Titles or Talent: What's More Important?

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

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.

 

Oh of course. You have every right to be disappointed. Where the problem comes in this scenario is where the fans call for the head of the coach or star player for that failure. It's unrealistic expectations.

[naiwf 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 deadlines; 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 a new. 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.

 

I can honestly say you're probably the only BoSox fan out there who wouldn't care if the team was still hearing chants of "19-18" as long as they were in the hunt every year. I'd wager that the average fan out there would take a decade of mediocrity or worse if they were guaranteed a title every 11th year over a team that never wins anything but makes the playoffs for 20 straight years.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

And to add, I think we're crossing signals a bit. You always want your team to win a championship. You just can't expect it to happen as your birthright.

[naiwf 0]

I'm not a Yankees fan, so I don't what that's like.

 

My whole argument is that as a fan who has witnessed the Giants win 3 titles and the Mets win 1 with gaping holes of suckiness surrounding those victories, I can honestly say that those seasons where they won were enough to make up for it. The Knicks are the only pro team I support that hasn't won a title in my lifetime, yet they went to the playoffs 14 years in a row at one point (which is 2 less than the number of playoff appearances by the Mets AND Giants since '86) and to me that doesn't mean much because they ultimately came up short every year. If they had won in '94 or '99 it would surely make the last 10 years a lot easier to tolerate. Watching the Mets choke like dogs down the stretch two years in a row after being beaten by an inferior Cardinals team in the 2006 NLCS is right up there with the 84/90/103 loss stretch between 1991 & 1993 in terms of how much fun it was to watch. I guess we just approach fandom from a different place.

[Just John 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.

 

Peyton didn't have the luxury of defenses with the likes of Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas for his "choker" years either. Luckily, he had Bob Sanders finally step up for him in 06, but based on the last two years, it looks like it's back to the same old same old for the Colts D, and it's Peyton who's getting the blame.

 

Another interesting guy is Tracy McGrady. Since none of his teams have ever made it out of the first round, he gets the "choker" label despite generally putting up better numbers than he does in the regular season. Every playoff series he's been on losing side of has been because his team as a whole was inferior to the team they were playing, not because T-Mac was doing anything wrong. I think he's unfairly judged as an individual based on his teams.

[Grenouille 0]

And to add, I think we're crossing signals a bit. You always want your team to win a championship. You just can't expect it to happen as your birthright.

 

This is a big problem I've seen with fellow Patriot fans I know. Ever since '01 "we" have been the preordained keepers of the Lombardi Trophy to some people. Really winning 3 in 4 years is more than some fans of other franchises could ever ask for. People don't realize that something like this is extremely difficult and can't be repeated every year.

 

As for singling out a player such as Tom Brady, it's hard to attribute to the whole team's success to one person, especially in Football, but as noted QBs are held in higher regard because of their management of the game. In this sense Brady has been much more important in these last few non-championship years as opposed to before where the defense was the face of the team. As the current face of the team he takes heat if they lose even if it may not be his fault. The last few playoff exits are more on the whole rather than just him.

 

Denver '06 - Brady admittedly didn't have his best game and threw a pivotal RZ pick that led to the most memorable play of Ben Watson's career. Maybe he was at fault.

 

Indy '07 - 21-6 halftime lead pissed away. The Colts wore down the defense in the second half scoring 32 points. There was the fluky drop by Caldwell. People forget that the Pats were a 3&4 away from icing this. They chose a FB dive that went nowhere. Peyton took things from there. I'd put it more on the D.

 

NYG '08 - The worst performance by the O-Line all year coupled with outstanding blitzes from the Giants. A guy caught the ball off his friggin head. Belichick made a few wrong decisions. I couldn't pin this one on Brady, but just chalk it up to one of the best performances in SB history.

[Spaceman Spiff 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.

 

Peyton didn't have the luxury of defenses with the likes of Jason Taylor and Zach Thomas for his "choker" years either. Luckily, he had Bob Sanders finally step up for him in 06, but based on the last two years, it looks like it's back to the same old same old for the Colts D, and it's Peyton who's getting the blame.

Thomas was drafted in '96, Taylor was drafted in '97, and Marino retired in '99.

[bob_barron 0]

I talked to a girl who was a Yankee fan yesterday, who said she should be commended for sticking with the Yankees after last season. Yes, that actually happened.

