or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Brady vs. Manning: The Final Battle
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brady vs. Manning: The Final Battle - Page 7

post #91 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slopho View Post
Did they score?

WTF, did you not watch the game? Seriously?
post #92 of 286
Topics that inevitably result in a SF flame war: politics, religion, Apple products, Brady/Manning
post #93 of 286
Look at the poll, Brady is kicking Manning's ass - as usual.

post #94 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambulance Chaser View Post
Topics that inevitably result in a SF flame war: politics, religion, Apple products, Brady/Manning

TRUE, I'll stop on my end because we will have to agree to disagree. Although if Manning throws his normal 2 int's next week he'll be at 200 for his career!
post #95 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxpats View Post
WTF, did you not watch the game? Seriously?

Hmm, soxpats...You from New England? The part of the country that has just become relevant to sports again?
post #96 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slopho View Post
Hmm, soxpats...You from New England? The part of the country that has just become relevant to sports again?



lol
post #97 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slopho View Post
Hmm, soxpats...You from New England? The part of the country that has just become relevant to sports again?

Really, because the Patriots have been kicking ass for 10 years now.
post #98 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxpats View Post
Really, because the Patriots have been kicking ass for 10 years now.

10 yrs? Wow time flies.
post #99 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by soxpats View Post
Really, because the Patriots have been kicking ass for 10 years now.

...and takin' names!
post #100 of 286
Maybe Brady would have won 3-4 with those loaded Colt teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Are we supposed to be pretending that Peyton Manning couldn't have won 3 Superbowls with the Patriots?
post #101 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
You would have to be a moron to take Russell over Chamberlain.

Chamberlin was was probably far more talented than Russell. But it is about winning in the end and winning is far more than just talent. Chamberlin played with some very talented players (Hal Greer, Chet Walker, Baylor - some guys that were on your scoring list - bigger scorers than Celtics had by the way). Chamberlin fought with coaches & teammates, skipped practices (even during playoffs and championships), and his effort was often questioned. For a man of his size and talent, his defense was often questioned.

Russell was not a great scorer but off the charts rebounder, defensive player and considered a good teamate that valued winning championships.

If the game was only about scoring, then Iverson and others on your scoring list would have won championships.

BB does not work as well when 4 guys stand around and wait for 1 guy to score. See how well that worked for Lebron in Cleveland.

I am not a Laker or Bulls fan but guys like Kobe & Jordan seemed to understand that winning takes 5 guys playing well. Those two, Magic, Bird, Russell elevate others and they win.
post #102 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by guster View Post

Russell was not a great scorer but off the charts rebounder, defensive player and considered a good teamate that valued winning championships.

If the game was only about scoring, then Iverson and others on your scoring list would have won championships.

.

Chamberlain was a better defensive player. His numbers clearly show that, despite blocks not being kept as an official stat. Wilt shot 54% from the field, and Iverson shot 42%. Not a good comparison.

And I don't know how you can declare that winning is all that really matters and then hold it against Wilt because he apparently missed some practices. That's being disingenuous at best and downright stupid at worst. By that measure, Mark Madsen is the greatest player of all time.
post #103 of 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slopho View Post
Hmm, soxpats...You from New England? The part of the country that has just become relevant to sports again?

What time frame do you use? Last 10 years have been good to Boston with RedSox, Celtics, Patriots

80's: Celtics 3 championships, Sox lose Series, Bruins in Stanley Cup, Pats in 2 Superbowls
70s: Celtic & Bruin championships, Sox Series
60's Celtics dominate,

I am sure there are other cities (like the 2 largest, LA & NY with multiple teams) that compare to that track record but not too many of them.
post #104 of 286
Interesting correlation to Madsen.

And I wondered how long it would take you to get into name calling....1 message....

Chamberlin was a great, great player. It is an interesting debate. I tried to point out that there is more than just statistics to chossing a player. You are right though, when comparing players, winning is not the only thing in a debate like this. I just responded because I think don't think it as clear of a choice as you implied in one of your messages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
Chamberlain was a better defensive player. His numbers clearly show that, despite blocks not being kept as an official stat. Wilt shot 54% from the field, and Iverson shot 42%. Not a good comparison.

And I don't know how you can declare that winning is all that really matters and then hold it against Wilt because he apparently missed some practices. That's being disingenuous at best and downright stupid at worst. By that measure, Mark Madsen is the greatest player of all time.
post #105 of 286
I'm always right. You'll figure that out.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Brady vs. Manning: The Final Battle