AI and Drexler > Wade

[D-Wade316]

:roll:

[Bandito]

If you think Wade is better than AI I :lol at you...

[UnbiasedGuy]

I havent seen Drexler, but I can safely say that Wade > Iverson

Put AI on the 06 and current heat, they dont win shit.

Put prime Wade on AI's sixers, and they do just as well, but still fall short in the finals.

[Quintilianus]

Peak wise Iverson is a better player than both wade and drexler.
But peak doesn't matter in ranking players so wade and drexler are both better

[UnbiasedGuy]

Peak wise Iverson is a better player than both wade and drexler.
But peak doesn't matter in ranking players so wade and drexler are both better

sure, if we arent considering defense or efficiency LOL

[D-Wade316]

If you think AI is better than Wade I :lol at you...
Fixed that for you. :cheers:

[Bandito]

sure, if we arent considering defense or efficiency LOL
If you think Wade is going to be as efficient on that 76ers team you are mistaken. Iverson had to score a bunch in order for that team to get points. If Wade care about stats as he does now, the team is going to be 2010 Heat.

[Rysio]

ai is easily better than wade. only 15 year old stat geeks who never seen him play like op say otherwise.

[LEFT4DEAD]

Wade >>> AI and its not that tough decision, even though I was a big AI's fan at the time.

[Bandito]

ai is easily better than wade. only 15 year old stat geeks who never seen him play like op say otherwise.
I know right? Iverson played injured to the point of having his knee drained in the middle of a season and still playing.

But Wade...


http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/04/26/sports/photos_stories/cropped/dwyane_wade--300x300.jpg

:facepalm

[PJR]

These same retards who say Wade historically isn't better than the likes of Drexler or Iverson, turnaround and lambast LeBron for wanting to go play with him.

If Wade historically isn't on the level of the aforementioned players, then what's the problem? :confusedshrug:

[Quintilianus]

sure, if we arent considering defense or efficiency LOL
Iverson was a decent defender back in his days. Efficiency doesn't matter and when used without context is absolutely worthless criteria to evaluate players. Iverson was a much better scorer and it's not even close in that area

[Just2McFly]

Wade>AI>>>>>>Drexler

dude drexler wasnt that nice yo

[Papaya Petee]

There is no argument for those guys over Wade, at all, for amy reason whatsoever

[PJR]

Iverson was a much better scorer and it's not even close in that area


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[ILLsmak]

I havent seen Drexler, but I can safely say that Wade > Iverson

Put AI on the 06 and current heat, they dont win shit.

Put prime Wade on AI's sixers, and they do just as well, but still fall short in the finals.

you really think that?

-Smak

[Raymone]

When we look back in ten years, Wade's entire career will be remembered as being sidekick carried to 5-7 rings by the most dominant SF ever.

So yes, Allen and Clyde were better.

[fpliii]

When we look back in ten years, Wade's entire career will be remembered as being sidekick carried to 5-7 rings by the most dominant SF ever.

So yes, Allen and Clyde were better.

:facepalm

[PJR]

you really think that?

-Smak

What makes you think he could?

I think Iverson would struggle mightily to make the adjustments necessary on this current Heat team. Not to mention there would be a huge drop-off in terms of defensive versatility.

[DaSeba5]

When we look back in ten years, Wade's entire career will be remembered as being sidekick carried to 5-7 rings by the most dominant SF ever.

So yes, Allen and Clyde were better.

:facepalm

He was the man long before LeBron came here.

[Straight_Ballin]

Considering AI has a better stat sheet than Kobe 8 vs 6 for the 14 seasons they played....

AI is arguably just as good as Kobe. What he lacks for in shot % and defense he made up for in heart. Put him on the Lakers and he could just have easily had Shaq carry him, Pau come up big, or Metta hit big shots when it mattered most. Don't be upset because he as much smaller that Kobe but arguably just as good.

How the hell are you going to say Wade is better? :lol Kobe vs AI is at least a good conversation, but the best Wade has ever been is top 3. AI was TOP DOG for a few seasons.

I won't even acknowledge the comment on Drexler as most of you have never even seen him play. :facepalm

[Cliff Paul]

I'll take Wade over Iverson, and that's not a knock on Iverson. Wade picks his spots better, is more efficient, and plays bigger as well as being more versatile.

[Cali Syndicate]

Iverson was a decent defender back in his days. Efficiency doesn't matter and when used without context is absolutely worthless criteria to evaluate players. Iverson was a much better scorer and it's not even close in that area

Iverson was barely 6' and 160lbs. Other than playing the lanes and the quickest to loose balls, his stature does not allow him to be much of a decent defender at all.

[Frozen1]

When we look back in ten years, Wade's entire career will be remembered as being sidekick carried to 5-7 rings by the most dominant SF ever.

So yes, Allen and Clyde were better.


Or the guy your King James, aka Lequit The Frozen One in cleveland, went after to win his rings.

As long i remember, it was lebron who changed team to join wade. Oh, and by the way, Wade already had one finals MVP by the time King James joined him.

[Poetry]

dude drexler wasnt that nice yo

You must not remember Drexler very well then.

[gengiskhan]

:roll:

Drexler > Wade

Drexler > Kobe

AI = Kobe

Wade = Kobe

Drexler took Blazers to 2 NBA Finals in 3 yrs period in extremely competitive era on his own!

Kobe cannot do that even in the present watered down era.

wade cannot do that even in the present watered down era.

[gengiskhan]

Drexler >> Kobe

When Drexler got BEAT in 1991 WCF. He lost to GOAT player (Magic) who was a notch above him.

Peak prime Kobe got BEAT after being up 3-1. He lost to an INFERIOR team.

Peak Prime Drexler could've made it to 1990 NBA Finals, 1991 NBA finals, 1992 NBA Finals.

Peak Prime Drexler always carried his team deep into Post Seasons.

Peak Prime Kobe FAILED to make it to Post Season.

1991 Portland would've beaten 1991 Bulls 4-3 in NBA Finals.

Magic showed why he is considered GOAT laker & GOAT player by out dueling heavy favorites 1991 Blazers in the WCF.

[tontoz]

Iverson was a decent defender back in his days. Efficiency doesn't matter and when used without context is absolutely worthless criteria to evaluate players. Iverson was a much better scorer and it's not even close in that area

Iverson was always a defensive liability. He wasn't big enough to guard 2s so you needed a pg who had the size to guard 2s. When Iverson guarded the opposing pg he wouldn't pressure the ball and was constantly gambling for steals.

I would take Wade over Iverson easily. Wade is a light year better defensively, a less selfish player and a more efficient scorer.

Denver didn't get any better when the got Iverson and didn't get any worse when he left.

Saying scoring efficiency doesn't matter is flat dumb. There was no excuse for Iverson taking so many 3s when he was shooting them so poorly. When you are taking a lot of shots and shooting poorly you are not helping the team.

[lefthook00]

Iverson is better, better athlete, tougher, better leader. Wade won a ring, but I'm pretty sure Iverson would have too if he was put in that position. That's not too far of a stretch, Iverson has the 2nd highest PLAYOFF ppg of ALL TIME.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tb4ck8upHQ

[Straight_Ballin]

AI=Kobe

:applause:

[DC Zephyrs]

Dwyane Wade career PER: 25.6

Allen Iverson career PER: 20.9

This shouldn't even be a discussion.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Im still lmao at the poster that said Drexler was better :oldlol:

[lefthook00]

Iverson was always a defensive liability. He wasn't big enough to guard 2s so you needed a pg who had the size to guard 2s. When Iverson guarded the opposing pg he wouldn't pressure the ball and was constantly gambling for steals.

I would take Wade over Iverson easily. Wade is a light year better defensively, a less selfish player and a more efficient scorer.

Denver didn't get any better when the got Iverson and didn't get any worse when he left.

Saying scoring efficiency doesn't matter is flat dumb. There was no excuse for Iverson taking so many 3s when he was shooting them so poorly. When you are taking a lot of shots and shooting poorly you are not helping the team.

Wade is one of the worst man-to-man defenders of all time for a superstar, he really is. Let's everyone go by him, falls asleep often. He got a little better ever since LeBron set the tone for the team. He is an amazing help defender though, and possibly the 1st or 2nd best shot blocking guard of all time, but that's negated by Iverson's steals.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Wade is one of the worst man-to-man defenders of all time for a superstar, he really is. Let's everyone go by him, falls asleep often. He got a little better ever since LeBron set the tone for the team. He is an amazing help defender though, and possibly the 1st or 2nd best shot blocking guard of all time, but that's negated by Iverson's steals.


:oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol: :oldlol:

[Straight_Ballin]

Dwyane Wade career PER: 25.6

Allen Iverson career PER: 20.9

This shouldn't even be a discussion.

Since when has PER even been relevant? There are so many comparisons between 2 players where one has the higher PER and it unanimous that the guy with the lower PER has had a better individual career.

I'm still laughing that Wade is even in the discussion. AI, Kobe, and Drexler I can understand as 2/3 were top GOATS in their respective season, but Wade has always been top 3 at best.

[Raymone]

Look at the Heat's defense before and after 2010. I rest my case.

[PJR]

Wade is one of the worst man-to-man defenders of all time for a superstar, he really is. Let's everyone go by him, falls asleep often. He got a little better ever since LeBron set the tone for the team. He is an amazing help defender though, and possibly the 1st or 2nd best shot blocking guard of all time, but that's negated by Iverson's steals.

Please do us all a favor in shutting the **** up.

[PJR]

Look at the Heat's defense before and after 2010. I rest my case.

Miami was 6th in defensive efficiency in 2009-10., and 5th in defensive efficiency in 2010-11. :confusedshrug:

You can STFU too.

[Bandito]

Drexler > Wade

Drexler > Kobe

AI = Kobe

Wade = Kobe

Drexler took Blazers to 2 NBA Finals in 3 yrs period in extremely competitive era on his own!

Kobe cannot do that even in the present watered down era.

wade cannot do that even in the present watered down era.
Kobe did that 3 times in the present watered down era!:roll:

[jcsrplumply]

Look at the Heat's defense before and after 2010. I rest my case.
:biggums:

[gengiskhan]

Kobe did that 3 times in the present watered down era!:roll:

Kobe with NBAs BEST BIG MEN (Gasol + Bynum) on his team in WATERED DOWN ERA. :roll: :lol

Drexler did that as a lone SUPERSTAR in COMPETITIVE ERA. :applause:

go figure.

[Psycho]

I suppose it takes a superior intellect to be able to discern the truth in situations like these. It's a good thing I can see all the idiots now in this thread so I never take them seriously again.

[Quintilianus]

Wade is one of the worst man-to-man defenders of all time for a superstar, he really is. Let's everyone go by him, falls asleep often. He got a little better ever since LeBron set the tone for the team. He is an amazing help defender though, and possibly the 1st or 2nd best shot blocking guard of all time, but that's negated by Iverson's steals.
Well Dwade in fact does some stupid shit on defense or doesn't get back.
But worst superstar defender of all time? :coleman: nikka you trippin
Lebron didn't set shit, it was spoelstra's defense from start to finish

[Just2McFly]

Iverson was always a defensive liability. He wasn't big enough to guard 2s so you needed a pg who had the size to guard 2s. When Iverson guarded the opposing pg he wouldn't pressure the ball and was constantly gambling for steals.

Every steal attempt is a gamble but Iverson was really good at them, don't you think? His ball hawking defense actually HELPS the team defense moreso than hurt it.

You make it seem like the guy was wildly running around trying to steal every pass, he's one of the best ball thieves to ever play this game.

Plus his man to man defense was above average, stop making it seem like the guy was witching hat on defense.


I would take Wade over Iverson easily. Wade is a light year better defensively, a less selfish player and a more efficient scorer.

Wade is > than Iverson to me too.


Denver didn't get any better when the got Iverson and didn't get any worse when he left.

They actually did get better, but it's awfully clear that you don't know what you are talking about. Iverson made a huge impact on the Nuggets, it wasn't his fault that they lost their third best player Nene and others to serious injuries but some how they still kept winning.


Saying scoring efficiency doesn't matter is flat dumb. There was no excuse for Iverson taking so many 3s when he was shooting them so poorly. When you are taking a lot of shots and shooting poorly you are not helping the team.

Misinformed and still confident in your opinion, eh?

Iverson shot so many threes because if you look back at his sixer days, he had very little perimeter shooting on his teams so who else was going to keep the defense honest and make them respect the three?

[Just2McFly]

You must not remember Drexler very well then.
I remember Drexler having some of the most talented teams in NBA history and coming up short. I remember him being overshadowed by all the greats of his era, something that Iverson and Wade weren't.

I'm not saying the guy is a scrub, but he never played at a level near AI or Wade. This guy was good, some call him great, but he was never that nice.

You put AI or Wade in the 80's Western Conference and they are putting up historic numbers.

[tontoz]

Would someone explain to me how missing 3s makes the defense respect the 3. :oldlol:

[lefthook00]

Please do us all a favor in shutting the **** up.

Sorry but Wade sucks @ man-to-man defense. He's gotten a little better since LeBron joined the Heat.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 90's off the top of my head:

Barkley
Shaq
MJ
Pippen
Payton
Penny
Hakeem
Malone
Robinson
Rodman
Stockton
Mutumbo
Alonzo
Mitch
Spree
Johnson
Grant
Drexler
Ewing
Kemp

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank among these players? ALMOST LAST.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 2000's off the top of my head:

Melo
Wade
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
KD
KG
Baron
LeBron
VC
T-Mac
Dwight
Yao
Kidd
Ray
Jermaine
Nash
Wallace
Wallace
Webber
Pierce

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank here? ALMOST LAST.

You have to go back to the 80's to be ranked decently among superstars. You think that b/c his man D is better than players like CP3, Parker, and Curry(who are PGssssssss) that he's good?

Look at the best SGs/SFs in the game right now
Kobe
Wade
Harden
Johnson
Iggy
George
LeBron
Melo
KD
Pierce

Where does Wade rank in terms of man D? LAST. The only one's that you can argue about are Harden, KD, and Melo, and Wade could never D up Kobe like Harden did in the past, Wade could never D anyone up in the post like Melo can, and Wade could never bother anyone's shot like KD can.

[lefthook00]

Well Dwade in fact does some stupid shit on defense or doesn't get back.
But worst superstar defender of all time? :coleman: nikka you trippin
Lebron didn't set shit, it was spoelstra's defense from start to finish

It was a combination. You need a defensive leader to be on the court, Spo doesn't play defense. He made an effort to become the best defensive player on the court and to be the best defensive team in the league, and starting from his last years in Cleveland to now, he has become one of the best defenders in the league and the best defender at his position except maybe Iggy. If you forgot, Mike Brown was a 100% defensive-minded coach, and LeBron wasn't one of the best defenders in the league back then, and he didn't put in near the effort on D that he does now. It's when he realized that he needs to step up his D to win chips that he started going crazy.

[Young X]

27/7/6 + championship & FMVP

29/8/5/2/1

30/7.5/5/2/1 + scoring title

25.5/6/5 + deep playoff run

22/5/5 + championship

Wade >>>

[PJR]

Sorry but Wade sucks @ man-to-man defense. He's gotten a little better since LeBron joined the Heat.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 90's off the top of my head:

Barkley
Shaq
MJ
Pippen
Payton
Penny
Hakeem
Malone
Robinson
Rodman
Stockton
Mutumbo
Alonzo
Mitch
Spree
Johnson
Grant
Drexler
Ewing
Kemp

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank among these players? ALMOST LAST.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 2000's off the top of my head:

Melo
Wade
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
KD
KG
Baron
LeBron
VC
T-Mac
Dwight
Yao
Kidd
Ray
Jermaine
Nash
Wallace
Wallace
Webber
Pierce

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank here? ALMOST LAST.

You have to go back to the 80's to be ranked decently among superstars. You think that b/c his man D is better than players like CP3, Parker, and Curry(who are PGssssssss) that he's good?

Look at the best SGs/SFs in the game right now
Kobe
Wade
Harden
Johnson
Iggy
George
LeBron
Melo
KD
Pierce

Where does Wade rank in terms of man D? LAST. The only one's that you can argue about are Harden, KD, and Melo, and Wade could never D up Kobe like Harden did in the past, Wade could never D anyone up in the post like Melo can, and Wade could never bother anyone's shot like KD can.


You pretty much don't know shit about basketball. I can safely draw this conclusion.

[TonyMontana]

Wade is the best SG in NBA History other than Jordan. There is not a single SG that could have won a title with the 2006 Heat team. The guy had THE BEST Finals series of all-time.

[kNicKz]

Prime AI torches Dwayne Wade 1 on 1

[SilkkTheShocker]

Prime AI torches Dwayne Wade 1 on 1

And Iverson's team loses by 20. The games aren't played 1 one 1. Typical thinking of an Iverson supporter.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Wade is the best SG in NBA History other than Jordan. There is not a single SG that could have won a title with the 2006 Heat team. The guy had THE BEST Finals series of all-time.

