|
Post by Nyi28nhl on May 17, 2007 18:54:18 GMT -5
Kobe isn't most valuable because he put his own intentions over the team and ran Shaq out of town. I have no doubt the Lakers might have added another title to their history had Shaq stayed. That's the basic response. Press 2 for the advanced copy. 2. We're basing this on the court. Not off the court. Shaq/Kobe feud is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on May 18, 2007 4:16:01 GMT -5
First of all, after reading your arguments here, I can't believe you even watch football. Ha.. just throwing that out there.
"Give me a break. Brady could be replaced by Manning. Or he could be replaced by LT. Both LT and Manning are premier players. Manning, especailly, has the ring and the skills to replace Brady. LT doesn't have the resume, but would still make the Pats a top team. You might mention the leadership part of it, and that's crap to. No one could replace Joe Montana.Well Steve Young did it. Same thing here. There will be a day when Brady isn't the QB of the Patriots and there will be a day they win without him."
You have a point. But it's a crappy one. I never said Brady couldn't be replaced. But RIGHT NOW, he is the most valuable current player on any team in any sport. He established a dynasty. Has Peyton done that? Nope. LT? Nope. Anyone besides Brady? Maybe Big Ben or Carson? Nope. None of the top QB's have done it. Why? Because Brady is set apart man. When a QB leads 4th Quarter drives for wins (on a consistent basis) and establishes himself as the most feared QB in the league whether ahead or behind late in the game, you have to look at him differently. Man, I don't even like Tom Brady and I know he's the best in the league. Is he replaceable? Of course. No crap. Everyone is. That's how every sport is. Lebron is replaceable too. That is not and was not the point I was making. Guys come and go all the time in the NFL. But Tom Brady will go down in history and you know it. Peyton? I'm not even sure yet. Good stats, sure. But one ring? I don't know. I bet Tom gets enshrined before Peyton. Know why? He lead. He transformed the team. The Pats sucked before. They were an average team. When he came in, they were the winningest team for years.
_______________
"The year the Steelers won the Super Bowl, the first play was a Carson Palmer to Chad Johsnon big play pass. That's when the injury happened. Cincy never had another chance. Had Palmer stayed in the game, I'm willing to wager that they would have had an amazing chance to win the game (or at least be close in the end.) Leadership doesn't win games. And leadership doesn't have to come in the form of a player."
What?! Leadership doesn't win games? Blasphemy! Greatness is defined by leadership. Joe Montana was the captain and leader. Tom Brady is a leader. He takes young, inexperience guys and wins games with them. How? Because he's a leader. He is constantly teaching and uniting with his team. The offense under Tom Brady works as one. Look at Peyton. He's got two Pro-Bowl receivers, two good running backs, and arguably the best offensive line in the league. And still, he threw.. 2 TD passes in the playoffs total? Seems a little subpar to me. Oh, and I don't really get your point about the Carson thing. I was talking about Kitna doing well a few years ago, then you bring up this year when he got hurt? I fail to see the connection. When he got hurt, the LEADER of the team got hurt, they lost. The backup came in with no chemistry and the team lost. Because their leader was out. How does that prove your point? Actually, it seems to prove my point that leaders do win games. Maybe I'm misreading it or something...
_____________________ "You took it too literally. My point was, in a basketball game, one player can win one game. Last night, Ginobli went off for 15 in the fourth quarter. It wouldn't work like that all season, but in a few games, Lebron can take the Cavs on his back and simply dominate a game. That's why a good point guard is a must in the NBA. If you don't believe me, look at the teams who made the Playoffs. However, in Football, Tom Brady can make the most perfect throws, but he still needs a receiver to get under them."
That's true. Any one player can 'go off' and score a lot of points, blah blah blah. Still, basketball requires a team effort. Passing, blocking, rebounds, etc. Every player is still important. Not like football, but that's not the argument. Football is a different game than basketball and requires much more unity and chemistry. Basketball is much easier to be on the same page and even if a team is not, a guy like Kobe or Lebron can take over. Football is much more complicated. It takes a lot to get everyone on the same page. That's why respect Tom Brady a lot more. All in one play the whole offense lines up and knows exactly when to hike the ball. All 11 guys know their role. All 11 guys know where the ball should be going and where the play is designed. All 11 guys are on their toes at every point. Now, if you are telling me that it does not take great leadership and ability to unify all 11 of those guys for 60 plays a game, then you should buy a dictionary. Now, Brady does need receivers, but I don't get that argument. Duh. That's the game off football. I've argued how he's worked with decent and bad receivers. You know he can work with whatever he's given. Who else has proven themselves like that in any sport?
