RealGM

Which player is better for a new franchise? Personally I will take Shaq

I rank Shaq as top 10-player of all time, and arguably the most dominating force in NBA history along with Wilt. He won 4 championships, inscribed his name in the annals of NBA history, and was the greatest offensive force post-Jordan.

Lebron is a unique prospect who is nearly guaranteed to be a top 20 NBA player barring injuries, he has greatness written all over him, and would also go down as an all-time great.

It's too hard to say no to Shaq though, so I'll go with him.

Have to take Shaq, in his prime he was arguably the most dominant player to have ever played and a big man that could anchor your teams defense (those Laker teams were real underrated defensively).

Only non bigs you take over Shaq is Jordan and maybe Magic.

Not a slam against LeBron, but starting our, you take the big and Shaq goes before anyone except Wilt, Kareem, and Russell . . . including MJ because while you know MJ's talent level, it took the special abilities of Phil Jackson/Tex Winter's triangle offense to turn MJ from a superstar into a title winner. In a traditional offense, he never wins unless he has a dominant big (at least dominant defensively) or a lucky streak and certainly never wins two. He just keeps putting up 40 point stunning games and losing in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs like he did before they got Jackson/Winter.

Of course i'll pick Shaq. He won 4 rings and was arguably the most dominant player ever. Its hard to go against that kind of resume

Lebron at his current pace will end up being better than prime shaq. But you still take shaq because he is easier to build around.

cb4_89 wrote:Lebron at his current pace will end up being better than prime shaq. But you still take shaq because he is easier to build around.

Not sure if you can say this. I believe Shaq put up 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 2.8 bpg, and shot 60% from the floor at the same age LeBron is now. That's a hella good stat line, and I'd take it over Bron Bron's.

penbeast0 wrote:Not a slam against LeBron, but starting our, you take the big and Shaq goes before anyone except Wilt, Kareem, and Russell . . . including MJ because while you know MJ's talent level, it took the special abilities of Phil Jackson/Tex Winter's triangle offense to turn MJ from a superstar into a title winner. In a traditional offense, he never wins unless he has a dominant big (at least dominant defensively) or a lucky streak and certainly never wins two. He just keeps putting up 40 point stunning games and losing in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs like he did before they got Jackson/Winter.

WTF!! MJ doesn't win until he actually has a decent team to compete with the juggernauts in the league.

This is like saying Russell needed 7 hall of famers to win titles.

penbeast0 wrote: including MJ because while you know MJ's talent level, it took the special abilities of Phil Jackson/Tex Winter's triangle offense to turn MJ from a superstar into a title winner. In a traditional offense, he never wins unless he has a dominant big (at least dominant defensively) or a lucky streak and certainly never wins two. He just keeps putting up 40 point stunning games and losing in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs like he did before they got Jackson/Winter.

That's nonsense. With the same teammates Jordan wins at least 3. Don't kid yourself. They were well on their way to winning pre-triangle. Pretty funny that people believe this, actually. Btw, they got to game 6 of the ECF pre-Jackson, and game 7 the following year without really running the triangle yet. Like I said, they were well on their way to winning. Honestly, LOL @ anyone saying this, especially that comment at the end -- prior to 1990, Jordan didn't have the teammates to compete (just compare rosters; they lost to the eventual champions or Finalists each year), yet somehow that's an indictment of him? No.

On topic, I'd take Shaq.

Well, we know what Shaq has done, so it has to be him at this point.

penbeast0 wrote:Not a slam against LeBron, but starting our, you take the big and Shaq goes before anyone except Wilt, Kareem, and Russell . . . including MJ because while you know MJ's talent level, it took the special abilities of Phil Jackson/Tex Winter's triangle offense to turn MJ from a superstar into a title winner. In a traditional offense, he never wins unless he has a dominant big (at least dominant defensively) or a lucky streak and certainly never wins two. He just keeps putting up 40 point stunning games and losing in the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs like he did before they got Jackson/Winter.

Wow. I'd take Shaq over Russell without hesitation. Maybe over Kareem too.

Actually, I wouldn't say "people believe this" . . . most people believe Jordan wins multiple championships with anything resembling a decent supporting cast and regardless of coaching . . . it is one of the most controversial things I've ever said and I always get flamed for it but I do believe it.

This is easily Shaq here. Maybe if Lebron wins like 3 rings in the next few years, it'll be a real debate.

easy question. Its the Diesel. lebron is my 2nd favorite player in the league but he's still got a lot to prove

penbeast0 wrote:Actually, I wouldn't say "people believe this" . . . most people believe Jordan wins multiple championships with anything resembling a decent supporting cast and regardless of coaching . . . it is one of the most controversial things I've ever said and I always get flamed for it but I do believe it.

I didn't say that he'd have the same exact success without Phil or the triangle, but to suggest that coaching and a system were the difference between 6 rings and 0 rings is quite a stretch. It's foolish, actually, especially in light of the fact that they were already well on their way to winning as soon as he had decent (not elite) talent around him. Like I said, he wins at least 3 rings with the same cast but no triangle.

Proven over unproven.

Big over small.

Shaq.

Jordan23Forever wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Actually, I wouldn't say "people believe this" . . . most people believe Jordan wins multiple championships with anything resembling a decent supporting cast and regardless of coaching . . . it is one of the most controversial things I've ever said and I always get flamed for it but I do believe it.

I didn't say that he'd have the same exact success without Phil or the triangle, but to suggest that coaching and a system were the difference between 6 rings and 0 rings is quite a stretch. It's foolish, actually, especially in light of the fact that they were already well on their way to winning as soon as he had decent (not elite) talent around him. Like I said, he wins at least 3 rings with the same cast but no triangle.

3 with the same cast but no triangle? I'm thinking 5 or 6. Some of those Bulls teams were the most talented in the league at the time. The funniest thing is when people say Jordan would have 0 titles if he didn't have Pippen, like Pippen is someone like Shaq.

Lol, is this a serious question? There are MAYBE 3 players in the HISTORY of the league that i would take over Shaq. I don't even know if i would take Jordan over shaq if both were 20 year old rookies.

Shaq, Wilt, And MJ are the 3 guys I'd take first. Hakeem, Kareem, Magic, Bird, Duncan, and Russell would be in the second tier of guys I'd take first for me team. So I'll take Shaq over Lebron pretty easily here. For now.

I say for now because I think Lebron actually has the ability to be in that top tier with Wilt, Mj, and shaq. Or else in my second tier. He's going to have to do a whole lot to get there, but he's on the right track.