Easily the best. That Heat team was nothing special at all. Past-prime Shaq and solid role players.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Wade is clearly the best player out of the 3. Because of that, it's not even a question who I rank ahead. Plus, Wade is the most accomplished player out of the 3. While accomplishments are circumstantial and Iverson wasn't in position to win as much as Wade, I'd still definitely take Wade to build a team around, or add to a good team. And Wade's accomplishments can be compared to Drexler, where he compares very favorably.

Looking at Drexler's game vs Wade's, the only thing he was clearly better at was rebounding. For the most part, he was a better shooter, but not than peak 2009 Wade. And as overall scorers, Wade definitely takes this. Drexler was lethal in the open court, and very good in the post, but he couldn't break down a defense the way Wade could, not even close, and relied on transition opportunities quite a bit. wade was undoubtedly the superior player when it came to creating his own shot. Clyde was probably the better pure passer, but when you look at playmaking, Wade's ability to get to the rim gives him an advantage over Clyde. Imagine Drexler trying to split traps the way Wade does. Wade has also been the better defender.

Wade is definitely more suited to carry a team, and he proved that in 2006.

[kNicKz]

And Iverson's team loses by 20. The games aren't played 1 one 1. Typical thinking of an Iverson supporter.

Because Wade played on better teams, this actually hurts your argument. Wade's success comes from playing with rule changes, all time great centers, and multiple all stars. Iverson played with a middle aged dikembe mutombo :roll:

[kNicKz]

There is not a single SG that could have won a title with the 2006 Heat team.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_med6veIenp1rqt0kqo1_500.jpg

[PJR]

Because Wade played on better teams, this actually hurts your argument. Wade's success comes from playing with rule changes, all time great centers, and multiple all stars. Iverson played with a middle aged dikembe mutombo :roll:

http://www.nbaloud.com/images/carmelo-anthony-and-allen-iverson1.jpg

What happened here?

[SilkkTheShocker]

Because Wade played on better teams, this actually hurts your argument. Wade's success comes from playing with rule changes, all time great centers, and multiple all stars. Iverson played with a middle aged dikembe mutombo :roll:

The 01 Sixers were far from stacked but they had the DPOY and 6th man of the year. Not to mention the the Sixers battled the Bucks in game 3 of the 2001 ECF when Iverson was injured. You Iverson fanboys are hilarious by the way. It always comes back to one on one scoring ability. This isn't Rucker Park, clown. And the team Wade won a championship in 06 was nothing special. One of the weaker supporting casts for a title team. Wade put that team on his back for them to beat Dallas. Replace Wade with Iverson and the Heat aren't doing shit.

[kNicKz]

http://www.nbaloud.com/images/carmelo-anthony-and-allen-iverson1.jpg

What happened here?

because his prime was on the nuggets :roll:

*inb4stats*

[TheNaturalWR]

Wade is one of the worst man-to-man defenders of all time for a superstar, he really is. Let's everyone go by him, falls asleep often. He got a little better ever since LeBron set the tone for the team. He is an amazing help defender though, and possibly the 1st or 2nd best shot blocking guard of all time, but that's negated by Iverson's steals.

I'm pretty damn sure there was a crazy stat that in isolation situations Wade holds the opposition to some really low percentage. Shut the **** up.

[kNicKz]

The 01 Sixers were far from stacked but they had the DPOY and 6th man of the year. Not to mention the the Sixers battled the Bucks in game 3 of the 2001 ECF when Iverson was injured. You Iverson fanboys are hilarious by the way. It always comes back to one on one scoring ability. This isn't Rucker Park, clown. And the team Wade won a championship in 06 was nothing special. One of the weaker supporting casts for a title team. Wade put that team on his back for them to beat Dallas. Replace Wade with Iverson and the Heat aren't doing shit.

A couple of awards does not mean that your team is stacked. DPOY? When is the last time a team with the DPOY or 6th man of the year won a title?

We can act all day like the 2006 heat didn't have Shaq coming right off a finals appearance and veterans on the bench hitting buzzer beaters....

[SilkkTheShocker]

A couple of awards does not mean that your team is stacked. DPOY? When is the last time a team with the DPOY or 6th man of the year won a title?

We can act all day like the 2006 heat didn't have Shaq coming right off a finals appearance and veterans on the bench hitting buzzer beaters....

The 3rd best scorer on that team was inefficient Antoine Walker. In their defense, they did their jobs well. But that team was far from stacked. They were arguably better the year before.

[kNicKz]

The 3rd best scorer on that team was inefficient Antoine Walker. In their defense, they did their jobs well. But that team was far from stacked. They were arguably better the year before.

Walker FG% .435

Wade FG% .495

:rolleyes:

Please explain how they were better with eddie jones and christian laettner, I would love to hear this.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Walker FG% .435

Wade FG% .495

:rolleyes:

Please explain how they were better with eddie jones and christian laettner, I would love to here this.

Who the **** even brought up Eddie Jones? Jones regularly played like hot garbage in the postseason every year. Nice guy, but dude was softer than a bag of marshmallows. Im referring more to Shaq still being an MVP type player.

[D.J.]

Put prime Wade on AI's sixers, and they do just as well, but still fall short in the finals.


No chance. Wade still put up 30 a game, but he wasn't as explosive of a scorer. Iverson would go off for 40-50 like it was nothing. Could Wade go off and score 45 at the drop of a hat? No.

Miami on the other hand, would be a perfect fit for Iverson since he would be the only scoring option.

[Stern]

There is a reason why the cancer is out of the league while his peers are still dominating today.

[Psycho]

Walker FG% .435

Wade FG% .495

:rolleyes:

Please explain how they were better with eddie jones and christian laettner, I would love to hear this.

Context my son, context. Walker was a jump shooter who was not adept at creating on offense. If you specialize in jump shooting, you better be damn good at it. He was mediocre still though.

[D.J.]

There is a reason why the cancer is out of the league while his peers are still dominating today.


Him turning 38 in 2 months has nothing to do with it, I'm sure.

[kNicKz]

Im referring more to Shaq still being an MVP type player.


Shaq had the highest field goal percentage of his career in 2005-2006 post season and missed 0 games also for the only time in his career.

2004-2004 post season 19.4 PPG 7.8 RPG FG % .558
2005-2006 post season 18.4 PPG 9.8 RPG FG% .600

So averaging more rebounds and 1 less point is a drop off from MVP quality? Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. Shaq was as important as Wade on those teams.

[wakencdukest]

Kobe with NBAs BEST BIG MEN (Gasol + Bynum) on his team in WATERED DOWN ERA. :roll: :lol

Drexler did that as a lone SUPERSTAR in COMPETITIVE ERA. :applause:

go figure.


That Portland team was stacked. Porter, Duckworth, and Williams, were all multiple all stars. Jerome kersey was no slouch either. Cliff Robinson was sixth man of the year with Portland around that era. And don't forget about Petrovic, and then Ainge. Drexler Had A Lot of help.

[Greg Oden 50]

:roll:

YES................DREXLER >>>>>>>>>>>> WADE :rockon:

[D.J.]

That Portland team was stacked. Porter, Duckworth, and Williams, were all multiple all stars. Jerome kersey was no slouch either. Cliff Robinson was sixth man of the year with Portland around that era. And don't forget about Petrovic, and then Ainge. Drexler Had A Lot of help.


This. They were a very stacked team with good bigs and solid role players. In a 3 year stretch, they made the Finals twice and went to the WCF the 3rd year. The 1991 team was most talented team in that 3 year stretch and I think they beat the Bulls in '91 if they get past LA.

[ILLsmak]

What makes you think he could?

I think Iverson would struggle mightily to make the adjustments necessary on this current Heat team. Not to mention there would be a huge drop-off in terms of defensive versatility.

Well, I really think he wouldn't haha... he's wetter than D Wade. He could space the floor. I think he'd not be as good at blocking shots, but the way the Heat play D, you'd think he would push the tempo more. Keep in mind Wade is older now.

And the 06 team, I think he would fit perfectly.

-Smak

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

This. They were a very stacked team with good bigs and solid role players. In a 3 year stretch, they made the Finals twice and went to the WCF the 3rd year. The 1991 team was most talented team in that 3 year stretch and I think they beat the Bulls in '91 if they get past LA.

If they couldn't get past the Lakers how would they beat Chicago? I get that LA had some injuries in the Finals, but I'm curious as to why you think that.

[Greg Oden 50]

Wade is the best SG in NBA History other than Jordan. There is not a single SG that could have won a title with the 2006 Heat team. The guy had THE BEST Finals series of all-time.

help from the refs

[Jolokia]

Iverson could drop 40 on 40% any given night.

[Legends66NBA7]

You put AI or Wade in the 80's Western Conference and they are putting up historic numbers.

