What does LeBron need to do to be accepted as the GOAT?

Too late.

Bird = 7 (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991)

Duncan = 6 (2001, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2011, 2012)

Kareem = 5 (1973, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1986)

Shaq = 5 (1994, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2010)

Wilt = 5 (1961, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1973)

Oscar = 4 (1962, 1965, 1973, 1974)

Magic = 4 (1981, 1986, 1990, 1996)

Lebron = 3 (2009, 2010, 2011, 2013*)

Hakeem = 2 (1985, 1987)

Kobe = 2 (2004, 2011)

Russell = 1 (1958)

[B]MJ = 0[/B]

*Jesus saves

[IMG]http://s1.postimg.org/cnuldcw5r/Simple_Way_to_Old_883x1024.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE]Too late.[/QUOTE]

So your argument is it is somehow commendable to lose with a lower seed than to have a better season and achieve a similar, or even greater result? According to that list, going 40-42 and losing as the #8 seed in the first round>going 66-16 and losing in the ECF. Which team had the better year?

[QUOTE]Shaq = 5 (1994, 1995, 2004, 2005, 2010)[/QUOTE]

Shaq 94' is a great example. His team won 50 games (an improvement from 41 in Shaq's rookie year and 21 before Shaq got there). Indiana won 47--and was a superior, experienced team that got to Game 7 of the ECF and was in the ECF again the following year. Yet somehow that series loss is a black mark on Shaq's resume? That argument does not makes sense imo.

Lebron never can be GOAT
2/5
6/6
Ots ompossible
Unless he cna somehow 5peat

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]

Yet somehow that series loss is a black mark [/QUOTE]

No. But he is out of the GOAT talk.

MJ's career was perfect.

Considering what people are saying here, it seems like LeBron is at the same place where he was when he entered the league, meaning he would need to win 6+ times with CLE to be considered on Jordan's level... With 5-6 FMVPs... Only thing is he now has like 6 (?) Years to do it....

When you have the most unblemished record on the grandest stage, well, you usually are considered the GOAT. And that's not even including all other accolades.



We're talking about a guy who took his game to another level to win a championship.


As of now, LBJ has a losing record in the Finals. Yes its a great and impressive feat to get there but twice now you have underperformed vastly in those occurrences. One being just an absolute no show where people were wondering what happened to you.


I mean there really is probably a less than 5% chance he can do it. But to me and many others, that perfect championship record means a lot. Its why people Montana > Brady. Means something.

[QUOTE=mehyaM24]win 2-3 more championships. he's already got the stats (highest PER in postseason history) and accolades (4 MVPs). dude just needs more chips.

1 ring in cleveland would catapult him into top 3 range. easily.[/QUOTE]

just to add to this..as long as bron plays at the level he's at currently, and the cavs win AT LEAST 2 rings, the media will run with the GOAT moniker.

with 2 chips, i personally would still rank him behind kareem and russell. with 3? he's the GOAT, imo.

[QUOTE=ballinhun8]When you have the most unblemished record on the grandest stage, well, you usually are considered the GOAT. And that's not even including all other accolades.



We're talking about a guy who took his game to another level to win a championship.


As of now, LBJ has a losing record in the Finals. Yes its a great and impressive feat to get there but twice now you have underperformed vastly in those occurrences. [B]One being just an absolute no show where people were wondering what happened to you.[/B]


I mean there really is probably a less than 5% chance he can do it. But to me and many others, that perfect championship record means a lot. Its why people Montana > Brady. Means something.[/QUOTE]
18/7/7 for the series with a trip-dub is hardly an "absolute no show."

dbl post

I think when you look at the overall competition from this era to jordans era, you can notice how they contrast. Today, competition is tough, players train their entire lives with the most highest degree of technology and info. Back then, although it was tough, competition was easier to a certain extent where there wasn't a high intensity compared to today. Athletes are stronger, faster, tougher today and would have a field day back then. People won't qualify lebron as GOAT based on these principles that jordan has set back then. The game has changed, we can't expect lebron to earn 6 rings in a superstar era, where guys back then have no chance in.

