Paul Pierce: 5 toughest played to guard

[ambchang]

http://www.theplayerstribune.com/paul-pierce-five-toughest-players-ive-ever-guarded/

He had:
Kobe
Tmac
Carter
Lebron
Melo

Not sure if it was in any sort of order but hard to argue with that list. Surprised iverson wasn't there, but maybe Pierce didn't really guard iverson that much.

[Buddy Mignon]

Why would he lut Iverson, jackass.

[HarlemHeat37]

Why would he lut Iverson, jackass.

:lmao

[cobbler]

Not sure if it was in any sort of order but hard to argue with that list.

For someone professing he cannot stand a lack of logic this comment takes the cake!

Of course it's hard to argue with that list or any other list Pierce might have come up with regardless of who's on it. There is absolutely NO argument that can be made. NONE. It's his personal experience.

[Kawhitstorm]

Not sure if it was in any sort of order but hard to argue with that list. Surprised iverson wasn't there, but maybe Pierce didn't really guard iverson that much.

JALO4bC-ac8

[ambchang]

For someone professing he cannot stand a lack of logic this comment takes the cake!

Of course it's hard to argue with that list or any other list Pierce might have come up with regardless of who's on it. There is absolutely NO argument that can be made. NONE. It's his personal experience.
If he lists tony Allen then he's a retard. You retard.

[cobbler]

If he lists tony Allen then he's a retard. You retard.

If he lists Tony Allen, Smush Parker, Spd Webb, etc... It doesn't mean he's a retard. It has nothing to do with mental capability at all. It simply means that he had found difficulty guarding them. Again, for someone who says he can't stand a lack of logic this is baffling. Your comment above defies all logic.

And you call me a retard? Priceless!!!:toast

[ambchang]

If he lists Tony Allen, Smush Parker, Spd Webb, etc... It doesn't mean he's a retard. It has nothing to do with mental capability at all. It simply means that he had found difficulty guarding them. Again, for someone who says he can't stand a lack of logic this is baffling. Your comment above defies all logic.

And you call me a retard? Priceless!!!:toast

It would be highly questionable. Do you know what arguable means? I would question the integrity of his list.

[cobbler]

It would be highly questionable. Do you know what arguable means? I would question the integrity of his list.

Yes I do know what it means. Questionable? You would question the integrity of his list? Like he's lying? So because he may find someone hard to guard that doesn't check your box on hard to guard players you would call it retarded? Seriously?

AMB: Hey , what was your hardest subject in high school.
Person: English literature. Had a real difficult time with it.
AMB: That's retarded! Everyone knows math is the toughest.
Person: Well, for me it was english lit.
AMB: Well, your answer is highly questionable.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

[RsxPiimp]

Yes I do know what it means. Questionable? You would question the integrity of his list? Like he's lying? So because he may find someone hard to guard that doesn't check your box on hard to guard players you would call it retarded? Seriously?

AMB: Hey , what was your hardest subject in high school.
Person: English literature. Had a real difficult time with it.
AMB: That's retarded! Everyone knows math is the toughest.
Person: Well, for me it was english lit.
AMB: Well, your answer is highly questionable.

BRILLIANT!!!!!
:lol

[whitemamba]

Yes I do know what it means. Questionable? You would question the integrity of his list? Like he's lying? So because he may find someone hard to guard that doesn't check your box on hard to guard players you would call it retarded? Seriously?

AMB: Hey , what was your hardest subject in high school.
Person: English literature. Had a real difficult time with it.
AMB: That's retarded! Everyone knows math is the toughest.
Person: Well, for me it was english lit.
AMB: Well, your answer is highly questionable.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

:lol nailed it tbh..

[Thread]

Yes I do know what it means. Questionable? You would question the integrity of his list? Like he's lying? So because he may find someone hard to guard that doesn't check your box on hard to guard players you would call it retarded? Seriously?

AMB: Hey , what was your hardest subject in high school.
Person: English literature. Had a real difficult time with it.
AMB: That's retarded! Everyone knows math is the toughest.
Person: Well, for me it was english lit.
AMB: Well, your answer is highly questionable.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

http://img.youtube.com/vi/IgIctKbXxQA/hqdefault.jpg

[ambchang]

Yes I do know what it means. Questionable? You would question the integrity of his list? Like he's lying? So because he may find someone hard to guard that doesn't check your box on hard to guard players you would call it retarded? Seriously?

Why not? He is a public personality, he doesn't want any backlash, he wants to discredit certain players he didn't like, there could be lots of reasons. Like Phil Jackson does time and again.


AMB: Hey , what was your hardest subject in high school.
Person: English literature. Had a real difficult time with it.
AMB: That's retarded! Everyone knows math is the toughest.
Person: Well, for me it was english lit.
AMB: Well, your answer is highly questionable.