You put Drexler during the time of the 05-06 rule changes and he averages historic numbers for that season and then more for a couple more seasons.

[Rubio2Gasol]

Iverson could drop 40 on 40% any given night.

Iverson could legitimately get to the line. As in not cry for it.

Wade is a better defender - that's what makes the difference.

[D.J.]

If they couldn't get past the Lakers how would they beat Chicago? I get that LA had some injuries in the Finals, but I'm curious as to why you think that.


Why wouldn't they have beaten Chicago if they got past LA?

-63-19
-7 guys averaged at least 11 PPG(4 averaged 14.8+)
-They had better bigs(Duckworth, Robinson. Buck Williams) and were more physical
-3 point shooting(Ainge and Porter both shot over 40% from downtown)
-They were 2nd in offensive rating and 3rd in defensive rating)


That year's Blazers team would have also had HCA against the Bulls and would have had a better shot than the '92 squad who didn't have HCA. The '91 and '92 squad were about even defensively, but the '91 squad had better and more balanced scoring plus they had HCA throughout the playoffs.

[D.J.]

Iverson could drop 40 on 40% any given night.


If you look at his games where he dropped 40-50, he wasn't shooting 13-35. His piss poor shooting nights, his number of points were in the 20s. Plus he was getting to the line 10-15 times.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Why wouldn't they have beaten Chicago if they got past LA?

HCA
-63-19
-7 guys averaged at least 11 PPG(4 averaged 14.8+)
-They had better bigs(Duckworth, Robinson. Buck Williams) and were more physical
-3 point shooting(Ainge and Porter both shot over 40% from downtown)
-They were 2nd in offensive rating and 3rd in defensive rating)

But, they had ALL of those advantages over the Lakers too. :confusedshrug:

[Shih508]

Iverson could drop 40 on 40% any given night.

45% in today's rule

[D.J.]

They had ALL of those advantages over the Lakers too. :confusedshrug:


Yeah... and?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yeah... and?

:biggums:

They couldn't beat the Lakers ... :oldlol:

[D.J.]

:biggums:

They couldn't beat the Lakers ...


That doesn't make your point valid. Since the Mavs lost to Golden State in '07, they wouldn't have beaten Utah, San Antonio, or Cleveland with your logic. Basketball is about matchups. Just because a team loses to a weaker opponent, doesn't mean they would have lost to a stronger team in a best of 7.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That doesn't make your point valid. Since the Mavs lost to Golden State in '07, they wouldn't have beaten Utah, San Antonio, or Cleveland with your logic. Basketball is about matchups. Just because a team loses to a weaker opponent, doesn't mean they would have lost to a stronger team in a best of 7.

You're right. Matchups make the bouts. I get that.

It's just, the examples (or "advantages") you used, apply to BOTH teams. I really don't see how they'd beat Chicago in a 7 game series. You got anything else besides HCA? :confusedshrug:

[D.J.]

You're right. Matchups make fights. I get that.

It's just, the examples (or "advantages") you used, apply to BOTH teams. I really don't see how they'd beat Chicago in a 7 game series. You got anything else besides HCA? :confusedshrug:


I already gave a list. There's no reason to think they don't beat Chicago if they get past LA. This wasn't the aging Pistons. Every regular was under 30 years old except Buck and Ainge.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I already gave a list. There's no reason to think they don't beat Chicago if they get past LA. This wasn't the aging Pistons. Every regular was under 30 years old except Buck and Ainge.

Alright. Why did the Bulls beat LA?

[D.J.]

Alright. Why did the Bulls beat LA?


That has nothing to do with Portland.

[Greg Oden 50]

Drexler was 2nd best SG in 90s :banana:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

That has nothing to do with Portland.

Your hypothetical scenario involves the Blazers beating the Bulls. Meaning they get past LA. So actually, it does.

Why did the Lakers beat Portland? Why did the Bulls beat LA? I'll wait.

[D.J.]

Your hypothetical scenario involves the Blazers beating the Bulls. Meaning they get past LA. So actually, it does.

Why did the Lakers beat Portland? Why did the Bulls beat LA? I'll wait.


Actually no it doesn't. Your point has no validity. You can wait until doomsday. Your question is irrelevant.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Actually no it doesn't. Your point has no validity. You can wait until doomsday. Your question is irrelevant.

What? How are my questions "irrelevant"? :oldlol:

You just said you thought the '91 Blazers would beat the Bulls. If you don't know what you're talking about, just say that. Don't waste my time with empty opinions.

[D.J.]

What? :oldlol:

You just said you thought the '91 Blazers would beat the Bulls. My questions are not irrelevant. If you don't know what you're talking about, that's fine. Just say that. Don't waste my time.


Yes they are irrelevant. The Bulls/Lakers matchup has nothing to do with Portland. Different players, different matchups. And I'm not wasting your time. You voluntarily took the time to post.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Yes they are irrelevant. The Bulls/Lakers matchup has nothing to do with Portland.

You're not making sense. The Bulls ACTUALLY beat the Lakers in 1991. You're talking in hypotheticals saying the Blazers beat the Lakers and eventually the Bulls. I'm asking you to explain your opinion. Why do they beat Chicago but, in reality, lose to the Lakers in 6 games?

[ShaqAttack3234]

You put Drexler during the time of the 05-06 rule changes and he averages historic numbers for that season and then more for a couple more seasons.

I doubt he does much better than the 25/7/7, 47% he put up in '92, if at all. The scorers who have put up huge numbers since then were all better offer the dribble than Drexler was, and the pace slowing down would probably hurt Clyde more than many of his contemporaries. Most of these guys have also been better perimeter shooters than Clyde was.

[lefthook00]

You pretty much don't know shit about basketball. I can safely draw this conclusion.

I've been watching him since Marquette, you've been watching him since 2010. I gave credit where it was due, superb help D, and #1 or #2(behind MJ) best shot blocking guard of all time. Just accept that his man D is not good at all, and don't respond to this message.

[D.J.]

You're not making sense. The Bulls ACTUALLY beat the Lakers in 1991. You're talking in hypotheticals saying the Blazers beat the Lakers and eventually the Bulls. I'm asking you to explain your opinion. Why do they beat Chicago but, in reality, lose to the Lakers in 6 games?


I'm well aware the Bulls beat the Lakers in '91. I already gave you my opinion. Just because Portland lost to the Lakers doesn't mean they wouldn't have beat Chicago if they were to play them. They're different teams. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

[tpols]

You're not making sense. The Bulls ACTUALLY beat the Lakers in 1991. You're talking in hypotheticals saying the Blazers beat the Lakers and eventually the Bulls. I'm asking you to explain your opinion. Why do they beat Chicago but, in reality, lose to the Lakers in 6 games?
But didn't the Bulls beat LA with the injuries? Blazers played them full strength? Whose saying portland doesn't beat an injured Lakers team?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I'm well aware the Bulls beat the Lakers in '91. I already gave you my opinion. Just because Portland lost to the Lakers doesn't mean they wouldn't have beat Chicago if they were to play them. They're different teams. I don't know why that's so hard to understand.

It's not hard to understand. It's just faulty logic. You give specific advantages in the hypothetical Blazers/Bulls matchup yet fail to realize said advantages apply to the ACTUAL Lakers/Blazers matchup. :oldlol:

What don't the Bulls have that LA did to beat Portland?

[D.J.]

But didn't the Bulls beat LA with the injuries? Blazers played them full strength? Whose saying portland doesn't beat an injured Lakers team?


Worthy and Byron Scott were playing injured and both missed game 5.

[fpliii]

A couple of awards does not mean that your team is stacked. DPOY? When is the last time a team with the DPOY or 6th man of the year won a title?

We can act all day like the 2006 heat didn't have Shaq coming right off a finals appearance and veterans on the bench hitting buzzer beaters....

KG

defense is just as important as offense (though admittedly it is harder to find players with a true superstar level impact on that side of the ball)

[D.J.]

It's not hard to understand. It's just faulty logic. You give specific advantages in the hypothetical Blazers/Bulls matchup yet fail to realize said advantages apply to the ACTUAL Lakers/Blazers matchup. :oldlol:

What don't the Bulls have that LA did to beat Portland?


There's nothing wrong with my logic. And I already answered your question. You say I'm wasting your time, yet you keep posting. Speaking of faulty logic...

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

But didn't the Bulls beat LA with the injuries? Blazers played them full strength? Whose saying portland doesn't beat an injured Lakers team?

They did. The thing is, I'm asking DJ to explain his line of thinking AND all I'm getting back is "irrelevant". :oldlol:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

There's nothing wrong with my logic. And I already answered your question.

