Mikal Bridges says LeBron would get 90 a game against 86' Celtics (Burning Bridges ?)

[whysoserious]

I love how people assume Lebron would just run out there and score at will. This is a guy who's never been focused on scoring. It's his all around game that makes him so great. So why suddenly against different competition are you expecting Lebron to go full Kobe/AI and ball hog to score at will? It's not in his nature.

Would Lebron be successful in any era? Obviously, that isn't debatable. To think he'd be out there dominating though or do something different than what Jordan did to the 86 Celtics is dumb, can't be proven and we have no idea what coaches/players would adjust to containing him.

[Flash Falcon X]

I know everyone is mostly focused on the Jordan vs Lebron aspect of the comment, but as a Celtics fan, this was just a straight up disrespectful post.

Bridges is basically implying that the 86 Celtics, generally considered to be a top 2 or 3 team of all time, was just a bunch of milk men and plumbers that would get abused by modern players.

Exactly.

This isn’t just MJ vs LeBron.

Saying LeBron can avg 90ppg is like saying Harrison Barnes can drop 35ppg on those Celtics in the Playoffs.

It’s like saying if the Jazz drafted Gordon Hayward in the 80s he’d be better than Bird.

People are trying to defend Bridges by saying he just be a bit hyperbolic, but kids in his generation really do believe the 80s and 90s were filled with out of shape guys who were substitute teachers and plumbers part time lol.

Bridges is intentionally throwing “90ppg” out there to really let everyone know how crappy he thinks Jordan’s era was.

[whysoserious]

MJ - 34 games over 50 points scored, 5 games over 60 points scored.

Lebron - 11 games over 50 points scored and 1 game over 60.

It's pretty evident regardless of era, Lebron's game simply isn't predicated on scoring dominance.

[VancouverRaps]

As has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, MJ was a better pure scorer than LeBron is. A huge part of LeBron's greatness is his ability to create open shots for teammates with his BBIQ and vision.

Bridges must be working on getting ESPN/Fox's radar as a dumb hot take specialist when his career is done.

[mademan]

I know everyone is mostly focused on the Jordan vs Lebron aspect of the comment, but as a Celtics fan, this was just a straight up disrespectful post.

Bridges is basically implying that the 86 Celtics, generally considered to be a top 2 or 3 team of all time, was just a bunch of milk men and plumbers that would get abused by modern players.

Exactly.

This isn’t just MJ vs LeBron.

Saying LeBron can avg 90ppg is like saying Harrison Barnes can drop 35ppg on those Celtics in the Playoffs.

It’s like saying if the Jazz drafted Gordon Hayward in the 80s he’d be better than Bird.

People are trying to defend Bridges by saying he just be a bit hyperbolic, but kids in his generation really do believe the 80s and 90s were filled with out of shape guys who were substitute teachers and plumbers part time lol.

Bridges is intentionally throwing “90ppg” out there to really let everyone know how crappy he thinks Jordan’s era was.

how often do you heat player x would average 50 points today? lol. It is hyperbole to show disrespect to an era, its just this disrespect is getting more play. 90ppg in a series is as impossible as 50ppg over a season as both have a 0% likelihood of happening, but every time some mid tier player says they would average 40+ or says that MJ would average 50ppg, its blown off. Just blow this off as the same thing

[JonFromVA]

Remember how Lebron was scrutinized for his lack of mental fortitude before his first championship run? Imagine that against one of the best trash talkers in league history.

Trash talk always fired LeBron up, and his mental fortitude was fine for a player still learning how to win and what it takes to win.

I mean Jordan got past the "Bad Boys" and their "Jordan Rules", but it's not like he did it on his first try and when he did beat them - they were already in decline (won just 50 games and would lose to the Knicks in the first round the next season). He never did beat the Celtics in the playoffs, and he did beat the Lakers, but they had lost Kareem and Riley, and were about to lose Magic.

A smart coach in the '80's would had figured out he needed to make a young LeBron beat his team with his shaky at times jump shot, but he'd first have to figure out a way to keep him out of the paint without leaving shooters open. Once Phil got it through to Jordan that he had to pass to his open shooters, Jordan starting winning championships. James understood that from before he entered the league.

