Least Original Contrarian Takes

[Red Comet]

Okay, what do you call it when that not great quarterback takes a sad sack franchise that hasn’t made the playoffs since before the Great Recession and wins a title with them?

[IceCap]

[BBTV]

and not even all of them!  

 

 

[gosioux76]

14 hours ago, ManillaToad said:

 

Sounds better than being a fan of one of the dozens of clubs in European soccer leagues that have never and will never sniff a championship. I'm not going to pretend I know a lot about the ins and outs of how soccer works but the pro-rel system seems to do a lot worse for parity than the closed league system in the NA.

 

You're comparing apples and oranges. You don't have parity in European leagues because there is no limit on spending, so the giants of the game can shill out ungodly amounts of money on superstars that smaller clubs can't afford. MLS is a single-entity with far more strict spending regulations. There are still haves and have-nots in the league, but the relative parity has nothing to do with it not having a pro-rel system, or vice versa in Europe. 

 

So if you're a fan of a lower-league English club, it might be the longest of long shots to win a top-flight championship, but at least fans in a small community can get a taste of that competition. And a s fan, there's a reason to stay engaged whether your team is at the top of the table fighting for promotion or the bottom staving off relegation. Can you say the same for the 17-win Houston Rockets last year? Or the Baltimore Orioles of the past 20 years? Or the Detroit Lions? 

[Sport]

6 hours ago, IceCap said:

 

1 hour ago, BBTV said:

and not even all of them!  

 

 

 

It was a debate for a while and there were still some clingers after they beat the Seahawks, but he put the discussion to bed for good after the comeback against the Falcons. You can't deny him. Then he won two more after that including with the franchise with the worst historical winning percentage of any active NFL franchise and was last in the playoffs in 2007. You can try to argue against him, but you're just going to look cranky and silly. 

[DG_ThenNowForever]

3 minutes ago, Sport said:

 

 

It was a debate for a while and there were still some clingers after they beat the Seahawks, but he put the discussion to bed for good after the comeback against the Falcons. You can't deny him. Then he won two more after that including with the franchise with the worst historical winning percentage of any active NFL franchise and was last in the playoffs in 2007. You can try to argue against him, but you're just going to look cranky and silly. 

 

He's kind of like the reverse LeBron. Most of the competition and big-game coin flips went his way, and now he's 7-2 in the Super Bowl.

 

LeBron has had terrible teammate and competition luck in the Finals -- he really only lost one title he was favored to win, compared to two for Brady -- and he's 4-6 in the Finals.

 

I think they're both equally good in their respective sports and some people have had a real difficult time accepting their 80s heroes with perfect championshop records -- Jordan and Montana -- have been supplanted.

 

Have a couple of those Finals matchups break LeBron's way (San Antonio in 2007, Durant staying in OKC), and we're have some really different conversations about the guy.

[DEAD!]

11 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

He's kind of like the reverse LeBron. Most of the competition and big-game coin flips went his way, and now he's 7-2 in the Super Bowl.

 

 

Brady is actually 7-3 in the Super Bowl...

[DG_ThenNowForever]

Just now, DEAD! said:

Brady is actually 7-3 in the Super Bowl...

 

Oh, right! How could I forget the Eagles! Some guy on here should talk about that title more.

[BBTV]

19 minutes ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

Oh, right! How could I forget the Eagles! Some guy on here should talk about that title more.

I think you mean the Super Bowl LII Champion Philadelphia Eagles.  
 

the only reason he joined Tampa was because he knows he can’t beat the NFC East in the SB, so now his path is cleared for the foreseeable future (not that an NFCE team will be in the bowl any time soon). 

[dont care]

15 hours ago, DnBronc said:

 

A team, not a QB.

He was able to do it with 3 completely different teams, god you sound rediculous.

[sportsfan7]

On 8/30/2021 at 1:39 PM, OnWis97 said:

In terms of the fitness of hockey/basketball arenas, you're probably right that the gap is smaller vs. stadiums. I'd still argue that it would have been very difficult to construct that Milwaukee arena if the threat of relegation would have loomed. I know we're splitting hairs since we both agree there are too many roadblocks, but I still think the arena construction would get in the way.

For about 10 years post-Recession KCMO had two arenas of over 15,000 seats, Kemper Arena and Sprint Center, even though neither of them had a stable, full-time resident. I'm not saying this is something other cities should seek to emulate, but large arenas seem to be a better investment than a baseball stadium or football/soccer stadium.

[OnWis97]

I was dragged kicking and screaming on Brady.  It wasn't when they beat Seattle that did it...in fact, I thought that was a good example of how random this could be (i.e., if they run Lynch he's 4-3 instead of 5-2 at that point). It wasn't even Atlanta. It was Tampa.

Look, he's been blessed to be in great systems and he was really smart to choose Tampa when he did. But he's made the most of the opportunities. What if some crap franchise (like the one that I cheer for) had drafted him? We'll never know.  We know what he did and it's futile to deny he's the GOAT.

 

5 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

He's kind of like the reverse LeBron. Most of the competition and big-game coin flips went his way, and now he's 7-2 in the Super Bowl.