BRILLIANT!!!!!

Only subjects are ranked by difficulty by the general public.

Here's a more apt comparison.

cobbler: I am a retard
everyone: I agree.

[ambchang]

:lol


:lol nailed it tbh..


http://img.youtube.com/vi/IgIctKbXxQA/hqdefault.jpg

:lol, bunch of Kobestans who couldn't argue latching on even more retarded arguments than their own, sign of desperation.

BTW, Dale, are you going to respond to my questions? You chickenshit.

I am going to keep bumping that thread you are trying to bump daily, reminding how shrewd a business man Duncan is.

[cobbler]

Why not? He is a public personality, he doesn't want any backlash, he wants to discredit certain players he didn't like, there could be lots of reasons. Like Phil Jackson does time and again.



Only subjects are ranked by difficulty by the general public.

Here's a more apt comparison.

cobbler: I am a retard
everyone: I agree.

If that truly were the case it would be...

everyone: "we" agree.


Do you not know the difference between singular and plural?

Again... BRILLIANT!!!!:lol

[spurraider21]

Ambchang getting bullied by a cripple :lol

[ambchang]

If that truly were the case it would be...

everyone: "we" agree.


Do you not know the difference between singular and plural?

Again... BRILLIANT!!!!:lol

Everyone can say individually "I agree". Can't imagine how that could pass your amazing "logic skills".

[cobbler]

Everyone can say individually "I agree". Can't imagine how that could pass your amazing "logic skills".

Touché, I'll give you that one. And I never said I had amazing logic skills AMB. Your imagining things in your head yet again. I have only stated your lack thereof. Which I might add is overwhelmingly evident as I have perused some of your rants with many others here over the last few days. You are very sensitive guy. Well, if you are a guy. I don't know you. Maybe it's that time of the month? And boy do you have an almost unhealthy obsession with all things Kobe. I cannot imagine spending so much of my life ranting about any one particular individual. Life is way too short to be obsessing over some sports star. Yikes!!

[Stalin]

Ambchang getting bodied by a cripple..:lmao

[StrengthAndHonor]

Ambchang getting bullied by a cripple :lol
Tbh...

[ambchang]

Ambchang getting bodied by a cripple..:lmao


Tbh...

Why are all the Laker fans suddenly so active?

And also, how so?

I have shown quite clearly that people can argue over individual lists. Hidden agendas and political reasons often sways public announcements of individual preferences, especially in sports figures.

For example, Tiger Woods often publicly showed his affection for his wife earlier in his career, and yet after the incident, it was found that he was quite active sexually with many different partners. So his list of women was previously publicly only 1 person, but then turned out to be many. Same with Jordan, same with Kobe.

Barkley and Iverson were really one of the rare ones that say what they think, as far as we can tell.

I am surprised you guys are that gullible.

And in terms of saying the "I agree" "We agree" bit.

An instructor asked a class of 5 people whether they agree Kate Upton is hot. Without any discussions, the 5 people individually said "I agree".

The lesson to you guys though, don't side with a cripple, because it makes you look like him.

[ambchang]

Touché, I'll give you that one. And I never said I had amazing logic skills AMB. Your imagining things in your head yet again. I have only stated your lack thereof. Which I might add is overwhelmingly evident as I have perused some of your rants with many others here over the last few days. You are very sensitive guy. Well, if you are a guy. I don't know you. Maybe it's that time of the month? And boy do you have an almost unhealthy obsession with all things Kobe. I cannot imagine spending so much of my life ranting about any one particular individual. Life is way too short to be obsessing over some sports star. Yikes!!

You don't know me, and yet you know I have an obsession with Kobe because I spent the last few days arguing with you Spurs vs. Lakers, Jordan vs. Duncan, and the importance of repeats? How does that work? And you spent exactly the same amount of time arguing the same topics with me the last few days, so you can imagine just fine, you are living it yourself.

Life is way too short to be obsessing over some guy you don't know over the internet. Yikes!!

[Thread]

Ambchang getting bullied by a cripple :lol

Yep. Amb got too big for britches & Cobby took him apart piece-by-piece.

[cobbler]

You don't know me, and yet you know I have an obsession with Kobe because I spent the last few days arguing with you Spurs vs. Lakers, Jordan vs. Duncan, and the importance of repeats? How does that work? And you spent exactly the same amount of time arguing the same topics with me the last few days, so you can imagine just fine, you are living it yourself.

Life is way too short to be obsessing over some guy you don't know over the internet. Yikes!!

Yes, because it was brought up by several other posters and a quick 5 minute perusal can clearly prove that. Not to mention that there are quite a few Kobe obsessors here and I have spent enough time over the years here to know that he is more a topic in this forum than any other player. By a long shot! Heck, someone in the threads we were discussing in mentioned he thought you would disappear from the forum when Kobe retired since you were so obsessed.

