Titles or Talent: What's More Important?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Split from discussion in the NFL Offseason thread.

 

What's the most important thing when evaluating a player? Since the ultimate goal is winning a title, should that be the measuring stick? How much is the responsibility of the player and how much belongs to the team?

 

Is it prudent that an organization just try and put a competitive product on the field, or should they be constantly turning over the roster in an attempt to build a championship-caliber team?

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Here is some of the discussion that took place in the other thread:

 

I can't believe that sports fans are arguing about whether winning championships are important or not when evaluating players. I would have thought that the average sports fan would rather root for a dreadful franchise like the Marlins who have won 2 titles in their short existence and sucked just about every other season than be along for the ride during the Braves' "dynasty" of 13 straight divisions and only 1 championship, but it seems like that's not the case here.

I'd much rather root for an organization that put a winning team on the field every year than one that wins a title and then holes up for the next decade. I understand the expression "flags fly forever" but I don't see how my enjoyment is improved today by knowing that my team won a title five or ten years ago. Jumping across sports here, but I'd be happy with the Red Sox throwing out a 90-95 win team each year even if they didn't have the two titles this decade. I like rooting for the chance that the team can break through.

 

Also I don't get how you can evaluate "players" in terms of championships. Last time I checked, football, baseball and basketball were "team" sports. Eli didn't win a title because he has some innate ability to win big games. He won because his defense shredded everyone. He won because he has a phenomenal running game. He won because of a tremendous receiving corps anchored by one the game's best wideouts. He dis his part, but I don't know how that ring on his finger makes him any better as a QB than McNabb when their respective circumstances weren't the same.

But there is more to a championship then one player, that's they point. It is silly to blame the QB, when the problem with the team is elsewhere. That's what the Bears do and they've had an endless revolving door at the position for decades and only one Super Bowl championship to show for it. With this logic in 1995 the Broncos should have dumped John Elway (multi-time playoff loser) for Mark Rypien (Super Bowl MVP). Anybody who suggested that should have been fired on the spot, and if they had gone ahead and made the move the Broncos would still be looking for the their first Super Bowl.

 

Championships are won by fixing your weaknesses, not by tearing down your strengths. Put McNabb on the Giants, and they are probably still playing right now.

At the end of the day, all that matters is if you leave the field with a ring. How you do it no longer matters.

 

Yes, it does. Relying on blind luck is not a good business model. That's why teams spend millions upon millions in free agency and getting ready for the draft.

 

I'm not saying I agree with it but let's face it, it has now become the measuring stick for all quarterbacks. It's the strike they were trying to place on Dan Marino. No one pays attention to the talent, hell no one pays much attention to the GAME when it is over. All they seem to care about is which quarterback left with the ring.

 

I'd STILL take Donovan over Eli even without the ring. Cause that receiving corps in NY that game saved Eli's ass about a dozen times and that was a true statement for a long time. He is improving more and more everyday though so it's not even a strike against Eli.

 

 

[The Ghost of bps21 0]

It's not a one on one event.

 

It has to be talent to the individual player becuase it is the collection of talent that wins titles.

 

If you take Tom Brady (healthy and in his prime) and his 3 titles and put him on the 2008 Lions...guess who's not winning a title.

 

If you take the Patriots team and move them to Detriot they win the NFC North in a walk.

[Prophet of Mike Zagurski 0]

Well, it takes a good team to win titles. There have been HOF players on bad teams that haven't won titles and there have been teams that have won without HOF'ers.

