How good could Zab have been... if?

[Majesty]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

[amat]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

[Majesty]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

I read just fine. You said "ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players." That is a continuance. If you had said "ALL those teams had more then 1 great player or a bunch of decent players" that would have made more sense but you implied more then one great along with a bunch of decent players. So thats why I asked you what "two great players" are on the team since you implied there was more then one along with a bunch of other decent. So don't tell me to learn to read when your grammar is off your mneaning.


David Robinson? At the time David Robinson won with Duncan he was on his way out and about a relevant as Shaq on the Cavs with LeBron James. And seriously, I don't see Rip Hamilton, or Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace as "great players". Billups maybe. But if you look at it, the only person on their team to go on and have some sort of great success was Billups. Hamilton and Prince are still on the Pistons but without Billups how far did they get? Even when they had Wallace, Hamilton and Prince on the team without Billups how far did they get? Wallace was on the Cavs even and how far did they get?

What the Pistons were, was a bunch of really good players without one great but knew how to play together to beat the best teams. They didn't need a "STANDOUT GREAT OMG" player because they were all good. They didn't have "two greats" on their team because they didn't need it, they were all very good neither of them had to be "greats" to win a title.


And you say Duncan had Ginobli and Parker. Lebron had Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. And they PASSED UP getting Amare Staudamire in order to keep JJ Hickson so obviously they saw something there.

What it comes down to is exactly what you said, it comes down to a great team philosophy and coach as well.

Detroit Pistons are the perfect example of that, they didn't have a "great" because they had philosophy and teamplay. They didn't need to be "greats" and they aren't, because apart from each other they have done terrible with the exception of Billups and even you can agree on that.


[QUOTE=killersheep;885004]

Game 2 against the Celtics, hows that? Recent enough?

You didn't watch the game did you? Lakers were down by a lot about to head into halftime and Kobe made a steal in the last moments and hit a big time three that cut the lead to 6 and then with .4 seconds left got a steal and put up a shot that would have cut it to 4. Kobe was one of the reasons the Lakers were still in that game and they only lost the lead when he had to sit on the bench in the 3rd quarter because he had his 4th foul which even people were saying today was a bad call, so the 3rd quarter ends a tie score, without kobe they wouldnt have gotten that close. Into the 4th the refs gave Kobe a foul the first 10 seconds in the quarter so he sat most of the 4th quarter in foul trouble. he barely had the chance to play and even when he was in Kobe was the reason they were in that game and made nearly all the plays that kept the Lakers in it when he wasn't on the bench Kobe was the reason the Lakers were in the game despite only having 21 points and being in foul trouble and playing limited minutes, whereas Mo Williams was the reason the Cavs were in the game and if he hadn't scored 20+ points in the first half it would have been a blowout loss for the Cavs against Boston. If you want to compare what Kobe did in game 2 to LeBron playing nearly a full game with less fouls and less shots then be my guest

[killersheep]

[QUOTE=Majesty;885005]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

I read just fine. You said "ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players." That is a continuance. If you had said "ALL those teams had more then 1 great player or a bunch of decent players" that would have made more sense but you implied more then one great along with a bunch of decent players. So thats why I asked you what "two great players" are on the team since you implied there was more then one along with a bunch of other decent. So don't tell me to learn to read when your grammar is off your mneaning.


David Robinson? At the time David Robinson won with Duncan he was on his way out and about a relevant as Shaq on the Cavs with LeBron James. And seriously, I don't see Rip Hamilton, or Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace as "great players". Billups maybe. But if you look at it, the only person on their team to go on and have some sort of great success was Billups. Hamilton and Prince are still on the Pistons but without Billups how far did they get? Even when they had Wallace, Hamilton and Prince on the team without Billups how far did they get? Wallace was on the Cavs even and how far did they get?

What the Pistons were, was a bunch of really good players without one great but knew how to play together to beat the best teams. They didn't need a "STANDOUT GREAT OMG" player because they were all good. They didn't have "two greats" on their team because they didn't need it, they were all very good neither of them had to be "greats" to win a title.


And you say Duncan had Ginobli and Parker. Lebron had Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. And they PASSED UP getting Amare Staudamire in order to keep JJ Hickson so obviously they saw something there.

What it comes down to is exactly what you said, it comes down to a great team philosophy and coach as well.

