IU Scott

2 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Why not?

Why should I because smoking anything is bad for you and it is also Illegal.

4 hours ago, rico said:

Maybe you should?

No thank you

15 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Who doesn't?

I don't

2 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Yes.  It’s also watered down because the players currently being selected for the Hall of Fame didn’t smoke cigarettes and do coke in the locker room at halftime.

THEY DO SMOKE WEED THOUGH

23 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Your opinion is that it is watered down, that's fine. It isn't your opinion on rather or not he is a HOFer, he is. It's an objective fact. You don't get to decide facts are wrong because you don't like them. 

How can you say he is now  a definite HOFer because as of right now I don't think he is. Maybe if he keeps it up for another 4 or 5 years he might be but that is just an opinion.

Just now, rico said:

Ut oh Scott, Larkin was a stud.  I am bowing out.

Yes he was but that does not make one a HOF.  I just think the HOF in any sport is watered down now with just very good players instead of being for the all time greats.  Again this is only an opinion so no one is right or wrong.  Like I have said most of the discussions on here are pure opinion and speculation and not facts.  Like I still would put MJ ahead of Lebron but that is an opinion and not a fact because others might put Lebron or some other players as there all time great player.

16 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

There wasn't anything to disagree with; I stated facts. 

How is stating that someone is one of the best all time a fact because there is really no way to prove it. facts are that Westbrook averaged a triple double last year.  what you stated is an opinion which I disagree with.  I just don't put every good players in the all time great category like some people do.  I guess my definition of all time greats are different than yours.  I am a huge Reds fan but I never thought of Barry Larkin as a HOF player but just a very good player.

Just now, KoB2011 said:

This is an absolutely absurd take. Klay Thompson is one of the best shooters to ever play basketball and a great defender. He's already made 4 ASG's and is about to win his third title. Klay Thompson will without question be a HOFer. 

Totally disagree

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

He also will have many titles, and an Olympic Gold Medal. 

Is Robert Horry a HOF because he won many titles and hit huge shots for his team in those championship years because I say no he is not.

37 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Klay Thompson, Kevin Durant, Draymond Green and Andre Igoudala are probably all Hall of Famers. 

Durant yes but those other 3 are not close to being HOF players.  This is one of the things that drives me crazy we people claim all of these guys are HOF players when they are only very good players.  The HOF is supposed to be for the very best of all time and not just good players for that era.  To me Thompson is just a little better than what Byron Scott was for the Lakers and not one of the all time great players.  Today people just throw out any player being a HOF and that drives me nuts because like I said the HOF is for all time great players.

Your question was whether any other team could have done what Golden St. did last night and I gave you two teams.  No one said that the Warriors are not a great team but to act like they are the best of all time by a long shot is wrong as well.

6 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Maybe. You think they could win on the road against a top 2 player of all-time if Magic or Bird played that bad? I'm really not sure about that. 

But even if we go with those two teams, that puts the Warriors in pretty rare company. 

Yes I do because the Lakers and Celtics had two other players who were voted as the top 50 players of all time.  Also players like AC Green and Byron Scott were all stars at some point in their careers.  The Celtics had great role players coming off the bench as well as very good guards in Dennis Johnson and Danny Ainge.

4 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

That is just my opinion, you can’t say it is wrong,,

That is all we have on this board is opinions but we can also disagree with that opinion.

28 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

My Dad was a big Celtics fan so I naturally chose the Lakers to cheer for. I'll have to do some thinking on this one. Golden St is so good and this isn't a slight at all to them....just need to think what Magic, Kareem, Worthy, Scott, Green, Rambis(he and Draymond would be fun to watch) would do and how they would attack.

Low post game Lakers would win hands down. Run and gun/Showtime....tough to think how it would play out. 

 

 

I was a Lakers fan as well and hated the Celtics.  My best friend was a Bird and Celtics fan so we had some good back and forth during that time frame.

34 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

Warriors would run the plumbers and accountants on the 80s Celtics off the court.  Magic would have to learn to dribble with his left hand before the 80s Lakers had a chance.

Sure, whatever

6 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

96 Bulls were better than them all.

It is close but I think the Celtics and Lakers had more balance and was deeper in talent.  Jordan was the best player of those 3 teams but the other two had more stars on them.

7 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Yeah, I really think the Warriors might be the greatest team ever. I mean, a two time mvp played like dog doo doo and they won on the road anyway. What other team ever could have done that?

