Four seasons, four rings. That’s all Gene Guarilia needed. He played for Boston for four seasons, from 1959-60 through 1962-63, winning a ring every single season. Guarilia may not have been the star of the team, not even close. He never started a game, played on _average 8.4 minutes a game _and averaged just** 3.2 PPG and 2.3 rebounds**.
Irrefutable proof that Rings don't mean SQUAT!!!!
close thread.
Man...….you just don't get it!! You go out and find guys that were just on a team that happened to win Championships. Jordan is THE reason for the Championships. Surely you see the difference! If not please don't even respond.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
There are hundreds of so-so athletes who have multiple championship rings.
they mean nothing except to those who know nothing about sports.
You're wrong again Dimey.
YOU ARE BEYOND STUPID !!!
I've proven you wrong many times, it's really easy to because you have no education.
It shows to everyone on this board how stupid you really are.
It shows you don't even have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
Your ignorance envelops your entire being. At least you're first at something. You're the number one most ignorant poster here.
btw go back to night school, and try to get your GED with the rest of the dropouts.
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
@JoeBanzai said:
In basketball, more than in any of the team sports, you have to play both offense and defense.
Exactly the same situation in hockey, which is why I think of Orr as the GOAT rather than Gretzky. Brett Hull is #4 all time in goals scored, but he is not in the same universe as the fourth greatest player of all time because he couldn't play defense.
What I meant was, in hockey you have a couple of defensemen and a goalie who's job it is to prevent the opponent from scoring. The forwards are supposed to help out, but they do not have the same defensive responsibility.
Orr is a great choice for Goat, similar to Wilt. Two guys that dominated on BOTH offense and defense. Had Orr not been cheap shotted out of his career, he would be pretty much be the unanimous GOAT in hockey. I can see where Gretzky's HUGE lead in points scored could lead anyone to believe that made up for any lack of defensive contribution.
Hull and even Gretzky were more like Jordan and Lebron, they focused on offense and let other guys do the dirty work. Playing defense is hard, when you ignore that part of the game, you have more energy to score.
By the way, if you look at points instead of goals Brett Hull is #23, one spot above Mike Modano.
He should have since he was over 7 feet tall when at that time most centers were much shorter.
You are again completely incorrect. This has been dis-proven. You cannot simply ignore the facts and be considered to have a valid opinion in a debate. So far your single worthwhile argument for Jordan is PPG which is actually worse than Wilt's because he took more shots and had virtually the SAME PPG.
Rings are meaningless here and in most GOAT discussions.
Putting Lebron above Wilt is simply idiotic.
_ Possibly the single most preposterous thing ever written here or anywhere else in the history of not only written word, but spoken as well.
_
I can at least understand how Jordan's offensive talent could blind you, but if you are going to (incorrectly) say Wilt is only a good rebounder because of his size, what does that say for Lebron? He's a MONSTER! With his combination of heigth and huge musculature, he gets his points by bullying his way through opponents and he should be a MUCH better rebounder than he is. Lazy on defense.
You can "agree to disagree" here, that's fine, and we can move on.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
The part of Kareem is played by the Kareem. The part of those of you guys naming any one else as GOAT is played by Bruce Lee:
Kareem is the one player who could challenge Wilt for GOAT, not because he was better, but because he played longer and was almost as good.
Despite much better scoring and rebounding numbers per game Kareem, Wilt played 6 fewer seasons.
Top three years were about equal, 10 years of Wilt being better 1 year of Kareem being better and 6 years where wilt was done and Kareem continued to play.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Wilt was 8 feet tall, of course he was great. If I were 8 feet tall, I wouldn't be sitting here right now. I would be a multimillionaire playing in the NBA and living in my mansion, and driving my Lamborghini around town. At night, I would become Batman, and fight crime in the city.
@JoeBanzai said:
In basketball, more than in any of the team sports, you have to play both offense and defense.
Exactly the same situation in hockey, which is why I think of Orr as the GOAT rather than Gretzky. Brett Hull is #4 all time in goals scored, but he is not in the same universe as the fourth greatest player of all time because he couldn't play defense.
What I meant was, in hockey you have a couple of defensemen and a goalie who's job it is to prevent the opponent from scoring. The forwards are supposed to help out, but they do not have the same defensive responsibility.
Orr is a great choice for Goat, similar to Wilt. Two guys that dominated on BOTH offense and defense. Had Orr not been cheap shotted out of his career, he would be pretty much be the unanimous GOAT in hockey. I can see where Gretzky's HUGE lead in points scored could lead anyone to believe that made up for any lack of defensive contribution.
Hull and even Gretzky were more like Jordan and Lebron, they focused on offense and let other guys do the dirty work. Playing defense is hard, when you ignore that part of the game, you have more energy to score.
By the way, if you look at points instead of goals Brett Hull is #23, one spot above Mike Modano.
He should have since he was over 7 feet tall when at that time most centers were much shorter.
You are again completely incorrect. This has been dis-proven. You cannot simply ignore the facts and be considered to have a valid opinion in a debate. So far your single worthwhile argument for Jordan is PPG which is actually worse than Wilt's because he took more shots and had virtually the SAME PPG.
Rings are meaningless here and in most GOAT discussions.
Putting Lebron above Wilt is simply idiotic.
_ Possibly the single most preposterous thing ever written here or anywhere else in the history of not only written word, but spoken as well.
_
I can at least understand how Jordan's offensive talent could blind you, but if you are going to (incorrectly) say Wilt is only a good rebounder because of his size, what does that say for Lebron? He's a MONSTER! With his combination of heigth and huge musculature, he gets his points by bullying his way through opponents and he should be a MUCH better rebounder than he is. Lazy on defense.
You can "agree to disagree" here, that's fine, and we can move on.
@keets said:
this is a stupid debate that will never end and will never be settled.
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️ But Whatever, I personally choose Jordan for NBA GOAT but appreciate good arguments for Wilt, Kareem ect
@perkdog said:
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️
Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT, but football is such an intrinsically team sport that there is no valid way to identify individual contributions. Troy Aikman spent his entire rookie season on his back and it looked unlikely he'd survive much longer, let alone ever win a Super Bpwl. Then the Cowboys got the best O-line in the league, and Aikman looked like a superstar. Which one was the real Aikman? They both were; the difference was the quality of the team around him. Had Brady spent his entire career on the Browns, would anyone think of him as a GOAT candidate? The answer is "no", however powerfully the Brady worship runs through your veins.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Four seasons, four rings. That’s all Gene Guarilia needed. He played for Boston for four seasons, from 1959-60 through 1962-63, winning a ring every single season. Guarilia may not have been the star of the team, not even close. He never started a game, played on _average 8.4 minutes a game _and averaged just** 3.2 PPG and 2.3 rebounds**.
