40 Year NFL Cap 3rd Place : Mebert vs UK

[Nosferatu]

That's a great comeback.... Let me say this about Belicheat.. how many Super Bowls did he win before Brady came along...it's kind of like Nos' Emmitt Smith or Bill Russell hate... At some point, when a team whips every other teams ass for several titles, you have to give the teams best player credit

First off I have never said I hated Emmitt or Russell or Brady for that matter. I just speak the truth my brutha. Emmitt was a great back no question but he struggles to make top 10 all time. Listing him between 8 - 12 is something I would never argue.

Bill Russell was Dennis Rodman before there was Dennis Rodman... So if Russell is suppose to be one of the best of all time so is Rodman.

Brady is a very good QB and if you wanna say he's a winner, that's fine, he's got 4 rings I won't argue that but Marino was a better "QB" and it's not really something that should ever be talked about.

 

[UK Cowboy]

I thought the mistake the Dolphins made was never putting together a great defense. If you have a great QB, he's gonna put up points...make a stop now and then

 

[Nosferatu]

I thought the mistake the Dolphins made was never putting together a great defense. If you have a great QB, he's gonna put up points...make a stop now and then

Agreed, some of the draft picks were terrible under Shula. I was serious when I said Abdul-Jabbar was the best back he ever had. His first 5 or 6 years with the Dolphins they had a different leading rusher every year, you could be the greatest QB who ever lived and no defense and no running game = no Championships.

 

[UK Cowboy]

First off I have never said I hated Emmitt or Russell or Brady for that matter. I just speak the truth my brutha. Emmitt was a great back no question but he struggles to make top 10 all time. Listing him between 8 - 12 is something I would never argue.

Bill Russell was Dennis Rodman before there was Dennis Rodman... So if Russell is suppose to be one of the best of all time so is Rodman.

Brady is a very good QB and if you wanna say he's a winner, that's fine, he's got 4 rings I won't argue that but Marino was a better "QB" and it's not really something that should ever be talked about.

The Emmitt argument is one that , as a Cowboys fan, I'm always gonna come down on his side. To me, the thing that puts him on equal footing to some more talented guys is his toughness and heart. There was no 3rd down back in Dallas...3rd and 1, 4th and 1, 10 man front, he's taking the rock...
The. 90's Cowboys were one of the 4-5 best teams I've seen, but when Enmity held out for 2 games...0-2. He comes back, roll to SB....

 

[mr.hockey4242]

First off I have never said I hated Emmitt or Russell or Brady for that matter. I just speak the truth my brutha. Emmitt was a great back no question but he struggles to make top 10 all time. Listing him between 8 - 12 is something I would never argue.

Bill Russell was Dennis Rodman before there was Dennis Rodman... So if Russell is suppose to be one of the best of all time so is Rodman.

Brady is a very good QB and if you wanna say he's a winner, that's fine, he's got 4 rings I won't argue that but Marino was a better "QB" and it's not really something that should ever be talked about.

Well yeah, because you don't like talking about Bradys far superior stats

 

[Shanemansj13]

He played in ZERO playoff games for the Patriots, it seems like you are trying to argue my point here. Has Brady won every playoff game he's ever been in or something?

Shula? He's the reason the Dolphins never put the right pieces around Marino.

It is what it is. Brady was a winner it doesnt mean he is better than Marino but valued more. We dont know how good Marino would have been with better players but all we know is what we saw on the field...a top 5 QB of all-time without a doubt

 

[femurov]

First off I have never said I hated Emmitt or Russell or Brady for that matter. I just speak the truth my brutha. Emmitt was a great back no question but he struggles to make top 10 all time. Listing him between 8 - 12 is something I would never argue.

Bill Russell was Dennis Rodman before there was Dennis Rodman... So if Russell is suppose to be one of the best of all time so is Rodman.

Brady is a very good QB and if you wanna say he's a winner, that's fine, he's got 4 rings I won't argue that but Marino was a better "QB" and it's not really something that should ever be talked about.

Rodman was one dimensional. Russell wasn't Wilt when it comes to scoring, but he could put up points when he needed to. He also averaged about 5 assists per game. Add that to his dominant D and boards and you have an all time great.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Rodman was one dimensional. Russell wasn't Wilt when it comes to scoring, but he could put up points when he needed to. He also averaged about 5 assists per game. Add that to his dominant D and boards and you have an all time great.

I just think if you put both those players in the league right now they are polar opposites. Wilt doninates bc of his size and Russell would be a poor mans Draymond with less athleticism and probably comes off the bench. Now back then no one can there is no question both were great players but IMO Wilt is much better.

 

[UK Cowboy]

I just think if you put both those players in the league right now they are polar opposites. Wilt doninates bc of his size and Russell would be a poor mans Draymond with less athleticism and probably comes off the bench. Now back then no one can there is no question both were great players but IMO Wilt is much better.