Detroit Pistons are the perfect example of that, they didn't have a "great" because they had philosophy and teamplay. They didn't need to be "greats" and they aren't, because apart from each other they have done terrible with the exception of Billups and even you can agree on that.

Game 2 against the Celtics, hows that? Recent enough?

You didn't watch the game did you? Lakers were down by a lot about to head into halftime and Kobe made a steal in the last moments and hit a big time three that cut the lead to 6 and then with .4 seconds left got a steal and put up a shot that would have cut it to 4. Kobe was one of the reasons the Lakers were still in that game and they only lost the lead when he had to sit on the bench in the 3rd quarter because he had his 4th foul which even people were saying today was a bad call, so the 3rd quarter ends a tie score, without kobe they wouldnt have gotten that close. Into the 4th the refs gave Kobe a foul the first 10 seconds in the quarter so he sat most of the 4th quarter in foul trouble. he barely had the chance to play and even when he was in Kobe was the reason they were in that game and made nearly all the plays that kept the Lakers in it when he wasn't on the bench Kobe was the reason the Lakers were in the game despite only having 21 points and being in foul trouble and playing limited minutes, whereas Mo Williams was the reason the Cavs were in the game and if he hadn't scored 20+ points in the first half it would have been a blowout loss for the Cavs against Boston. If you want to compare what Kobe did in game 2 to LeBron playing nearly a full game with less fouls and less shots then be my guest

So since he was playing limited minutes does that mean the 5 turnovers and a solid attempt to foul out count stronger?

[Majesty]

[QUOTE=killersheep;885010]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

I read just fine. You said "ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players." That is a continuance. If you had said "ALL those teams had more then 1 great player or a bunch of decent players" that would have made more sense but you implied more then one great along with a bunch of decent players. So thats why I asked you what "two great players" are on the team since you implied there was more then one along with a bunch of other decent. So don't tell me to learn to read when your grammar is off your mneaning.


David Robinson? At the time David Robinson won with Duncan he was on his way out and about a relevant as Shaq on the Cavs with LeBron James. And seriously, I don't see Rip Hamilton, or Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace as "great players". Billups maybe. But if you look at it, the only person on their team to go on and have some sort of great success was Billups. Hamilton and Prince are still on the Pistons but without Billups how far did they get? Even when they had Wallace, Hamilton and Prince on the team without Billups how far did they get? Wallace was on the Cavs even and how far did they get?

What the Pistons were, was a bunch of really good players without one great but knew how to play together to beat the best teams. They didn't need a "STANDOUT GREAT OMG" player because they were all good. They didn't have "two greats" on their team because they didn't need it, they were all very good neither of them had to be "greats" to win a title.


And you say Duncan had Ginobli and Parker. Lebron had Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. And they PASSED UP getting Amare Staudamire in order to keep JJ Hickson so obviously they saw something there.

What it comes down to is exactly what you said, it comes down to a great team philosophy and coach as well.

Detroit Pistons are the perfect example of that, they didn't have a "great" because they had philosophy and teamplay. They didn't need to be "greats" and they aren't, because apart from each other they have done terrible with the exception of Billups and even you can agree on that.

Game 2 against the Celtics, hows that? Recent enough?

You didn't watch the game did you? Lakers were down by a lot about to head into halftime and Kobe made a steal in the last moments and hit a big time three that cut the lead to 6 and then with .4 seconds left got a steal and put up a shot that would have cut it to 4. Kobe was one of the reasons the Lakers were still in that game and they only lost the lead when he had to sit on the bench in the 3rd quarter because he had his 4th foul which even people were saying today was a bad call, so the 3rd quarter ends a tie score, without kobe they wouldnt have gotten that close. Into the 4th the refs gave Kobe a foul the first 10 seconds in the quarter so he sat most of the 4th quarter in foul trouble. he barely had the chance to play and even when he was in Kobe was the reason they were in that game and made nearly all the plays that kept the Lakers in it when he wasn't on the bench Kobe was the reason the Lakers were in the game despite only having 21 points and being in foul trouble and playing limited minutes, whereas Mo Williams was the reason the Cavs were in the game and if he hadn't scored 20+ points in the first half it would have been a blowout loss for the Cavs against Boston. If you want to compare what Kobe did in game 2 to LeBron playing nearly a full game with less fouls and less shots then be my guest

So since he was playing limited minutes does that mean the 5 turnovers and a solid attempt to foul out count stronger?