 

LeBron has had terrible teammate and competition luck in the Finals -- he really only lost one title he was favored to win, compared to two for Brady -- and he's 4-6 in the Finals.

 

I think they're both equally good in their respective sports and some people have had a real difficult time accepting their 80s heroes with perfect championshop records -- Jordan and Montana -- have been supplanted.

 

Have a couple of those Finals matchups break LeBron's way (San Antonio in 2007, Durant staying in OKC), and we're have some really different conversations about the guy.

 

It's funny because the 4-6 record is different from Brady's 7-2 record for random reasons. And I don't support ring-counting.  But I still can't put LeBron ahead of Jordan. Not because of the "6" and the "0" in the loss column (I'll go to my grave believing that 4-6 is way better than 4-0) but because I don't think there was ever a time when Jordan didn't rise to the occasion or that he didn't want the ball.  Are you calling him the GOAT?  Interesting. I doubt most consider him top-10; pretty much everyone considers Brady top-1. And you're right that this is a few quirks from being different.

There are many, many "unoriginal contrarian takes" on LeBron (mine in the bold):

• He's the GOAT
• He's just under Jordan
• He's behind Kobe and Jordan (and therefore fringe top-10)
• He's a Hall-of-Famer; nothing more.

Takes on LeBron run the gamut, probably because feelings about him run the gamut. Everyone liked Jordan. Everyone liked Kobe. But the short time between Kobe and LeBron's entries into the league saw a lot of change and it enabled LeBron to have a different kind of hype when he came in...whereas Kobe was still seen as a bit of a risk as an 18-year-old swingman (seriously, imagine him being picked at #14 several years later). LeBron has taken a lot of heat for that hype (and, in fairness, his embrace of it). And, unlike the other two, he's let his socio/political thoughts be known.

I'm no LeBron hater. In fact, I like him better than the two he's compared to (Jordan and Kobe) and I've cheered for him to win in every finals he's been in (partly as a contrarian to his haters). But he's #3 in group if you ask me. He was every bit as much of superstar in most ways, but he's unquestionably the last of the three who I'd want taking the last shot. Kobe is #2 and he's closer to #1 than to #3. And I say this thinking that certain circumstances were unfair to him in comparison (Cleveland, GSW changing the game, etc.).

 

(Probably should not have said so much as a casual NBA fan responding to a hard-core NBA fan; LOL)

[OnWis97]

11 minutes ago, sportsfan7 said:

For about 10 years post-Recession KCMO had two arenas of over 15,000 seats, Kemper Arena and Sprint Center, even though neither of them had a stable, full-time resident. I'm not saying this is something other cities should seek to emulate, but large arenas seem to be a better investment than a baseball stadium or football/soccer stadium.

That used to be more common. Metropolitan Stadium in Minnesota was built without a team. That might be true of Milwaukee County Stadium. It's definitely true of the Tropicana Dome (or whatever in St. Pete). I still can't believe that last one turned out successfully.

But the cost of these things is so outlandish now (along with thinly stretched municipal budgets), I don't see it happening on speculation and hope any more.

[SFGiants58]

15 minutes ago, sportsfan7 said:

For about 10 years post-Recession KCMO had two arenas of over 15,000 seats, Kemper Arena and Sprint Center, even though neither of them had a stable, full-time resident. I'm not saying this is something other cities should seek to emulate, but large arenas seem to be a better investment than a baseball stadium or football/soccer stadium.

 

Honestly, not having an anchor tenant has given the KCMO arenas a bit of an advantage when it comes to booking concerts, conventions, and the like.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

42 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

There are many, many "unoriginal contrarian takes" on LeBron (mine in the bold):

• He's the GOAT
• He's just under Jordan
• He's behind Kobe and Jordan (and therefore fringe top-10)
• He's a Hall-of-Famer; nothing more.

Takes on LeBron run the gamut, probably because feelings about him run the gamut. Everyone liked Jordan. Everyone liked Kobe. But the short time between Kobe and LeBron's entries into the league saw a lot of change and it enabled LeBron to have a different kind of hype when he came in...whereas Kobe was still seen as a bit of a risk as an 18-year-old swingman (seriously, imagine him being picked at #14 several years later). LeBron has taken a lot of heat for that hype (and, in fairness, his embrace of it). And, unlike the other two, he's let his socio/political thoughts be known.

I'm no LeBron hater. In fact, I like him better than the two he's compared to (Jordan and Kobe) and I've cheered for him to win in every finals he's been in (partly as a contrarian to his haters). But he's #3 in group if you ask me. He was every bit as much of superstar in most ways, but he's unquestionably the last of the three who I'd want taking the last shot. Kobe is #2 and he's closer to #1 than to #3. And I say this thinking that certain circumstances were unfair to him in comparison (Cleveland, GSW changing the game, etc.).

 

LeBron behind Kobe and Jordan is definitely a hot take! Generally you hear about LeBron as a #2 to Jordan's #1, or sometimes more charitably, #1B to Jordan's #1A.

