Tom Brady vs LeBron James
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Better career?
Tom Brady
38%
 38%  [ 8 ]
LeBron James
61%
 61%  [ 13 ]
Total Votes : 21

Author Message
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 27740

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:49 pm    Post subject:

1995Lakers wrote:
jonnybravo wrote:
1995Lakers wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
I like guys like Brady, Brees and even Alex Smith. I've always admired QBs who have conquered this game using their brains rather than God touching their right shoulder at birth.

Brady just has an OK arm, it isn't terrible but it also isn't anything like any other elite QB. He doesn't have a missile launcher launcher like his elite present and former contemporaries, nor does he have the long ball placement of that crowd. He isn't mobile, he isn't athletic. With the exception of a few seasons, most of the time he had rather mediocre receivers. What he does have in his favor is a work ethic, brains, and leadership. I've never seen a QB who does a better job at pre-snap reads or incredible fast processing after the snap. He has mastered footwork, in that he navigates the pocket under pressure better than any QB ever. He has an incredible desire to win, there's no surrender in him, something he conveys to his teammates.

I remember watching the highlights of SB 51, when Atlanta pulled ahead to a seemingly insurmountable lead. The Atlanta receivers were celebrating, up until one of them shook his head and said, "But they got Tom Brady" which silenced them. That was echoed on the Patriots sideline; despite the bleakness one Patriot said, "We got Tom Brady. He's the best ever, hands down, bro, hands down."

Lebron vs. Brady? Not even close. The easy answer is Tom Brady.

He's playing a game that closely resembles Rollerball. It's a corrosive game that is engineered to beat you down into submission. Very few football players ever have a career beyond 3 years, and unlike the NBA, most of the star players exit before they reach a 10th year, usually the result of their body breaking down. There isn't a single QB (or other position player) that has won six Super Bowls, or even reached the Super Bowl as often as Brady. And unlike Montana (4), Bradshaw (4), Aikman (3), and the other repeats, he did it in the era of the salary cap, which dismantles teams annually for the sake of competitive parity.

Lebron is a special player, but he has not achieved what Brady has done over the course of his career. The closest you can come up with is Bill Russell who dominated in a league with a small number of teams, or Michael Jordan who also won six championships. And bear in mind, repeating championships or establishing team reign in the NBA is statistically easier than repeating championships or establishing a reign in the NFL.


Even as a Raiders fan I cant help but respect and admire Brady as a man. He is a real man among men who never shrinks in the biggest moments. Every NBA superstar player since Jordan has had critical flaws in the big moments except D. Wade who had the perfect disposition to be a clutch player even early in his career and manifested itself with the shot over Baron Davis in his very first playoff series and the 2006 finals.


I think you're forgetting someone bubba.


Do you really think Ive forgotten how Kobe Bryant played from 1996-1999? Kobe was absolutely NOT a clutch player his first couple years in the league nor did he have the disposition to be a clutch player during the 90s in the big moments with his overaggressiveness bordering on recklessness. Kobe never had any fear but that doesnt mean he could execute when it mattered his first couple years. Wade was always calm and under control from the moment he arrived in the league. BTW, the most clutch Laker from that entire decade of the 90s was by far Nick Van Exel who truly had ice in his veins.


Ah, you're talking about his first few years. Carry on .
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1995Lakers
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Aug 2020
Posts: 1008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:42 pm    Post subject:

CandyCanes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LeBron spent the bulk of his early career being labeled a choker and fading away when it really mattered. He's certainly grown since then, but Brady really never dealt with that.

I look at it this way. If I was starting a franchise in football, Tom Brady would be my guy. In basketball, there are a more than a couple of players I would do so ahead of LeBron.


Like who? Kareem, Magic?...


One definite guy for me above Bron: Jordan
Two maybes: Shaquille and Magic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 23300
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:00 pm    Post subject:

1995Lakers wrote:
CandyCanes wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
LeBron spent the bulk of his early career being labeled a choker and fading away when it really mattered. He's certainly grown since then, but Brady really never dealt with that.

I look at it this way. If I was starting a franchise in football, Tom Brady would be my guy. In basketball, there are a more than a couple of players I would do so ahead of LeBron.


Like who? Kareem, Magic?...