 

McNabb can only play one position. He isn't on the defense unless he throws a pick. Peyton Manning was called choker till he won a couple years ago and I think the Eagles just need something to get them to the Super Bowl.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

What bps said, but it does very somewhat via sport. Obviously individual sports are championships or bust, but in team sports one player can carry a basketball or hockey team further than they can in baseball or football. The team is ultimately what wins titles, which is why you have legends like Ted Williams or Dan Marino only reaching the championship once while guys like Mike Timlin and Kevin Faulk have multiple rings.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

All you have to do is look at the Phoenix Suns to see how the mentality of "must win title" can quickly doom a franchise. Go back one year and they have the best record in the NBA and are coming off several seasons as title contenders. But just because they couldn't win the big one you see most of the roster shipped out of town, D'Antoni fired and the whole team philosophy changed. Now they are mediocre and have the sort of roster that's going to be awful in a year or two. Great example of a GM out thinking himself and believing that it was the players and the philosophy that kept them from a title. Steve Nash isn't any less of a player today because he came up short against a better team in San Antonio.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

McNabb can only play one position. He isn't on the defense unless he throws a pick. Peyton Manning was called choker till he won a couple years ago and I think the Eagles just need something to get them to the Super Bowl.

This is a good example of the media giving a pass to a player because of a title. Peyton has shit the bed in every other playoff run save for that one year they won the title. Is he a choker or not? Even Brady, with his three titles, has some blemishes on the record (the turd they laid against Denver, the Indy chokejob and the SuperBowl no-show). I don't know what my point is other than a ring seems to make us lose sight of the talents of the player. McNabb has had his team right there. If they get over the hump even once why does that change his entire body of work (work which shows him to be a future Hall of Famer)?

 

[naiwf 0]

I'm going to say when comparing similarly skilled guys that the number of titles won is decisive. If Dan Marino had won a championship there's no doubt he'd be remembered as one of the 2 or 3 best to ever play the position without any qualifications. Instead all you hear is, "he was great, BUT. . . ". Elway's status was elevated immensely because he won those two titles and then headed off into the sunset. If Kurt Warner wins his 2nd title in a couple of weeks, he's a first ballot HoFer. If not, he's borderline. If he'd never won a title he would have just been a flashier version of Drew Brees during "The Greatest Show on Turf" days. Peyton Manning was viewed as a choker of the highest order until the defense finally showed up and he won his ring. Now, when Peyton leads the Colts to another 10+ wins and another early playoff loss it doesn't sting so much because he got that one title.

 

Another example I'll use is the insane amount of hype that has been put on LeBron's shoulders. Yes, he's great. But can we lay off the comparisons to Jordan until he wins a single MVP or championship please? He may be the most talented player in the league, but until he wins one he has the dubious "honor" of being in the discussion with guys like Barkley, Stockton, Malone, Ewing etc as the most talented player to never win a ring.

[Boon 0]

Is it prudent that an organization just try and put a competitive product on the field, or should they be constantly turning over the roster in an attempt to build a championship-caliber team?

I think it depends on the team and the market. If we stick to the Patriots/Lions comparison, the Patriots should obviously be trying to put a competitive product on the field at all times. Since the team recently won a few championships, the expectation is that they continue to compete at the highest levels. For the Lions, they should really be making moves just to get to the show once and then build from there. In addition to spending money, teams need to compete to lure free agents. The same goes for basketball, where one player can make all the difference (see also James, Lebron).

 

Although this point really doesn't hold for baseball or hockey. Those two sports seem to be places you can develop long-term with homegrown, cheap talent and be competitive at the highest levels.

[Brett Favre 0]

You don't win titles without talent around you. Now if you want to discuss how these players perform in pressure games, that's a different discussion. At the same time, it's tougher to perform in pressure games when you have no talent around you. Titles aren't one with one person. Especially in a football where there are so many positions that help determine who wins. Trent Difler would not have won a title with Marino's team, but Marion would have won a title with the Ravens.

[naiwf 0]

I can't believe I forgot all about A-Rod. The guy should retire as the HR and RBI king, with 3,000+ hits and who knows how many other records to his credit. However, if he doesn't end up winning a ring with the Yankees I'm sure a lot of people will think that all of those numbers are hollow. Aside from the steroid controversy, the biggest blemish on Barry Bonds' career was that he didn't perform well in the playoffs. If the Giants had beaten the Angels a few years ago, there would be no holes in his resume.

