What are some unpopular basketball beliefs that you have?

[QUOTE=Tavr;15019950][B]Does Horace Grant leave if MJ never retires? Assuming Chicago has him for 95 it would have definitely made a difference versus Shaq and Orlando.[/B] Ditto against Houston. If not though? Then I really don't see how they overcome Orlando's frontline, but if they happened to, its just to meet Houston and overcome theirs. Tall task. Like you also mentioned, its pretty difficult to imagine a reality where Chicago isnt exhausted and running on fumes.

Assuming MJ never retired, I wouldn't bank on them making it all the way to 98. Much less winning it all (as they were constructed).[/QUOTE]

Even with Grant in 95 I just don't think they beat Houston ( maybe they squeeze past Orlando). You're talking a team that pretty much would have had 6 deep playoff runs by then (assuming they win in 94, the 91-93 titles, and back to back ECFs in 89 and 90). But I'm figuring Grant staying around also means they don't land Rodman in 96, and he was a crucial part of that 96 run ( especially since he could play Shaq straight up for large stretches so Chicago could stay home on Orlando's shooters, and of course he was huge in the finals against Seattle).

Sam Jones doesn't get enough recognition for the Celtics Dynasty. Was probably the 2nd most important player after Russell. They didn't miss a beat after Cousy retired.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15019714]I'll start.

- Shawn Kemp was the best defender on the '96 Sonics, even over Gary Payton who won DPOY that season.[/QUOTE]

Bwahahahahahaha let me guess. Can I? Can I? Ok here i go…

Def rtg! DEF RTG [B]DEF RTG[/B] [SIZE=5][B]DEF RTG!!![/B][/SIZE]


smh

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15019845][video=youtube;VSkBTLdNhv0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSkBTLdNhv0&ab_channel=TheYoungManandTheThree[/video]

Lue made what I think is a great point regarding the infamous AI stepover. He calls him Doug Collins by mistake, but if Marv Albert doesnt have his emphatic "Then steps OVER Tyronn Lue" call, you could make a valid argument that play doesn't become nearly as iconic as it did.[/QUOTE]

Yeah no. The world is watching this series and saw AI step over Lue after Lue was guarding AI rather tightly which was noticeable to anyone who saw the matchup. No one even mentions the call. The optics is what everyone remembers. The still photo.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15019726]I find it crazy how the two bad calls that went against Utah are never brought up when discussing Game 6

Titles/team results are very overrated when evaluating players

Iggy was the most deserving choice for FMVP

Dirk's 2011 title run is very overrated

Giannis had a top 10 peak of all time[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15019778]I think that's how most people felt at the time. As the years have gone by, people who never watched or forgot details of that series just assume Iggy shouldn't have won it because they look at the raw stats in that series. I remember Curry getting clamped by Dellavedova at certain points, Warriors were struggling. The moment Iggy got into the starting lineup it changed everything.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15019779]It's genuinely the biggest revisionist history of a subject I can remember. You go back to any thread at the time and Iggy was getting majority support for FMVP over Curry. Now people look at the boxscore and act like that was some complete robbery, that series is a very good example of when stats can be deceptive, or don't tell the whole story.[/QUOTE]

:roll:

This is mental illness.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15019851]I don't think that's an unpopular take, or at least not a controversial one. Frankly he ticks all the boxes but for whatever reason when people talk about all-time peaks, I never see his name mentioned. But just look at his first 6-7 years. Dude was like an MVP level, all-NBA performer out the gate and winning titles from his 2nd year. One could argue his prime coinciding with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers probably cost him 2 titles.

His lack of flash and understated personality have unfairly cost him legacy points, because frankly he SHOULD be top 5. Like his career wasn't any worse than someone like Bird or Magic, but he doesn't get the 'they saved the NBA' boost that those two gate( which is not to say they're undeserving, just that Duncan rightly belongs in that class of player in terms of floor impact, individual and team accolades).[/QUOTE]

Duncan doesn't get mentioned in the pantheon discussions because he wasn't always the go-to guy offensively. He COULD be the guy on any given and definitely WAS the guy for a lot of it... but for some of those championship runs you also remember Parker and Manu being the guy.

