- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 2,023
- Reaction Score
- 10,826
After spending about a third of our lives either watching Game of Thrones or waiting for a new series to begin, we are entitled to ask: How does it all relate to WCBB? Despite all other crazy theories, it's clear to me that it's about BIG and Little. This, of course, feeds directly into the many discussions we've been having here at the BY about the size of our incoming players. Can we manage with all the little players we're drafting OR do we need a few dragons to get over the top? (Kim Mulkey was clearly the Mother of Dragons this past season, and we saw how that turned out.)
Just being BIG isn't enough; you have to be BIG and good. Few Huskies over the years have been both. Rebecca was, so was Tina, as was Stef. Others, like Z, we hardly knew. Some, like, Nat Butler, never really panned out.
Of course GoT was not just about BIGs. Its true hero was tiny John Snow and his even tinier sister Arya Stark. Daenerys Targaryen, the egg lady, is all of 5'2”. Sophie Turner, the other Stark girl (Sansa), towered over the rest of her family but was not as high in esteem. Perhaps most impressive was the smallest of them all Tyrion Lannister (though it is implied that he was compensated for his small stature with other attributes).
And the biggest of them all? Why the 3 dragons, of course. How much difference did these BIGs make? Well, one went rogue (in death), one was wasted needlessly to a large arrow or two, and one became the expression for Daenery's ire in episode 5 (it vented on an entire city).
So what conclusions can we draw? Theoretically, it's good to have BIGs, but not necessarily crucial. Sure the dragons were impressive. Sure they contributed. But were they responsible for a win in the end? Well, at Baylor they surely were. When Lauren Cox limped off in the final, ND almost staged another miracle comeback. So: it's not just having BIGs, it's how they're deployed. That's the underlying moral of this epic epic. AND little people can make a real impression and succeed no matter how tiny. Finally, it's safe to say that there's no such thing as “dragon violence”; everything depends upon whose hands the dragon is in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3pDqftkhU (“Bigger Isn't Better”)
Just being BIG isn't enough; you have to be BIG and good. Few Huskies over the years have been both. Rebecca was, so was Tina, as was Stef. Others, like Z, we hardly knew. Some, like, Nat Butler, never really panned out.
Of course GoT was not just about BIGs. Its true hero was tiny John Snow and his even tinier sister Arya Stark. Daenerys Targaryen, the egg lady, is all of 5'2”. Sophie Turner, the other Stark girl (Sansa), towered over the rest of her family but was not as high in esteem. Perhaps most impressive was the smallest of them all Tyrion Lannister (though it is implied that he was compensated for his small stature with other attributes).
And the biggest of them all? Why the 3 dragons, of course. How much difference did these BIGs make? Well, one went rogue (in death), one was wasted needlessly to a large arrow or two, and one became the expression for Daenery's ire in episode 5 (it vented on an entire city).
So what conclusions can we draw? Theoretically, it's good to have BIGs, but not necessarily crucial. Sure the dragons were impressive. Sure they contributed. But were they responsible for a win in the end? Well, at Baylor they surely were. When Lauren Cox limped off in the final, ND almost staged another miracle comeback. So: it's not just having BIGs, it's how they're deployed. That's the underlying moral of this epic epic. AND little people can make a real impression and succeed no matter how tiny. Finally, it's safe to say that there's no such thing as “dragon violence”; everything depends upon whose hands the dragon is in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=la3pDqftkhU (“Bigger Isn't Better”)
