's.


Replying to both of you here.

I think you're right that I'm probably underrating Brady's baseline here. Manning comes off as a clearly superior player, but I can't quantify it as well as I can in basketball (what's the equivalent of RAPM in basketball)? I'm no homer though; I know Brady has a better arm and Peyton was throwing ducks towards the end, so I know the advantages he ha.

And to me, the season where Matt Cassell took over and the Patriots STILL won a ton of games speaks volumes about the team advantage Brady had. I know it's a bit of a '93 Bulls situation (their differential wasn't as good), and I'm not implying Brady's some "system quarterback" or something. But you really can't deny he's had the benefit of much, much better teams than his peers.

Anyway I hope all of these debates get invalidated by Mahomes at some point lmao
User avatar
GSP
RealGM
Posts: 14,676
And1: 9,922
Joined: Dec 12, 2011
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1047 » by GSP » Thu Jul 15, 2021 2:29 am

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
kayess wrote:
Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.


All i can say I think you're underrating Brady's "baseline" and how high he peaked even without the rings.

To use a simplistic measure Manning - 5 MVPs, Brady - 3, Rodgers - 3, Brees - 0 (despite how good his career was), however Manning won two by thinnest of margins as one of his wins is a literal tie with McNair and the other was basically a toss-up with Brees. As I said I would take 07 and 10 seasons by Brady up there with any of the Manning/Rodgers ones. 10 does not have as eye popping numbers as 07 but I believe it was a historic offensive team by advanced stats with the most unstoppable short passing team of all time basically. 17 I wasn't watching as much honestly but it seems like another good season and the best Patriots offensive team of their 14-18 run (but worst defensively).

In terms of luck I don't believe Brady is Russell who won nearly every title he has a chance to. He has several horrible losses to Giants and Eagles in superbowl, he could have had both of Manning's rings (the one with Rex Grossman in the finals was especially the real superbowl in the conference finals), then there is some wacky losses like losing with 14-2 team to the Jets because unlike the NBA when you can just reverse sweep a team after losing Game 1 it's just over.


Brady is in position to win MVP's more for two reasons

1) He played for longer than both of those guys

2) His team on average has objectively been better than both of their guys, especially relative to their competition

The Patriots have been divisional winners for Brady's entire run more or less. While you should say they are dominant because they have Brady, one also has to acknowledge that the competition is objectively very weak outside of the Patriots. It is the weakest division in football during Brady's tenure as a player off the top of my head.

Rodgers for example hasn't had record's good enough for his MVP contention to be taken seriously, which is why he randomly got one at an older age because it just happens his team wasn't trash that year. The Packers for years were glass cannons, having bottom of the barrel defenses for years (same thing with Brees if I can recall). Patriots were never imbalanced, and have won games even when their offense wasn't playing well.


So while Brady is "good" enough to win an MVP, it doesn't really mean that he is on the same level as Manning and Rodgers during the RS. I am pretty sure last time I checked Rodgers and Manning's best regular season were quite a bit better than Brady's.


Brady has generally had better defenses than those 2 but its not like their defenses havent bailed them out in the playoffs either. I mean even when Green Bay won their Superbowl they had 3 defensive Tds in the playoffs including a pick 6 in the Nfc Championship Game and the Super Bowl. 2 games that were decided by 7 and 5 points

If the Belichick argument wasnt killed by Toms season with Tb some of Peyton's coaches had more success without him compared to Beli without Brady as a head coach

For the Rs Peyton had some of the best O-lines and receiving corps in the league. Better than Brady for most of their careers like Faulk/Harrison, Harrison/Wayne, or Demaryius/Decker/Welker/JT/Sanders. Peyton almost always had stacked o-lines

Only time Tom even had anything comparable was 1.5 years of Moss/Welker/Stallworth/Gaffney where he absolutely took a dump on the league and then now with the Buccs as a 43yo
Doctor MJ
Senior Mod
Senior Mod
Posts: 44,796
And1: 13,695
Joined: Mar 10, 2005
Location: Cali
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1048 » by Doctor MJ » Thu Jul 15, 2021 3:20 pm

HeartBreakKid wrote:
Dr Positivity wrote:
kayess wrote:
Re the bolded: Why though? I'm not being disingenuous here, I'm legitimately curious. From my limited knowledge I do see Manning/Brady as LeBron/Kobe, right down to having an all-timer coach not just at the Phil Jackson level, but at the Poppovich, near-undisputed GOAT level.

If the argument is longevity and health, then sure, I can buy that. Maybe Peyton still has that neck thing that disallows him from being as great as long as Brady has.

I can't really take the rings argument as seriously because the first few he won with solid, not ATG performances he won due to some clutch FGs. He won a couple with great performances, lost a couple on some ATG clutch plays, and won a couple on ATG absolute chokes. All the while displaying about the same level of goodness that he had in the RS. Peyton's playoffs are below his RS, but there's some A-Rod/Jeter here. He looks worse because his base level of goodness is higher (and again, helps to have good 'ol BB gameplanning with you).

And this isn't really even including Rodgers whose goodness is rated above these guys as well.


