Let me hear your argument for Wilt over MagicCoach said:Kobe is top 10...
3- Bron Bron? (this is where I think he finishes)
Kobe was one of the best offensive players of all-time. His ability to score in volume was fun to watch. He was a good defensive player (when he tried). 5x world champ. 1 MVP (though he could have had more). I'd say he is top-ten, and I would listen to anyone who argues down to 15. No higher than 7 or 8 though. I think I would easily take all 6 from my top 6 over him.
Why Kobe over bird and Shaq? Shaq was the most dominate bigman to ever playBig Poppa said:Excluding Wilt Bill Oscar and that 140 pace league with 12 teams(exaggeration but you get it)
Zeke (dont mind this, just a homerville pick didnt have anyone else to put in the top 10 but hes around top 15)
First of all, you probably dont even know the real story of that 100 point game and how the entire 4th quarter, his teammates fouled the other team so they could get the ball back asap and feed it to Wilt. Cheap way of scoring a 100Savage said:100 points in a game. Better stat line
Big Poppa said:Let me hear your argument for Wilt over Magic
bosoxlover12 said:rings, erneh
bosoxlover12 said:not like hakeem didnt benefit from his rings only coming when jordan retired
Lol and the whole sleeping with 20K women was shot down by his own teammate saying its definitely bullshit bc theyd see wilt go to his room every night with a bag of mcdonalds and nothing else. He was a loner, and all about himself. Wouldnt be surprised if he just straight liedCoach said:
First of all, it's really hard to compare guys from different generations, and then we have two players who played completely different positions. I could flip a coin with those two. But Wilt averaged 30 points and 23 rebounds in his career. That was his career average. That's incredible. The competition wasn't the same, but nobody else in his time came close to that. Magic had more titles, but he also had a better team. Plus, how many women did Magic sleep with? I bet it wasn't 20,000. I know that isn't a fair fight, but Wilt crushes everyone in that stat. Prolific.
Without Duncan, we wouldnt have seen 20 years of excellence from the Spurs. Winning rings with manu parker is great. Sure he won one with Drob but drob was old and Timmy was the clear leader of that team in only his second season. Straight dominated. Only knock on Duncan is that he never repeated. Other than that, he made the spurs. Sure pops is amazing but we dont see this kind of greatness for this long without Timmy. He made the Spurs culture like this by being who he was.Coach said:I'd love to hear your argument for Tim Duncan over Hakeem while we are at it :sas:
Mad Max was awesome and same with Mario, but come on man lets not start saying they’d slow down MJ who was in his prime. He’d still get his easily. I do agree that Hakeem would have gave them big problems since then they still didnt have Rodman tho but still think Bulls win. If not both, one for sure.Coach said:
I'd give the Rockets a slight edge in 93-94 and a better chance in 94-95. The Rockets were on FIRE on the second run. I don't know if any team would have stopped them the way they plowed through the Magic. Plus, the Bulls (w/ Jordan) would have had to make it through the Knicks and then the Pacers. They probably would have, but that's not an easy road to go. It obviously wore on the Knicks going 7 games 3 series in a row.
Honestly, I tire of this argument. I think it's lazy. Those Rockets teams were championship caliber teams. Rockets could switch Maxwell/Elie on Jordan. I like the way they would have matched up with the Bulls. Thorpe and Olajuwon would have given the Bulls fits in the paint. People need to stop discrediting them. If the Rockets hadn't come back and won it again the next year, the argument might have a little more merit. but alas,....
He scored 100, quit trying to discredit it cause Kobe scored 81. And if you do at least tell the full storyBig Poppa said:First of all, you probably dont even know the real story of that 100 point game and how the entire 4th quarter, his teammates fouled the other team so they could get the ball back asap and feed it to Wilt. Cheap way of scoring a 100
Second of all, couldnt win during his real prime and his numbers in the finals were always lower than the regular season or the rest of the playoffs. Numerous times got slowed down in the finals by Bill.
Third of all, stat line argument has little weight to it bc otherwise he’d be the goat if we were going off of stats.
Very weak arguments, hopefully Coach can come up with something better
Im not discrediting it but using that as an argument for wilt > magic is pretty offBNC said:He scored 100, quit trying to discredit it cause Kobe scored 81. And if you do at least tell the full story
Obviously it’s a terrible reason, and yes you are discrediting it. And yea Kobe is the reason you discredit itBig Poppa said:Im not discrediting it but using that as an argument for wilt > magic is pretty off
And kobe has nothing to do with this
If a system works you can’t discredit the rings. Jordan had the triangle. Curry has the screen flurrie/3 point attack. Raptors had the rest your superstar. Miami the big 3,Wilt played in a league that was still heavily segregated. And most of his opponents avgeraged like 6”2 in height. And some worked regular jobs too while they played. Lakers let Shaq take the first 3 then kobe closed. All these teams had systems. To discredit Duncan cause coach pop is the most adaptive coach is silly.Duncan had the privilege of playing for one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) coaches of all time. Hakeem and Duncan were both great offensively, but Hakeem was a game-changer on defense. Duncan was great at defense, but is the product of a system. No team has played better team-defense than the Spurs over the last 20 years. Duncan definitely benefited from that. Plus, Hakeem had stronger competition at his position during his era than Duncan. I dunno, I admire Duncan, but I think he has one of those Belichik/Brady issues surrounding him. Both are all-time greats, but is he a product of the system or does the system work because of the player. I think it's a little of both.