Irrefutable proof that Rings don't mean SQUAT!!!!
close thread.
Man...….you just don't get it!! You go out and find guys that were just on a team that happened to win Championships. Jordan is THE reason for the Championships. Surely you see the difference! If not please don't even respond.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
There are hundreds of so-so athletes who have multiple championship rings.
they mean nothing except to those who know nothing about sports.
You're wrong again Dimey.
YOU ARE BEYOND STUPID !!!
I've proven you wrong many times, it's really easy to because you have no education.
It shows to everyone on this board how stupid you really are.
It shows you don't even have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
Your ignorance envelops your entire being. At least you're first at something. You're the number one most ignorant poster here.
btw go back to night school, and try to get your GED with the rest of the dropouts.
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
Look there's this thing called projection that you're guilty of. You started the name calling when you couldn't refute the truth.
That simple truth is that there are hundreds of bench warmers that have multiple rings. I'd venture to say that the Patriots have 10 special team players with 3+ rings.
You really are the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. I know your wife writes your replies for you. Tell her not to worry about getting you a headstone. I will pay for it.
It will say: " Here lies a special helmet wearing dummy. He was a husband, high school water boy, loser, and the biggest IDIOT in the world."
@perkdog said:
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️
Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT, but football is such an intrinsically team sport that there is no valid way to identify individual contributions. Troy Aikman spent his entire rookie season on his back and it looked unlikely he'd survive much longer, let alone ever win a Super Bpwl. Then the Cowboys got the best O-line in the league, and Aikman looked like a superstar. Which one was the real Aikman? They both were; the difference was the quality of the team around him. Had Brady spent his entire career on the Browns, would anyone think of him as a GOAT candidate? The answer is "no", however powerfully the Brady worship runs through your veins.
Well that’s fine and sounds very true but you could say that about Joe Montana, or any other GOAT Candidate so the way I see it the playing field amongst NFL great QB’s is pretty fair, the ones that were not running for theIt lives and getting the crap beat out of them due to a joke of a line ect.. are all out of the debate so we are working with what we got and Nobody is going to give me any reasonable argument that Brady is not the best ever, Elway, Montana ect had strong if not stronger supporting casts around them. Keeping on topic, many say that Jordan wouldn’t have been as successful if he didn’t have Pippen around him and that in itself is a joke. Every Goat Candidate profits from some type of situation or player that benefits him in some way or another.
while I don't necessarily believe Tom Brady to be the GOAT, either as a QB or just individual player, it IS hard not to agree that the New England Patriots are the GOAT where Teams are concerned. they may not be the best for a single season or even for 3-4-5-6 seasons in a row, but they have maintained a level of play for so long now that it's hard to understand how they have done it and why no other Team has been able to duplicate anything close to what they have done.
the Pat's have had enough players rotate in/out that it is no secret what they do. why no HC/Team is willing to make an attempt at duplicating that is hard to understand.
@keets said:
while I don't necessarily believe Tom Brady to be the GOAT, either as a QB or just individual player, it IS hard not to agree that the New England Patriots are the GOAT where Teams are concerned. they may not be the best for a single season or even for 3-4-5-6 seasons in a row, but they have maintained a level of play for so long now that it's hard to understand how they have done it and why no other Team has been able to duplicate anything close to what they have done.
the Pat's have had enough players rotate in/out that it is no secret what they do. why no HC/Team is willing to make an attempt at duplicating that is hard to understand.
I’m not sure what more Brady could do to make you think differently, maybe a 10Th Super Bowl Appearance? 7 Rings? As far as teams copying the Pats they can try all they want but until they get a Tom Brady they won’t succeed, it’s pretty easy to understand in my way of thinking lol. Try finding a better 20 year run than Brady has had and let me know what you come up with in Pro Football regarding an individual and success.
Four seasons, four rings. That’s all Gene Guarilia needed. He played for Boston for four seasons, from 1959-60 through 1962-63, winning a ring every single season. Guarilia may not have been the star of the team, not even close. He never started a game, played on _average 8.4 minutes a game _and averaged just** 3.2 PPG and 2.3 rebounds**.
Irrefutable proof that Rings don't mean SQUAT!!!!
close thread.
Man...….you just don't get it!! You go out and find guys that were just on a team that happened to win Championships. Jordan is THE reason for the Championships. Surely you see the difference! If not please don't even respond.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
There are hundreds of so-so athletes who have multiple championship rings.
they mean nothing except to those who know nothing about sports.
You're wrong again Dimey.
YOU ARE BEYOND STUPID !!!
I've proven you wrong many times, it's really easy to because you have no education.
It shows to everyone on this board how stupid you really are.
It shows you don't even have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
Your ignorance envelops your entire being. At least you're first at something. You're the number one most ignorant poster here.
btw go back to night school, and try to get your GED with the rest of the dropouts.
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
Look there's this thing called projection that you're guilty of. You started the name calling when you couldn't refute the truth.
That simple truth is that there are hundreds of bench warmers that have multiple rings. I'd venture to say that the Patriots have 10 special team players with 3+ rings.
You really are the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. I know your wife writes your replies for you. Tell her not to worry about getting you a headstone. I will pay for it.
It will say: " Here lies a special helmet wearing dummy. He was a husband, high school water boy, loser, and the biggest IDIOT in the world."
Your dog was smarter than you.
LMAO
I will this spew of stupidity go due to the moron it came from! Really you bring my wife and dog into it.
Four seasons, four rings. That’s all Gene Guarilia needed. He played for Boston for four seasons, from 1959-60 through 1962-63, winning a ring every single season. Guarilia may not have been the star of the team, not even close. He never started a game, played on _average 8.4 minutes a game _and averaged just** 3.2 PPG and 2.3 rebounds**.
Irrefutable proof that Rings don't mean SQUAT!!!!
close thread.
Man...….you just don't get it!! You go out and find guys that were just on a team that happened to win Championships. Jordan is THE reason for the Championships. Surely you see the difference! If not please don't even respond.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
There are hundreds of so-so athletes who have multiple championship rings.
they mean nothing except to those who know nothing about sports.
You're wrong again Dimey.
