[butta55]

Ngata_Chance, on 04 July 2012 - 10:50 AM, said:

When Judging individual accomplishments and performances than the team should not come into play for a few reasons. When the lions went 0-16 did anybody think he was anything less than a phenom ? If you really took team success into account when judging Megatron you are being extremely unrealistic.AS to the inverse when Flacco as a rookie "led" the Ravens to the AFCCG he was not the contributor on the offense, he was the guy that took the snap and handed it off. You cant say he is a championship caliber QB from that performance.AS to the Emmitt and Barry thing I am not sure what you are trying to prove with that. You do realize that Emmitt played a bit longer than Barry ? If you look at averages it is not close.

Yes, I know Emmitt played alot longer than Barry. My point is you can't use stats as an ultimate factor.

There seems to be a gap in communication seeing as a few people keep thinking I am saying team success is a huge factor or something of the sort. When in reality all I am saying is that is simply IS a factor not implying the strength of the factor. With that being said I believe it weighs heavier on certain positions yes that is true. But overall my point is to look at the whole picture of the player and the WHOLE picture includes team success. You can't say Flacco didn't contribute to the offense...that is impossible as a starting QB. He may not have been a big factor, but he did contribute at one time or another.

Calvin Johnson wasn't a phenom with Detroit and he still isn't. He is the best receiver in the game, and at the time of their 0-16 season he was a top tier receiver, but that doesn't mean his team's success doesn't affect him.

When Fitz really became a true bonafide monster in EVERYONE'S eyes was when? After leading his Cardinals through the NFC playoffs and right into the Superbowl where he kept on rolling. NO one would have said anything good about that team before the playoffs, but see what happens when impact players at impact positions perform and Fitz nearly took the top off every defense single handed.

Yes you can be great with a bad team, but their is no denying your team success puts you over the edge and if you don't think it does you at least should understand it has to be accounted for. At the end of the day their is only one reason players even step on the field at any position...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=W42iiCcFbxE

This post has been edited by butta55: 05 July 2012 - 03:58 PM

[Thanatos19]

butta55, on 05 July 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Yes, I know Emmitt played alot longer than Barry. My point is you can't use stats as an ultimate factor.

There seems to be a gap in communication seeing as a few people keep thinking I am saying team success is a huge factor or something of the sort. When in reality all I am saying is that is simply IS a factor not implying the strength of the factor. With that being said I believe it weighs heavier on certain positions yes that is true. But overall my point is to look at the whole picture of the player and the WHOLE picture includes team success. You can't say Flacco didn't contribute to the offense...that is impossible as a starting QB. He may not have been a big factor, but he did contribute at one time or another.

Calvin Johnson wasn't a phenom with Detroit and he still isn't. He is the best receiver in the game, and at the time of their 0-16 season he was a top tier receiver, but that doesn't mean his team's success doesn't affect him.

When Fitz really became a true bonafide monster in EVERYONE'S eyes was when? After leading his Cardinals through the NFC playoffs and right into the Superbowl where he kept on rolling. NO one would have said anything good about that team before the playoffs, but see what happens when impact players at impact positions perform and Fitz nearly took the top off every defense single handed.

Yes you can be great with a bad team, but their is no denying your team success puts you over the edge and if you don't think it does you at least should understand it has to be accounted for. At the end of the day their is only one reason players even step on the field at any position...

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=W42iiCcFbxE

The motivation of the player for what he wants to achieve as a team has no bearing on his skills as an individual.

I fail to see how CJ isn't a phenom, especially since you say he's the best WR in the NFL. What the heck is your definition of a phenom, then?

Everyone who followed football and knew what they're talking about knew Fitz was an elite receiver well before his championship run. Simply because the pundits and the casual fan know also recognized he was a great receiver, doesn't help your argument in the slightest. If you're saying that team success helps a player to be perceived as great, that's a no-brainer. But whether or not a player is actually great- team success has zero factor in determining that.