[og15]

I don't care about if they can shoot or not, send anybody out there, the defence has to act like they are not playing zone, so they have to clear out as well and will spend their time judging when the best time is to collapse, LeBron will punish them

Watch on YouTube

im watched the highlights of the Jordan 63pt game and the only reason the help arrived or they packed the paint was because jordans teammates are standing close enough for them to do it

So you believe Lebron's 1986 teammates would be spreading the floor like his teams in the 2000's? Lol

yes, get a 500ib former sumo wrestler standing out there if you want, the defence have to stand out there with him or double team LeBron

are you telling me with your guy standing in the corner 3 that you can stand 15ft away from him near the paint waiting for LeBron?, or even worse 2 or 3 guys doing that?

how do you achieve this?

What I'm saying is that you are transporting strategies that were not how teams played in 1986 into 1986. Could they have set up like that? Sure, but teams didn't play that way, abusing the rules wasn't the goal yet. The illegal defense rule changed from guarding at arms length to 3-in-the-key because the clear out iso was getting abused in the 90's as well as teams were finding ways to circumvent illegal defense. It was hard for referees to monitor that as well as everything else they are looking at. The NBA wanted less iso ball because it wasn't pretty, and because Jerry Stackhouse isolating all game is not nearly as fun to watch as Michael Jordan doing it. In any sort of professional sports situation, you can't expect that teams will not try to maximize the rules to their advantage. Allowing zone and changing illegal defense to 3-in-the-key was easier to monitor and aimed to force more ball movement. Of course when the rule change was first made, many teams were not set up with the type of shooting and rosters required to play most effectively against a defense that allowed guarding areas of the court.

The one side clear out isolation or post-iso you see did not become a consistent strategy until the mid-late 90's. Sure there might be possessions here and there, but using that as a primary offensive strategy was not how teams were playing in the 80's.

Of course as we know, coaches will always try to find something they can abuse, and especially those coaches who would have one star teams and needed to maximize the scoring of their one star, the strategy made sense. So rules changes and I can't run simple clear-out iso as effectively anymore against any good defense, but if I want to force feed the ball into one guys hands to control a lot of the offense, I can now switch to abusing pick and roll. Of course pick and roll emphasizes different strengths, Jordan before the triangle used a lot of pick and roll action (still used it after(, he was great at it, we know the guys now who are great at it, and it is essentially a requirement now. Players who are good at it can use it to get to the basket, create open shots for others and get open shots for themselves.

Then we have the strong side defense with Thibodeau as a means to counter that and force the ball out of the primary ball handlers hands in pick and roll as much as possible. So how do you counter that? More shooting is one way, space the floor out so that loading up on the strong side will lead to too many open shots when the ball is skipped to the weak side.

Then as the league transitioned to more and more shooters on the court to best maximize their offenses, you had coaches like D'Antoni going back to iso ball. Why? Well the pick and roll just brought an extra defender into the picture to defend your primary ball handler, it has it's place, but if you want to maximize that player and want to make things easier for him, you actually take out that second defender. When you have so much space and when the big can't camp in the lane, if you have the individual talent, iso ball can be effective and produce a great offense as we've seen with Houston.

[og15]

I know everyone is mostly focused on the Jordan vs Lebron aspect of the comment, but as a Celtics fan, this was just a straight up disrespectful post.

Bridges is basically implying that the 86 Celtics, generally considered to be a top 2 or 3 team of all time, was just a bunch of milk men and plumbers that would get abused by modern players.

Exactly.

This isn’t just MJ vs LeBron.

Saying LeBron can avg 90ppg is like saying Harrison Barnes can drop 35ppg on those Celtics in the Playoffs.

It’s like saying if the Jazz drafted Gordon Hayward in the 80s he’d be better than Bird.

People are trying to defend Bridges by saying he just be a bit hyperbolic, but kids in his generation really do believe the 80s and 90s were filled with out of shape guys who were substitute teachers and plumbers part time lol.

Bridges is intentionally throwing “90ppg” out there to really let everyone know how crappy he thinks Jordan’s era was.

The 80's was not what we would classify as the Jordan era though, the Jordan era was the 90's, so if that was the goal, it would be inaccurate. I do agree though, the point of his hyperbole is to say that players / teams / basketball was not good back then and everyone would be better. This is not good analysis and is inaccurate. Basketball has gotten better and changed over that time, certainly, some of the change has been "forced" due to the rules. Teams and coaches goal is always to maximize their effectiveness, and offensively, the NBA now has transitioned to what is the most effective with the current offensive/defensive rules and defensive strategies.