YOU ARE BEYOND STUPID !!!
I've proven you wrong many times, it's really easy to because you have no education.
It shows to everyone on this board how stupid you really are.
It shows you don't even have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
Your ignorance envelops your entire being. At least you're first at something. You're the number one most ignorant poster here.
btw go back to night school, and try to get your GED with the rest of the dropouts.
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
Look there's this thing called projection that you're guilty of. You started the name calling when you couldn't refute the truth.
That simple truth is that there are hundreds of bench warmers that have multiple rings. I'd venture to say that the Patriots have 10 special team players with 3+ rings.
You really are the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. I know your wife writes your replies for you. Tell her not to worry about getting you a headstone. I will pay for it.
It will say: " Here lies a special helmet wearing dummy. He was a husband, high school water boy, loser, and the biggest IDIOT in the world."
Your dog was smarter than you.
LMAO
I will this spew of stupidity go due to the moron it came from! Really you bring my wife and dog into it.
What a POS you are!!!
look in the mirror sonny. you started the name calling. And now you start crying like a baby.
if you're not man enough to take what you dish out, go cry to your wife, you fat, POS loser. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
btw I'm glad that you're finding out the truth hurts.
Four seasons, four rings. That’s all Gene Guarilia needed. He played for Boston for four seasons, from 1959-60 through 1962-63, winning a ring every single season. Guarilia may not have been the star of the team, not even close. He never started a game, played on _average 8.4 minutes a game _and averaged just** 3.2 PPG and 2.3 rebounds**.
Irrefutable proof that Rings don't mean SQUAT!!!!
close thread.
Man...….you just don't get it!! You go out and find guys that were just on a team that happened to win Championships. Jordan is THE reason for the Championships. Surely you see the difference! If not please don't even respond.
Wrong.
You don't get it.
There are hundreds of so-so athletes who have multiple championship rings.
they mean nothing except to those who know nothing about sports.
You're wrong again Dimey.
YOU ARE BEYOND STUPID !!!
I've proven you wrong many times, it's really easy to because you have no education.
It shows to everyone on this board how stupid you really are.
It shows you don't even have the equivalent of a high school diploma.
Your ignorance envelops your entire being. At least you're first at something. You're the number one most ignorant poster here.
btw go back to night school, and try to get your GED with the rest of the dropouts.
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
Look there's this thing called projection that you're guilty of. You started the name calling when you couldn't refute the truth.
That simple truth is that there are hundreds of bench warmers that have multiple rings. I'd venture to say that the Patriots have 10 special team players with 3+ rings.
You really are the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. I know your wife writes your replies for you. Tell her not to worry about getting you a headstone. I will pay for it.
It will say: " Here lies a special helmet wearing dummy. He was a husband, high school water boy, loser, and the biggest IDIOT in the world."
Your dog was smarter than you.
LMAO
I will this spew of stupidity go due to the moron it came from! Really you bring my wife and dog into it.
What a POS you are!!!
look in the mirror sonny. you started the name calling.
if you're not man enough to take what you dish out, go cry to your wife, you fat loser. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
btw I'm glad that you're finding out the truth hurts.
You are the biggest idiot that ever posted on CU.
lollollollollollollollol
In all seriousness, I'd like to step in here and say that this kind of stuff, bringing up wives, pets, education, is way over the line.
Idiot boy gets proven wrong, and he starts the name calling.
lack of an education upsets you? why?
I'm just saying things seem to be getting personal. I'm just trying to help. Yes, @Dimeman started it. And as soon as he did I posted that he should keep it civil.
I don't think sports debates should result in personal attacks.
Dimey has done this before on the CU forum. I proved him wrong, and he began name calling. Justacommen might remember, he told Dimey he was wrong, and out of line.
So there's a bad history with this person and his reaction to being proven wrong.
He needs to man up and admit he's wrong instead of name calling.
Dimey has done this before on the CU forum. I proved him wrong, and he began name calling. Justacommen might remember, he told Dimey he was wrong, and out of line.
So there's a bad history with this person and his reaction to being proven wrong.
He needs to man up and admit he's wrong instead of name calling.
He obviously can't do this.
I wasn't even going to reply to this. But just to set things straight. You did not prove me wrong on anything except maybe in your own mind. When I called you stupid I just didn't know what else to call someone who compares bench players to Jordan. You can think whoever you want to be the NBA GOAT. But all the list everywhere have Jordan as the GOAT. But I guess you know more than anybody here or anywhere.
This is my last reply. So spew away......nobody here takes you serious anyway.
. So spew away......nobody here takes you serious anyway.
No sonny it is you nobody takes seriously.
You have a real problem with projecting what is true about you onto others. You've done it three times just in this thread. You can't separate truth from your lies. Ask thisistheshow , he will point it out to you.
I would just like to apologize for the above post. The touchdown wolf should not have made an appearance in this thread. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
. So spew away......nobody here takes you serious anyway.
No sonny it is you nobody takes seriously.
You have a real problem with projecting what is true about you onto others. You've done it three times just in this thread. You can't separate truth from your lies. Ask thisistheshow , he will point it out to you.
GET HELP NOW!!!
Like I said, I just wanted it civil. Name-calling from both sides is uncalled for. Probably best to leave it be.
@keets said:
this is a stupid debate that will never end and will never be settled.
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️ But Whatever, I personally choose Jordan for NBA GOAT but appreciate good arguments for Wilt, Kareem ect
Paul - I offered you a reasonable explanation of why I’d pick Montana ahead of Brady. I don’t think Montana an unreasonable choice. Nor do I fault you for picking Tom Brady.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@keets said:
while I don't necessarily believe Tom Brady to be the GOAT, either as a QB or just individual player, it IS hard not to agree that the New England Patriots are the GOAT where Teams are concerned. they may not be the best for a single season or even for 3-4-5-6 seasons in a row, but they have maintained a level of play for so long now that it's hard to understand how they have done it and why no other Team has been able to duplicate anything close to what they have done.
the Pat's have had enough players rotate in/out that it is no secret what they do. why no HC/Team is willing to make an attempt at duplicating that is hard to understand.
The 1981-1996 San Francisco teams were pretty special. I think there were 5 Super Bowls won. They were good for a few more years after.
I have said this before - I feel there’s great benefit in having three poorly run franchises in division during that stretch. While this is not the reason why the Patriots have been great (it’s Kraft, Brady and and Bellichek, whom are all deserving of every accolade they get and all are huge parts by being one of the best at what they do), the last 20 years have been bad for all three of those franchises save a 2-3 year run at best from each. Namath, Kelly and Marino being the last time each was really championship caliber, non recent.
