Congratulations To The Bucks

Happy for the two and the entire coaching staff but this has very little to do with Bill. He has his own set of issues on his own team. Issues that he had a lot to Do with and issues I believe he will help solve. If he had Brady this year they may not have went 7-9 but they certainly would not have won a Super Bowl.
I don’t care for they way Brady was treated and I’m sure he is enjoying this one a little differently than the others but I also believe he sees the bigger picture in that Bill and the Krafts became irrelevant the day he walked out the door.

Brady and Gronk just keep on winning.

Brady is like LeBron. People get tired of him winning and can't stand the guy. Until he's on their team. Then he's a favorite.

Jay King @ByJayKing
yesterday
Tom Brady will never be topped as the GOAT. At age 43, he brought the Bucs to their first playoff trip in 13 years, then won his seventh Super Bowl by beating Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers and Patrick Mahomes in consecutive games. That’s king shit.


Bob


.

I read the title and thought this was going to be about the Giannis crew

I read the title and thought this was going to be about the Giannis crew

worcester wrote:Sarasota and Tampa are aglow.

It was a great sports year here in Tampa (and the surrounding areas).
With the Heat being in the Finals, all 4 major sports Championships were played in Florida.

Brady is the GOAT. With no doubts. Even before this Super Bowl.
Tampa’s defense deserves so much credit too.

I will still never understand why Bill Russell's accomplishment(s) never makes these G.O.A.T. conversations. Yeah, I know he's in the conversation, but he's not in the conversation if you know what I mean and I'm pretty sure you do.

I know there were only three teams in the NBA during the 60's and the Lakers are never going to recognize the Minneapolis franchise except for the 5 titles but I say, Come on, man!!

It really is no contest.

db

dbrown4 wrote:I will still never understand why Bill Russell's accomplishment(s) never makes these G.O.A.T. conversations.  Yeah, I know he's in the conversation, but he's not in the conversation if you know what I mean and I'm pretty sure you do.

I know there were only three teams in the NBA during the 60's and the Lakers are never going to recognize the Minneapolis franchise except for the 5 titles but I say, Come on, man!!  

It really is no contest.    

db

I’ve always thought those who claim recency bias as the explanation are right.

It seems in most sports we tend to think the most recent or currently active top player may be the GOAT.

Right now that looks like Brady. I suspect a while after he retires the debate goes back to Brown or Rice, with Brady being added to the group. Some would include Butkus, Hornung or Taylor.

In basketball it is undeniably James right now. I would speculate that a short time after he retires he becomes part of a bigger group of GOAT candidates including Russell, Jordan and a few others.

In hockey it’s generally Gretzky. As we get further from his days on the ice, I believe he is getting added back into a group including Howe, Hull and Orr.

The biggest exception might be baseball, where no one ever seems to knock Ruth off his perch. That may be because he dominated his era like none before or since. Some currently say Trout has a shot. I have always thought a strong case could be made for Mays.

I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

TJ,

I should point out that in one line you use championships won as a determining factor for Brady over his position competition and in the next say that they are not a determining factor when talking about Russell and then Berra.

Some would say in Russell's day it was actually harder to win a title because fewer teams meant more talent was consolidated onto each roster. Others, including Kevin Garnett just yesterday, say those from Russell's era couldn't even make it into today's NBA. Garnett went on to say even his own era couldn't play today, although partly for non-physical reasons. Who is to say and where is the proof?

I think what you and I are both pointing out, without saying so directly, is the difficulty in comparing players and teams across eras.

For me this type of comparison has always been a part of one of the most enjoyable yet impossible to prove sports debates.

Regards

NYCelt wrote:TJ,

I should point out that in one line you use championships won as a determining factor for Brady over his position competition and in the next say that they are not a determining factor when talking about Russell and then Berra.

Some would say in Russell's day it was actually harder to win a title because fewer teams meant more talent was consolidated onto each roster. Others, including Kevin Garnett just yesterday, say those from Russell's era couldn't even make it into today's NBA. Garnett went on to say even his own era couldn't play today, although for mainly non-physical reasons. Who is to say and where is the proof?

