Series Thread: NBA Finals: Warriors vs Cavaliers

[LAD]

LeBron does everything MJ did but better.

Except for the most important thing - win more.

 

[Montalban]

It has nothing to do with that, Russell is overrated. A great defensive player, he would be a sixth man at best in this league. Some old timers get on their knees for Russell and the main reason is bc he has a ton of rings. It is not how you judge greatness. You know he played with 6 to 7 other HOFrs in an eight team league. Not impressed

I doubt it, but maybe. More likely, if they played by the same rules today that they played by in Russell's day, he'd still be a Hall of Famer. He was simply too talented for it to be otherwise.

 

[Shanemansj13]

I doubt it, but maybe. More likely, if they played by the same rules today that they played by in Russell's day, he'd still be a Hall of Famer. He was simply too talented for it to be otherwise.

Offensively he isnt. He was average scorer with a huge advantage. Got dominated by Wilt. Like I said great defender but he is a poor mans Rodman. I cant compare him to Green bc he has a jumpshot at least

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

 

[purguy12]

Props to KD finally player comes out and says NBA is joke.

 

[Montalban]

Offensively he isnt. He was average scorer with a huge advantage. Got dominated by Wilt. Like I said great defender but he is a poor mans Rodman. I cant compare him to Green bc he has a jumpshot at least

What? He was a beast. He averaged 23 rebounds per game for his career and played 44 minutes a game. He never tired, he was a machine. Chamberlain never had a chance against him even though he was at least 80 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter. Just because you are not old enough to have watched their battles is no excuse for your ignorance of what took place. I guess the clincher is that no GM of that day would have selected Chamberlain over Russell.

 

[Shanemansj13]

I hope Draymond kicks him in his two thigh huggers

 

[Shanemansj13]

What? He was a beast. He averaged 23 rebounds per game for his career and played 44 minutes a game. He never tired, he was a machine. Chamberlain never had a chance against him even though he was at least 80 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter. Just because you are not old enough to have watched their battles is no excuse for your ignorance of what took place. I guess the clincher is that no GM of that day would have selected Chamberlain over Russell.

Offensively. Great defender and rebounder but you do realize most centers were like 6'7" back in the day. Wilt is better than Russell, that isnt a debate. It isnt close. It's dumb I am even replying to this shit.

 

[tlance]

What? He was a beast. He averaged 23 rebounds per game for his career and played 44 minutes a game. He never tired, he was a machine. Chamberlain never had a chance against him even though he was at least 80 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter. Just because you are not old enough to have watched their battles is no excuse for your ignorance of what took place. I guess the clincher is that no GM of that day would have selected Chamberlain over Russell.

23 rebounds a game in the 60s does not come anywhere close to translating to today's game.

For 1 thing, he was taller than almost everybody. He would be the height of the average SF today. For another, the game was played at a faster pace and team shooting percentages were awful compared to today. There were about twice as many rebounds available to get. 23 rebounds then probably compares to about 13 or 14 today, and that doesn't even begin to account for Russell's size advantage that he wouldn't have today.

There are very few players from that era good enough to even be in the league today.

 

[Shanemansj13]

Wilt averaged 30 ppg vs Russell. Russell averaged 14 ppg. In the head-to-head finder they didnt have rebounds and all the other stats.

Wilt >>>>>>> Billy

It isnt close

 

[Shanemansj13]

23 rebounds a game in the 60s does not come anywhere close to translating to today's game.

For 1 thing, he was taller than almost everybody. He would be the height of the average SF today. For another, the game was played at a faster pace and team shooting percentages were awful compared to today. There were about twice as many rebounds available to get. 23 rebounds then probably compares to about 13 or 14 today, and that doesn't even begin to account for Russell's size advantage that he wouldn't have today.

There are very few players from that era good enough to even be in the league today.

