- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: This is why Super Bowl rings are mostly irrelevant
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:29 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:Summed up like a boss, well done!
I agree with that. As we can clearly see, luck utterly dominates in any single contest. The best way to judge a body of work is on the quality of the decision making and the position the QB puts his team in over time. A QB that consistently puts his team in the SB, is probably great. Full stop. Since we know there is no such thing as "clutch", that pretty much ends it.
On that note, i'll let Big Scrub's post end it, and I'm headed to bed...maybe.
This post was edited on 2/1/15 at 10:31 pm
0
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:33 pm to shel311
quote:
shel311
Wow, you just went full retard
Never go full retard.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:42 pm to shel311
quote:
It's an example that supports it.
If I say all apples are disgusting because the Apple I'm currently eating is disgusting, would you say that's a well thought out opinion?
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:45 pm to shel311
4-4 > 4-6
Posted on 2/1/15 at 10:50 pm to rintintin
quote:actually, to make it closer to my point, if you've eaten hundreds of apples before, you have a solid idea of how much you like apples. You randomly are eating a disgusting/maybe rotten apple. That shouldn't change your opinion on how good apples generally are.
If I say all apples are disgusting because the Apple I'm currently eating is disgusting, would you say that's a well thought out opinion?
And that's not even the right analogy either. To get even closer to mine you'd have to say something like you just brushed your teeth , ate an apple, didn't like it cause the toothpaste after effects made it taste funny. Your opinion on apples shouldn't change due to a circumstance that had nothing to do with the Apple. Obviously silly, but I didn't have a lot of options to work with in that scenario.
This post was edited on 2/1/15 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 2/1/15 at 11:08 pm to shel311
quote:
ctually, to make it closer to my point, if you've eaten hundreds of apples before, you have a solid idea of how much you like apples. You randomly are eating a disgusting/maybe rotten apple. That shouldn't change your opinion on how good apples generally are.
Grrrr!!! You completely missed my point with the analogy. I'm not talking about Brady, I'm talking about the statement "Superbowl rings are irrelevant". You're justifying that statement based on one apple being disgusting (this one play and Brady's legacy).
You're opinion would hold more weight if you provided evidence of more apples being disgusting.
Posted on 2/1/15 at 11:16 pm to Hurricane Mike
quote:
4-4 > 4-6
quote:Please don't reproduce.
4-4 > 4-6
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:31 am to shel311
quote:
Brady is no better or worse because Pete Carroll made the biggest coaching gaffe in the history of coaching gaffes.
3 rings, 4 rings, he's literally no different of a QB, no better or worse.
Completely right.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:32 am to Broski
quote:
shel311
Wow, you just went full retard
Never go full retard.
No, he's 100% right.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 2:58 am to Broski
Wow. This thread does not speak highly to the collective intelligence of tigerdroppings. It does go a long way into helping understand some of the ridiculousness of society, since so many people refuse to think in anything other than the boxes they've been told to think. Shel is 100% right.
Look at Brady's Super Bowl wins and losses. He's currently 4-2. Three of his wins have come on last second plays on which he had nothing to do with the actual play itself. Of course he had a ton to do with getting the Patriots into position to make two GW FG kicks and have a game sealing interception. But if everything else stays the same, and Vinatari misses those two kicks and Butler doesn't make the int, Brady is 1-5 in Superbowls, and a lot of sheeple view Brady in a much different light than they do now. That is stupid.
He literally could do nothing to affect the outcomes of those individual plays. The reverse is true of the Tyree and Manningham catches, if those don't happen Brady would be 6-0 in SB. But he would've played no differently in the two wins than in the two losses, therefore how can his greatness level be affected, positively or negatively, by something over which he has no control? If Vinateri misses those FG's Brady would still be great for engineering those drives. If the Pats stopped the Giants in 11', he still fricked up that throw to Welker to ice the game.
Obviously rings are important Bc over the course of a regular season and throughout playoff games the play of a QB is instrumental in the success of a team. But once you reach a certain level of competition, Super Bowl or conference title game, the teams are often so evenly matched and the games so hotly contested that they can come down to plays that are out of the QB's hands. So instead of just blindly looking at rings, we should look at a team's overall success in a season and judge how well a QB contributed to putting his team in positions to win or to lose games once they reached the playoffs.
Look at Brady's Super Bowl wins and losses. He's currently 4-2. Three of his wins have come on last second plays on which he had nothing to do with the actual play itself. Of course he had a ton to do with getting the Patriots into position to make two GW FG kicks and have a game sealing interception. But if everything else stays the same, and Vinatari misses those two kicks and Butler doesn't make the int, Brady is 1-5 in Superbowls, and a lot of sheeple view Brady in a much different light than they do now. That is stupid.