A solid attempt to foulout? What's that mean?

And no since he played limited minutes means just that he wasn't out there to produce. LeBron was out ther to produce.

if LeBron was sitting on the bench for most of the game with 5 fouls alright id give you that. But he was out there most of the game. Kobe barely was in the game but when he was he was the reason they brought the Lakers back. LeBron was out there most of the game but didn't produce.

Do you get what Im saying? Its comparing being out there, and not producing, to barely being out there but still producing. LeBron was out there for an extended period of time not producing, Kobe didn't have a lot of time, but when he had time he was producing to the best he could. Get what Im saying?

You should really watch the games. If I could find them online i'd show you in a PM. But it comes down to this, if Kobe was in that game as long as LeBron was in his, would the Lakers have won?

[killersheep]

[QUOTE=Majesty;885014]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

I read just fine. You said "ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players." That is a continuance. If you had said "ALL those teams had more then 1 great player or a bunch of decent players" that would have made more sense but you implied more then one great along with a bunch of decent players. So thats why I asked you what "two great players" are on the team since you implied there was more then one along with a bunch of other decent. So don't tell me to learn to read when your grammar is off your mneaning.


David Robinson? At the time David Robinson won with Duncan he was on his way out and about a relevant as Shaq on the Cavs with LeBron James. And seriously, I don't see Rip Hamilton, or Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace as "great players". Billups maybe. But if you look at it, the only person on their team to go on and have some sort of great success was Billups. Hamilton and Prince are still on the Pistons but without Billups how far did they get? Even when they had Wallace, Hamilton and Prince on the team without Billups how far did they get? Wallace was on the Cavs even and how far did they get?

What the Pistons were, was a bunch of really good players without one great but knew how to play together to beat the best teams. They didn't need a "STANDOUT GREAT OMG" player because they were all good. They didn't have "two greats" on their team because they didn't need it, they were all very good neither of them had to be "greats" to win a title.


And you say Duncan had Ginobli and Parker. Lebron had Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. And they PASSED UP getting Amare Staudamire in order to keep JJ Hickson so obviously they saw something there.

What it comes down to is exactly what you said, it comes down to a great team philosophy and coach as well.

Detroit Pistons are the perfect example of that, they didn't have a "great" because they had philosophy and teamplay. They didn't need to be "greats" and they aren't, because apart from each other they have done terrible with the exception of Billups and even you can agree on that.

Game 2 against the Celtics, hows that? Recent enough?

You didn't watch the game did you? Lakers were down by a lot about to head into halftime and Kobe made a steal in the last moments and hit a big time three that cut the lead to 6 and then with .4 seconds left got a steal and put up a shot that would have cut it to 4. Kobe was one of the reasons the Lakers were still in that game and they only lost the lead when he had to sit on the bench in the 3rd quarter because he had his 4th foul which even people were saying today was a bad call, so the 3rd quarter ends a tie score, without kobe they wouldnt have gotten that close. Into the 4th the refs gave Kobe a foul the first 10 seconds in the quarter so he sat most of the 4th quarter in foul trouble. he barely had the chance to play and even when he was in Kobe was the reason they were in that game and made nearly all the plays that kept the Lakers in it when he wasn't on the bench Kobe was the reason the Lakers were in the game despite only having 21 points and being in foul trouble and playing limited minutes, whereas Mo Williams was the reason the Cavs were in the game and if he hadn't scored 20+ points in the first half it would have been a blowout loss for the Cavs against Boston. If you want to compare what Kobe did in game 2 to LeBron playing nearly a full game with less fouls and less shots then be my guest

So since he was playing limited minutes does that mean the 5 turnovers and a solid attempt to foul out count stronger?

A solid attempt to foulout? What's that mean?

And no since he played limited minutes means just that he wasn't out there to produce. LeBron was out ther to produce.

if LeBron was sitting on the bench for most of the game with 5 fouls alright id give you that. But he was out there most of the game. Kobe barely was in the game but when he was he was the reason they brought the Lakers back. LeBron was out there most of the game but didn't produce.

Do you get what Im saying? Its comparing being out there, and not producing, to barely being out there but still producing. LeBron was out there for an extended period of time not producing, Kobe didn't have a lot of time, but when he had time he was producing to the best he could. Get what Im saying?

