Reply With Quote
Plus 1 my .
According to some idiots on this board, not winning 2 championships in a row means you are not a top 15 player of all time.
According to this re ed logic, Larry Bird is also not a top 15 player of all time. And also according to such logic, James Worthy should be considered a top 15 player of all-time. Sam Jones should also be a top 15 player of all time. Lets face it, even George Mikan is a top 15 player of all time by this logic. Jerry West should not be considered a top 15 player cause he didn't win multiple, yet alone 2 consecutive.
Should Larry Bird be considered one of the top 15 greatest players of all time?
Plus 1 my .
sons did you know that his daughter is a lesbo ?
My list....
Jordan
Magic
Hakeem
Kobe
Duncan
Bird
Shaq
Robinson
Dirk
Gervin
lol Kobe #4??? son you may as well throw Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Rock, and John Cena in the top 10 as well! .... surely you can't truly believe that a role player like Kobe Byrant is a top 5 player of all time? seriously???
nevermind. I forgot who I was dealing with .......
Making a top 10 is opinion only and not easy. I'm still working on my top 10, I have it narrowed to a top 20, in no order, and haven't moved beyond the NBA's top 50 players at 50 years list.
To the original question, Bird is in my top 20. Constructing a top 10 list is further muddled when you place players on it that you never saw play. I think many people just copy what other people say belong on a top 10 and run with that. I see plenty of duplication on top 10 lists with just the rank order changed.
It is not the opinion I am challenging. I am challenging the stupid criteria set by some idiots who think not repeating = not a top 15 player of all time
With this re ed logic, players like Larry Bird, Tim Duncan, Jerry West, Oscar Robertson, Julius Erving are automatically kicked out of the top 15. As great as Isiah Thomas was a player, has he racked up more accolades, be it championships, All-NBA selections, all star appearances than Larry Bird type players? Isiah repeated, should he be considered a top 15 player and better than Duncan and Bird, even West and Oscar, maybe Julius Erving? Even Wilt Chamberlain didn't repeat in championships. Should he not be considered a top 15 player of all time?
With such insane logic, one could conceive James Worthy, as part of the top 15, or Sam Jones and all those Celtics in the 50s/60s, like Bob Cousy (who actually may deserve a top 15 spot), and George Mikan should deserve a spot in the top 15 of all time, ahead of all those aforementioned players on the above paragraph?
Last edited by O.J Mayo; 09-26-2010 at 05:31 AM.
Why is this even a debate? Both Larry and Timmay are Top 15 All Time.
They just failed chronologically to go back-to-back.
It happens.
I saw your point. It made so much sense I didn't comment on it.
It's just a stain on Duncan and on Bird. Not the end of the world. They're both still the goods.
They're both just failures at repeating.
The reason for Lakerfan obsession with repeating is that when the Lakers won their first 3 championships of the 80s and the word "Dynasty" was being applied to their success, Red Auerbach came forward and issued a decree that you ain't a dynasty until you can repeat.
Which is bull , but it is a fine example of how Red mind ed all the simple minded Lakers fans, as well as an example of how the Celtics organization as a whole owns the soul of Jerry Buss's pride and joy.
And Artest not imploding ain't gonna change that reality one bit.
....though Jackson yanking that X Cap outta nowhere June of '09 was pretty crafty.
tee, hee.
But see, Jackson won 6 of his les with a different organization.
So it wasn't any kind of victory for the Lakers franchise, only for Jackson.
Perhaps, but, it was still sweet that he got his X with the Lakers. & you can be that it rolled Auerbach over like Tony Parker on her wedding nite.
Buss as owner vs. Celtics head to head: 3 to 2. He bought the team in order to beat the Celtics and he succeeded.
You realize why Boston won so much in the 60's don't you? It wasn't because of Bill Russell, it was because of the stacked teams they had. 8 players in the hall of fame, with 4 on the NBA top 50 at 50 years list. Having an 8 team league and a first round bye into the ECF where HCA awaited didn't hurt either. 12 finals appearances in 13 years (11-1) under that regime, then 9 appearances in 41 years (6-3) afterward. Boston as a franchise is clearly overrated in today's NBA. By the time Boston matches the finals appearances of the old Celtics, (3 more needed if you're counting), another 20-30 years will have passed.
In my book he is.
60s must've been some painful times at chez Daddy of All Trolls.
And the whole "the reason the Celtics won so much in the 60s was because of their stacked teams!!111" excuse is a bunch of crybaby nonsense.
That's the way it works, the teams with the most talent usually win the le.
Using your reasoning, I'm going to discredit the success of the 80s Lakers and Celtics, since those teams were far more stacked than their counterparts.
& it was shaved seeing Bias & Lewis auger in.
Oh, and while we're at it, let's discredit those 50s Minneapolis Lakers who, with Mikan, were automatically guaranteed a le every year.
The game was different back then, none of those 60's teams would stand a chance today against any of the champions of the past 30 years. The 80's Celtics and Lakers would be a match for Jordan's Bulls, Shaq or Kobe's Lakers, and so on.
Also, Russell's Celtics owned more depth advantages across the board than any team in history has ever had. The current Heat and Lakers only wish they were as relatively better than the rest of the league as the old Celtics were.
Mikan was a scrub. Tallest and biggest man to ever play and with a tiny key to work in, he shot 40%. Basketball was evolving back then. Give credit to the old Minneapolis Lakers and the Boston Celtics for figuring it out, but by the 80's, so did the rest of the league.
Doesn't matter. A championship is a championship, no matter the era in which it was won. When we're comparing franchises, you compare their entire existence with one another.
And what's the excuse here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1968.html
And here:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1969.html
The Lakers and Celtics rosters were ostensible equals talent wise, and the Lakers still failed to break through.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