To prove my point; put mj in lebrons situations and they lose even worse. People put mj into some category where he can be expected to carry d league caliber players like the cavs and heat.

the bruh is trying to say that lebron in the current east has it tough while jordan facing off vs bird's celtics and the bad boy pistons had it easy

:oldlol: I'm done

2 more all-star MVPs and 2 more Christmas MVPs will get him GOAT status. :bowdown:

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]I think when you look at the overall competition from this era to jordans era, you can notice how they contrast. Today, competition is tough, players train their entire lives with the most highest degree of technology and info. Back then, although it was tough, competition was easier to a certain extent where there wasn't a high intensity compared to today. Athletes are stronger, faster, tougher today and would have a field day back then. People won't qualify lebron as GOAT based on these principles that jordan has set back then. The game has changed, we can't expect lebron to earn 6 rings in a superstar era, where guys back then have no chance in.[/QUOTE]

The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before. A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's. Most of the Spurs' rotation is foreign; in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 international players. Today you have to compete against the world's best, not just America's best.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before. A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's. Most of the Spurs' rotation is foreign; in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 international players. Today you have to compete against the world's best, not just America's best.[/QUOTE]
thats true too, good point.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before. A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's. Most of the Spurs' rotation is foreign; in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 international players. Today you have to compete against the world's best, not just America's best.[/QUOTE]

The talent pool is so deep that the center position is considered dead. :applause:

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]To prove my point; put mj in lebrons situations and they lose even worse. People put mj into some category where he can be expected to carry d league caliber players like the cavs and heat.[/QUOTE]

Sorry son, Heat win 4 straight titles with 26-30 year old MJ on that team instead of LeBron. With LeBron you get only 2.

Dirk and a old folkes squad of Spurs (maybe when Duncan was actually in his peak it would be fair series) aren't changing that.

In my opinion Lebron will never be as great as MJ because people don't fear him demanding the ball for a 7-8 minute stretch at the end of a close game, taking every shot and having an epic 4th quarter. Lebron is capable of that, of coarse, but MJ consistently stepped up in those moments.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before. A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's. Most of the Spurs' rotation is foreign; in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 international players. Today you have to compete against the world's best, not just America's best.[/QUOTE]

That and the enormous gap in defensive rules. Back then the NBA was on shaky ground and wanted to prop up its best players and created rules designed to allow them to shine. The most efficient play in the game was ISO basketball. Now ISO ball loses to league avg by ~40-50 points/gm.

The game is completely different so it is VERY difficult to compare generations. Melo should have been born 25 years earlier. He would have been incredible. David Robinson should be playing in todays game. Both would be considered all time greats.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]That and the enormous gap in defensive rules. Back then the NBA was on shaky ground and wanted to prop up its best players and created rules designed to allow them to shine. The most efficient play in the game was ISO basketball. Now ISO ball loses to league avg by ~40-50 points/gm.

The game is completely different so it is VERY difficult to compare generations. Melo should have been born 25 years earlier. He would have been incredible. David Robinson should be playing in todays game. Both would be considered all time greats.[/QUOTE]

David Robinson is an all-time great.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before.[/quote]
90's had european talent.

[quote=Roundball_Rock]A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's.[/quote]
Sure it would. The current Spurs play like a 80s or 90s basketball team. Predicated on ball movement, team fundamentals, and hitting open shots. Before the HS drafting craze of the late 90's and early 2000's ... you had groomed, intelligent, niche, but skilled role players in the NBA w/ coachability coming from elite college programs. Not one and done kids.

Skill sets, mentality the modern AAU programs negate.

It's the same difference. Our American born collegiate players provided those roles to a team that Europeans do now. Everyone in America grows up wanting to be a superstar now. That's why Pop said he likes drafting Euros.

He can build a team with parts that way.

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]To prove my point; put mj in lebrons situations and they lose even worse. People put mj into some category where he can be expected to carry d league caliber players like the cavs and heat.[/QUOTE]

thats fair.

i think people raise valid points about the talent pool in todays game. expansion and the lack of global power the nba had is something you cannot argue.

todays spurs have ALL WORLD talent and would have likely made AND WON multiple finals in the 90s.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]Sorry son, Heat win 4 straight titles with 26-30 year old MJ on that team instead of LeBron. With LeBron you get only 2.

Dirk and a old folkes squad of Spurs (maybe when Duncan was actually in his peak it would be fair series) aren't changing that.[/QUOTE]
the heat with jordan lose to the spurs in both years. Stop overrating jordan and underrating pop the genius.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]The biggest knock on the 80's and 90's versus today, imo, is the lack of international players. The talent pool today is deeper than ever before. A team like the modern Spurs would not exist in the 90's or 80's. Most of the Spurs' rotation is foreign; in 1994 and 1984 the Spurs had 0 international players. Today you have to compete against the world's best, not just America's best.[/QUOTE]

True, but the center position, as somebody mentioned, is dead. The rules have also hindered defenses (especially on the perimeter). I do agree that this years Spurs team would be great in ANY era, and could possibly win titles in the 90's.

