Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 46 to 51 of 51
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    5,766
    Quote Originally Posted by KingstonHawke View Post
    Y'all make up such stupid rules to try and denounce these guys. Larry Bird is a legend. Curry already has as many rings, and one less MVP, and he isn't out of his prime. Durant already has as many finals MVPs, one less ring, two less MVPs, and 4 more scoring titles.

    And you can't use the loaded team defense because Bird was on his own superteam in a league with a lot less quality. Durant and Curry are easily top 5 players all time at their positions. Two more years of doing what they've been doing and that's only going to increase.
    To each their own. If you guys consider top 20-25, an all-time great I respect that. To me an all time great is top ten or fringe/borderline top ten all time player, it's all good. It just comes down to how you define the term.

    It's like how people define superstar. Some consider top 8-15 guys superstars, some even go further then that. To me superstar is a rare label (LeBron, Curry, KD, Kawhi) are the only guys that I consider superstars. I don't consider Russ, AD, Harden, or Giannis superstars. I like how Cuban defined it, but f you want to lump more guys like the one I mentioned into that category I can respect that. Harden is real close in my definition, just needs to prove more later (rounds) in the playoffs.

    As for Bird Vs. KD. KD is the better pure scorer bird has the better IQ, Feel, and IMO the better natural, more cerebral and instinctive basketball. More gutsy and plays with far more grit as well. It's the other and small things that separate Bird from KD from my personal opinion. Also think Curry is better than KD offensively due to the small things and the way he sees the floor and dictates a game. KD is better defensively though. I am still taking Curry over KD if I am building a team, just my personal take.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Bay Area
    Posts
    26,808
    Ultimately they both won 3 in 4 years, and dynasty teams are measured by rings. They are three better team and the team efficiency ratings on both ends + win differential bore that out, but they have to keep the train going to clearly pass them. As is, no reason to think they won't. I think they have also passed Bird's Celtics and are approaching the Showtime Lakers. All that's left after that (modern era) are Jordan's Bulls. I don't discount the Spurs either, although they are a tough one to gauge based on a lack of complete league dominance for a smaller period, but a sustained semi-dominance for over a decade.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    2,973
    Its hard to compare the two because even in the span of 15 years, the game has completely changed. This Warriors team would have no answer at all for Shaq or Kobe in their prime. Not many teams did.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cool Ranch, NM
    Posts
    29,808
    The Warriors would destroy them.

    Shaq would be a dominant force and the Warriors would have to give more minutes to their true bigs, but Shaq would also have problems keeping up with the Warriors attack and all the switches they like to do. Shaq would be forced to guard those perimeter guys far too often and it would be a huge problem for him. The game has evolved and I don't think a beast like Shaq would be able to survive on the defensive end. Yes he'd dominate offensively, but he'd just get double teamed and hacked repeatedly, kinda like how he was guarded back in his prime. I love when people act like nobody in the NBA could guard Shaq today while ignoring the fact that nobody could guard him back then either. That's why they doubled him, hacked him relentlessly and tried to flop/draw offensive fouls. The biggest difference for Shaq wouldn't be offensively, it would be defensively with all the switches and perimeter defense he'd be forced to play. Or you choose not to switch and you run into a whole lot of other problems against a team like Golden State.

    They wouldn't be able to defend Golden State at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by El Patito View Post
    Wow, you just won't let this go will you? I'd be more than happy to provide the numbers again if you'd like. The fact is that Marmol in his best season, put up one of the greatest performances by a reliever in the history of baseball. Better than Rivera? Youre damn right. You can't deny this.
    Marmolololololol

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    43,196
    Dubs, they'll choke but they'll win in 7 via nothing but talent. SNOOZE

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    LA
    Posts
    43,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Wrigheyes4MVP View Post
    The Warriors would destroy them.

    Shaq would be a dominant force and the Warriors would have to give more minutes to their true bigs, but Shaq would also have problems keeping up with the Warriors attack and all the switches they like to do. Shaq would be forced to guard those perimeter guys far too often and it would be a huge problem for him. The game has evolved and I don't think a beast like Shaq would be able to survive on the defensive end. Yes he'd dominate offensively, but he'd just get double teamed and hacked repeatedly, kinda like how he was guarded back in his prime. I love when people act like nobody in the NBA could guard Shaq today while ignoring the fact that nobody could guard him back then either. That's why they doubled him, hacked him relentlessly and tried to flop/draw offensive fouls. The biggest difference for Shaq wouldn't be offensively, it would be defensively with all the switches and perimeter defense he'd be forced to play. Or you choose not to switch and you run into a whole lot of other problems against a team like Golden State.

    They wouldn't be able to defend Golden State at all.
    Except you couldn't bother shaq with doubles from twigs and he bulked up for his era like many other great bigs. It wouldn't be true today. Go backwards, which team wins in 2001?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •