greatness of one player=/=how many rings they have

Discussion in 'Archive: The Arena' started by Armenian_Jedi, Nov 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Armenian_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2003
    star 7
    in team sports, you need a team. no one man can win all on their own.

    If Pippen never went to the Bulls, Jordan might've never won a ring. Would he still be considered by many as the greatest basketball player ever? On the flip side, KG has played on a decent team only once in his career and they went to the WCF. He's never consistently had a real team around him. If he never gets a real team and retires with no rings, will he be considered one of the top ten Power Forwards of all time? Barkley and Malone are.

    What happens in the NFL when a Quarterback has no defense and can't win a ring? Would he still be considered one of the greatest?

    In my opinion, an individual can not be judged by how many rings they have. A championship is the mark of a true team.

    Is Barry Sanders any less of a running back for not winning a championship?
    Is John Stockton any less of a point guard for not winning a championship?
    Is Marvin Harrison any less of a Wide Receiver for not winning a championship?
    Is Trevor Hoffman any less of a closer for not winning a championship?


    IMO it's ridiculous to think that someone's better because they've got more rings. All that means is that they've been on better teams.



    Let the AJ bashing begin.
  2. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    What if they have The Ring of Power?
  3. Armenian_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 14, 2003
    star 7
    That's different. It'd be hard to lose when you're invisible and stuff.
  4. Everton Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 18, 2003
    star 10
    Okay. I just thought I'd ask.
  5. darth_nemisis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2004
    star 6
    Peyton Manning is a good example. He doesn't have any Super Bowl rings, and he is definately the greatest in the NFL...at least in my opinion.
  6. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    someone can be a great player without a ring, but at the same time, they cannot be thought of as the equal of other great players who played starring roles on teams that did win it all.

    there are no doubt exceptions to this throughout the sports world, but not a lot.

    right now, tom brady is simply a greater player and a more accomplished one than peyton manning. that's all there is to it. manning has had ample opportunity to win a title, and with powerful teams, but has failed (several times to brady's patriots) each time so far.
  7. darth_nemisis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2004
    star 6
    To me, half of what you say is true, he is a more accomplished player, but just not a greater.
  8. Drew_Atreides Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 30, 2002
    star 5
    Not winning a title doesn't prevent you from being great.

    But to be a legend?

    Well, in sports, the ultimate goal of any player is to win the championship, is it not?

    There will always be that one pedestal that's JUST a bit higher then "great player" that's reserved for those who have won a championship.

    If you haven't won a championship, then that is an indicator that you as a player didn't accomplish your ultimate goal.

  9. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    he is a more accomplished player, but just not a greater.

    how do you know?

    i'm certain that brady could easily have manning's stats if he played in an offense designed for that, not to mention having good receivers. he's had mostly pedestrian receivers throughout his career. he's never had a marvin harrison, anquan boldin, larry fitzgerald, steve smith, etc.
  10. darth_nemisis Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 15, 2004
    star 6
    We aren't dealing with what if's here. The stats say that Peyton Manning has greater stats: more yards, better completions, more touchdowns, and a higher rating throughout his career. :)

    Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that Brady is not a good QB, he is a great QB, just not as good as Manning. ;)
  11. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    he is a great QB, just not as good as Manning.

    oh really?

    so if manning is so great, why wasn't he able to beat brady in the playoffs? manning plays arguably the most important position on the football field. he's not a cornerback or offensive lineman. when the going got tough, he choked. the rest of the team didn't let him down against the patriots, he let them down.

    lo and behold, when he played well this season against them, they won.

    that's why brady is the better of the two. he has three rings and manning has zero, despite having ample opportunity to capture one. in each playoff opportunity against brady, which is when it really counts, manning has responded like a deer in the headlines. brady, on the other hand, has been ice-cold under pressure, leading the patriots to wins in every critical game over manning's colts.
  12. George_Roper Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 1, 2005
    star 7
    Agreed. If you're an extremely talented player who plays for an non -contender, you've never had to play under the type of pressure those who have won things have had to play under. Lots of talented people crack/choke under such conditions. The ability to excel when everything is on the line is what the truly great sportsmen are capable of doing.
  13. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The ability to excel when everything is on the line is what the truly great sportsmen are capable of doing.

    very much agreed.

    peyton manning has had multiple opportunities to shine in the playoffs, and thus far has thrown all of them away. he's no ernie banks. conversely, brady has had multiple opportunities to shine as the most important player on a contending team and has elevated his game almost every time (last year against denver being the first time he failed to do so).

