cp3 vs kidd vs payton

[QUOTE=game3524]The Clippers had the two best players in the damn series.:oldlol:

Generally speaking when you have the two best players, you should win the series. I mean we saw this happen the very next round with OKC vs SA. SA got backdoor swept because OKC two best players played like superstars, unlike the Clippers, who's best player played like shit.[/QUOTE]

Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.

[QUOTE=game3524]The Spurs were a great team, but they weren't some unbeatable juggernaut. They didn't have a true superstar, so their potential was maxed out at a certain level. They were very similar to some of those late 2000s Pistons teams.

Hell, CP3 didn't even need to play like 2008 post-season CP3. If he was even 80-85% of what he normally was, they have a great chance of winning that series.

Also Charlotte didn't have a negative point differential. In fact, they were a slightly better offensive team then New Jersey and were still a top ten defensive team.[/QUOTE]

We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'll say this again.

Using the argument that Kidd made the finals and Paul hasn't made it out of the 2nd round is not a good argument for why one thinks Kidd is better.

It's too different of circumstances both within their own teams and their competition.

But, like I said before, this is why Paul/Clippers collapsing the last 2 years makes it so difficult. Paul has nothing to hang his hat on in terms of a deep playoff run. So it begs the question as to why.

And that answer is a complicated combination of many factors and while it's an interesting conversation to be had...I don't think the simplistic view of most here allows that conversation to actually take place.

So...it should be held against Paul about what happened these last 2 years. However, that doesn't make Kidd better by default just because he beat some scrub teams in the East.[/QUOTE]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

[QUOTE=game3524]They aren't, the Clippers were actually good teams.....the Nets weren't.

Seriously, You make it sound as if the Clippers are always at some huge disadvantage. They have had several years where they weren't overmatched, but simply didn't play up to par(sometime it was Paul, other times it was Blake.).[/QUOTE]Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.

[QUOTE=dhsilv]Nothing against Russ and Durant, but the role players for OKC has I think it was game 4 or 5, one of the greatest mid range shooting performances of all time for a bunch of relatively speaking average to poor shooters, that cost the spurs a game right there and was a major factor in that series. That was just a team that was supposed to beat the spurs that year.

Giving only credit to their two stars grossly ignores the reality of that series.[/QUOTE]

Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.

Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).

[QUOTE=Young X]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. Their circumstances weren't similar.[/QUOTE]


Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected. I don't automatically take a player over another just because of advancing deep in the playoffs.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...

[QUOTE=dhsilv]We're talking about the same spurs team that went to back to back finals and won a title? That spurs team?[/QUOTE]

The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.

[QUOTE=Young X]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).

And I don't get the last part of you're post. If not getting to the finals or conference finals should be held against Paul than how is Kidd not better by default?

Yeah and the Clippers actually faced good teams...the Nets didn't. They faced teams that wouldn't even have made the playoffs in the Clippers' conference.

And no the Clippers weren't always at a huge disadvantage. They could've beaten OKC and Houston. The thing is those 2 teams were also quality teams that the Clippers had to beat without homecourt.

[B]The Nets even relative to their conference had it much easier. This is why you can't just point to where each of their teams finished in the playoffs to determine who is better between Kidd and Paul. [/B]Their circumstances weren't similar.[/QUOTE]


When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.

[QUOTE=Young X][B]Paul collapsed in ONE game at one moment that shouldn't even have affected the outcome if the obvious correct call would've been made (OKC, game 5, 2014).[/B][/QUOTE]

well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]Wait...what?

You think that if I criticize Paul for what has happened the last two years in the playoffs...that somehow means I have to take Kidd "by default" over Paul?

I don't see how the two are connected.

It's more than fair to criticize Paul for the last two years...that, however, doesn't mean Kidd is a better player than Paul.

Each player is only in their own circumstances...in a case like this...like I already said...the circumstances are just too different to compare both in terms of their own teams and competition.

That doesn't mean Paul just gets a pass for the last 2 years...[/QUOTE]My bad, I misunderstood something you said in your post.