All i can say I think you're underrating Brady's "baseline" and how high he peaked even without the rings.

To use a simplistic measure Manning - 5 MVPs, Brady - 3, Rodgers - 3, Brees - 0 (despite how good his career was), however Manning won two by thinnest of margins as one of his wins is a literal tie with McNair and the other was basically a toss-up with Brees. As I said I would take 07 and 10 seasons by Brady up there with any of the Manning/Rodgers ones. 10 does not have as eye popping numbers as 07 but I believe it was a historic offensive team by advanced stats with the most unstoppable short passing team of all time basically. 17 I wasn't watching as much honestly but it seems like another good season and the best Patriots offensive team of their 14-18 run (but worst defensively).

In terms of luck I don't believe Brady is Russell who won nearly every title he has a chance to. He has several horrible losses to Giants and Eagles in superbowl, he could have had both of Manning's rings (the one with Rex Grossman in the finals was especially the real superbowl in the conference finals), then there is some wacky losses like losing with 14-2 team to the Jets because unlike the NBA when you can just reverse sweep a team after losing Game 1 it's just over.


Brady is in position to win MVP's more for two reasons

1) He played for longer than both of those guys

2) His team on average has objectively been better than both of their guys, especially relative to their competition

The Patriots have been divisional winners for Brady's entire run more or less. While you should say they are dominant because they have Brady, one also has to acknowledge that the competition is objectively very weak outside of the Patriots. It is the weakest division in football during Brady's tenure as a player off the top of my head.

Rodgers for example hasn't had record's good enough for his MVP contention to be taken seriously, which is why he randomly got one at an older age because it just happens his team wasn't trash that year. The Packers for years were glass cannons, having bottom of the barrel defenses for years (same thing with Brees if I can recall). Patriots were never imbalanced, and have won games even when their offense wasn't playing well.


So while Brady is "good" enough to win an MVP, it doesn't really mean that he is on the same level as Manning and Rodgers during the RS. I am pretty sure last time I checked Rodgers and Manning's best regular season were quite a bit better than Brady's.

I’m weirded out by this statement because I can’t imagine anyone thinks any season is way better than Brady 2007, and I thought conversations like this ended then.

But I’m not the worlds expert here, and if you want to talk about how much worse Brady was that year than Manning and Rodgers at their best, I’m very curious what you mean.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hey: With what's going on in the world, my fuse is shorter than it used to be, and it's leading my lose my cool and then go on self-imposed breaks from things (such as RealGM). Please try to keep it civil, and I'll be looking to do the same.
falcolombardi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 1,037
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1049 » by falcolombardi » Thu Jul 15, 2021 11:44 pm

i dont know if this board has discussed this before but earlie in the year there was an article called "is a make or miss league" that argued that 3 point shooting had made the league more random and made other factors like rebounding irrelevant or less relevant

or that defense is leas relevant cause 3 point shooting is gonna hit or miss regardless of defense. only interior defense mattering


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting

this series kind of is proving that the rebounding battle is still pretty relevant, as well as defending thw perimeter (jrue defense on the ball handler has been huge)
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 17,985
And1: 10,167
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1050 » by Colbinii » Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:06 pm

falcolombardi wrote:i dont know if this board has discussed this before but earlie in the year there was an article called "is a make or miss league" that argued that 3 point shooting had made the league more random and made other factors like rebounding irrelevant or less relevant

or that defense is leas relevant cause 3 point shooting is gonna hit or miss regardless of defense. only interior defense mattering


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theringer.com/platform/amp/nba/2021/2/12/22279459/nba-make-miss-3-point-shooting

this series kind of is proving that the rebounding battle is still pretty relevant, as well as defending thw perimeter (jrue defense on the ball handler has been huge)


I think the important thing to remember as consumers of media, even articles which are unbiased and objective is the media typically is going to focused on an argument which is often times articulated as an absolute. Obviously the absolute extreme isn't true, and in most cases its never true, but the observations of your post [I haven't read the article yet, I'm currently at work] ring true.

Teams are able to generate an amount of open 3's that blows previous eras out of the water.

Rebounds from 3's are more random and on average can end up going into a far greater area and space than previous shot profiles.

While both of these observations are true, we still see teams in the playoffs forced to shoot closer to the rim [mid-range game] which puts more emphasis back to rebounding and defense.
tsherkin wrote:Locked due to absence of adult conversation.


penbeast0 wrote:Guys, if you don't have anything to say, don't post.


E-Balla wrote:LeBron is Jeff George.
Colbinii
RealGM
Posts: 17,985
And1: 10,167
Joined: Feb 13, 2013

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1051 » by Colbinii » Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:08 pm

On a related note, it seems like just yesterday where "Jump shooting teams" couldn't win titles. HA.
tsherkin wrote:Locked due to absence of adult conversation.


penbeast0 wrote:Guys, if you don't have anything to say, don't post.