Again, the Patriots are spectacular - no doubt - and Brady is, too.
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
@perkdog said:
Well that’s fine and sounds very true but you could say that about Joe Montana, or any other GOAT Candidate so the way I see it the playing field amongst NFL great QB’s is pretty fair, the ones that were not running for theIt lives and getting the crap beat out of them due to a joke of a line ect.. are all out of the debate so we are working with what we got and Nobody is going to give me any reasonable argument that Brady is not the best ever, Elway, Montana ect had strong if not stronger supporting casts around them.
Well that's fine, but your argument presupposes that the GOAT must necessarily be a QB, and then further assumes that the QB on the best team (the one with the most rings) is the GOAT. So, you started with the assumption that the QB on the best team is the GOAT, and that led you to the conclusion that the QB on the best team is the GOAT. That's called "begging the question", and that's all you're doing.
I don't know if you agree with the similar logical fallacy that skin makes in the MLB GOAT arguments, but assuming you don't, then you agree with my position that it is possible for the MLB GOAT to have played at any time. It could be Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, or anyone else. From that basic, and to my mind obvious, premise, the question just becomes how to identify which one it was. Their counting stats, their ratio stats, their strength of schedule, their postseason stats, their rings, etc., are all evidence that can be considered, and depending how you weight them will determine your answer. In baseball, if you count "rings" and postseason for much more than nothing, then Ted Williams will fall out of the conversation really fast. I think that's absurd, because the Red Sox not winning any titles was 0% Ted Williams fault, and 100% the fault of the Yankees being a much better team than the Red Sox. But you appear to disagree; at least, your argument for Brady - to the degree you've stated an actual argument - leads to the conclusion that Ted Williams wasn't as great as many people think he was.
The same argument applies to football. The GOAT could have played at any time, and for any team. Based on what I've seen in my lifetime - relegating Bart Starr and Jim Brown, etc. to the sidelines - the best QB I've seen play was Ken Anderson. Anderson was on a godawful team his entire career, with a couple of SB losses as the highlights of his career. But the Bengals won the games they did win, or so it seemed to me, mostly because Anderson was so good. I have no reason to doubt that had Ken Anderson been the Steelers QB when he played that he would have at least as many SB wins as Bradshaw, and very likely more, since Anderson was a better QB than Bradshaw.
Your argument - that Anderson can't possibly be the GOAT because he had bad teammates, and that Williams can't possibly have been the MLB GOAT for the same reason - isn't really an argument, it's just a statement. And it's a statement that doesn't convince me because it doesn't make any sense to me. The corollary of your argument is that Brady is the GOAT because he played on the Patriots, but had Brady played for the Browns then he wouldn't have been the GOAT. Phrased that way, it makes even less sense, doesn't it?
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
Pretty accurate list.
Thanks - it’s kinda long, though.
Kareem was just a force and as time passes, he’s not getting enough credit - partly because many people just remember the older, bald goggles Kareem and not Afro having, coming from nowhere to block shots and flying up and down the court high flying dunking over three people Kareem. The Bucks went from 25-56 to 56-25 with Kareem being the only significant change (people forget that the Big O gets added later) when he was drafted his rookie year.
That ridiculous.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@perkdog said:
Well that’s fine and sounds very true but you could say that about Joe Montana, or any other GOAT Candidate so the way I see it the playing field amongst NFL great QB’s is pretty fair, the ones that were not running for theIt lives and getting the crap beat out of them due to a joke of a line ect.. are all out of the debate so we are working with what we got and Nobody is going to give me any reasonable argument that Brady is not the best ever, Elway, Montana ect had strong if not stronger supporting casts around them.
Well that's fine, but your argument presupposes that the GOAT must necessarily be a QB, and then further assumes that the QB on the best team (the one with the most rings) is the GOAT. So, you started with the assumption that the QB on the best team is the GOAT, and that led you to the conclusion that the QB on the best team is the GOAT. That's called "begging the question", and that's all you're doing.
I don't know if you agree with the similar logical fallacy that skin makes in the MLB GOAT arguments, but assuming you don't, then you agree with my position that it is possible for the MLB GOAT to have played at any time. It could be Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, or anyone else. From that basic, and to my mind obvious, premise, the question just becomes how to identify which one it was. Their counting stats, their ratio stats, their strength of schedule, their postseason stats, their rings, etc., are all evidence that can be considered, and depending how you weight them will determine your answer. In baseball, if you count "rings" and postseason for much more than nothing, then Ted Williams will fall out of the conversation really fast. I think that's absurd, because the Red Sox not winning any titles was 0% Ted Williams fault, and 100% the fault of the Yankees being a much better team than the Red Sox. But you appear to disagree; at least, your argument for Brady - to the degree you've stated an actual argument - leads to the conclusion that Ted Williams wasn't as great as many people think he was.
The same argument applies to football. The GOAT could have played at any time, and for any team. Based on what I've seen in my lifetime - relegating Bart Starr and Jim Brown, etc. to the sidelines - the best QB I've seen play was Ken Anderson. Anderson was on a godawful team his entire career, with a couple of SB losses as the highlights of his career. But the Bengals won the games they did win, or so it seemed to me, mostly because Anderson was so good. I have no reason to doubt that had Ken Anderson been the Steelers QB when he played that he would have at least as many SB wins as Bradshaw, and very likely more, since Anderson was a better QB than Bradshaw.
Your argument - that Anderson can't possibly be the GOAT because he had bad teammates, and that Williams can't possibly have been the MLB GOAT for the same reason - isn't really an argument, it's just a statement. And it's a statement that doesn't convince me because it doesn't make any sense to me. The corollary of your argument is that Brady is the GOAT because he played on the Patriots, but had Brady played for the Browns then he wouldn't have been the GOAT. Phrased that way, it makes even less sense, doesn't it?
>
Individual greatness certainly counts and it certainly carries more weight than winning championships.
However, there is more to being the GOAT than having one skill. So for Ted Williams, lets call him the greatest hitter to ever live for arguments sake. Every sport requires multiple skill sets from its players - athletic, interpersonal, etc - and many of the GOATs were well rounded. As important as hitting is in baseball, there is pitching, fielding base running, sign stealing, etc.
By all accounts, mastery level was only achieved in hitting by Teddy Ballgame, and he was average or lacking in a lot of other areas of baseball. So he’s eliminated before we ever get to counting rings.