One definite guy for me above Bron: Jordan
Two maybes: Shaquille and Magic


Shaq? NFW. Magic was amazing, but he just doesn't measure up for two reasons. One, he didn't play for close to as long as LeBron has/will, and two, he wasn't much of a defender. LeBron still impacts both ends of the court when he wants to. The only people with cases over LeBron are Jordan and Kareem imo, and I think LeBron has already passed Kareem. But that's just my opinion.
_________________
THE JOB IS FINISHED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
PartyMan
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 29 Jan 2016
Posts: 960
Location: The Dark Side of the Moon

PostPosted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:32 pm    Post subject:

I said this a few years ago to a buddy:

James-Manning
Kobe-Brady
Jordan-Montana

Gotta love sports.
_________________
We pour this booze and we drink this booze because we think it's yummy. YUMMY! So over the tounge and down the throat to party in our tummys.
DOWN THE HOLA BITC*OLA!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
loslakersss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 31 Dec 2008
Posts: 10730
Location: LA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:19 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.


I think the flip side to this is that Tom’s window to make an impact on the game is a lot smaller [than Lebron’s] therefore his margin for error is much much smaller.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:01 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.



Let's extend that analysis to a certain left-handed Dodgers pitcher from the '60s:

a) only pitches once every four days: 25%
b) part of a 9 person starting lineup: 11%
c) unlike Drysdale, contributes almost nothing on offense: 4%
d) sometimes taken out for a relief pitcher (7th inning average): 77%

So Sandy Koufax only contributed .085% to the success of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the early to mid 1960s (and I didn't adjust for Sandy missing time due to injury). And all this time I thought he made a major impact.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
1995Lakers
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 26 Aug 2020
Posts: 1008

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:26 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.



Let's extend that analysis to a certain left-handed Dodgers pitcher from the '60s:

a) only pitches once every four days: 25%
b) part of a 9 person starting lineup: 11%
c) unlike Drysdale, contributes almost nothing on offense: 4%
d) sometimes taken out for a relief pitcher (7th inning average): 77%

So Sandy Koufax only contributed .085% to the success of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the early to mid 1960s (and I didn't adjust for Sandy missing time due to injury). And all this time I thought he made a major impact.


All I have to say is:
Replace Kershaw with Curt Schilling/Hershiser/Jack Morris/Fernando/El Duque/Bob Gibson/Sandy Koufax/Chris Carpenter (the clutchest pitchers I can think of - not including Bumgarner) and we very well could have won 2014, would have won 2017 and still won 2020. Shows how one Ace can change an entire season.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:48 pm    Post subject:

1995Lakers wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.



Let's extend that analysis to a certain left-handed Dodgers pitcher from the '60s:

a) only pitches once every four days: 25%
b) part of a 9 person starting lineup: 11%
c) unlike Drysdale, contributes almost nothing on offense: 4%
d) sometimes taken out for a relief pitcher (7th inning average): 77%

So Sandy Koufax only contributed .085% to the success of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the early to mid 1960s (and I didn't adjust for Sandy missing time due to injury). And all this time I thought he made a major impact.


All I have to say is:
Replace Kershaw with Curt Schilling/Hershiser/Jack Morris/Fernando/El Duque/Bob Gibson/Sandy Koufax/Chris Carpenter (the clutchest pitchers I can think of - not including Bumgarner) and we very well could have won 2014, would have won 2017 and still won 2020. Shows how one Ace can change an entire season.



That's exactly my point. Some positions are more important than others in sports. In baseball, a couple of aces can mean dominance. In football, the QB is by far the most important determinant for success. Sure, sometimes poor pitching team can win a World Series with great hitting, or a football team with a mediocre QB can win with a dominant defense, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule. The ability to win a championship in baseball is heavily weighted towards a pitching staff with at least two excellent starters, and in football a QB is the chief determinant.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
easybreeze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 06 Jun 2005
Posts: 2343

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:18 pm    Post subject:

I always felt new england had a home arena advantage playing in a cold weather arena, deflating footballs, filming other teams, preping refs with high fives.
Don't mine me, I'm still pissed over that tuck ruling.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 8491

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:24 pm    Post subject:

Brady can throw 3 interceptions in a game and still be called the goat after they eke out a win. The narrative in the media about the guy always seems to be mostly positive.

Has Lebron ever been coached by a hall of fame coach? Whenever we talk about goats, people don't like to talk about coaches, but name one of the "goats" who wasn't coached by a hall of famer?

Especially in basketball, they always had at least one. MJ, Magic, Kareem, Chamberlain, Kobe, Russell, Bird. The coaches might not make them better players, but it will certainly help them have better careers, at least in the way that we talk about them.

Lebron has had Paul Silas, David Blatt, Mike Brown, Tyronn Lue, and Frank Vogel. Pretty amazing when you think of all those finals appearances.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 23300
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:11 am    Post subject:

Theseus wrote:
Brady can throw 3 interceptions in a game and still be called the goat after they eke out a win. The narrative in the media about the guy always seems to be mostly positive.

Has Lebron ever been coached by a hall of fame coach? Whenever we talk about goats, people don't like to talk about coaches, but name one of the "goats" who wasn't coached by a hall of famer?

Especially in basketball, they always had at least one. MJ, Magic, Kareem, Chamberlain, Kobe, Russell, Bird. The coaches might not make them better players, but it will certainly help them have better careers, at least in the way that we talk about them.

Lebron has had Paul Silas, David Blatt, Mike Brown, Tyronn Lue, and Frank Vogel. Pretty amazing when you think of all those finals appearances.


Erik Spoelstra is going to the Hall Of Fame; he has 573 wins and he's only 50, with 2 NBA titles and 5 NBA Finals appearances. Vogel might, too, though he obviously needs a nice run here for a few years to have a shot. Even with another title, he'll still need to do more, I feel; he's currently 307-292 as a head coach at 47. Freaking Spoelstra has 266 more wins and he's only 3 years older! But if Frank wins, say, 3 titles and piles up over 600 wins, he has a good shot.
_________________
THE JOB IS FINISHED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12219

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:18 am    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
1995Lakers wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.



Let's extend that analysis to a certain left-handed Dodgers pitcher from the '60s:

a) only pitches once every four days: 25%
b) part of a 9 person starting lineup: 11%
c) unlike Drysdale, contributes almost nothing on offense: 4%
d) sometimes taken out for a relief pitcher (7th inning average): 77%

So Sandy Koufax only contributed .085% to the success of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the early to mid 1960s (and I didn't adjust for Sandy missing time due to injury). And all this time I thought he made a major impact.


All I have to say is:
Replace Kershaw with Curt Schilling/Hershiser/Jack Morris/Fernando/El Duque/Bob Gibson/Sandy Koufax/Chris Carpenter (the clutchest pitchers I can think of - not including Bumgarner) and we very well could have won 2014, would have won 2017 and still won 2020. Shows how one Ace can change an entire season.



That's exactly my point. Some positions are more important than others in sports. In baseball, a couple of aces can mean dominance. In football, the QB is by far the most important determinant for success. Sure, sometimes poor pitching team can win a World Series with great hitting, or a football team with a mediocre QB can win with a dominant defense, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule. The ability to win a championship in baseball is heavily weighted towards a pitching staff with at least two excellent starters, and in football a QB is the chief determinant.


Now, if I was trying to say that Koufax had as good a career as did Brady or LeBron, you might have a point. I will say Koufax had as good a five-year period as any pitcher ever, and is at the back side of the top ten of all time.

But to play along, my point still is that a quarterback (or an ace pitcher) is not as important as an elite basketball player, not to mention one of three best basketball players of all time. Two all stars in basketball, with a good but not great supporting staff, can win, and have often won, championships--heck, even one when you think of Olajuwon or Nowitzki.

Also, considering a pitcher to be an equal part of the nine while in the field, seems a bit wanting. And let's not forget, the ace does not pitch once every four days in the World Series: They typically pitch three of the seven games.

Now, continuing with baseball, I'm of the school that great pitching beats great hitting, as the 1963 World Series imprinted on my brain--Maris and Mantle, and the rest, were no match for Koufax, so a great starting pitcher (Bumgarner is another great example), from my point of view, is far more responsible than .085%. To this, I also don't believe a quarterback, though, obviously by far the most critical position in football, is as important as a super star pitcher--in any given game, though over a season maybe so. Besides the 30-some players other players that are important in football--including, and especially, the entire defense, the special teams, the offensive line, and the receivers (every single pass requires a catch)--verses maybe 15 or so in baseball (or 5 in basketball), coaching and strategy play a much larger role in football. The debate on who was most important on the Patriots, Belichick or Brady, will continue for the ages.

Anyone think any of LeBron's coaches were more important than LeBron?
_________________
"In vino veritas, in regno Trumpi licentia"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 17908

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 9:34 am    Post subject:

Well, both have that ‘it’, both have best IQ in game, both have that incredible recovery/sustainability but on top of all that Brady has, LeBron also has super athleticism, Bron edge Brady
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:46 pm    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
1995Lakers wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
ribeye wrote:
How about this, LeBron is dominant with four others sharing the play and playing about 80% of the time, while for Brady shares with something like thirty-some others, and plays less than 50%. In other words, Brady depends far more on others than does LeBron, and plays less.



Let's extend that analysis to a certain left-handed Dodgers pitcher from the '60s:

a) only pitches once every four days: 25%
b) part of a 9 person starting lineup: 11%
c) unlike Drysdale, contributes almost nothing on offense: 4%
d) sometimes taken out for a relief pitcher (7th inning average): 77%

So Sandy Koufax only contributed .085% to the success of the Los Angeles Dodgers during the early to mid 1960s (and I didn't adjust for Sandy missing time due to injury). And all this time I thought he made a major impact.