I'm not obsessed over you AMB. Don't be silly. I have spent a grand total of maybe 2 hours bantering with you. And most likely, unless I see you outright lying and putting words in my mouth as you have over the last two days, I doubt I will have any reason to discuss anything with you again simply because nothing you say impresses me and sensitive types get too emotional to carry on a decent conversation. Well, let me take that back a little. I most likely will chime in if i see you implying someone is a retard for answering a personal question like "what (pick a topic or subject) was the most difficult for you?" simpley because it doesn't agree with your personal experience.

[RsxPiimp]

Fuck, never seen an ownage this bad. OP's thread backfired big time, even Spursfan are shitting on him :lmao

[cobbler]

The lesson to you guys though, don't side with a cripple, because it makes you look like him.

And BINGO!!!! The ultimate retort from, and the epitome of a total loser.

/THREAD

[Gummi Clutch]

It would be highly questionable. Do you know what arguable means? I would question the integrity of his list.
chink gorilla getting panda shit on :lol

[Gummi Clutch]

Fuck, never seen an ownage this bad. OP's thread backfired big time, even Spursfan are shitting on him :lmao
The funniest part is how innocent his first seemed to him, bitch never expected this ether :lmao

[Stabula]

Anyone who "feuds" on a sports fandom site is a fucking loser :lol

[jermaine]

JALO4bC-ac8

I just watched that whole video! Lawd Jesus I didn't know Paul Perice was that good! I didn't watch him at all. Now I see how he got that nickname.

[Kawhitstorm]

I just watched that whole video! Lawd Jesus I didn't know Paul Perice was that good! I didn't watch him at all. Now I see how he got that nickname.

Pierce was a beast in the 2002 postseason:

A1Yp5YXRu8Y

[ambchang]

Fuck, never seen an ownage this bad. OP's thread backfired big time, even Spursfan are shitting on him :lmao

Trying to understand your logic here.

I posted something. Cobbler comes in and questioned, we go back and forth, I invalidated his points, and he admitted to it, went on an irrelevant tangent on personal attacks which he earlier indicated is a sign of being backed in a corner, and it's an ownage?

I understand you Laker fans are having a little support group going on right here, but you have chosen a wrong forum, and jumped on the wrong bandwagon, just like how you all think the Lakers can make the playoffs last year. You can beat your chest and do battle cries all you want, but at the end of the day, you are wrong and everyone else can see that.

[ambchang]

Yes, because it was brought up by several other posters and a quick 5 minute perusal can clearly prove that. Not to mention that there are quite a few Kobe obsessors here and I have spent enough time over the years here to know that he is more a topic in this forum than any other player. By a long shot! Heck, someone in the threads we were discussing in mentioned he thought you would disappear from the forum when Kobe retired since you were so obsessed.

A couple of comments from Laker fans who've never met me with my life can "clearly prove" me being a person I am? Dear you are gullible, no wonder you think anything that any public personality posts out in the open is inarguable from your perspective. You seem to be lacking in logical reasoning and critical thinking abilities, which is absolutely fine, but I just want to be nice and point it out from my perspective, which to you should be inarguable because this is what I feel.

Some thought I would disappear and that means I would. I have rubbed a few guys the wrong way over the years, and I can understand that. It's hard to be shown wrong and take it like a man, and you are the latest of that line of people, so I won't be surprised to see you, a few months down the line, chiming in about how I am being "owned" in another thread. Whoever is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?


I'm not obsessed over you AMB. Don't be silly. I have spent a grand total of maybe 2 hours bantering with you. And most likely, unless I see you outright lying and putting words in my mouth as you have over the last two days, I doubt I will have any reason to discuss anything with you again simply because nothing you say impresses me and sensitive types get too emotional to carry on a decent conversation. Well, let me take that back a little. I most likely will chime in if i see you implying someone is a retard for answering a personal question like "what (pick a topic or subject) was the most difficult for you?" simpley because it doesn't agree with your personal experience.

Hmmm ... spending 2 hours with a total stranger over a week is clearly not obsessing, especially when you go out on your way to try to find the littlest sign of logical inconsistencies of a thread that didn't even have anything to do with our original discussion earlier on, only to be proven wrong.

And it may disappoint or even ruin your day, but I am not really here to try and impress you. I am not really sure who you are, other than someone who seems illogical but is going on a mission to prove how illogical I am in the last week, only to fail spectacularly in it.

And for someone who seems to be quite upset over how sensitive I am, you sure seems to be very sensitive about being called a retard, despite me listing 6 or 7 posts in another thread by you, saying similar things. If you can't take it, don't dish it. You want to go out and talk about someone's intelligence? Then take it like a man when it's received on your end, don't suddenly go on your high horse like you have not written what you wrote mere hours ago.


