LeBron James won his second consecutive NBA title with the Miami Heat on Thursday night and cemented his status as one of the greatest players of all time (at least among sane people).
I hated “The Decision” as much as anyone else, but I’m also over it. I don’t necessarily cheer for James now, but I make sure to appreciate him when I watch him play. James is an amazing, amazing, amazing athlete, and it’s a lot more fun to soak in what he’s able to do on the court instead of just calling him names and hating on him.
Anyway, James’ second title got me thinking: How many more titles will it take for Packers QB Aaron Rodgers to be considered an all-time great? He’s already considered great, but he’s not yet at all-time great status with the likes of Starr, Montana, Brady or Unitas.
Then I started thinking some more (always dangerous): Why do we need to attach an arbitrary number of titles to greatness? If Rodgers keeps producing like he has, but doesn’t win another title, should that significantly diminish how we view him in the context of greatness?
I suppose you have to have some criteria to separate certain great players from other great players in subjective arguments like this one, and titles might be a part of it.