[QUOTE=game3524]When have I said that. I took Kidd over Paul due to his size/defensive/leadership advantage over CP3.[/QUOTE]Alright, cool. I was speaking in general about people using the Nets' finals trips as a reason why he's a better player. Getting to the finals in a conference like that isn't like getting to the finals in a tough conference.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]well, if the initial correct call would have been made, OKC would have had 2 FT's, which ironically would have been alot better for LAC than the 3 OKC was about to get.[/QUOTE]They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.

[QUOTE=Young X]They shouldn't even have given OKC the ball. It should've been Clipper ball and Paul's turnover wouldn't even have mattered. They got straight up robbed.[/QUOTE]

Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.

[QUOTE=game3524]The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.[/QUOTE]

Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.

[QUOTE=dhsilv]Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.[/QUOTE]

IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.

[QUOTE=game3524]Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.

Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).[/QUOTE]

Lets look at that game 4 again.

Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5

A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.

The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.

I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!

At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.

Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.

[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.[/QUOTE]That's debatable, it looks like Barnes got all ball but it's hard to tell for sure. But even if that's the case OKC only gets 2 FT's like you said and the worst thing that happens for LAC is overtime.

What you don't do is give OKC the ball and give them a chance at shooting/making a 3 when the ball clearly belonged to LAC. That game was one of the weirdest, most f*ckery filled games I've ever seen.

[QUOTE=tpols]I don't think anyone was arguing black and white, Kidd made the Finals, Paul didn't, therefore Kidd > Paul. We only have the circumstances they were dealt and what they made of them.


Kidd was dealt mediocre rosters for most of his prime, but made the most of them.. much like Paul did with New Orleans I guess you could say. Kidd was never given "great" help though like Paul has been with the Clippers. So far Paul has failed to live up to his own hype with said rosters.

We can only speculate how far Kidd could've taken a good team in a good conference, since we've really only seen him take bad/mediocre teams far in a poor conference.


In order to have Paul over Kidd you would have to assume he would fail with these Clipper teams.. and lose to the likes of James Harden and old stiff Dwight Howard in playoff series where his team was capable of even winning games without him entirely.

An opinion's an opinion but damn I have a hard time believing that.


After seeing what prime Kidd did with Kmart, and even old Kidd did with Tyson Chandler, I think a JKidd-Blake-Jordan combo would be a sick combo to witness, and would not disappoint.[/QUOTE]

You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.

[QUOTE=game3524]IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.[/QUOTE]

If we're talking 14 agree t hat Kawhi stepped it up, but Parker was rather weak in 14 imo. I think Manu was better in 12 though part of that was missing a lot of games. Splitter imo was better in 12 as well. Also Jackson was actually a pretty solid player on that 12 team in the playoffs, something they didn't have later.

Honestly think all 3 of those teams were about as good as the other. Spurs lost to two really great teams in that run.

I'd argue Cp3 has already passed those 2, and i'm not even a fan of his. I can see Kidd and Payton's arguments based on longevity and playoff success though. As for Payton vs Kidd i'd side with Payton he was a comparable defender and playmaker but a better scorer. All 3 are roughly in my 33-40 range.

[QUOTE=Smoke117]You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.[/QUOTE]

Lets not forget Doc Rivers is NOT a great coach.

CP3>>>Kidd>>>Payton


Kidd comes in with the versatility and D. Id take him over Payton because he was a smarter and more versatile defender and waaaay smarter on offense. Payton was a ball hog and a chucker.

CP3 was just on another level offensively compared to those two tbough. Hes in a tier above them.

[QUOTE=dhsilv]Lets look at that game 4 again.

Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5

A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.

The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.

I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!

At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.

Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I feel like that series was super fluky. Ive never seen OKC hit so many jumpers against a good defense. The Spurs offense that year was just on another level from the other years too.

cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic

ISH: where it's not what you have done, but what we think you could have done.

[QUOTE=Thechosen1]cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic[/QUOTE]

He's more complete than magic if we're really going there. He isn't 6'9 nor does he have god like passing ability in transition....but he doesn't really have a flaw in this game, shoot better from range and might be a better defender.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree...once they got Rasheed Wallace they became a team capable of dominating with all time great defense...and scoring enough in the half court while playing a slow pace that made them a very tough team to beat in the playoffs.

Of course Kobe/Lakers imploding made life easier, but that is what the Pistons did. They just wrecked you with their defense...[/QUOTE]
And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.