And BINGO!!!! The ultimate retort from, and the epitome of a total loser.

/THREAD

What is that /THREAD thing about? Another way for you to declare victory after having your sub-optimal logic shoved back at you?

[ambchang]

The funniest part is how innocent his first seemed to him, bitch never expected this ether :lmao

I really want to be offended by this, I really do, I just don't really know what you are talking about.

[Killakobe81]

A couple of comments from Laker fans who've never met me with my life can "clearly prove" me being a person I am? Dear you are gullible, no wonder you think anything that any public personality posts out in the open is inarguable from your perspective. You seem to be lacking in logical reasoning and critical thinking abilities, which is absolutely fine, but I just want to be nice and point it out from my perspective, which to you should be inarguable because this is what I feel.

Some thought I would disappear and that means I would. I have rubbed a few guys the wrong way over the years, and I can understand that. It's hard to be shown wrong and take it like a man, and you are the latest of that line of people, so I won't be surprised to see you, a few months down the line, chiming in about how I am being "owned" in another thread. Whoever is the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?



Hmmm ... spending 2 hours with a total stranger over a week is clearly not obsessing, especially when you go out on your way to try to find the littlest sign of logical inconsistencies of a thread that didn't even have anything to do with our original discussion earlier on, only to be proven wrong.

And it may disappoint or even ruin your day, but I am not really here to try and impress you. I am not really sure who you are, other than someone who seems illogical but is going on a mission to prove how illogical I am in the last week, only to fail spectacularly in it.

And for someone who seems to be quite upset over how sensitive I am, you sure seems to be very sensitive about being called a retard, despite me listing 6 or 7 posts in another thread by you, saying similar things. If you can't take it, don't dish it. You want to go out and talk about someone's intelligence? Then take it like a man when it's received on your end, don't suddenly go on your high horse like you have not written what you wrote mere hours ago.



What is that /THREAD thing about? Another way for you to declare victory after having your sub-optimal logic shoved back at you?

It wasn't just lakerfan IIRC, in fact, it was Harlem (not a Laker fan) that first joked you had lost 99% of your material.
I know you are about more than that and do post some great stuff especially about the old-timers ...
But sometimes it DOES seem like 75% of the stuff you post is related to Kobe ...

[ambchang]

It wasn't just lakerfan IIRC, in fact, it was Harlem (not a Laker fan) that first joked you had lost 99% of your material.
I know you are about more than that and do post some great stuff especially about the old-timers ...
But sometimes it DOES seem like 75% of the stuff you post is related to Kobe ...

Can't help it that 75% on this forum was about Kobe (or Duncan being homo).

[Killakobe81]

Can't help it that 75% on this forum was about Kobe (or Duncan being homo).

But can we just move on? I mean dude is DONE pretty much has been done for over two years ... almost 3 now. I figured he would come up again because of duncan's retirement and the media and this place has proved me right. But honestly he is irrelevant as is Duncan now. We should be talking Kiwi vs. Lebron or Kyrie vs. Westbrook.
this shit is over. There is no new evidence there will be no more titles won and it's doubtful there will any new or original takes.

[ambchang]

But can we just move on? I mean dude is DONE pretty much has been done for over two years ... almost 3 now. I figured he would come up again because of duncan's retirement and the media and this place has proved me right. But honestly he is irrelevant as is Duncan now. We should be talking Kiwi vs. Lebron or Kyrie vs. Westbrook.
this shit is over. There is no new evidence there will be no more titles won and it's doubtful there will any new or original takes.

I never really agreed with you that we should talk current NBA players only, as if we don't talk about Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem, etc .... We like to talk about the greatest of the greats, and as good as Kawhi, Irving or Westbrook are, they are not likely to be in the top 10 player of all time conversation, or even top 20, top 25, top 50. They are great NBA players right now, but their games don't speak to them ever ending as the truly greats.

The fact that I (and the rest of the board) kept talking about Duncan and Kobe is actually a testament of their greatness. It may shock and surprise you, but Kobe is really one of the greats. I have him in my top 15 for sure, maybe borderline top 12. He'd make the top 15-20 if we include the pre-ABA old timers and that is really saying something. I don't think he is really that good, and is more a beneficiary of circumstances than anything. From a skill and ability perspective, I think he is on par, or slightly above the TMacs, and Carters, but his mental drive and focus is what separates him from those guys. From a total package perspective I think he's on par with Pierce, with the only exception being circumstances. If Kobe and Pierce reversed roles, I'd think their legacies would be reversed as well, and that is hard to find for a top10-15 player in Kobe's situation, where you can switch him with another 15-30 players, and genuinely think that the legacies will be reversed.

