1. Welcome to the new Styleforum!

    We hope you’re as excited as we are to hang out in the new place. There are more new features that we’ll announce in the near future, but for now we hope you’ll enjoy the new site.

    We are currently fine-tuning the forum for your browsing pleasure, so bear with any lingering dust as we work to make Styleforum even more awesome than it was.

    Oh, and don’t forget to head over to the Styleforum Journal, because we’re giving away two pairs of Carmina shoes to celebrate our move!

    Please address any questions about using the new forum to support@styleforum.net

    Cheers,

    The Styleforum Team

    Dismiss Notice

Brady vs. Manning: The Final Battle

Discussion in 'Entertainment, Culture, and Sports' started by edinatlanta, Dec 23, 2010.

  1. guster

    guster Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    476
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    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.
     
  2. StephenHero

    StephenHero Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,187
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009

    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.
     
  3. guster

    guster Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    476
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    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.
     
  4. guster

    guster Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    476
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    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.

    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.
     
  5. StephenHero

    StephenHero Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,187
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    I'm always right. You'll figure that out.
     
  6. soxpats

    soxpats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    606
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    I'm always right. You'll figure that out.



    No one has to prove you wrong as you continue to do so on your own. Your always wrong actually.
     
  7. Slopho

    Slopho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,364
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    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 Superbowls70s: 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.


    1 Superbowl, and that one was at that time the most lopsided SB of all time. Not only were you beaten, but the team that beat you wrote a rap song about how they were going to beat you in the SB. Sox lose series is an understatement. Nobody cares about hockey. Also, I like the way you keep saying "Sox in series" if being good to you means that they almost won...then I'll let you have it.

    EDIT: Ask the Buffalo Bills if the 80's were good for them. They kept coming close too. Also the Patriots have won all three of their SB by a total of 9 points. Just good enough I guess.
     
  8. WhateverYouLike

    WhateverYouLike Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,643
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Are we supposed to be pretending that Peyton Manning couldn't have won 3 Superbowls with the Patriots?

    If you can't win a Superbowl with Clark, Wayne, Harrison, and Edge, why would you be able to win it with a bunch of players that became irrelevant the moment they left the pats?

    Unless you're saying billy boy is the reason behind all the rings?
     
  9. StephenHero

    StephenHero Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    14,187
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Unless you're saying billy boy is the reason behind all the rings?
    No. Coaches and defenses don't matter. It's only about three or four players that win Superbowls.
     
  10. montecristo#4

    montecristo#4 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,263
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Reagan Country (Massachusetts)
    Also, I like the way you keep saying "Sox in series" if being good to you means that they almost won...then I'll let you have it.

    I know you are just a troll, but:

    [​IMG]

    LOL.
     
  11. Slopho

    Slopho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,364
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    ^ I don't understand you point.
     
  12. Tokyo Slim

    Tokyo Slim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2004
    Location:
    Where Eagles Dare!
  13. soxpats

    soxpats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    606
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    AFC Finalist? LOL



    THat is actually quite funny. I guess that's better then winning 3 SB's by 9 points. Only in Indy do they celebrate AFC Finalist! What a joke!
     
  14. kwilkinson

    kwilkinson Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    33,650
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago
    [​IMG]

    How embarrassing! [​IMG] That's like when you are in a science fair in middle school and everyone else is doing volcanoes and shit and all you do is a fucking potato grown over a cup of water. You get the little "participant" ribbon. [​IMG]
     
  15. B Hamilton

    B Hamilton Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    302
    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    It's such a pointless argument since it's a team game. I know for a fact as a player, Manning's talent is superior to Brady and there is no question in terms of commitment. I don't need to knock Brady to boost Manning. But NE and now KC show me that there is a clear blueprint to this team success. That is to be admired. However as individuals the stats don't bare out in Brady's favor even when you take into account Manning's played longer. And for all this postseason stuff, fact is Manning has always statistically proven to be equal or better.
     
  16. montecristo#4

    montecristo#4 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,263
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Reagan Country (Massachusetts)
    It's such a pointless argument since it's a team game. I know for a fact as a player, Manning's talent is superior to Brady and there is no question in terms of commitment.

    What does this even mean?

    I don't need to knock Brady to boost Manning. But NE and now KC show me that there is a clear blueprint to this team success. That is to be admired. However as individuals the stats don't bare out in Brady's favor even when you take into account Manning's played longer. And for all this postseason stuff, fact is Manning has always statistically proven to be equal or better.

    This really isn't true, since Brady is superior in a number of statistical areas and also owns a variety of season records over Manning.

    But if it were true, by your logic Manning > Montana. Do you really believe that?
     
  17. soxpats

    soxpats Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    606
    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    It's such a pointless argument since it's a team game. I know for a fact as a player, Manning's talent is superior to Brady and there is no question in terms of commitment. I don't need to knock Brady to boost Manning. But NE and now KC show me that there is a clear blueprint to this team success. That is to be admired. However as individuals the stats don't bare out in Brady's favor even when you take into account Manning's played longer. And for all this postseason stuff, fact is Manning has always statistically proven to be equal or better.
    You know for a FACT? Really? How do you know that for a fact? You must be the supreme judge of NFL talent. Funny how Manning has only one 1 SB and Brady has 3. Yet Manning is better in the postseason? Also Manning has almost always had better and more consistent talent around him as well as much more stable Coordinators. You don't think that has been an advantage.
     
  18. guster

    guster Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    476
    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2009
    I was responding to your point about Boston being a relevant sports town. I think a team playing for the championship is relevant. More importantly there are plenty of championships in that city through the decades.

    You are right about the 80's for Patriots as I was thinking about their loss to the Packers. They got beaten pretty badly in that one as well But again, I think an appearance is the Superbowl counts as "relevant"

    I don't kow how the Patriots winning 3 superbowls by a totasl of 9 points makes them irrevelant in the sports world. Ask the Buffalo fans if thetre city was more relevant this decade or the 80's or now.

    I am not claiming here that Boston is the best sports town. I am just pointing out that they have teams through the decades that make it a relevant to the sports world.




    1 Superbowl, and that one was at that time the most lopsided SB of all time. Not only were you beaten, but the team that beat you wrote a rap song about how they were going to beat you in the SB. Sox lose series is an understatement. Nobody cares about hockey. Also, I like the way you keep saying "Sox in series" if being good to you means that they almost won...then I'll let you have it.

    EDIT: Ask the Buffalo Bills if the 80's were good for them. They kept coming close too. Also the Patriots have won all three of their SB by a total of 9 points. Just good enough I guess.
     
  19. montecristo#4

    montecristo#4 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    12,263
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Location:
    Reagan Country (Massachusetts)

    I am not claiming here that Boston is the best sports town. I am just pointing out that they have teams through the decades that make it a relevant to the sports world.


    But it is the best sports town. With the exception of New York, what town has more championships? On a per capita basis, Boston is ahead there too.
     
  20. Slopho

    Slopho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,364
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2009
    Location:
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    But it is the best sports town. With the exception of New York, what town has more championships? On a per capita basis, Boston is ahead there too.

    In fairness its a very very old city.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by