Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 168 of 191 FirstFirst ... 68118158166167168169170178 ... LastLast
Results 2,506 to 2,520 of 2863
  1. #2506
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,742
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    i think they base it on the impact he has on the game. Not his teammates coach or success of the team.
    The impact he has on the game has to result in titles to be in that discussion though because that's what all the other guys who are there did. That's why I don't have him there yet. If he can earn it, then sure I will be happy to put him ahead of Kobe and whoever else he deserves to be ahead of, but not until then.

  2. #2507
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16,827
    looking at Cavs both times with and without him is an insane drop off. Last season lakers they climbed to 3rd in the west beating gsw. The year before Lakers won 35 games and lost randle who was their best player at the time. Ingram/randle was the best duo they had. looking at the lakers from last season without lebron they would have been press to win 17 games.

    Did Miami heat even made the playoffs when he returned to Cavs?
    Last edited by ldawg; 12-09-2019 at 04:40 PM.

  3. #2508
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16,827
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The impact he has on the game has to result in titles to be in that discussion though because that's what all the other guys who are there did. That's why I don't have him there yet. If he can earn it, then sure I will be happy to put him ahead of Kobe and whoever else he deserves to be ahead of, but not until then.
    Yes in reality you are correct. However when evaluating players. I can only rate you base on you situation but so far. It like saying Paul George was not a good player because he played behind granger or olidepo behind Westbrook. I can take those player buried on the bench and form a better team than the one they were on.

  4. #2509
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    16,827
    https://www.foxsports.com/nba/galler...mi-heat-061517

    Lebron would have two more rings if it was not for injuries to love and Kyrie and Kyrie weirdly bolting

  5. #2510
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    14,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    It does and we're off to a great start and LBJ and AD look great together, especially the last few games. As I've said, if LBJ can show that he can do it without a super team, I'm more than happy to give him credit. He just needs to show it first.
    Teams arenít super because they have 3 allstars. The 80ís Lakers and Celtics were all more top heavy with way better depth...they were far more super than Brons Heat or Cavs.

  6. #2511
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,952
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Teams arenít super because they have 3 allstars. The 80ís Lakers and Celtics were all more top heavy with way better depth...they were far more super than Brons Heat or Cavs.
    Yeah but they had Magic and Larry and not Lebron
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  7. #2512
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,742
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    Teams arenít super because they have 3 allstars. The 80ís Lakers and Celtics were all more top heavy with way better depth...they were far more super than Brons Heat or Cavs.
    That's true, but back then there were other super teams because the league had fewer teams (so the talent was more concentrated). Now the talent is more diluted because there are more teams. I don't think LBJ's teams would've been super teams in the 80s because there would've been other teams that had similar type of talent so they would've all just been contenders. I agree that how a team fits together is really important, but when you put enough talent on a team, it stops to matter how the pieces fit together at some point (just so long as the mismatching isn't absurd). With LBJ, there weren't any other super teams at the time (the warriors counts once they got KD, but LBJ never got past that warriors team). With the lakers and Celtics, they had each other to balance it out and there were other teams that were fairly stacked as well (e.g., Sixers, Pistons).

    For me, what all of this comes down to is that LBJ just hasn't won enough to be in that discussion. I know it's a big bar he has to reach, but these guys you all want to put him ahead of are legendary players. You don't get to pass them simply by putting up great numbers. That's ultimately what my position on LBJ comes down to. Once the winning is on par with those guys, then there is a strong case to be made.

  8. #2513
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Won't come from me unless LBJ is no longer a superstar. I've been saying this whole time that as long as each player is a superstar, then the title counts just the same. LBJ has shown that he's still playing at a superstar level and so as long as that remains the case I'm happy to give LBJ credit. Note also that my position on LBJ would not change even if Kobe had never played. I think that everyone has been way to quick to exalt him and put him in the conversation of the GOAT before he's earned it. Winning a few more titles will legitimize him in the discussion of top 5 maybe top 2-3 if he can get another 2-3.
    Way too quick? He's been in the league 17 seasons. People were calling Jordan the GOAT after he retired the first time. That was after 9 seasons and 3 titles. How can 9 years and 3 titles be enough to put someone in the GOAT conversation but 17 years and 3 titles isn't?

  9. #2514
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    Yeah but they had Magic and Larry and not Lebron
    I'd take Kareem/Worthy and McHale/Parish over Kyrie/Love.

  10. #2515
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,742
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Way too quick? He's been in the league 17 seasons. People were calling Jordan the GOAT after he retired the first time. That was after 9 seasons and 3 titles. How can 9 years and 3 titles be enough to put someone in the GOAT conversation but 17 years and 3 titles isn't?
    Nah, that was BS at the time and it was mostly propaganda, just like with LBJ right now. He didn't become known as the undisputed GOAT until after the 6th title. I made the same argument back then about why MJ wasn't #1 until he won more. He came back and won more and I gave him his due respect.

  11. #2516
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    42,952
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I'd take Kareem/Worthy and McHale/Parish over Kyrie/Love.

    bc you never saw them play with someone that makes everyone better
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  12. #2517
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    That's true, but back then there were other super teams because the league had fewer teams (so the talent was more concentrated). Now the talent is more diluted because there are more teams. I don't think LBJ's teams would've been super teams in the 80s because there would've been other teams that had similar type of talent so they would've all just been contenders. I agree that how a team fits together is really important, but when you put enough talent on a team, it stops to matter how the pieces fit together at some point (just so long as the mismatching isn't absurd). With LBJ, there weren't any other super teams at the time (the warriors counts once they got KD, but LBJ never got past that warriors team). With the lakers and Celtics, they had each other to balance it out and there were other teams that were fairly stacked as well (e.g., Sixers, Pistons).

    For me, what all of this comes down to is that LBJ just hasn't won enough to be in that discussion. I know it's a big bar he has to reach, but these guys you all want to put him ahead of are legendary players. You don't get to pass them simply by putting up great numbers. That's ultimately what my position on LBJ comes down to. Once the winning is on par with those guys, then there is a strong case to be made.
    I can't overstate this enough during Magic's 80's run: the West sucked. Like absolutely sucked. As for the East, Bird had the 76ers to compete with early, and the Pistons late. But there weren't really that many great teams either tbh. The reason is the Lakers and Celtics were far more stacked than any other team. For comparison, both the Lakers and Celtics won Championships with a former MVP (Walton, McAdoo) coming off the bench.

  13. #2518
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    7,742
    To become the GOAT and surpass legends, you have to win more then they did. It's that simple. You don't get points for potential and what ifs, you have to earn it and that's done by winning. In the end, no one cares how much a player would win if he were in the right situation. That's all conjecture. We have no idea what would happen if Player A were drafted by one team or another or if they played in one era or the other. What we do know is what actually happens and who won and who didn't.

  14. #2519
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    bc you never saw them play with someone that makes everyone better
    Perhaps you're trolling, but if you genuinely think Kyrie and Love would have been better than McHale or Kareem or Worthy had they simply played with Bird and Magic: feel free to say so now.

  15. #2520
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    31,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    To become the GOAT and surpass legends, you have to win more then they did. It's that simple. You don't get points for potential and what ifs, you have to earn it and that's done by winning. In the end, no one cares how much a player would win if he were in the right situation. That's all conjecture. We have no idea what would happen if Player A were drafted by one team or another or if they played in one era or the other. What we do know is what actually happens and who won and who didn't.
    Case in point: like how MJ won more than Russell to become the GOAT.

Posting Permissions

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