For example, if Jordan and Clyde reversed roles, I'd still think Jordan would have a better legacy than Clyde, same with Magic/Moncrief, or Duncan/Garnett, Duncan/Dirk, Shaq/Robinson. Even in the Hakeem/Robinson debate, I'd think Hakeem would do a whole lot worse if the roles were switched, but I don't think Robinson would do a whole lot better.

It's not like I dislike Kobe or anything, and I have gone on record to say that it would have been fantastic to have 00-03 Kobe on the Spurs, taking his sidekick role next to Duncan instead of Shaq, but I dislike the way people look at players by disregarding all the situational circumstances as if they don't matter. They do matter, and it actually matters are great deal. Kobe is actually an all-time great in this regard in how he forced his way to LA, and managed the media to shape his image for a ridiculous amount of these myths about him (clutch, killer-instinct, winning-above-all else). Ample evidence shows that he isn't clutch, his killer instinct is questionable (from a team perspective), and he cares way more about his brand and income than winning.

[Killakobe81]

I never really agreed with you that we should talk current NBA players only, as if we don't talk about Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem, etc .... We like to talk about the greatest of the greats, and as good as Kawhi, Irving or Westbrook are, they are not likely to be in the top 10 player of all time conversation, or even top 20, top 25, top 50. They are great NBA players right now, but their games don't speak to them ever ending as the truly greats.

The fact that I (and the rest of the board) kept talking about Duncan and Kobe is actually a testament of their greatness. It may shock and surprise you, but Kobe is really one of the greats. I have him in my top 15 for sure, maybe borderline top 12. He'd make the top 15-20 if we include the pre-ABA old timers and that is really saying something. I don't think he is really that good, and is more a beneficiary of circumstances than anything. From a skill and ability perspective, I think he is on par, or slightly above the TMacs, and Carters, but his mental drive and focus is what separates him from those guys. From a total package perspective I think he's on par with Pierce, with the only exception being circumstances. If Kobe and Pierce reversed roles, I'd think their legacies would be reversed as well, and that is hard to find for a top10-15 player in Kobe's situation, where you can switch him with another 15-30 players, and genuinely think that the legacies will be reversed.

For example, if Jordan and Clyde reversed roles, I'd still think Jordan would have a better legacy than Clyde, same with Magic/Moncrief, or Duncan/Garnett, Duncan/Dirk, Shaq/Robinson. Even in the Hakeem/Robinson debate, I'd think Hakeem would do a whole lot worse if the roles were switched, but I don't think Robinson would do a whole lot better.

It's not like I dislike Kobe or anything, and I have gone on record to say that it would have been fantastic to have 00-03 Kobe on the Spurs, taking his sidekick role next to Duncan instead of Shaq, but I dislike the way people look at players by disregarding all the situational circumstances as if they don't matter. They do matter, and it actually matters are great deal. Kobe is actually an all-time great in this regard in how he forced his way to LA, and managed the media to shape his image for a ridiculous amount of these myths about him (clutch, killer-instinct, winning-above-all else). Ample evidence shows that he isn't clutch, his killer instinct is questionable (from a team perspective), and he cares way more about his brand and income than winning.

Sure I like talking oldtimers ...every now and then is apropos.
Great debates like Magic or Bird? Russel or Will?
Is part of hoops and I love it ...but Kobe and Duncan is a tired subject on here. Has anyone switched camps to any degree on here besides me?

Just saying you can spend some time on something new ...i think your peak hakeem vs Duncan stuff was interesting the other day even if that has been debated ad nauseum too but at least your argument was new even if I disagree.

How about pierce vs Bird?
Larry has the peak numbers and rings but pierce owns almost every key offensive Celtic record and the longer career.

What about David vs. Chuck?
David has secondary rings both have MvPs ...
Chuck led his team further but Robinson owns him metric wise ...


So many other debates to have ...why do we keep trudging out this one?

[Killakobe81]

I never really agreed with you that we should talk current NBA players only, as if we don't talk about Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem, etc .... We like to talk about the greatest of the greats, and as good as Kawhi, Irving or Westbrook are, they are not likely to be in the top 10 player of all time conversation, or even top 20, top 25, top 50. They are great NBA players right now, but their games don't speak to them ever ending as the truly greats.

The fact that I (and the rest of the board) kept talking about Duncan and Kobe is actually a testament of their greatness. It may shock and surprise you, but Kobe is really one of the greats. I have him in my top 15 for sure, maybe borderline top 12. He'd make the top 15-20 if we include the pre-ABA old timers and that is really saying something. I don't think he is really that good, and is more a beneficiary of circumstances than anything. From a skill and ability perspective, I think he is on par, or slightly above the TMacs, and Carters, but his mental drive and focus is what separates him from those guys. From a total package perspective I think he's on par with Pierce, with the only exception being circumstances. If Kobe and Pierce reversed roles, I'd think their legacies would be reversed as well, and that is hard to find for a top10-15 player in Kobe's situation, where you can switch him with another 15-30 players, and genuinely think that the legacies will be reversed.