This post has been edited by Thanatos19: 05 July 2012 - 04:42 PM

[butta55]

Everyone didn't know anything. Anyone who could look up stats knew he was a Pro-Bowler and they knew he could be argued to be a top receiver, but if he makes it to the Hall of Fame or if you even ask players now what moment Fitz made their eyes really open to his greatness it will forever be that playoff run.

There is no way around saying the culmination of all this individual talent is not winning. You can't even make sense about it. Especially with no other variables into the debate. To just talk about individual players with no perimeters you have to mention this concept. I don't see how you can't make sense of a team of individual whose sole purpose for even being together is to win. Now you can break it down and look at their stats and skills individually, but if they aren't helping their team win then it just doesn't culminated in the way it was intended to.

[Thanatos19]

butta55, on 05 July 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Everyone didn't know anything. Anyone who could look up stats knew he was a Pro-Bowler and they knew he could be argued to be a top receiver, but if he makes it to the Hall of Fame or if you even ask players now what moment Fitz made their eyes really open to his greatness it will forever be that playoff run.

There is no way around saying the culmination of all this individual talent is not winning. You can't even make sense about it. Especially with no other variables into the debate. To just talk about individual players with no perimeters you have to mention this concept. I don't see how you can't make sense of a team of individual whose sole purpose for even being together is to win. Now you can break it down and look at their stats and skills individually, but if they aren't helping their team win then it just doesn't culminated in the way it was intended to.

It doesn't matter when their eyes were opened to his greatness, that doesn't change the fact that he *was* great before that playoff run. People's perceptions of a player do not matter one whit as far as how great a player actually is.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't culminate in anything, that doesn't take away anything from the individual's skills. It just means the team failed to put together a good enough supporting cast to go places.

This is pointless to debate further. You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion that isn't going to be resolved, that much is obvious.

This post has been edited by Thanatos19: 05 July 2012 - 10:12 PM

[butta55]

-Fitz was not as great as he was before that playoff run. Point blank. He could have all the skill in the world until he used it on the field to do what the team brought him in to do it didn't matter.

-Winning doesn't matter in football according to you. Ok well then...

-I agree this is pointless.

This post has been edited by butta55: 06 July 2012 - 01:57 AM

[dutchff7]

Fitz is the man.

[Eefluxx]

butta55, on 05 July 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

But overall my point is to look at the whole picture of the player and the WHOLE picture includes team success.

I think alot of people would agree that Steven Jackson is a great running back. But it seems according to your thinking noone should since he has never played on a winning team and has had no team sucess to put him over the top.

I disagree.

[Thanatos19]

butta55, on 06 July 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

-Fitz was not as great as he was before that playoff run. Point blank. He could have all the skill in the world until he used it on the field to do what the team brought him in to do it didn't matter.

-Winning doesn't matter in football according to you. Ok well then...

-I agree this is pointless.

Don't twist my words.

This is a really simple concept and you continually twist my words. It's getting rather irritating.

You're wrong, point blank. Anyone who knew what they were talking about knew that Fitz was great *before* the playoff run. Your logic is dumb. So because he hadn't done it in the playoffs it meant he wasn't great. Lol. Sure bud. So Calvin Johnson isn't yet great because he hasn't made a playoff run. Smh.

Secondly, and this is where you continually twist my words: Winning doesn't matter as far as how good an individual is. Of course it matters as to how good a team is, but that's not what we're talking about, and you keep confusing one for the other. One individual cannot carry an entire team to victory time and again.

[monstersofthemidway]

butta55, on 06 July 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

-Fitz was not as great as he was before that playoff run. Point blank. He could have all the skill in the world until he used it on the field to do what the team brought him in to do it didn't matter.

-Winning doesn't matter in football according to you. Ok well then...

-I agree this is pointless.

