The "Ring" Argument

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]this..... Football is the sport where i would say the rings argument is kinda baseless. Basketball on the other hand is a sport where one player can carry team.[/QUOTE]

Some of the positions make less of an impact, but quarterback definitely makes a big impact... Look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and then this year without him..

Furthermore, look at all of the teams that have won superbowls since 1967... overwhelming number of those teams had great QBs.

I agree that one player can carry a team easier in basketball than football, but one player can only carry a team so far in both sports.

[B][QUOTE=32Dayz]Rings are meaningless.
Performances are the only things that matter.

Good playoff performances enhance a players career.
Good Finals performances enhance a players career.

Lebron is a better playoff performer then Kobe outside of the Finals.
Kobe has 2-3 good Finals performances.

Lebron with 2+ good Finals performances surpasses Kobe.

Its pretty simple stuff.

:applause:[/QUOTE]


You have to be the most idiotic dumb reeetard piece of monkey meat sucking delusional ignorant son of a b$tch on the internet



RINGS ARE MEANINGLESS?????!!!!????


Holy sweet mary mother of jesus christ son of god.... How on gods green earth can the most important thing inbasketball BE EFFING MEANINGLESS


RINGS BY A SUPERSTAR > RINGS BY A STAR > RINGS BY A ROLE PLAYER > RINGS BY A SCRUB


HOW IS THIS HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Jordan isnt goat because he scored a ton of points... OR ELSE IVERSON WOULD BE TOP 10!!!!!!

its about rings PLUS stats PLUS records PLUS skills

Everything counts numbnuts... THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THE GAME OF BASKETBALL THAT IS MEANINGLESS EXCEPT YOUR DUMBAAAASSSS


[/B]

^Why did you post the same thing again after 4 minutes and then deleted the first one? :lol

Rings give people an excuse/reason to state the obvious.

KG wasn't any better in 08 than he was in 04; in fact, he wasn't even close to as dominant. He was just put in a better situation. KG was amazing all along. You knew it. I knew it. Everyone knew it. The fact that he won that ring in 08, despite not being nearly as good as he was 4 years earlier just gave the simpletons a reason to finally admit it.

Does anyone honestly believe he was better in 08? Or rather, was it a product of him coming to a much more complete and well coached team (and better organization)? What if KG was never put in that situation? We'd have trolls like plenty of people in this thread claiming he wasn't good enough and shouldn't be compared to ____ because he didn't have a ring when clearly he could have (and did) win won, when he was put in a better situation.

Rings aren't meaningless; they are just overused when discussing the impact of individual players for the reasons I mentioned above.

I made a thread once on multiple forums asking how many Rings Kobe would have won if he played his Career with the exact same rosters Iverson had.

(Both Iverson and Kobe entered the league in 1997).

99% of people said 0-2 and I'd say more like 75%+ said 0-1.

Would Kobe have been a worse player?
No, but he would have won less because of shitty rosters.

This is why Rings are absolutely meaningless in Player Comparisons.

[QUOTE=keepinitreal]Some of the positions make less of an impact, but quarterback definitely makes a big impact... Look at the Colts with Peyton Manning and then this year without him..

Furthermore, look at all of the teams that have won superbowls since 1967... overwhelming number of those teams had great QBs.

I agree that one player can carry a team easier in basketball than football, but one player can only carry a team so far in both sports.[/QUOTE]

not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.

lol @ 1 player being able to carry a team.

Basketball is 5 on 5.

The weight of 4 players will always far outweigh the weight of 1 player no matter how good he is.

Winning rings is about having the right rosters + luck, nothing else.

the individual greatness of a player can heighten the quality of a roster but not make a roster unless your Peak Jordan/Shaq/Kareem and even then if you face a much better opposing "team" they wont win.

[QUOTE=Simple Jack]Rings give people an excuse/reason to state the obvious.

KG wasn't any better in 08 than he was in 04; in fact, he wasn't even close to as dominant. He was just put in a better situation. KG was amazing all along. You knew it. I knew it. Everyone knew it. The fact that he won that ring in 08, despite not being nearly as good as he was 4 years earlier just gave the simpletons a reason to finally admit it.

Does anyone honestly believe he was better in 08? Or rather, was it a product of him coming to a much more complete and well coached team (and better organization)? What if KG was never put in that situation? We'd have trolls like plenty of people in this thread claiming he wasn't good enough and shouldn't be compared to ____ because he didn't have a ring when clearly he could have (and did) win won, when he was put in a better situation.

Rings aren't meaningless; they are just overused when discussing the impact of individual players for the reasons I mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]As a celtic fan i'd even admit that the Ring did nothing for Ray, Paul and Garnett's legacy. It means less when you had to team up with so many greats to win it all. As a player winning it all is a feeling that noone cn take away from you, but in the eyes of die hard sports fans it's not the same as it would have been had you won as Main guy on a good team instead of a superteam. James wade and Bosh will suffer the same fate if the heat wit it all.[/QUOTE]

Plenty of players getting respect, all-time, for their rings, had more talent on their respective teams than the 08 Celtics. People are creating this warped view of how rings SHOULD be won when in reality, none of that ever existed. Blame the internet, or the media, I guess.

[QUOTE=32Dayz]Rings are meaningless.[/QUOTE]

Disagree. Context does matter, but they go together as well.

Kobe's done well in both a 2nd option and a leader.

[QUOTE=I.R.Beast]not very many of them won until they got the defense if any. Look at all the not so good Qbs than won because of their defense and/or special.

Terry bradshaw
Joe namath
Eli manning
Ben Roethlisberger
Brady Back when he was a game manger(hasn't won since becoming trully elite)

Football is a 3 sided game.

Qbs should be ranked by productivity and consistency in games. The end result of Games is 2/3 elements of the game QBs have no control over which is why it;s unfair to judg QBs by rings. There is no QB that i would take over arino if had buld a team despite hi being Ringless.[/QUOTE]

Special teams isn't 1/3rd of the game and QBs can help out their defense a lot by putting a lot of points on the board plus time of possession... a bad offense that goes three and out don't give their defense much of a rest. They impact more than just 1/3rd.

I think we both agree that the Steelers have won mainly because of their great (probably league best) defense those years. All I'm saying is that one guy can make a big difference in NFL too.

[QUOTE=32Dayz]I made a thread once on multiple forums asking how many Rings Kobe would have won if he played his Career with the exact same rosters Iverson had.

(Both Iverson and Kobe entered the league in 1997).

99% of people said 0-2 and I'd say more like 75%+ said 0-1.

Would Kobe have been a worse player?
No, but he would have won less because of shitty rosters.

This is why Rings are absolutely meaningless in Player Comparisons.[/QUOTE]


You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..[/QUOTE]
Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:

[QUOTE=KDthunderup]Kobe and Carmelo on the same team?? :roll: :roll:[/QUOTE]


Kobe puts him in check and next thing you know everyone is saying he is a top 5 player in the L (just as they did to Gasol in 08')

[QUOTE=TheFrozenOne]You dummy..

if Kobe had Carmelo , Hilario and KMART on his team = 3 chips easily..[/QUOTE]

KMart was trash back then and Nene was injured.

+ Iverson only had that team for 1... maybe 2 seasons?

Very little chance Kobe wins with them especially without having one of the best PF's or C's in the league like he has always had.

Like I said it's likely he wins 0 rings or at most 2 with those same rosters.