For example, if Jordan and Clyde reversed roles, I'd still think Jordan would have a better legacy than Clyde, same with Magic/Moncrief, or Duncan/Garnett, Duncan/Dirk, Shaq/Robinson. Even in the Hakeem/Robinson debate, I'd think Hakeem would do a whole lot worse if the roles were switched, but I don't think Robinson would do a whole lot better.

It's not like I dislike Kobe or anything, and I have gone on record to say that it would have been fantastic to have 00-03 Kobe on the Spurs, taking his sidekick role next to Duncan instead of Shaq, but I dislike the way people look at players by disregarding all the situational circumstances as if they don't matter. They do matter, and it actually matters are great deal. Kobe is actually an all-time great in this regard in how he forced his way to LA, and managed the media to shape his image for a ridiculous amount of these myths about him (clutch, killer-instinct, winning-above-all else). Ample evidence shows that he isn't clutch, his killer instinct is questionable (from a team perspective), and he cares way more about his brand and income than winning.

Come on amb you lose me with the I dont hate or dislike Kobe stuff ...you do but thats ok.

I hate Mchale, Dwight and laimbeer ...dont like Karl Malone or Bruce Bowen ...stoll respect all of them.

[ambchang]

Sure I like talking oldtimers ...every now and then is apropos.
Great debates like Magic or Bird? Russel or Will?
Is part of hoops and I love it ...but Kobe and Duncan is a tired subject on here. Has anyone switched camps to any degree on here besides me?

I semi-agree. I thought it should have been Duncan vs. Shaq, then Kobe vs. Pierce/TMac or whatever. Duncan vs. Kobe doesn't even make sense.


Just saying you can spend some time on something new ...i think your peak hakeem vs Duncan stuff was interesting the other day even if that has been debated ad nauseum too but at least your argument was new even if I disagree.

I was surprised as well, but again, thanks to djohn2oo8, I gained new appreciation of how great Duncan really was at his peak.


How about pierce vs Bird?

Larry has the peak numbers and rings but pierce owns almost every key offensive Celtic record and the longer career.

Too easy, it's Bird. Pierce was just in the wrong situation seriously. If he had a defensive big (not even KG level, but someone like peak Chandler level), and a shooting PG his entire career, he'd have won more than 1 ring. The guy really is the truth.

As for metrics, larry owns pierce in almost everything. it's really a shame Bird's back acted up, he could've been in the Jordan/Kareem conversation.


What about David vs. Chuck?
David has secondary rings both have MvPs ...
Chuck led his team further but Robinson owns him metric wise ...

This one is interesting, and given the Admiral is my favourite of all time, this one is going to be biased. That said, Sir Charles is one of my favourite non-Spurs ever (Magic, Portland Glide, Charles, Hakeem, Moses, Moncrief, pretty much in that order), but I really think Robinson got short changed because:
a) He got a horribly constructed team around him
b) his injuries.

Charles got bad teams in Philly, and he did way worse than Robinson did with comparatively crap teams. All of Robinson's teams were deeply flawed (no outside shooting to speak of, no play making, defensively weak perimeter), and the fact that Robinson can lead them to 45+ wins, and in many cases 50+ wins year in and year out tells you how big a monster Robinson was. What Robinson did with the Spurs in the early/mid 90s is similar to what Lebron did in the late 00s with the Cavs, people talk about Robinson choking in 95? How about him getting constantly tripled team because Avery Johnson can't shoot, and Rodman won't shoot? I mean, Vinny Del Negro? Antoine Carr? Are you kidding me? The only team that Robinson really had a chance was his rookie team, and he did fine in the playoffs. The thing is, if you play on a team that doesn't allow the opposition to double/triple you the entire series with no consequences, you play better, it really isn't that big of a secret.

That said, Robinson couldn't carry a team's offense like Duncan can, he can create some what, but I can't see him doing what Duncan did in 03. Barkley on the other hand, tried to hard to carry the offense, and he'd pound the air out of the ball in the low blocks before he either spins for a score, or passes it out for an outside shot. The Suns were the perfect team for him, and it's too bad Dumas got banned from the league, KJ got hurt(er), and Miller got fat, that team had all the talent in the world, and could have even taken the Bulls head on if kept intact for another couple of years.

Barkley is actually at his best if he focuses on rebounding and scoring in the low blocks, he should have let other people do more of the creating (like Dumas and KJ), and he'd definitely need a rim protector to cover for his defensive short comings.

Robinson needs a dirty work guy next to him (like Cummings), and outside shooting. Either way, I think it's actually easier to build around Robinson as the #1 than it is to build around Barkley. So I'd take Robinson.

Not to mention Robinson is one of the top 5 all time in terms of metrics (along side Jordan, Lebron and Kareem, but below Wilt).


