Join the “TLS” writers in a roundtable discussion every Monday on The Loop Sports! This Week we talk about what championship game finish we enjoyed more, Super Bowl LI or Game 7 of the 2016 World Series, and our thoughts on a potential Jahlil Okafor homecoming.
The Loop Sports Staff Roundtable for the week of February 5, 2017:
More exciting finish, Super Bowl LI or Game 7 of the 2016 World Series?
Patrick Flowers: Game 7 of the World Series without a doubt. The Super Bowl this past Sunday was one of the all time great comeback performances in sports that we have seen at least in recent memory, however the tension and drama that led to, and ensued in game seven of the 2016 World Series made for some of the most exciting baseball I have ever seen. I would have to go all the way back to the 2001 World Series with the Arizona Diamondbacks and the New York Yankees to even find a comparison to this past fall classic.
Matt Smith: Yes. Super Bowl LI was a fantastic game. That said, it didn’t compare to Game 7 of the 2016 World Series.
It’s not the games fault, of course. The game tried. There was a record-setting comeback orchestrated by the greatest quarterback to ever don a professional uniform. And he’s a Michigan guy. Julian Edelman dove into a mass of humanity in red uniforms and came away with the ball. It was outta hand. Quite literally, it was the best football game I have ever seen.
What it wasn’t, though, is a World Series Game 7 that went into extras. Now I could wax philosophic about why baseball is the grandest game ever invented. But I won’t. I will simply say that no Super Bowl will ever be as good as World Series Game 7.
Nick Petrusevski: As sports fans, we’ve been treated to great games in both the Super Bowl and Word Series. However, one was clearly better than the other. Sure, the Cubs having a lead, giving up a lead and winning the World Series was crazy, but last night was better. I think people forget that the Patriots were down 28-3 at one point. 28-3!!!! What the Patriots did last night may never be done again. Tom Brady and the Patriots scored 31 unanswered points. Brady also threw for 466 yards. Both were great, but no one thought the Patriots could win last night, but somehow, they did.
Timothy Moran: Wow, these were both incredible games. I was on the edge of my seat in both. However, World Series Game 7 was better. Both games’ non-overtime play was equally, incredibly thrilling. But by the time the Patriots received the ball in overtime, I think most of us knew it was over.
Brady is unstoppable when he gets on a roll, and that’s exactly what was happening. However, no one knew who would step up in extra innings for either team, and both teams scored runs to make it close. Game 7 overtime had too many variables, which made it better than Tom Brady‘s timeless consistency.
Matt Grabianski: World Series, easily, for two major reasons. First, the good guys won. I know it’s easy for me to say as a Cubs fan, but even south siders have to admit that the underdog came out on top in the World Series. In the Super Bowl, a city that has never won a Super Bowl lost to a dirty, always-winning franchise in the most heartbreaking way possible. World Series Game 7 was a heartwarming story of literally over a century of struggle finally ending, whereas the Super Bowl was a story of heartbreak continuing while the despicable Bill Belichick and the villains of the NFL triumphed.
Second, the Super Bowl highlighted football’s broken overtime rules. The Falcons did not get a fair chance. That’s just an inherent problem with how the NFL is set up, and it was on full display Sunday night. In the World Series, both teams got to bat in the 10th inning (because the MLB isn’t an absolute joke) and a whole lot of excitement was created because of it.
Benjamin Davis: In my opinion it was definitely the World Series. The Super Bowl is only one game, so the suspense of the Cubs game 7 win was much thicker. Both games were all time classics, and I believe the College Football Playoff Championship also belongs in this discussion.
Buy or Sell, the potential acquisition of Jahlil Okafor for the Chicago Bulls?
Patrick Flowers: I’m going to have to sell this one, for the simple fact that this move would mean that the Bulls front-office still believes that they are just a move or two away from competing, and we all know that is just not the case.
Hypothetically the move would make sense for the Bulls, who don’t currently have a scoring presence in the paint, or even a third scoring option behind Jimmy Butler and Dwyane Wade at this point, and I’m sure bringing the Chicago native back home would be a big hit, but to me it would signal that the front-office is still not understanding just how bad this current roster is.
Matt Smith: On its face, trading for Okafor sounds great. He plays well enough when he’s on the court and the Bulls certainly lack talent on the inside. As the CSN Chicago report noted, however, he’s a “traditional half-court center who isn’t defensively inclined.” Why would the Bulls want to take that on?
He can’t really stretch the court in transition, take the ball from the top of the key, work the perimeter and won’t body up with the rest of the big men across the NBA? I’m all for leveraging talent and trying to make the club better. That said, I don’t think Okafor is the guy you pair with Butler to begin the rebuild around. And if the Bulls plan on trading Butler, there is even less reason to grab the former Blue Devil.
Nick Petrusevski: I hate Gar and Pax. I’m sure there is no truth this rumor. I just don’t see a way the Bulls can land Okafor. They just don’t have the depth on the roster. The Bulls are probably going to go on a winning streak and suck me back in.
Timothy Moran: I buy this. Okafor is a talented young player with potential, who would be good in a rebuild. He seems to be overshadowed by Joel Embiid, and could blossom in the right circumstance. So in the probable event of a rebuild, Okafor seems like a good big man to roll the dice on.
Matt Grabianski: The Bulls have nothing to lose at this point. Even if their record gets a little worse, it doesn’t matter (they’re not competing anyway), and in the long run, Okafor would give Bulls more talent. They have to take some sort of risk if they ever want to turn this franchise around, and trading low for Okafor is a great opportunity for that.
Benjamin Davis: I don’t know if the Bulls will necessarily get Okafor, but I do believe it is a sign of the kind of player the organization is targeting. That kind of player being one who can grow with the team and play off of Jimmy. Okafor would be a great addition and really help the team with offensive production.