Kenny Anderson and Tom Brady, huh? Good luck with that.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
Pretty accurate list.
Thanks - it’s kinda long, though.
Kareem was just a force and as time passes, he’s not getting enough credit - partly because many people just remember the older, bald goggles Kareem and not Afro having, coming from nowhere to block shots and flying up and down the court high flying dunking over three people Kareem. The Bucks went from 25-56 to 56-25 with Kareem being the only significant change (people forget that the Big O gets added later) when he was drafted his rookie year.
That ridiculous.
Most people can't remember Wilt at all.
That's the problem with the GOAT debates (one of them anyway) people WANT the guy they saw perform be the best. I don't have a basketball bias as I grew up not having a team in Minnesota and not really having a favorite.
My list would be Wilt and Kareem as they both played offense and defense. Russell couldn't score, so I am baffled at how anyone could consider him.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
Pretty accurate list.
Thanks - it’s kinda long, though.
Kareem was just a force and as time passes, he’s not getting enough credit - partly because many people just remember the older, bald goggles Kareem and not Afro having, coming from nowhere to block shots and flying up and down the court high flying dunking over three people Kareem. The Bucks went from 25-56 to 56-25 with Kareem being the only significant change (people forget that the Big O gets added later) when he was drafted his rookie year.
That ridiculous.
Most people can't remember Wilt at all.
That's the problem with the GOAT debates (one of them anyway) people WANT the guy they saw perform be the best. I don't have a basketball bias as I grew up not having a team in Minnesota and not really having a favorite.
My list would be Wilt and Kareem as they both played offense and defense. Russell couldn't score, so I am baffled at how anyone could consider him.
That’s a bit of a misconception. Bill Russell could score, it’s just not what the Celtics needed from him. There’s only so many balls to go around and you free your self up for so much more on the basketball court when you let go of needing to score to impact the game. The ability to do that is one of the things that makes Bill Russell such a worthy candidate.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Individual greatness certainly counts and it certainly carries more weight than winning championships.
Well yeah, but why doesn't it count for 100%? To say that it carries "more" weight is to say that winning championships carries some weight. Exactly how much worse a player are you saying Ted Williams was for the sole reason that his teammates weren't as good as the Yankees? How much better a player would Ted Williams be if he had had Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford and Joe DiMaggio on his team? The questions themselves seem silly to me. Don't they to you?
However, there is more to being the GOAT than having one skill. So for Ted Williams, lets call him the greatest hitter to ever live for arguments sake. Every sport requires multiple skill sets from its players - athletic, interpersonal, etc - and many of the GOATs were well rounded. As important as hitting is in baseball, there is pitching, fielding base running, sign stealing, etc.
Sure, but this doesn't refute my point, it is my point. Evaluate Ted Williams as Ted Williams, not as a member of the Red Sox. Add up his value as a hitter and as a fielder, etc. - however you do that - and then compare that total value to everyone else's. Maybe Williams' lead as a hitter is so great that he's still on top after you add in everyone's fielding value, etc., or maybe he's not. But that's the way - the only way as I see it - to identify a GOAT.
By all accounts, mastery level was only achieved in hitting by Teddy Ballgame, and he was average or lacking in a lot of other areas of baseball. So he’s eliminated before we ever get to counting rings.
Maybe, even probably. But when you get to the point that all that's left to do is count rings, why don't you just stop? If you've identified the player, at that point, whose value as a hitter, fielder, etc. exceeds the value of everyone else, what more is there to count? All counting rings is going to do is give some player value for having better teammates than some other player and change your GOAT rankings into something all but meaningless.
Kenny Anderson and Tom Brady, huh? Good luck with that.
Oh, I know. But I've made this comparison about a dozen times now and nobody has yet attempted an argument to refute it, other than making the obvious point that Brady had better teammates. I've got nothing against Brady, and he is in fact one of the best QBs I've seen play. But I think Anderson was a little bit better. And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist. And because my belief that Anderson was the best is subjective, I take no exception to anyone else's subjective arguments that Brady was the best. It is the argument that Brady was better because Brady's teammates were better (also known as the "counting rings" argument) that I won't accept. It's a bad argument.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
I absolutely do not want to debate anyone that thinks Ken Anderson was a better QB than Tom Brady. But out of curiousity, why don’t YOU tell me why you think Ken Anderson was better? I mean if it’s just one of those things like saying you like the color Blue Better than Red then ok fine but if you can can up with logically soubd examples of where Anderson excelled over Brady then please let’s hear them.
@perkdog said:
I absolutely do not want to debate anyone that thinks Ken Anderson was a better QB than Tom Brady. But out of curiousity, why don’t YOU tell me why you think Ken Anderson was better? I mean if it’s just one of those things like saying you like the color Blue Better than Red then ok fine but if you can can up with logically soubd examples of where Anderson excelled over Brady then please let’s hear them.
Who in the WORLD thinks Anderson was better than Brady! That is BAZAAR !
@1951WheatiesPremium said:
Individual greatness certainly counts and it certainly carries more weight than winning championships.
Well yeah, but why doesn't it count for 100%? To say that it carries "more" weight is to say that winning championships carries some weight. Exactly how much worse a player are you saying Ted Williams was for the sole reason that his teammates weren't as good as the Yankees? How much better a player would Ted Williams be if he had had Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford and Joe DiMaggio on his team? The questions themselves seem silly to me. Don't they to you?
However, there is more to being the GOAT than having one skill. So for Ted Williams, lets call him the greatest hitter to ever live for arguments sake. Every sport requires multiple skill sets from its players - athletic, interpersonal, etc - and many of the GOATs were well rounded. As important as hitting is in baseball, there is pitching, fielding base running, sign stealing, etc.
Sure, but this doesn't refute my point, it is my point. Evaluate Ted Williams as Ted Williams, not as a member of the Red Sox. Add up his value as a hitter and as a fielder, etc. - however you do that - and then compare that total value to everyone else's. Maybe Williams' lead as a hitter is so great that he's still on top after you add in everyone's fielding value, etc., or maybe he's not. But that's the way - the only way as I see it - to identify a GOAT.
By all accounts, mastery level was only achieved in hitting by Teddy Ballgame, and he was average or lacking in a lot of other areas of baseball. So he’s eliminated before we ever get to counting rings.
