Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 5 of 49 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 725
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    10,221
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    I don't even know what to say. I'm a life long bulls fan and those teams were stacked like crazy. It's a lot more than just looking at names on a roster lol. It's all relative.


    The NBA has always been super team driven.


    Also, MJ didn't run the offense OR defense like LeBron has. Not even close in terms of bball iq. He wasn't a coach-lite.


    His conference was a bit better but amusingly overrated. People look at big names, again, and think it means something.


    His finals comp was significantly more difficult, in fact the Bulls didn't face much in the finals. The east was the tougher road.


    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    Sounds like you never watched a single Bulls game from 90-98 to be honest Blams. Your 3rd paragraph quite frankly is embarrassing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    10,221
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    not being a "super team" does not make them less talented lol. Super team just means there are 3 stars. That's it.


    The heat were desolate aside from the big 3. Past their prime big names signed with them year to year obviously. MJ had better teams overall (Era considered). I don't care that the Heat had 3 hall of famers. A lot of NBA teams did and will continue to. No cop outs about the 90s being better.

    The Bulls won titles because they had more talent then every other team , and the best coach as well.


    Use stats to prove MJ is better. Not bull**** about him carrying his teams more lol, especially when LeBron is his system. He runs the offense. Runs the defense. Coaches the damn team a lot of the time. Not bull**** comparing strength of conference, or making it seem like MJ had ungodly teams to go against . None of it means anything.
    Prove MJ was a better teammate, a better passer, a better driver, a higher bball iq player (he didn't make those around him better in the most provable way there is- passing , being great and making others want to be great is not an actual measurable thing so it's bull****)


    It isn't black and white and will never be. MJ was great and had the deck stacked in his favor more than LBJ did. When did MJ play the Warriors? When did he bring a d league team to 6 games against a warriors team? When did he come back from down 3-1 against the best team ever ?




    MJ did a lot. LeBron did a lot. It's close. I believe LeBron's overall game- all time great bball IQ and passer, very good and all time versatile defender , beloved teammate and still on the list of most unstoppable scorers- impacted the game more than MJ being the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history and a great defender, while being a hated teammate and ball hog.


    He would have never won a ring if Phil didn't come in and have him play team ball in the triangle imo. That changed his career.


    LBJ never had an impact of an all time great coach like that.




    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    This is even worse. The Bulls won Championships because of Jordan. Not because of some extremely overall talented team. You are the JordansBulls doppelganger but for LBJ.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    17,813
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez View Post
    Sounds like you never watched a single Bulls game from 90-98 to be honest Blams. Your 3rd paragraph quite frankly is embarrassing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    He's a total waste of time. Can't make a rational argument at all.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    31,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez View Post
    This is even worse. The Bulls won Championships because of Jordan. Not because of some extremely overall talented team. You are the JordansBulls doppelganger but for LBJ.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Quote Originally Posted by Pierzynski4Prez View Post
    Sounds like you never watched a single Bulls game from 90-98 to be honest Blams. Your 3rd paragraph quite frankly is embarrassing.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Jordan is the 2nd or 1st best player of all time. None of what I said undermines the fact he was the most dominant scorer n NBA history as well as a great defender.


    Every LBJ team won "because of LBJ" too. When people make irrelevant arguments about conference , Era they force individuals to microanalyze things.


    And no, he wasn't a coach-lite. In fact , it's understood it took revamping the system to the triangle to get the Bulls over the hump. That isn't a knock on Jordan.

    Very few players were coach lite. It simply doesn't happen often. Just because Jordan was a leader on the court (most certainly not off the court lmao) doesn't mean he was a coach lite.



    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,279
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    No he isn't. Dude won bronze medals for America, lost 3 times in a row with HCA as well.
    Any sane attempt for a "Lebron is GOAT" argument would end here.