All I have to say is:
Replace Kershaw with Curt Schilling/Hershiser/Jack Morris/Fernando/El Duque/Bob Gibson/Sandy Koufax/Chris Carpenter (the clutchest pitchers I can think of - not including Bumgarner) and we very well could have won 2014, would have won 2017 and still won 2020. Shows how one Ace can change an entire season.



That's exactly my point. Some positions are more important than others in sports. In baseball, a couple of aces can mean dominance. In football, the QB is by far the most important determinant for success. Sure, sometimes poor pitching team can win a World Series with great hitting, or a football team with a mediocre QB can win with a dominant defense, but these tend to be exceptions rather than the rule. The ability to win a championship in baseball is heavily weighted towards a pitching staff with at least two excellent starters, and in football a QB is the chief determinant.


Now, if I was trying to say that Koufax had as good a career as did Brady or LeBron, you might have a point. I will say Koufax had as good a five-year period as any pitcher ever, and is at the back side of the top ten of all time.

But to play along, my point still is that a quarterback (or an ace pitcher) is not as important as an elite basketball player, not to mention one of three best basketball players of all time. Two all stars in basketball, with a good but not great supporting staff, can win, and have often won, championships--heck, even one when you think of Olajuwon or Nowitzki.

Also, considering a pitcher to be an equal part of the nine while in the field, seems a bit wanting. And let's not forget, the ace does not pitch once every four days in the World Series: They typically pitch three of the seven games.

Now, continuing with baseball, I'm of the school that great pitching beats great hitting, as the 1963 World Series imprinted on my brain--Maris and Mantle, and the rest, were no match for Koufax, so a great starting pitcher (Bumgarner is another great example), from my point of view, is far more responsible than .085%. To this, I also don't believe a quarterback, though, obviously by far the most critical position in football, is as important as a super star pitcher--in any given game, though over a season maybe so. Besides the 30-some players other players that are important in football--including, and especially, the entire defense, the special teams, the offensive line, and the receivers (every single pass requires a catch)--verses maybe 15 or so in baseball (or 5 in basketball), coaching and strategy play a much larger role in football. The debate on who was most important on the Patriots, Belichick or Brady, will continue for the ages.

Anyone think any of LeBron's coaches were more important than LeBron?



Your original model is flawed. You should examine attributes in an elite baseball player or football player that determines the ability to win a championship. Merely stating that a QB doesn't play defense (and hence not on the field) isn't an important attribute. I extended your model to demonstrate that Sandy Koufax's contribution was meaningless to the LA Dodgers, which lampooned your point.

Now you're moving the goalposts to basketball.

A QB controls the offense, he's by far the most important component of the offense. Take a look at All Pro or Pro Bowl position players, especially the guys who catch the ball (WRs and TEs). Is there a strong correlation between star pass catchers and deep playoff runs? It's a weak correlation; they're important but far from a heavily weighted factor. Now take a look at the QB position. The QBs heavily dictate whether a team makes the playoffs, and of course the quality of QB heavily influences how deep a team can make a run in the playoffs. This year is no exception, take a look at the list of QBs: Future Hall of Famers and young, star QBs.

While someone like Lebron can call a play, it isn't analogous to what is expected out of a quality vet QB. The elite QBs like Brady might get a call from the sidelines on what play to run, but the mike goes dead with about 20 seconds on the play clock. That's when defensive teams frequently shift their personnel and reveal or bluff on how they really intend to defend. The elite QBs (and there are precious few) will not only change the play in the audible based on what they see, they will also change the blocking assignments for their offensive line. After the ball is snapped, the defense will finally reveal what they're up to, and in a split second (at about the two second mark) the QB has to decide who really is open (harder than you think, some of the hardest guys to track are stationary DBs who as we say "are hiding in the weeds"). You have to throw the football with precision, which is tough as it's not spherical, into the catch radius of the receiver (which can vary greatly), and get rid of the ball a split second before you get creamed by an oncoming 300+ lb. lineman. While the other players on the field are important, an elite QB has an incredible skill set.

The handful of elite QBs need a good coach to an extent, but as I'm trying to illustrate they are the tactical coach on the playing field. Does Brady need quality coaching? Well this year he is playing for one of the bottom-quartile coaches in the NFL, and he's helped lead the team to the Super Bowl. Last season Brady led a 12-4 team with a great coach to the playoffs. This season that same team (minus Brady) went 7-9 under the same great coach. This season Brady took a team that went 7-9 last year under a somewhat crappy coach, and led them to the Super Bowl.

