Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 344 of 452 FirstFirst ... 244294334342343344345346354394444 ... LastLast
Results 5,146 to 5,160 of 6768
  1. #5146
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I have him out because he ain't greater than Jordan, Magic, Russell, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Hakeem, Shaq, West, Oscar and that's 11 already and I can still keep it going...
    we all know you recite all the classical performers before you fast forward. In your eyes Karl Lewis still hold the record. your context never let you go pass 1998

  2. #5147
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    47,641
    Quote Originally Posted by McAllen Tx View Post
    Yeah and LBJ gets full credit even though it was Allen hitting the series biggest shot against the Spurs and it was Irving hitting the series biggest shot against the Warriors. Maybe LBJ should get extra credit actually....
    This is a very good point


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Rep Power: 0




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

  3. #5148
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    How do you seperate that lol. You just have been saying over and over and over top talent "I rate top talent" and now it is those guys are the most talented players but the other team is better by a good amount. Why are they better than Clippers when based on your only criteria given really so far they are the better team?

    This is the inconsistency no one understands. I know you will always pick the most convenient, my question was about comparing their talent to the Spurs, OKC though. You say they are closer in talent and it's an edge etc when OKC lost to the Spurs in reality. Did you expect that or not? The more talented team at the top lost.
    As I mentioned earlier, having a talented team is different than having a good team. The most talented team isn't always the best team. During the Shaq/Kobe lakers, the lakers didn't have the most talented team in the league. Same with some of the spurs teams that won titles (even before the 2014 title). You obviously need enough talent to be able to compete with the top teams, but once that's in place, it's much more about execution, decision making, game-planning, chemistry, etc. Those things take a lot of time and discipline and this is why the spurs are always competitive even when they aren't very talented, because the organization has an incredible coach staff with great structure and they know how to find guys who will fit into what they're doing and who will commit to playing the right way.

    I did expect OKC to lose to the spurs and I don't think OKC would've beaten the spurs in 2012 if it wasn't for the shortened season. The reason that I would pick those spurs over OKC was because OKC didn't play championship basketball and made far too many mistakes. It's not as thought the spurs sucked talent wise, but they also were far from stacked in terms of talent. OKC had guys who would eventually develop into excellent players, but they weren't that during 2012.

  4. #5149
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    more like a quarter of the credit not half
    What an absolute joke. Yep, let's give a top 5 player in the league during that time a quarter credit for those titles...even though the offense was run through him in the massive majority of the 4th quarters and even though he was always guarded by the other team's best perimeter defenders. He gets a quarter credit. This is what a Kobe hater looks like right here

  5. #5150
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    27,508
    Quote Originally Posted by McAllen Tx View Post
    Fine give Kobe half the credit for them rings, that's still Kobe 3.5 LBJ 3


    I am sorry I was not up at 2am 3am and 4am for this debate to continue but why are we taking away Kobe's rings?

    That's just silly. He gets full credit for 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010. If you want to give him a SLIGHT knock for 2000 that is the maximum penalty. You guys know he was still a 20-5-5 guy that season that helped them get the #1 and 67 wins right? That might have helped them. Like why does he lose his ring?

    So how many rings does Pippen have?


    Kristaps Porzingis
    Stronger than most 15 year old girls.

  6. #5151
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    Hakeem was only 23 himself in 86 though, how is he considered ready when they aren't?
    He wasn't at his peak, but he also wasn't the only player on that team. As I've said, back in the 80s it was much easier to stack teams so a good team could really easily end up with 4-8 guys who are all all-star caliber players back then. That's a lot harder to do in today's NBA because there are far too many teams to concentrate that much talent in a single team. So when we look back on teams like the lakers and Celtics from the 80s and say they were stacked, we have to take into account that most of the good teams were also stacked and had a bunch of guys who were all-star caliber players (e.g., several of the 80s Bucks teams). As the league expanded though, that became a lot harder to do, which is why having a less stacked team in today's NBA could still net that team a much greater advantage in today's league than a more stacked team in the 80s would garner that team in that era.

  7. #5152
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    Lebron never played with a Top 10 guy and the GOAT coach. He played with 2 guys who never sniffed the playoffs with him, 1 guy who got to the playoffs 2 out of 7 years and 1 guy that was the hoss on a title winner but for only one year before his body started breaking down. Oh, and that first year? That’s all he had: Wade and Bosh. You’re making it sound like we’re arguing on behalf of Durant and not Lebron.


    And you’re not inconsistent? You just said “There's no excuse for a top 5 player all-time to lose to far less talented team, yes. Yes, they can make up for it if they win enough (it's not as if it's impossible to redeem yourself)”

    That’s totally contradicting yourself just right there. Just anything to discredit Lebron and to lift your Kobe. And everyone sees right thru it.
    No, it's called nuance. Things are not absolute and black and white. Losing out on a title to significantly less talented team will tarnish a legacy, but there is opportunity for redemption.

  8. #5153
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by IKnowHoops View Post
    And you can also hold it against Kobe that he played with possibly the most dominant player of all time. He played with someon better than him to win his titles. Lebron never had the opportunity to play with someone better than him. He never got to play with the most dominant presence of all time. And as we know, when you play with three stars there are all types of fit issues as well as touches issues that ensure one guy is not going to be used to his potential. Lebron with prime Shaq sourrounded by a Rodman, Horry, and Ron Harper would have been a much more successful than Bron, Bosh, Wade with Joel Anthony and Mario Chalmers.
    Yes, and Kobe was not in his prime when he played with Shaq and really only got about 2-3 years of prime shaq once Kobe was himself an elite player. The standard Kobe is held to is higher because he played with shaq and he met that standard. 3 titles, which resulted in a 3-peat, something that hasn't been done in over 20 years.

  9. #5154
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    quickly ask his clueless self what he thought about kobe demanding a trade because he couldnt hack it once he forced shaq out? literally the 2nd he didnt have the super team around him kobe tried to force a trade... imagine being gifted Shaq and an insane squad and you force a team when you finally lack talent around? yet he holds it against lebron for getting help when he had his chance even though he played far better as the number 1 option on a much much much worse team,
    Maybe you should grow a pair and ask me yourself. He demanded a trade because the lakers had multiple chances to bring in talent and continued to pass. I don't hold it against LBJ for artificially stacking his team with talent and creating a talent vacuum as a result of that, I hold it against him that with those prime players he didn't meet the standards that this move created for him and lost twice to far less talented teams. Dirk beat the heat with zero other all-star caliber players. The spurs did the same with a lesser star in Tony Parker.

  10. #5155
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by KnicksorBust View Post


    I am sorry I was not up at 2am 3am and 4am for this debate to continue but why are we taking away Kobe's rings?

    That's just silly. He gets full credit for 2001, 2002, 2009, 2010. If you want to give him a SLIGHT knock for 2000 that is the maximum penalty. You guys know he was still a 20-5-5 guy that season that helped them get the #1 and 67 wins right? That might have helped them. Like why does he lose his ring?

    So how many rings does Pippen have?
    He was being sarcastic in response to another poster. Some of these guys are saying Kobe should only get a quarter credit for his rings. What that sort of thing shows is what I've been saying all along, which is that there is a strong bias here that is pro LBJ and anti Kobe. I definitely agree with you in terms of how credit should be partitioned for Kobe's titles
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 05-26-2020 at 09:57 AM.

  11. #5156
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I see. It’s important to note pretty much nobody but NYKalltheway agrees with you (and I’m not just talking about PSD).

    You’re another one of those people who downplay everything g relating to LeBron while talking up everything to criticize him.

    Let me ask you, is there any context for anything that is a positive for LeBron in your mind?
    No, that's not true at all..there are plenty of people who agree with me, on this thread alone. They just often leave once they're group shamed for having a different opinion. It's not a criticism to hold a guy who has arguably more opportunities than any player in NBA history to a higher standard of winning than those who had far lesser opportunities. How many top 10 players were able to pick their star teammates during the entirety of their primes? As I've said, it's not unreasonable to hold LBJ to a higher standard of winning given that he had that opportunity, whereas no one else ever has.

  12. #5157
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by Saddletramp View Post
    But he seems to never be. If Lebron would have been second fiddle and then fail to make the playoffs or get tossed out in the first round multiple times as the Alpha before he got a Top 10, 20, 30 player then he’d be taken out of the Top 10 All Time list......NYKALLTHEWAY already has him out without that happening.

    Homers, haters, and double standard proclaimers abound.
    Kobe is held to a higher standard...he won 5 titles, a 3-peat and a back-to-back. He met that standard. No one has won a 3-peat in over 20 years and it will be at least another 3 before it's done again. Those types of accomplishments carry significantly more weight because of how rare they are. Kobe met his standard and LBJ hasn't. He still can, he's still playing, but he hasn't as of yet.

  13. #5158
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    18,155
    Nawh man should have won 6 how many years did they play together? How many years did Lebron play with prime Wade? And again it was Shaq when he left Kobe did not make the playoffs. If your not going to give Pau his due then those 3 rings is on shaq. If you want to play the game don’t change the rules depending on the player.
    Last edited by ldawg; 05-26-2020 at 10:10 AM.

  14. #5159
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    9,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    Nawh man should have won 6 how many years did they play together? How many years did Lebron play with prime Wade? And again it was Shaq. If your not going to give Pau his due then those 3 rings is on shaq. If you want to play the game don’t change the rules depending on the player.
    Sure, if they had played together during Kobe's prime. Kobe was only 21 in 2000. Big, big difference. Pau was never a superstar. Kobe was a superstar. Pau was never a #1, Kobe was a #1 after 2000. Again, big, big difference. And again, you didn't even watch those games so you're basing your opinion on boxscores and what other people are saying.

  15. #5160
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,271
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    No, it's called nuance. Things are not absolute and black and white. Losing out on a title to significantly less talented team will tarnish a legacy, but there is opportunity for redemption.
    So “tarnished” or “no excuse”?

Posting Permissions

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