knowyourenemy
Well-Known Member
It's about rings and its about how you win them. The GOAT with no rings?
GTFO
Did I say no rings? Learn to read, buddy.
It's about rings and its about how you win them. The GOAT with no rings?
GTFO
Ok then we go back to same thing everyone says. Lebron needs 6 rings. Losses don't matter whether they are in the 1st round, conference finals or Finals. Rings is one of the main factors out of many factors IMO
I think both are more qualified then anyone in here. Who is the average person going to believe = and both are well qualified to give their opinions objectivelyPhil Jackson ranks a guy who played for him above LeBron? C'mon. Phil Jackson is not a neutral party here. Neither is Jordan.
This is just another version of the "Robert Horry argument" and it's just as stupid. Kyrie wasn't/isn't the alpha on his team...Lebron was/is. Curry and Westbrook were the alpha's on their teams.
So, the only thing you shit on was yourself. Enjoy.
well, considering his current age i HIGHLY doubt he'll get to six rings anyhow. still, when the dust settles and he hangs 'em up why wouldn't the losses count against him...?
I think they would say they'd have rather won the CCGs and lost each SB. I don't understand why this is even a debate. So back to the NBA, putting aside MJ and LeBron, it's simply a fact that getting to the Finals (and losing) is better than not getting to the Finals. How anyone can think otherwise is mind-boggling.
That is an assumption.I think they would say they'd have rather won the CCGs and lost each SB. I don't understand why this is even a debate. So back to the NBA, putting aside MJ and LeBron, it's simply a fact that getting to the Finals (and losing) is better than not getting to the Finals. How anyone can think otherwise is mind-boggling.
Ask last year's Warriors how many shits they give about the number of wins without the ring.the farther along you lose, the more WINS you have.
Really? Better than losing in the CCG.Better than what?
Ask last year's Warriors how many shits they give about the number of wins without the ring.
Or the Patriots from several years back.
Not true. You can be the second best team in the league and lose in the CCG if you lose to the eventual champion.The further you go the better you are...Regardless if you win the ring
Lebron dragged a d-league team in 07 to the finals...This shows how good an individual player is vs how good a team is.
That 3 isn't even close to what Lebron has right now. It's crazy to think they will call the Cavs a super team (which I don't think they are) when they have two guys who play average defense at best. Now they are better offensively than the guys MJ had but defense wins championships and you can't get two better defensive beasts than Rodman and Pip.
That is an assumption.
Jordans team won 55 games without him lol
There is a million factors anyways in comparing players...What was the competition of the players in the era? What teams were they beating? How long did their career last? How good was your teams supporting cast without you?
At the end of the day many people think lebron will eventually pass jordan. That is what the video above is talking about.
Passing/Assists and probably rebounds, that's about it.But I am more than willing to objectively read what the criteria is the LeBron fans uses to determine that LeBron is better then Jordan. Passing, free throws, jump shots, ability to get to the basket, points per game, rebounds, assists - You got to have something to hang your hat on.
Really? Better than losing in the CCG.