Belichick's coaching record without Brady? 60-71.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 23300
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:17 pm    Post subject:

^
I don't think it's fair to call Arians a crappy coach. He's had success literally everywhere he's been. The Steelers were a great offense when he was the OC and they let him go, ostensibly because Tomlin didn't like them passing so much, and the offense suffered after he left and they eventually went to a pass-happy approach anyway. He goes to the Colts, Pagano misses most of the season, and they play great with him as the head man. He misses the playoff game with a health issue and they can't move the ball at all. He goes to Arizona, a team that had been floundering, and they turn into a winning team with an NFC title game appearance. He goes to Tampa, a team that had been floundering, and they turn it around pretty quickly. (Even last year, they were competitive despite Winston's 5000 interceptions.) Counting his 9-3 mark as Indy's coach when Pagano wasn't there (the league doesn't officially give Arians that record), he's 76-47-1 as an NFL head coach.

I get that he is not without his flaws, but winning seems to follow this dude wherever he goes.
_________________
THE JOB IS FINISHED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 1:35 pm    Post subject:

^
It wasn't Arians relationship with Tomlin, the word was in Pittsburgh that Arians was going to get Roethlisberger killed with those long passing plays, that is what led to his dismissal. In AZ he inherited a mature, quality QB and won, until age caught up to Carson Palmer. In Tampa Bay his offense looked antiquated and silly last season and up until the midpoint this season. It was stagnant, with 3 receivers with go or late breaking routes, no presnap motion, and a refusal to incorporate Brady's strengths until the season was on the brink of failure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 23300
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:08 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
^
It wasn't Arians relationship with Tomlin, the word was in Pittsburgh that Arians was going to get Roethlisberger killed with those long passing plays, that is what led to his dismissal. In AZ he inherited a mature, quality QB and won, until age caught up to Carson Palmer. In Tampa Bay his offense looked antiquated and silly last season and up until the midpoint this season. It was stagnant, with 3 receivers with go or late breaking routes, no presnap motion, and a refusal to incorporate Brady's strengths until the season was on the brink of failure.


Ben liked Arians, from what I remember (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You can say what he inherited in Arizona but they had gone 5-11 in 2 of the 3 previous seasons before he got there. Tampa Bay was 7-9 last year despite having a QB that killed them in turnover margin. That's why Brady went there; he saw that this was a good team that could be potentially great if they had solid QB play.

Again, I get that he has his warts. But it's hard to argue with the record. I think crappy is an unfair characterization. Like, I think Pete Carroll doesn't know offensive football, but I can't call him a crappy coach overall. His resume is too good for that. If you want to say that he's just riding Brady's coattails, I can't agree totally with that. There are also things that a head coach can do apart from calling plays. I think he's a pretty good leader.

Is he an elite coach? Nah. But he's not crappy. You can't name 10 NFL head coaches that are definitively better than he is, and I went over them all and I came up with 8 or 9. (Note that that's different from, say, a notion that you'd rather have someone like Kevin Stefanski as your head coach because he's much younger and for the perceived upside. I totally get that, but after one season I'm not ready to call him a definitively better head coach over someone who is coaching in the Super Bowl and who has a career mark of 76-47.)
_________________
THE JOB IS FINISHED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 5:28 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
angrypuppy wrote:
^
It wasn't Arians relationship with Tomlin, the word was in Pittsburgh that Arians was going to get Roethlisberger killed with those long passing plays, that is what led to his dismissal. In AZ he inherited a mature, quality QB and won, until age caught up to Carson Palmer. In Tampa Bay his offense looked antiquated and silly last season and up until the midpoint this season. It was stagnant, with 3 receivers with go or late breaking routes, no presnap motion, and a refusal to incorporate Brady's strengths until the season was on the brink of failure.


Ben liked Arians, from what I remember (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). You can say what he inherited in Arizona but they had gone 5-11 in 2 of the 3 previous seasons before he got there. Tampa Bay was 7-9 last year despite having a QB that killed them in turnover margin. That's why Brady went there; he saw that this was a good team that could be potentially great if they had solid QB play.

Again, I get that he has his warts. But it's hard to argue with the record. I think crappy is an unfair characterization. Like, I think Pete Carroll doesn't know offensive football, but I can't call him a crappy coach overall. His resume is too good for that. If you want to say that he's just riding Brady's coattails, I can't agree totally with that. There are also things that a head coach can do apart from calling plays. I think he's a pretty good leader.

