Consolidated LeBron GOAT discussion thread

[chrispak98]

Its nights like this where i question whether or not he's even better than Kobe . Time and time again he has proven he doesnt have the intangibles of a killer

I don't think anyone here really believes Lebron is better than Kobe. They probably just tell that to themselves to make them feel better. It's more of a gathering of the fans that have endured Kobe's reign in the general board. It's like a support group here for all the sad souls who had to watch Kobe own the league for all those years. The worst ones are the Laker fans who supported Shaq over Kobe that come out and say some ridiculous stuff. Those guys really need to get over it too.

When Skip Bayless, LeBron's biggest hater, admits that he is higher than Kobe on the all-time list, you know you have lost.

41/16/7, 41/8/11, 27/11/11

Sorry kid

[Sedale Threatt]

I don't think it takes a super team to win in today's NBA. The Spurs, who I think resembles the Blazers, aren't anything close to a super team, but they continue to win in today's game. Dirk pretty much won by himself.

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Obviously he played against great competition. Probably better competition in the first and second rounds at least for the majority of his career. But I don't think all the teams he beat would be championship level teams in today's league... I mean you could argue often times they weren't in his either.

I guess. If you really want to, you could minimize just about anybody for any reason. Like, you could downgrade LeBron's Heat teams for struggling against significantly inferior teams in the East, and playing in the East in general. As for Jordan, the Lakers team was a pushover once the injury bug struck, and they dodged a bullet with probably the best Blazers team getting upset. But after I don't see how you could say that the Blazers, Suns, Sonics and Jazz weren't championship level for their era. Not to mention some of the teams they had to beat in the ECF, several of whom stand up very well not only record-wise but SRS. How would they rate today? I don't know, but that's kind of pointless to me. The game is different. And as multiple posters have no doubt pointed out, I don't see any circumstances where any Bulls team loses to the Mavericks. Love LeBron -- don't have any problem with him being as high as No. 3 or even No. 2, nor do I hold either Spurs loss against him -- but that's a blemish that just doesn't wash off.

[Geaux_Hawks]

Do you think the Blazers could win a ring in today's NBA? I think it would be pretty difficult when you're 2nd and 3rd best players are Terry Porter and Jerome Kersey.

People complain today about super teams, and how stacked the top of the league is... but then bring up single/two star teams from the past and suggest they would win in today's league? Those were obviously great teams, but I don't know if its possible to be a title contender in today's league without one of the top 3 players in the league surrounded with an elite supporting cast. Last time this happened was what?... 2004 maybe?

I don't think it takes a super team to win in today's NBA. The Spurs, who I think resembles the Blazers, aren't anything close to a super team, but they continue to win in today's game. Dirk pretty much won by himself.

Spurs have the GOAT coach, and have at top 3 player in the league. Those teams were very good, but they weren't coached like the Spurs and probably never had player as good as Kawhi was this post-season.

Dirk did win as the only elite player on his team, but he was an elite player, and Miami lost that series as much as Dallas won it. I think if you replay that series 10 times, Miami wins more than 50% of the time.

Rick Adelman was a fine coach. Definitely one of the best of that time, and after. Pop is a stellar coach, but he isn't the sole, nor majority reason why the Spurs have won consistently. Clyde Drexler was also a very, very good player. Hard to be a top 3 player when you're fighting Malone, Jordan, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, KAJ, etc.. to be up there. He was another guy that simply came along at the wrong time during Jordan's reign.

Does Miami really win more than 50% of the time though? Dallas didn't seem like a fluke team that made it. Even if some things went a little different for both sides in the series, I think Dallas still makes a strong push to win it.

[enko]

No. Lebron is not even in top five. Lebron played in a weak east in his career and he has a super team in a weak east. Lebron also care about his stats at the cost of a win.

[chrispak98]

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Obviously he played against great competition. Probably better competition in the first and second rounds at least for the majority of his career. But I don't think all the teams he beat would be championship level teams in today's league... I mean you could argue often times they weren't in his either.

