Just like that, we are back. More opinions and more reasons to get your face all scrunched up when you read these. Hope you’re ready.
“Steve Young was a better quarterback than Joe Montana” – Raphael Haynes
Joe Montana will always go down as the one of the greatest quarterbacks in NFL history but when you compare him to his protege Steve Young, Montana is looking up at him.
Yes, Young followed a quarterback that is 4-0 in the Super Bowl but was it Montana or more of his team and coach? Montana inherited one of the greatest coaches in NFL history whereas Young had George Seifert. Montana had legends run his defense in their prime but Young only had Deion Sanders one year in 1994 (the one Super Bowl Young has).
Individually, Young, the two-time MVP had a better passer rating for his career (96.8). In fact, when he retired, he had the best passer rating in the history of the NFL. The 1992 MVP quarterback was more accurate completing nearly 66 percent of his passes in San Francisco and was a better leader than “Joe Cool”. I’m not even going to bring up his other attributes like running the ball or being tougher while taking more hits than Montana.
Many will point to the Super Bowls but what great teams did the Montana’s 49ers have to face to get to the the “Big Dance”? Young had to face the Dallas Cowboys three times and the Green Bay Packers four times in the playoffs, which were all in different years. So if he had a better quarterback rating, better stats, can run the ball, had less talent, a better leader and Seifert, not Bill Walsh as the coach, then yeah it’s Young.
“Wilt Chamberlain is overrated.”- Alex Bab
Yes, I said it. Yes, I know the stats. Yes, I know its blasphemous. It’s also 100% true.
People love to tout stats like Chamberlain’s 50-points per game season. Stats miss context: that season was 1962 which was a statistical anomaly where everyone’s stats jumped, not just his. Not as impressive now, is it?
Chamberlain once led the league in assists. However, he did that simply to prove he could and literally cost his team wins by refusing to shoot as he kept looking for assists.
Basketball is about winning and Chamberlain just didn’t do it enough. He cared about vain stats (like never fouling out of a game, ever, no matter how much it cost his team) and was the ultimate “Me first” player. His statistics routinely dropped in the postseason and he was lackluster in must win games.
For all his talent, he only won two championships and was disliked by teammates and coaches. He look for glowing endorsements by his peers…there aren’t many. He was traded in his prime for pennies on the dollar twice.
Wilt Chamberlain is the glazed donut of NBA greats, sure it looks good at quick glance but ultimately, it’s brief enjoyment followed by disappointment.
“The pass interference challenge worked exactly how it was supposed to.” – Mike Patton
Plenty were championing the NFL’s new pass interference challenge that came around in the 2019 season. After all, it could prevent more tragedy from happening like what transpired in the previous year’s NFC Championship Game between the New Orleans Saints and the Los Angeles Rams right? Well, things didn’t go exactly how fans and teams thought it would go.
Instead of less pass interference penalties being overturned, there were plenty that remained the same depending on the call on the field. Both fans and teams were mad and now we have the pass interference challenge being taken out after one year of use. Plenty will say it was not used correctly but it actually was used exactly how it was supposed to.
Did anyone really think a subjective call was going to provide enough evidence to be turned over? There are several different interpretations of what is or isn’t pass interference and while some would think a pass interference call was clear as day, there will be others that think it won’t be.
Such is life with human opinions and video when they collide and usually when there is no consensus one way or the other, there is no change. So in that sense, it was a waste to even use it because while it didn’t get the desired result many wanted, it did exactly what it was supposed to: challenge a subjective call that was never going to be turned over at all.
“Field Of Dreams is not the best baseball movie.” – Eric Urbanowicz
The movie made $84.4 million at the box office, it was nominated for three academy awards, it was selected for preservation in the United States Film Registry by the Library of Congress and it’s widely regarded as the best baseball movie of all the time. Too bad it really isn’t.
Field of Dreams uses baseball as a background for unifying a father and son with a troubled past. However, while it’s clearly seen, it’s not the main focal point.
It’s not like the movie “Major League” who focuses on the Cleveland Indians trying to win the pennant to spite an owner using them to tank in an attempt to move. It’s not like “Bull Durham” which shows the development of a kid trying to make it to the major leagues while dealing with a lifelong minor league player who is showing tough love.
It certainly isn’t kids who play baseball everyday on a sandlot trying to retrieve one boy’s father’s prized possession from a monstrous sized dog.
Saying that Field of Dreams is the best baseball movie is like saying that an action movie about a guy trying to stop terrorists from blowing up a building on a night that coincidentally on Christmas Eve is a Christmas movie. The focal point matters; it may be a good movie about life, second chances and forgiveness but it’s not the best baseball movie.