LOL...

Again, what don't the Bulls have that the Lakers did?

[Just2McFly]

You put Drexler during the time of the 05-06 rule changes and he averages historic numbers for that season and then more for a couple more seasons.
He played in a historic era for perimeter scoring and only averaged 27 ppg at his peak. Iversons playoff average is higher, come on legends, stop playing devil's advocate.

[D.J.]

He played in a historic era for perimeter scoring and only averaged 27 ppg at his peak. Iversons playoff average is higher, come on legends, stop playing devil's advocate.


When he did it in '88, he played with Kiki Vandeweghe(20.2), Jerome Kersey(19.2), Kevin Duckworth(15.8), Steve Johnson(15.4), and Terry Porter(14.9).

Then when he did it again in '89, he played with Kevin Duckworth(18.1), Terry Porter(17.7), and Jerome Kersey(17.5).

27 PPG playing with those guys is very good. Take away one of them or have them take fewer shots, Clyde is over 30 easily.

[Vragrant]

Iverson is better, better athlete, tougher, better leader.



Better leader,are you serious man? The same guy who said he does not have to practice is a better leader than Wade? Get out of here what that nonsense.

[longtime lurker]

This site is funny. They say Iverson is better than Kobe in one breath then say that Wade is better than Iverson ever was. :confusedshrug: IMO Iverson at his best is better than Wade, but when you take into account defense I can see why people would lean to Wade. Drexler's not exactly chopped liver either.

[lefthook00]

Better leader,are you serious man? The same guy who said he does not have to practice is a better leader than Wade? Get out of here what that nonsense.

Yeah he said that, which was pretty ignorant, but are you going to base his leadership on that comment? Dude played harder than anyone, and his team followed his lead. He carried that whole team on his back for a decade. Sure, Snow helped the team kind of in the same way that Fisher helped the Lakers during their second run. Philly fans and media are crazy, they would have torn anyone else up way faster.

I can't say that Wade was a better leader than AI. What are you basing Wade's leadership abilities on exactly? What can you point to as a testament to his leadership ability besides when he went berserk in the 06 finals for a total of 6 games?

[Greg Oden 50]

He played in a historic era for perimeter scoring and only averaged 27 ppg at his peak. Iversons playoff average is higher, come on legends, stop playing devil's advocate.

drexler is a great man defender,unlike wade only can play defence when he blk shots :roll:

[Jolokia]

If you look at his games where he dropped 40-50, he wasn't shooting 13-35. His piss poor shooting nights, his number of points were in the 20s. Plus he was getting to the line 10-15 times.
After he lost in the finals, I gave up on him as my favorite player. Didn't follow him much since.

Let me start off by saying that I'm a player fan first and team fan second. I want my player to play great and at the same time win. I remember the playoffs of 2001. There were nights when he would absolutely dominated like no other...and I mean no other! The quick flashy drives and the abuse he took in the paint. Worked so hard just for 2 points. If he got knocked down, he got right back up and went at you again. True warrior. Fearless and tireless. But those dominating performances came like only once every 5-6 games. I just checked the game logs and my memory isn't so far off. He shot below 30% ten times in 22 games!!!! Let that sink in a little. 14 games under 40%...2 games under 20% one shooting 5/27 and another 5/26. 18 of 22 games shooting under 44%. Seven 30+ point game shooting under 40%. I've never seen anything like this. Two ugly 40+ point game shooting 14/33 and 18/41. The 76ers won 7 of their 12 games with AI shooting below 40% and that includes both games he shot under 20%. 7 out of 10 games that 76ers lost, Iverson had 4 assists or lower.

I know this was all squeezed into an ugly paragraph but the moral of this little rant is that people aren't giving Coach Larry Brown and the rest of the team enough credit. Aaron McKie had some great games too. Most of these games were won on the defensive side. Iverson was an unstoppable beast on the days when he was on, but I'm not gonna say he is a better scorer than Wade (2 of my favorite players of all time). He's just a more willing scorer as Wade is more willing to make that extra pass either for an assist or a hockey assist. Maybe it was a little influenced by the team that they had surrounding them but watching them play, AI definitely looked to score more than Wade. Their best scoring seasons, AI attempted at least 25 shots 44 times in 2006. Wade did it in 20 games in 2009.

Iverson was a true favorite among fans back then. People would be rocking his shoes everywhere in middle and high school. I just gave up on him when I realized he'll never win a title until he just gave up a little of himself. I went back cheering for my hometown T-Wolves after that. Regardless, he's still one of the most special players to ever play the game. I'll remember him as the fearless scorer who's always quicker than the man guarding him. Overall, Wade has him beat...I don't want to go into details though.

But Wade > AI

[guy]

LOL...

Again, what don't the Bulls have that the Lakers did?

Wait hold on. Forget the Lakers. What's the big difference between these teams in 91 vs. 92 where we are supposed to believe that the result would've been significantly different if they played in 91? :oldlol:

[guy]

But didn't the Bulls beat LA with the injuries? Blazers played them full strength? Whose saying portland doesn't beat an injured Lakers team?

Worthy and Scott got injured in the 2nd half of game 4 when the bulls had a comfortable lead already. They were going to be up 3-1 regardless. So even if healthy, the Lakers would've needed to win the next 3 games, twice in Chicago. Highly doubtful that happens. It was pretty clear who was the better team and who was going to win that series before those injuries.

[D.J.]

Let me start off by saying that I'm a player fan first and team fan second. I want my player to play great and at the same time win. I remember the playoffs of 2001. There were nights when he would absolutely dominated like no other...and I mean no other! The quick flashy drives and the abuse he took in the paint. Worked so hard just for 2 points. If he got knocked down, he got right back up and went at you again. True warrior. Fearless and tireless. But those dominating performances came like only once every 5-6 games. I just checked the game logs and my memory isn't so far off. He shot below 30% ten times in 22 games!!!! Let that sink in a little. 14 games under 40%...2 games under 20% one shooting 5/27 and another 5/26. 18 of 22 games shooting under 44%. Seven 30+ point game shooting under 40%. I've never seen anything like this. Two ugly 40+ point game shooting 14/33 and 18/41. The 76ers won 7 of their 12 games with AI shooting below 40% and that includes both games he shot under 20%. 7 out of 10 games that 76ers lost, Iverson had 4 assists or lower.


Larry Brown gave him the green light to shoot. AI took a lot of shots he shouldn't have taken, but he was the only scoring option on the team. You weren't going to see Eric Snow, George Lynch, Tyrone Hill, or Dikembe Mutombo pick up the scoring load.



I know this was all squeezed into an ugly paragraph but the moral of this little rant is that people aren't giving Coach Larry Brown and the rest of the team enough credit. Aaron McKie had some great games too. Most of these games were won on the defensive side. Iverson was an unstoppable beast on the days when he was on, but I'm not gonna say he is a better scorer than Wade (2 of my favorite players of all time). He's just a more willing scorer as Wade is more willing to make that extra pass either for an assist or a hockey assist. Maybe it was a little influenced by the team that they had surrounding them but watching them play, AI definitely looked to score more than Wade. Their best scoring seasons, AI attempted at least 25 shots 44 times in 2006. Wade did it in 20 games in 2009.


That team was a defensive power house. They were an elite defensive team. He certainly wasn't a more efficient scorer than Wade. But he was a more dominant scorer. AI would go off for 40-50 almost as easily as Kobe did in 2006 and 2007. Bt the two of them were on different teams. Different makeups, different strengths, and different weaknesses.



Iverson was a true favorite among fans back then. People would be rocking his shoes everywhere in middle and high school. I just gave up on him when I realized he'll never win a title until he just gave up a little of himself. I went back cheering for my hometown T-Wolves after that. Regardless, he's still one of the most special players to ever play the game. I'll remember him as the fearless scorer who's always quicker than the man guarding him. Overall, Wade has him beat...I don't want to go into details though.


That 76ers team likely would have won had they gone up against anyone else other than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Wade has certainly had the better career, but peak belongs to AI.



But Wade > AI


Career, yes. Peak, no.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Wait hold on. Forget the Lakers. What's the big difference between these teams in 91 vs. 92 where we are supposed to believe that the result would've been significantly different if they played in 91? :oldlol:

Yep. Good luck trying to get an answer, though. :oldlol:

[Jolokia]

That 76ers team likely would have won had they gone up against anyone else other than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Wade has certainly had the better career, but peak belongs to AI.

Career, yes. Peak, no.
I have a hard time seeing them beat the Spurs, Kings, or Trailblazers...


Peak is debatable. I prefer Wade's 09 as it was legendary in its own respect.

