http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...528-story.html
Refreshing, unbiased take, tbh..good to see, especially from one of Dad Killer's fellow White men..
oh, so thats what Lambeer thinks eh?
He's no where close to MJ...not even in the same local galactic group
Skip to 4:11
Lol Laimbeer still bitter over THE SWEEP and all those 50 pt games MJ had against them
Laimbeer would have crushed Lebron..physically and mentally....he never broke MJ not mentally anyway
The gap between the two Is actually a lot closer than people think. Jordan is getting more and more overrated in which he is some kind of God that can do no wrong. He's still obviously one of the best, if not outright the best, of all time, but he isn't really head and shoulders above everybody else like what most people say.
Look at the teams he won with, they were unorthodox in the makeup and have all the components ideally constructed to amplify Jordan's strengths and minimize his weaknesses.
If he said anywhere in there MUCH better he is out of his damn mind. I can see his opinion as saying near, but much better? I didn't even click the link but that part made me laugh.
That's a re ed thing to say and I actually like Lebron. You don't think Lebron's team isn't constructed to maximize his strengths?
So 80s/90s players' opinions don't mean unless they support Lebron, got it.
Not really. There was a lot of talk about how lebron and Wade aren't really complimentary to each other.
All the cavs team had been horribly constructed.
I want to dissect this post but I honestly don't have time today but ok
Yep, then it fits their argument. I even asked before about a article posted where someone said the 86 Celts and 87 Lakers were the best, they posted it for some reason to back their arguments but kept ignoring that point made in the article. Some older Boston dude was talking about teams and said the Bulls team was not the best or overrated some, but he said that in his article as well which would not fit their argument of 80's and 90's ball being worse.
It's much easier to find a rebounder/assist machine than guy to hit the game winning basket with 10 seconds remaining
So James is a glorified Oscar Robertson. Whoopity do. James will put/keep you in position to Win the game but he doesn't have the offensive skill set to put you over the Top. There are many LeBron James. There are very few Michael Jordans
Obviously you are horribly incorrect, considering Lebron has put his team over the top twice already. Do you just live to be stupid or something?
http://www.freep.com/story/sports/nb...rdan/28056173/
LeBron James is better than Michael Jordan
By Shawn Windsor, Detroit Free Press
Go back and watch. I dare you.
Go back and watch Michael Jordan.
Not just his highlights, not just his all-time dunks and buzzer-beaters, but an actual game in which he played, a full game, a game that reveals NBA wings without left hands and point guards who couldn't shoot.
Games in which he feasted on nonathletic shooting guards and slithered past power forwards with two left feet.
Dale Davis, anyone?
Yeah, there was muscle in the '90s, especially on the front line. And there was grabbing — mostly because there wasn't enough lateral quickness. And there was less skill and grace, poorer shooting and ballhandling and less otherworldly explosiveness.
So please: the romanticism. It. Has. To. Stop.
Hey, I get it: Jordan is still our future. He showed us the outer edge of athletic achievement in space. Nobody ever danced like he did.
During Jordan's rookie year I drove from Austin to San Antonio to catch a glimpse for myself. It's hard to overstate how electric he was then, how incomprehensible he was to our idea of what basketball could be. Plus, he won.
But he isn't LeBron James.
There, I said it.
And I'll say it again: Jordan is not James, not the same leader, not the same floor presence, not the same basketball genius. Jordan may be the best scorer in the history of the NBA. He may be the best last-minute shooter. He may even be the best perimeter defender, although I'd take Kawhi Leonard over Jordan in a heartbeat.
But he is not the best player.
LeBron James is.
This should be clear after Tuesday night, when James led the Cavaliers to a sweep over the Atlanta Hawks to get himself to the NBA Finals for the fifth straight time and sixth overall.
This year's Cavs are more talented than the team he pushed to the Finals in 2007, but Jordan never led a team like either to the final round.
He played for one of the best coaches in the sport's history, alongside the best small forward of his era (who happens to be one of the NBA's 50 greatest), flanked by shooters who helped other teams win les and Hall of Fame rebounders who did the same.
