Reply With Quote
I always thought that Jordan was pretty accurate.
let's all remember though, as much hype as he gets, he still is just 22. He has 13-14 more years in the leauge to either do things to become legondary, or to be average. I don't think it's fair to see people say "he isn't as good a Jordan" when Jordan wasn't even in the league when James was. It's also not fair to say "He is Jordan (or better)" becuase he has not done what Jordan did achievement wise thus far.
I also laugh at fans of any team that knock on him, when there probably isn't a player on whatever team you root for you wouldn't trade tomorrow if you could get Lebron. And I know there will be people bashing me and say they would never trade Duncan, or Nash, but remember Lebron is 8 years younger than Duncan and 11 years younger than Nash. Thats 8 and 11 more years in the league for any GM to look at.
I always thought that Jordan was pretty accurate.
Yeah, that whole head to head thing is kind of hard to defend.
But those Celtic teams at one point had five hall of famers and a hall of fame coach. What Wilt did was absolutely insane. It's mind bending to look at what he accomplished during his career, including a pair of rings.
Lets look back a bit at some of the greatest teams in NBA history. The Celts of the 50-60 had a whole team of guys that made it to the HOF. The Lakers of the 60-70's had 3 or 4 HOF on their roster. The Lakers of the 80s had Magic, Kareem. The Celts had Bird, McHale. The Bulls Jordan/Pippen. The rockets had Hakeem and Drexler and Horry. The Lakers this decade had Shaq and Kobe. The Spurs for their first two championships had Duncan and Robinson. Right now all the Spurs have is Duncan. There is no one else that is considered an elite player on this roster. Parker is good but not a elite PG, Manu is a great player but will probably be remembered for his international play more than what he did in the NBA.
Don't kid yourself, Duncan has carried this team more than any champion has had to carry their team. Now I can add Lebron to this if he wins the championship but right now he is not a champion like Duncan.
Bird had more hall of famers than Magic did, but only won once.
Would you argue that Nash is a better player than Duncan?
Neither would I.
Rings mean a lot when comparing entire careers.
As a rookie VY completed a higher percentage of his passes than Jordan ever shot, so I guess you might be wrong. Even in his last year at Texas he lead the nation in passing efficiency going into the Rose Bowl.
Vince is going to be nothing this year. He has the Madden curse, we will have to wait till 2008 before he sets the world back on fire.
I wouldn't argue that Nash is better than Duncan even if neither one had rings.
Well even without the rings Duncan is indisputably better than Nash because of his impact defensively, and his consistency.
Rings definitely mean alot, but I don't put much into having a ton of rings. It isn't as if Wilt hasn't won anything.
Not to be a downer or rain on your parade or anything . . .
But he might not have that much time left. Age is not the only indicator. Playing time is a better one. Hearing from folks today who left college or entered out of highschool - they are more broken down than their peers of similar ages because of the length of the NBA season (and post season, if they are on a good team). College players play a long time, BUT their seasons and preps are much shorter and require less physically. Additionally, those players with great efficiency and a high BB IQ are better prepared to play for a longer period of time because they do not have to rely on athleticism to carry them.
I do think LeBron will be around for a good long while, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying that to assume he'll still be playing in 10+ years anywhere near the level that's he's at now simply because he's only 22 is foolish. I worry about the same thing with Tony Parker, given the hits he takes on a nightly basis - that speed won't be around forever, and he's been playing professionally for, what, 9, 10 years now? It breaks your body down. You can see the toll that this play has had on Manu over the last year.
And whether or not you would take LeBron would depend on what other assets you have or might have. I wouldn't trade Duncan for LeBron in a heartbeat. You have to weigh out a lot in those kind of scenarios - not just age, but also salary and positions and the availability of certain types of players. You clearly need a second scorer with LeBron and a dominant big man would take you really far. Can you afford that if you take LeBron? It's always about calculation.
didn't robert horry play on 3 different teams that won or at least played in the championship? (rockets lakers, spurs)
the article says o'neal was the only one to do that unless they meant the only go to guy
you are right in some respects but what this writer is doing is looking at what Tim Duncan has to offer. In essence he is giving Tim Duncan "a break", whats the problem? Lebra already has tons of exposure.
Yeah, they referred to Shaq as 'leading' three separate teams to the playoffs. There is some argument about how much leading he did with Miami and I've heard people make that argument about Orlando as well, but can't speak to it.
I think one of those Celtic teams had as many as seven HOFers on the roster at once.
1962-63
Bill Russell
Sam Jones
Bob Cousy
John Havlicek
Frank Ramsey
Tom Heinsohn
K.C. Jones
IMO, you're not "leading" if you don't get MVP.
Shaq was the rightful league MVP his first year in Miami and won a ring in his second. I think any discussion of whether or not he "led" the team is semantics. Horry's teams probably would have gotten to the Finals without him. None of Shaq's teams would have.
I agree with you but the trade I was refering to right here right now. Lebron has a small contract compared to other stars, he is a team player, and he has as much potential as anyone who has ever played in the NBA. Now there is nothing to say that all of those factors won't change, and you wouldnt take him as a forward and trade your center and point guard to get him, I agree with you. But of the people calling him overrated, there isn't one that wouldn't welcome him on their team.
Calling him the best player in the NBA because he had one good game against a team playing terrible defense is overrating him. Sorry. He's an amazing player and I think he's awesome. People are overrating him.
Much of the praise to Lebron last series was his work on defense. During most of the year his defense was terrible, but he did not play bad on the defensive side of the ball last series. I'm not sure what series your talking about. And if dropping 48 is the only way in your book to "have a good game" than Duncan isn't much of a player. There is more to basketball than how many points you put up.
And I never said he was the best player in the NBA, I said he has the potential to be the best player in the NBA (which I don't even know if I ever wrote that, but thats how I feel)
Oh ing bull . Even you aren't stupid enough to believe that. Nobody was talking about anything other than he didn't have the Goddamn balls to take a shot at the end of a game. The fact is nobody gave a about him or the Cavs until that scoring run in game five, and now he's suddenly the heir apparent to Jordan again.
so the 32 point 9 boards and 9 dime game in game 3 was just a fluke? if that was a fluke it's pretty amazing. He also had a 25 point night with 11 boards and 7 assests in game 4. Now, if you actually watched these games (which I'm having doubts) you would remember he hit clutch shots near the end of both (one being a tough jumper outside the key, and the other was 2 free throws) I guess that there is no credit to defense when Tayshawn Prince shoots under 35% from field goal range in a 7 game series. Man, thats amazing you can't give him credit for anything
Looks like he is the first player to make 3 concesutive All-Star games on sheer luck
I know what he does. Check my history; I've been one of the guys defending him on this board for years. He's a great player. I'm convinced of that. But don't tell me that the national media was praising him before game five. The questions were always about if he was clutch or if he was even willing to take the shot, despite the fact that his pass to Donyell wasn't a bad play. The national media collectively dropped to their knees and unzipped his fly when he went for 48. Again, don't act like you don't know that.
Rewind your tape. They praised him after game 3, praised him ALOT after making those 2 clutch free throws in game 4, then sucked him off after game 5.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
