KEVIN DURANT'S MT. RUSHMORE

[Sccit]

This nigga just referenced Aaron Brooks scoring 20 ppg on a team where T-Mac played less than 10 games to defend the Western conference strength for Kobe. Then goes on to change the subject as always about the East...when we're not talking about the East...we're talking how the Lakers had no real obstacles in the West. Mind-boggling stupidity.

I wish this section had more legitimacy. All we got is a guy who knows one sport, but his biased judgment only makes him valid to talk about like the Timberwolves or the Bucks. Until Jabari or Wiggins start scoring 25+ and win games. Then some dumbass on this forum will make the mistake of mentioning Kobe in the same sentence and there goes those teams.

i dont get it....i just detailed how they were all 50+ win teams who woulda outed pretty much any team lebron has ever played on, yet you're over here acting like i didnt break down the strengths of each team individually, focusing on a straw-man argument ("u said aaron brooks!!!") out of desperation...i even spoke on how they had better supporting casts than kobe, yet all you can say is "you're biased! nigga said aaron brooks!! stuuuuupid!!!!" <your reply in a nutshell


admit it, this is all founded on your love for lebron...any time some1 is pinned up against him, u get really detailed and start typing paragraphs about why theyre wrong. ONLY if lebron is involved....you're not even biased towards a team you root for or a player that plays for your team- just one man. it's the gayest thing i've ever seen in my life.


once again, you're projecting...u need to cut that out and maybe take some mdma so that u can find some inner peace with yourself.

[M Dogg™]

Okay, let's see here, 2008.

After revisiting the 2008 playoffs. Denver was the 8th seed. Denver was also 50-32!!! The 8th seed won 50 games!!! The east only had 3 teams win 50 games. Golden State missed the playoffs and they won 48 games.

Denver, the 8th seed also had Iverson that year. And though Iverson was older, he still scored 31 points in the playoffs, and Camby was grabbing around 15-17 rebounds a game and the Nuggets were still a good team that would have made it far in the east.

Utah was a good team, would have beat the Cavs in a playoff series that year, and the Spurs were healthy by playoffs. Everyone knows the Spurs always aim to be healthy by playoffs.

Stop trying to make it out like the Lakers were beating a bunch of nobodies. They went against the grind. And they did so without Bynum the whole run. Once Bynum came back, even limping, the Lakers were able to pull a back to back.

[Chamillitary Click]

Nigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.

LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.

It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".

YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.

Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.

[M Dogg™]

Nigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.

LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.

It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".

YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.

Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.

I think you mistake how I debate these things to how Sccit does. I don't give a FUCK about making Kobe look good. I don't really care who the Lakers had on the roster than wins, as long as they win. Bottom line. I don't give a fuck who LeBron has or doesn't have. He didn't have shit, but he was playing against shit. And if you are the leader of shit, against shit, you should win if you are a superstar. I give LeBron a pass in this way, he was 22. At 22, it's hard to beat a team like the Pistons, even though Detroit wasn't as good. They still had 3 core players from the 2004 team and they were still the best in the east. So for that, I give LeBron props. But pass that, he always played in a weak eastern conference. Even with stacked teams, he barely beat San Antonio and lost to them the next year. The Lakers went through great teams in the playoffs. Kobe led the way. He had help, but you need help to beat those San Antonio teams. When LeBron got help, he was able to move on. But with the whole thing on his shoulder, he barely was able to break through.

So here is my ranking of players since 2000:

1. Kobe
2. Duncan
3. LeBron
4. Wade
5. Shaq

And I'm being generous to LeBron putting him over Wade and Shaq. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his playoff failures. But for sure, he's not better than Kobe or Duncan. That has been establish. And unless he has a huge run of MJ levels in his 30's, and his game isn't exactly an old man's game, I don't see him moving.

[Chamillitary Click]

To be fair, you hate LeBron. Not on a NIK level, but definitely some bias. You tend to get caught up in your firm belief that he has been on PEDs his entire career.

I understand though. I think our government was responsible for 9/11 so it's hard to ever give them the benefit of the doubt for me lol.

[Sccit]

Nigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.

LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.

It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".

YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.

Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.

