General Manager - Which Sport Is The Most Challenging To Turn A Sorry Team Into A Winner

[nujerz84]

A 11-5 team is not a 7th or 8th seed.. More like a 4th seed.

 

[bow to royalty]

Wild Card means your playing on the road for the entire playoffs.

An 10-6 or 11-5 team is gonna be on the road for the divisional playoffs and the AFC/NFC Championship.

Anyway, my point is that a team that barely made the playoffs can win a Super Bowl. That doesn't happen in basketball or baseball.

When's the last time a 7th or 8th seed won a championship in basketball? or even made it to the championship?

So being in a less competitive league makes it harder to put together a wining team?

And don't sleep on wild cards. An injury can take a team down to a wild card team. The Steelers were a wild card team last year (6 seed), and they were legit super bowl contenders.

You're assuming low seeds are sorry because you're not recognizing the league being deep with quality teams. This isn't the NBA where people are calling a whole conference a cake walk for years.

 

[natural born sinners]

This is a tough one... long read alert

*I'll start by saying my initial choice was football due to injuries n how hard it is to keep a team together..then I thought the way the league is set up to favor the offense a team w a good QB always has a chance to be a winner, bc that QB touches the ball on every play of every game he plays...TEAMS KNOW THIS..which is y GMs sell the farm for players like Goff and Wentz...NBA or MLB teams ain't giving up the farm unless is for a "sure thing"...a LeBron or a Bryce Harper.

So IMO is not football.

*NBA was my second choice due to the fact that ONE superstar can literally take over a game at any moment, but you obviously need more than one guy..hero ball at the most can get u a good regular season record, but it ain't gonna work in a 7 game playoff series against a coaching staff dedicated to ONLY stopping that one guy..but still in the NBA your best player can touch the ball on EVERY possesion

* which brings me to BASEBALL....finally (sorry I had to give this thought..good thread)

* my answer is baseball..you not winning a chip w/o an elite pitcher (maybe two) and a shut down bullpen. So if your best player is a pitcher..homeboy pitches then sits on the bench for a couple games (imagine LeBron n Brady sitting out whole playoff games lol)...the bullpen needs a lead or a close game to be relevant..if your best player happens to be a hitter he can easily be taken out Of the game..peeped what just happened to Bryce harper..he only gonna get up 4 or 5 times a game n can be walked n handled.

 

[its....JOHN B]

There are a numerous amount of elite pitchers in the league though, there are numerous amounts of pitchers on the brink of becoming elite and there are always guys in the minors ready to come up and become elite, it's not nearly as difficult to find elite pitching in baseball as it is to find a generational type talent in basketball

 

[its....JOHN B]

This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year

 

[bow to royalty]

This is a tough one... long read alert

*I'll start by saying my initial choice was football due to injuries n how hard it is to keep a team together..then I thought the way the league is set up to favor the offense a team w a good QB always has a chance to be a winner, bc that QB touches the ball on every play of every game he plays...TEAMS KNOW THIS..which is y GMs sell the farm for players like Goff and Wentz...NBA or MLB teams ain't giving up the farm unless is for a "sure thing"...a LeBron or a Bryce Harper.

So IMO is not football.

*NBA was my second choice due to the fact that ONE superstar can literally take over a game at any moment, but you obviously need more than one guy..hero ball at the most can get u a good regular season record, but it ain't gonna work in a 7 game playoff series against a coaching staff dedicated to ONLY stopping that one guy..but still in the NBA your best player can touch the ball on EVERY possesion

* which brings me to BASEBALL....finally (sorry I had to give this thought..good thread)

* my answer is baseball..you not winning a chip w/o an elite pitcher (maybe two) and a shut down bullpen. So if your best player is a pitcher..homeboy pitches then sits on the bench for a couple games (imagine LeBron n Brady sitting out whole playoff games lol)...the bullpen needs a lead or a close game to be relevant..if your best player happens to be a hitter he can easily be taken out Of the game..peeped what just happened to Bryce harper..he only gonna get up 4 or 5 times a game n can be walked n handled.

Teams sell the farm for a chance at QB. Look what the Skins did for RG3 and he didn't even work out. Decent chance at least one of the 2 this year won't work out. And even a top QB isn't helpful without a line to block. And they can't win games without a defense to stop someone. Word to the Saints and Drew Brees. Or Andrew Luck and the Colts. Matt Ryan (not elite but a good QB to have), and the Falcons too.

 

[bow to royalty]

This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year

Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.

Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.

 

[Shizlansky]

This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year

Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.

Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.

LBJ is harder to find that 30 good role players in the NFL

Just look at the playoffs in the NFL. Like 50% of the teams in it ain't in it the next.

 

[its....JOHN B]

This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year

Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.

Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.

I feel like the way you're trying to prove your point is hurting your argument more than helping, there's no denying Bron could take any franchise to the finals but 29 out of 30 teams don't have a chance to get Bron and 26 out of 30 teams start the season with a minuscule chance of winning it all because they don't have that top tier talent, Browns, Eagles and Titans can address weaknesses in different ways and depending on the progress of the two young qb's in Philly and Tennessee and the transition for RG3 to Cleveland any one of those teams could be a sleeper and within the next couple years could be a serious threat to be in the superbowl, it's not out of the realms of reality for that to happen if their coaches can get it done but it is out of the realms for 29 teams to sign/trade for Bron or find him in the draft

 

[natural born sinners]

All good points

 

[bow to royalty]

This should shut down the argument, in the NBA you already knew it would come down to Cleveland, GS, San An or OKC and even OKC could be a considered a long shot but that's 4 teams that you already knew before the season started that had a realistic chance of winning, the rest of the teams are hoping on a miracle or injuries to those teams, in baseball you don't have a clue yea there are teams that are favored but there are a lot more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance and any team that makes the playoffs has a chance, football basically the same thing if you have an elite qb you have a chance if you have an elite defense you have a chance, I could tell you what teams are favored but there's more than 4 teams that have a realistic chance this year

Ya, but as a GM that dude put together one team, and he has a winning combo for who knows how long. In the NFL it's harder than just finding 2 or so players.