Maybe, even probably. But when you get to the point that all that's left to do is count rings, why don't you just stop? If you've identified the player, at that point, whose value as a hitter, fielder, etc. exceeds the value of everyone else, what more is there to count? All counting rings is going to do is give some player value for having better teammates than some other player and change your GOAT rankings into something all but meaningless.
Kenny Anderson and Tom Brady, huh? Good luck with that.
Oh, I know. But I've made this comparison about a dozen times now and nobody has yet attempted an argument to refute it, other than making the obvious point that Brady had better teammates. I've got nothing against Brady, and he is in fact one of the best QBs I've seen play. But I think Anderson was a little bit better. And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist. And because my belief that Anderson was the best is subjective, I take no exception to anyone else's subjective arguments that Brady was the best. It is the argument that Brady was better because Brady's teammates were better (also known as the "counting rings" argument) that I won't accept. It's a bad argument.
That’s because you can’t bet half a cigarette, Martini.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I remember seeing a video of Anderson around 1983 when he played in the SB.
Hadn't seen much of him as the Vikings were in the NFC.
Anderson was amazing! He didn't dink and dunk the ball, he threw it downfield and still completed a high percentage of his passes. Great arm!
Here's the argument for Anderson over Brady as requested, leaving championships out of the discussion;
Ken led the league in completion % 3 times, Tom once.
Ken led the league in Quarterback Rating 4 times, Tom twice.
Ken led the league in yards gained per pass attempt 3 times, Tom once.
Both led in yards per game twice.
Ken led the league in yards gained per completion (career) 12.4 to 11.7.
I would also say Anderson had the better "arm".
Would Anderson get my GOAT vote over Brady.............NO.
Was he a better Quarterback? Maybe, but Brady has a longer career and is a great player as well.
I do think Brees and Montana were every bit as good. Montana had a shorter career, but Brees is right there in longevity and HIS numbers look better than Brady's to me.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@keets said:
this is a stupid debate that will never end and will never be settled.
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️ But Whatever, I personally choose Jordan for NBA GOAT but appreciate good arguments for Wilt, Kareem ect
Paul - I offered you a reasonable explanation of why I’d pick Montana ahead of Brady. I don’t think Montana an unreasonable choice. Nor do I fault you for picking Tom Brady.
You did and although I disagree I respect your POV
Comments
The part of Kareem is played by the Kareem. The part of those of you guys naming any one else as GOAT is played by Bruce Lee:
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not only are you STUPID, but you are like a little kid who can't think of anything so you start name calling.
Like I said before I am not the only person who knows Jordan is the GOAT and your silly comparison to Jordan and players who sit on the bench just shows how STUPID you are and not worth my time. So you can argue with yourself from now on.
What I meant was, in hockey you have a couple of defensemen and a goalie who's job it is to prevent the opponent from scoring. The forwards are supposed to help out, but they do not have the same defensive responsibility.
Orr is a great choice for Goat, similar to Wilt. Two guys that dominated on BOTH offense and defense. Had Orr not been cheap shotted out of his career, he would be pretty much be the unanimous GOAT in hockey. I can see where Gretzky's HUGE lead in points scored could lead anyone to believe that made up for any lack of defensive contribution.
Hull and even Gretzky were more like Jordan and Lebron, they focused on offense and let other guys do the dirty work. Playing defense is hard, when you ignore that part of the game, you have more energy to score.
By the way, if you look at points instead of goals Brett Hull is #23, one spot above Mike Modano.
He should have since he was over 7 feet tall when at that time most centers were much shorter.
You are again completely incorrect. This has been dis-proven. You cannot simply ignore the facts and be considered to have a valid opinion in a debate. So far your single worthwhile argument for Jordan is PPG which is actually worse than Wilt's because he took more shots and had virtually the SAME PPG.
Rings are meaningless here and in most GOAT discussions.
Putting Lebron above Wilt is simply idiotic.
_ Possibly the single most preposterous thing ever written here or anywhere else in the history of not only written word, but spoken as well.
_
I can at least understand how Jordan's offensive talent could blind you, but if you are going to (incorrectly) say Wilt is only a good rebounder because of his size, what does that say for Lebron? He's a MONSTER! With his combination of heigth and huge musculature, he gets his points by bullying his way through opponents and he should be a MUCH better rebounder than he is. Lazy on defense.
You can "agree to disagree" here, that's fine, and we can move on.
Kareem is the one player who could challenge Wilt for GOAT, not because he was better, but because he played longer and was almost as good.
Despite much better scoring and rebounding numbers per game Kareem, Wilt played 6 fewer seasons.
Here is a Win Shares comparison
Wilt........ 25.0 23.1 21.9 21.4 20.9 20.4 18.8 18.2 17.0 15.8 15.1 14.7 12.6 2.3
Kareem 25.4 22.3 21.9 18.4 17.8 17.0 14.8 14.4 14.3 13.8 12.9 12.1 11.2 10.9 10.8 10.7 8.9 7.5 5.3 2.9
Top three years were about equal, 10 years of Wilt being better 1 year of Kareem being better and 6 years where wilt was done and Kareem continued to play.
Wilt was 8 feet tall, of course he was great. If I were 8 feet tall, I wouldn't be sitting here right now. I would be a multimillionaire playing in the NBA and living in my mansion, and driving my Lamborghini around town. At night, I would become Batman, and fight crime in the city.
this is a stupid debate that will never end and will never be settled.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/basketball/top-10-greatest-nba-players-of-all-time-sstl
All GOAT debates are fun if people can stick to reasonable explanations for their pick. I’m still trying to find someone with a reasonable explanation for not choosing Brady as the NFL GOAT 🐐🤷♂️ But Whatever, I personally choose Jordan for NBA GOAT but appreciate good arguments for Wilt, Kareem ect
If there were no "stupid" threads the entire message board might be empty!
I guess that settles it. Another pea brain with a computer who knows nothing about basketball chimes in.
Could this be the guy who said Koufax was the best pitcher of all time?
Brady is as good a choice as any for NFL GOAT, but football is such an intrinsically team sport that there is no valid way to identify individual contributions. Troy Aikman spent his entire rookie season on his back and it looked unlikely he'd survive much longer, let alone ever win a Super Bpwl. Then the Cowboys got the best O-line in the league, and Aikman looked like a superstar. Which one was the real Aikman? They both were; the difference was the quality of the team around him. Had Brady spent his entire career on the Browns, would anyone think of him as a GOAT candidate? The answer is "no", however powerfully the Brady worship runs through your veins.