Fair or not fair, it's held against him. Especially when he's being compared to players who were "the guy" every time they were on the floor.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15020094]Duncan doesn't get mentioned in the pantheon discussions because he wasn't always the go-to guy offensively. He COULD be the guy on any given and definitely WAS the guy for a lot of it... but for some of those championship runs you also remember Parker and Manu being the guy.

Fair or not fair, it's held against him. Especially when he's being compared to players who were "the guy" every time they were on the floor.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't seem to held against Magic, who was the main offensive guy for 2 of his 5 runs( and even by the time Kareem got old, Worthy had several series of being the leading scorer even after Magic became 'the guy'), or Bill Russell who was primarily defensive-oriented and wasn't 'the guy' offensively, and at some point people understood that while he warrants a place in the pantheons, 11 titles is such an era-specific thing that it would be impossible to duplicate( like Wilt scoring 500ppg) and needs to be contextualized. Kevin Mchale had a few playoff series where he led the team in scoring or he was damn near equal to Bird's output. Frankly, MJ is the only player in the generally recognized top 10 who led his team's scoring in every single playoff series.

That's just not a talking point that should carry any serious weight with Duncan. He shouldn't be perceived as less deserving of that status because he adjusted his game to let others shine. He probably could have forced always being the leading scorer if his ego required it, and if he was blessed with the foreknowledge that ceding a bit of scoring to teammates would have taken him out of these pantheon conversations years later ( and may have even lost them a title or two but hey, [I]he scored more than anything else while losing![/I]). Even in a year like 2007, Duncan was still the leading scorer for the season and playoffs for that run. Tony Parker doesn't end up in the position to win finals MVP if Duncan isn't there anchoring the entire thing. I mean the guy carried the team's scoring AND defense for pretty much a decade. Anyone saying 'well he wasn't always the go to guy' on the back-nine, especially when you look at the totality of his career, frankly shouldn't be discussing basketball.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15020094]Duncan doesn't get mentioned in the pantheon discussions because he wasn't always the go-to guy offensively. He COULD be the guy on any given and definitely WAS the guy for a lot of it... but for some of those championship runs you also remember [B]Parker and Manu being the guy[/B].

Fair or not fair, it's held against him. Especially when he's being compared to players who were "the guy" every time they were on the floor.[/QUOTE]

IMO, your memory is faulty. Duncan was the main offensive player for 4 of the Spurs' 5 rings - and had they won in 2013, he would have picked up another FMVP.

2005 RS
Duncan 20.3 pts 11.1 rebs 49.6%FG
Parker 16.4 pts 6.1 assts 48.2%FG
Manu 16 pts 3.9 assts 47.1%FG

2005 Playoffs
Duncan 23.6 pts 12.4 rebs 46.4%FG
Parker 17.2 pts 4.3 asst 45.4%FG
Manu 20.8 pts 4.2 asst 50.7%FG

2007 RS
Duncan 20 pts 10.6 rebs 54.6%FG
Manu 16.5 pts 3.5 asst 46.4%FG
Parker 18.6 pts 5.5 asst 52%FG

2007 Playoffs
Duncan 22.2 pts 11.5 rebs 52.1%FG
Manu 16.7 pts 3.7 asst 40.1%FG
Parker 20.8 pts 5.8 asst 48%FG

2013 NBA Finals
Duncan 18.9 pts 12.1 rebs
Parker 15.7 pts 6.4 asst
Kawhi 14.6 pts 11.1 rebs
Manu 11.6 pts 4.3 asst

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;15019969]Who were some of his PGs besides Nash?[/QUOTE]

Harden wasn't playing the same way for Mchale before D'antoni. He loved playing for him, did miracles for his numbers.

And Jeremy Lin had no chance of getting in the nba but was lucky the knicks were desperate enough to give him a 10day and even luckier it was Mike D'antoni and they had no point guards and injuries. Even Chris Duhon would get a triple double here and there.

Steve Nash would've been Dallas Steve Nash without D'antoni. We know he was a great shooter and incredible passer in transition but very slow, not the greatest handles, bad defender etc.. nowhere near the greatest pg's, Mark Price level if it wasn't for D'antoni. Dude was a 14ppg 11apg type player, couldn't win and only gets praised as if he made shawn marion and stoudamire all stars.. Marbury did that and he was actually better but that's life.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15019714]I'll start.