 

History will also remember guys like KG, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen a lot differently thanks to last year than they would have if they had been left as the best players on three bad teams.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

You don't win titles without talent around you. Now if you want to discuss how these players perform in pressure games, that's a different discussion.

But unfortunately the media and fans like to lump the two together. Today, Donovan McNabb is a choker because he hasn't won a title. Instead of praising a player that lead a team to five title games, he's seen as soft. Problem is, I don't remember looking at any of those games and saying to myself that they would have definitely won with a different quarterback.

 

Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Ewing... those guys were all great players, but ultimately came up ringless because of the era they played in. Does anyone think they're are chokers? Do we think that their career is any less because they never won the big one? I don't think we should. They are victims of the era they played in.

 

For some reason, loss = choke in most people's mind, without anyone bothering to take into account the circumstances under which their loss occurred.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

Aside from the steroid controversy, the biggest blemish on Barry Bonds' career was that he didn't perform well in the playoffs. If the Giants had beaten the Angels a few years ago, there would be no holes in his resume.

Barry Bonds put up the single greatest playoff performance ever during the 2002 run. In the World Series alone he had an OPS of 1.994. 1.994! He did everything physically possible to win that year and his team let him down. I don't see that as a blemish at all.

[Brett Favre 0]

Unless those players started scoring like 12 points a game in the playoffs, there's no way they should be considered chokers. I think in most instances they outscored their season total.

 

Donovan McNabb has basically played a full season in the playoffs (15 games against tough teams). His numbers are over 3500 yards passing, 80.8 QB rating, 23 TDs, and 16 INTs. Compare those to his regular season numbers and it's just a touch below what he normally produces (again, these are against tougher teams). So no, McNabb isn't a choker. It's a shame that he's going to get that rep till he wins a Super Bowl. Compare this to Tom Brady who's also a touch below what he normally produces in the playoffs (92 rating to an 88 rating), so it's not like McNabb plays horrible under pressure compared to other guys who seem to step it up when it counts.

[naiwf 0]

Aside from the steroid controversy, the biggest blemish on Barry Bonds' career was that he didn't perform well in the playoffs. If the Giants had beaten the Angels a few years ago, there would be no holes in his resume.

Barry Bonds put up the single greatest playoff performance ever during the 2002 run. In the World Series alone he had an OPS of 1.994. 1.994! He did everything physically possible to win that year and his team let him down. I don't see that as a blemish at all.

 

I was talking about the playoffs before that year. If you remember the games during that year, that was ALL the announcers talked about every time he came up to the plate. I felt bad for him because they were so close and he did everything he could to win it. It reminded me of the 1994 NBA Finals when Ewing had a title within his reach and then John Starks shot his way into the record books with one of the worst games ever played and that was as close as he ever got. On a tangential note to that, Olajuwon winning the 2 titles while Jordan was away did a lot to elevate his career as well. If Jordan hadn't decided to retire after the first three-peat who knows if he wouldn't be lumped in with the other victims of the Jordan era.

[Annabelle 0]

outside of freakishly amazing players, franchise players, sure-fire hall of famers, etc.; not winning a championship greatly affects how you will be remembered. sure, sports are team games, but it is the performance of some of the greatest players of all-time who succeed in the championship finals that makes them great. the best of all-time. mariano rivera will be remembered as the best closer because of what he did in the world series and playoffs. tom brady always had great numbers in the regular season but it was his superbowl championships, and poise under pressure that made people call him the next Montana. Championships define players. its their legacy.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

I don't think winning a championship should define a player in a team sport all that much, except maybe a goalie in hockey, who never seem to be credited with winning cups for some reason (at least from what I see, I might be wrong on that). Hockey goalies and pitchers are the only single players who can dominate games and give their team a chance to win single handedly by shutting out the other team, but they still need their teams to score at least once. Anyways, my point is that you can't evaluate a player with how many titles he won. It's based off how good their teams were. It can elevate a player's status (Garnett, Russell, Elway) but it shouldn't define someone like Marino, who did everything he could to get a ring and was let down by an organization.