He literally could do nothing to affect the outcomes of those individual plays. The reverse is true of the Tyree and Manningham catches, if those don't happen Brady would be 6-0 in SB. But he would've played no differently in the two wins than in the two losses, therefore how can his greatness level be affected, positively or negatively, by something over which he has no control? If Vinateri misses those FG's Brady would still be great for engineering those drives. If the Pats stopped the Giants in 11', he still fricked up that throw to Welker to ice the game.
Obviously rings are important Bc over the course of a regular season and throughout playoff games the play of a QB is instrumental in the success of a team. But once you reach a certain level of competition, Super Bowl or conference title game, the teams are often so evenly matched and the games so hotly contested that they can come down to plays that are out of the QB's hands. So instead of just blindly looking at rings, we should look at a team's overall success in a season and judge how well a QB contributed to putting his team in positions to win or to lose games once they reached the playoffs.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 3:01 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:25 am to rintintin
quote:Mostly irrelevant, again.
Grrrr!!! You completely missed my point with the analogy. I'm not talking about Brady, I'm talking about the statement "Superbowl rings are irrelevant
quote:It's one bit of evidence to help further my point...again. There's a lot of other data points of evidence as well, but last night was obviously more relevant as it was actaully happening at that moment.
You're justifying that statement based on one apple being disgusting (this one play and Brady's legacy).
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:26 am to shel311
How have you not been banned yet? Christ on a cracker.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 6:27 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:29 am to goldenbadger08
quote:Jameus vs JaMarcus...TELL ME MORE!!!
How have you not been banned yet? Christ on a cracker
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:32 am to shel311
He just tied for the most wins by a qb in Super Bowl history! It's a big deal.
Sorry you lost your bet
Sorry you lost your bet
Posted on 2/2/15 at 6:43 am to GeeOH
quote:
Sorry you lost your bet
My post is equally pro-Brady. I think Brady is just as good if he had some bad bounces and won 1 than you do with him winning 4, seems like you're out of your realm of comprehension on this one.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 6:45 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:14 am to shel311
Why stop at discounting the contributions of a QB's defense? Why not say his own stats don't matter because he needed a top notch offensive line, receivers and running backs to even get good stats?
Heck, you could just as well argue that Archie Manning was the best ever. He just was surrounded by a horrible team.
Or maybe the "greatest ever" was some obscure guy who played less than a quarter and suffered a career ending injury.
At some point, you have to factor in results. Even though they are, of course, not SOLELY due to the QB.
Heck, you could just as well argue that Archie Manning was the best ever. He just was surrounded by a horrible team.
Or maybe the "greatest ever" was some obscure guy who played less than a quarter and suffered a career ending injury.
At some point, you have to factor in results. Even though they are, of course, not SOLELY due to the QB.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:16 am to shel311
quote:
It's one bit of evidence to help further my point...again. There's a lot of other data points of evidence as well, but last night was obviously more relevant as it was actaully happening at that moment.
I just can't let this go. Your OP specifically said "THIS" is why SB rings are mostly irrelevant. Then you used this one very specific example to try to prove your thesis. It just doesn't work logically. This specific example does not justify your end statement.
If you would've said "this is a good example of when a SB ring is mostly irrelevant", then you'd have a logical point.
This post was edited on 2/2/15 at 7:17 am
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:19 am to Methuselah
quote:No because other guys played with bad teams and performed well.
Heck, you could just as well argue that Archie Manning was the best ever. He just was surrounded by a horrible team
quote:How does his production/efficiency stack up?
Or maybe the "greatest ever" was some obscure guy who played less than a quarter and suffered a career ending injury
quote:For team success, of course you do. Judging who is a better individual player, not really...see Marino vs Bradshaw for proof.
At some point, you have to factor in results. Even though they are, of course, not SOLELY due to the QB
Or further, to use your logic, why only with QBs? Shouldn't linebackers, cornerbacks, and defensive tackles with 3 or 4 or more titles be given an automatic pass into the GOAT of their position discussion as well?
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:27 am to shel311
quote:
Or further, to use your logic, why only with QBs? Shouldn't linebackers, cornerbacks, and defensive tackles with 3 or 4 or more titles be given an automatic pass into the GOAT of their position discussion as well?
If they contributed instrumentally into getting to and winning each of those 3 or 4 they probably are in that discussion.
Posted on 2/2/15 at 7:27 am to shel311
I mean I guess we are looking at ur post wrong. Does it make him greater he won? Maybe maybe not. But does it change his legacy? Yes.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News