- Shawn Kemp was the best defender on the '96 Sonics, even over Gary Payton who won DPOY that season.[/QUOTE]

Actually the best defender on those Sonics teams may have been Nate McMillan.

[QUOTE=dankok8;15020122]Actually the best defender on those Sonics teams may have been Nate McMillan.[/QUOTE]

Even though the creator admits it’s a flawed stat, I’m pretty sure Nate McMillan has the highest DBPM ever. Or he’s really far up there at least.

[QUOTE=LAL;15020121]Harden wasn't playing the same way for Mchale before D'antoni. He loved playing for him, did miracles for his numbers.

And Jeremy Lin had no chance of getting in the nba but was lucky the knicks were desperate enough to give him a 10day and even luckier it was Mike D'antoni and they had no point guards and injuries. Even Chris Duhon would get a triple double here and there.

Steve Nash would've been Dallas Steve Nash without D'antoni. We know he was a great shooter and incredible passer in transition but very slow, not the greatest handles, bad defender etc.. nowhere near the greatest pg's, Mark Price level if it wasn't for D'antoni. Dude was a 14ppg 11apg type player, couldn't win and only gets praised as if he made shawn marion and stoudamire all stars.. Marbury did that and he was actually better but that's life.[/QUOTE]

Marbury was more talented not better

[QUOTE=dankok8;15020122]Actually the best defender on those Sonics teams may have been Nate McMillan.[/QUOTE]

Best defender but didn’t play many minutes? Maybe he had an Alex Caruso impact. I remember him being a good defender for sure. Never felt he was the best on those teams.

[QUOTE=GOBB;15020140]Best defender but didn’t play many minutes? Maybe he had an Alex Caruso impact. I remember him being a good defender for sure. Never felt he was the best on those teams.[/QUOTE]

Most versatile anyway. Could play and defend 3 positions

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020130]Marbury was more talented not better[/QUOTE]
NJ/Phoenix Marbury was actually better than Dallas Nash, There's nothing Nash did Marbury
couldn't, not vice versa honestly. I can only imagine many good to great point guards playing
on that same team in the same system.

[QUOTE=RRR3;15019725]:facepalm[/QUOTE]

from a certain perspective he is

i also believe jordan is goat but that's not unpopular

same for lebron

[QUOTE=LAL;15020145]NJ/Phoenix Marbury was actually better than Dallas Nash, There's nothing Nash did Marbury
couldn't, not vice versa honestly. I can only imagine many good to great point guards playing
on that same team in the same system.[/QUOTE]

He didnt do winning better. Could have stuck with kg and went down as a great. Instead only china and you see it that way

[QUOTE=rmt;15020118]IMO, your memory is faulty. Duncan was the main offensive player for 4 of the Spurs' 5 rings - and had they won in 2013, he would have picked up another FMVP.

2005 RS
Duncan 20.3 pts 11.1 rebs 49.6%FG
Parker 16.4 pts 6.1 assts 48.2%FG
Manu 16 pts 3.9 assts 47.1%FG

2005 Playoffs
Duncan 23.6 pts 12.4 rebs 46.4%FG
Parker 17.2 pts 4.3 asst 45.4%FG
Manu 20.8 pts 4.2 asst 50.7%FG

2007 RS
Duncan 20 pts 10.6 rebs 54.6%FG
Manu 16.5 pts 3.5 asst 46.4%FG
Parker 18.6 pts 5.5 asst 52%FG

2007 Playoffs
Duncan 22.2 pts 11.5 rebs 52.1%FG
Manu 16.7 pts 3.7 asst 40.1%FG
Parker 20.8 pts 5.8 asst 48%FG

2013 NBA Finals
Duncan 18.9 pts 12.1 rebs
Parker 15.7 pts 6.4 asst
Kawhi 14.6 pts 11.1 rebs
Manu 11.6 pts 4.3 asst[/QUOTE]

You're helping to make my point. The gap in scoring isn't big at all. It goes to show you that offensively it wasn't just Timmy and his backup band.