[-TheDocOfDenial]

I like how this doc has exposed everyone with a GOATJAMES agenda for having absurd takes like 80s PEDs are better than today and that LeBron would have open lanes to the basket and score not 90 but only 89 vs the Celtics. That one text message screenshot posted in this thread pretty much sums it up lmao.

[JonFromVA]

MJ - 34 games over 50 points scored, 5 games over 60 points scored.

Lebron - 11 games over 50 points scored and 1 game over 60.

It's pretty evident regardless of era, Lebron's game simply isn't predicated on scoring dominance.

Makes sense, even in high-school playing against and with far inferior players, James enjoyed winning by setting up his teammates; but if for whatever reason, that was ineffective - there's no reason to believe he wouldn't change his approach.

Mostly we saw it in the 4th quarter of games, or strategically in certain games where they decided it was important for his team to get out to a fast start.

The question is would he even need to bother changing his approach to beat the Celtics? Michael seemed pretty convinced his teammates sucked and him scoring was their only chance to win; but I'm not so sure that team looks much worse than the early Cavs teams that James played on.

[Chanel Bomber]

Burning Bridges is the new best nickname in the NBA.

[fanofthegreats]

Lol you're one of those guys that just look at the raw number and think apples and oranges are the same. If you didn't know, Lebron likes to initiate from the top of the key. Whether he is passing or scoring, he always tries to drive lane. However, you seem to not get that lanes were absolutely clogged up in the 80s and 90s making it much more difficult for someone like Lebron to operate. Also, unlike many perimeter players back then, Lebron is not a slasher off ball to receive more looks near the rim. He would have to settle for post ups, but he is not a comfortable back to the rim player. He is and has always been a front of the rim player. Many of the inferior players you mentioned lived and roamed near the paint by moving without the ball constantly and received the ball close to the hoop to begin with, unlike Lebron who always has the ball and starts from the top. But keep counting your apples and oranges together buddy.

Lmao. So many inaccuracies and inferences about my basketball approach. Keep going dude.

Lmao, all you can do is lmao, lol, etc, with nothing back to argue. Are you a kid? At least your emoji's are gone. How were you once a mod? What a disgrace to all mods.

I’ve already stated my stance on discussion with you. Thanks for confirming my initial thought.

[msmoore66]

Who is this "cap" he refers to?

[so_bored]

Lmao. So many inaccuracies and inferences about my basketball approach. Keep going dude.

Lmao, all you can do is lmao, lol, etc, with nothing back to argue. Are you a kid? At least your emoji's are gone. How were you once a mod? What a disgrace to all mods.

I’ve already stated my stance on discussion with you. Thanks for confirming my initial thought.

You: blah blah lmao lol ... Lebron can score 90 ... blah blah lmao lol ... LeGoat ... blah blah lmao lol ... everyone who thinks lebron is not goat is wrong ... blah blah lmao lol ... 90s suck ... blah blah lmao lol ...

[The Rodzilla]

So you believe Lebron's 1986 teammates would be spreading the floor like his teams in the 2000's? Lol

yes, get a 500ib former sumo wrestler standing out there if you want, the defence have to stand out there with him or double team LeBron

are you telling me with your guy standing in the corner 3 that you can stand 15ft away from him near the paint waiting for LeBron?, or even worse 2 or 3 guys doing that?

how do you achieve this?

What I'm saying is that you are transporting strategies that were not how teams played in 1986 into 1986

well I am transporting LeBron back there to play, and I assumed his brain with all his knowledge is included in the transportation package

but even with normal isolation plays that Jordan was using for his 63pts, that's good enough for LeBron

[og15]

MJ - 34 games over 50 points scored, 5 games over 60 points scored.

Lebron - 11 games over 50 points scored and 1 game over 60.

It's pretty evident regardless of era, Lebron's game simply isn't predicated on scoring dominance.

Makes sense, even in high-school playing against and with far inferior players, James enjoyed winning by setting up his teammates; but if for whatever reason, that was ineffective - there's no reason to believe he wouldn't change his approach.

Mostly we saw it in the 4th quarter of games, or strategically in certain games where they decided it was important for his team to get out to a fast start.