Draymond would be a man on welfare's Bill Russell

 

[Shanemansj13]

Draymond would be a man on welfare's Bill Russell

Idk in today's game it is an asset to be versatile. Draymond can guard pretty much all positions and he can shoot the 3. If you think Russell would dominate the boards like he did back in the day I don't know what to say. Not to mention averaging 15 ppg back then he would struggle to find playing time or maybe he would have 6th man role in todays game. Hard to say bc if he was in this time he is most likely a different kind of player.

As far as Draymond playing back then of course things would be different as well, so it is very hard to compare the two. I just think in todays game Russell would be nothing special, cant say that about everyone in that era, just him lol. It's crazy to think some people actually think he is in the conversation of GOAT.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Idk in today's game it is an asset to be versatile. Draymond can guard pretty much all positions and he can shoot the 3. If you think Russell would dominate the boards like he did back in the day I don't know what to say. Not to mention averaging 15 ppg back then he would struggle to find playing time or maybe he would have 6th man role in todays game. Hard to say bc if he was in this time he is most likely a different kind of player.

As far as Draymond playing back then of course things would be different as well, so it is very hard to compare the two. I just think in todays game Russell would be nothing special, cant say that about everyone in that era, just him lol. It's crazy to think some people actually think he is in the conversation of GOAT.

I think if any of the all time greats from the past were playing today, they would be just as dominant. You have to adjust them fairly IMO. Example...If Wilt, Russell, or the Big O were born in 1990, they would have been in AAU since they were kids, they'd have strength and conditioning programs in HS that were superior to what they had in the Pro's, they'd have legal(and illegal) supplements...in other words, they would be bigger, stronger and faster than they were when they played. They would also be playing in a league where there is no handchecking, riding, forearm in the post, no bumping off screens, no hard fouls...to think their games wouldn't translate is pretty absurd. To me, it's the argument FOR Dan Marino vs todays QB's...To throw for 4500-4800 yards today is commonplace, but it is literally not even the same game it was when Marino played...it's not the same game. If he threw for what he did when receivers could get jammed and rode, bumped, smashed at the point of contact...and when QB's could have their heads taken off on every play...what does he throw for in today's flag football. If we look up in 20 years and the NBA has changed the rules to where the defender has to keep their hands behind their backs the whole time, and some kid averages 51 ppg, that doesn't make him Wilt or MJ in my book, not my a long shot

 

[Shanemansj13]

I think if any of the all time greats from the past were playing today, they would be just as dominant. You have to adjust them fairly IMO. Example...If Wilt, Russell, or the Big O were born in 1990, they would have been in AAU since they were kids, they'd have strength and conditioning programs in HS that were superior to what they had in the Pro's, they'd have legal(and illegal) supplements...in other words, they would be bigger, stronger and faster than they were when they played. They would also be playing in a league where there is no handchecking, riding, forearm in the post, no bumping off screens, no hard fouls...to think their games wouldn't translate is pretty absurd. To me, it's the argument FOR Dan Marino vs todays QB's...To throw for 4500-4800 yards today is commonplace, but it is literally not even the same game it was when Marino played...it's not the same game. If he threw for what he did when receivers could get jammed and rode, bumped, smashed at the point of contact...and when QB's could have their heads taken off on every play...what does he throw for in today's flag football. If we look up in 20 years and the NBA has changed the rules to where the defender has to keep their hands behind their backs the whole time, and some kid averages 51 ppg, that doesn't make him Wilt or MJ in my book, not my a long shot

I agree with everything, you have to adjust your thinking to how the game has changed. But regarding Russell I think he would be a Mutumbo type of player, very good to great defensively, a very good rebounder but not much of a scorer honestly. So while I think he would be a great defender I don't think he would be an all-time great in today's game, a solid player...without a doubt. I think other guys games back in the day would translate better than his IMO

 

[UK Cowboy]

I agree with everything, you have to adjust your thinking to how the game has changed. But regarding Russell I think he would be a Mutumbo type of player, very good to great defensively, a very good rebounder but not much of a scorer honestly. So while I think he would be a great defender I don't think he would be an all-time great in today's game, a solid player...without a doubt. I think other guys games back in the day would translate better than his IMO

It's possible...the thing to me is, by the time you got to the conference finals in his day, there were big men who were all time greats that he went against....and his teams always won...then you go back to his college days...multiple championships

 

[Shanemansj13]

It's possible...the thing to me is, by the time you got to the conference finals in his day, there were big men who were all time greats that he went against....and his teams always won...then you go back to his college days...multiple championships

Yeah even though back then there were on 10-14 games to win it all the amount of talent the Celtics had was unbelievable. Russell was the 4th or 5th scoring option. That being said, when he did face a team that could compete with the Celtics, they lost, to Wilt and the Sixers. And that team still didn't have close to the talent the Celtics did. It's crazy there were on 10 teams back then.