Printable View
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14646827]The Spurs never won back-to-back let alone Three-Peat cheapening Lebrons strength of opponents.[/QUOTE]
I guess the Showtime Lakers weren't a great team since they didn't 3 peat.
Or Bird's Celtics since they never won back to back
Low Iq confirmed.
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14646827]The Spurs never won back-to-back let alone Three-Peat cheapening Lebrons strength of opponents.[/QUOTE]
Retarded logic lmao. For you, that seems worse than jordan's ringless opponents in the finals.
[QUOTE=Axe;14646818]You asked if either the celtics, the pistons or the knicks in the 80s and 90s were dynasties bt. And i just showed you that one. ;)[/QUOTE]
You didn't show anything besides that you're wrong about me having alts lol
[QUOTE=theman93;14646832]You didn't show anything besides that you're wrong about me having alts lol[/QUOTE]
Huh, i never said they were your 'alts' coach. Wtf. :confusedshrug:
What i'm pointing out there was how they apply the term 'dynasty' to successful teams. They say if they never 'three-peated', then they're never one to begin with.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14646826]You already admitted LeBron was better.[/QUOTE]
When that's my starting position, it's not an admission. Do you understand basic debate?
My position has been clear -
Individually: 37 y/o Lebron > 38 y/o MJ
Team Elevation: 38 y/o MJ > 37 y/o Lebron
You've done nothing to dispute this fact. :lol
[QUOTE=Axe;14646833]Huh, i never said they were your 'alts' coach. Wtf. :confusedshrug:
What i'm pointing out there was how they apply the term 'dynasty' to successful teams. They say if they never 'three-peated', then they're never one to begin with.[/QUOTE]
Why do I care how 2 other posters are applying the term dynasty? It's irrelevant. The point being is that Jordan facing the 80's Celtics and 80/90's Pistons is a significantly harder challenge than facing the 90's Knicks.
[QUOTE=Axe;14646828]Probably to win a scoring title despite missing 64 games that season. :yaohappy:[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.sportscasting.com/frustrated-michael-jordan-fuming-when-bulls-tried-secure-better-draft-position-1986/[/url]
[QUOTE]“That’s when I felt more frustrated than anything. More than anything, I felt they were positioning themselves for the draft, and I didn’t feel good being part of that. I felt I was an all-out player who didn’t half-ass anything, and they wanted to move up (in the draft). I was a player, I wanted to play.”
[/QUOTE]
keep reaching! :lol
[QUOTE=theman93;14646836]Why do I care how 2 other posters are applying the term dynasty? It's irrelevant. The point being is that Jordan facing the 80's Celtics and 80/90's Pistons is a significantly harder challenge than facing the 90's Knicks.[/QUOTE]
Probably. But that doesn't explain why jordan never had any winning seasons until pippen started playing for the bulls.
[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;14646830]I guess the Showtime Lakers weren't a great team since they didn't 3 peat.
Or Bird's Celtics since they never won back to back
Low Iq confirmed.[/QUOTE]
The Three-Peat requirement for a dynasty is not my definition, Axe is the one throwing it out there. My definition is at least back-to-back titles.
Yes, Boston never won back-to-back but neither did San Antonio. The Lakers and Pistons are dynasties.
[QUOTE=Axe;14646831]Retarded logic lmao. For you, that seems worse than jordan's ringless opponents in the finals.[/QUOTE]
Are the Spurs a dynasty?
The Bulls opponents are ringless because they kept them ringless. Unlike Lebron where teams won alot against him.
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14646840]The Three-Peat requirement for a dynasty is not my definition, Axe is the one throwing it out there. My definition is at least back-to-back titles.
Yes, Boston never won back-to-back but neither did San Antonio. The Lakers and Pistons are dynasties.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe that shit either. The purpose was to show that one of your fellow lebron haters think a 'three-peat' is necessary for teams to become a dynasty. You really are a dumbass.
[QUOTE=RogueBorg;14646841]Are the Spurs a dynasty?
The Bulls opponents are ringless because they kept them ringless. Unlike Lebron where teams won alot against him.[/QUOTE]
Yet they have a higher srs than any of the teams jordan beat in the finals lmao.
[QUOTE=Axe;14646842]The purpose was to show that one of your fellow lebron haters think a 'three-peat' is necessary for teams to become a dynasty. You really are a dumbass.[/QUOTE]
Try to follow along.
TheMan93 was making the argument that the Celtics and Pistons were dynasties, he said to you [B][I]"Were the mid 90's Knicks a dynasty that Pippen ran in to? Or was Bird's Celtics and the Bad Boy Pistons a dynasty that MJ ran in to?"[/I][/B]
Your response to him in post #219 was [B][I]"But those aren't dynasties coach. Since someone said 'dynasties' have to 'three-peat' first."[/I][/B]
You said they aren't dynasties [B][I]"But those aren't dynasties coach.[/I][/B]
Go back and read post #219.
And then i said someone else mentioned it. Lol all of a sudden you're so fixated into it. :roll:
Try going btt, you buffoon.
[QUOTE=Axe;14646838]Probably. But that doesn't explain why jordan never had any winning seasons until pippen started playing for the bulls.[/QUOTE]
No, not probably. 100% definitely.
If you want to believe a bench player putting up 8/4 on bad efficiency was the reason the Bulls made the playoffs, that's fine you can believe whatever you want. It just shows you're low IQ. No objective person believes that though.