There is a ton of debates in all sports period about who is
the GOAT in each of the major pro leagues. In the NBA it’s MJ vs LeBron. In the
NFL particularly at the QB position it’s Montana vs. Brady. In the MLB it’s
Babe Ruth vs. Hank Aaron. A topic that usually comes up in these debates is “How
many rings does he have?”. Should rings come up in the discussion?
My answer to that question is NO it shouldn’t come up in a
debate and I’ll explain why. I feel that rings shouldn’t define a player’s
individual greatness. I feel as a society we really lose track of the true
debate and bring championships into the debate. The debate is who is the better
INDIVIDUAL and not who is better because their team won more. I feel that we
really lose track that a championship is a TEAM accomplishment and a player can’t
win a ring on their own. In the player debate, team success is weighed too
heavily in a debate knowing it truly takes a great player and the whole around
them are succeeding in their role to win a championship in any TEAM sport.
In the NBA I feel that debate is at it’s worst. The first
thing brought up in an NBA debate about who’s the greatest player is
championships and I feel its very discrediting. Society typically leaves out
players like John Stockton, Karl Malone, Reggie Miller, Charles Barkley, &
Patrick Ewing based off the simple fact that they finished their legendary NBA
careers without having won an NBA Championship. Is it at fault of them because
they’re not great players? Not one bit. It’s for the simple fact that the parts
around them weren’t enough to propel those teams to become champions. Whether
it was the players around them, coaching staffs, or front office, or the
players not being one cohesive unit, it takes so many factors outside of their
individual greatness to win titles. Another part of the debate that gets under
my skin is when Shaquille O’Neal & Charles Barkley have their debates &
Shaq tries to discredit Barkley but bringing up the ring argument. One of the
main debates in this is the MJ vs. Lebron debate that’s been intensifying over
the last few seasons. Where the championships each has won being debated. That’s
not what makes on better than the other. Their team success doesn’t identify what
impact they each had on their respective teams. It takes a collective unit to
win titles not just them being the best player. Michael’s 6 rings to LeBron’s 3
doesn’t make MJ the better player one bit.
One debate that stands out to me where titles are heavily
weighed is the greatest QB debate between Joe Montana & Tom Brady. One QB
who I feel isn’t talked about enough in QB debates is Dan Marino. Wonder why he’s
left out? Because he doesn’t have a championship. Do I think that’s fair to him
as an individual? NO. Dan Marino in my opinion is one of the best overall
talented QB’s in league history. He doesn’t get his fair share in discussions
at all. Does that make him less of an individual player because his teams didn’t
win titles? In my opinion not at all. Brady & Montana are helped with
titles not only because of the contributing pieces around them on both sides of
the ball, their also helped with the systems their organizations have in place
for them. Marino was hurt in his career (title wise) by lack of defense &
running game. Montana & Brady had one of the greatest coaches ever (Bill
Walsh & Bill Belichick). Played under great ownership (Robert Kraft & Edward
J. DeBartolo Jr.). Meanwhile outside of Don Shula who was there to start his
career, Marino didn’t have that stability at the coaching spot. He also didn’t have
the benefit of a productive running game. Off the top of my head I really can’t
name an RB that played with the Dolphins during Marino’s tenure. In Marino’s
career he threw for 61,361 yards, which outduels Montana’s 40,551 yards. Marino
threw for 420 tds, that also outduels Montana’s 273. Is Montana better than
both because he has 4 rings, never lost a big game, never threw an INT in the
Super Bowl? Is Brady better than Montana because he has one extra ring than
Montana and more than Marino’s 0? Do titles really make one QB better than
another in the ultimate team sport of football? The answer is NO.
In my opinion rings need to stop being debated to determine
which player is better than the other. Rings doesn’t make the player better at
all. It makes the overall team better than the other but not the player. What
makes one player stand out over another is how said player performs in pressure
situation over another. Another factor what makes them stand out over the other
is the overall impact that they imprint on the game. Whether it’s the coaches game
plan changes just to take that said player out of the game, they can take over
the game and dominate it at any point or does the team around the player becomes
better with that player being around them. Stats can be a factor too but, in my
opinion, numbers never lie but they don’t always tell the entire story.
Rings doesn’t make the player better so let’s stop using
rings into individual player debates.
No comments:
Post a Comment