So many other debates to have ...why do we keep trudging out this one?

Because nobody brings them up?

[140]

I never really agreed with you that we should talk current NBA players only, as if we don't talk about Magic, Bird, Jordan, Kareem, Hakeem, etc .... We like to talk about the greatest of the greats, and as good as Kawhi, Irving or Westbrook are, they are not likely to be in the top 10 player of all time conversation, or even top 20, top 25, top 50. They are great NBA players right now, but their games don't speak to them ever ending as the truly greats.

The fact that I (and the rest of the board) kept talking about Duncan and Kobe is actually a testament of their greatness. It may shock and surprise you, but Kobe is really one of the greats. I have him in my top 15 for sure, maybe borderline top 12. He'd make the top 15-20 if we include the pre-ABA old timers and that is really saying something. I don't think he is really that good, and is more a beneficiary of circumstances than anything. From a skill and ability perspective, I think he is on par, or slightly above the TMacs, and Carters, but his mental drive and focus is what separates him from those guys. From a total package perspective I think he's on par with Pierce, with the only exception being circumstances. If Kobe and Pierce reversed roles, I'd think their legacies would be reversed as well, and that is hard to find for a top10-15 player in Kobe's situation, where you can switch him with another 15-30 players, and genuinely think that the legacies will be reversed.

For example, if Jordan and Clyde reversed roles, I'd still think Jordan would have a better legacy than Clyde, same with Magic/Moncrief, or Duncan/Garnett, Duncan/Dirk, Shaq/Robinson. Even in the Hakeem/Robinson debate, I'd think Hakeem would do a whole lot worse if the roles were switched, but I don't think Robinson would do a whole lot better.

It's not like I dislike Kobe or anything, and I have gone on record to say that it would have been fantastic to have 00-03 Kobe on the Spurs, taking his sidekick role next to Duncan instead of Shaq, but I dislike the way people look at players by disregarding all the situational circumstances as if they don't matter. They do matter, and it actually matters are great deal. Kobe is actually an all-time great in this regard in how he forced his way to LA, and managed the media to shape his image for a ridiculous amount of these myths about him (clutch, killer-instinct, winning-above-all else). Ample evidence shows that he isn't clutch, his killer instinct is questionable (from a team perspective), and he cares way more about his brand and income than winning.
This post is on point, tbh.

[ambchang]

Come on amb you lose me with the I dont hate or dislike Kobe stuff ...you do but thats ok.

I hate Mchale, Dwight and laimbeer ...dont like Karl Malone or Bruce Bowen ...stoll respect all of them.

Like I said, I only pretty much hate pedo, because of what he did more than his game, but I also find him to be very overrated due to the presence of Stockton. He is a great finisher, but not that great of a creator.

As far as dislike, Kobe probably makes the list, and it's because of him being overrated, but also more because of how he manipulates the media in order to achieve that.

I dislike Rodman a lot because of what he did to the Spurs, maybe borderline hate, but loved his Pistons version.

I dislike Jordan for his manipulation of the media too, and the type of psychopathic personality that he has. He appears astonishingly petty for someone so accomplished.

I love Mchale because of his game, but he could have exerted himself more. Love Laimbeer for the mind games that he does. Impartial to Dwight because he is pretty much a clown.

Bowen though, love his ability to get under someone's skin. He acts all classy off the court, but you know he will chop your toes off to make you miss a shot.

Face it KK, you would love McHale, Laimbeer and Bruce if they are on your team.

[Killakobe81]

Like I said, I only pretty much hate pedo, because of what he did more than his game, but I also find him to be very overrated due to the presence of Stockton. He is a great finisher, but not that great of a creator.

As far as dislike, Kobe probably makes the list, and it's because of him being overrated, but also more because of how he manipulates the media in order to achieve that.

I dislike Rodman a lot because of what he did to the Spurs, maybe borderline hate, but loved his Pistons version.

I dislike Jordan for his manipulation of the media too, and the type of psychopathic personality that he has. He appears astonishingly petty for someone so accomplished.

I love Mchale because of his game, but he could have exerted himself more. Love Laimbeer for the mind games that he does. Impartial to Dwight because he is pretty much a clown.

Bowen though, love his ability to get under someone's skin. He acts all classy off the court, but you know he will chop your toes off to make you miss a shot.

Face it KK, you would love McHale, Laimbeer and Bruce if they are on your team.

Sorry I love physical play but would never condone a clothesline if a player attacking the rim ...that is very dangerous. Love his sublime post-game he was duncan or Pau on the block of the 80's.
Bowen I dislike for similar reasons ....but he was infinitely more dirty
Coop played great defense without being dirty same with Kawahi.

