What defines “Greatness”?

[infrared41]

40 minutes ago, dont care said:

I’m sorry but unless they win as many championships, and surpasses every meaningful stat no one is surpassing Brady as the GOAT. I’m not even saying to make the super bowl 11 times because no one is going to have a team that consistent that long in the salary cap era, unless another Belichick clone is coaching his team.

 

Talk to me in 20 years.

[throwuascenario]

12 hours ago, Sport said:

 

 

 

An (incredibly) obvious reason: for teams who don't qualify for the playoffs the regular season is the only performance we have with which to judge them.

 

You could still make the argument some regular season games are inherently more important than others. Divisional matchups, for instance.

 

And to clarify the difference in my eyes between the 2007 Patriots and the 2019 Lightning:

The Lightning had the most regular season wins of all time.

The Patriots were tied for the most total wins of all time. 

Huge difference.

[dont care]

6 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

You could still make the argument some regular season games are inherently more important than others. Divisional matchups, for instance.

 

And to clarify the difference in my eyes between the 2007 Patriots and the 2019 Lightning:

The Lightning had the most regular season wins of all time.

The Patriots were tied for the most total wins of all time. 

Huge difference.

And they both lost when it mattered

[Sport]

9 hours ago, throwuascenario said:

You could still make the argument some regular season games are inherently more important than others. Divisional matchups, for instance.

 

Nobody's arguing that. Ask why are divisional matchups, for instance, more important than a cross conference game? Because of what the divisional games mean for the playoffs. 

 

Now take that logic where you agree that some regular season game are inherently more important than others and apply it to the postseason. Now you're getting it. 

 

Quote

And to clarify the difference in my eyes between the 2007 Patriots and the 2019 Lightning:

The Lightning had the most regular season wins of all time.

The Patriots were tied for the most total wins of all time. 

Huge difference.

 

Neither won when it was most important. They were both good teams who didn't finish the job so they'll never be counted among the greatest. 

[throwuascenario]

9 hours ago, dont care said:

And they both lost when it mattered

 

So let me make sure I understand your logic. The Super Bowl is the most important game of the season. The importance of the game is the only factor in determining greatness. Therefore, the Super Bowl loser is unquestionably the worst team in the league each year right? I mean, the Chiefs lost such an important game! The Jaguars didn't lose any important games, so they were better?

 

6 hours ago, Sport said:

 

Nobody's arguing that. Ask why are divisional matchups, for instance, more important than a cross conference game? Because of what the divisional games mean for the playoffs. 

 

Now take that logic where you agree that some regular season game are inherently more important than others and apply it to the postseason. Now you're getting it. 

 

 

Neither won when it was most important. They were both good teams who didn't finish the job so they'll never be counted among the greatest. 

 

I don't think divisional matchups are more important. I'm saying by the same logic, you could apply that to regular season games. Yet no one considers "importance" of games when determining the worst team in the league. It's just inconsistent.

[BBTV]

You really are a terrible arguer and it’s really difficult to have a conversation with you when you take every point to the extreme and seem hell bent on finding holes to poke whether they exist or not.  
 

[officeglenn]

22 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

So let me make sure I understand your logic. The Super Bowl is the most important game of the season. The importance of the game is the only factor in determining greatness. Therefore, the Super Bowl loser is unquestionably the worst team in the league each year right? I mean, the Chiefs lost such an important game! The Jaguars didn't lose any important games, so they were better?

 

Nice straw man you've got there. Of course no one is saying the Super Bowl loser is the worst team in the league each year! No one has ever said that ever, either here in this thread or anywhere else. Way to willfully misinterpret other people's points. 

 

Putting my mod hat on here: That kind of willful misinterpretation of other's points is pretty blatant trolling. Continued such behaviour and/or combative tone in your or others' posts will result in suspensions.

[See Red]

34 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't think divisional matchups are more important. I'm saying by the same logic, you could apply that to regular season games. Yet no one considers "importance" of games when determining the worst team in the league. It's just inconsistent.

 

 

If a team is bad enough to be considered the worst team in the league, what important games are they playing?

[throwuascenario]

3 hours ago, officeglenn said:

 

Nice straw man you've got there. Of course no one is saying the Super Bowl loser is the worst team in the league each year! No one has ever said that ever, either here in this thread or anywhere else. Way to willfully misinterpret other people's points. 

 

Putting my mod hat on here: That kind of willful misinterpretation of other's points is pretty blatant trolling. Continued such behaviour and/or combative tone in your or others' posts will result in suspensions.

I don't know what a mod hat is. Anyways, if winning the the most important game catapults you to being the best, it seems to reason that losing the most important game would catapult you to being the worst. Didn't mean to sound combative though.

[dont care]

9 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod hat is. Anyways, if winning the the most important game catapults you to being the best, it seems to reason that losing the most important game would catapult you to being the worst. Didn't mean to sound combative though.

That isn’t what it means at all, it just means you didn’t perform well enough to win when it mattered most. You can have the greatest team to ever step on a field/court/ice but if they cant finish it it doesn’t matter in the end. In American sports you never see teams winning regular season championships because at the end of the day regular season is just to make the playoffs and get the best seed possible. It’s the playoffs that matter most because the end goal is the championship in any sport.