There were plenty of games and plenty of crunch time moments where it was Parker or Manu taking over.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020149]He didnt do winning better. Could have stuck with kg and went down as a great. Instead only china and you see it that way[/QUOTE]
Sure but Nash didn't win either, with Dirk or those amazing Phoenix lineups.

Anyway i'm sure Nash has gotten 2x mvp level better after the age of 32 with his
14/11 and Jobless undrafted Jeremy Lin just jumped off his friends couch to average
25/9 for nine straight games for the ****ing Knicks.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15020150]You're helping to make my point. The gap in scoring isn't big at all. It goes to show you that offensively it wasn't just Timmy and his backup band.

There were plenty of games and plenty of crunch time moments where it was Parker or Manu taking over.[/QUOTE]

It actually makes the point that Duncan typically paced the team in scoring while also anchoring the defense, and Manu/Parker's scoring were ancillary by-products of that. They simply didn't have the same across the board responsibility and overall impact, and as said earlier your criticism can be levied against any GOAT level player in some form except MJ. He's literally the only top 10 player who was always his teams leading scorer for the season and every playoff series. Take a look at Duncan's basketball reference page. Literally, his final season at 40 is the ONLY time he wasn't either on the MVP ballot, an all-star, all NBA or all-defense. Scaling back his scoring so that other teammates can shine( and result in more chips) is an unfair and extremely vacuous criticism.

[QUOTE=LAL;15020151]Sure but Nash didn't win either, with Dirk or those amazing Phoenix lineups.

Anyway i'm sure Nash has gotten 2x mvp level better after the age of 32 with his
14/11 and Jobless undrafted Jeremy Lin just jumped off his friends couch to average
25/9 for nine straight games for the ****ing Knicks.[/QUOTE]

Suns were close. Marbury got his cba rings!!!

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15020088]:roll:

This is mental illness.[/QUOTE]
It's just the facts bro, Curry being robbed of FMVP in 2015 is complete revisionist history. Look at what was being said at the time, and this isn't even factoring in Curry not receiving a single vote for FMVP.

[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234[/URL]

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far[/URL]

[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll[/URL]

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrSQ7FUEAAYyEJ.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=L.Kizzle;15019983]Damn, forget he coached the Rockets and I'm here in Houston lol.[/QUOTE]

:lol

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15019995]Even with Grant in 95 I just don't think they beat Houston ( maybe they squeeze past Orlando). You're talking a team that pretty much would have had 6 deep playoff runs by then (assuming they win in 94, the 91-93 titles, and back to back ECFs in 89 and 90). But I'm figuring Grant staying around also means they don't land Rodman in 96, and he was a crucial part of that 96 run ( especially since he could play Shaq straight up for large stretches so Chicago could stay home on Orlando's shooters, and of course he was huge in the finals against Seattle).[/QUOTE]

Agree on all counts. When I mentioned Grant "making a difference", I was thinking more along the lines of helping versus the tall timber. Actually stopping Shaq and/or Hakeem is another story. Don't think they win in 95 either way.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020143]Most versatile anyway. Could play and defend 3 positions[/QUOTE]

Yeah I remember his ability to guard 3 positions. Nate was definately a dog on defense.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020162]Suns were close. Marbury got his cba rings!!![/QUOTE]

Suns were close! No finals but close.

Damn forgot Marbury had a pretty great career in both NBA and China, won a professional
basketball championship too.

[QUOTE=LAL;15020169]Suns were close! No finals but close.

Damn forgot Marbury had a pretty great career in both NBA and China, won a professional
basketball championship too.[/QUOTE]

I think a couple and maybe even a statue

[QUOTE=Tavr;15020166]:lol



Agree on all counts. When I mentioned Grant "making a difference", I was thinking more along the lines of helping versus the tall timber. Actually stopping Shaq and/or Hakeem is another story. Don't think they win in 95 either way.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Plus Horry was the starting PF on the 95 Rockets as a stretch 4, so presumably while he was nimble enough to close out on the perimeter, that also takes him out of the paint leaving the Bulls even more vulnerable. The Rockets in general were a tough matchup for Chicago, though I don't subscribe to the idea that their regular season record (Houston dominated the H2H during those years) means they automatically beats Chicago in every instance. There were younger, fresher versions of the Bulls that I would take in a playoff matchup against the 95 Rockets, namely 92, 93, and 94. But we agree that by 95 the accumulation of all those deep prior runs and physical matchups against the likes of Detroit and NY would have likely taken its toll.