Two of their best seasons averaged:

28.7/7.1/5.4 on 50/25/78 with 2.1 spg, 1.1 bpg, and 3.5 topg PER 29.00

vs

31.9/7.7/3.7 on 43/32/83 with 2.2 spg, 0.1 bpg, and 4.0 topg PER 24.55

--------------------------------------------

AI's 06 and 05
33.0/7.4/3.4 on 44/32/81 with 1.9 spg, 0.1 bpg, and 3.4 topg PER 25.9
* Didn't make the playoffs

30.7/7.9/4.0 on 42/31/84 with 2.4 spg, 0.1 bpg, and 4.6 topg PER 23.2
* Lost first round to the Pistons in 5


Wade's 09 and 06
30.2/7.5/5.0 on 49/32/77 with 2.2 spg, 1.3 bpg, and 3.4 topg PER 30.4
* Lost first round to the Hawks in 7

27.2/6.7/5.7 on 50/17/78 with 1.9 spg, 0.8 bpg, and 3.6 topg PER 27.6
* Won NBA Championship

[kNicKz]

Shaq had the highest field goal percentage of his career in 2005-2006 post season and missed 0 games also for the only time in his career.

2004-2004 post season 19.4 PPG 7.8 RPG FG % .558
2005-2006 post season 18.4 PPG 9.8 RPG FG% .600

So averaging more rebounds and 1 less point is a drop off from MVP quality? Stop it. You are embarrassing yourself. Shaq was as important as Wade on those teams.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/waiting_skeleton_cover.jpg

[D-Wade316]

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/waiting_skeleton_cover.jpg
Replying to your own post. :oldlol:

[TheGreatBlaze]

It's not hard to understand. It's just faulty logic. You give specific advantages in the hypothetical Blazers/Bulls matchup yet fail to realize said advantages apply to the ACTUAL Lakers/Blazers matchup. :oldlol:

What don't the Bulls have that LA did to beat Portland?
The Blazers swept the Bulls in the regular season and would have had homecourt advantage, which imo would change the series. Different teams and different matchups. Don't you think the 67-15 07 Mavs would have beaten most other teams they would have played because of matchups?

[Legends66NBA7]

I doubt he does much better than the 25/7/7, 47% he put up in '92, if at all. The scorers who have put up huge numbers since then were all better offer the dribble than Drexler was, and the pace slowing down would probably hurt Clyde more than many of his contemporaries. Most of these guys have also been better perimeter shooters than Clyde was.

Even so, that would still put him on par with both Wade and Iverson statistically speaking for those couple of years. Also, I do think Drexler would have used his athletic ability and size more, as he was already bigger and heavier than most guards at his time and a great leaper.


He played in a historic era for perimeter scoring and only averaged 27 ppg at his peak. Iversons playoff average is higher, come on legends, stop playing devil's advocate.

I already have maintained before that Wade and Iverson are better and should be ranked over Drexler. My main view on playing devil's advocate is that even if they are in different eras, all players would still adapt and thrive in it. So I don't really see a big gap in their stats.

[MiseryCityTexas]

I havent seen Drexler, but I can safely say that Wade > Iverson

Put AI on the 06 and current heat, they dont win shit.

Put prime Wade on AI's sixers, and they do just as well, but still fall short in the finals.

And the dumbass post of the day goes to....... People musta have forgot them years Wade played one deep with friggin Michael Beasley and Udonis Haslem as the second and third scoring options. They didn't get too far in the play-offs. A.I. single handedly took a sorry ass Sixers team with Mutumbo, and a plethora of defensive minded, offensively challenged bums to the finals all by himself. Iverson was basically the only scoring iotion on that team, and it can be argued that this Sixers team was one of the shittiest NBA teams of all time to make it to the NBA finals.

[Bigsmoke]

Drexler >> Kobe

When Drexler got BEAT in 1991 WCF. He lost to GOAT player (Magic) who was a notch above him.

Peak prime Kobe got BEAT after being up 3-1. He lost to an INFERIOR team.

Peak Prime Drexler could've made it to 1990 NBA Finals, 1991 NBA finals, 1992 NBA Finals.

Peak Prime Drexler always carried his team deep into Post Seasons.

Peak Prime Kobe FAILED to make it to Post Season.

1991 Portland would've beaten 1991 Bulls 4-3 in NBA Finals.

Magic showed why he is considered GOAT laker & GOAT player by out dueling heavy favorites 1991 Blazers in the WCF.

it wasn't like Drexler dragged the Blazers to the Finals.

that team was loaded as ****

[kNicKz]

Replying to your own post. :oldlol:

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/images/waiting_skeleton_cover.jpg

[Xiao Yao You]

AI doesn't belong in a discussion with Drexler and Wade.

[TheBigVeto]

:roll:

What's so funny. It is true.

[guy]

The Blazers swept the Bulls in the regular season and would have had homecourt advantage, which imo would change the series. Different teams and different matchups. Don't you think the 67-15 07 Mavs would have beaten most other teams they would have played because of matchups?

Who cares about the Lakers? The Blazers and Bulls played in the Finals the next season with basically the same rosters and the Bulls won. Why are people complicating this? :oldlol:

[HiphopRelated]

hilarious and false

[HiphopRelated]

And the dumbass post of the day goes to....... People musta have forgot them years Wade played one deep with friggin Michael Beasley and Udonis Haslem as the second and third scoring options. They didn't get too far in the play-offs. A.I. single handedly took a sorry ass Sixers team with Mutumbo, and a plethora of defensive minded, offensively challenged bums to the finals all by himself. Iverson was basically the only scoring iotion on that team, and it can be argued that this Sixers team was one of the shittiest NBA teams of all time to make it to the NBA finals.
hold up, you're using Michael friggin Beasley and Haslem as a "scoring option" as things that are positive?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The Blazers swept the Bulls in the regular season and would have had homecourt advantage, which imo would change the series. Different teams and different matchups. Don't you think the 67-15 07 Mavs would have beaten most other teams they would have played because of matchups?

Boston swept Miami in the regular season last year. What's your point?

Your repeating word for word what "D.J." was posting. I'm still waiting for one of you to explain what the Lakers had (to beat the Blazers) that Chicago didn't.

[thabisyo]

:no:

Dwade over AI any given day of the week

[PJR]

:oldlol: Yeah, this 90's Blazers argument is pretty damn funny. MJ shitted on that exact team the following year. It's a pretty irrefutable position.

[Dresta]

Miami was 6th in defensive efficiency in 2009-10., and 5th in defensive efficiency in 2010-11. :confusedshrug:

You can STFU too.
With Wade being its anchor also. Wade is an exceptional defender when he's not cruising, this should be undeniable, but some people are just too thick to recognise the obvious, it seems.

[WayOfWade]

Boston swept Miami in the regular season last year. What's your point?

Your repeating word for word what "D.J." was posting. I'm still waiting for one of you to explain what the Lakers had (to beat the Blazers) that Chicago didn't.

Actually, Boston won the series 3-1 last year. Sorry I had to point it out.

[tontoz]

:oldlol: Yeah, this 90's Blazers argument is pretty damn funny. MJ shitted on that exact team the following year. It's a pretty irrefutable position.


Portland was up double digits in the 4th in game 6 when MJ went to the bench. The bench led a furious rally which Jordan finished off when he came back in. If they lost that game they were going back to Portland for game 7.

It isn't like the Bulls swept them.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Actually, Boston won the series 3-1 last year. Sorry I had to point it out.

Thanks for the correction. That was just off the top of my head.

Still, it's a bigger sample size than what we get from Chicago/Portland AND in the end, neither meant anything.

[guy]

Portland was up double digits in the 4th in game 6 when MJ went to the bench. The bench led a furious rally which Jordan finished off when he came back in. If they lost that game they were going back to Portland for game 7.

It isn't like the Bulls swept them.

No, game 7 would've been in Chicago. The series was close, but it wasn't close enough to look back and reasonably argue the Bulls wouldn't be the favorites in a hypothetical matchup in 91.

I see people bringing up the fact that the Blazers would have HCA. However, when we're talking about teams this great, HCA doesn't really matter much. Great teams like the Bulls aren't depending on HCA to win a series. They are going to beat a team regardless of the court if they're better then them.

[LikeABosh]

Can't believe some people actually think AI was better than Wade.

[tontoz]

I see people bringing up the fact that the Blazers would have HCA. However, when we're talking about teams this great, HCA doesn't really matter much.

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up?

[guy]

Do you have any actual evidence to back this up?