80's Celtics

80's Lakers

31 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

I don’t think any of the teams you’re describing are championship caliber teams.  Just as an example, Utah had two great players.  They’d be like OK City when they had Durant and Westbrook or Houston now.   Respected teams that could win, yet teams that aren’t getting championships.  In the 2000s, we have had the Duncan-Pop teams (reminiscent of that 70s Portland team that played great team ball, albeit for a staggeringly long lifespan), and the Lakers squads with Shaq and Kobe.  The Heat.  The Warriors.  It’s more competitive but the level of play is better and more fun.  

There are really good teams, and there are memorable, championship teams.  Jordan’s Bulls teams were great, but the league as a whole didn’t have any Frazier’s to battle Ali.  I like Jordan and put him on a pedestal as a player.  But, let’s not pretend he was ever dealing with the obstacles Lebron has.   

And as a person, you’ve got a gambler and womanizer, at his bestva corporate pitchman...as opposed to a civic leader.  Lebron has earned my respect.  

I just disagree with you because I think the competition that MJ went through is far better than what Lebron went through.  The Warriors and whatever team Lebron is on are the only two great teams in this era.  Also remember when Jordan frir started he had to deal with the Celtics of the mid 80's which were one of the best teams of all time.

4 minutes ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Jordan was a good defender, no doubt.  Lebron can cover 1-5.  Lebron also plays the most strategic ball I’ve ever seen, like a chess master.  Lebron’s end game is winning the game.  He gets there in a variety of ways, including the way he considers defense.  

When Jordan had nonsense around him, he scored a lot, but did not win anything of consequence.  Lebron is winning with less than mediocrity around him.  

I have been watching NBA basketball since the mid 70s.  I’d say the 90’s was the weakest level of ball in that span.  Jordan’s Bulls beat literally no other team of consequence.  That Knicks team? Meh.  They were too limited.  Riley did what he could but they were not a dynamic team at all.  Portland?  No one is going to argue for them.  I liked the Phoenix team with Chuck and Majerle and Hornacek but these are not epic teams we are talking about.  The Houston teams that won in that era were good because Hakeem was tremendous and an amazing athlete at his size, but again, they were not historic.  

The other eras had better teams.  The late 70s had a great Portland team that played great team ball.  The 80s were ridiculous.  That showtime Lakers team was crazy.  The Celtics and Sixers were great.  The 2000s, we’ve had Lebron.  The 90s to me were the dark days of pro basketball.  

To me the only team that Lebron had to face that was better than any team the Jordan had to face is the Warriors.  I would take Portland, Seattle, Utah and Phoenix over any team in this era except for the Warriors.  In the east the Pistons,  Pacers, Knicks and Miami after Riley went there are better than most of the teams in this era.

I guess at least some former NBA players agrees with me about that being a block on Lebron. Heard 3 former players on ESPN radio said that was definitely a block call.

1 minute ago, BobSaccamanno said:

He was kicked out before the Draymond thing.  He allegedly flung an elbow high on Livingston.  On replay, it was very tame, nothing to even notice.  The ref overreacted and then the chaos ensued, all needless. 

As for JR Smith, if you would have told me the scenario and then asked me to guess which player it was, I would have said JR without hesitation.  

I was taking about Klay Thompson of Golden St.

Just now, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

He hit Draymond in the face.

My bad I was talking the Thompson on Golden St. because he left the court early or was kicked out.  Actually I think Thompson of Cleveland was kicked out for going out nd using his elbow on the shooter.  The ref singed him out right after that play that caused the fight.

1 minute ago, CauseThatsMyDJ said:

It was definitely a block. But everything from the initial call to the replay review was a debacle. 

Also did anyone here why Thompson was kicked out of the game or did he just leave the court early.

14 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

He was there in time. He doesn't have to be stationary,  he had established himself in front of Durant before Durant took off. 

I know he does not need to be stationary but he moved in to the path to late and was not there in time.  I just guess like any other  basketball rule the NBA is changing the rules of the game. Forever that would not have even been close to being  a charge but I guess it todays NBA people think that is a charge.

13 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

LBJ is the goat. 

George Hill was scapegoated by JR. 

And it's unfathomable that call was changed. 

Could not believe they actually called that a charge in the first place.  It was definitely a block and should have never been called a charge.  To m the refs usually just look at the defensive players feet to see if they are out of the circle and not whether the players was there in time.