I guess. If you really want to, you could minimize just about anybody for any reason. Like, you could downgrade LeBron's Heat teams for struggling against significantly inferior teams in the East, and playing in the East in general. As for Jordan, the Lakers team was a pushover once the injury bug struck, and they dodged a bullet with probably the best Blazers team getting upset. But after I don't see how you could say that the Blazers, Suns, Sonics and Jazz weren't championship level for their era. Not to mention some of the teams they had to beat in the ECF, several of whom stand up very well not only record-wise but SRS. How would they rate today? I don't know, but that's kind of pointless to me. The game is different. And as multiple posters have no doubt pointed out, I don't see any circumstances where any Bulls team loses to the Mavericks. Love LeBron -- don't have any problem with him being as high as No. 3 or even No. 2, nor do I hold either Spurs loss against him -- but that's a blemish that just doesn't wash off.

At least you're a non delusional Lakers fan. Look at the post above this one, LeBron hater trying to claim NOBODY on the forum actually believes LeBron is better than Kobe

[chrispak98]

No. Lebron is not even in top five. Lebron played in a weak east in his career and he has a super team in a weak east. Lebron also care about his stats at the cost of a win.

That's funny. Magic Johnson, Doc Rivers, Isiah Thomas, and many others seem to disagree with you.

[Geaux_Hawks]

Do you think the Blazers could win a ring in today's NBA? I think it would be pretty difficult when you're 2nd and 3rd best players are Terry Porter and Jerome Kersey.

People complain today about super teams, and how stacked the top of the league is... but then bring up single/two star teams from the past and suggest they would win in today's league? Those were obviously great teams, but I don't know if its possible to be a title contender in today's league without one of the top 3 players in the league surrounded with an elite supporting cast. Last time this happened was what?... 2004 maybe?

I don't think it takes a super team to win in today's NBA. The Spurs, who I think resembles the Blazers, aren't anything close to a super team, but they continue to win in today's game. Dirk pretty much won by himself.

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

[Volcano]

Why do people always bring up Durant?

No one's even mentioned Durant.

Seriously, the hatred people have for the guy is disturbing.

Hes a warriors fan

So?

KD isn't in any GOAT discussion.

It's just lame man.

According to some people, he's in the discussion for GOAT scorer.

I think people are also overlooking the fact that LBJ's value isn't mainly in his scoring. Without the ball, he brings way more value compared to players like Kobe, Durant, etc.

[RCM88x]

[url][/url]

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Obviously he played against great competition. Probably better competition in the first and second rounds at least for the majority of his career. But I don't think all the teams he beat would be championship level teams in today's league... I mean you could argue often times they weren't in his either.

I guess. If you really want to, you could minimize just about anybody for any reason. Like, you could downgrade LeBron's Heat teams for struggling against significantly inferior teams in the East, and playing in the East in general. As for Jordan, the Lakers team was a pushover once the injury bug struck, and they dodged a bullet with probably the best Blazers team getting upset. But after I don't see how you could say that the Blazers, Suns, Sonics and Jazz weren't championship level for their era. Not to mention some of the teams they had to beat in the ECF, several of whom stand up very well not only record-wise but SRS. How would they rate today? I don't know, but that's kind of pointless to me. The game is different. And as multiple posters have no doubt pointed out, I don't see any circumstances where any Bulls team loses to the Mavericks. Love LeBron, don't have any problem with him being as high as No. 3 or even No. 2, but that's a blemish that just doesn't wash off.

Obviously.

But think it's hard to directly compare those situations.. Jordan never had to change teams because his FO was incompetent and couldn't put an All-star level player around him in his prime. I think Jordans team scenarios during his early​ career were far more favorable and allowed him to win as many titles as he did.

Would that have happened if Bosh and Wade joined the Cavs instead? Or they play the Thunder instead of Dallas?

Kind of a moot point, and it happened and I probably enjoyed it as much as any Cavs fan at the time.

But that's not the reason I don't have him ahead of Jordan, and probably never will. I don't have him ahead of Jordan because he was just a slightly better player. Titles and whatever don't mean much to me when ranking players.

[RingsDontLie]

Its nights like this where i question whether or not he's even better than Kobe . Time and time again he has proven he doesnt have the intangibles of a killer

I don't think anyone here really believes Lebron is better than Kobe. They probably just tell that to themselves to make them feel better. It's more of a gathering of the fans that have endured Kobe's reign in the general board. It's like a support group here for all the sad souls who had to watch Kobe own the league for all those years. The worst ones are the Laker fans who supported Shaq over Kobe that come out and say some ridiculous stuff. Those guys really need to get over it too.

When Skip Bayless, LeBron's biggest hater, admits that he is higher than Kobe on the all-time list, you know you have lost.

41/16/7, 41/8/11, 27/11/11

Sorry kid

He's a Jordan lover, of course he is going to say Lebron is over Kobe. It's his way of protecting MJ.

[chrispak98]

I don't think anyone here really believes Lebron is better than Kobe. They probably just tell that to themselves to make them feel better. It's more of a gathering of the fans that have endured Kobe's reign in the general board. It's like a support group here for all the sad souls who had to watch Kobe own the league for all those years. The worst ones are the Laker fans who supported Shaq over Kobe that come out and say some ridiculous stuff. Those guys really need to get over it too.

When Skip Bayless, LeBron's biggest hater, admits that he is higher than Kobe on the all-time list, you know you have lost.

41/16/7, 41/8/11, 27/11/11

Sorry kid

He's a Jordan lover, of course he is going to say Lebron is over Kobe. It's his way of protecting MJ.

Okay, whatever you want to believe.

LeBron is a top 5 player of all time and magic, doc, Isiah, and many others agree

[Xherdan 23]

Its nights like this where i question whether or not he's even better than Kobe . Time and time again he has proven he doesnt have the intangibles of a killer

I don't think anyone here really believes Lebron is better than Kobe. They probably just tell that to themselves to make them feel better. It's more of a gathering of the fans that have endured Kobe's reign in the general board. It's like a support group here for all the sad souls who had to watch Kobe own the league for all those years. The worst ones are the Laker fans who supported Shaq over Kobe that come out and say some ridiculous stuff. Those guys really need to get over it too.

[Xherdan 23]

I don't think it takes a super team to win in today's NBA. The Spurs, who I think resembles the Blazers, aren't anything close to a super team, but they continue to win in today's game. Dirk pretty much won by himself.

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

Sure you do. The '09 Cavs are a 66 win team, '10 Cavs had 61, '15 Hawks with 60 wins, '04 Pacers had 61.
All of these teams (minus '10 Cavs who lost EC semi finals) went the conference finals and they were all "just" good teams but not great ones.

I don't think you can argue these are championship caliber teams.

Not that it means the Bulls only beat crappy teams, the Sonics and Jazz are 100% championship caliber and the Magic were there talent wise and only lacked some experience but like I told you in a similar topic this week, the glorifying of the '90s has to stop.
There's nothing special about teams like the Hornets, Heat or Pacers of the '90s (also the Knicks in the second half of the decade) except that they happened to play against Jordan.

[pwrshft99]

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

Sure you do. The '09 Cavs are a 66 win team, '10 Cavs had 61, '15 Hawks with 60 wins, '04 Pacers had 61.
All of these teams (minus '10 Cavs who lost EC semi finals) went the conference finals and they were all "just" good teams but not great ones.

I don't think you can argue these are championship caliber teams.

Not that it means the Bulls only beat crappy teams, the Sonics and Jazz are 100% championship caliber and the Magic were there talent wise and only lacked some experience but like I told you in a similar topic this week, the glorifying of the '90s has to stop.
There's nothing special about teams like the Hornets, Heat or Pacers of the '90s (also the Knicks in the second half of the decade) except that they happened to play against Jordan.

Sure nothing challenging about first round opponents. But the Pacers were legitimate competition for the Bulls almost every title run season. The Knicks were good enough to go to the Finals in 94 and 99 so....

Look at the league and the lack of competition. There is simply not enough talented players out there. The most talented players shy away from competition and teamed up together to beat up on the scrubs. No wonder records are being broken left and right. Its not just LeBron benefiting from this every single night, Look at Westbrook...can't shoot and turns the ball over plenty, yet he averaged a TRIPLE DOUBLE simply because he is a skilled player feasting on a weak crop of current competition.

[hongdayuan]

Hes a warriors fan

So?

KD isn't in any GOAT discussion.

It's just lame man.

According to some people, he's in the discussion for GOAT scorer.

I think people are also overlooking the fact that LBJ's value isn't mainly in his scoring. Without the ball, he brings way more value compared to players like Kobe, Durant, etc.

Not scoring =/= without ball. I can't agree lebron plays better off-ball than kd. Does he defend and assist? Yea, but he's not a better off ball player on offence

[Xherdan 23]

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

Sure you do. The '09 Cavs are a 66 win team, '10 Cavs had 61, '15 Hawks with 60 wins, '04 Pacers had 61.
All of these teams (minus '10 Cavs who lost EC semi finals) went the conference finals and they were all "just" good teams but not great ones.

I don't think you can argue these are championship caliber teams.

Not that it means the Bulls only beat crappy teams, the Sonics and Jazz are 100% championship caliber and the Magic were there talent wise and only lacked some experience but like I told you in a similar topic this week, the glorifying of the '90s has to stop.
There's nothing special about teams like the Hornets, Heat or Pacers of the '90s (also the Knicks in the second half of the decade) except that they happened to play against Jordan.

Sure nothing challenging about first round opponents. But the Pacers were legitimate competition for the Bulls almost every title run season. The Knicks were good enough to go to the Finals in 94 and 99 so....

Look at the league and the lack of competition. There is simply not enough talented players out there. The most talented players shy away from competition and teamed up together to beat up on the scrubs. No wonder records are being broken left and right. Its not just LeBron benefiting from this every single night, Look at Westbrook...can't shoot and turns the ball over plenty, yet he averaged a TRIPLE DOUBLE simply because he is a skilled player feasting on a weak crop of current competition.

Regarding the Knicks, I specifically said second half of the deacde, before that Ewing was still elite but trashy '99 Knicks aren't that team, they may actually be one of the worse ever finals teams.

The Pacers were legit competition for Jordan in the '90s the same way they were a competition for LeBron in the '10s, it was sometimes tough but they're not true contenders.

The competition isn't weaker though, the average player is a better than ever before IMO and it shows on the level of all-star and all-NBA snubs.
The top players aren't necessarily better but you have a lot of them.

We're in a weird situation right now regarding parity because of the two recent cap jumps.
It allowed GSW to sign Durant and Cavs to keep TT and sign every former all-star/role player in the league while keeping their original big-3.
This is a situation that will resolve itself when Klay and Draymond are up for new contracts.

If not for these cap jumps the Warriors would be roughly the same as last year minus Barnes and also not getting Pachulia and Javale and would probably lose Iggy this summer (as they will in reality also).

OKC (with Durant staying), LAC, SAS and Houston would all be competitive in the West and I don't think we'd be having these discussions about parity and competition.

This is just the usual overreaction we have for everything and that's how Cavs went from: "They're done, they have no defense, they won't reach the finals" to "The Cavs are stacked, it's not fair, they might crush the Warriors" in just a short month.

[chrispak98]

So?

KD isn't in any GOAT discussion.

It's just lame man.

According to some people, he's in the discussion for GOAT scorer.

I think people are also overlooking the fact that LBJ's value isn't mainly in his scoring. Without the ball, he brings way more value compared to players like Kobe, Durant, etc.

Not scoring =/= without ball. I can't agree lebron plays better off-ball than kd. Does he defend and assist? Yea, but he's not a better off ball player on offence

Why does it matter that KD plays better off-ball? Other than MAYBE Jordan, LeBron is the one guy you want running the team. No coach would have another player play on-ball if LeBron was on the team. If LeBron and Steph played together, I guarantee it would be LeBron bringing the ball up and calling the plays. Same with Westbrook, Kawhi, anyone.

[Mulhollanddrive]

The producers of each show just pick the bottom feeder to take one for the team (It's never the main host) - Pretend you think LeBron is the GOAT nobody knows who you are anyway so you can walk around the industry without being embarrassed.

[Geaux_Hawks]

Also, I don't get the criticism of Jordan's competition. His last three titles, the Bulls beat 60-win teams in the ECF and Finals twice, and Indiana was right there in 98. Those were all really, really good teams. Maybe not Warriors great -- leading a team back from 3-1 down against them is the single greatest achievement in NBA history -- but those championships were all hard-earned.

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

Sure you do. The '09 Cavs are a 66 win team, '10 Cavs had 61, '15 Hawks with 60 wins, '04 Pacers had 61.
All of these teams (minus '10 Cavs who lost EC semi finals) went the conference finals and they were all "just" good teams but not great ones.

I don't think you can argue these are championship caliber teams.

Not that it means the Bulls only beat crappy teams, the Sonics and Jazz are 100% championship caliber and the Magic were there talent wise and only lacked some experience but like I told you in a similar topic this week, the glorifying of the '90s has to stop.
There's nothing special about teams like the Hornets, Heat or Pacers of the '90s (also the Knicks in the second half of the decade) except that they happened to play against Jordan.

All of those teams lost in the ECF though, and that was the point. With that said, the '04 Pacers not a great team? They were a defensive monster, that lost to another defensive monster. You're reaching on that one. They won 2 games when the Kobe and Shaq Lakers only won 1 in the Finals. I know for myself that the Hawks had a fluke season, and they then proceeded to play a Wall-less Wizards team that would have mopped us with Wall.. Not even going to comment on the Cavs. That's a completely different matter. I'm not saying those teams you named were world beaters, but they were better than what the East is rolling out now.

[Xherdan 23]

Exactly. You don't win 60+ games and make it to the Finals as just a good team. Not to mention, go toe to toe with the Bulls for 6 games in the Finals.

Sure you do. The '09 Cavs are a 66 win team, '10 Cavs had 61, '15 Hawks with 60 wins, '04 Pacers had 61.
All of these teams (minus '10 Cavs who lost EC semi finals) went the conference finals and they were all "just" good teams but not great ones.

I don't think you can argue these are championship caliber teams.

Not that it means the Bulls only beat crappy teams, the Sonics and Jazz are 100% championship caliber and the Magic were there talent wise and only lacked some experience but like I told you in a similar topic this week, the glorifying of the '90s has to stop.
There's nothing special about teams like the Hornets, Heat or Pacers of the '90s (also the Knicks in the second half of the decade) except that they happened to play against Jordan.

All of those teams lost in the ECF though, and that was the point. With that said, the '04 Pacers not a great team? They were a defensive monster, that lost to another defensive monster. You're reaching on that one. They won 2 games when the Kobe and Shaq Lakers only won 1 in the Finals. I know for myself that the Hawks had a fluke season, and they then proceeded to play a Wall-less Wizards team that would have mopped us with Wall.. Not even going to comment on the Cavs. That's a completely different matter. I'm not saying those teams you named were world beaters, but they were better than what the East is rolling out now.

I'm just pointing out that there have been multiple 60+ wins teams that weren't championship caliber.

I don't think I'm reaching with the '04 Pacers.

They had Artest and JO at their peaks with the corpse of Reggie.
That same exact team plus Brad Miller won 48 games the season before and considering what we know about Artest and O'neal isn't likely to contend for the title even if the malice at the palace never happened.

If you're saying that in general the '90s East was better than 2017 East specifically I'll happily agree with you, but this hasn't been the case for this past decade, this season is an outlier.