__________________________ "And Lebron is Cleveland. A franchise player is great. Both of our arguments support one. In Tom Brady's Super Bowl years, the talent he had was hardly as bad as Lebron's was. Brady has had a great defense ever since he's taking over for Bledsoe."
The defense was good in year one. But every year after that, the defense lost components and was never the same. Every year the team got worse and worse. News analysts were always talking about how they would fall and the defense wouldn't hold and blah blah blah. Well, the Patriots came together and won it. Tom Brady didn't do everything. But he did more than anyone. Plus.. the talent in the NBA is much different than in the NFL. In the NFL, there are guys that should play, and guys that shouldn't. There are guys that can catch or tackle or whatever, and there are guys that can't. That's why they're backups. In the NBA, a majority of players can knock down a three if given the opportunity. Game experience and handling pressure and so on.. that makes great players. But in the NBA, everyone is fairly good. If you're not talented, you don't get into the NBA.
_____________________ "If you want to talk about teams, lets think about it. Lebron is out there for most of the game. Defense and offense. Tom Brady is nothing without his defense. He can't win without guys on the other side of the ball making plays. He can't control it. However, Lebron can."
Again.. the differences in games, not the importance of players to their respective teams. Brady does all he can at his position. It's like saying a soccer player isn't good because he plays goalie. Goalies play a huge role in games and can literally win or lose games for teams. If you're good, people know you're good. You don't play offense, but you dominate your position. That's how it is in the NFL. He can't do it all and Lebron can, but I'm not sure that's a good thing. Brady dominates his position. The defenders do their jobs, but when he comes on.. it's like a dominating goalie. He comes in and owns. Try to "score" on him? Nope. He'll rip your defense apart. He does his job better than anyone else can.
___________________ This should be judged soon because Lebron's playoff success/failure may begin to affect the judging.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on May 18, 2007 6:34:02 GMT -5
This should be judged soon because Lebron's playoff success/failure may begin to affect the judging. We're only halfway through Don't worry, it won't affect the judging at all. Like I said, anything up to the point that I started the thread counts. Anything past doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 18, 2007 15:52:34 GMT -5
BWW: You try arguing against what people call the perfect human being. It's no picnic (I watch football a lot more than basketball) First, NYI: I disagree. In my opinion, the MVP needs to be great on the field of battle as well as off of it. Now, BWW, working from bottom to top: But that's the whole point. I honestly don't even believe that there are MVP's in football. It's one of the ultimate team games we have around. You mentioned dominating your position, and that's something Brady doesn't even do. Sure, he's a top guy and in the Top 3 in the league, but he doesn't dominate it. That once again, goes to Peyton Manning. The talent factor in both leagues is irrelevant. How does mediocre players playing in the NFL relate to Tom Brady being the MVP in all of sports? You just made my arguement! A guy like Lebron can take over. There you have it. When things aren't on the same page, Lebron James can be the difference in a game. However, in football, Tom Brady can be on all night, but if things aren't clicking, he's not going to be able to pick up 100 yards rushing the ball. It's not his fault, but it does prove football is more focused on the team. And I direct you to Peyton Manning. He gets all eleven guys on the same page. He calls his own plays. Does Brady do that? And regardless who has proven they can work with anything, it makes no difference. You take what's given to you. Neither of our guys can really control that. I know I'm bringing Manning up a lot, but think about it. Manning just got a ring. He just beat Brady head-to-head. And as far as the position of QB goes, I can't see how Brady has any edge over Manning, except for the rings. (Which are a big deal, but not as far as ability goes) If you're leader happens to be your most talented player, yeah, it does win games. But the Patriots have other leaders. Troy Brown, Teddy Bruschi, etc. If leadership truly won games, the Pats would go undefeated every game because they have one of the best in the game. But they don't and why? Talent ultimately wins games. True, you can't be unorganzied, but talent wins. Detroit Pistons...great leadership, but great talent as well. Same with every dynasty. We shouldn't argue this, because leadership/talent combine to win games. Yet, he came back from that and now has a Super Bowl and a win over Tom Brady. In fact, he's dominated Tom Brady in recent games. They were average during the last year Drew Bledsoe was QB? I wasn't aware. Lebron has transformed the Cavs, from the minute he was drafted. And more then just on the field. Also, Tom will be enshrined before Peyton. Who would give up doing hilarious commercials for the Hall of Fame? If the HOF was about rings, Dan Marino wouldn't be near it. Thankfully, stats matter to, and that's a category Tom Brady doesn't stack up to Peyton Manning in. I know a name...John Elway, I believe, who took awhile to get his first ring, but once that one came, another one did to. Manning still has some time to get a few more.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on May 20, 2007 23:02:45 GMT -5
Is this going to get judged soon? I'll respond to GEO's argument tomorrow but.. I'm wondering how long we're going to disect each other's argument not each others case. That's what it's becoming. So.. yeah. Judge soon Not until after tomorrow though.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on May 20, 2007 23:11:53 GMT -5
I believe these are supposed to last a week. Which makes today (Monday the 21st) the last day for posting and it will be judged on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 21, 2007 13:47:35 GMT -5
I'll make my final post and then closing thoughts after BWW has a chance to respond.
