PDA

View Full Version : Can all of this be true?



joedaheights
04-29-2016, 06:08 PM
Can…

Curry be the best player ever (which his fans are passive aggressively arguing a la Kobe fans [make every argument as if he's the best ever, then when confronted with facts, double back to 'I never actually used the words 'he's the best' did I'] from around the 07 season)

The Warriors around him also be awesome (and I think this part is true, but I don't really down players like Curry for having talented players around them. It's as hard to know what Thompson is without Curry as it is to know what Pippen would be if he had to take on primary scoring on a title level, or what kind of player McHale is without a shooter like Bird, etc.)

And then Curry gets hurt and they still win a ring… if that is in fact what they do…

WITHOUT IT BEING AN INDICTMENT OF THE REST OF THE NBA!!!!

And you can go back to the 94 NBA. No Jordan, Bulls win 55 (when the year before, they won only 57), and give the Knicks all they want…

But they didn't BEAT the Knicks. Had they done so, then beat the Pacers and Rockets, you could draw one of two conclusions IMO…

a) The team didn't need Jordan nearly as much as it appeared they did in 93; because look at this title squad without him…

b) The league was just no damn good AT ALL

You couldn't say…

Jordan is the greatest
the rest of the Bulls are awesome
but YET they still needed MJ
AND the league is good

All of those things would not have been true…

So, I think Curry is a great player and the Warriors are a great team, but when you talk about an injury like this at this time, I'm sorry, if the Spurs can't capitalize and Lebron goes down again, that's an indictment on them. It just is.

If MJ was on this team and had this injury I'd say that if the Spurs and Lebron lost to this team, they're just sorry… period.

And in the future, if Jawan Jamo is on an awesome team and goes down and comes back hobbled and beats the supposedly strong teams anyway, I'll either think those teams are sorry or maybe the team around him was so good that it's just a great team, and not a great team because of that one player AS MUCH AS some teams have been great due primarily to their top guy.

I think the injury has provided intrigue to a playoff series that, as much because of how overrated the rest of the league is as because the Warriors are good, was going to be lacking it.

Chronz
04-29-2016, 06:48 PM
Somewhere in here is a very enlightening thought. Gimme a few more shots to make sense of it, might not be drunk enough.

Shammyguy3
04-29-2016, 07:01 PM
Somewhere in here is a very enlightening thought. Gimme a few more shots to make sense of it, might not be drunk enough.

:laugh:

HandsOnTheWheel
04-29-2016, 07:18 PM
Lol

TrueFan420
04-29-2016, 07:23 PM
Somewhere in here is a very enlightening thought. Gimme a few more shots to make sense of it, might not be drunk enough.

lol second that motion... I'll check back into this thread around 2:00 AM ish

Ball_Out
04-29-2016, 09:11 PM
I stopped reading after the word "Kobe".

DboneG
04-29-2016, 09:44 PM
Can all of this be true? Yes! It's all true the earth is flat.

joedaheights
04-29-2016, 11:01 PM
Once again, I'll make it so that even people like Chronz can grasp it

I. Can all of this be true
A. Curry is the best ever/an all time top great who will enter the Mt. Rushmore of the NBA AND
B. The Warriors would be so awesome as to win with a hobbled Curry, proving how good their cast other than Curry is AND
C. It doesn't show that the rest of the league is ***** OR that Curry isn't this unreal talent that eclipses his teammates, even real good teammates, the way that Shaq did in 01 or MJ did in 91 or to an extent both

II. If the Warriors win this year with Curry hobbled, you can't say "Curry is a Mt. Rushmore like figure, the Warriors around him are awesome, but the rest of the league is as good as it has ever been too." That all can't be true at the same time

Do you need pictures

U = 8======3? Is this better?

Bostonjorge
04-30-2016, 01:22 AM
With this dumb logic if Warriors lose then Curry is the GOAT then right?

ewing
04-30-2016, 01:33 AM
Ok i am drunk. the warriors will not win an NBA title without Curry.

naps
04-30-2016, 02:04 AM
I didnt have enough to get drunk but reading this OP makes me feel like I am. Talk about a cluttered mess of drunk thoughts.

JasonJohnHorn
04-30-2016, 09:16 AM
The year before Jordan returned, they got knocked out by the Knicks. The year he returned, they got knocked out by the Magic.

It wasn't until the had Rodman that hey won 72-games. Jordan, Pippen, and the Bulls NEEDED Rodman. So let's not pretend like they jump from 55 or 57 wins to 72 and the only difference was Jordan. That is just silly.


As for Warriors fans being 'passive aggressive'.... not even sure what you are talking about. The only thing I hear is people saying "could he be', not 'he is'. Because frankly, he's got to string together 4 or 5 more years at this or last season's level of play. He could slow down next year, or get na ankle injury, and then he's the next McGrady... decent career, extremely high peak, but no high level of consistency. People like to talk... that is why they are in forums.


The Warriors, in my opinion, would be a 60 win team if you replace Curry with an average point guard (say Conley, or even Seth Curry). Could they win without Curry? Yes. Absolutely. They are a great team. Could the Dream Team have won without Jordan? Yeah!

The the Bulls win without Jordan? They went to 7 games against the Knicks, who the Bulls needed 7 games to beat with Jordan, so yes. A bounce or call goes the other way in either series, and the Bulls lose with Jordan and win without him. Are they are good without him? No. Just as the Warriors are not as good without Curry.



The great thing about Curry is that he doesn't feel the need to be the man when his team wins. He's like Magic and Duncan in that respect. How many finals MVPs did Magic and Duncan win? 5 rings a piece, but only a couple finals MVPs each. Because they know that when their teammates shine and perform well, the team will do better. Because the only thing better than having one MVP on your team is having two. Jordan never got that. Kobe never got that. Both are great all-time players, and Jordan is arguably the GOAT, but it is a team sport, so the fact that Curry will defer when needed and share the spot light makes the team better, and lets his teammates reach their full potential. I think Jordan's teammates reached their full potential for the most part, but I don't think that same could be said of Kobe's teammates. I think Odom could have been better, and Bynum as well. And I think Payton and Malone could have been more involved in 2004. Kobe was always trying to prove that he was the best player on the court. Curry is trying to prove that his team is the best team on the court. Does that make him a better player? No, but it makes him a better teammate. As for who the better player is, let's wait until Curry is into his 30's before we start comparing careers.

MonroeFAN
04-30-2016, 09:51 AM
Once again, I'll make it so that even people like Chronz can grasp it

I. Can all of this be true
A. Curry is the best ever/an all time top great who will enter the Mt. Rushmore of the NBA AND
B. The Warriors would be so awesome as to win with a hobbled Curry, proving how good their cast other than Curry is AND
C. It doesn't show that the rest of the league is ***** OR that Curry isn't this unreal talent that eclipses his teammates, even real good teammates, the way that Shaq did in 01 or MJ did in 91 or to an extent both

II. If the Warriors win this year with Curry hobbled, you can't say "Curry is a Mt. Rushmore like figure, the Warriors around him are awesome, but the rest of the league is as good as it has ever been too." That all can't be true at the same time

Do you need pictures

U = 8======3? Is this better?

This is rich

Dade County
04-30-2016, 11:47 AM
Can all of this be true? Yes! It's all true the earth is flat.

It is