[QUOTE=Xiao Yao You;15020171]I think a couple and maybe even a statue[/QUOTE]

I know and Nash doesn't have a professional men's basketball championship. Not even a finals
trip for such a great.

I was being sarcastic in previous post

Any version of Team USA / Dream Team is a lot worse than a good NBA team.

[QUOTE=iamgine;15020181]Any version of Team USA / Dream Team is a lot worse than a good NBA team.[/QUOTE]

So, for example, last years Team USA is worse than the current Knicks?

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020188]So, for example, last years Team USA is worse than the current Knicks?[/QUOTE]

Yes

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020159]It actually makes the point that Duncan typically paced the team in scoring while also anchoring the defense, and Manu/Parker's scoring were ancillary by-products of that. They simply didn't have the same across the board responsibility and overall impact, and as said earlier your criticism can be levied against any GOAT level player in some form except MJ. He's literally the only top 10 player who was always his teams leading scorer for the season and every playoff series. Take a look at Duncan's basketball reference page. Literally, his final season at 40 is the ONLY time he wasn't either on the MVP ballot, an all-star, all NBA or all-defense. Scaling back his scoring so that other teammates can shine( and result in more chips) is an unfair and extremely vacuous criticism.[/QUOTE]

Did Duncan "scale back" his scoring so that other could shine or did he actually need those players to lean on in those moments? Maybe it's both. Either way I agree it's not a valid criticism because the goal is to win and not score.

But that's not the question. The question is how come his name doesn't get tossed around with guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Magic, etc. despite being so consistent and winning so many championships. Personally I just think it comes down to the eye test. Duncan had the fundamentals but you could make the argument there wasn't anything "special" to his game. He beats you but he does so quietly and methodically.

What else can it be? It's not like there's some wild conspiracy to derail Duncan's legacy. He was never controversial or offensive and he always made himself easy to like. I just think the greatness of those other players is more obvious and pronounced. There was something more special about their game that was more visible to the naked eye.

[QUOTE=Baller234;15020190]Did Duncan "scale back" his scoring so that other could shine or did he actually need those players to lean on? Maybe it's both. Either way I agree it's not a valid criticism because the goal is to win and not score.

[B]But that's not the question. The question is how come his name doesn't get tossed around with guys like MJ, Kobe, Bron, Bird, Magic, etc[/B]. despite being so consistent and winning so many championships. Personally I just think it comes down to the eye test. Duncan had the fundamentals but you could make the argument there wasn't anything "special" to his game. He beats you but he does so quietly and methodically.

What else can it be? It's not like there's some wild conspiracy to derail Duncan's legacy. He was never controversial or offensive and he always made himself easy to like. I just think the greatness of those other players is more obvious and pronounced. There was something more special about their game that was more visible to the naked eye.[/QUOTE]

I know what the question was, since I asked it. And I've never heard the premise that he's not part of the greater GOAT conversation because he ceded scoring 10 years into his career until you brought it up. Maybe I'm not in the circles where that's a talking point. You ask if he needed to lean on those players but who was he leaning on in like, 2003? 2nd year Parker? Rookie Manu? Robinson who retired after they won? Who's to say it wasn't a greater strategic move to spread out scoring a bit because it increased the chances of the team being a consistent contender vs forcing the ball into Duncan to drop 25 a night? Who's to say its not the inverse of your point where it was his presence that opened up the game for them to score more, instead of it being a reliance? Duncan proved himself before those two came into the league. You're arguing the chicken or the egg.

His game wasn't flashy nor was his personality, and I think that is mostly why he tends to be overlooked. But this notion that this is the case because Manu and Parker took on greater scoring roles as he aged? Sorry, not buying that for a dollar. Maybe to appreciate Duncan, you have to be more clued into the nuances of the game and not as gullible to a more casual eye of who looks great on sport-center highlight reels, but that's not a failing on his part.