[QUOTE=russwest0]:oldlol: I'm done[/QUOTE]

God how I wish this were the case

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]the heat with jordan lose to the spurs in both years. Stop overrating jordan and underrating pop the genius.[/QUOTE]

You wish that was true.

Heat were just paper tigers, punch them in the nose, get some blood of them, and they run away. No fight, no heart.

They won on talent (and some Ray Allen flukiness) and nothing else and that only gets you there half the time.

The Spurs aren't unbeatable, they're an old ass team that exploited the fact that the Heat don't play well together as a team. LeBron forced Wade and Bosh into being glorified versions of his Cavs squad and eventually those chickens were going to come home to roost and they did.

The Spurs almost lost to a geriatric Dirk Nowitzki in round and needed an Ibaka injury to clear the Thunder. 2001 Lakers or 96 Bulls they weren't.

[QUOTE=Soundwave]You wish that was true.

Heat were just paper tigers, punch them in the nose, get some blood of them, and they run away. No fight, no heart.

They won on talent (and some Ray Allen flukiness) and nothing else and that only gets you there half the time.

The Spurs aren't unbeatable, they're an old ass team that exploited the fact that the Heat don't play well together as a team. LeBron forced Wade and Bosh into being glorified versions of his Cavs squad and eventually those chickens were going to come home to roost and they did.

The Spurs almost lost to a geriatric Dirk Nowitzki in round and needed an Ibaka injury to clear the Thunder.[/QUOTE]
:biggums: you really think jordan is THAT much of a difference? You do realize the spurs are one of the greatest teams who beat a scrubby heat team who relied on lebron. Insert jordan and everyone on that team does worse (He doesn't make his teammates better) scoring goes slightly up, but when you're triple teamed, its sort of hard to score. Also, with the refs favoring the spurs, jordan wouldn't get away with ticky tacky fouls like in the 90s.

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]:biggums: you really think jordan is THAT much of a difference? You do realize the spurs are one of the greatest teams who beat a scrubby heat team who relied on lebron. Insert jordan and everyone on that team does worse (He doesn't make his teammates better) scoring goes slightly up, but when you're triple teamed, its sort of hard to score. Also, with the refs favoring the spurs, jordan wouldn't get away with ticky tacky fouls like in the 90s.[/QUOTE]

I think having heart and real leadership is that big of a difference.

You guys don't have any concept of this so you're amazed that a team like San Antonio could possibly beat Bran.

LeBron did not make Bosh or Wade better either, he sulked like a b*tch and threw the 2011 Finals so that Wade had to accept letting him run the offence his way, which meant turning Bosh and Wade into glorified bit players.

The 2014 Finals was just that catching up to the Heat. When they couldn't play weak ass Eastern teams, they got exposed for the team they were -- no heart, no balls, no leadership.

3 stars, 2/3 who are forced to play a game that's awkward for them because the other "unselfish" star can't tolerate not dominating the ball and having other players play off him exactly how he wants.

I'm not surprised when a flimsy office building collapses on top of itself. The Heat were going to self destruct eventually because they never played that great together.

[QUOTE=Lebronxrings]:biggums: you really think jordan is THAT much of a difference? You do realize the spurs are one of the greatest teams who beat a scrubby heat team who relied on lebron. Insert jordan and everyone on that team does worse (He doesn't make his teammates better) scoring goes slightly up, but when you're triple teamed, its sort of hard to score. Also, with the refs favoring the spurs, jordan wouldn't get away with ticky tacky fouls like in the 90s.[/QUOTE]

Jordan wouldn't of lost by 14+ pts a game. Nice subtle way to insert the spurs in the convo.

Hire a brain surgeon to transfer his brain into a goat's body. [COLOR="White"]Another asterisk for Lebron stans to celebrate to[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Soundwave]
The Spurs almost lost to a geriatric Dirk Nowitzki in round and needed an Ibaka injury to clear the Thunder. 2001 Lakers or 96 Bulls they weren't.[/QUOTE]

Did they? How close was Dal to actually winning the series? They had the Spurs backs to the wall one time. And were down 29 in the 2nd and were never competitive.

They beat OKC in OKC with Ibaka and won the last two games of the series.

You think they pummelled Mia? They beat Miami by a combined 72 points in their 4 wins. They beat OKC by a combined 75 points in their 4 wins. And they beat PORT by a combined 78 points in their 4 wins.

They were ABSOLUTELY DOMINANT. And for all the talk about how the West is the toughest conference ever, SAS has been the 1 seed three of the last 4 years and were the 2 seed the other year, and that was largely due to a major injury to Tony Parker. They have continued to be dominant.