[See Red]

17 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod hat is. Anyways, if winning the the most important game catapults you to being the best, it seems to reason that losing the most important game would catapult you to being the worst. Didn't mean to sound combative though.

 

Except it doesn't.  The Chiefs won plenty of important games -- namely the playoff games to get to the Super Bowl.  The question everybody else is trying to answer is what defines GREATNESS, not what defines good.  The Chiefs were very good but they didn't win their most significant game, so how can they be great?  The Lightning were a very good team but folded the first time they met a shred of adversity.  How can they be great?

[IceCap]

On 3/22/2021 at 1:53 PM, Kramerica Industries said:

it would be acknowledging regular season accomplishments more.

I disagree. The NHL President's Trophy has become a meme at this point. 

 

Using your Lightning as an example...which team was better? The team that tied a regular season record and proceeded to complete one of the most epic failures in pro sports history or the team that maybe wasn't as regular season dominant but still won the Stanley Cup? To me the latter is far more impressive. Well I suppose the former is impressive in a "reverse greatness" way.  

 

Point is that the regular season is both important and also...paradoxically...not. It separates the good and bad teams for playoff purposes, but we really need to stop fetishizing nonsense regular season accomplishments. 

The Lightning's 2019 President's Trophy (and the Preds' a year earlier) is an embarrassment more than an accomplishment, just like the Preds' "Regular Season Conference Champions" banner and the Sharks' "Playoff Participant" banner. 

 

You want to be remembered as a great team? Go on a deep playoff run. Want to be remembered as a really great team? Win a championship. 

[BBTV]

21 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod hat is. Anyways, if winning the the most important game catapults you to being the best, it seems to reason that losing the most important game would catapult you to being the worst. Didn't mean to sound combative though.

 

If we had a "thumbs down" button, I wouldn't feel compelled to write a post stating that this is possibly the worst interpretation of someone else's words I've ever read.

 

I don't think this individual is a "troll", just simply incapable of engaging in discussion with others.  There's no way any reasonable person would think that anyone is insinuating that the Super Bowl loser is the worst team for that season.  It simply doesn't make any sense that anyone would be suggesting that.

 

 

[IceCap]

24 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod hat is.

That's when a mod is talking to you as a mod, and not as an other poster in the conversation. 

 

I'm also a mod, and I'm putting my mod hat to tell you to listen to @officeglenn or be prepared to take a time out. 

[throwuascenario]

2 hours ago, IceCap said:

That's when a mod is talking to you as a mod, and not as an other poster in the conversation. 

 

I'm also a mod, and I'm putting my mod hat to tell you to listen to @officeglenn or be prepared to take a time out. 

I don't know what a mod is either, even sans the hat.

 

3 hours ago, BBTV said:

 

If we had a "thumbs down" button, I wouldn't feel compelled to write a post stating that this is possibly the worst interpretation of someone else's words I've ever read.

 

I don't think this individual is a "troll", just simply incapable of engaging in discussion with others.  There's no way any reasonable person would think that anyone is insinuating that the Super Bowl loser is the worst team for that season.  It simply doesn't make any sense that anyone would be suggesting that.

 

 

I know that's not what they're saying. I want to know their opinion of how it differs from what they did say to more thoroughly understand what they're saying.

[IceCap]

1 minute ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod is either, even sans the hat.

A moderator. I'll let you figure out the rest. 

[Indigo]

Dude, have you ever had an argument in a discussion board before? You're taking every point way too literally, and you have no idea what a mod is and what they do. Is there a "how-to" guideline thing on these boards that we can direct @throwuascenario to, mods?

[BBTV]

1 minute ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod is either, even sans the hat.

 

I know that's not what they're saying. I want to know their opinion of how it differs from what they did say to more thoroughly understand what they're saying.

 

I think you mentioned in another thread that you're very young, so I'll simply leave it with this - if you know that's not what they're saying, then why are you twisting what they're saying into something that it's not?  It's just not a way to have a productive discussion, and why two threads that you've been in have gone completely off the rails.  There's no way to have a discussion that includes any amount of disagreement if one person in said discussion constantly behaves like this, because it makes it so that each stage of the debate becomes an argument over something that's now more and more degrees away from the original topic.

 

"Mod" = "Moderator".  The people that try to ensure topics don't go off the rail.  All message boards have them to keep things on track.

 

[dont care]

7 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod is either, even sans the hat.

 

I know that's not what they're saying. I want to know their opinion of how it differs from what they did say to more thoroughly understand what they're saying.

If you think a team making it to its championship game and losing means they have to be the worst I don’t know how to argue with you. There is absolutely no logic in that statement in any way. We are all dumber for reading that.

[officeglenn]

1 minute ago, throwuascenario said:

I don't know what a mod is either, even sans the hat.

 

"Mod" meaning moderator -- a member of the team tasked to make sure the board's Code of Conduct is being followed, and to discipline those who do not follow it.

 

4 minutes ago, throwuascenario said:

I know that's not what they're saying. I want to know their opinion of how it differs from what they did say to more thoroughly understand what they're saying.

 

Then maybe ask that question directly, rather than making some wild exaggeration that you know is untrue and unfaithful to the other person's point to try and draw that out.

 

You know what, we're done here. People's points have been twisted up so badly that I'm getting dizzy. There's no productive discussion left to be had.