 

I notice no one ever really blames Barry Sanders for not winning a ring, and I think we should be doing that for more athletes.

[naiwf 0]

I don't think winning a championship should define a player in a team sport all that much, except maybe a goalie in hockey, who never seem to be credited with winning cups for some reason (at least from what I see, I might be wrong on that). Hockey goalies and pitchers are the only single players who can dominate games and give their team a chance to win single handedly by shutting out the other team, but they still need their teams to score at least once. Anyways, my point is that you can't evaluate a player with how many titles he won. It's based off how good their teams were. It can elevate a player's status (Garnett, Russell, Elway) but it shouldn't define someone like Marino, who did everything he could to get a ring and was let down by an organization.

 

I notice no one ever really blames Barry Sanders for not winning a ring, and I think we should be doing that for more athletes.

 

How can you blame Barry when he was the only guy on his team that was any good? It's amazing that he only had 20 carries a game for his entire career and still averaged almost 100 yards on the ground per game. The fact that he only touched the ball about 22 times a game (if you add in receptions) and put up the numbers he did on dreadful teams just shows how great he was. QBs touch the ball on just about every offensive play and the vast majority of the time Barry was running against 7 or 8 in the box and still put up legendary numbers when he was the only real threat on offense. I only wish he would have played on a better team so I would have been able to see more of him.

[Maztinho 0]

Like naiwf said, you don't blame Barry because he's the only reason the Lions were moderately decent during his years there.

 

Overall, I think too much is put in winning a title. While it's important, you can't say that a player isn't as good as another just because of the ring. If that were the case Robert Horry would be one of the all time greats due to all the titles he's been apart of. (See mine and EHME's battle over John Stockton vs Isiah Thomas in the NBA Draft thread)

 

Sometimes things just line up right, and sometimes they don't. Is Rothlisburger really a better quarterback than Marino (no), or even McNabb, just because his team was built a certain way that allowed him to not lose the game?

 

Some players who are superstars do choke (Karl Malone, I'm lookin' at you), but others did everything they could and their team just wasn't the whole package to get it done. You can't belittle a career because the sum of another teams parts was greater than the sum of your teams parts.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Like naiwf said, you don't blame Barry because he's the only reason the Lions were moderately decent during his years there.

 

I know. My point is that it's th same with Marino in Miami. Is it because Marino is a QB?

[naiwf 0]

QBs are treated differently because they "control" the game. Listen to any former QB who is an analyst and they'll mention it. If a QB is hot on any given Sunday they can carry their team to a win. A RB still needs to rely on linemen to open up holes (unless they're Barry Sanders) and an occasional missed/broken tackle to really contribute something to the offense. If the QB shits the bed early and you're down by 14+ that stud RB becomes virtually useless. There's a reason that people don't trust rookie QBs, but you never hear anyone mention anything about pressure being placed on rookie RBs, WRs, etc. Belichick almost ruined Peyton Manning's legacy singlehandedly by making him look like a scrub in the playoffs year after year.

[Just John 0]

For some reason, loss = choke in most people's mind, without anyone bothering to take into account the circumstances under which their loss occurred.

 

I think this is one of the better points in the thread. The blurring between a "loss" and a "choke" is a big problem. Fact is, when you get to the playoffs in any sport, you're going to be playing good teams, so anyone's stats are likely to dip a little. But losing to the best (or better) team doesn't make you a choker. If your team has glaring weaknesses at other positions, it doesn't make the good players chokers.

 

Peyton Manning's the classic case here. I have no idea how he got stuck with a choker label while Marino gets the "Well, the rest of his team wasn't very good" excuse. Peyton's been saddled with a mediocre defense for pretty much his whole career. Most of their playoff losses can be attributed to the D not making any critical stops (this year's OT loss to San Diego being a prime example). Peyton's had his own struggles, but it seems like people are quicker to bring up Peyton not being able to get anything done against New England than things like Marino losing 62-7 at Jacksonville and all his other early playoff exits.