No, not complete evidence. Its just quite apparent. The greatest teams are going to win games wherever if they need to. For example, going back to the beginning of the Bulls dynasty, 22 seasons, the eventual champion won at least one series without HCA in 93, 95, 98, 01, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 11, and 12. Thats half the championships since then. And thats not even bringing up 91, 94, 09, and 10 where the championship team wouldn't have had HCA all throughout the playoffs if the team that did didn't lose with HCA before. That's not even bringing up the countless times the eventual champion lost HCA against a team by being the first to lose a home game in the series.

A team that thats great isn't depending as much on something as trivial as HCA. Its nice to have, but they know that if they are going to win a series, its going to be primarly because they're better, not cause they have HCA. They aren't intimidated and have supreme confidence that they can win a game on the road if they need to. In fact, I would say if a team is depending that much on HCA, it really goes to show that they really aren't that great of a team to begin with cause it shows that they don't have the confidence to not depend that much on things that have nothing to do with how good of a team they are.

And since we are talking about the 91 Lakers, the Blazers did have HCA against them and how did that work out?

[ShaqAttack3234]

Even so, that would still put him on par with both Wade and Iverson statistically speaking for those couple of years. Also, I do think Drexler would have used his athletic ability and size more, as he was already bigger and heavier than most guards at his time and a great leaper

Clyde did do a great job of using his size and athleticism as it is. Not only in the post and in transition, but getting offensive rebounds as well. He was one of the best offensive rebounding guards. Even so, do you think he'd be able to take advantage of this more? The centers have gotten smaller since Drexler's era, but not the perimeter players. Perhaps the biggest advantage in today's game vs the early 90's for a player like Clyde would be less shot blocking at the rim.

[tontoz]

No, not complete evidence. Its just quite apparent. The greatest teams are going to win games wherever if they need to.


What is quite apparent is that the best teams generally have the best records, and hence HCA.

There are obviously times when injuries will cause the better team to have a worse record, but in general the better teams have HCA.

[guy]

What is quite apparent is that the best teams generally have the best records, and hence HCA.

There are obviously times when injuries will cause the better team to have a worse record, but in general the better teams have HCA.

I know. And I believe that the reason most teams win a series has way more to do with them being the better team as opposed to having HCA. It just so happens usually the better teams have HCA. But this isn't always the case.

So what exactly is your position on this? That the 91 Blazers would've beaten the 91 Bulls? Do you think that the fact that they had 2 more regular season wins is greater evidence to them winning in a series against them as opposed to what actually happened the next year when the two teams were basically the same? Do you think HCA would've swung the series at least 2 games? And by the way, you do realize that the Bulls in 92 did win 2 of the 3 games in Portland right?

[tontoz]

So what exactly is your position on this? That the 91 Blazers would've beaten the 91 Bulls? Do you think that the fact that they had 2 more regular season wins is greater evidence to them winning in a series against them as opposed to what actually happened the next year when the two teams were basically the same? Do you think HCA would've swung the series at least 2 games? And by the way, you do realize that the Bulls in 92 did win 2 of the 3 games in Portland right?


My position is that the "jordan shitted on them" comment about the 92 finals seemed like a misrepresentation of what happened. It was a tight 6 game series, not a romp.

I don't have a position on what the Blazers would have done in the 91 finals because they didn't make it that far.

[guy]

My position is that the "jordan shitted on them" comment about the 92 finals seemed like a misrepresentation of what happened. It was a tight 6 game series, not a romp.

I don't have a position on what the Blazers would have done in the 91 finals because they didn't make it that far.

Its just an exaggeration, but that wasn't his point, which was bringing up the 91 Lakers to discuss a hypothetical matchup between the two is kinda stupid. The bigger misrepresentation is anything that happened in 91 indicating more of what would've happened in a hypothetical series between the two then what actually happened the very next year.

[AlphaWolf24]

who the **** would take AI or Drexler over Wade?

- Wade is a much better overall playe player then Both, with a better winning mentality.

I don't care what the stats say....I watched all 3 play ...Wade is much better.

[ShaqAttack3234]

who the **** would take AI or Drexler over Wade?

- Wade is a much better overall playe player then Both, with a better winning mentality.

I don't care what the stats say....I watched all 3 play ...Wade is much better.

Exactly, it's just a case of nostalgia with some people. Wade is clearly the best out of these 3.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Its just an exaggeration, but that wasn't his point, which was bringing up the 91 Lakers to discuss a hypothetical matchup between the two is kinda stupid.

I don't think PJR mentioned anything about the '91 Lakers. I don't think it's "stupid" to do so either. The Lakers were an inferior team to the Bulls. Portland had the SAME "advantages" against both teams. Point blank.

[guy]

I don't think PJR mentioned anything about the '91 Lakers. I don't think it's "stupid" either. The Lakers were an inferior team than the Bulls. Portland had the SAME "advantages" against both teams. Point blank.

I just think its stupid to bring it up cause if you compare the 91 Blazers and Bulls to their 92 selves, there is no significant difference. So who cares about how the 91 Lakers played the 91 Blazers, when we basically already saw almost the exact same matchup the very next year.

Am I supposed to believe that the Bulls wouldn't have beaten them in 91 cause they didn't have Bobby Hansesn? :oldlol:

[detroitdogg]

Sorry but Wade sucks @ man-to-man defense. He's gotten a little better since LeBron joined the Heat.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 90's off the top of my head:

Barkley
Shaq
MJ
Pippen
Payton
Penny
Hakeem
Malone
Robinson
Rodman
Stockton
Mutumbo
Alonzo
Mitch
Spree
Johnson
Grant
Drexler
Ewing
Kemp

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank among these players? ALMOST LAST.

Let's take a look at the superstars/borderline superstars of the 2000's off the top of my head:

Melo
Wade
Kobe
Shaq
Duncan
KD
KG
Baron
LeBron
VC
T-Mac
Dwight
Yao
Kidd
Ray
Jermaine
Nash
Wallace
Wallace
Webber
Pierce

Where does Wade's man-to-man D rank here? ALMOST LAST.

You have to go back to the 80's to be ranked decently among superstars. You think that b/c his man D is better than players like CP3, Parker, and Curry(who are PGssssssss) that he's good?

Look at the best SGs/SFs in the game right now
Kobe
Wade
Harden
Johnson
Iggy
George
LeBron
Melo
KD
Pierce

Where does Wade rank in terms of man D? LAST. The only one's that you can argue about are Harden, KD, and Melo, and Wade could never D up Kobe like Harden did in the past, Wade could never D anyone up in the post like Melo can, and Wade could never bother anyone's shot like KD can.

You cant be ****in serious?????? LMAO, take your dumbass eyes and look at whatever website that tracks man to man defensive stats??????? Ill wait??????? D Wade has been one of the best man to man defenders in NBA history according to the numbers, and better than Lebron. Wade rarely EVER gets scored on off of isolations, will finish his career with the most blocked jumpshots in NBA history, and will finish top 5 in blocks on the man he is guarding. Are u ****in serious, if people barely score on him and he blocks HIS MANS shots so consistantly, how the **** is he a bad on ball defender, he is actually an all time great you ****in fool. Wade only struggles with ****** who run around screens like Ray Allen and shooters like that. GTFOH with your bullshit ass opinion.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I just think its stupid to bring it up cause if you compare the 91 Blazers and Bulls to their 92 selves, there is no significant difference.

Right, but wasn't the original comparison between the '91 Bulls and '91 Blazers?

I get that there aren't many differences between the two teams, a year later....just saying. If we stay in 1991, what I'm wondering is, what don't the Bulls have that the Lakers did to beat Portland. Everyone seems to think that Portland, in '91, WITH home court, beat Chicago in a 7 game series.

Why? :confusedshrug: The advantages people list in favor of Portland bring to bear the Lakers matchup as well. We know what happened though. :oldlol:

[guy]

Right, but wasn't the original comparison between the '91 Bulls and '91 Blazers?

I get that there aren't many differences between the two teams, a year later....just saying. If we stay in 1991, what I'm wondering is, what don't the Bulls have that the Lakers did to beat Portland. Everyone seems to think that Portland, in '91, WITH home court, beat Chicago in a 7 game series.

Why? :confusedshrug: The advantages people list in favor of Portland bring to bear the Lakers matchup as well. We know what happened though. :oldlol:

They don't. You're right about that. My whole point is why even bring it up like it holds more bearing then what actually happened the next year? Its just stupidly complicating it more then it needs to be.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

They don't. You're right about that. My whole point is why even bring it up like it holds more bearing then what actually happened the next year? Its just stupidly complicating it more then it needs to be.

I get what you're saying, but comparing a team a year later can get tricky. Too many variables (intangibles) unaccounted for.

[guy]

I get what you're saying, but comparing a team a year later can get tricky. Too many variables (intangibles) unaccounted for.