 

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I don't believe it. You did not talk to girl.

[bob_barron 0]

She hated the hockey game we went to yesterday, so I told her she was stupid and does not deserve to breathe the same air I breathe. I didn't make a great impression.

[Brett Favre 0]

I wonder how she got through that 89 win season.

[alfdogg 0]

Looking at this debate from a basketball standpoint, the first person I thought about was Paul Pierce. Now that he's got a ring, and a Finals MVP, you see people on ESPN and in the media treating him as if he's in the highest class of NBA players. He's not. He's a perennial all-star, and had a good body of work in the playoffs, but acting like he's some sort of transcendent player along the lines of Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, or even someone like LeBron James in just his sixth season, is silly.

 

Let's compare him to Dwyane Wade in 2006. In that offseason, the Heat acquired Jason Williams, Gary Payton and Antoine Walker to go alongside Wade. Guys who were very good players, former All-Stars, and one who is probably a first-ballot HOFer, but Wade was still the leader of the team. The Heat went on to win the NBA title that season.

 

The Celtics last year acquired Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen, two future HOFers arguably still in their prime, albeit at the tail end. Garnett was the one who came to represent the identity of the Celtics, the emotional leader of the team with the defense feeding off of his presence. Prior to last season, Pierce had only one season in which his team won games beyond the first round of the playoffs. Had the Celtics instead acquired role players the level of the ones the Heat had in 2006, would the Pierce-led Celtics have made it through? You never know, I suppose, but I'm leaning towards no.

[alfdogg 0]

Re: Tracy McGrady

 

His reputation may not be totally warranted, but if you go back and research it there is certainly evidence of him not playing up to par in the biggest of games.

 

In 2003, the Magic blew a 3-1 lead against the Pistons, the series which McGrady famously told us how glad he was to be out of the first round following game 4. In the next 3 games, McGrady shot 26-72 (36%) and had 11 turnovers.

 

In his career in game 7's, he is 22-75 (29%).

 

Last year, the Rockets lost the first 2 games against the Jazz at home, with McGrady going scoreless in the fourth quarter of both games, and just four in the Game 4 loss. That all seemed to be forgotten after the 40-point game in the clincher for Utah, at which point it went right back to "it's not Tracy's fault". The same sort of revisionist history happened with LeBron against the Celtics, where he had 45 in Game 7, making people forget that he shot 8-42 in games 1-2, both Cleveland losses.

 

I will say, though, pushing Dallas to 7 games with a starting lineup including Scott Padgett and David Wesley is quite admirable.

[Gert T 0]

Ugh, first let me say as a Bengals fan I am disgusted that I am coming to the defense of Ben Ro. Do I think he is a better QB than Marino? Nope, not yet. But I do think that if he was asked to throw the ball 40 times a game he would put up more QB gaudy type numbers (granted he would have to release the ball earlier).

 

I am jumping into this late, but I do echo the sentiments of those who are saying it does vary by sport as well as position (fair or not).

 

And alf, thanks for bringing out the numbers for T-Mac, as the poor 4th quarter numbers do help cement that argument.

 

 

[Just John 0]

On Marino: I know he didn't have Taylor and Thomas for very long (although I did think it was more than two seasons), but I still don't get the parallel that all of Marino's teams sucked which is why he couldn't win as opposed to Peyton choking in every playoff loss when there were obvious problems on his teams as well.

 

On T-Mac: I don't even know if you can consider last year's loss to the Jazz as a strike against him. Without Yao, he was doubled a lot and no one else on the team was a consistent scoring threat. That Rockets team was 8-seed quality at best without Yao. And it's a wonder that he even got that Magic team up 3-1 on the Pistons to begin with. I can see the point he didn't perform well in the last three games, but he was going against the #1 seed in the East which was clearly putting a better all-around team (esp. defense) on the floor. I actually think if the Magic had gotten swept, no one would really consider it a problem because they were so overmatched on paper. His interview was probably the biggest detriment to his case here, but I look at him leading that Magic team to three wins against the Pistons as a positive more than worrying about the Pistons shutting him down in the last three games (which they probably should've done sooner).

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

On Marino: I know he didn't have Taylor and Thomas for very long (although I did think it was more than two seasons), but I still don't get the parallel that all of Marino's teams sucked which is why he couldn't win as opposed to Peyton choking in every playoff loss when there were obvious problems on his teams as well.