I think what you and I are both pointing out, without saying so directly, is the difficulty in comparing players and teams across eras.

For me this type of comparison has always been a part of one of the most enjoyable yet impossible to prove sports debates.

Regards

We can compare Brees, Manning and Brady because they play the same position at the exact same time.
Brady's numbers are not significantly better than others but his championships elevate him over Brees and Manning in my opinion.
It's not like we are comparing 6 championships for Jordan and 4 for Lebron.
I think it's 7/1/1 for Brady/Brees/Manning.

There was more talent on each team in Russell's era, but his team just happened to have by far the most talent.
If your team has the most talent and you only have to win one series or even two series to get to the Finals, you should get there every single year.
I don't give Robert Horry bonus points over Malone and Barkley because he won 7 championships while Malone and Barkley did not win any.
Tony Parker was not a better player than Iverson or Nash and he won many titles while they won none.

Garnett is absolutely right.
Cousy and Mikan could not make an NBA roster in today's NBA.
Other than Wilt and Russell, very few players from decades ago would probably be able to make a current NBA roster.

No NBA player could win 11 titles again.
No MLB player could win 10 titles again.
That doesn't mean there haven't been players since Russell and Berra who are better players than them.

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

How many touchdowns did Butkus and Taylor get?

cowens/oldschool wrote:

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

How many touchdowns did Butkus and Taylor get?

Exactly.
That's why Brady is the GOAT of quarterbacks.
Impossible to compare them to Brady.

TJ and Cow,

You're both proving the point, along with me, that you can't compare.

Both of you are adding your own elements, just as I would if I went into more detail. Who is to say one statistic like titles, points or touchdowns makes more of a difference than others?  Are a record number of tackles more or less important than a record number of touchdowns? Are a record number of blocked shots more or less important than a record number of rebounds or points? How do we know what a 2021 Mikan would be? None of these can be answered with any certainty, only with what one of us feels is most important.

This is why I say I enjoy this type of debate. We could go on all day and none of us will be right or wrong. We would, however, come up with a look back at several great athletes and have fun trying to prove our point. Wouldn't you agree?

Regards

NYCelt wrote:TJ and Cow,

You're both proving the point, along with me, that you can't compare.

Both of you are adding your own elements, just as I would if I went into more detail. Who is to say one statistic like titles, points or touchdowns makes more of a difference than others?  Are a record number of tackles more or less important than a record number of touchdowns? Are a record number of blocked shots more or less important than a record number of rebounds or points? How do we know what a 2021 Mikan would be? None of these can be answered with any certainty, only with what one of us feels is most important.

This is why I say I enjoy this type of debate. We could go on all day and none of us will be right or wrong. We would, however, come up with a look back at several great athletes and have fun trying to prove our point. Wouldn't you agree?

Regards

look back at several great athletes and have fun trying to prove our point. Wouldn't you agree?

Completely agree.
This is clearly better than talking about our opinions about politics or other things.

tjmakz wrote:
This is clearly better than talking about our opinions about politics or other things.

I'll tell you something TJ, you just hit on a major point of this forum.

Back in October of 2009, when Sam talked with gyso, Pete and me about getting this forum started, he hoped it would be about the Celtics and basketball in general, but also about something more. He liked the idea that a group of people, Celtic fans or not, could come together and talk about the C's, sports and anything beyond that wasn't divisive. That's how we got to the no politics thing. Sam was all about a good debate, but with respect and not on a topic that could ultimately cause offense or discord. That's why we've never changed his "convivial" line in the forum header.

You just expressed a critical reason for this forum in one sentence. Sam would love it, I'm certain.

NYCelt wrote:Brady and Gronk just keep on winning.

Brady is like LeBron. People get tired of him winning and can't stand the guy. Until he's on their team. Then he's a favorite.

Cept’ Brady didn’t hop around to get all his hardware.

dbrown4 wrote:I will still never understand why Bill Russell's accomplishment(s) never makes these G.O.A.T. conversations.  Yeah, I know he's in the conversation, but he's not in the conversation if you know what I mean and I'm pretty sure you do.