Is he an elite coach? Nah. But he's not crappy. You can't name 10 NFL head coaches that are definitively better than he is, and I went over them all and I came up with 8 or 9. (Note that that's different from, say, a notion that you'd rather have someone like Kevin Stefanski as your head coach because he's much younger and for the perceived upside. I totally get that, but after one season I'm not ready to call him a definitively better head coach over someone who is coaching in the Super Bowl and who has a career mark of 76-47.)




Not that Wikipedia is the ultimate source, but even the online editors seem to recall what happened to Arians in Pittsburgh. It wasn't a disagreement with Tomlin, it was the fear that Big Ben was going to get decapitated under his offensive stewardship:

Quote:
After the 2003 season, Arians was hired as the Steelers wide receivers coach, and in 2007 was promoted to offensive coordinator. He then went on to win Super Bowl XLIII. Despite his success in Pittsburgh, he had his fair share of critics. He was a gambling man who liked to take big risks, risks that didn't sit well with fans. For instance, on a 3rd & 1, instead of running the ball or making a short quick pass, he wanted to air it out downfield. According to Arians, “I got booed in the Super Bowl parade. I look over and I hear 'get a full back,' and I say never.” In Arians' offense the quarterback is often exposed: Ben Rothlisberger took a high number of sacks every year and it left the Steelers front office unhappy. This led the front office to not renew Arians contract as an offensive coordinator.[7] a position he held until his contract expired after the 2011 season.[10]



But if you insist on defending him, I get it. I did elevate him earlier by calling him "somewhat crappy" and even mentioned that he was in the bottom quartile, and inference that you might be able to find six or seven worse head coaches. He's not some maven on offense, and that's supposed to be his forte. He couldn't even get a head coaching gig until he was over 60... but he does have the good sense to retire when he's faced with a rebuild, so I'll give him credit for that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Theseus
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 8491

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:33 pm    Post subject:

ChickenStu wrote:
Theseus wrote:
Brady can throw 3 interceptions in a game and still be called the goat after they eke out a win. The narrative in the media about the guy always seems to be mostly positive.

Has Lebron ever been coached by a hall of fame coach? Whenever we talk about goats, people don't like to talk about coaches, but name one of the "goats" who wasn't coached by a hall of famer?

Especially in basketball, they always had at least one. MJ, Magic, Kareem, Chamberlain, Kobe, Russell, Bird. The coaches might not make them better players, but it will certainly help them have better careers, at least in the way that we talk about them.

Lebron has had Paul Silas, David Blatt, Mike Brown, Tyronn Lue, and Frank Vogel. Pretty amazing when you think of all those finals appearances.


Erik Spoelstra is going to the Hall Of Fame; he has 573 wins and he's only 50, with 2 NBA titles and 5 NBA Finals appearances. Vogel might, too, though he obviously needs a nice run here for a few years to have a shot. Even with another title, he'll still need to do more, I feel; he's currently 307-292 as a head coach at 47. Freaking Spoelstra has 266 more wins and he's only 3 years older! But if Frank wins, say, 3 titles and piles up over 600 wins, he has a good shot.


Good point, forgot about Spoelstra. I think he will be HOF one day. He is a really good coach. Vogel has a lot longer to go, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 27740

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:40 pm    Post subject:

Theseus wrote:
ChickenStu wrote:
Theseus wrote:
Brady can throw 3 interceptions in a game and still be called the goat after they eke out a win. The narrative in the media about the guy always seems to be mostly positive.

Has Lebron ever been coached by a hall of fame coach? Whenever we talk about goats, people don't like to talk about coaches, but name one of the "goats" who wasn't coached by a hall of famer?

Especially in basketball, they always had at least one. MJ, Magic, Kareem, Chamberlain, Kobe, Russell, Bird. The coaches might not make them better players, but it will certainly help them have better careers, at least in the way that we talk about them.

Lebron has had Paul Silas, David Blatt, Mike Brown, Tyronn Lue, and Frank Vogel. Pretty amazing when you think of all those finals appearances.


Erik Spoelstra is going to the Hall Of Fame; he has 573 wins and he's only 50, with 2 NBA titles and 5 NBA Finals appearances. Vogel might, too, though he obviously needs a nice run here for a few years to have a shot. Even with another title, he'll still need to do more, I feel; he's currently 307-292 as a head coach at 47. Freaking Spoelstra has 266 more wins and he's only 3 years older! But if Frank wins, say, 3 titles and piles up over 600 wins, he has a good shot.


Good point, forgot about Spoelstra. I think he will be HOF one day. He is a really good coach. Vogel has a lot longer to go, though.