Look there's this thing called projection that you're guilty of. You started the name calling when you couldn't refute the truth.
That simple truth is that there are hundreds of bench warmers that have multiple rings. I'd venture to say that the Patriots have 10 special team players with 3+ rings.
You really are the dumbest poster I've ever encountered. I know your wife writes your replies for you. Tell her not to worry about getting you a headstone. I will pay for it.
It will say: " Here lies a special helmet wearing dummy. He was a husband, high school water boy, loser, and the biggest IDIOT in the world."
Your dog was smarter than you.
LMAO
Well that’s fine and sounds very true but you could say that about Joe Montana, or any other GOAT Candidate so the way I see it the playing field amongst NFL great QB’s is pretty fair, the ones that were not running for theIt lives and getting the crap beat out of them due to a joke of a line ect.. are all out of the debate so we are working with what we got and Nobody is going to give me any reasonable argument that Brady is not the best ever, Elway, Montana ect had strong if not stronger supporting casts around them. Keeping on topic, many say that Jordan wouldn’t have been as successful if he didn’t have Pippen around him and that in itself is a joke. Every Goat Candidate profits from some type of situation or player that benefits him in some way or another.
while I don't necessarily believe Tom Brady to be the GOAT, either as a QB or just individual player, it IS hard not to agree that the New England Patriots are the GOAT where Teams are concerned. they may not be the best for a single season or even for 3-4-5-6 seasons in a row, but they have maintained a level of play for so long now that it's hard to understand how they have done it and why no other Team has been able to duplicate anything close to what they have done.
the Pat's have had enough players rotate in/out that it is no secret what they do. why no HC/Team is willing to make an attempt at duplicating that is hard to understand.
I’m not sure what more Brady could do to make you think differently, maybe a 10Th Super Bowl Appearance? 7 Rings? As far as teams copying the Pats they can try all they want but until they get a Tom Brady they won’t succeed, it’s pretty easy to understand in my way of thinking lol. Try finding a better 20 year run than Brady has had and let me know what you come up with in Pro Football regarding an individual and success.
I will this spew of stupidity go due to the moron it came from! Really you bring my wife and dog into it.
What a POS you are!!!
look in the mirror sonny. you started the name calling. And now you start crying like a baby.
if you're not man enough to take what you dish out, go cry to your wife, you fat, POS loser. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
btw I'm glad that you're finding out the truth hurts.
You are the biggest idiot that ever posted on CU.
lollollollollollollollol
In all seriousness, I'd like to step in here and say that this kind of stuff, bringing up wives, pets, education, is way over the line.
Nah.
Idiot boy gets proven wrong, and he starts the name calling.
I never said anything bad about his wife, and complimented his dog.
lack of an education upsets you? why?
I'm just saying things seem to be getting personal. I'm just trying to help. Yes, @Dimeman started it. And as soon as he did I posted that he should keep it civil.
I don't think sports debates should result in personal attacks.
thank you for being honest.
I agree there shouldn't be name calling.
Dimey has done this before on the CU forum. I proved him wrong, and he began name calling. Justacommen might remember, he told Dimey he was wrong, and out of line.
So there's a bad history with this person and his reaction to being proven wrong.
He needs to man up and admit he's wrong instead of name calling.
He obviously can't do this.
I wasn't even going to reply to this. But just to set things straight. You did not prove me wrong on anything except maybe in your own mind. When I called you stupid I just didn't know what else to call someone who compares bench players to Jordan. You can think whoever you want to be the NBA GOAT. But all the list everywhere have Jordan as the GOAT. But I guess you know more than anybody here or anywhere.
This is my last reply. So spew away......nobody here takes you serious anyway.
. So spew away......nobody here takes you serious anyway.
No sonny it is you nobody takes seriously.
You have a real problem with projecting what is true about you onto others. You've done it three times just in this thread. You can't separate truth from your lies. Ask thisistheshow , he will point it out to you.
GET HELP NOW!!!
Touchdown Purdue!
I would just like to apologize for the above post. The touchdown wolf should not have made an appearance in this thread. Thank you for your patience and understanding.
No problem.
I started this thread, and the td wolf is exactly what was needed.
Like I said, I just wanted it civil. Name-calling from both sides is uncalled for. Probably best to leave it be.
Paul - I offered you a reasonable explanation of why I’d pick Montana ahead of Brady. I don’t think Montana an unreasonable choice. Nor do I fault you for picking Tom Brady.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
The 1981-1996 San Francisco teams were pretty special. I think there were 5 Super Bowls won. They were good for a few more years after.
I have said this before - I feel there’s great benefit in having three poorly run franchises in division during that stretch. While this is not the reason why the Patriots have been great (it’s Kraft, Brady and and Bellichek, whom are all deserving of every accolade they get and all are huge parts by being one of the best at what they do), the last 20 years have been bad for all three of those franchises save a 2-3 year run at best from each. Namath, Kelly and Marino being the last time each was really championship caliber, non recent.
Again, the Patriots are spectacular - no doubt - and Brady is, too.
As for NBA goat, there’s probably 5-6 guys who could be argued for with great merit behind it.
Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Russell
Magic
Bird
I think Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Kobe, LeBron, Tim Duncan are worth a mention too. My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Pretty accurate list.
Well that's fine, but your argument presupposes that the GOAT must necessarily be a QB, and then further assumes that the QB on the best team (the one with the most rings) is the GOAT. So, you started with the assumption that the QB on the best team is the GOAT, and that led you to the conclusion that the QB on the best team is the GOAT. That's called "begging the question", and that's all you're doing.
I don't know if you agree with the similar logical fallacy that skin makes in the MLB GOAT arguments, but assuming you don't, then you agree with my position that it is possible for the MLB GOAT to have played at any time. It could be Cap Anson, Willie Keeler, Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Mickey Mantle, Joe Morgan, Mike Schmidt, Barry Bonds, Mike Trout, or anyone else. From that basic, and to my mind obvious, premise, the question just becomes how to identify which one it was. Their counting stats, their ratio stats, their strength of schedule, their postseason stats, their rings, etc., are all evidence that can be considered, and depending how you weight them will determine your answer. In baseball, if you count "rings" and postseason for much more than nothing, then Ted Williams will fall out of the conversation really fast. I think that's absurd, because the Red Sox not winning any titles was 0% Ted Williams fault, and 100% the fault of the Yankees being a much better team than the Red Sox. But you appear to disagree; at least, your argument for Brady - to the degree you've stated an actual argument - leads to the conclusion that Ted Williams wasn't as great as many people think he was.
