I said I did not make this fucking thread for it to be a Kobe/LeBron fucking circle jerk
That's what I fucking said
Your post said no.
But your eyes said Kobe/Lebron circle jerk.
I said I did not make this fucking thread for it to be a Kobe/LeBron fucking circle jerk
That's what I fucking said
But, if you want to side with a random ESPN poll over people who live and breathe basketball, then go right ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Hit me with your most impressive 5 stats where Kobe is ahead of Lebron.
1. Jordan
2. Lebron
3. Magic
4. Wilt
5. Kareem
6. Oscar
7. Bill Russell
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Hakeem
It was tough to leave out the white boy. I don't know... ask me tomorrow and he may be 9th above Tim and Hakeem.No Bird, Femur?
Amongst the 20 or so regular members of the SportsHoopla NBA boards, yes.
Generally? Probably not.
I said I did not make this fucking thread for it to be a Kobe/LeBron fucking circle jerk
That's what I fucking said
1. Jordan
2. Magic
3. Lebron
4. Kareem
5. Hakeem
6. Shaq
7. Bird
8. Wilt
9. Kobe
10. Oscar
Duncan to me is the most overrated on all these lists. In my opinion, David Robinson is better than Duncan in almost every aspect, but Duncan always gets ranked ahead of him because of the 5 rings. But when you compare the two in their absolute prime, it's not close.
I also think at the rate Durant is going, he's going to end up in the top 6 somewhere. He may very well finish with like 4-5 rings, which would mean Steph would have 5-6 and he'd be top 10 somewhere too.
The Warriors are an interesting case study. I agree with you on Curry and KD, but I also think they poke a lot of holes in the "more rings = better player" argument. If Curry finishes his career with 6 rings and LeBron has 3, I think many people will rate him higher. But that is so clearly wrong.
My hope is that the possible Warrior dynasty forces people to reconsider their views on the importance of ring count. KD has the talent to finish pretty high on the all time list. Curry is great, but I don't think I can ever put him top 10 no matter how many rings he gets.
The Warriors are an interesting case study. I agree with you on Curry and KD, but I also think they poke a lot of holes in the "more rings = better player" argument. If Curry finishes his career with 6 rings and LeBron has 3, I think many people will rate him higher. But that is so clearly wrong.
My hope is that the possible Warrior dynasty forces people to reconsider their views on the importance of ring count. KD has the talent to finish pretty high on the all time list. Curry is great, but I don't think I can ever put him top 10 no matter how many rings he gets.
The Warriors are an interesting case study. I agree with you on Curry and KD, but I also think they poke a lot of holes in the "more rings = better player" argument. If Curry finishes his career with 6 rings and LeBron has 3, I think many people will rate him higher. But that is so clearly wrong.
My hope is that the possible Warrior dynasty forces people to reconsider their views on the importance of ring count. KD has the talent to finish pretty high on the all time list. Curry is great, but I don't think I can ever put him top 10 no matter how many rings he gets.
Curry is the guard version of Reggie Miller IMO. I would have them ranked similarly.
If you were to ask people to list the players in order of how you would draft them if they were all 20 years olds, I doubt you wound find many non-Dorian posters that would argue that Curry should be taken before James.
He is a lot better than Reggie Miller. That is a bit of a stretch.
Miller never even made 2nd team all NBA. To be perfectly honest, Klay Thompson is the same type of player but a better version because of the defense.
Miller was clutch as hell, but not an all time great player.