 

 

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Football

 

I think one of the reasons that a "championship" can make a player is because a large percentage of the time, the position player that wins the championship had to get there through the "best" teams of that season in a very short period of time. It's not like the regular season where you can get by playing a bunch of 5-11, 6-10, or 7-9 squads in the NFL. Most teams are at least 9-7 more often than not.

 

People like to point out when a player is carried into a SB win (Dilfer, Brady in 01, etc.) but don't realize just how much effect a QB can have on the playoff run itself.

 

Trent Dilfer: Went 7-1 in the regular season and threw 3 TD vs. 1 INT in his playoff run. He did what he had to do as a QB and it's almost the Troy Aikman syndrome, where I think fans really... underestimate a QB who throws for 170 yards with 1 TD and 0 INT over a QB who loses but throws for 325 with 3 TD and 2 INT.

 

As dominant as the Ravens D was, Dilfer didn't need to throw it 35 times a game to lead them to a SB ring and the Ravens coaching staff knew it. It's almost seen as a negative when a solid QB can be "carried" by his team, which I honestly find curious because every team in the playoffs is really separated essentially by the QB and the mantra of don't turn the ball over.

 

Off that small side rant: I think championships are more important in the sense that they are... so few and far between. Jim Kelly and the Buffalo Bills lost 4 straight Super Bowls and people still recognize the talent that was on that team. Talent will always rise to the top but the ability to win a championship is a far tougher challenge than people give credit for.

 

Edited To Add "Playoff" Run Numbers by recent SB winning QBs. You'll notice that very few put up "gaudy" numbers in the playoffs/SB.

Mark Rypien (1991): 44/79 for 690 and 4 vs. 2

Troy Aikman (1992): 61/89 for 795 and 8 vs. 0

Troy Aikman (1993): 61/82 for 686 and 6 vs. 3

Steve Young (1994): 53/87 for 623 and 9 vs. 0

Troy Aikman (1995): 53/80 for 717 and 4 vs. 1

Brett Favre (1996): 44/71 for 617 and 5 vs. 1

John Elway (1997): 56/96 for 726 and 3 vs. 2 ~ Played 4 Games

John Elway (1998): 45/86 for 691 and 3 vs. 1

Kurt Warner (1999): 77/121 for 1063 and 8 vs. 4

Trent Dilfer (2000): 35/73 for 590 and 3 vs. 1 ~ Played 4 Games

Tom Brady (2001): 60/97 for 572 and 1 vs. 1

 

It's interesting to note that most of the above played very marginally. Steve Young threw for 143 and 155 yards prior to his SB explosion. Dilfer is the only one that was arguably "carried" but he was playing with arguably one of the Top 5 defenses in football history post 1960. Brady showed his mettle in the Oakland game but like Dilfer, was mainly asked to not make mistakes and that's what he did.

[Psycho Penguin 0]

Peyton Manning's the classic case here. I have no idea how he got stuck with a choker label while Marino gets the "Well, the rest of his team wasn't very good" excuse. Peyton's been saddled with a mediocre defense for pretty much his whole career. Most of their playoff losses can be attributed to the D not making any critical stops (this year's OT loss to San Diego being a prime example). Peyton's had his own struggles, but it seems like people are quicker to bring up Peyton not being able to get anything done against New England than things like Marino losing 62-7 at Jacksonville and all his other early playoff exits.

 

I agree to a point, but Marino never had had Harrison, Stokley, Wayne, and James.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Agree with Cheech's point about loss =/= choke as well. It amazes me how people get upset over the lack or loss of a championship. It's a 30-32 team process, only one team can win. It is really difficult, and there is an equally talented team on the other side trying just as hard.