 

I'm not really sure where we are on the original thread purpose at this point, but one hot take I have is Kobe's reputation was aided immensely by his tragic death. I put Kobe as a solid top 10 guy, but had a tough time putting him ahead of Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Kareem, Russell, and, to a lesser extent, Bird and Duncan. But still among the greatest of all time. (And really, at that point, you're splitting hairs).

 

But with Kobe's death and semi-martyrdom after the fact, his rape allegations, his ball-hogging reputation, and his unremarkable final 3 or 4 seasons all disappeared. Instead of being someone who destroyed the confidence of guys like D-Lo and all of the other post-title losers he played with, Kobe gained a reputation as a shaman of the next round of NBA superstars. Which does indeed seem to be true! But kinder, gentler Kobe is a trip compared to how he was portrayed through the built of his career.

[Red Comet]

2 hours ago, sportsfan7 said:

For about 10 years post-Recession KCMO had two arenas of over 15,000 seats, Kemper Arena and Sprint Center, even though neither of them had a stable, full-time resident. I'm not saying this is something other cities should seek to emulate, but large arenas seem to be a better investment than a baseball stadium or football/soccer stadium.

As a resident of Kansas City, Missouri, I would recommend that other cities not replicate anything we’re doing unless they want to be deep in debt with nothing to show for it. As for Kemper, that was renovated into what is effectively 2 8,000 seat arenas for indoor sports for children and it’s now called Hy-Vee Arena which is the Midwest’s version of Kroger’s.

[DEAD!]

3 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

 

LeBron behind Kobe and Jordan is definitely a hot take! Generally you hear about LeBron as a #2 to Jordan's #1, or sometimes more charitably, #1B to Jordan's #1A.

 

I'm not really sure where we are on the original thread purpose at this point, but one hot take I have is Kobe's reputation was aided immensely by his tragic death. I put Kobe as a solid top 10 guy, but had a tough time putting him ahead of Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Kareem, Russell, and, to a lesser extent, Bird and Duncan. But still among the greatest of all time. (And really, at that point, you're splitting hairs).

 

But with Kobe's death and semi-martyrdom after the fact, his rape allegations, his ball-hogging reputation, and his unremarkable final 3 or 4 seasons all disappeared. Instead of being someone who destroyed the confidence of guys like D-Lo and all of the other post-title losers he played with, Kobe gained a reputation as a shaman of the next round of NBA superstars. Which does indeed seem to be true! But kinder, gentler Kobe is a trip compared to how he was portrayed through the built of his career.

I don't why, but I never had Kobe Bryant held to such a high regard as maybe I should. He played 20 years, but it almost felt like his career and his teams succeess seemed up and down. Compared  that to a Tim Duncan who also won 5 titles,  but did not miss the playoffs... ever. 

 

[BBTV]

4 hours ago, OnWis97 said:

It's funny because the 4-6 record is different from Brady's 7-2 record for random reasons.

 

7-3

[Crabcake]

On 8/30/2021 at 7:50 PM, Red Comet said:

Decided to do some research and the answer for why Europe has pro/rel and the US doesn’t is that amateur baseball leagues in the US went out of existence in favor of professional leagues back in the late 1860s and then the professional leagues folded under the weight of having hundreds of teams. What came afterwards in the US elected to have a strict franchise system to avoid that issue again.

 

In the UK in particular, the amateur soccer leagues when faced with the onset of professionalism saw the writing on the wall and embraced it around the 20th century. Then, faced with still having hundreds of teams, decided on having elections where the worst teams would be sent down to a lower league and the best teams were promoted. Obviously this became a lot more organized later.

 

So, if you want pro/rel in America, you’re going to need a time machine. 

Apologies on how late this is, but just wanted to acknowledge this post.  Every time I do this thought experiment of "should the US do pro/rel?", it inevitably leads to the next question, which is, "why doesn't the US do pro/rel?", and every time I ask that question, I arrive at the bolded statement.  

 

Sometimes a Thing is the way it is because someone a long time ago decided that the Thing would be what it is.

[SFGiants58]

4 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

I'm not really sure where we are on the original thread purpose at this point, but one hot take I have is Kobe's reputation was aided immensely by his tragic death. I put Kobe as a solid top 10 guy, but had a tough time putting him ahead of Jordan, LeBron, Magic, Kareem, Russell, and, to a lesser extent, Bird and Duncan. But still among the greatest of all time. (And really, at that point, you're splitting hairs).

 

Indeed. At some point, it is just splitting hairs over "greatest of all time."

 

4 hours ago, DG_ThenNowForever said:

But with Kobe's death and semi-martyrdom after the fact, his rape allegations, his ball-hogging reputation, and his unremarkable final 3 or 4 seasons all disappeared. Instead of being someone who destroyed the confidence of guys like D-Lo and all of the other post-title losers he played with, Kobe gained a reputation as a shaman of the next round of NBA superstars. Which does indeed seem to be true! But kinder, gentler Kobe is a trip compared to how he was portrayed through the built of his career.

 

That reminds me, I've got Three Ring Circus by Jeff Pearlman on my reading list. Has anybody else here gotten a chance to read it yet?