The Heat and Spoel are pretty remarkable. Even post Heatles, his Heat teams never finished worse than 37 wins.
_________________
KOBE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChickenStu
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 25 Apr 2015
Posts: 23300
Location: Anaheim, CA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 7:40 pm    Post subject:

^
Yeah, and when he got that shot, he's gone 67-44-1. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove there. I'm truly not an Arians homer. But this notion that he's a poor head coach just doesn't make sense. He's literally had success everywhere he's been for the last 20 years. In fact, it goes beyond that. He was Peyton Manning's QB coach at first, and needless to say I don't think he screwed him up. Then he goes to the Browns--THE BROWNS--as OC and they make the playoffs in 2002 and barely lose a wild card game to the Steelers. Then he goes to the Steelers as their WR coach and then OC and they consistently had great offenses and they won a Super Bowl when he was the OC. He goes to Indy and they had a 4-12 record the year before, Pagano has to take most of the year off, and Arians wins COY as they go 9-3 under him. I already chronicled what he's done as a head coach.

That's an awful lot of success for a guy who you think is crappy or "somewhat crappy." It sounds to me like people who make excuses for Brady's success, saying he got lucky many times with the Tuck Rule game, spying on the Rams in the Super Bowl, Seattle not running Lynch at the 1, etc etc. Arians has pretty much had success everywhere he's been. That alone doesn't make him an amazing head coach, but he sure as hell isn't a bad one.
_________________
THE JOB IS FINISHED!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12219

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 8:56 am    Post subject:

Ribbits:

Brady's passer rating, post season, 89.5 -- only 15th best all time. The league average passer rating during the years he played is 83.01, so the differential, 6.41, is not that much beyond average. He only once led the league in post season QB rating. His Super Bowl passer rating of 95.6 is out of the top ten, with a differential of 13.59. His regular season, 97.3, is 7th best, with a differential to the league of 14.29. As a comparison, Joe Montana's ratings are 92.3, regular; 95.6, post; and 127.8, SB--the later not only in the top ten, but #1. But, and this is an important distinction, the average QB rating for the years Montana played is 72.41, so the differential is 19.89, regular; 23.19, post; and freeking 55.39, SB!

LeBron's career playoff PER is 28.41, just barely behind Jordan, 28.6 (Miken, 28.51, does not have complete data). He lead the league 5 times in post season PER. Considering that an average PER is supposed to be 15, his differential is beyond exceptional. For those who don't like PER, how about Win shares per 48 minutes. LeBron, .2454, is just barely behind Jordan .2543.
_________________
"In vino veritas, in regno Trumpi licentia"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
angrypuppy
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 32047

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 11:57 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Ribbits:

Brady's passer rating, post season, 89.5 -- only 15th best all time. The league average passer rating during the years he played is 83.01, so the differential, 6.41, is not that much beyond average. He only once led the league in post season QB rating. His Super Bowl passer rating of 95.6 is out of the top ten, with a differential of 13.59. His regular season, 97.3, is 7th best, with a differential to the league of 14.29. As a comparison, Joe Montana's ratings are 92.3, regular; 95.6, post; and 127.8, SB--the later not only in the top ten, but #1. But, and this is an important distinction, the average QB rating for the years Montana played is 72.41, so the differential is 19.89, regular; 23.19, post; and freeking 55.39, SB!

LeBron's career playoff PER is 28.41, just barely behind Jordan, 28.6 (Miken, 28.51, does not have complete data). He lead the league 5 times in post season PER. Considering that an average PER is supposed to be 15, his differential is beyond exceptional. For those who don't like PER, how about Win shares per 48 minutes. LeBron, .2454, is just barely behind Jordan .2543.



I always find simple stats useful for baseball, less so for other sports. In baseball a pitcher doesn't change his fastball, curve, slider, change, whatever from team to team, just as a hitter doesn't change his swing when wearing a new jersey. Simple stats are more easily translatable to production, and can correlate to wins.

What are you not tracking? Something akin to Shapley Values from game theory, and that is what is the value that someone contributes to an entire team. Montana was outstanding, but he also benefited from: A. Being a member of substantially the same team year in, year out (pre salary cap era), and B. The introduction of the horizontal game (West Coast Offense) which baffled both defensive coordinators and head coaches. Walsh was a true innovator, he made Stanford relevant within the Pac 10, and then brought over his system to vertical offensive oriented NFL. I'm not knocking Montana, I was surprised that he wasn't a first round pick, and somewhat astounded that the credit was going to uber-bust Ken MacAfee at Notre Dame.

Ditto with basketball. You only have one ball, trying to extend simple stats is misleading when adding a player to a team or playing unit. Part of it is willingness to share, floor spacing, complimentary skills, chemistry and defense, and part of it is the intangible of leadership. A simple basketball stat cannot tell you that, and on that note, QB ratings are an artificial composite stat and tend to be misleading.