You should really watch the games. If I could find them online i'd show you in a PM.

No I don't get what you are saying because you said the reason Lebron choked was because of turnovers, but when Kobe does what would be more is scaled out over an entire game it doesn't matter because he put up points and got some steals, however when we were talking about Lebron it didn't matter that he scored a lot of points it was the turnovers, maybe losing a home game before going on the road for the next three games doesn't count as a clutch game, I don't know where you are coming from. Is Kobe better in the clutch than Lebron? Sure he is, now on to the by how much well given an option of top 5 players to be on my team Lebron is still up there. In the championship rounds does Judah make my top 10 welter weights absolutely not.

Furthermore, the entire critical point is Judah is a man in a ring against one opponent, whereas Lebron has 4 team mates that can contribute both positively and negatively to the outcome.

[Majesty]

[QUOTE=killersheep;885019]

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Heat
Pistons
Bulls

Those are the last 6 franchises to win the finals Majesty, ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players. If Kobe won a title without Gasol/Shaq or Jordan did it without Pippen then yeah maybe you have a point but NO, you don't.

Who are the 3 current great players in the league btw? Kobe/Lebron/Howard?

the 3 current greats players in the league are Kobe/Lebron/ and at 3 id say its tied between Wade, and Durant, but Durant is just getting started. I wouldn't put Howard up there because he is great defensively but he doesn't really have that "take over a game" mentality that Wade does, so I'd put Wade over him.


And as far as the part I bolded, Who are the great players Detroit had? In fact they BEAT the Lakers when they had Malone, Payton, Kobe, and Shaq. So I don't think that's the recipe. And who did the Spurs have besides Tim Duncan that you'd consider a great? I think your theory is a bit flawed that ALL those teams needed two greats to win it. it ain't about how many greats you have on your team. One great can do it, it all depends on how you can get everyone else involved and how you take over a game. The Lakers with Shaq and Kobe won 3 titles in a row. But they lost the 4th year to the Spurs with only one great, Tim Duncan. You don't need TWO GREATS to win a championship.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!?!?!?

I said "more then 1 great player and a bunch of decent players' NOT 2 great players! Learn to read man and don't go bolding half of my sentence. LEBRON DOESN'T EVEN HAVE ANOTHER ALL STAR ON HIS TEAM. Your Pistons comment is IDIOTIC to say the least, they had 4 of their starting 5 in the all star game and the 5th guy was Tayshaun Prince who is a solid solid player. Tim Duncan first had David Robinson and then he had Ginobli and Parker and a great team philosophy with a great coach. You're bblaming team performances on Lebron and comparing it to Judah who has no one to blame but himself.

I don't know how you decide what people you like or don't like but when your mind is made up you will play these BS arguments deflecting points and focusing on half sentences or one word, garbage spin doctoring. Killersheep, keep on going. Majesty, you are an idiot and you've driven me out of this thread, glad you'll get the last word in surely in your head that will mean you won this argument I'm sure.

I read just fine. You said "ALL of those teams had more then 1 great player and bunch of decent players." That is a continuance. If you had said "ALL those teams had more then 1 great player or a bunch of decent players" that would have made more sense but you implied more then one great along with a bunch of decent players. So thats why I asked you what "two great players" are on the team since you implied there was more then one along with a bunch of other decent. So don't tell me to learn to read when your grammar is off your mneaning.


David Robinson? At the time David Robinson won with Duncan he was on his way out and about a relevant as Shaq on the Cavs with LeBron James. And seriously, I don't see Rip Hamilton, or Tayshaun Prince or Ben Wallace as "great players". Billups maybe. But if you look at it, the only person on their team to go on and have some sort of great success was Billups. Hamilton and Prince are still on the Pistons but without Billups how far did they get? Even when they had Wallace, Hamilton and Prince on the team without Billups how far did they get? Wallace was on the Cavs even and how far did they get?

What the Pistons were, was a bunch of really good players without one great but knew how to play together to beat the best teams. They didn't need a "STANDOUT GREAT OMG" player because they were all good. They didn't have "two greats" on their team because they didn't need it, they were all very good neither of them had to be "greats" to win a title.


