1. #4321
    The Lightbringer SL1200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois.
    Posts
    3,023
    If that's true I hope he's on a one year contract.

  2. #4322
    Moderator Stommped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,944
    The fact that it hasn't happened yet makes me think Antawn is trying to get more than he deserves (which is vet minimum in my opinion).

  3. #4323
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Stommped View Post
    The best SG in basketball? That's a joke, maybe 3 years ago but not anymore. Also, I'm curious you say Lebron is the best in 30 years, who exactly is stopping you from saying Lebron is the best of all time? I'm just ignoring the fact for now that elevating Lebron above Michael is incredibly ignorant, but with that statement it's clear that even before Lebron you didn't give Michael the distinction of greatest of all-time.
    Jordan was in the nba in what 84? So that would be 30 years...... I dont expect much from bulls fans so don't beat your self up. I imagine you have a Come Fly With Me tape tp watch or Spacejam. Before wade got hurt he was playing great so yes I do think he was the best 2 guard in the NBA last year. I will say it was close though with Kobe/Harden.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stommped View Post
    The fact that it hasn't happened yet makes me think Antawn is trying to get more than he deserves (which is vet minimum in my opinion).
    Still mixed reports with him and the heat and Clippers as well.

  4. #4324
    Moderator Stommped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,944
    Quote Originally Posted by lakers01 View Post
    Jordan was in the nba in what 84? So that would be 30 years...... well.
    30 years from his ROOKIE season. You know he kinda of played and dominated the league after that for another decade or so. You chose poor words in making your statement, which is more acceptable then what I originally thought you meant.

  5. #4325
    Quote Originally Posted by Stommped View Post
    You chose poor words in making your statement, which is more acceptable then what I originally thought you meant.
    Yeah, I read that and was just like... uh, pass. I'm generally one of the more anti-Jordan guys around (I just flatly don't like the man), but I'm surely not interested in shrugging him off like he didn't happen.

  6. #4326
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Spectral View Post
    Yeah, I read that and was just like... uh, pass. I'm generally one of the more anti-Jordan guys around (I just flatly don't like the man), but I'm surely not interested in shrugging him off like he didn't happen.
    I would say Jordan is probably the best ever, however I also think is the most overrated player now. He has reaced almost mythical status and is giving way to much credit. Dont even get me started with the stupid player comparisions that people feel the need to do, IE kobe/lebron vs Jordan.

  7. #4327
    The NBA's bad in general with players attaining mythical, unquestionable status. The "Bill Russell is the the greatest winner EVER" thing is more or less unquestioned and unquestionable at this point, but it's predicated on the idea that the league as it was in the '60s is remotely relevant.

    I'd generally rather compare players to their contemporaries than across eras. Things change too much. Jordan's the great player of the 80s and 90s. Lebron's the best player I've watched in the post-Jordan era, and I say that as a huge Duncan fanboy. Comparing the two seems semi-pointless to me. I don't think anyone in the modern game could generate the volume of high percentage shots that Jordan did, defenses just aren't really built to allow that now. By the same token, I doubt a 1980s version of Lebron would have bothered to develop his 3-point shooting. The game's just different.

  8. #4328
    Ya I read through everyone's "fuck watching NFL live" comments and I suppose you're right, but the NBA All Star game seems fun to see in person. Not the celebrity/rookie game and not the slam dunk contest night. I like seeing replays, and it's probably more comfortable sitting on my couch and probably splurging and eating some nice snacks. But the actual All Star game. I wanna go. :O hopefully it's in MSG because I doubt I can get in Nets stadium as easily (those dicks never respond to anything).

    You guys heard Ty Lawson is in trouble, eh?

    Well. I've been thinking. And I don't know why people are placing Rockets so high in playoffs lol. Sure, they're good, but the way people talk about them being so amazing that they're like the 3rd most likely team to win championship. I respectfully disagree.

    In fact, here's a list of teams I think are more likely to win a championship than Houston:
    -Heat
    -Indiana
    -Bulls
    -Nets
    -LAC
    -Spurs

    I actually think OKC is worse than Rockets.

    Best SG (other two are old and injured for this conversation) + Best center >>> 2nd best player in league (2nd best SF) + 5th best PG

    Although, this says nothing about win/loss record at end of season.

  9. #4329
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post
    Well. I've been thinking. And I don't know why people are placing Rockets so high in playoffs lol. Sure, they're good, but the way people talk about them being so amazing that they're like the 3rd most likely team to win championship. I respectfully disagree.
    I agree. I really don't see what everyone sees in the Rockets. Don't get me wrong, surely they're going to be a good team, but that great? Eh, I'm not sold just yet. There's a bunch of other teams I see above them, and I see Howard being a liability at times, especially during late game situations.

    In fact, here's a list of teams I think are more likely to win a championship than Houston:
    -Heat
    -Indiana
    -Bulls
    -Nets
    -LAC
    -Spurs
    Is that in order, Blue? Just curious.

  10. #4330
    No, not in that order. Order is a different matter altogether.

    Btw I forgot to include Golden State on that list.

    Order of the likelihood this team will win the championship:
    1. Miami Heat
    2. Los Angeles Clippers
    3. Golden State Warriors
    4. Indiana Pacers
    5. San Antonio Spurs
    6. Brooklyn Nets
    7. Chicago Bulls

    Factors:
    -How likely is this team going to make it out of their conference/beat the teams in their conference?
    -How young is the team (can they play a lot of minutes and survive regular season)? How many superstars do they have?
    -How well did they do last year? Key additions?

    Notes on team #:
    1. Returning champions. I can see them getting knocked out in East semifinals pretty easily, but just as equally they can dominate.*
    2. New coach who will take their talent deeper into playoffs, great additions I think. Young and talented.
    3. Young, this team can drop points like crazy if you aren't careful. Consistency is questionable for four 7-game series.
    4. Added some decent pieces, young stars will mature more, return of Granger. Did well last year.
    5. They got old, but their system/coach is unrivaled. Did well last time and it'd be stupid to bet against them, although I think they won't do as well.
    6. So many superstars built for playoffs. New coach is questionable but he seems smart. Only question is their chemistry and injuries.
    7. Rose is coming back but to be honest, I'm not gonna let you tell me "Bulls were semifinals last year + rose = at least finals this year." It doesn't work like that. Who is to say the chemistry is going to work out or the offense won't suffer from having the ball in Rose's hands (since offense is a big deal) or their renowned defense will get played as well, etc, etc. Bulls are persistent and annoying, but I'm not placing them too high.*

    *To be honest with you, I could see realistically any team getting knocked out in East Semis. Top 4 (all mentioned) are all relatively similar.

    As for the losers who didn't make the cut:
    -Sorry Detroit but you're a fringe contender.
    -Sorry Knicks but you're a loser. On paper, you actually look really really good. The other teams just look better.
    -OKC, sorry. You have two top 10 players, but seeing you lose one of them shows how far you can only go. I think you'll dominate regular season, but playoffs you're probably looking at a 2nd round exist.
    -Houston, sorry I don't think chemistry is gonna work out THAT well. You're a fringe contender.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Oh ya. And I called Westbrook top 10 but that was sort of for dramatic effect, I don't wanna get into arguments. Call him top 17 if you really want.

    Also, if some of you smarter people noticed, I said Westbrook was only the 5th best PG, but a top 10 player. Does that mean 5 of the top 10 players are PGs? No. When I say top 10 player, I mean the person is dominant/efficient/can lead a team/scores well or other shit like that. But just because a person is top 10 overall, doesn't mean that someone can't be better at their position than them. It's kind of a tricky subject.
    Last edited by Blueobelisk; 2013-08-20 at 08:29 PM.

  11. #4331
    Moderator Stommped's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    1,944
    I can't believe you're that high on LAC and GS. Personally I don't think either of those teams would stand a chance against OKC in a 7 game series. Not sure why you're so down on OKC.

    -OKC, sorry. You have two top 10 players, but seeing you lose one of them shows how far you can only go.
    Not sure what you mean by this. You take a top 10 player off any team and you don't think it's going to hurt them? I have OKC, SAS, and HOU all morel likely to come out of the West than LAC or GS.
    Last edited by Stommped; 2013-08-20 at 08:56 PM.

  12. #4332
    The reason they're so high isn't because I think they're necessarily better than 4-7, it's because I think they're the best in the West, so they have a strong chance to make it out of their conference. Same reason we had trouble ranking where East 1-4 would wind up, any one of those teams could knock each other out in Semis which strongly decreases their chances of even making it to the NBA Finals.

    - - - Updated - - -


  13. #4333
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Stommped View Post
    I can't believe you're that high on LAC and GS. Personally I don't think either of those teams would stand a chance against OKC in a 7 game series. Not sure why you're so down on OKC.



    Not sure what you mean by this. You take a top 10 player off any team and you don't think it's going to hurt them? I have OKC, SAS, and HOU all morel likely to come out of the West than LAC or GS.
    Totally agree. I think houston has a chance to be really good, like 1-2 in the west good. I think Dwight is going to team of young guys that will fit his personality so much better then Kobe. Also better 3 pt shooting, two guys in McHale and the dream who might be the two best low post players ever to help him and they can still make a few moves. I know the Ryan Anderson for ASik trade was mentioned but if they could get that done look out.

  14. #4334
    Quote Originally Posted by lakers01 View Post
    Totally agree. I think houston has a chance to be really good, like 1-2 in the west good. I think Dwight is going to team of young guys that will fit his personality so much better then Kobe.
    "Better than Kobe" isn't saying much. Lakers weren't that great last year... and not everyone can play with that personality. And, again, what happens late in games, when teams start fouling Howard, and he shoots sub-60%, or whatever his percentage was? Again, I'm not saying they suck or anything, just I don't forsee them being any better than fourth seed.

  15. #4335
    Quote Originally Posted by Stommped View Post
    Not sure what you mean by this. You take a top 10 player off any team and you don't think it's going to hurt them? I have OKC, SAS, and HOU all morel likely to come out of the West than LAC or GS.
    Oh shit I didn't even notice this until lakers quoted it lol.