Montana would have a high Shapley Value. His teammates trusted him and his leadership. Brady would have the similar high value, not only did the teammates change frequently, he even changed franchises and achieved the deep playoff run result. Tampa Bay teammates talk openly about how the culture dramatically changed once Brady entered that locker room. In the case of New England, it was a team facing continued detioration with the QB (Drew Bledsoe) considered to be the best among its few positives. That's what a Shapley Value tries to capture; statistically Bledsoe was outstanding, but substituting him with Brady led to a dramatic change. To me, something akin to a Shapley Value would translate far better between sports, teams and eras.

Brady has more championships and a better postseason record than Montana, but like any attempt to compare players from different eras, any judgement is highly subjective. And all too often, stats do not translate well between eras let alone different sports. As a matter of fact, The Wall Street Journal once ran an article proving that using ERA differential, Greg Maddox was vastly superior to Sandy Koufax. Simple stats can be used to fabricate a desired conclusion. Results speak for themselves.


Last edited by angrypuppy on Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12219

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:31 pm    Post subject:

angrypuppy wrote:
ribeye wrote:
Ribbits:

Brady's passer rating, post season, 89.5 -- only 15th best all time. The league average passer rating during the years he played is 83.01, so the differential, 6.41, is not that much beyond average. He only once led the league in post season QB rating. His Super Bowl passer rating of 95.6 is out of the top ten, with a differential of 13.59. His regular season, 97.3, is 7th best, with a differential to the league of 14.29. As a comparison, Joe Montana's ratings are 92.3, regular; 95.6, post; and 127.8, SB--the later not only in the top ten, but #1. But, and this is an important distinction, the average QB rating for the years Montana played is 72.41, so the differential is 19.89, regular; 23.19, post; and freeking 55.39, SB!

LeBron's career playoff PER is 28.41, just barely behind Jordan, 28.6 (Miken, 28.51, does not have complete data). He lead the league 5 times in post season PER. Considering that an average PER is supposed to be 15, his differential is beyond exceptional. For those who don't like PER, how about Win shares per 48 minutes. LeBron, .2454, is just barely behind Jordan .2543.



I always find simple stats useful for baseball, less so for other sports. In baseball a pitcher doesn't change his fastball, curve, slider, change, whatever from team to team, just as a hitter doesn't change his swing when wearing a new jersey. Simple stats are more easily translatable to production, and can correlate to wins.

What are you not tracking? Something akin to Shapley Values from game theory, and that is what is the value that someone contributes to an entire team. Montana was outstanding, but he also benefited from: A. Being a member of substantially the same team year in, year out (pre salary cap era), and B. The introduction of the horizontal game (West Coast Offense) which baffled both defensive coordinators and head coaches. Walsh was a true innovator, he made Stanford relevant within the Pac 10, and then brought over his system to vertical offensive oriented NFL. I'm not knocking Montana, I was surprised that he wasn't a first round pick, and somewhat astounded that the credit was going to uber-bust Ken MacAfee at Notre Dame.

Ditto with basketball. You only have one ball, trying to extend simple stats is misleading when adding a player to a team or playing unit. Part of it is willingness to share, floor spacing, complimentary skills, chemistry and defense, and part of it is the intangible of leadership. A simple basketball stat cannot tell you that, and on that note, QB ratings are an artificial composite stat and tend to be misleading.

Montana would have a high Shapley Value. His teammates trusted him and his leadership. Brady would have the same value, not only did the teammates change frequently, he even changed franchises and achieved the deep playoff run result. Tampa Bay teammates talk openly about how the culture dramatically changed once Brady entered that locker room.

Brady has more championships and a better postseason record than Montana, like any attempt to compare players from different eras, any judgement is highly subjective. And all too often, stats do not translate well between eras let alone different sports. As a matter of fact, The Wall Street Journal once ran an article proving that using ERA differential, Greg Maddox was far superior to Sandy Koufax. Simple stats can be used to fabricate a desired conclusion. Results speak for themselves.


Brady's teams have more championships and a better postseason record than Montana's.

Simply put, I place more value on the entire team than do you.

As for Maddox v Koufax, Maddox has a 132 ERA+ to Koufax's 131. Considering the entirety of their careers, I rank him higher, though only marginal so.
_________________
"In vino veritas, in regno Trumpi licentia"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 55641
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a learning experience.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:31 pm    Post subject:

Brady is the Bill Russell of football. He has six rings all by himself there. No one is in real touching distance. LeBron has 4 rings along with a bunch of others. Bron is still establishing his legacy. Careerwise I put Tom about LeBron (For Now)
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.


Last edited by jodeke on Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB