Is God Mode Brady the most terrifying figure in sports?

[lancerman]

10 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Can't believe anyone is calling the 90s one of the most watered down eras. 80s were probably better but the 2000s was awful. I love Kobe but he really benefitted from just having the Spurs to compete against. 

Just the Spurs. Just one of the most complete teams ever with arguably the greatest coach since Red. Oh and the Big 3 Celtics. And the Heat with Wade and Shaq

[Malik]

24 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Rodman's era of success prior to Jordan came with Thomas, Dumars and Laimbeer - so once again, not as the focal point. That's kind of the definition of a role player, a guy who fills a role.

That's who Rodman was, in every stop he had. He wasn't a prolific scorer, but could play defense and get rebounds.

Question - do you think you could build a winning team around Rodman as the centerpiece of the team? 

I'm not saying anyone could build a team around him, but let's not pretend he wasn't a prolific player in his own right that just came along for the ride because he fit as a piece.

[BleedTheClock]

2 hours ago, RedRams said:

Manning and Rogers are both better QB's.

Yikes! Bad take alert!

[seminoles1]

57 minutes ago, ET80 said:

Olaijuwon and the Rockets

Jordan and the Bulls

Ewing and the Knicks

Robinson and the Spurs

Gary Payton/Shawn Kemp and the Sonics

Barkley and the Suns

Malone/Stockton and the Jazz

Alonzo Mourning and the Heat

Shaq and the Magic

Drexler and the Trailblazers

Each of these teams were fully capable of winning an NBA title, and pretty much ran into one another through that entire period. At the end, only Jordan and Olaijuwon emerged victorious - but not because they had some easy schedule, but because they had to outright end someone to get there. 

This is a horribly bad take. Please re-evaluate it.

EDIT - There are 21 players in the NBA HOF that played at least 150 games in the 90s, with another four guaranteed to join them (Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, Tim Duncan and Kevin Garnett). 

How you come up with a take that is SO BAD is well beyond me, and I see everything that's posted in NFL General.

That's his point.  Watered down means there weren't a lot of truly great teams, but good teams built around 1 elite player.

-The Spurs were only a great team for 1 season before Duncan got there
-The Rockets were built around 1 elite player in Olajuwon for the first few seasons, then traded for Drexler and Barkley, and then lost them both.  Hakeem went god mode for the first title and the finally got  2nd good player in Drexler for the 2nd
-The Knicks' 2nd best player for most of the decade was John Starks...John Starks
-The Suns were relevant for 3 seasons
-The Heat were relevant for 3 seasons
-The Magic were relevant for 2 seasons
-The Blazers were relevant for 2 seasons
-I agree with the Sonics and the Jazz

There were plenty of good teams, but that's because talent was spread out AKA watered down.  Some people prefer this and I understand that, but because of that the teams with even just 2 great players stood out.  I mean if John Starks, Terry Porter, Terry Cummings/Sean Elliott, Otis Thorpe, etc. were the 2nd best player on teams today, that team is winning 45 games, 1st round fodder, and a huge portion of the fan base is screaming to blow it up.

[BleedTheClock]

On 1/25/2019 at 11:41 AM, RedRams said:

Lol of course he is.

Willie Mays played baseball, remember?

[seminoles1]

53 minutes ago, ET80 said:

I call that a good team, but we saw what happened to Pippen when Jordan left. Even with Olaijuwon and Barkley in Houston, he couldn't win. We saw Rodman as part of that Spurs team with Robinson, did he win much?

It was Jordan and two high end role players. 

This take tells me that you read about this, you didn't see it first hand.

You mean have his best season, make 1st Team All-NBA, and lead the Bulls to 55 wins?  Are you serious?

[seminoles1]

1 hour ago, ET80 said:

So, from six NBA titles to...an ECF. Quite the downgrade.

Well yeah, they lost MJ.  And if it weren't for a horse **** call, they probably would have gone to the Finals.  If you're gonna resort to this, how did MJ do without Pippen?

The 1994 Bulls became just like one of those title contending teams you were talking about: built around 1 really good player with solid role players in place.

[seminoles1]

31 minutes ago, LeotheLion said:

Can't believe anyone is calling the 90s one of the most watered down eras. 80s were probably better but the 2000s was awful. I love Kobe but he really benefitted from just having the Spurs to compete against. 

I  mean if people are going to count some of those teams from the 90s, then you have to include the Kings, Blazers, Timberwolves, and Mavericks.

