Odogg wrote:Oh man this thread got long and is hard to read through on mobile. Other than OP, I still don't see anyone has addressed my point about the historical impact of Magic and Bird vs Duncan. Seems like this did not factor in at all in the #2 vote. Also Duncan's main rival was probably the Lakers, and he came up short usually vs them in the playoffs, 99 being the one big exception to that. Also it's not that he never repeated, he never EVEN CAME CLOSE to repeating. The only time Spurs even made the conf finals in a repeat year, they got destroyed 4-1 by the Lakers, and that wasn't even the Shaq/Kobe Lakers.
Didn't he do it against the Heat? In fact, he went WCF, Finals, Champion over 3 years.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
Robceltsfan wrote:
So weren't the Kareem/Magic teams "built to have repeated success"???? God damn, they had more talent than most any team in NBA history......AND a fucking cakewalk to the Finals every year.
What about all HIS letdowns? They don't count against him?
#stilldoesntmakeanysense
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
y2ktors wrote:
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Now I'm dealing with contrived "standards" and "feelings". We could have ended this shit 125 posts ago if you simply said "that's just how I feel" instead of trying to back your way into it with half-assed reasons and bullshit.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
y2ktors wrote:
Rob, that's not totally true of those Lakers. They had 3 HC in a span of under 3 years and a revolving door of supporting casts until after they got bitch slapped by the Rockets in 1986. The only true constants were Magic, Kareem and eventually Riley as the head coach. While that sounds good enough to win more, they lost to a 76ers team that was good enough to beat them in 83 and a better Celtics team in 1984.
No one and I mean NO ONE was better than Jordan nor those Bulls at full strength or close to it. Losing was out of the question.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Well, at least we understand that it all boils down to subjective feelings and such.
Robceltsfan wrote:At least nobody can argue that we're the same poster Abe. We post the same shit at the same moment.
Here's the deal.
You know a guy is trolling when three guys are fighting each other who gets to post an immediate response because it comes to mind instantly as being logical...
Sadly, that's also how you know you've got suckers on the line... but regardless... Congrats yktors... you've trolled us.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Now I'm dealing with contrived "standards" and "feelings". We could have ended this shit 125 posts ago if you simply said "that's just how I feel" instead of trying to back your way into it with half-assed reasons and bullshit.
Rob, my personal list is what it is: MY personal list. I don't do it just to say they I can do it. I take nothing at face value, which I have already stated. I can't make that any clearer.
y2ktors wrote:
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Now I'm dealing with contrived "standards" and "feelings". We could have ended this shit 125 posts ago if you simply said "that's just how I feel" instead of trying to back your way into it with half-assed reasons and bullshit.
Rob, my personal list is what it is: MY personal list. I don't do it just to say they I can do it. I take nothing at face value, which I have already stated. I can't make that any clearer.
I get it....that's how you "feel".
You hold Jordan to a higher standard than Jabbar because he was more dominant against his peers than Kareem was. You expected Jordan to win year-in, year-out because he was that damn good. You didn't expect the same from Kareem despite being in a weak conference with HOF caliber players surrounding him.
There's a common denominator in there. Maybe someone can help me find it.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are dumber than that.
So I'll ask again.....why was Kareem's scattered titles worth more than Jordan's fictitious scattered titles when Jordan was arguable more dominant on both ends of the court? What puts Kareem ahead of him as you said you would?
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Well, at least we understand that it all boils down to subjective feelings and such.
If that's all it is... why argue so vehemently?
[Edit: GOD DAMMIT, ROB!!!!!!! Stop IT.]
I'm not arguing. I just resent people questioning my personal top 10 list as if I'm completely oblivious to the careers of the players that I rank, especially the player that made me a fan of the game of basketball some 25 years ago.
y2ktors wrote:
Because there's a certain standard that comes along with what Jordan brought to the table. That standard isn't 6 scattered titles. The standard that he set was a feeling of invincibility because no player and no team could overcome him nor his team. When Jordan played, you knew that he was going to find a way to win. I don't get that same feeling with scattered titles And less iconic moments.
Well, at least we understand that it all boils down to subjective feelings and such.
If that's all it is... why argue so vehemently?
[Edit: GOD DAMMIT, ROB!!!!!!! Stop IT.]
I'm not arguing. I just resent people questioning my personal top 10 list as if I'm completely oblivious to the careers of the players that I rank, especially the player that made me a fan of the game of basketball some 25 years ago.
That's fine. You can put Eric Snow first. I don't care. Just make your list and be done with it. Don't try to "explain" it with facts or reasoning that won't make sense to the rest of us.
As you've said repeatedly, you don't take anything at face value. Well, if you look at that forest long enough... you'll see something in there that you're looking for.
