NBA thread

dont worry i dont need any more of an argument

cavs went from 61 wins with lebron to...... 19 wins.... without him lmao

so yah those other guys were good enough for 19 wins

[Forward To Death]

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

You're being absolutely ridiculous. "LeBron has a terrible supporting cast" is meant to be taken in the CONTEXT OF THE NBA.

OF COURSE LeBron's supporting cast is full of of some of the greatest basketball players alive. It's just that LeBron's group of teammates was OBJECTIVELY WORSE than the teammates that basically everyone else in the NBA had. Case in point: the same team was the worst team in the NBA when LeBron left, BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE WAS CONSIDERABLY BETTER.

Objective in what way? I'd like to see some objective evidence that they were worse to any significant degree. I think the fact that they accomplished the things they did testify to the fact that the Cavs as a whole were a strong team. Winning 66 games, nearly going undefeated at home during the regular season, making the finals, etc.

Again, they were bad because they lost the best player in basketball.

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

I love how you say that even though he's not even 30 years old.

What if he wins the next five championships and gets MVP in all of them, giving him a seven-peat? He won't be ahead of Jordan then? Give me a break.

MJ was once in a lifetime, ain't happening again...

[YorkeDaddy]

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

Objective in what way? I'd like to see some objective evidence that they were worse to any significant degree. I think the fact that they accomplished the things they did testify to the fact that the Cavs as a whole were a strong team. Winning 66 games, nearly going undefeated at home during the regular season, making the finals, etc.

Again, they were bad because they lost the best player in basketball.

Your team isn't just doomed when you lose your best player if you have decent players still on the team lol. The Bulls went 55-27 after Michael Jordan left.

1993

The objective evidence is that, again, THEY WENT 19-63

[Forward To Death]

Originally Posted by butthead aka 216

dont worry i dont need any more of an argument

cavs went from 61 wins with lebron to...... 19 wins.... without him lmao

so yah those other guys were good enough for 19 wins

And by this logic, the Cavs would have won how many games without them? I'm not even talking about Lebron having to face 5 guys by himself, which would obviously lead to a drastic decrease in performance, and he'd probably lose all 82 games, but purely going based off of your twisted logic, how many games would they have won? Maybe 45 or something? When they made the finals, they won 50 games, so what would they have won? 30?

You're helping me prove my point.

[Forward To Death]

Originally Posted by YorkeDaddy

Your team isn't just doomed when you lose your best player lol. The Bulls went 55-27 after Michael Jordan left.

1993

The objective evidence is that, again, THEY WENT 19-63

They still had a star player. What'd the Bulls do after they lost Pippen?

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

And by this logic, the Cavs would have won how many games without them? I'm not even talking about Lebron having to face 5 guys by himself, which would obviously lead to a drastic decrease in performance, and he'd probably lose all 82 games, but purely going based off of your twisted logic, how many games would they have won? Maybe 45 or something? When they made the finals, they won 50 games, so what would they have won? 30?

You're helping me prove my point.

[Forward To Death]

Originally Posted by butthead aka 216

But then there are so many things lacking in Lebron that MJ was excelling at even at his age.

The man chokes every time in finals and he doesn't know how to close. Thank goodness for that supporting class because he would just fall apart.

[YorkeDaddy]

Originally Posted by Forward To Death

And by this logic, the Cavs would have won how many games without them? I'm not even talking about Lebron having to face 5 guys by himself, which would obviously lead to a drastic decrease in performance, and he'd probably lose all 82 games, but purely going based off of your twisted logic, how many games would they have won? Maybe 45 or something? When they made the finals, they won 50 games, so what would they have won? 30?

You're helping me prove my point.

I don't think you understand how much a once-in-a-generation superstar does for a team. It's very simple: when LeBron had his awful Cavaliers teammates, the best he could do ever do with any team is get to the Finals but get swept. When he moved to Miami, he instantly made the Finals the first year and has WON the Finals every year since after only making the Finals once with his ****ty Cavaliers teammates which is a testament to how great LeBron was that year.

You are literally the only person that has ever tried to argue this, you're being unbelievably immature by trying to pull this bull****. Everyone that knows a god damn thing about basketball knows that LeBron's supporting cast was ****, end of story. Keep going on being a five year old to prove a point just because you hate LeBron and be a ****ing man and admit you're wrong. Jesus christ. Google the topic and read what professionals if that's what it takes to drill it into your thick skull.