Bron could go to most teams in the East and have a solid chance at going to the Finals, or at least conference championship. That's the GM trying to get ONE player, and he has a winning team. Brady can't carry the Titans, Browns, Eagles, etc to the SB. Very possibly not even the playoffs. The supporting cast is too bad. The GM has to do more than get one great player.

I feel like the way you're trying to prove your point is hurting your argument more than helping, there's no denying Bron could take any franchise to the finals but 29 out of 30 teams don't have a chance to get Bron and 26 out of 30 teams start the season with a minuscule chance of winning it all because they don't have that top tier talent, Browns, Eagles and Titans can address weaknesses in different ways and depending on the progress of the two young qb's in Philly and Tennessee and the transition for RG3 to Cleveland any one of those teams could be a sleeper and within the next couple years could be a serious threat to be in the superbowl, it's not out of the realms of reality for that to happen if their coaches can get it done but it is out of the realms for 29 teams to sign/trade for Bron or find him in the draft

Elite basketballs players change teams, and give other squads a chance to win though. NFL QB's rarely change teams unless their career is basically over, something extreme happens (Manning neck surgery), or they're below average. Durant is probably changing teams, Shaq changed teams, Bron changed teams, Ray Allen changed teams, Melo changed teams, Chris Paul changed teams, Kevin Love changed teams, Garnett changed teams...the list goes on forever. So it's not really right to act like other GM's don't have a chance at getting team changing talent in FA. Brady, Big Ben, Rodgers, Wilson...not changing teams. Even non-elite QB's like Eli, Romo, Flacco, Ryan, Stafford, Luck, Dalton...Probably not changing teams. So the struggle to find team changing talent is harder in the NFL I'm my opinion

 

[its....JOHN B]

Did this dude just did this? Elite qb's don't change teams? Really? Most of these teams are an elite qb away from contending for a superbowl, put an elite qb on Philly or Houston and that doesn't change the whole landscape of the organization? So Brady didn't change the Pats? Brees didn't change the Saints, Luck didn't bring a 1-15 team to the playoffs? Cam didn't change the Panthers? I could go on how could you think some dumb shit like that

 

[bow to royalty]

Did this dude just did this? Elite qb's don't change teams? Really? Most of these teams are an elite qb away from contending for a superbowl, put an elite qb on Philly or Houston and that doesn't change the whole landscape of the organization? So Brady didn't change the Pats? Brees didn't change the Saints, Luck didn't bring a 1-15 team to the playoffs? Cam didn't change the Panthers? I could go on how could you think some dumb shit like that

Change like switch, not change like impact. I get the confusion...I used it both ways in my post. Quarterbacks that are difference makers rarely go to another team. Beyond that, QB's that are even just above average rarely switch teams.

 

[its....JOHN B]

Oh, well the amount of difference making qb's compared to superstars in the NBA you can call a wash, but you don't have to have a difference making qb to win, it's not rare to win with a game manager but it's extremely rare to win without a top tier superstar in the NBA

 

[its....JOHN B]

To me it's NBA and no ones going to change my opinion on that, but baseball vs football is a good debate

 

[5 Grand]

To me it's NBA and no ones going to change my opinion on that, but baseball vs football is a good debate

The thing about baseball, an elite pitcher only plays once every 5 games. So having an elite pitcher won't take you to the playoffs, you need two or three elite pitchers.

 

[its....JOHN B]

To me it's NBA and no ones going to change my opinion on that, but baseball vs football is a good debate

The thing about baseball, an elite pitcher only plays once every 5 games. So having an elite pitcher won't take you to the playoffs, you need two or three elite pitchers.

KC didn't have 3 elite "starting" pitchers anyway, they beat the team with the elite pitching, that Red Sox team had one, both teams had very good pitching not elite but you keep throwing that word need around when it's not true, while teams with elite pitching are usually favored that doesn't lock them in it's still anyone's ball game, a team that's well balanced with at least one ace can get the job done

 

[5 Grand]

To me it's NBA and no ones going to change my opinion on that, but baseball vs football is a good debate

The thing about baseball, an elite pitcher only plays once every 5 games. So having an elite pitcher won't take you to the playoffs, you need two or three elite pitchers.

KC didn't have 3 elite "starting" pitchers anyway, they beat the team with the elite pitching, that Red Sox team had one, both teams had very good pitching not elite but you keep throwing that word need around when it's not true, while teams with elite pitching are usually favored that doesn't lock them in it's still anyone's ball game, a team that's well balanced with at least one ace can get the job done

Well you're certainly going to "need" a left handed ace. There's just certain situations in a game when you have to strike out a left handed batter. You'll need a right handed ace for the same reason.

 

[Shizlansky]

In football you can hide your weakness

In basketball you can't and you NEED a SUPERSTAR.

 

[bow to royalty]

In football you can hide your weakness

In basketball you can't and you NEED a SUPERSTAR.

This guy disagrees