[QUOTE=iamgine;15020189]Yes[/QUOTE]

I see. Someone else will have the strength on this fine Friday afternoon to give that one energy.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15020165]It's just the facts bro, Curry being robbed of FMVP in 2015 is complete revisionist history. Look at what was being said at the time, and this isn't even factoring in Curry not receiving a single vote for FMVP.

[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1392234[/URL]

[URL="http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far"]http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?379344-Who-s-GSW-s-Finals-MVP-thus-far[/URL]

[URL="https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll"]https://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1392999&view=viewpoll[/URL]

[IMG]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CHrSQ7FUEAAYyEJ.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

No one cares about low iq lebron stan opinions.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020194]I know what the question was, since I asked it. And I've never heard the premise that he's not part of the greater GOAT conversation because he ceded scoring 10 years into his career until you brought it up. Maybe I'm not in the circles where that's a talking point. You ask if he needed to lean on those players but who was he leaning on in like, 2003? 2nd year Parker? Rookie Manu? Robinson who retired after they won? Who's to say it wasn't a greater strategic move to spread out scoring a bit because it increased the chances of the team being a consistent contender vs forcing the ball into Duncan to drop 25 a night? Who's to say its not the inverse of your point where it was his presence that opened up the game for them to score more, instead of it being a reliance? Duncan proved himself before those two came into the league. You're arguing the chicken or the egg.

His game wasn't flashy nor was his personality, and I think that is mostly why he tends to be overlooked. But this notion that this is the case because Manu and Parker took on greater scoring roles as he aged? Sorry, not buying that for a dollar. Maybe to appreciate Duncan, you have to be more clued into the nuances of the game and not as gullible to a more casual eye of who looks great on sport-center highlight reels, but that's not a failing on his part.[/QUOTE]

I hate bron stans and how hard you guys fight for Duncan, Shaq and Pippen.

No you don't have a more "nuanced view and better eye" than the guy who said Duncan wasn't as special offensively than the top 5 and some others.

What's wrong with you bron stans, even Spurs fans don't defend him like this. You do it for lebum's legacy, we know.

[QUOTE=warriorfan;15020196]No one cares about low iq lebron stan opinions.[/QUOTE]

Not sure they're LeBron stans who took to those polls, but even at that time, I remember there being a lot of debate on Curry being robbed. Saying thats "revisionist history" is completely incorrect. And ironically revisionism. I personally think Steph shouldlve won it just based on the criteria they've used since Jerry West.

Gotta wonder why they went astray?

[QUOTE=LAL;15020197]I hate bron stans and how hard you guys fight for Duncan, Shaq and Pippen.

No you don't have a more "nuanced view and better eye" than the guy who said Duncan wasn't as special offensively than the top 5 and some others.

What's wrong with you bron stans, even Spurs fans don't defend him like this. You do it for lebum's legacy, we know.[/QUOTE]

Bitch shut the fukk up. You trying to spin every conversation and person here into a 'Bron stan' is corny as hell. You act like he and Rich Paul ran bukkake on someone in your family. Is that what this is about? I don't and never have given a shit about Lebron James and as I said to you in another topic, you constantly bringing him up in discussions where there's not even a hint of him being discussed is about you, nobody else.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15020199]Bitch shut the fukk up. You trying to spin every conversation and person here into a 'Bron stan' is corny as hell. You act like he and Rich Paul ran bukkake on someone in your family. Is that what this is about? I don't and never have given a shit about Lebron James and as I said to you in another topic, you constantly bringing him up in discussions where there's not even a hint of him being discussed is about you, nobody else.[/QUOTE]

Sure bro tim duncan didn't need help from
Parker Manu or Kawhi and he could've averaged
35 past his prime but didn't want to. Great
eye compared to us sportscenter hightlight watchers.

[QUOTE=LAL;15020202]Sure bro tim duncan didn't need help from
Parker Manu or Kawhi and he could've averaged
35 but didn't want to. Great eye compared to us
Sportscenter hightlight watchers.[/QUOTE]

Who said he didn't need help? Which all-timer hasn't? Again, whatever prompts you to drag Lebron into spaces where there's zero reason to is your problem.