[Plat2]

4 hours ago, 7DnBrnc53 said:

Neither. MJ won in a watered-down era, and he wasn't a great defensive player when he came back from the diamond. And, Brady plays in a weak division, and against fairly weak playoff opponents almost every year (2011 Broncos, 2013 & 14 Colts, 2016 Texans, 2017 Titans).

Watered down era? Lol you don't know basketball.

Just because one person and one team dominated the decade doesn't mean it's watered down. Some of the best teams and players played in the 90s.

[ET80]

13 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

You mean have his best season, make 1st Team All-NBA, and lead the Bulls to 55 wins?  Are you serious?

So, one season he answered the call. How about his time in Houston? Or his time in Portland?

Scottie Pippen has six rings - ALL six come as he played Robin to Jordan's Batman. His highest PPG in his post Jordan career was 14.5 in Houston, he was not some elite player.

So I ask you - are YOU serious?

13 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

Well yeah, they lost MJ.  And if it weren't for a horse **** call, they would have gone to the Finals.  How did MJ do without Pippen?

You mean after his 2nd retirement, when he was 38 years old and playing with the Wizards? Yeah, no clue how Jordan didn't manage to win at that age, with a surrounding cast of Kwame Brown and Christian Laettner...

Or perhaps you're referencing the mid 80s, when the Bulls had Jordan single handedly competing against the power teams of the 80s. (I'm not the one denying the 80s were a great era, mind you - I'm arguing the 90s were better).

26 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

That's his point.  Watered down means there weren't a lot of truly great teams, but good teams built around 1 elite player.

Which is why he flat out says it's overrated? 

[seminoles1]

I think people are confusing what he means by watered down.

The 80s and current era are full of teams with multiple stars that run through teams with 1 star. The 90s on the other hand had a lot of teams with 1 really good player and fewer teams with multiple great players (for more than a season or 2), so a lot of teams were solid. However, it was the teams with multiple stars that rose above the rest (outside of 1 crazy postseason from Hakeem).

I mean it's not hard to realize why certain teams are always there at the end...they have more than 1 great player. In the 80s it was the 76ers, Celtics, and Lakers. The Pistons took advantage at the end of the decade once the Celtics and Lakers started to fall off. Then Pippen and Horace Grant came into their own, so the Bulls started dominating. Why? Because they had more than 1 great player.

[ET80]

42 minutes ago, Malik said:

I'm not saying anyone could build a team around him, but let's not pretend he wasn't a prolific player in his own right that just came along for the ride because he fit as a piece.

He was elite at a few things, yes. But at the core of it all, he was a guy who fit a role.

I don't mean this as a terrible slight, he's got the pelts on the wall - but he is who he is.

[Plat2]

Also when MJ got with Phil Jackson they only didn't win a championship one time and that was their first year together.

[ET80]

2 minutes ago, seminoles1 said:

I think people are confusing what he means by watered down.

I'm very well aware of what he said.

2 hours ago, lancerman said:

I love Jordan, he's my favorite basketball player. Way too many people need to take the nostalgia goggles off and evaluate the 90's for what it was. In the modern era, it was the worst basketball decade as far as competition. 

The 1990''s when Jordan played were not basketball's golden age. That was very clearly the 80's.

I get how you're interpreting it - I'm actually OK with your definition, and would concede to it. But - irrespective of roster - it was competitive, nearly from top to bottom.

What he's saying is patently false. 

[seminoles1]

3 minutes ago, ET80 said:

So, one season he answered the call. How about his time in Houston? Or his time in Portland?

Scottie Pippen has six rings - ALL six come as he played Robin to Jordan's Batman. His highest PPG in his post Jordan career was 14.5 in Houston, he was not some elite player.

So I ask you - are YOU serious?

You mean after his 2nd retirement, when he was 38 years old and playing with the Wizards? Yeah, no clue how Jordan didn't manage to win at that age, with a surrounding cast of Kwame Brown and Christian Laettner...

Or perhaps you're referencing the mid 80s, when the Bulls had Jordan single handedly competing against the power teams of the 80s. (I'm not the one denying the 80s were a great era, mind you - I'm arguing the 90s were better).

Which is why he flat out says it's overrated? 

You mean when he was 33 years old and been through multiple back injuries?  Geez, how could anyone explain why he started to fall off?

I mean you made no excuse for Pippen after he went 11 straight years (he didn't take 2 breaks like MJ did).  Why are you making excuses for Jordan then?

Yes, I meant before Pippen was great.  Jordan did nothing by your standards.  He didn't "compete", he got annihilated by those teams.  It's almost as if the league wasn't watered down and 1 player could lead a team to 55 wins and "compete" for titles as you say.