 

I don't think championships mean much anymore given that we're in the realm of 3-4 round playoffs. Particularly in MLB, where many of the traits that won the regular season (i.e. depth) do not mean as much. And heck, if you put an All-Star game together of champions vs. non-champions, it probably isn't clear who is better.

 

It's better to have a contender rather than shoot for a title and then stink. I follow my team on a day-to-day basis. My season isn't geared up just for a few nights in October, it's my life. Winning a championship really isn't everything. The joy is in the hunt.

[naiwf 0]

Agree with Cheech's point about loss =/= choke as well. It amazes me how people get upset over the lack or loss of a championship. It's a 30-32 team process, only one team can win. It is really difficult, and there is an equally talented team on the other side trying just as hard.

 

I don't think championships mean much anymore given that we're in the realm of 3-4 round playoffs. Particularly in MLB, where many of the traits that won the regular season (i.e. depth) do not mean as much. And heck, if you put an All-Star game together of champions vs. non-champions, it probably isn't clear who is better.

 

It's better to have a contender rather than shoot for a title and then stink. I follow my team on a day-to-day basis. My season isn't geared up just for a few nights in October, it's my life. Winning a championship really isn't everything. The joy is in the hunt.

 

Says the guy whose team just won the title. I'm sure you'd prefer to be a Cubs fan since that hunt has been epic. 100 years and counting bay-bee!

 

As a Knicks fan who suffered through one Jordan punch to the balls after another and then the Dolan/Layden/Isiah era. I can say I got no more enjoyment out of suffering crushing postseason defeats than I do out of knowing my team has no chance to win 41 games until at least 2010. I'd GLADLY trade all of those years of sellout crowds at MSG and memorable games for 1 title before I die. IMHO, anyone who would prefer a consistently good team that never wins but is in the mix every year to a team that does win and then fades for a while is either masochistic or lying.

[bob_barron 0]

Everything al wrote is absolutely not true.

 

I'm proud of my teams after they have good regular seasons, but winning the championship means everything.

[Cheech Tremendous 0]

IMHO, anyone who would prefer a consistently good team that never wins but is in the mix every year to a team that does win and then fades for a while is either masochistic or lying.

But there are many types of fans out there. This may work for you, but for me a title is not the be-all, end-all of my experience. I love the thrill of the hunt. For me, I live for the emotions and gamesmanship of free agency; the nailbiting at the trade deadline; sitting in front of the TV for four hours on a Tuesday night for a meaningless mid-season game; and arguing about the team over a pitcher of beer with some buddies at a bar. I just want to wake up every day and know that my team has a shot, any shot, to win a game.

 

Of the three teams I actively follow I've gotten to see two titles during my lifetime (both in the last four years by the Red Sox). Sure, that moment when the last pitch was made is a special feeling that I'll have forever, but I'll admit that I was ready a week later for the offseason to start and the whole process to begin anew. I'd be miserable if the team decided to just tank it after '04.

 

Watching the Raiders and Kings right now is a chore. Sure, there are no titles for either team, but even if they both had gotten them in early '00s I don't think this would be any easier to watch. I just can't get myself to care for mediocrity, no matter what the circumstances.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Exactly. And remember that this approach for the Phillied DID win a championship. They didn't go all in, just kept a good team together and they got hot. Which makes the big championship push in MLB so ridiculous. It takes a truckload of money and guarantees absolutely nothing. Stay competitive and hope good things happen. And if not hey, the Yankees still broke an attendance record. How are the Marlins drawing?

[bob_barron 0]

I don't think championships mean much anymore given that we're in the realm of 3-4 round playoffs.

 

Hockey and basketball have been four round playoffs forever.

 

Football went from 5 to 6 teams in 1990, but has had 3 rounds for a while.

 

It amazes me how people get upset over the lack or loss of a championship. It's a 30-32 team process, only one team can win.

 

Because that's the ultimate goal. That's the big payoff. That's why you suffer through season after season of getting your heart broken- in the hope that one day, a payoff comes in the form of a title.