    3>0

    to go one step further, the greatest of the great elevate their game multiple times over the years in their career. that's what made michael jordan so remarkable: he not only won, he played his best ball when everything was on the line. he sought those moments out, reveled in them and made them his own.
  14. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    Situation. You cannot underestimate the value of situation. Stats are great, but look at the actual games and you see a different picture. When the going gets tough, Manning chokes and Brady steps up. Pretty easy to see why Brady has three rings and Manning none. Brady's wins were part of a team effort helped enormously by his QB skills and leadership. Manning's lack of a ring is pretty much his inability to do his job well when it really counts.

    Brady's better. I'd take Brady over Manning any day of the week. Because I'd also like to have a QB who doesn't yell at his receivers when a pass goes awry, who doesn't call his kicker an idiot on TV, who is a leader not a star.


    On the main subject of the thread... well, yeah it matters if your defense, which you have nothing to do with, can't get anything done. Do you have any idea how frustrating it was to have the #1 offense for several years, stacked with great players like Trent Green, Priest Holmes, Tony Gonzales, Tony Richardson, Will Shields, and Dante Hall when he was actually playing well... and have one of the worst defenses in the league? Incredibly frustrating. Those guys deserve rings. They played amazing football for several years. But it didn't matter because our D gave up every big game we needed to win.

    So yeah, you can have greats who haven't gotten the ring. And when it's not their fault, it's really frustrating.


    -sj loves kevin spacey
  15. Drew_Atreides Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 30, 2002
    star 5
    Eh, i think it's much simpler: Offense wins games but defense wins championships. In the majority of those head to head matchups between Brady and Manning, the Pats had a much more effective defense then the Colts did. The Colts were, until very very recently, a dynamic offensive powerhouse with no defense.

    Tony Dungy is finally incorporating the D in Indy. Your argument of titles vs. no-titles won't hold up for much longer....

    Edit: Also, don't forget that Brady had one of the most clutch kickers in the history of Football in Adam Vinatieri. Manning had Vanderjagt, who keeps proving that he tends to choke in the clutch...

  16. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    except that it isn't as if manning played flawless games against the patriots. he helpfully threw numerous interceptions and made plenty of bad decisions. if he had played exceptionally well (akin to a pitcher throwing nine innings of shutout baseball, only to lose in extra innings) and still lost, it wouldn't be his fault.

    but it's as much his fault as his defense's.
  17. SLR Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 20, 2002
    star 5
    You also cannot blame the Colts losses in the playoffs to their defense either. Most of their losses have been by 17 or less, and in these games Manning has been sloppy with the ball and has thrown 2 or more picks in each of these losses. These are not insurmountable leads. If you take away the Manning turnovers, they are very much in every one of those games. There defense hasn't been the issue for the Colts in their early playoff exits, it has been the shaky, inconsistent play of Manning.
  18. ApolloSmileGirl Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 18, 2004
    star 8
    I agree, because Manning plan didn't show up in that playoff game against the Steelers until the second half. When he did, it wasn't enough to catch back up.
  19. JOHNNY-B Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2003
    star 2
    "What happens in the NFL when a Quarterback has no defense and can't win a ring? Would he still be considered one of the greatest?"


    Hell Yeah! Dan "the man" Marino is probably one of the greatest Quarterbacks of all time, if not thy, greatest quarterback of all time. Til this day, I still haven't seen a QB as good as he was. He's the best QB I've ever seen. Peyton Manning may come close to him, but he's no Marino. Will he be consdierd the greatest QB: probably not because he doesn't have the ring. He just didn't have a team that he could win it all with. But just because he didn't win the big one, that's still no excuse, to take away from his greatness; as one of the greatest QB's to ever play in the NFL. IMO: He is the greatest QB. Ring or no ring.
  20. solojones Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Sep 27, 2000
    star 9
    Yeah, it definitely happens and Marino is a prime example.

    I'm inevitably reminded of the astonishing work the Chiefs' #1 offense put up in 2003. Starting 9-0, going strong to 13-3, hitting the Colts tit for tat in a playoff game that literally came down to who had the ball last... because we had no defense. None. That our offense was able to win us as many games as they did was remarkable, considering the fact that the defense could hardly stop anything. Every one of their losses was due to the other team scoring huge, not to the offense scoring low.

    I think, not necessarily a specific great player, but that offense as a unit was one of the greatest offenses I've seen in football. They ran and threw all over everybody. They scored 40+ points in 5 games. They averaged 32 pts a game. Trent Green threw for over 4,000 yards. Priest Holmes had 27 TDs. Tony Gonzalez had 10 TDs and almost 1,000 yards. Dante Hall had 4 TDs off kick/punt returns. This offense had 7 guys go to the pro-bowl that year. SEVEN.

    This offense would be remembered as a powerhouse, and this team as great... had it not been for the fact that we had the 4th worst defense in the NFL [face_plain]

    -sj loves kevin spacey
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.