The same argument applies to football. The GOAT could have played at any time, and for any team. Based on what I've seen in my lifetime - relegating Bart Starr and Jim Brown, etc. to the sidelines - the best QB I've seen play was Ken Anderson. Anderson was on a godawful team his entire career, with a couple of SB losses as the highlights of his career. But the Bengals won the games they did win, or so it seemed to me, mostly because Anderson was so good. I have no reason to doubt that had Ken Anderson been the Steelers QB when he played that he would have at least as many SB wins as Bradshaw, and very likely more, since Anderson was a better QB than Bradshaw.
Your argument - that Anderson can't possibly be the GOAT because he had bad teammates, and that Williams can't possibly have been the MLB GOAT for the same reason - isn't really an argument, it's just a statement. And it's a statement that doesn't convince me because it doesn't make any sense to me. The corollary of your argument is that Brady is the GOAT because he played on the Patriots, but had Brady played for the Browns then he wouldn't have been the GOAT. Phrased that way, it makes even less sense, doesn't it?
My dad said if they had the three point line back then, Jerry West might be viewed differently as he was deadly from deep.
amen, and in particular when the game was on the line..
Thanks - it’s kinda long, though.
Kareem was just a force and as time passes, he’s not getting enough credit - partly because many people just remember the older, bald goggles Kareem and not Afro having, coming from nowhere to block shots and flying up and down the court high flying dunking over three people Kareem. The Bucks went from 25-56 to 56-25 with Kareem being the only significant change (people forget that the Big O gets added later) when he was drafted his rookie year.
That ridiculous.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Not even Wilt could've stopped the Sky Hook.
>
Individual greatness certainly counts and it certainly carries more weight than winning championships.
However, there is more to being the GOAT than having one skill. So for Ted Williams, lets call him the greatest hitter to ever live for arguments sake. Every sport requires multiple skill sets from its players - athletic, interpersonal, etc - and many of the GOATs were well rounded. As important as hitting is in baseball, there is pitching, fielding base running, sign stealing, etc.
By all accounts, mastery level was only achieved in hitting by Teddy Ballgame, and he was average or lacking in a lot of other areas of baseball. So he’s eliminated before we ever get to counting rings.
Kenny Anderson and Tom Brady, huh? Good luck with that.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Most people can't remember Wilt at all.
That's the problem with the GOAT debates (one of them anyway) people WANT the guy they saw perform be the best. I don't have a basketball bias as I grew up not having a team in Minnesota and not really having a favorite.
My list would be Wilt and Kareem as they both played offense and defense. Russell couldn't score, so I am baffled at how anyone could consider him.
Agree and Bob Cousey(sp) from Boston was a pretty good outside shooter also.
That’s a bit of a misconception. Bill Russell could score, it’s just not what the Celtics needed from him. There’s only so many balls to go around and you free your self up for so much more on the basketball court when you let go of needing to score to impact the game. The ability to do that is one of the things that makes Bill Russell such a worthy candidate.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Get a room, you two.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
good pics.
guy could've made millions more in endorsements and commercials except he was so aloof.
Those two battling under the boards was a sight to see!
Well yeah, but why doesn't it count for 100%? To say that it carries "more" weight is to say that winning championships carries some weight. Exactly how much worse a player are you saying Ted Williams was for the sole reason that his teammates weren't as good as the Yankees? How much better a player would Ted Williams be if he had had Yogi Berra, Whitey Ford and Joe DiMaggio on his team? The questions themselves seem silly to me. Don't they to you?
Sure, but this doesn't refute my point, it is my point. Evaluate Ted Williams as Ted Williams, not as a member of the Red Sox. Add up his value as a hitter and as a fielder, etc. - however you do that - and then compare that total value to everyone else's. Maybe Williams' lead as a hitter is so great that he's still on top after you add in everyone's fielding value, etc., or maybe he's not. But that's the way - the only way as I see it - to identify a GOAT.
Maybe, even probably. But when you get to the point that all that's left to do is count rings, why don't you just stop? If you've identified the player, at that point, whose value as a hitter, fielder, etc. exceeds the value of everyone else, what more is there to count? All counting rings is going to do is give some player value for having better teammates than some other player and change your GOAT rankings into something all but meaningless.
Oh, I know. But I've made this comparison about a dozen times now and nobody has yet attempted an argument to refute it, other than making the obvious point that Brady had better teammates. I've got nothing against Brady, and he is in fact one of the best QBs I've seen play. But I think Anderson was a little bit better. And in a team game like football, nobody can make an argument to refute my belief because no such argument can exist. And because my belief that Anderson was the best is subjective, I take no exception to anyone else's subjective arguments that Brady was the best. It is the argument that Brady was better because Brady's teammates were better (also known as the "counting rings" argument) that I won't accept. It's a bad argument.
I absolutely do not want to debate anyone that thinks Ken Anderson was a better QB than Tom Brady. But out of curiousity, why don’t YOU tell me why you think Ken Anderson was better? I mean if it’s just one of those things like saying you like the color Blue Better than Red then ok fine but if you can can up with logically soubd examples of where Anderson excelled over Brady then please let’s hear them.
Who in the WORLD thinks Anderson was better than Brady! That is BAZAAR !
Morphing into the NFL goat thread.
Just noticed dallas went the Ken Anderson route again. Bizarre!
That’s because you can’t bet half a cigarette, Martini.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I remember seeing a video of Anderson around 1983 when he played in the SB.
Hadn't seen much of him as the Vikings were in the NFC.
Anderson was amazing! He didn't dink and dunk the ball, he threw it downfield and still completed a high percentage of his passes. Great arm!
Here's the argument for Anderson over Brady as requested, leaving championships out of the discussion;
Ken led the league in completion % 3 times, Tom once.
Ken led the league in Quarterback Rating 4 times, Tom twice.
Ken led the league in yards gained per pass attempt 3 times, Tom once.
Both led in yards per game twice.
Ken led the league in yards gained per completion (career) 12.4 to 11.7.
I would also say Anderson had the better "arm".
Would Anderson get my GOAT vote over Brady.............NO.
Was he a better Quarterback? Maybe, but Brady has a longer career and is a great player as well.
I do think Brees and Montana were every bit as good. Montana had a shorter career, but Brees is right there in longevity and HIS numbers look better than Brady's to me.
Apparently the onl> @1951WheatiesPremium said:
You did and although I disagree I respect your POV