I know there were only three teams in the NBA during the 60's and the Lakers are never going to recognize the Minneapolis franchise except for the 5 titles but I say, Come on, man!!  

It really is no contest.    

db

Totally agree. Also, the fact that there were fewer teams made it even harder to win. I heard Tom E Curren of NBCSB say that Russell’s magnitude is not as big because played against “plumbers and part time insurance salesmen”.
Needless to say I fired off a scathing letter to him pointing out the “plumbers” such as Wilt, Big O, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Willlis reed. Jerry west etc. and Tommy sold insurance PT a 2 time HOFer. What an idiot. There are people out there that just do not need to talk and Curren is one of them. At least when it comes to Basketball.

tjmakz wrote:I call Brady the GOAT of quarterbacks.
There's just no way to compare him to Lawrence Taylor, Butkus, OJ, Rice or other great non quarterbacks.
Brady has comparable numbers to Manning and Brees but his championships is what puts him ahead of other great quarterbacks.
Yes, Bill Russell can be in the conversation of greatest players but the amount of championships is not the determining factor.
Just like it's not for Yogi Berra who won more championships than anyone in baseball history.
Obviously Russell's path to a championship was very easy compared to winning a championship today.
In some championships, Russell's team just had to win one playoff series to get to the Finals.
Russell has about 400 fewer career playoff points than Manu Ginobilli who rarely was even a starter for San Antonio.
Manu was not Russell, but it shows how different it was to win championships in the 1950's and 1960's compared to today.

Because Russell just had to win one playoff series is (A) not true and (B) not relevant. First off, The fact that fewer teams were in the league meant that Boston for instance played the Lakers 6-8 times a year. Also, with so fewer teams qualifying for the playoffs each year, teams could not afford to take nights off during the season. Teams had to play the full 80-82 games and bring it. None of this load management, nights off. Players played more minutes per game. Look at Havlicek minutes in the 70’s for example. Players also did not travel private. Some teams took buses, It was much harder back then. It’s somewhat disrespectful to try an diminish these players accomplishments because there were less teams and fewer playoff games. Unlike the NBA today, These guys had to bring it EVERY NIGHT!

tjmakz wrote:

NYCelt wrote:TJ,

I should point out that in one line you use championships won as a determining factor for Brady over his position competition and in the next say that they are not a determining factor when talking about Russell and then Berra.

Some would say in Russell's day it was actually harder to win a title because fewer teams meant more talent was consolidated onto each roster. Others, including Kevin Garnett just yesterday, say those from Russell's era couldn't even make it into today's NBA. Garnett went on to say even his own era couldn't play today, although for mainly non-physical reasons. Who is to say and where is the proof?

I think what you and I are both pointing out, without saying so directly, is the difficulty in comparing players and teams across eras.

For me this type of comparison has always been a part of one of the most enjoyable yet impossible to prove sports debates.

Regards

We can compare Brees, Manning and Brady because they play the same position at the exact same time.
Brady's numbers are not significantly better than others but his championships elevate him over Brees and Manning in my opinion.
It's not like we are comparing 6 championships for Jordan and 4 for Lebron.
I think it's 7/1/1 for Brady/Brees/Manning.

There was more talent on each team in Russell's era, but his team just happened to have by far the most talent.
If your team has the most talent and you only have to win one series or even two series to get to the Finals, you should get there every single year.
I don't give Robert Horry bonus points over Malone and Barkley because he won 7 championships while Malone and Barkley did not win any.
Tony Parker was not a better player than Iverson or Nash and he won many titles while they won none.

Garnett is absolutely right.
Cousy and Mikan could not make an NBA roster in today's NBA.
Other than Wilt and Russell, very few players from decades ago would probably be able to make a current NBA roster.

No NBA player could win 11 titles again.
No MLB player could win 10 titles again.
That doesn't mean there haven't been players since Russell and Berra who are better players than them.

Comparing players from the 50-60s with players of today is assinine and a waste of time. Comparing players of today with players of 40 yrs from now-same thing. Appreciate each era and stop the mental masturbation. We’ll all go blind and wont be able to watch anymore! Ain’t healthy! LOL