[QUOTE=aj1987]And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.[/QUOTE]

I don't know about that. They dominated the Lakers in that series. Even if Kobe plays considerably better...the Pistons still could have won.

You could do that with too many other teams. There are circumstances that lead to teams winning all the time.

One could make an argument along the lines above about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers not being an all time great duo. If the Blazers don't choke or have that idiot Dunleavy as coach and the 02 Kings series isn't a joke in game 6...the Lakers only have 1 ring and they aren't ATG.

I just don't buy stuff like that. Shit happens all the time and claiming that the Pistons would have lost to the Lakers is something you don't know...we also don't know they would have lost to the Heat, but even if that is for sure true, losing to the Heat with Wade/Shaq in a tight series isn't a knock on a team.

I certainly don't think they were the best team ever or anything, but they were better, once they got Rasheed, than you are giving them credit for.

I dig this comparison!! U could make a case for any of the three in this one. But if I had to choose, I think I would roll with GP. When u combine scoring, defense, and passing at the PG position, I think GP, Frazier, and CP3 are the best of all time. The key for me is GP's defensive versatility edge over CP3. And his scoring advantage on Kidd. But as I stated earlier, u can make a case for any of the three.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I don't know about that. They dominated the Lakers in that series. Even if Kobe plays considerably better...the Pistons still could have won.

You could do that with too many other teams. There are circumstances that lead to teams winning all the time.

One could make an argument along the lines above about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers not being an all time great duo. If the Blazers don't choke or have that idiot Dunleavy as coach and the 02 Kings series isn't a joke in game 6...the Lakers only have 1 ring and they aren't ATG.

I just don't buy stuff like that. Shit happens all the time and claiming that the Pistons would have lost to the Lakers is something you don't know...we also don't know they would have lost to the Heat, but even if that is for sure true, losing to the Heat with Wade/Shaq in a tight series isn't a knock on a team.

I certainly don't think they were the best team ever or anything, but they were better, once they got Rasheed, than you are giving them credit for.[/QUOTE]
:biggums:

What are you even arguing about now? I never ranked the teams place in history. All I said was that if Kobe actually put his ego aside, the Lakers would've beat the Pistons.

[QUOTE=aj1987]:biggums:

What are you even arguing about now? I never ranked the teams place in history. All I said was that if Kobe actually put his ego aside, the Lakers would've beat the Pistons.[/QUOTE]

And I disagree with that. It's not that simple.

What are you even arguing about?

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]And I disagree with that. It's not that simple.

What are you even arguing about?[/QUOTE]
You yourself aren't sure that the Pistons win if Kobe plays like Kobe.

I'm not arguing anything. I responded to tpols and you quoted me. :confusedshrug:

Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.

[QUOTE=Smoke117]Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.[/QUOTE]

While also being a total non threat from >5ft for 85% of his career.

[QUOTE=aj1987]You yourself aren't sure that the Pistons win if Kobe plays like Kobe.

I'm not arguing anything. I responded to tpols and you quoted me. :confusedshrug:[/QUOTE]

I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.

kidd>>>cp3>>>payton

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.[/QUOTE]

It's often hard for people to accept a team is truly great without a player who "did it all". And to be honest, I don't blame anyone for that. There are very few teams who didn't have a clear go to guy who won at the college level, let alone the nba level. That go to person is generally critical. Even now I have to think about where I'd put that pistons team just because I'm not sure they ever had the guy who could turn that corner and make magic happen and other all time great teams did.

Sorry you two can go back to the debate, but your discussion made me realize how I naturally look for a go to guy on most teams when i think of an all time team.

[QUOTE=Smoke117]Jason Kidd is the greatest defensive PG of all time...that's a fact...not an opinion. Everybody should keep this in mind when they are ranking these three players.[/QUOTE]

Man, I've read this 4 times now and I keep wondering if I agree or not. Payton being the clear "but he was better" choice, but he was better in ways but not all ways. Kidd was just physically brutal. His legacy perhaps got hurt because of a few bogus and awful defensive team selections once he was pass his prime, but between his hands and size and strength....I hate to say but you might be right (that it's a fact that isn't open for debate).

[QUOTE=houston]kidd>>>cp3>>>payton[/QUOTE]

This .