And you say Duncan had Ginobli and Parker. Lebron had Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison. And they PASSED UP getting Amare Staudamire in order to keep JJ Hickson so obviously they saw something there.

What it comes down to is exactly what you said, it comes down to a great team philosophy and coach as well.

Detroit Pistons are the perfect example of that, they didn't have a "great" because they had philosophy and teamplay. They didn't need to be "greats" and they aren't, because apart from each other they have done terrible with the exception of Billups and even you can agree on that.

Game 2 against the Celtics, hows that? Recent enough?

You didn't watch the game did you? Lakers were down by a lot about to head into halftime and Kobe made a steal in the last moments and hit a big time three that cut the lead to 6 and then with .4 seconds left got a steal and put up a shot that would have cut it to 4. Kobe was one of the reasons the Lakers were still in that game and they only lost the lead when he had to sit on the bench in the 3rd quarter because he had his 4th foul which even people were saying today was a bad call, so the 3rd quarter ends a tie score, without kobe they wouldnt have gotten that close. Into the 4th the refs gave Kobe a foul the first 10 seconds in the quarter so he sat most of the 4th quarter in foul trouble. he barely had the chance to play and even when he was in Kobe was the reason they were in that game and made nearly all the plays that kept the Lakers in it when he wasn't on the bench Kobe was the reason the Lakers were in the game despite only having 21 points and being in foul trouble and playing limited minutes, whereas Mo Williams was the reason the Cavs were in the game and if he hadn't scored 20+ points in the first half it would have been a blowout loss for the Cavs against Boston. If you want to compare what Kobe did in game 2 to LeBron playing nearly a full game with less fouls and less shots then be my guest

So since he was playing limited minutes does that mean the 5 turnovers and a solid attempt to foul out count stronger?

A solid attempt to foulout? What's that mean?

And no since he played limited minutes means just that he wasn't out there to produce. LeBron was out ther to produce.

if LeBron was sitting on the bench for most of the game with 5 fouls alright id give you that. But he was out there most of the game. Kobe barely was in the game but when he was he was the reason they brought the Lakers back. LeBron was out there most of the game but didn't produce.

Do you get what Im saying? Its comparing being out there, and not producing, to barely being out there but still producing. LeBron was out there for an extended period of time not producing, Kobe didn't have a lot of time, but when he had time he was producing to the best he could. Get what Im saying?

You should really watch the games. If I could find them online i'd show you in a PM.

No I don't get what you are saying because you said the reason Lebron choked was because of turnovers, but when Kobe does what would be more is scaled out over an entire game it doesn't matter because he put up points and got some steals, however when we were talking about Lebron it didn't matter that he scored a lot of points it was the turnovers, maybe losing a home game before going on the road for the next three games doesn't count as a clutch game, I don't know where you are coming from. Is Kobe better in the clutch than Lebron? Sure he is, now on to the by how much well given an option of top 5 players to be on my team Lebron is still up there. In the championship rounds does Judah make my top 10 welter weights absolutely not.

Furthermore, the entire critical point is Judah is a man in a ring against one opponent, whereas Lebron has 4 team mates that can contribute both positively and negatively to the outcome.

And the critical point of comparison I make with Zab and LeBron is that.

They were both hyped as the next one.

They both have underachieved so far in their career in terms of the expectations put on them.

They both have had their mentality questioned because ever since their careers started they were put in the same breath as the greats. But have yet to show the mentality of them.

The difference is, LeBron is still in his 20s and could still prove everyone wrong and win some rings and still go out with a great career. He has the talent to do it. But Lebron won't ever live up to the huge expectations put on him(the next MJ the greatest basketball player in the last 10 years in this era etc etc and honetly who could?) but there is still time for LeBron to accomplish great things in the playoffs and the finals.

But to get back on the subject of Zab Judah, since you and I can debate NBA back and forth in PMs. This is what I think about Zab.

Zab Judah is in his 30s and is never gonna live up to what people think he will and the next time he steps up he is gonna get beat again and his career will be over.

Zab Judah has become the standard of talent never making it to the top truly.

LeBron James still has a lot of time, 10 more years maybe even, and I hope for his sake and his fans sake that he doesnt 'Zab Judah' his career.

But Zab's career is done. LeBrons is just beginning so thats the major difference.

Still, my point about Zab stills stands, batman talent, robin mentality.