Umm yes he was don't be moronic. In his second season he had 100 receptions and ten Touchdowns. Ever since he gotten into this league he has played with shit Qbs and he still manages even after 7 or 8 seasons to put up stats that are better than other receivers who have a good or great QB.... It's the same situation with Steven Jackson great franchise players surrounded by a poor supporting cast due to crappy management, It was the same way with Archie Manning. Would you rather have Dan Marino qb your team, even though he has no rings or Trent Dilfer because he has one?

[butta55]

Once again I never said a player can't be great because he didn't play on a winning team. No where in any post did I say that. Funny how you quote the part when I said look at the whole picture and you choose to still focus on the part about team success when I merely said that it has to be accounted for.

Everyone who sits here and call this logic "moronic" has no football sense whatsoever. Fans get caught up in the numbers and less about the skill and more about the player and less about the game. Looking at individuals with no perimeters becomes exactly what this is a free for all of opinionated logic. You can easily say Barry Sanders had better skill even though his career numbers will never be up their with Emmitt Smith. Just as easily as someone can argue the whole Dan Marino not having rings against a QB like Steve Young who had the wins and not as much skill. Unless you set what you are looking at then any argument can be thrown in there.

My point is simple and if you or anyone else can't understand it that I don't care anymore. The point is you can't talk about or evaluate FOOTBALL PLAYERS and take them outside of the game of FOOTBALL. Saying oh I will just look at their individual performance but not in a team concept is dumb. FOOTBALL IS A TEAM CONCEPT KIDS. You can't remove a player from the game no matter how you slice it an individual's success will feed into a team's success. As a team accomplish its goals individual pieces are accomplishing their goals. Now if you said we are looking at a QB based on Arm Strength, Accuracy, Pocket Presence...etc or you said we will look based on statistical averages over these mean years or accumulated stats the past season. THOSE set up a arena for a solid debate. When you just toss out a statement saying oh well you can't factor in a team's success when evaluating a player that is false and makes no sense because again that is the reason they are playing. And by saying what the team does shouldn't matter you ARE in fact saying winning doesn't matter in FOOTBALL when talking about FOOTBALL players there is no way in getting around this is a FOOTBALL discussion.

To the point of Steven Jackson and Fitz...I already said that Jackson statement was false because I never said he wouldn't be great and my logic never suggested that. And to Fitz you can disagree, but their is no changing the fact that it is true. Everyone can sit here and say "Oh that just adds to his legacy" THAT is a moronic statement. His "Legacy" IS WHAT HE DOES ON THE FIELD. Everyone keeps arguing he was great before and I NEVER SAID HE WASN'T.....I said he wasn't AS GREAT as he is now and that is point blank true. Jordan (or his legacy for you simple-minded people) isn't as great without leading my Bulls to six rings the way he did it. The Trio in Dallas isn't as great of players as they were without finishing the goal and winning Superbowl rings. Even Jim Kelly and the Bills....you telling me if they won those four Superbowls they are at the same level of greatness??? And Reed would still not be in the Hall of Fame?? Now when people think of the "GREAT" Fitz you are telling me one of the first things they won't talk about is his domination in the playoffs to lead his team to the Championship game? Guys a player's Legacy, Skill, Success, and all that goes hand and hand with what they do on the field simple as that.

[Thanatos19]

If a player can be great even if he's on a losing team, then that negates your entire point.

Also, you are confusing people's perception of a player as being great, with whether or not a player actually is great.

I'll put it as plain and simple as I can: just because someone THINKS a player is great, does not MAKE them great. Fitz was great well before the playoff run. A lot of people took note of him that hadn't before during his playoff run, but it did not make him a better player merely because it was in the playoffs.

This post has been edited by Thanatos19: 06 July 2012 - 10:30 PM

[dutchff7]

butta55, on 05 July 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

When Fitz really became a true bonafide monster in EVERYONE'S eyes was when? After leading his Cardinals through the NFC playoffs and right into the Superbowl where he kept on rolling. NO one would have said anything good about that team before the playoffs, but see what happens when impact players at impact positions perform and Fitz nearly took the top off every defense single handed.

Fitz was widely known to be a beast well before that NFCCG.