[QUOTE=dhsilv]It's often hard for people to accept a team is truly great without a player who "did it all". And to be honest, I don't blame anyone for that. There are very few teams who didn't have a clear go to guy who won at the college level, let alone the nba level. That go to person is generally critical. Even now I have to think about where I'd put that pistons team just because I'm not sure they ever had the guy who could turn that corner and make magic happen and other all time great teams did.

Sorry you two can go back to the debate, but your discussion made me realize how I naturally look for a go to guy on most teams when i think of an all time team.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Having an elite championship first option is almost always needed.

I'm not arguing the Pistons were the best team ever or something though...just that they were on par with some great teams. Where they ultimately rank in 04 and 05 historically is up for debate, but they weren't some fluke team that would be just for sure beaten if Kobe had played better.

People forget that Kobe was magnificent in game 2...and it still took OT for the Lakers to win.

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I agree. Having an elite championship first option is almost always needed.

I'm not arguing the Pistons were the best team ever or something though...just that they were on par with some great teams. Where they ultimately rank in 04 and 05 historically is up for debate, but they weren't some fluke team that would be just for sure beaten if Kobe had played better.

People forget that Kobe was magnificent in game 2...and it still took OT for the Lakers to win.[/QUOTE]

What's sad is that people don't seem to give Prince credit. There have been some guys who weren't all stars who just had moments in their careers and they deserve some damn credit. Prince was truly spectacular in that series. Another forgotten name is Tyron Lue who sure didn't beat the 76ers, but I think AI gets anther game or TWO if Lue doesn't come out of nowhere to be the iverson stopper that year. What did he do after that series? Devin Harris has some epic games against Tony Parker, not Harris had a decent career, but his work on Parker put him on the map and nothing else he did lived up imo. There are a lot of examples of guys just being a touch match up for great players and these players can just turn a playoff series.

Only with certain players are the defenders ignored and suddenly it was "he just didn't play well".

[QUOTE=dhsilv]What's sad is that people don't seem to give Prince credit. There have been some guys who weren't all stars who just had moments in their careers and they deserve some damn credit. Prince was truly spectacular in that series. Another forgotten name is Tyron Lue who sure didn't beat the 76ers, but I think AI gets anther game or TWO if Lue doesn't come out of nowhere to be the iverson stopper that year. What did he do after that series? Devin Harris has some epic games against Tony Parker, not Harris had a decent career, but his work on Parker put him on the map and nothing else he did lived up imo. There are a lot of examples of guys just being a touch match up for great players and these players can just turn a playoff series.

Only with certain players are the defenders ignored and suddenly it was "he just didn't play well".[/QUOTE]

Not gonna lie. When I saw this happen as it happened my jaw dropped:

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GD8feepwrE[/url]

[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I'm saying that your statement of "if Kobe plays like himself" and if "Wade doesn't get hurt" the Pistons lose both series...is not a for sure thing...even in a hypothetical.

I'd actually lean towards the Pistons still winning that series...and I'd lean towards the Heat winning that series, but neither of us know and it's not an obvious answer regardless.

And that leads into our disagreement about how good those 04 and 05 Pistons teams were.

You think beating the Lakers and then taking perhaps the best Spurs team ever to the brink is somehow indicative of them not being an ATG team because they might have lost to a Wade/Shaq Heat team. I don't see it that way.

For one, we'd have to define what an ATG team actually is. And two, I don't think you give them enough credit for how good they got once Rasheed got there.

Those are our differences.[/QUOTE]
Why do you keep bringing up Sheed? I probably know more about those Pistons teams than you. Again, [B][I]IF[/I][/B] Kobe puts his ego aside and plays like Kobe, they win in '04. I know you hate Kobe and it's hard to accept the alternative, but that's what it is.

The Heat were up 3-2 against the Pistons and Wade was absolutely going in raw before his injury. Anyone who was actually watching basketball in '05 would bet their houses on the Heat, if Wade was healthy. Lets not pretend that Wade's injury wasn't the reason as to why the Pistons ended up in the Finals. IIRC, Wade was averaging close to 30/5/7 in the games he wasn't injured.

For the whateverth time, the Pistons were an ATG defensive team, but they weren't an ATG team.