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]Did they? How close was Dal to actually winning the series? They had the Spurs backs to the wall one time. And were down 29 in the 2nd and were never competitive.

They beat OKC in OKC with Ibaka and won the last two games of the series.

You think they pummelled Mia? They beat Miami by a combined 72 points in their 4 wins. They beat OKC by a combined 75 points in their 4 wins. And they beat PORT by a combined 78 points in their 4 wins.

They were ABSOLUTELY DOMINANT. And for all the talk about how the West is the toughest conference ever, SAS has been the 1 seed three of the last 4 years and were the 2 seed the other year, and that was largely due to a major injury to Tony Parker. They have continued to be dominant.[/QUOTE]
the excuse "ibaka injury" will continue to be played until the Spurs kills the Thunder again

[QUOTE=HurricaneKid]Did they? How close was Dal to actually winning the series? They had the Spurs backs to the wall one time. And were down 29 in the 2nd and were never competitive.

They beat OKC in OKC with Ibaka and won the last two games of the series.

You think they pummelled Mia? They beat Miami by a combined 72 points in their 4 wins. They beat OKC by a combined 75 points in their 4 wins. And they beat PORT by a combined 78 points in their 4 wins.

They were ABSOLUTELY DOMINANT. And for all the talk about how the West is the toughest conference ever, SAS has been the 1 seed three of the last 4 years and were the 2 seed the other year, and that was largely due to a major injury to Tony Parker. They have continued to be dominant.[/QUOTE]

Lets actually look at the Heat before being all incredulous that they could be embarrassed in the Finals. Because 2014 isn't even the first time its happened, they were embarrassed out of the Finals in 2011 too.

They play a soft ass Eastern Conference, is it really that big of a shock they weren't prepared to play the Spurs?

Honestly they should have lost in 2013 too, that was a fluke comeback and one of the rare, rare bad calls by Pop.

The only "good" team Miami beat clean in their "reign" were the Thunder who were extremely young and inexperienced.

Miami was never that great of a team. Not that they didn't have the talent to do so ... they just didn't fit each other chemistry wise and the style LeBron likes to play did not suit Wade or Bosh and he's unwilling to adapt his style to them (unselfish ... sure). They also had poor leadership and haven't shown great ability to battle through adversity.

So I ask again ... why was the 2014 Finals that surprising? Especially with San Antonio super motivated to avenge the 2013 Finals that they should have won?

The Shaq-Kobe Lakers even played far better together. The 2001 Lakers are probably the last real "great" team even though they bickered like idiots.

[QUOTE]You think they pummelled Mia? They beat Miami by a combined 72 points in their 4 wins. They beat OKC by a combined 75 points in their 4 wins. And they beat PORT by a combined 78 points in their 4 wins.

They were ABSOLUTELY DOMINANT. And for all the talk about how the West is the toughest conference ever, SAS has been the 1 seed three of the last 4 years and were the 2 seed the other year, and that was largely due to a major injury to Tony Parker. They have continued to be dominant.[/QUOTE]

Great points.

[QUOTE]Lets actually look at the Heat before being all incredulous that they could be embarrassed in the Finals. Because 2014 isn't even the first time its happened, they were embarrassed out of the Finals in 2011 too.

They play a soft ass Eastern Conference, is it really that big of a shock they weren't prepared to play the Spurs?[/QUOTE]

The 2011 Finals were not like the 2014 Finals. The Heat were competitive in 2011; in 2014 the Heat got demolished, but as HurricaneKid pointed out, so did Portland and OKC.

[QUOTE]Honestly they should have lost in 2013 too, that was a fluke comeback and one of the rare, rare bad calls by Pop. [/QUOTE]

The Heat were 66-16 that year and had a 27 game winning streak. They clearly were the best team that year. The 2013 Heat were the best version of the Heatles.

[QUOTE]The only "good" team Miami beat clean in their "reign" were the Thunder who were extremely young and inexperienced. [/QUOTE]

Boston? Indiana? Boston from 2008-2012 won a title, made 2 Finals and 3 ECF's. They would have been in the Finals again in 2009 if KG did not get hurt. In 2011 they lost in the second round but won 56 games. They were not out of gas until 2013.