Wes Unseld averaged more than 13 rpg 6 times in his career. He was 6'6". He would probably still be a really good rebounder for his size but cut that in half 7-8 rpg. So Russell would probably be averaging around 10 or so which is great for his size but he would be a below average scorer. Some old timers just dont realize this

 

[TurnUpTheHeat]

 

[tlance]

Wes Unseld averaged more than 13 rpg 6 times in his career. He was 6'6". He would probably still be a really good rebounder for his size but cut that in half 7-8 rpg. So Russell would probably be averaging around 10 or so which is great for his size but he would be a below average scorer. Some old timers just dont realize this

Unseld played in the 70s though. The league had a lot more athletic talent in that era, though nowhere near today. The game evolved and grew at a pretty ridiculous rate from the mid 50s to the late 70s, early 80s.

 

[larryjohn]

What? He was a beast. He averaged 23 rebounds per game for his career and played 44 minutes a game. He never tired, he was a machine. Chamberlain never had a chance against him even though he was at least 80 pounds lighter and 4 inches shorter. Just because you are not old enough to have watched their battles is no excuse for your ignorance of what took place. I guess the clincher is that no GM of that day would have selected Chamberlain over Russell.

Interesting stat: in head-to-head, Wilt vs. Russell ... Wilt averaged 28.7 ppg and 28.7 rebounds / game.

 

[LALakersboy24.7]

LeBron does everything MJ did but better.

Yes he even did it better than anybody in hosting a show on ESPN "LeDecision" to announce to the world, that he would bee taking his talent's of being a flop to Miami to be Wade's bitch!

 

[knowyourenemy]

So, ok lets apply your theory to LBJ's losses. If he's been the top guy EVERY time why doesn't the fact that he's lost more than he's won matter? See, you can't have one without the other.

Also, Kobe never played on SUPER STAR teams. He had ONE all star on his team (Shaq) during that 3peat - of which he was a major part of. During those series Kobe took over in a lot of those 4th quarters because Shaq couldn't shoot F/Ts, therefore not able to close those games out. Shaq doesn't have 3 of his 4 rings without Kobe, and I'm pretty sure his time in Orlando w/ Penny helps us understand that.

It just seems like you're punishing LeBron for being the best player on his team and rewarding Kobe, who was arguably only the second most valuable player on all of his championship teams.

 

[TJL]

Yes he even did it better than anybody in hosting a show on ESPN "LeDecision" to announce to the world, that he would bee taking his talent's of being a flop to Miami to be Wade's bitch!

This was funnier in your head, keep it there next time.

 

[WiggyRuss]

23 rebounds a game in the 60s does not come anywhere close to translating to today's game.

For 1 thing, he was taller than almost everybody. He would be the height of the average SF today. For another, the game was played at a faster pace and team shooting percentages were awful compared to today. There were about twice as many rebounds available to get. 23 rebounds then probably compares to about 13 or 14 today, and that doesn't even begin to account for Russell's size advantage that he wouldn't have today.

There are very few players from that era good enough to even be in the league today.

very true....why --- a few guys would play and be great like Wilt etc....but for the most part--- it was nothing...i mean at times the ancient NBA was struggling to survive....guys had 2nd jobs- the level of play is not even CLOSE to what it is today- i mean- not even CLOSE.

 

[purguy12]

GS in 6.

 

[WiggyRuss]

It just seems like you're punishing LeBron for being the best player on his team and rewarding Kobe, who was arguably only the second most valuable player on all of his championship teams.

Kobe is right around a top 10 player of all time- he is amazing- one of the best players ever.

but its clear LeBron has surpassed him.

if you were picking one guy to start a team with I do not understand how you possibly could take Kobe.


LeBron has never suffered a 1st round exit. MJ has gotten bounced in the first round 3 times.

when Jordan was 22- he was swept in the first round

when LeBron was 22 he took a very mediocre cast of teammates to the Finals.

and now- LeBron is the all time leading scorer in playoff history....pretty unreal- and hes only 32 years old.