Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Alright, post your All-Time Top 10 now that Bron won his third. 3/7


nctarheel0619

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, MichaelNewtonII said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. We'll see what the consensus is at the end of LeBrons career, he's only 31 people seem to forget

31 without a consistent jumper=trouble.  Especially when father time catches up with him.  You talk to me when your boy gets at least 5 rings, then we can have a conversation.  Until then, LeBron is Top 10, maybe Top 5, but that's as far as it goes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 without a consistent jumper=trouble.  Especially when father time catches up with him.  You talk to me when your boy gets at least 5 rings, then we can have a conversation.  Until then, LeBron is Top 10, maybe Top 5, but that's as far as it goes.  

We'll talk again about this in 2-3 years. Kyrie is only gonna get better too and Love will be gone and replaced with a better fit. If LeBron has a good team around him he's going to continue to go to the finals every year. No one in the east is even close

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MichaelNewtonII said:

We'll talk again about this in 2-3 years. Kyrie is only gonna get better too and Love will be gone and replaced with a better fit. If LeBron has a good team around him he's going to continue to go to the finals every year

Agreed, because the East is hot garbage.  

Unless Durant comes over to the East, or another Superstar emerges, I won't argue with your statement.  

But, lookout for OKC, if they stay healthy, LeBron and Kyrie would have massive issues with Durant and Westbrook.  

Unlike GS, they also have big men that aren't completely useless.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Comparing all time is really pointless, the NBA ebbs and flows. MJ would be a different player (skillset) if he played in today's league just like Steph Curry would be a different player in the 90s. 

In all honesty the league was very watered down up until about the 2000s as well, the average NBA player is leagues better than they were even in the 90s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Omega Atrocity said:

Comparing all time is really pointless, the NBA ebbs and flows. MJ would be a different player (skillset) if he played in today's league just like Steph Curry would be a different player in the 90s. 

In all honesty the league was very watered down up until about the 2000s as well, the average NBA player is leagues better than they were even in the 90s.

Yeah, watered down.  Lets see, how many certified Hall of Famers are in the League now?  Hmmmm, 1 maybe 2-3?  

And then we look at Jordans era in the 90's which was full of Hall of Famers, but yes, the league was watered down then.

You cannot make this poo up.  How old are these fuging kids?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Oh good lord Interest doesn't mean interest in making a bad trade to take the player, that's why I had such a long post, to accurately describe why those are two different things, but you don't like to listen to that stuff.  Being interested in a player doesn't live in a vacuum. It's very simple... there isn't a #1 draft pick type of grade on any of these QB's, if there was, we'd just take them.  You can't bluff a pick everyone knows you won't make, and trying to trade the pick is the CLEAR signal that you're not taking the QB. Just because the Raiders would have interest, doesn't mean they're going to bail us out of a situation we don't want to be in, they'd be smart about it and just sit put, let us take a non QB as we'd be telling the world we're not taking one just by trying to trade the pick, and then they'd take him at #2 (either with their own pick or by trading less to get that one). Oh, and your point of "if nobody is willing to make the trade, you obviously just take the best QB" is quite literally the dumbest thing I've ever read on here. If nobody is willing to trade up to take the QB, then it's OBVIOUS that the QB isn't worth taking with that pick, so OBVIOUSLY taking the best QB there is just OBVIOUSLY stupid and a bad pick. The moral of it is if there is a QB worth taking, we're taking them and not making the trade.  If there isn't a QB worth taking there, nobody is trading up to #1 to take one, we just showed the NFL how bad of an idea that is 2 years ago, it's really not hard to see. You keep making up this mythical situation where there is a QB who has shown to be worth trading up to #1 for and we'll be able to leverage that into a trade.  But we're the most QB needy team in the league, if we end up with the #1 pick, either we are taking a QB #1 or no QB is going #1 unless we get VERY lucky and two teams in the Top 5 fall in love with one prospect and we can play them off each other and fleece one of them. But again, I can't see that happening, as if there was a QB worthy of that, we're just taking him ourselves.
    • Sanders is with Tom Brady brand and that's his mentor. The Raiders owner was with Sanders taking pics at a Vegas game together.   It doesn't take much to connect the dots that Vegas will be interested in Sanders as their franchise QB. Oh yeah and guess who hasa small ownership stake in the Raiders Tom Brady.   I guess this is just another made up Madden idea by me huh?
    • Bro I don't mind debating you, but did you really have to write all that to get your point across.   This isn't Madden. If you have the #1 pick you literally control your own destiny. If nobody wants to trade which I have a hard time believing they won't then you obviously take the best QB.   I think we will have suitors. If that's Madden then so be it.
×
×
  • Create New...