[QUOTE]Miami was never that great of a team. Not that they didn't have the talent to do so ... they just didn't fit each other chemistry wise and the style [/QUOTE]

This is true. For all the talk about the Heat being "the most stacked team of all-time" the reality is they were just one of several contenders during their own time. They won twice in four years and had several tough series: 11' Finals, 12' ECSF, 12' ECF, 13' ECF, 13' Finals and 14' Finals. They were the #2 seed in the East in three of the four "Big 3" years. Yet people act as if they were going 65-17 and sweeping teams in the playoffs. :oldlol:

[QUOTE]So I ask again ... why was the 2014 Finals that surprising?[/QUOTE]

What surprised me is how much better than the Heat and Thunder the Spurs were. Even Portland was a 54 win team and the Spurs swept them with ease. When is the last time a team dominated the playoffs to the degree the 14' Spurs did? Clearly the 13' Heat, 12' Heat, 11' Mavs, 10' Lakers, 08' Celtics do not fit that bill. I suppose one could argue the 09' Lakers or 07' Spurs but they weren't blowing good teams out on a regular basis like the 14' Spurs. The 14' Spurs may have been the most dominant playoff team since the 01' Lakers.

[QUOTE=Roundball_Rock]Great points.



The 2011 Finals were not like the 2014 Finals. The Heat were competitive in 2011; in 2014 the Heat got demolished, but as HurricaneKid pointed out, so did Portland and OKC.



The Heat were 66-16 that year and had a 27 game winning streak. They clearly were the best team that year. The 2013 Heat were the best version of the Heatles.



Boston? Indiana? Boston from 2008-2012 won a title, made 2 Finals and 3 ECF's. They would have been in the Finals again in 2009 if KG did not get hurt. In 2011 they lost in the second round but won 56 games. They were not out of gas until 2013.



This is true. For all the talk about the Heat being "the most stacked team of all-time" the reality is they were just one of several contenders during their own time. They won twice in four years and had several tough series: 11' Finals, 12' ECSF, 12' ECF, 13' ECF, 13' Finals and 14' Finals. They were the #2 seed in the East in three of the four "Big 3" years. Yet people act as if they were going 65-17 and sweeping teams in the playoffs. :oldlol:



What surprised me is how much better than the Heat and Thunder the Spurs were. Even Portland was a 54 win team and the Spurs swept them with ease. When is the last time a team dominated the playoffs to the degree the 14' Spurs did? Clearly the 13' Heat, 12' Heat, 11' Mavs, 10' Lakers, 08' Celtics do not fit that bill. I suppose one could argue the 09' Lakers or 07' Spurs but they weren't blowing good teams out on a regular basis like the 14' Spurs. The 14' Spurs may have been the most dominant playoff team since the 01' Lakers.[/QUOTE]
The Spurs were not that much better then the Thunder. They got a 2-0 lead to start the series and Obama played the rest of the series injured. They got taken to 7 by the Dallas mavs

[QUOTE=Soundwave]I think having heart and real leadership is that big of a difference.

You guys don't have any concept of this so you're amazed that a team like San Antonio could possibly beat Bran.

[B]LeBron did not make Bosh or Wade better either, he sulked like a b*tch and threw the 2011 Finals so that Wade had to accept letting him run the offence his way, which meant turning Bosh and Wade into glorified bit players. [/B]

[B]The 2014 Finals was just that catching up to the Heat. When they couldn't play weak ass Eastern teams, they got exposed for the team they were -- no heart, no balls, no leadership.[/B]

3 stars, 2/3 who are forced to play a game that's awkward for them because the other "unselfish" star can't tolerate not dominating the ball and having other players play off him exactly how he wants.

I'm not surprised when a flimsy office building collapses on top of itself. The Heat were going to self destruct eventually because they never played that great together.[/QUOTE]
:biggums: James looking for his first ring.... decided to throw the Finals?

[QUOTE]The only "good" team Miami beat clean in their "reign" were the Thunder who were extremely young and inexperienced.[/QUOTE]
That young inexperienced team basically steamrolled the West to get to the Finals and were favored by Vegas once they got there.

Jordan had troubles with 6'3 Gary Payton on him single coverage with no zone :oldlol:

LeBron needs to be doubled with Kawhi on him, and Tim Duncan and Splitter protecting the rim and still averages 28 ppg on 60% on the field

"B-But MJ is better" ISH kills me sometimes :roll:

suck MJ's fun size ween

[QUOTE=Hey Yo]That young inexperienced team basically steamrolled the West to get to the Finals and were favored by Vegas once they got there.[/QUOTE]

Yeah it had Durant, Wesbtrook, Harden and Ibaka. Harden's numbers were limited as being the #3 option in OKC but the following year he put up 26/5/6 in Houston. They swept the defending champs, beat the Kobe/Gasol/Bynum #3 seeded Lakers in 5 and then backdoor swept the #1 seeded Spurs. Beating that team was no small feat. As to their experience, they won 55 games and made the WCF in 2011 so 2012 was not their first deep run or first year as a contender.