    The problem is not just the result, it's how he mentally collapsed in order to get there.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    14,279
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The only argument LBJ has is the longevity
    I would really like to see the average retirement age from the All-NBA or All-Star teams from the 80s, 90s, 00s and whatever is available from the 10s.

    Might check on this myself if it's not available. Curious to see if there's a pattern.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,984
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    not being a "super team" does not make them less talented lol. Super team just means there are 3 stars. That's it.


    The heat were desolate aside from the big 3. Past their prime big names signed with them year to year obviously. MJ had better teams overall (Era considered). I don't care that the Heat had 3 hall of famers. A lot of NBA teams did and will continue to. No cop outs about the 90s being better.

    The Bulls won titles because they had more talent then every other team , and the best coach as well.


    Use stats to prove MJ is better. Not bull**** about him carrying his teams more lol, especially when LeBron is his system. He runs the offense. Runs the defense. Coaches the damn team a lot of the time. Not bull**** comparing strength of conference, or making it seem like MJ had ungodly teams to go against . None of it means anything.
    Prove MJ was a better teammate, a better passer, a better driver, a higher bball iq player (he didn't make those around him better in the most provable way there is- passing , being great and making others want to be great is not an actual measurable thing so it's bull****)


    It isn't black and white and will never be. MJ was great and had the deck stacked in his favor more than LBJ did. When did MJ play the Warriors? When did he bring a d league team to 6 games against a warriors team? When did he come back from down 3-1 against the best team ever ?




    MJ did a lot. LeBron did a lot. It's close. I believe LeBron's overall game- all time great bball IQ and passer, very good and all time versatile defender , beloved teammate and still on the list of most unstoppable scorers- impacted the game more than MJ being the most unstoppable scorer in NBA history and a great defender, while being a hated teammate and ball hog.


    He would have never won a ring if Phil didn't come in and have him play team ball in the triangle imo. That changed his career.


    LBJ never had an impact of an all time great coach like that.




    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    I want to preface this by saying that I like you and this isn't personal: But, this is absolutely garbage man on so many levels my man. Like just about every part of your post is not just wrong, but blatantly wrong.

    A super team is not only having 3 stars. It's having an insane amount of talent compared to the rest of the league. First, the heat were absolutely not desolate outside of the big 3, they frankly likely had a better supporting cast than the bulls. We can go and compare player by player. Ray Allen for example, was still an excellent player and was still an all-star level player who would've performed at that level on a team where he wasnt the 4th best player (like he did in boston). Here's a few others who would've been excellent rotation players and possibly starters on lots of good teams in the league that year. Shane Battier, Rashard Lewis, Mike Miller, Haslem, and Chalmers. That's an excellent group of rotation players to pair with two of the top 5 players in the league and one of the top 10 or 15 players.

    Also, the Bulls were not considered the most talented team. The lakers had 4 all-stars in Shaq, Jones, Van Exel, and Kobe. Prior to that, the Magic had a sick amount of talent in Shaq, Penny, Dennis Scott, Horace Grant, and Nick Anderson and a solid bench. The Rockets had Hakeem, Drexler and Barkley, and a solid bench as well. The Sonics had a sick team in Payton, Kemp, Schrimpf and a super deep bench with several guys who were borderline all-star caliber players. Utah also had a pretty excellent team that was arguably more talented than the bulls all around. If you want to go back to the first 3-peat, the blazers were arguably more talented and the suns were even more stacked (prime Barkley, KJ, Majerle, Chambers, Ceballos, Ainge, and an excellent supporting cast outride of those guys). I don't know if the blazers were more talented, but I would say the suns were.

    As for the prove it with the stats argument: If this is the route you want to go, cool (to be clear for my man valade, I'm not using stats to argue for MJ, only playing along since this is the argument that is being made by Blams; I still think titles are a better assessment when determining among the all-time greats)...the stats show pretty clearly that MJ was better. There have been many, many posts throughout PSD on this topic. MJ wins and then when we look deeper into those stats it turns out the margin is much larger than it appears on the surface. And yes, LBJ runs the offense, and it's one of the reasons his numbers are inflated and why other stars have often struggled to play with him (he does get credit for doing it so effectively, but it does inflate his numbers compared to those who didnt run the offense). MJ put up similar assists without dominating the ball like LBJ does (if you account for that it's not immediately clear that LBJ is the better play maker; although I think he probably is).

    LBJ also didnt really run the defense (at least not for the major part of his career; this also basically means that you are the vocal leader on defense and maybe cover for other guys here and there, but he's never really done this second part much even in his prime). LBJ was an excellent defender for about 5 seasons and then went back to playing defense in spurts. Before that he sucked defensively up until around 09 (and it was a major critique of him). LBJ, who the league has loved since he entered the league has 6 all-NBA defensive team selections (5 first team)...over the span of a 19 year career. MJ has 9 (despite having only played 15 seasons and all first team). MJ also won a defensive player of the year award. Again, we see MJ accomplishing more in significantly less time.

    The argument of MJ never winning a title without Phil is kind of absurd man, but completely speculative. Here is another speculative argument for you: If LBJ never artificially forms super teams he might've never won a title. Again, pure speculation and so it's not even worth addressing.

    As I said, outside of the longevity argument, there really isnt much you can argue for LBJ over MJ. You can argue b-ball IQ, but this is far from clear that LBJ had the better b-ball IQ (also very difficult to quantify maybe more so than any of the other things we've discussed) and even if he did, he still basically comes up short in just about every reasonable comparison you can make between the two (outside of longevity). It's close between LBJ and MJ the same way it's close between MJ and Magic and Kobe and Russell and Bird and West and Baylor and Shaq etc. It's close among the top 15 all time players or so because they're all very close to ceiling, but he's not really any close than the guys I just mentioned.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 10-31-2021 at 01:01 PM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,984
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I would really like to see the average retirement age from the All-NBA or All-Star teams from the 80s, 90s, 00s and whatever is available from the 10s.

    Might check on this myself if it's not available. Curious to see if there's a pattern.
    This is the one thing that does often get overlooked when assessing longevity and why I still say LBJ is "probably" the most durable, because Kareem was still putting up elite numbers into his late 30s. There are two things that make it challenging to assess longevity with today's player and players even as early as 5-10 years ago. One is that the rule changes have made it so that there's hardly any contact on offensive players and so it's a lot easier to stay healthy now than maybe 5-10 years ago. I remember with Kobe, it was considered good defense to basically knock him down repeatedly and try to injure him boy taking out his ankles (various players have reported following this sort of strategy and it's easy to see on replays) and we've seen it against other greats as well (MJ being the most prominent with the pistons and the Jordan rules, but this was typically the way defense was approached not too long ago and so it is worth considering how guys like Kareem, Malone, and Kobe might've held up if they played the massive majority of their careers under the present rules. The other factors to consider is that in the early 00s, guys started coming in very early and so that basically added another 3 years or so to their NBA careers. It's not entirely clear how much longer guys like MJ, Bird, Magic, etc. would've stuck around if they had the 3 additional years to start the league and then benefited from minimal physicality.

    Having that been said, it makes sense that current players would last longer because of advances in medicine and training and with how injuries are managed, but I do think those other factors need to be considered when making these types of assessments about durability.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,137
    A lot of people have different definitions of super teams. At the end of the day what really matters is the full comparison of talent across the rosters compared to the competition. If you have 3 stars and the other team has 4 well that isn't necessarily as easy to get the win for example. The rest of the team and coaching etc. all play into the game as well.

    This is where the talk of super teams and competition becomes more nuanced than looking at just one aspect. Yes Lebron has played with more total stars among his various teams. Yes he has played with more high end talent at a given time even. Todays game that's common though that top teams are stacked and he has also played a far more talented team (GS with KD) than anything those Bulls faced. You could argue that even before KD that team was right there with any team faced (championship and 72 wins in the two years prior), then add an all time great.

    The Bulls without Jordan were a team competing for the ECF still, losing a close 2nd round battle. You can try knocking his support for not being overly flashy but it was the perfectly built team with a GOAT level coach. They played that Knicks team that lost in the finals 3-4 very close. Pippen was 3rd in MVP voting without Jordan there as well that season. They didn't have to go up against multiple MVP's plus a DPOY and another All star not to mention a FMVP too when Jordan was around either. His support given the time was fantastic.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    13,137
    I would still probably rank Jordan 1 favoring his peak though with that said. I have started to come around on longevity being a bit more important in my rankings but I am not sure that's enough tbh. I can understand someone making the argument based on longevity at least. I think that is the best route to go if you argue for Lebron at 1.

    For one game at their peak to win it all I still choose MJ.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    31,818
    Quote Originally Posted by mngopher35 View Post
    A lot of people have different definitions of super teams. At the end of the day what really matters is the full comparison of talent across the rosters compared to the competition. If you have 3 stars and the other team has 4 well that isn't necessarily as easy to get the win for example. The rest of the team and coaching etc. all play into the game as well.

    This is where the talk of super teams and competition becomes more nuanced than looking at just one aspect. Yes Lebron has played with more total stars among his various teams. Yes he has played with more high end talent at a given time even. Todays game that's common though that top teams are stacked and he has also played a far more talented team (GS with KD) than anything those Bulls faced. You could argue that even before KD that team was right there with any team faced (championship and 72 wins in the two years prior), then add an all time great.

    The Bulls without Jordan were a team competing for the ECF still, losing a close 2nd round battle. You can try knocking his support for not being overly flashy but it was the perfectly built team with a GOAT level coach. They played that Knicks team that lost in the finals 3-4 very close. Pippen was 3rd in MVP voting without Jordan there as well that season. They didn't have to go up against multiple MVP's plus a DPOY and another All star not to mention a FMVP too when Jordan was around either. His support given the time was fantastic.
    Exactly , if the standard of title winning teams is 3 stars, that isn't a stronger team than a 90s team with one or 2 superstars by any means. It's all relative.



    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,984
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Exactly , if the standard of title winning teams is 3 stars, that isn't a stronger team than a 90s team with one or 2 superstars by any means. It's all relative.



    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    The 90s teams had 3 stars on their teams (sometimes more), it just wasn't MJ's teams, as I listed several of them...the standard also isn't three stars to win a title. Let's break it down by year over the last 21 years: 2000-2002 (Lakers: shaq and kobe), 2003 (Spurs: Duncan), 2004 (pistons: no one really, maybe Billups and Wallace), 05 (spurs: Duncan, Parker, ginobli). 2006 (heat: Wade and Shaq), 07 (spurs: Duncan, Parker, ginobli), 08 (Boston: pierce, kg, Allen), 09-10 (lakers: kobe, Pau), 11, (mavs: Dirk), 12-13 (heat: LBJ, Wade, Bosh), 14 (spurs: Parker), 15 (warriors: curry and Klay), 16 (Cavs: LBJ, Kyrie, and Love), 17-18 (KD, Curry, Klay), 19 (raptors: KL), 20 (lakers: LBJ and AD), 21 (Bucks: Giannis and Middleton).

    That's 14 of the last 21 titles that have been won by teams that had fewer than three stars (of the 7, LBJ's team shows up 3 times). LBJ had far more stacked teams than MJ, relative to the rest of the league and again it's not that close. There were several teams that were more talented than MJ's teams every year they won a title or there were at least several teams that were comparable. For all but the 2020 title, LBJs team was either easily the most talented in the league as with the heat or the second most talented (as with the Cavs (although they were really more talented than GS in 2016, imo but this one is at least debatable).
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 10-31-2021 at 05:44 PM.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    31,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    The 90s teams had 3 stars on their teams (sometimes more), it just wasn't MJ's teams, as I listed several of them...the standard also isn't three stars to win a title. Let's break it down by year over the last 21 years: 2000-2002 (Lakers: shaq and kobe), 2003 (Spurs: Duncan), 2004 (pistons: no one really, maybe Billups and Wallace), 05 (spurs: Duncan, Parker, ginobli). 2006 (heat: Wade and Shaq), 07 (spurs: Duncan, Parker, ginobli), 08 (Boston: pierce, kg, Allen), 09-10 (lakers: kobe, Pau), 11, (mavs: Dirk), 12-13 (heat: LBJ, Wade, Bosh), 14 (spurs: Parker), 15 (warriors: curry and Klay), 16 (Cavs: LBJ, Kyrie, and Love), 17-18 (KD, Curry, Klay), 19 (raptors: KL), 20 (lakers: LBJ and AD), 21 (Bucks: Giannis and Middleton).

    That's 14 of the last 21 titles that have been won by teams that had fewer than three stars (of the 7, LBJ's team shows up 3 times). LBJ had far more stacked teams than MJ, relative to the rest of the league and again it's not that close. There were several teams that were more talented than MJ's teams every year they won a title or there were at least several teams that were comparable. For all but the 2020 title, LBJs team was either easily the most talented in the league as with the heat or the second most talented (as with the Cavs (although they were really more talented than GS in 2016, imo but this one is at least debatable).
    Having more stars does not equate to a more stacked team; as you just explained lol. MJ's teams were better.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

    Click here to register!

    Hope to see some new posters around here soon.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    13,984
    Quote Originally Posted by blams View Post
    Having more stars does not equate to a more stacked team; as you just explained lol. MJ's teams were better.

    Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
    If MJ's teams were better, it was because of MJ, because LBJ's teams had better players. The players MJ had were not that good. They had specific roles that they filled well. LBJ's teams have been well rounded with good rotation players up and down the roster, as I pointed out before, and were also weaker talent wise compared to the rest of the league.
    Last edited by Big Moves03; 10-31-2021 at 05:58 PM.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    45,799
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    How the heck do you figure? In 91 and 98 MJ was the only all-star on the team. Pippen was never top 5 in the league and was arguably not top 10 in any of the seasons they won a title (he might've just snuck in at 9 or 10 for most of those titles). Here, let me demonstrate: Let's pick the best players they've both played with and construct a team out of them:

    LBJ
    Kyrie
    Westbrook
    Wade
    Bosh
    AD
    Love

    MJ
    Armstrong
    Harper
    Pippen
    Rodman
    Grant
    Kukoc

    In one case, you essentially have a team that would potentially break the all-time wins record (LBJ's teammates). In the other case, you have a team that maybe can make it to the ECF, maybe. It's no contest dude.

    And I'm not penalizing LBJ for anything, I've held for many years that LBJ is not yet in the top 5 (but he's right on the cusp of getting in and cementing himself at #3) and he needs a little more to get in there. He simply hasn't done enough yet, imo, especially when you factor in the unprecedented amount of help he's had. What's funny is that I'm actually an LBJ fan more so than an MJ fan. I root for LBJ on a nightly basis and have often defended him in the laker forum when he's gotten bashed.
    First Bolded: this is of literally no relevance because he never played with them all at the same time, or for the same duration.

    For instance, Bron played with Kyrie for 3 years. Westbrook 5 games. Wade 4 seasons, Bosh 4 seasons, AD two seasons and Love 4 seasons.

    So he played with all that talent for a combined 17 seasons. MJ played with Pippen for 9 1/2 seasons (actually less than 1/2 but for the entire playoffs during his return from his 1st retirement).

    But even that is pretty irrelevant because it matters which of them were on the team at the same time, the rest of the league, etc. But simply looking at everyone they've played with and acting like that was one team is just completely irrelevant.

    Also, in our earlier conversations you said if Bron won like he did with the Lakers, he would move up your list, but now you've moved him back down...

Page 5 of 49 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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