Quote:
|
No Wilt was not better. Bird stepped up more in the playoffs, he won more rings and was a better all around player.
|
wilt was easily better. better offensive player, and worlds ahead defensively.
Quote:
|
lol are you kidding me? Not only was Bird better at everything but he also won 3 rings as a first option..Oscar won 1 as a second option.
|
how could oscar possibly win a title in the 60's? he played the celtics 15 times a season, and had to beat them in the playoffs with a poor supporting cast. oscar gets props for dominating the 60's individually while leading his team to multiple division finals with a poor supporting cast. he was a second option on that milwaukee team, but what team goes from 59-23 to to 38-44 when a second option retires?
Quote:
|
David Robinson? Come on wtf. Robinson was great but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Bird
|
although they have the same impact offensively robinson is easily the better defender, and was a top 2 defender in the nba for his entire prime. bird has 3 or 4 future hall of famers, robinson has who? avery johnson and sean elliott? people who probably wouldn't even be in the league if it wasn't for robinson
Quote:
|
Closer than Robinson but still not even close and this shows you are a Spurs homer
|
offense, defense. duncan is better.
Quote:
|
what criteria are you using that puts robinson ahead of hakeem, duncan, shaq, bird, and magic, but behind oscar, russell, kareem, wilt, and jordan?
|
combination of production, wins, and circumstance
Quote:
|
why doesn't magic (killer stats, mvps, and 5 rings) even sneek on?
|
magic gets 11th. he was drafted into a team that fit him perfectly and had the best player in the nba along side him in kareem abdul-jabbar. other things that go against magic are his crappy defense, and the fact that he never got through the season without missing time
Re: What's it take to be a top ten ALL time Player?