It's too bad more people didn't chip in because this was a good topic
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on May 21, 2007 22:09:02 GMT -5
I know you watch football, man. It must be tough arguing against Mr. Perfect. _______
"We're basing this on the court. Not off the court. Shaq/Kobe feud is irrelevant." "I disagree. In my opinion, the MVP needs to be great on the field of battle as well as off of it."
I disagree. MVP honors is given to the player who's valuable for his team to have success. If we based it on off the field, Vick would be in MVP contention. He brings in tons of money for his franchise. Off the field/court matters should not be relevant. Dirk won this year even though there was some controversy between him and his coach. ___________
"But that's the whole point. I honestly don't even believe that there are MVP's in football. It's one of the ultimate team games we have around. You mentioned dominating your position, and that's something Brady doesn't even do. Sure, he's a top guy and in the Top 3 in the league, but he doesn't dominate it. That once again, goes to Peyton Manning."
I could turn this into a Peyton vs. Tom debate, but Mr. Brady would own. Manning does well in the regular season. In the long run, that means little. Manning struggles and is terrible in the post-season, which means the world. Brady may not dominate in the regular season with yards or TDs or any of that. But when it comes playoff time, there is no other quarterback that I trust with the ball more. After watching him win all so often and so consistently, it's hard not to trust him more than Peyton. Ha. Watch Tom in a playoff game, then watch Peyton. I promise there is little comparison. _______________
"The talent factor in both leagues is irrelevant. How does mediocre players playing in the NFL relate to Tom Brady being the MVP in all of sports?" Not true. Talent is a factor. NBA players can score from anywhere. Saying Lebron has no help is a load. He's got a good team surrounding him. Wade had help too. It's too easy to say that 'Lebron is all alone out there' when he scores a lot. He's the best guy on the team, yeah, but he scores because of his team. The Cavs are not a one man team. The Lakers are. When you watch a Lakers game then watch a Cavs game, you can note the differences. Kobe is forced to shoot. Lebron simply chooses to. He could pass to Hughes or Gooden or any other guy on the team and they'd be just as likely to make the shot. _____________________
"You just made my arguement! A guy like Lebron can take over. There you have it. When things aren't on the same page, Lebron James can be the difference in a game. However, in football, Tom Brady can be on all night, but if things aren't clicking, he's not going to be able to pick up 100 yards rushing the ball. It's not his fault, but it does prove football is more focused on the team."
Lebron is just like every other star in the NBA. Anyone can 'take over'. Larry Hughes can take over a game if he wants to. Why is Lebron the MVP? Why not Kobe or Nash? Why not Duncan or Williams? Those guys took over games. Important games. They're not MVP? Any NBA player can be a difference in a game. Lebron is no different. He might do it more than others, but there are others who do it more than him. Yeah. Brady can't run or play defense or any of that, but he is the leader of the team. He is the morale and the captain of the team. He gets it done. Just because he can't do it all doesn't mean he isn't MVP. The Pats wouldn't have won any Super Bowl without him. With him, they won three. He's the only prime contributor to all those Super Bowls. No defensive player. No running back. Brady. He made the team what they are today. Lebron is valuable because he scores a lot. But trade him with Kobe, you'd be arguing for Kobe instead. Trade Lebron for another star, the story would change. Trade Brady, the Pats go down. It's that simple. ____________________
"I know I'm bringing Manning up a lot, but think about it. Manning just got a ring. He just beat Brady head-to-head. And as far as the position of QB goes, I can't see how Brady has any edge over Manning, except for the rings. (Which are a big deal, but not as far as ability goes)"
This is not the debate. If you want to debate Manning and Brady, we'll save that for another time. Brady wins consistently. Manning won once. That doesn't do it for me. _____________________
"If you're leader happens to be your most talented player, yeah, it does win games. But the Patriots have other leaders. Troy Brown, Teddy Bruschi, etc. If leadership truly won games, the Pats would go undefeated every game because they have one of the best in the game. But they don't and why? Talent ultimately wins games. True, you can't be unorganzied, but talent wins. Detroit Pistons...great leadership, but great talent as well. Same with every dynasty. We shouldn't argue this, because leadership/talent combine to win games."
I agree. It's a mix of both. But Brady has both. If talent ultimately wins games, then the Colts should go undefeated. They don't. What about the Bengals? They're loaded with talent. 8-8. Hmm... Pistons win because they combine the two. So do the Pats. Brady leads and wills wins from his team. The talent level was low, but still they made the playoffs. You're right. Talent and leadership combine. But without leadership, talent means nothing. Brady shows that leadership without talent can still lead to success. Not great success, but success. ___________________________
"Yet, he came back from that and now has a Super Bowl and a win over Tom Brady. In fact, he's dominated Tom Brady in recent games." Came back from what? A terrible performance in the post-season? My argument is that he had/has a much more talented team. When Brady dominated Peyton a few years ago, it was because his team had more talent. Now? Not so much. Peyton has consistently had talent, yet is just now beginning to win over Brady. Again, it comes down to a balance between leadership and talent. Peyton's scale tips toward the talent side, whereas Brady's is leaning toward the leadership side. It's easier to win with Peyton's scale. ________________________
"They were average during the last year Drew Bledsoe was QB? I wasn't aware." Obviously if Bledsoe was that expendable... "Lebron has transformed the Cavs, from the minute he was drafted." True. But again, why is he so different than other NBA superstars? Kobe did the same for the Lakers. Wade changed the heat (and actually won, unlike Lebron). I know he's great. He's done wonders for his team. That's nice in the NBA. But there are others just like him and better. In the NFL, no one (currently playing) has had the same success as Tom Brady. __________________________
When I said Brady couldn't be replaced, I meant during his run. He was the best QB for his team and still is. Eventually, he will age and will be replaced. As will Peyton. As will Carson. And so on... Everyone is replaceable. But if no other QB would've fit the job description that Tom Brady did during the 'dynasty' run. It was Tom. I can't imagine anyone stepping into his shoes during that time. Or even now. ______________________________
I guess you should just read my posts to see my thoughts. It's obvious to see that it's very difficult to even compare Brady and Lebron. They live two different lives and play in two very different games. Lebron scores. Brady wins. That's my main argument. The leagues are different. The games are different. But the measure of success is the same. Wins. Brady has 3 really important ones. Lebron has yet to reach that level of importance. He may soon, maybe even this year. But right now, if I had to crown anyone as MVP in all of sports, I'd walk past Lebron. I'd walk past Jeter. I wouldn't glance at Carson or Peyton. Kobe and Nash can remain seated. The crown would go right on the brow of 3-time Super Bowl Champion Tom Brady.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 22, 2007 15:36:37 GMT -5
Some final thoughts:
Lebron James is a superstar. He is the face of the NBA. Before he was in the league, I remember ESPN hyping the kid like he was the next Michael Jordan. Nah, I thought. It'll never happen. Then he signed a giant 100 million dollar shoe deal, went out there, and won rookie of the year. From that point on, Cleveland was transformed into a Playoff team.
BlindlyWeWander points out that the games are measured in wins. And that's fine.
But I have to ask myself. Why Tom Brady? Why now. I can see Tom Brady being the obvious answer a few years ago, but not now. He's no longer on top. He's no longer the champ. The question was now, who is the MVP? Want to go by wins? Brendon Shanahan has as many Stanley Cups as Tom Brady. Derek Jeter has more World Series and Martin Brodeur is also tied with Brady. Heck, even Mike Keane has 3 Stanley Cups. Alas, Brady is also tied with several TEAMmates for World Championships.