Agree on Bulls era Rodman who was a flopper once his defensive skills declined.
Also did not like Malone which is a switch I used to despise Stockton. I used to say he inflated Stockton's assist totals and anyone could get those assists with Malone finishing ....but the more I watched the Jazz I realized this was false. He was a great PG.
But even as a broken down Laker Malone had a high skill set and his BballIQ was very high.
Much better passer than he showed with the Jazz where he only sought to finish and like you said did not create much.
He could have created more much (like your favorite player) but preferred to be the finisher probably for selfish reasons or personal glory.
As for Laimbeer I did not even like the Celts (obviously) and I did not love jordan at first either but dude was dirty with the shit he pulled vs Jordan and Bird.

and you are wrong I disliked, Malone and Rodman even when they were Lakers. Dwight and Matt Barnes too (though I defended him some as Bruin alum),
I rooted for all of them because it benefited my team. Doesnt mean I liked them.

[cobbler]

It's hard to be shown wrong and take it like a man.

And yet here you are, after being shown the fool, whining like the little bitch you are... AGAIN!

Like I said earlier, maybe it's just that time of the month, which gives you a pass on the man card thing. :lol

CLASSIC!!!! :toast

[ambchang]

And yet here you are, after being shown the fool, whining like the little bitch you are... AGAIN!

Like I said earlier, maybe it's just that time of the month, which gives you a pass on the man card thing. :lol

CLASSIC!!!! :toast

Wrong on what? That there can be more than 10 people widely accepted in top 10 lists? That every personal list is not arguable? That multiple people can simultaneously say "I agree". Really, on what? Be more specific.

My exchange with you has mostly been you going off on a point them declare some sort of e victory before I retort. You then just disappear. I mean, I don't even have time to admit I'm wrong, let alone being shown I have. If you have shown that I am wrong, you've done a horrible job at it.

[poeticism707]

BTW, Dale, are you going to respond to my questions? You chickenshit.

:rollin :rollin :rollin

[ambchang]

Sorry I love physical play but would never condone a clothesline if a player attacking the rim ...that is very dangerous. Love his sublime post-game he was duncan or Pau on the block of the 80's.
Bowen I dislike for similar reasons ....but he was infinitely more dirty
Coop played great defense without being dirty same with Kawahi.

Agree on Bulls era Rodman who was a flopper once his defensive skills declined.
Also did not like Malone which is a switch I used to despise Stockton. I used to say he inflated Stockton's assist totals and anyone could get those assists with Malone finishing ....but the more I watched the Jazz I realized this was false. He was a great PG.
But even as a broken down Laker Malone had a high skill set and his BballIQ was very high.
Much better passer than he showed with the Jazz where he only sought to finish and like you said did not create much.
He could have created more much (like your favorite player) but preferred to be the finisher probably for selfish reasons or personal glory.
As for Laimbeer I did not even like the Celts (obviously) and I did not love jordan at first either but dude was dirty with the shit he pulled vs Jordan and Bird.

and you are wrong I disliked, Malone and Rodman even when they were Lakers. Dwight and Matt Barnes too (though I defended him some as Bruin alum),
I rooted for all of them because it benefited my team. Doesnt mean I liked them.

Mchale had that clothesline but that was one play. He's generally not really a dirty player. A guy like Bynum did much worse. Can't stop you from disliking him but if he was a laker or basically any team other than the lakers you'd be cool. Haha.

Malone I felt finished most of the play because he was the best finisher. I am not sure about his motivations were all for personal glory and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but his pick and rolls were really lethal but can but shut down with a long defender on Stockton to cut off the passing angles.

I can see how you dislike all those players, but I chose to overlook a lot of those transgressions because I like the other aspects of their game. I'm biased that way.

[Killakobe81]

Mchale had that clothesline but that was one play. He's generally not really a dirty player. A guy like Bynum did much worse. Can't stop you from disliking him but if he was a laker or basically any team other than the lakers you'd be cool. Haha.

Malone I felt finished most of the play because he was the best finisher. I am not sure about his motivations were all for personal glory and I wouldn't be surprised if it was, but his pick and rolls were really lethal but can but shut down with a long defender on Stockton to cut off the passing angles.

I can see how you dislike all those players, but I chose to overlook a lot of those transgressions because I like the other aspects of their game. I'm biased that way.

Either if just one play or not ... it was dirty and very dangerous. Im all for doing anything to win except something that could jeopardize livelihoods.
When did bynum do something like that outside of JJ barea? how is it much worse to me their were equal only difference JJB is smaller ...

[ambchang]

Either if just one play or not ... it was dirty and very dangerous. Im all for doing anything to win except something that could jeopardize livelihoods.
When did bynum do something like that outside of JJ barea? how is it much worse to me their were equal only difference JJB is smaller ...
Wallace and Beasley.

Not defending mchale on that play, it was horrible but many players did similar.