 

Except for that small detail of... that Marino had ZERO run game to complement his passing attack. Peyton had Edgerrin James and Joseph Addai to take the slack off him.

 

 

[MFer 0]

On Marino: I know he didn't have Taylor and Thomas for very long (although I did think it was more than two seasons), but I still don't get the parallel that all of Marino's teams sucked which is why he couldn't win as opposed to Peyton choking in every playoff loss when there were obvious problems on his teams as well.

 

Except for that small detail of... that Marino had ZERO run game to complement his passing attack. Peyton had Edgerrin James and Joseph Addai to take the slack off him.

But Marino had Hall of Famer Karim Abdul-Jabbar running...oh wait.

[Just John 0]

On Marino: I know he didn't have Taylor and Thomas for very long (although I did think it was more than two seasons), but I still don't get the parallel that all of Marino's teams sucked which is why he couldn't win as opposed to Peyton choking in every playoff loss when there were obvious problems on his teams as well.

 

Except for that small detail of... that Marino had ZERO run game to complement his passing attack. Peyton had Edgerrin James and Joseph Addai to take the slack off him.

 

2008 vs. Chargers

 

Addai: 16 carries, 44 yds, 1 TD

Manning: 25/43, 1 TD, 0 INT

 

2007 vs. Chargers

 

Addai: 13/43, 0 TD

Manning: 33/48, 3 TD, 2 INT

 

We'll skip 06 because there were no losses to be responsible for that season. Both the passing and rushing numbers are good as you'd expect, although it's clear Peyton's still the best player on the team.

 

2005 vs. Steelers

 

James: 13/56, 1 TD

Manning: 22/38, 1 TD

 

2004 vs. Patriots

 

James: 14/39, 0 TD

Manning 27/42, 0 TD, 1 INT

 

2003 vs. Patriots

 

James: 19/78, 1 TD

Manning: 23/47, 1 TD, 4 INT

 

2002 vs. Jets

 

James: 9/14, 0 TD

Manning 14/31, 0 TD, 2 INT

 

2001 vs. Dolphins

 

James: 21/107, 0 TD

Manning: 19/32, 1 TD

 

2000 vs. Titans

 

James: 20/56, 0 TD

Manning: 19/43, 1 TD, 0 INT

 

So, in all of Peyton's 8 playoff losses, he's played worse than his running game once (03), and comparable twice (01 and 02), and played slightly to considerably better than his running game in all the others. I'm sure Marino's playoff story plays out pretty similarly, but it still comes back to my original question of why Peyton "choked" and why Marino's "teammates let him down."

[HarleyQuinn 0]

I always find it interesting that people believe Marino had no running game in terms of not having a 1,000 yard rusher... His teams often were RBBC and they often had over 1,000 yards (and scored over 9 TD a season more often than not on the ground). The biggest issues during Marino's tenure: The O-Line was not built to run the ball, period (It was literally the 90's Houston/Tennessee Titans with Eddie George but Miami had a passing game) and the D.

 

1991: Leading RB - 3.9 YPC

1992: Leading RB - 3.6 YPC

1993: Top 2 RB averaged 3.7 and 3.3 YPC

1995: Top 2 RB averaged 3.7 and 3.8 YPC

1996: Top 2 RB averaged 3.6 and 3.6 YPC

1997: Leading RB - 3.2 YPC

1998: Top 2 RB averaged 3.6 and 3.5 YPC

1999: Top 2 RB averaged 3.4 and 3.2 YPC

 

As for the defense: Miami ranked 16th or lower in PA in 10 of Marino's seasons.

[BruiserKC 0]

All things being equal, people have a tendency to look at titles more. Unfair perhaps, but that's the way of the world. People are referring to Peyton Manning these days the way the Atlanta Braves were referred to with all the playoff appearances they made but one world championship. Everyone had the Colts knocking off the Chargers and when they didn't it's as if Manning is almost a choke artist again.