Of course. No team is exactly the same every year. But argument from the dude that brought it up was about matchups, not intangibles. So I don't really understand how anyone can conclude that the Blazers would've beaten the Bulls based on matchups, when the next year the matchups were basically the same. For example, if the Bulls didn't have Horace Grant in 91 and then added him in 92 it becomes a legit point. That wasn't the case though.

[Greg Oden 50]

who the **** would take AI or Drexler over Wade?

- Wade is a much better overall playe player then Both, with a better winning mentality.

I don't care what the stats say....I watched all 3 play ...Wade is much better.

wade is better than drexler :roll:

biggest joke I've ever heard:facepalm

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Let me explain that a little further, guy. And no..I'm not trying to get complicated either. :lol

Does Jordan have extra incentive to outplay Drexler In 1991? Glyde finished 6th in MVP voting (2nd in MVP voting in 1992) and really wasn't drawing the comparisons to Mike like he would a year later. What about the Bulls?

You don't think they gained tons of confidence and experience beating the Lakers in '91?

You can compare teams a year later. That's fine. With these matchups though, you gotta really start using perspective. Stuff that goes beyond roster changes.

[guy]

Let me explain that a little further, guy. And no..I'm not trying to get complicated either. :lol

Does Jordan have extra incentive to outplay Drexler In 1991? Glyde finished 6th in MVP voting (2nd in MVP voting in 1992) and really wasn't drawing the comparisons to Mike like he would a year later. What about the Bulls?

You don't think they gained tons of confidence and experience beating the Lakers in '91?

You can compare teams a year later. That's fine. With these matchups though, you gotta really start using perspective. Stuff that goes beyond roster changes.

Well, I'm sure Jordan going for his 1st title would've been much more incentive then any incentive he had in 92.

They had a ton of confidence going into the Finals after sweeping the Pistons, and losing only 1 game in the playoffs at that point. They were so confident that losing game 1 in the Finals didn't end up shaking them at all.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with me that the result in 91 would've been any different. All I'm saying is based on all the evidence, there really isn't a good argument at all that the Blazers would've beat them in 91. None whatsoever.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Well, I'm sure Jordan going for his 1st title would've been much more incentive then any incentive he had in 92.

They had a ton of confidence going into the Finals after sweeping the Pistons, and losing only 1 game in the playoffs at that point. They were so confident that losing game 1 in the Finals didn't end up shaking them at all.

It doesn't seem like you disagree with me that the result in 91 would've been any different. All I'm saying is based on all the evidence, there really isn't a good argument at all that the Blazers would've beat them in 91. None whatsoever.

Solid points. All true.

Believe it or not, I'm of the opinion that a Chicago/Portland Finals in '91 would've been more competitive (after Worthy sprained his ankle in that series vs Portland, he wasn't the same; LAL was just banged up towards the end of that Finals period).

I still don't think they beat the Bulls at full strength, nor do I think Portland beats the Bulls in a hypothetical matchup. So you're right. We fundamentally agree.

[Jailblazers7]

I think the NBA style of play and Philly's team make-up kind of ruined AI defensively. He was a REALLY good defender at Georgetown and could have done the same at the NBA level but he was essentially just given too much freedom and asked to do everything on offense.

[D.J.]

Boston swept Miami in the regular season last year. What's your point?


No they didn't. They took 3/4.



Your repeating word for word what "D.J." was posting. I'm still waiting for one of you to explain what the Lakers had (to beat the Blazers) that Chicago didn't.


It was already explained to you. Love how you claim we're "wasting your time" yet you keep posting.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

No they didn't. They took 3/4.

Someone already pointed that out. Are you out talking points or something?


It was already explained to you. Love how you claim we're "wasting your time" yet you keep posting.

I've debunked your explanation. Here's another question: What do the Lakers have that the Bulls didn't?

It's OK to admit you don't know :confusedshrug:

[D.J.]

Someone already pointed that out. Are you out talking points or something?



I've debunked your explanation. Here's another question: What do the Lakers have that the Bulls didn't?

It's OK to admit you don't know :confusedshrug:


You haven't debunked shit. Maybe you should stop posting if you feel I'm "wasting your time".

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You haven't debunked shit. Maybe you should stop posting if you feel I'm "wasting your time".

Wrong. I've debunked everything you posted. Maybe you should respond to my next question? It might help you out a little.

[D.J.]

Wrong. I've debunked everything you posted. Maybe you should respond to my next question? It might help you out a little.


You've haven't debunked anything. You may think you have. But aside from one poster who's kissing your ass, I don't see anyone praising your input. Maybe I shouldn't answer to someone who tells me "I'm wasting their time", yet they continue to waste their time by posting the same shit and says I never answered them when I did.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

You've haven't debunked anything. You may think you have. But aside from one poster who's kissing your ass, I don't see anyone praising your input. Maybe I shouldn't answer to someone who tells me "I'm wasting their time", yet they continue to waste their time by posting the same shit and says I never answered them when I did.

All you've done here is repeat yourself. :confusedshrug:

So, it's not a matter of me "thinking" I debunked you. I KNOW I debunked you. Why are you so terrified to answer my question? :oldlol:

[D.J.]

All you've done here is repeat yourself. :confusedshrug:


Speak for yourself.



So, it's not a matter of me "thinking" I debunked you. I KNOW I debunked you. Why are you so terrified to answer my question? :oldlol:


Why are you so terrified to leave the conversation after accusing me of wasting your time?

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Speak for yourself.

Why?


Why are you so terrified to leave the conversation after accusing me of wasting your time?

You're quoting me and I'm responding :confusedshrug:

I'm simply asking you to explain what the Lakers have that the Bulls didn't.

[guy]

You've haven't debunked anything. You may think you have. But aside from one poster who's kissing your ass, I don't see anyone praising your input. Maybe I shouldn't answer to someone who tells me "I'm wasting their time", yet they continue to waste their time by posting the same shit and says I never answered them when I did.

Kissing ass? Sorry, didn't realize agreeing with someone on a message board is kissing ass. Dude you're backtracking like a little bitch that realizes he doesn't have an answer. You've completely avoided his question multiple times now. Instead of talking shit about posters like me, which has nothing to do with the topic, why don't you stop wasting your own time and just answer his question?

Better yet, after you answer his question, answer this question: What was the huge difference between the Bulls and Blazers in 91 and 92, that would make anyone think the Blazers would be the favorites in 91 series, even though we saw the Bulls convincingly beat them in 92 and the rosters weren't much different?

[AlphaWolf24]

wade is better than drexler :roll:

biggest joke I've ever heard:facepalm


how is it a joke?...

From watching them both play....

- Wade is a better off the ball scorer and Wade is better with the ball ( he can create more shots for himself and his teammates then Drexler could)

I don't know each players scoring " stats"....but I would Imagine Wade scores more.

- Wade IMO is a better/ more disruptive defender then Clyde was...

- Wade has played better in the post season....


IMO wade is better...again, just my opinion...Clyde was agreat player!...and it may be close:confusedshrug:

[Legends66NBA7]

Clyde did do a great job of using his size and athleticism as it is. Not only in the post and in transition, but getting offensive rebounds as well. He was one of the best offensive rebounding guards. Even so, do you think he'd be able to take advantage of this more? The centers have gotten smaller since Drexler's era, but not the perimeter players. Perhaps the biggest advantage in today's game vs the early 90's for a player like Clyde would be less shot blocking at the rim.

Yes, with less shot blocking at the rim, I can see Drexler taking more advantage. Just like I see no problem seeing Wade and Iverson average a lot in a run and gun version of the West during the 80's-90's period.

Wade should be ranked over Drexler, he's proven to be a more consistent player and peaked higher, along with a more accomplished career. My earlier point is just to acknowledge that I don't think that he's far off from the player of Wade, so it shouldn't be considered by anybody to be laughable by either side (not saying you are suggesting it).

[aj1987]

Considering AI has a better stat sheet than Kobe 8 vs 6 for the 14 seasons they played....

AI is arguably just as good as Kobe. What he lacks for in shot % and defense he made up for in heart. Put him on the Lakers and he could just have easily had Shaq carry him, Pau come up big, or Metta hit big shots when it mattered most. Don't be upset because he as much smaller that Kobe but arguably just as good.

How the hell are you going to say Wade is better? :lol Kobe vs AI is at least a good conversation, but the best Wade has ever been is top 3. AI was TOP DOG for a few seasons.

I won't even acknowledge the comment on Drexler as most of you have never even seen him play. :facepalm
Once a retard always a retard. :applause:

[uncleduck13]

Allen Iverson is probably the most overrated player of the past 15 or so years. No way is he better than Wade.