Jordan played for a team that came within a bucket of the Eastern Conference finals the year after he retired. LeBron played for two teams that missed the playoffs the year after he left.
Think about that, about his effect on a franchise, about where the Miami Heat is now, about where the Cavs were a year ago, or the year after he left for Miami. This isn't a coincidence. It's not that complicated.
LeBron is Magic Johnson with a better jumper, better ball skills, more athletic ability and more power. And you're telling me that player isn't the best player ever?
OK, the rings. Yes, this matters.
And the loss to the Dallas Mavericks in the 2011 Finals in LeBron's first year with the Heat has no similar hiccup in Jordan's career. LeBron didn't handle the pressure that year, the only time his team lost a Finals where his side had more talent.
In that sense, Jordan is perfect.
But then Jordan didn't make the Finals himself until the Pistons were past their prime. After that, he squeaked past teams that couldn't shoot — the Knicks — or didn't have players who could create their own shot — the Pacers.
The best team he ever faced in the Finals — the Suns — couldn't defend. Kevin Johnson? Danny Ainge? Charles Barkley? Dan Majerle?
Please. LeBron had to play the Spurs three times, an outfit with a top-five coach, the best power forward ever, an All-Start point guard, a nasty, soul-stealing shooting guard, and role players that defended and shot like crazy.
And I'm not even talking about Leonard, who represents the sort of outsized combination of speed and size and agility that we now take for granted in this league.
Jordan beat John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek.
Twice.
Look, it's easy to pick apart LeBron's psyche, because that's what we do these days. It's easy, too, to overanalyze numbers every day, wondering why LeBron didn't shoot better or why he didn't get to the rim or why he had so many turnovers.
So let me say: 5-for-19 … and five.
Those are Jordan's shooting numbers and turnovers in the final game of the 1996 season, when his Bulls clinched the le against Seattle. His teammates picked him up that night, as they often did on nights when he couldn't take over a game, which wasn't as infrequent as you think, at least not in the playoffs.
Yet we didn't worry about Jordan's numbers that night. He won after returning from a sabbatical, and so we accepted his greatness.
It's time we did the same for LeBron. No one has ever commanded the huddle or the floor like he has.
It's obvious that there are different answers to the questions:
Who is the all time best, best overall career, most dominant player, most likely to be picked first as teammate in a generic simulation
That'd be Jordan, Duncan, Shaq, Duncan imho
James doesn't even have a reliable jump shot
Strange comment, considering Lebron is a better 3-point shooter than DK was, 3s > inefficient, mid-range jump shotsJames doesn't even have a reliable jump shot
I still maintain, if your best player overall is not a big you don't understand basketball. Jordan is a historical important player who won in the most impressive way. For that he's generally allowed to be considered the best-it's an exception. LeBron is a quasi big but I still think the rule works against him.
Part of the problem is this, some people see LeBron based on his talent, which probably is all time best, a perfect combination of size and speed. But basketball is a skills league. So another group sees LeBron as his actual career which is great in some ways, average in others.
Finally you got guys like me who look at LeBron by his failures. Maybe as time goes by the dumb stuff gets forgotten. Jordan is pretty whitewashed; no body cares about his bad side. But shouldn't all time great have no faults? How can greatest of all time be so controversial?
It was the style at the timeStrange comment, considering Lebron is a better 3-point shooter than DK was, 3s > inefficient, mid-range jump shots
PlayoffsStrange comment, considering Lebron is a better 3-point shooter than DK was, 3s > inefficient, mid-range jump shots
2PT%: Jordan
3PT%: Jordan
FT%: Jordan
Get the outta here with that scrub. Wake me up when he discovers a jump shot. You know the ability to throw the ball inside the cylinder
James = 15 PPG in the 90s
Haha I love the random quote about Kobe
"The one guy who cares about that time period"
They have virtually the same 3-point % in the playoffs(33 vs. 32%), but Lebron shoots way more 3s(4 per game vs. 2.5)..stopPlayoffs
2PT%: Jordan
3PT%: Jordan
FT%: Jordan
Get the outta here with that scrub. Wake me up when he discovers a jump shot. You know the ability to throw the ball inside the cylinder
James = 15 PPG in the 90s
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
