I concur. The participants may not care about the narrative. Besides he's not a B player. He's be a headliner. _
No, naive is believing that Marino would have been just as content winning a Super Bowl as a back up QB as being a starting QB that wins and loses on his own accord. Context to the victory supersedes simply winning a title. Mike Golic, pro athlete, has said he had a chance to join the 95 49ers and wouldn't have felt that he had won that Super Bowl had he been on that team because he wouldn't have been a meaningful contributor. That's not a fan talking, that's a pro athlete.
I wasn't suggesting he won as a back up. Winning a SB for another team as Dan Marino with a stout defense and a running game. Maybe 3 SBs. _
Except that still wouldn't be the correct comparison. The comparison would be Marino, in his prime and the best QB, preferred to have been on a team where he was the main offensive weapon and lost a Super Bowl or been on a team where he deferred to a great running back, handed the ball off all game like Peyton last year, and winning. Maybe as an older player the latter would have been his choice, but as a player in his prime I'm certain he'd have chosen the former. And we're not taking about an aging Durant becoming a role player and accepting his decline; we are talking about a player in his prime.
Which player on the Warriors wants to give up his shots, his stats, his future money so Durant can be the star?
If you asked Marino if he could have magically transported himself to another team--when he was in his prime as the main offensive weapon like he was--with a running game and a defense as opposed to staying in that shit franchise when he was everything--he would have jumped in a nano second. Durant is not going to play second fiddle. He's going to be 1A or 1B which I think he'd gladly accept. He's not going to be some washed up second stringer for 6 or 7 years at least. If he wins in GS he'll have earned it. _
The question isn't whether Marino would have preferred to go to a better team, it is whether a Super Bowl victory in isolation matters more than his personal role to that championship. Marino was great because of his personal desire to succeed and lead his team to victory, not simply to be a part of a winning team. As Mike Golic attested, simply being on a team that won a championship wasn't a greater goal that being a vital member to a championship team. I doubt Marino would give up his career, his success and failure of his own accord, to have been a role player but gotten a Super Bowl because of other players accomplishments more than his own. We are both speculating, but I have pro athletes opinion that supports my speculation. You can argue Durant is going to the Warriors to be number one, but that would come back to the other question I asked -- which Warriors players are giving up their shots, their stats, their future money so Durant can be the star? It's not like any if the current Warriors believe they need him to win and would be willing to sacrifice their own careers because he can get them somethings they couldn't get on their own. It's the opposite, he needs them more than they need him. So why would they be the ones that defer to him? You have to argue why Thompson or Green or Iguadala would defer to him on the court, which will cost them off the court, so he can achieve what they have already accomplished without him? History already has shown that this Warriors group doesn't need Durant to win. If they win it won't be tied to Durant's inclusion, he will simply have been a participant.
Agreed. Not sure why this is so tough for @JStokes to understand. Take Peyton Manning. He is the best QB of my lifetime. No one is close in my opinion. Many fans have said his Super Bowl 50 win solidified his legacy. It's ridiculous. He was a role player at best on that team. He is the best because of all the other amazing seasons he had. Even his SB XLI win was not his best season as a pro. Some people only care about Championships. That's life I guess. If Durant truly doesn't care what others think or his legacy and just wants rings, good for him. He is a top NBA player, truly capable of leading the Thunder to an NBA title. We will never know if he could have now. Maybe he felt he could not. We do know the Warriors can win an NBA title. As for the Dan Marino comparison, the NBA and NFL are too different to truly make that comparison.
no he's not he is still Kevin Durant one of the best players in the whole damn league. He's a headliner no matter what. I've been reading your stuff and I dont follow your arguments at all. Legacy stuff is bullshit anyway but for a Kevin Durant to be a star on the greatest team ever assembled is much better for his legacy even if you believe in that stuff. That's his thinking. 20 years from now they aren't going to talk about how Kevin Durant got close or even won 1 title with Oklahoma City. But if the Warriors break their own wins record and bring home a title and he's a part of the greatest team of all time. Thats something they'll talk about forever. Plus its only a 2 year deal with an opt out after next season. He goes there - they become the greatest team ever and he gets a ring. Then he opts out and gets more money next offseason where ever he wants again. Sounds like a good deal to me. Its only BS because its hypocritical of him since he was mocking Lebron for forming his super team. He doesn't owe anything to anyone though and if "legacy" is important to him, it has potential to be a smart move