 

Look at Kurt Warner as another example. They're ready to enshrine him in Canton, even though he's only had about 3-4 really solid years. The middle years were pretty much gathering splinters on the bench in St. Louis, with the G-men, and in 'Zona until the middle of last season. He had some great years an NFL MVP and a Super Bowl, but I don't think he's a Canton enshrinee. His career hasn't been consistent enough.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Look at Kurt Warner as another example. They're ready to enshrine him in Canton, even though he's only had about 3-4 really solid years. The middle years were pretty much gathering splinters on the bench in St. Louis, with the G-men, and in 'Zona until the middle of last season. He had some great years an NFL MVP and a Super Bowl, but I don't think he's a Canton enshrinee. His career hasn't been consistent enough.

 

I think he has to put up 1-2 more great statistical seasons to be a "shoe in" Canton shrinee. He's gone to 3 SB in only 11 seasons and that's while playing sparingly and starting in the NFL at age 28.

 

He's thrown for over 3,400 yards in 5 seasons and over 20 TD in 5 seasons.

 

The big question with Warner will be: How dominant was he? When he's gotten a chance to play he's put up simply incredible numbers on par with the peaks of any other QB to ever play the game.

 

In the 6 seasons where he's topped 300 attempts: 23,325 yards and 155 TD vs. 93 INT. Those numbers from a guy who's only started 16 games in a season 3 times! He's only topped 10 starts in a little over half of his career season wise.

 

And there are still questions about whether Matt Leinart could start next season with Warner being 38 years old.

 

Warner's Most Comparable Case: Roger Staubach who essentially played 8 seasons and didn't really start until he was 29 years old.

[BruiserKC 0]

Look at Kurt Warner as another example. They're ready to enshrine him in Canton, even though he's only had about 3-4 really solid years. The middle years were pretty much gathering splinters on the bench in St. Louis, with the G-men, and in 'Zona until the middle of last season. He had some great years an NFL MVP and a Super Bowl, but I don't think he's a Canton enshrinee. His career hasn't been consistent enough.

 

I think he has to put up 1-2 more great statistical seasons to be a "shoe in" Canton shrinee. He's gone to 3 SB in only 11 seasons and that's while playing sparingly and starting in the NFL at age 28.

 

He's thrown for over 3,400 yards in 5 seasons and over 20 TD in 5 seasons.

 

The big question with Warner will be: How dominant was he? When he's gotten a chance to play he's put up simply incredible numbers on par with the peaks of any other QB to ever play the game.

 

In the 6 seasons where he's topped 300 attempts: 23,325 yards and 155 TD vs. 93 INT. Those numbers from a guy who's only started 16 games in a season 3 times! He's only topped 10 starts in a little over half of his career season wise.

 

And there are still questions about whether Matt Leinart could start next season with Warner being 38 years old.

 

Warner's Most Comparable Case: Roger Staubach who essentially played 8 seasons and didn't really start until he was 29 years old.

 

Staubach was more consistent than Warner with the exception of the '72 season where he missed most of it with a separated shoulder. Although Staubach made up for it by his comeback in the playoffs against the 49ers when he threw 2 TD passes in the final 90 seconds. Warner had some seasons that weren't full ones to make way for guys like Bulger and Eli Manning.

[NoCalMike 0]

The thing is there are so many intangibles that go into a championship team that it is hard to nail down one certain type of formula.

 

Hell, I have seen a lot of good QBs get lucky as hell during playoff games as the opposing defense drops sure INTs.

 

I also watch McNabb last week against the Cardinals have an OVERALL good statistical game but some of his throws to wide open receivers could have been difference makers if he makes a good throw.

 

There is always a certain amount of luck to go along with the skill for a team to win a championship. That is why the cliche of "football is a game of inches" is so true because most of us could look back at just about every close game in the history of the league and see how the outcomes could have been very different.

 

I think that is also what makes the NFL so special is that WINNING trumps everything. No one cares that a QB could have easily thrown 3 INTS in a certain game if the opposing defense could actually catch a ball....as long as said team WINS, it doesn't matter and is instantly forgotten about.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Staubach was more consistent than Warner with the exception of the '72 season where he missed most of it with a separated shoulder. Although Staubach made up for it by his comeback in the playoffs against the 49ers when he threw 2 TD passes in the final 90 seconds. Warner had some seasons that weren't full ones to make way for guys like Bulger and Eli Manning.

 

Very true although in a way, that makes Warner more amazing considering he's been benched for guys like Bulger, Manning, and Leinart and has still thrown for 182 TD in his career.