The question is would he even need to bother changing his approach to beat the Celtics? Michael seemed pretty convinced his teammates sucked and him scoring was their only chance to win; but I'm not so sure that team looks much worse than the early Cavs teams that James played on.

First, how good a team is or needs to be is always relative to competition. The Cavs were not playing any team the caliber of the Celtics in the first round while having a roster similar to what Jordan had, that could have been the case if they were in the West where their records might not have gotten them as good seeding. The closest thing we can think of would be the 2007 Cavs vs the Spurs, but the Spurs were not Celtics level that season, and we saw how that turned out.

The 85-86 Bulls were 30-52, Jordan missed most of the season, they were 9-9 in the games he played, 21-43 (27 win pace) without him. If he had played the whole season, they would have likely landed around .500, maybe a little over. Their defense was ranked 23rd on the season, out of 23 teams, so they were the league's worst defense. The Cavs when they started making the playoffs had at the minimum an average defense, the Bulls were bad on defense and it was not because of Jordan.

I always want people to be clear about what they are implying when they make posts like this though, because unless there is a clear implication, nothing much is being said. Are you implying that if Jordan had passed more they would have taken a game vs the Celtics? They certainly wouldn't have won or made the series close despite anything he did. This is the same Celtics that swept the 2nd seed 57-25 Bucks in the ECF winning all but game 3 by double digits. The same Celtics that lost just one game on their way to the finals, game 4 vs the Hawks which required them shooting poorly and Nique dropping 37 points. The only other close game in the series had Nique scoring 38 points, they won the others by double digits. Looks like a lot of scoring from the star was the only thing that was even getting them close to losing before the finals. Jordan's 63 point game was the only close game in the series, the Bulls were destroyed in game 3 when Jordan had 19/9.

The only other scorer on the team:
Game 1: Woolridge - 11/20, 25 pts
Game 2: Woolriidge - 9/27, 24 pts
Game 3: Woolridge - 5/15, 14 pts

Jordan missed most of the regular season, and here were the averages of the guys who played the most minutes in the playoffs during the regular season vs playoffs:

Woolridge: 20.7 ppg / 21.0 ppg
Corzine: 9.6 ppg / 12.0 ppg
Oakley: 9.6 ppg / 10.0 ppg
Macy: 8.6 ppg / 4.0 ppg
Paxson: 5.3 ppg / 9.0 ppg
Banks: 10.9 ppg / 7.3 ppg

So Jordan was out most of the season, these guys were not scoring, did not show themselves as any sort of reliable option, their defense was trash, worst in the league, but if Jordan had decided "you know the best way to win more is to get Kyle Macy more shots", the Bulls would have done what exactly?

[so_bored]

MJ - 34 games over 50 points scored, 5 games over 60 points scored.

Lebron - 11 games over 50 points scored and 1 game over 60.

It's pretty evident regardless of era, Lebron's game simply isn't predicated on scoring dominance.

Makes sense, even in high-school playing against and with far inferior players, James enjoyed winning by setting up his teammates; but if for whatever reason, that was ineffective - there's no reason to believe he wouldn't change his approach.

Mostly we saw it in the 4th quarter of games, or strategically in certain games where they decided it was important for his team to get out to a fast start.

The question is would he even need to bother changing his approach to beat the Celtics? Michael seemed pretty convinced his teammates sucked and him scoring was their only chance to win; but I'm not so sure that team looks much worse than the early Cavs teams that James played on.

First, how good a team is or needs to be is always relative to competition. The Cavs were not playing any team the caliber of the Celtics in the first round while having a roster similar to what Jordan had, that could have been the case if they were in the West where their records might not have gotten them as good seeding. The closest thing we can think of would be the 2007 Cavs vs the Spurs, but the Spurs were not Celtics level that season, and we saw how that turned out.

The 85-86 Bulls were 30-52, Jordan missed most of the season, they were 9-9 in the games he played, 21-43 (27 win pace) without him. If he had played the whole season, they would have likely landed around .500, maybe a little over. Their defense was ranked 23rd on the season, out of 23 teams, so they were the league's worst defense. The Cavs when they started making the playoffs had at the minimum an average defense, the Bulls were bad on defense and it was not because of Jordan.

I always want people to be clear about what they are implying when they make posts like this though, because unless there is a clear implication, nothing much is being said. Are you implying that if Jordan had passed more they would have taken a game vs the Celtics? They certainly wouldn't have won or made the series close despite anything he did. This is the same Celtics that swept the 2nd seed 57-25 Bucks in the ECF winning all but game 3 by double digits? The same Celtics that lost just one game on their way to the finals, game 4 vs the Hawks which required them shooting poorly and Nique dropping 37 points. The only other close game in the series had Nique scoring 38 points, they won the others by double digits. Looks like a lot of scoring from the star was the only think that was even getting them close to losing. Jordan's 63 point game was the only close game in the series, the Bulls were destroyed in game 3 when Jordan had 19/9.

The only other scorer on the team:
Game 1: Woolridge - 11/20, 25 pts
Game 2: Woolriidge - 9/27, 24 pts
Game 3: Woolridge - 5/15, 14 pts

Jordan missed most of the regular season, and here were the averages of the guys who played the most minutes in the playoffs during the regular season vs playoffs:

Woolridge: 20.7 ppg / 21.0 ppg
Corzine: 9.6 ppg / 12.0 ppg
Oakley: 9.6 ppg / 10.0 ppg
Macy: 8.6 ppg / 4.0 ppg
Paxson: 5.3 ppg / 9.0 ppg
Banks: 10.9 ppg / 7.3 ppg

So Jordan was out most of the season, these guys were not scoring, did not show themselves as any sort of reliable option, their defense was trash, worst in the league, but if Jordan had decided "you know the best way to win more is to get Kyle Macy more shots", the Bulls would have done what exactly?

There's no point arguing with Lebron groupies. They'll just going to ignore all the logic, stats, and facts, while putting their rose colored glasses and earplugs on and blah blah their way to suck Lebron's balls. Go look up the retired mod above you, it's literally all he is doing. Even a former mod is doing that. They have no credibility whatsoever.

[Sofia]

This thread is crazy. People arguing the merits of a clear exaggeration.

It’s like saying “oh you only won by 43 points, but you said you’d win by a million”

[freethedevil]

Just thought of the proper way to think about those Celtics against any LeBron-led team we've seen.

It would be like the 2014 Spurs against the 2014 Heat.

Except the celtics passing and movement wasn't on par with the spurs. Nor did they have the spurs spacing/shooting.

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the 1986 Celtics in real time, as I did.

Considering what you decided to cite as evidence, I'm going to assume you don't understand the nature of what you're arguing.

Relative to era stats will not answer how well a player will do in another era. This is a cross era comparison, you citing **** like o-rating and assists isn't relevant. The question wasn't, who was better relative to era, the question was, if we transport lebron to another era, how well would he do. Things like the three point shooting, more advanced defensive schemes, and the evolution of offensive schemes don't particularly care about anything you've cited.

But if you want to stick with relative to era staistics, why don't we cut out the noise and compare what happened in the playoffs. The spurs were a goat level playoff team in terms of poitn differential. The celtics, were not.

So 1976 celtics>2014 spurs is a hilarious take, even if we act like anything you cited was relevant.

[DavidSterned]

Except the celtics passing and movement wasn't on par with the spurs. Nor did they have the spurs spacing/shooting.

I'm going to assume you didn't watch the 1986 Celtics in real time, as I did.

Considering what you decided to cite as evidence, I'm going to assume you don't understand the nature of what you're arguing.

Relative to era stats will not answer how well a player will do in another era. This is a cross era comparison, you citing **** like o-rating and assists isn't relevant. The question wasn't, who was better relative to era, the question was, if we transport lebron to another era, how well would he do. Things like the three point shooting, more advanced defensive schemes, and the evolution of offensive schemes don't particularly care about anything you've cited.

But if you want to stick with relative to era staistics, why don't we cut out the noise and compare what happened in the playoffs. The spurs were a goat level playoff team in terms of poitn differential. The celtics, were not.

So 1976 celtics>2014 spurs is a hilarious take, even if we act like anything you cited was relevant.

Simple yes or no, have you ever watched the 1986 Celtics play? Like, even for one entire game? Because you made incorrect statements about them that were demonstrably false, were proven so, and rather than dig your hole deeper I would suggest you fess up and admit that you didn't know what you were talking about. Probably would be for the best.