    So yeah, of course taking off a top 10 player is going to hurt them, but it just shows how poorly the rest of their team is. I see:
    -The flawed Ibaka who can only play some defense and marginal offense.
    -Loss of a 6th man.
    -Kevin Durant can't get more efficient while also taking on a bigger responsibility.

    Anyway. We'll see what happens but from what I saw Golden State and LAC look revamped and primed to murder some teams, not to mention SAS is older and injury proner, I mentioned some problems with OKC, and Houston...I'm waiting to see the chemistry.

    It's a little early to argue too much though since we haven't even seen how well these teams are going to play.

  16. #4336
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueobelisk View Post
    Oh shit I didn't even notice this until lakers quoted it lol.

    So yeah, of course taking off a top 10 player is going to hurt them, but it just shows how poorly the rest of their team is. I see:
    -The flawed Ibaka who can only play some defense and marginal offense.
    -Loss of a 6th man.
    -Kevin Durant can't get more efficient while also taking on a bigger responsibility.

    Anyway. We'll see what happens but from what I saw Golden State and LAC look revamped and primed to murder some teams, not to mention SAS is older and injury proner, I mentioned some problems with OKC, and Houston...I'm waiting to see the chemistry.

    It's a little early to argue too much though since we haven't even seen how well these teams are going to play.
    Do you think with a healthy Westbrook they lose to memphis last year?

  17. #4337
    I was going to make a comment that Memphis is a good team but only a fringe contender atm. Spurs took them to school.

    OKC vs. Memphis last year is tough. Memphis was great, but I think OKC would have won. (It's not definite. It's more like there's a 75-80% chance OKC would win.) With Westbrook, that is. I still think that OKC (with Westbrook) would have lost in Finals to SAS.

  18. #4338
    I too am really surprised that you have the Warriors so high. Like that surprises me a lot more than ranking the Bulls 7th. The Warriors are comprised of a team that has practically zero playoff experience outside of winning that round last year against the Nuggets, a team that is notoriously known for being terrible in the playoffs (theyve lost in the 1st round every year but 1 I believe in the past decade or more). Warriors rely on outside scoring so much with no real consistence inside, something that is hard to rely on in the postseason. Even teams that have succeeded without a major inside presence had guys who could get a bulk of their points inside to counter it (Lebron, Dirk, etc). Then theres the fact their team has shown to have injury problems for 3 of their top 5 players and they lost both of their good bench players in exchange for Iguodala. A good player to round a solid starting lineup, yet leaves them with a almost pathetic bench.

    I can respect they have become relevant and can enjoy watching how they play. Yet my faith in them to actually accomplish a championship is very low.

  19. #4339
    Fluffy Kitten conscript's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Jonesville, Michigan
    Posts
    10,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Jibjabb View Post
    I too am really surprised that you have the Warriors so high. Like that surprises me a lot more than ranking the Bulls 7th. The Warriors are comprised of a team that has practically zero playoff experience outside of winning that round last year against the Nuggets, a team that is notoriously known for being terrible in the playoffs (theyve lost in the 1st round every year but 1 I believe in the past decade or more). Warriors rely on outside scoring so much with no real consistence inside, something that is hard to rely on in the postseason. Even teams that have succeeded without a major inside presence had guys who could get a bulk of their points inside to counter it (Lebron, Dirk, etc). Then theres the fact their team has shown to have injury problems for 3 of their top 5 players and they lost both of their good bench players in exchange for Iguodala. A good player to round a solid starting lineup, yet leaves them with a almost pathetic bench.

    I can respect they have become relevant and can enjoy watching how they play. Yet my faith in them to actually accomplish a championship is very low.
    I'd definitely agree about the Warriors being too high. I think they have the potential to finish 3rd in the West, but to have the 3rd overall odds of winning the title seems absurd. I'd probably bump them to 7th on that list and slot everyone else up a space, Chicago possibly more than that depending on how their offense looks.

  20. #4340
    Pit Lord Packers01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,461
    Quote Originally Posted by Jibjabb View Post
    I too am really surprised that you have the Warriors so high. Like that surprises me a lot more than ranking the Bulls 7th. The Warriors are comprised of a team that has practically zero playoff experience outside of winning that round last year against the Nuggets, a team that is notoriously known for being terrible in the playoffs (theyve lost in the 1st round every year but 1 I believe in the past decade or more). Warriors rely on outside scoring so much with no real consistence inside, something that is hard to rely on in the postseason. Even teams that have succeeded without a major inside presence had guys who could get a bulk of their points inside to counter it (Lebron, Dirk, etc). Then theres the fact their team has shown to have injury problems for 3 of their top 5 players and they lost both of their good bench players in exchange for Iguodala. A good player to round a solid starting lineup, yet leaves them with a almost pathetic bench.

    I can respect they have become relevant and can enjoy watching how they play. Yet my faith in them to actually accomplish a championship is very low.
    Not to mention currys ankles are made of glass.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •