QPR wrote:One_and_Done wrote:QPR wrote:
One and done is creating an argument that can't be disproven, because it relies on things that haven't happened yet (Denver playing certain teams in the playoffs, with regular season discounted). It's not really worth the debate tbh.
The other side is doing the same, in that all Jokic's past failures are being dismissed with excuses. Taking a step back; Jokic is a guy with one title, and alot of postseasons where he came up short. I don't judge guys off titles, but this idea Jokic has proven it all and we should shut up is silly. I think waiting to see how he does against a more competetive playoff field is extremely reasonable.
I don't think you could genuinely say Jokic has had playoff failures. Which series did he lose as a favourite, or with a better team, or through his own underperformances? He has always been a strong playoff performer, he has always elevated teams above their level and, when he had an elite team, he won it all pretty convincingly.
I completely agree that rings are a lazy measure of individual greatness, but once you start introducing subjective criteria like the supposed strength of a playoff field, it's hard to debate in good faith because you're always going to be able to move the goal posts (eg - Jokic hasn't faced good pick and roll teams in the playoffs, and when he beat them in the regular season it didn't count).
What would you consider a "more competitive playoff field"?
Across the numerous thread he has. He runs away when he getting cooked.