You don't measure the MVP by Championships. Or how else do players win the Playoff MVP award if their team loses? It's been done.
Most Valuable Player
Lebron James is clearly most valuable to his city, his fans, his team, and so forth.
City: Lebron brings in big bucks, and I don't care if you don't think this makes someone an MVP. It does. Maybe not the MVP trophy given out by a league, but going by the term, he's extremely valuable. Without him, the Cavs won't sell tickets, investors get angry, and next thing you know, the Cavs are suddenly playing somewhere in California.
Fans: Entertainment! We don't go to the game to see Larry Hughes. No one ever went to see Scottie Pippen. They want to see the best players. Lebron is that player. See, in football, fans will always come to games no matter what. You could put the Raiders and the Browns on the field. There will be people. In basketball, it doesn't work like that.
Stat: This season, the Cavs had the third highest attendence, reaching an average of 99.7% capacity. On the road, this stat was over 100%. His name sells.
Team: The basis of the MVP, and where my arugment seems to fall apart. He's TOM BRADY! Three rings, ultimte leader, pretty boy, etc. But look at the games! Football is hugely a team game. Tom Brady can't throw TD's if his receivers drop the ball. (See AFC Championship, 2007.) Lebron can score points by having his teammates do nothing more than spread the floor. The elements of each game have to come into considertion. If they didn't, I would have to pick Crosby as MVP.
Final Say - NYI
Lebron is different from Kobe or Nash, or whomever. He's the biggest name in the NBA and when this post was made, was still in the Playoffs. While Kobe's team has been increasingly worse since Shaq left, Lebron's team has done better since Carlos Boozer left!
I'm done. Please, don't judge the players.
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on May 22, 2007 22:49:23 GMT -5
Alright, this is done. I have not come to a decision yet, but I will tomorrow when I get a chance to actually sit down and look back on the thread.
Note, I will be considering the following points when looking back:
-Who has addressed all (not most) of the other's points. -Who has made the best case for why that team would not win if the player chosen was not on the team. -Who has made the most logical points, in relation to the topic. -Who overall has made the strongest arguement.
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 23, 2007 15:09:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Nyi28nhl on May 25, 2007 7:18:32 GMT -5
This one goes to BlindlyWeWan.....GE....Blin....G....Nyi28nh....BlindlyW...GE... Well, before I announce that, let me break it down BlindlyWeWanderYou responded to almost all of GEO's points, however with some of them you strayed from what he was trying to say in your response. Also, for many of GEO's points, I feel you missed the big counter-point but hey, that's just my opinion. GEOI feel like you picked and chose what things BWW said that you would respond to. I do, however, like how you pumped new elements into the argument almost every time you posted. One of those was the business and money brought in. Well, Stadium sales are irrelevant because so many other factors come into play (which sport is more popular, which sport plays more games, etc.) An individual bringing in money can be shown in the jersey sales. Let's take a look, shall we? Here and here show that Tom Brady ranks just as high among the NFL as LeBron does in the NBA. If you're going to spit out "facts" in a debate rather than conceptual thought - you might want to look those "facts" up first. Merely saying so does not make it true. It was very close, and too close to call if I had that option. It's a shame that more people didn't get involved. This week's winner is BlindlyWeWander (again)
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 25, 2007 15:40:15 GMT -5
Good debate BWW. NYI: I knew right after I posted that last message I should have posted links to all facts. That's why I like debating in person But remember, it's about the debate. If he doesn't recognize I'm smudging it a little bit, his loss, eh? You know, Tom Brady was my first choice, but I thought I would take a tougher road and not choose the best QB in the game today (Well,there is Peyton Manning!) Ha BWW: You have two days to post a topic. Leaderboard (with NYI's win as well) will be updated afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by blindlywewander on May 25, 2007 15:52:38 GMT -5
I'll work on a new topic. If you've got any ideas, let me know. I've been crazy busy with work and all this summer, so if it takes a while, go easy on me
|
|
|
Post by GEO on May 25, 2007 15:56:49 GMT -5
If you ned help, check out the headlines on ESPN. The debate can be about a current event in sports, not just a specific issue.
|
|