 

Warner's a very interesting case because he has 1 SB and could have 2 SB rings by the time he retires. He'll (in a way) have the statistics counting wise as he could reach 200 TD next season if he's given the chance to start but as you've pointed out, he doesn't quite have the season in/season out numbers.

 

I think he'll get into Canton largely because of his SB ring (or 2) and his counting stats by the time he retires. He won't be a first ballot guy at all but I could see him getting in around the 7th or 8th try kind of thing.

[naiwf 0]

What other 2 time league MVP had to wait 7 or 8 years to get in? Warner's peak is up there with any QB that ever played in the league, and if he wins next Sunday he'll have 2 rings to go with his 2 MVPs & Super Bowl MVP. Regardless of what he did in the other years there's really not a whole lot to justify making him wait that long to get in considering he should easily get to 30,000 yards and 200 TDs if he comes back for another season. He's the NFL's version of Sandy Koufax.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

What other 2 time league MVP had to wait 7 or 8 years to get in? Warner's peak is up there with any QB that ever played in the league, and if he wins next Sunday he'll have 2 rings to go with his 2 MVPs & Super Bowl MVP. Regardless of what he did in the other years there's really not a whole lot to justify making him wait that long to get in considering he should easily get to 30,000 yards and 200 TDs if he comes back for another season. He's the NFL's version of Sandy Koufax.

 

Okay, 7-8 years is a bit too long but I can't see him making it in earlier than his 2nd or 3rd year due to the stiff competition at other positions that he'll be facing as well as the talent that will be retiring shortly (Isaac Bruce & Marvin Harrison at WR, Tony Gonzalez at TE, Ty Law at CB, and Rodney Harrison at S off the top of my head).

 

Phil Simms has over 30,000 yards and 199 TD with 2 SB Rings and 1 Super Bowl MVP. He's still not in the HOF.

 

The biggest issue with Warner is who he faces year to year. If he faces something similar to this year's class (i.e. 4 guys who are shoe ins and 2 others that could be argued over him) then he could wait 2-3 years.

[naiwf 0]

That argument definitely makes sense. I don't know how I feel about Simms as a HOFer, but as someone who watched him play a lot more than Warner I'd say that Warner was clearly a better QB during their respective primes. I don't really remember the Rams having much of a defense, and while their offense was clearly better than anything the Giants have ever had I would still have taken Warner as my QB over Simms. I know that Simms picked up that 2nd ring, but Hostetler was the one who was at the helm for that SB and Warner's 2 MVPs put him over the top at least to me.

 

Simms had 74 more starts than Warner does now but only has about 250 more completions in 1,100 extra attempts as well as just under 5,000 more yards and 17 more TDs (but 43 more picks). Basically speaking they're very similar in terms of stats with Simms having an extra 4 1/2 seasons of starts.

[HarleyQuinn 0]

Come to think it, I'm now curious who gets in defensively. There are a ton of big names that will be worth induction soon and I could see the next several classes being very Defense heavy. Defense is woefully filled in the HOF in my opinion (as most focus on offensive talent) and I can see that definitely changing.

 

On one hand: You have a guy like Derrick Thomas who was a beast at LB (601 tackles and 126.5 Sacks) who definitely deserves to get in based on statistics but also never won a SB Ring. He's still struggling to get in.

 

Very soon you'll have the following guys

- John Lynch at S (13 Sacks, 26 INT, 740 tackles, and 1 SB Ring. Also 2 time All-Pro)

- Rodney Harrison at S (30.5 Sacks, 34 INT, 919 tackles, and 2 SB Rings. Also 2 time All-Pro)

- Ty Law at CB (5 Sacks, 52 INT, 704 tackles, and 3 SB Rings. Also 2 time All-Pro)

- Junior Seau at LB (56.5 Sacks, 18 INT, 1515 tackles, and 0 SB Rings. Also 6 time All-Pro)

- Ray Lewis at LB (33.5 Sacks, 28 INT, 1255 tackles, and 1 SB Ring. Also 6 time All-Pro)

- Aeneas Williams at CB (3 Sacks, 55 INT, 677 tackles, and 1 SB Ring. Also 3 time All-Pro)

- Michael Strahan at DE (141.5 Sacks, 667 tackles, and 1 SB Ring. Also 4 time All-Pro)

 

As of this year, here are the totals at each position in the HOF: 26 DL, 17 LB, and 19 DB