E-Balla wrote:LeBron is Jeff George.
falcolombardi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 1,037
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1052 » by falcolombardi » Fri Jul 16, 2021 8:18 pm

Colbinii wrote:On a related note, it seems like just yesterday where "Jump shooting teams" couldn't win titles. HA.


it actually feels like the last few years post warriors dinasty the pendjlum swinged to the other extreme

they have kinda been the "defensive teams dont win" or "big/physicals teams dont win" narrative that la all about shooting and smallball

which has also been disproved like 3 years in a row now
User avatar
Goudelock
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 9,098
And1: 20,227
Joined: Jan 27, 2015
Location: College of Charleston
 

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1053 » by Goudelock » Fri Jul 16, 2021 9:09 pm

Read on Twitter
Devin Booker wrote:Bro.
User avatar
Clyde Frazier
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 18,168
And1: 22,018
Joined: Sep 07, 2010

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1054 » by Clyde Frazier » Wed Jul 21, 2021 1:04 am

Read on Twitter


This is disgusting. Not to mention wrong. A biography on Giannis is coming out this year by respected journalist Mirin Fader:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/56221013-giannis

There are also countless other features on him across all mediums.

Edit - is this story good enough for you?

Read on Twitter
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 51,966
And1: 12,940
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1055 » by Dr Positivity » Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:14 am

I went through some physical and mental stuff the last 5 years that took me to the edge of madness and cost me my feel for almost everything (whether it be sports or artforms), so I had some major FOMO about those seasons and am gonna have to subscribe to league pass for their archive, but after turning a corner I'm very happy with this year's playoffs overall, especially after last year's playoffs just 9 months ago which was total rock bottom for me. A new star is crowned with a likeable home grown team and some other all stars like Middleton and Holiday who's careers while solid probably would've come and gone in the wrong situation, the Chris Paul story changes forever with a Finals run now being one of the first things you think of for so many stars, and stuff like the Clippers backdoor sweep vs the Jazz, Trae and the Hawks run, the Nets losing, Doncic vs Kawhi, etc. were fun too. Looking forward to the full next season.
falcolombardi
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,523
And1: 1,037
Joined: Apr 13, 2021
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1056 » by falcolombardi » Wed Jul 28, 2021 3:54 pm

Read on Twitter
?s=19

where do these braindead takes come from, borderline skip bayless level (when he criticized athletes for feeling depression)

but what is really disheartening is to see all the peopke who back him up with the "jordan would never" thinghs (is in reference to Simón biles leaving the competition)

stan culture is the worst thingh to ever happen to sports
User avatar
Dr Positivity
RealGM
Posts: 51,966
And1: 12,940
Joined: Apr 29, 2009
       

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1057 » by Dr Positivity » Wed Jul 28, 2021 7:58 pm

I think the reactions on both sides were probably too extreme, the right wing pundits like the above clearly jumped on it for political reasons, but "Biles quitting is more impressive than winning gold" attitude is also stupid and she likely could have done this days or weeks before the event instead of leaving her team on a lurch.

Gymnastics being dangerous changes the whole situation, if she was a swimmer or runner or something then I would have no problem criticizing her, I don't think many people would have sympathy for Ledecky if she decided right before the team swimming event that she didn't want to do it today.
parsnips33
Analyst
Posts: 3,505
And1: 1,101
Joined: Sep 01, 2014
 

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1058 » by parsnips33 » Wed Jul 28, 2021 9:29 pm

Dr Positivity wrote:I think the reactions on both sides were probably too extreme, the right wing pundits like the above clearly jumped on it for political reasons, but "Biles quitting is more impressive than winning gold" attitude is also stupid and she likely could have done this days or weeks before the event instead of leaving her team on a lurch.

Gymnastics being dangerous changes the whole situation, if she was a swimmer or runner or something then I would have no problem criticizing her, I don't think many people would have sympathy for Ledecky if she decided right before the team swimming event that she didn't want to do it today.


The most annoying thing about it was everybody was expected to get super passionate about it: whether defending or criticizing. If she had some kind of physical issue rather than mental, nobody would be expected to care beyond a "too bad"
Rob Diaz
Analyst
Posts: 3,091
And1: 5,376
Joined: Jun 02, 2014

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1059 » by Rob Diaz » Wed Jul 28, 2021 11:23 pm

So odd that all of a sudden thousands of middle-aged men are passionate American gymnastics fans that have been stabbed in the back by Simone Biles lol.
HeartBreakKid
RealGM
Posts: 19,725
And1: 15,824
Joined: Mar 08, 2012
     

Re: PC Board OT Thread Take 4 [No Politics] 

Post#1060 » by HeartBreakKid » Thu Jul 29, 2021 1:14 am

falcolombardi wrote:
Read on Twitter
?s=19

where do these braindead takes come from, borderline skip bayless level (when he criticized athletes for feeling depression)

but what is really disheartening is to see all the peopke who back him up with the "jordan would never" thinghs (is in reference to Simón biles leaving the competition)

stan culture is the worst thingh to ever happen to sports


Poor understanding of mental health.

Jordan mentality is kind of the perfect example of toxicity. He's not even the best example of mental fortitude, he literally left the sport for mental reasons. Have to love the media.

Return to Player Comparisons