I think you mistake how I debate these things to how Sccit does. I don't give a FUCK about making Kobe look good. I don't really care who the Lakers had on the roster than wins, as long as they win. Bottom line. I don't give a fuck who LeBron has or doesn't have. He didn't have shit, but he was playing against shit. And if you are the leader of shit, against shit, you should win if you are a superstar. I give LeBron a pass in this way, he was 22. At 22, it's hard to beat a team like the Pistons, even though Detroit wasn't as good. They still had 3 core players from the 2004 team and they were still the best in the east. So for that, I give LeBron props. But pass that, he always played in a weak eastern conference. Even with stacked teams, he barely beat San Antonio and lost to them the next year. The Lakers went through great teams in the playoffs. Kobe led the way. He had help, but you need help to beat those San Antonio teams. When LeBron got help, he was able to move on. But with the whole thing on his shoulder, he barely was able to break through.

So here is my ranking of players since 2000:

1. Kobe
2. Duncan
3. LeBron
4. Wade
5. Shaq

And I'm being generous to LeBron putting him over Wade and Shaq. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his playoff failures. But for sure, he's not better than Kobe or Duncan. That has been establish. And unless he has a huge run of MJ levels in his 30's, and his game isn't exactly an old man's game, I don't see him moving.

u lost this debate the moment you started trying to prove yourself.....cham is better at debating than you are, give it up LOL


but yea, he's wrong either way.....like u said, the 8th seed was a 50 win team. thats insane depth. the lakers were superior to the rest of the teams in the west soley due to kobe. you put kobe on the nuggets and melo on the lakers, and nuggets end up with that back-to-back. thats all it comes down to.

[Chamillitary Click]

I mean, talking like that is foolish. Because I know you'll hit me back with some lame, non-provable intangible about Kobe & how no player other than MJ in history would have won, but in reality, you could've put T-Mac, Melo or Allen Iverson on the first threepeat Lakers & they would still have been the threepeat Lakers.

You could've put Kobe on T-Mac's Magic or Melo's Nuggets by himself & he would of had the same outcome. Teams win. Always will be that way. Even though the incredible LeBron James & Allen Iverson came close by themselves, they still couldn't do it when they ran into a true team, fully contributing against them & some role players forced to be starters.

[Hack Wilson - real]

if Iverson played with Shaq they'd probably have won 5 titles straight

[Sccit]

I mean, talking like that is foolish. Because I know you'll hit me back with some lame, non-provable intangible about Kobe & how no player other than MJ in history would have won, but in reality, you could've put T-Mac, Melo or Allen Iverson on the first threepeat Lakers & they would still have been the threepeat Lakers.

You could've put Kobe on T-Mac's Magic or Melo's Nuggets by himself & he would of had the same outcome. Teams win. Always will be that way. Even though the incredible LeBron James & Allen Iverson came close by themselves, they still couldn't do it when they ran into a true team, fully contributing against them & some role players forced to be starters.

lmao wtf...do u realize that lakers barely squeezed by in 7 games during a couple of those three-peat years. and kobe was the one closing out games, with a similar output to shaq. you put t-mac, melo, or lebron on thos teams, and we'd have been lucky to win 1, let alone three straight....but u know that, now u just tryin too hard.


like i said, u replace kobe with melo...u replace kobe with tony parker...u replace kobe with deron williams.........and lakers WOULD NOT have won in 09 and 10.......and that goes without sayin. kobe was the difference durin those years.....just admit it.

[Chamillitary Click]

"Kobe was closing out those games" LMAO. So Melo, T-Mac & Iverson were incapable of scoring late in games? They just never did it on that stage because they weren't privileged enough to play with Shaq, the Laker cast & have Phil coach.

[Hack Wilson - real]

not just shaq but PRIME Shaq.

you know, the guy NIK was on here calling "the best center of all time" in 2002

[Sccit]

"Kobe was closing out those games" LMAO. So Melo, T-Mac & Iverson were incapable of scoring late in games? They just never did it on that stage because they weren't privileged enough to play with Shaq, the Laker cast & have Phil coach.

none of those players are on kobe's level, and you already know this.....lol. just stop.

[Sccit]

not just shaq but PRIME Shaq.

you know, the guy NIK was on here calling "the best center of all time" in 2002

and he was definitely on pace to bein that in 2002.....poor work ethic hindered his career, bottom line

[M Dogg™]

Nigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.

LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.

It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".

YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.

Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.

I think you mistake how I debate these things to how Sccit does. I don't give a FUCK about making Kobe look good. I don't really care who the Lakers had on the roster than wins, as long as they win. Bottom line. I don't give a fuck who LeBron has or doesn't have. He didn't have shit, but he was playing against shit. And if you are the leader of shit, against shit, you should win if you are a superstar. I give LeBron a pass in this way, he was 22. At 22, it's hard to beat a team like the Pistons, even though Detroit wasn't as good. They still had 3 core players from the 2004 team and they were still the best in the east. So for that, I give LeBron props. But pass that, he always played in a weak eastern conference. Even with stacked teams, he barely beat San Antonio and lost to them the next year. The Lakers went through great teams in the playoffs. Kobe led the way. He had help, but you need help to beat those San Antonio teams. When LeBron got help, he was able to move on. But with the whole thing on his shoulder, he barely was able to break through.

So here is my ranking of players since 2000:

1. Kobe
2. Duncan
3. LeBron
4. Wade
5. Shaq

And I'm being generous to LeBron putting him over Wade and Shaq. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his playoff failures. But for sure, he's not better than Kobe or Duncan. That has been establish. And unless he has a huge run of MJ levels in his 30's, and his game isn't exactly an old man's game, I don't see him moving.

u lost this debate the moment you started trying to prove yourself.....cham is better at debating than you are, give it up LOL


but yea, he's wrong either way.....like u said, the 8th seed was a 50 win team. thats insane depth. the lakers were superior to the rest of the teams in the west soley due to kobe. you put kobe on the nuggets and melo on the lakers, and nuggets end up with that back-to-back. thats all it comes down to.

I was being nice. I think if you take Shaq from the mid-90's to mid-2000's, then he ranks over LeBron. But just 2000's, no. And trust me, saying Kobe is better than Shaq is not exactly easy for me.

But I think we debate two different things in basketball. I judge players with how they preform with what's given to them. If Kobe is playing with Smush Parker, Kwame Brown and Devon George as his other starters, I give him and pass and look at his production. But give him Gasol, Fisher and Bynum and Odom, and I judge him more harshly and expect rings. And since the Lakers won rings, then I look very favorable to that. With LeBron, I don't look at rings in Cleveland, which is why I called him the best of his era. He had shit teammates. But I do look at the rest of the east and it was shitty as well, so a superstar should be able to come out the east. When Boston was injured in 2009, everyone expected Cleveland to make it out the east. Instead Orlando came out, and after seeing Dwight outside of SVG's system, you realize how poor of a team that Magic team was. It was all SVG winning with that team. So you have to relook at the situation and see that LeBron might be overrated.

if Iverson played with Shaq they'd probably have won 5 titles straight

As long as it was in LA, I would have been happy.

To be fair, you hate LeBron. Not on a NIK level, but definitely some bias. You tend to get caught up in your firm belief that he has been on PEDs his entire career.

I understand though. I think our government was responsible for 9/11 so it's hard to ever give them the benefit of the doubt for me lol.

Nah, LeBron doesn't bother me. But as I reflect more on his career, I think he'll go down as one of the biggest puzzles. His career will never have that defining moment, he's almost like the Drake of basketball. Both have lots of success, but you have no idea what they stand for. Drake has no idea if he wants to sing or rap and it really messes up the flow of all his albums. LeBron doesn't ever know if he wants to be the star, or be a team player. So at the end of games he can either make the perfect basketball play that his teammate will brick, or he can hit the game winning shot and be a hero. But it really messes up the flow of a game and it's hard to judge him. But yeah, I've always said I think he's on PEDs. He has all the signs of PEDs.

[Hack Wilson - real]

not just shaq but PRIME Shaq.

you know, the guy NIK was on here calling "the best center of all time" in 2002

and he was definitely on pace to bein that in 2002.....poor work ethic hindered his career, bottom line

back tracking i see.


you called him the best ever as of 2002 - what happened after shouldn't affect your view