Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
That's why I said you'd need to remove the post-season accolades to make the analogy work - Kareem has an outstanding post-season record. 6 rings and 2 (arguably 3?) Finals MVPs is more than "pretty damn good". People were trying to note that Kelce has a ring and a ton of post-season success around that Lombardi - TG has effectively NONE. I'm removing that from the calculus.
And again, while I disagree with you w/r/t Malone not being a top 10-15 player (I think his resume speaks for itself), I offered Kareem as an alternative for that very reason.
Because anyone who DOESN'T believe Abdul-Jabbar is a top 5 all time player probably needs to brush up on their history a bit. That dude was out there snatching souls in Milwaukee. And while most people remember him for his time in LA, those 5 years he spent with the Bucks were some of the most dominant years of all time as well.
So again - if you want to simply remove all discussion of the postseasons successes of TG/TK and focus on peak vs. duration, Abdul-Jabbar vs. Jordan really shouldn't be the kind of comparison that offends anyone.
Kareem detonated seemingly every meaningful counting stat there was to detonate but he didn't do it by having a sustained high peak - he did it by playing for 20 mostly healthy seasons. Jordan, OTOH, at his peak was simply better than anyone that had done it before or since.
|
Fair enough but Wilt had an even higher peak IMO. Kareem's peak in Milwaukee was also no worse than Jordan's.
Kelce's peak is probably higher than that of Gonzalez, but not by much. Gonzalez was also putting up numbers no other TE had previously. We have to consider the eras and the difference in QBs. Gonzalez was mugged frequently without any penalties called. Defensive holding and PI are called tighter today than 20 years ago. Also, modern tacklers can't lead with their helmet. That would make Gonzalez even more challenging to tackle. With his size and the current rules, Gonzalez has better numbers in today's league than 20 years ago, even considering his lack of speed.
I have no problem with someone saying Kelce is better, but I don't see large gap or a huge difference in their peaks. The biggest difference I see is team accomplishments. I think that skews perspectives greatly. Also, many posters can't overlook Tony's personality when comparing the two. Kelce is more beloved for a reason being a nice dude who helped us win a Super Bowl. Understandable.