like_that;798015 wrote:...

No, I do not think championships are overrated. ...

How are they rated in the decision?

To decide if they are overrated or not they must be clearly rated.

They might just be rated perfectly!

karen lotz;797449 wrote:Yeah you are right. Hard to imagine someone who had career averages of 7 points, 5 rebounds, and 2 assists wouldn't be considered amongst the greats IN SPORTS HISTORY...

It's Joel Anthony Syndrome. MVP! MVP! MVP!

As to the topic. Kind of a "yes" and "no". I have no problems with them being used as one thing to compare elite athletes upon. Some guys simply have that extra level they seem to reach when the stakes are highest and there's no way that should be discarded in comparing them to other athletes.

The first problem I have is when the idiot card gets played and people bring up the "perennial role player with championships" argument (ala Big Shot Bob) like it has any relevance. The second is when a younger athlete who hasn't won any championships is downgraded for it. They should be part of the discussion, but as more of a legacy thing and not as a "he's nothing until he gets a ring" thing. It took Jordan a good number of years before he got his first title. If you look at his career in retrospect, it seems stupid to put a line in it where before the first championship, he was inferior as a player, but the second he got that title, he became a real player.

Like, if you take LeBron. If I wanted to compare him to Jordan, Kobe, etc. RIGHT NOW, I wouldn't talk about his lack of titles compared to them because barring injury, he'll have plenty of chances to get one or more even if he doesn't win this year. After he retires, if he still wouldn't have any...then it would be a big topic in the comparison.

krambman;797341 wrote:I was watching the trailer for the new movie Bad Teacher and in it Jason Segel's character gets into an argument with a kid about whether or not LeBron will ever be better than Jordan and he said that the only argument he needs for Jordan is that Jordan has six championships.

This got me thinking.

Are championships overrated when talking about the legacy of an individual athlete? I don't want this to turn into a LeBron vs. Jordan vs. Kobe argument, I want this to remain more general than that. It seems like often when discussing an athlete's legacy, the number of championships they won seems to be the most important issue. Obviously in an individual sport like golf or tennis it should be, but in a team sport no one person can win a championship. Dan Marino is one of the best quarterbacks ever, but he never won a Super Bowl because he never had the talent around him that Joe Montana did.

So what say you Ohio Chatterers, how much importance should championships won be given when considering an individual athletes legacy?

yes they are, winning a championship is a TEAM accomplishment, not individual. Name me an individual who has won a team championship by himself.

They are a little overrated. Hundreds of exceptions on each side of this.

friendfromlowry;797626 wrote:Do players ever get hired that won't make the team better? And you never responded to the figures I pointed out.

Actually, yes the do. It's called being more interested in a player's expiring contract or cap space. Dumb.

gut;797505 wrote:Nope, just cold, hard football facts.
http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Articles/11_57_The_Marino_mythology.html

That article used the worst "stats.". I don't even know where to begin. For every "debunked" myth, it cited either Marino's first season or his second. Wow. Because every profile QB wins the Super Bowl in his first season or two, right?

Are you sure that article wasn't written by the same LBJ publicist who stated Malone, Olajuwan, and Robinson had 4th Q point averages lower than James?

Just because he had a #1 scoring defense doesn't mean he had a great defense. The fact that that article actually tried to suggest that Marino had a better defense than Bradshaw's "Steel Curtain" is laughable. Good luck finding anyone who agrees w that one.

As for the running game remark... Marino had one season, his rookie season, where he actually had a decent running game to support him. Again.... His rookie season.

Now... Would you like to try to supply something that's not from 2004, please?

How about looking up the many times Marino shit the bed in playoff games? What's his QB rating? Like a 72?

Fact is Marino, much like Manning, was a flat choker in the playoffs. And scoring defense is what matters - he had a number of good defenses, and had some great defenses. And he did have talent around him on offense - he wasn't blocking for himself and catching his own passes.

Elway may have needed Davis to win a SB, but he still got to 3 more with a lot less around him on offense than Marino had. Jim Kelly didn't win one, either, but he still went to 4.

When you look at great teams, SB teams, they are dominated by great QB's. Many of those guys won multiple times, many more went to multiple SB's....Marino went to just one, in his second year. It is a little hard to dismiss, because his teams werer, in fact, better than given credit for (he also had a HOF HC).

"Just because he had a #1 scoring defense doesn't mean he had a great defense."


I would think that a defense in the NFL that gives up the fewest points in the NFL is a great defense.


Brett Farve had less talent on offense than Marino had and he won a Super Bowl.

In my opinion, championship can only say much about a player and how he really moves in a team. Winning championships can just add to what you already are but even without one, you can still be a great player. But I think people think you are good if you can carry your team to a ring.

Take Jason Kidd for example. That guy is already 17 years into it but still has no ring. But he still has the respect for having a pair of the best hands in the business.