1208 replies to this topic

[CaneBrain]

Jadaki, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 6:59 AM, said:

Football is a completely different sport. You can't compare Romo and Lebron, its apples and oranges and you know it. Romo has played in what... maybe 3 really important games so far in his career?I've watched probably 5 Cavs games this year, Lebron seems to be trying to play better defense, but mid range game my ass... I think I've actually only seen him take a guy to the post once and stopping to pull up for 16-18 footers when they are open, that shit doesn't happen. It was disgusting how easily he scored on another 3 in the post, so why he wants to sit at the top of the key and get double teams just screams lack of basketball IQ to me. Especially now that they have a legit PG who can run the offense. This just goes back to he looks lost in the offense without the ball in his hands, and he doesn't take advantage of his natural abilities in easy situations. You can't bitch about his teammates if he can get to the finals with them, do you see why? I can't wait for Williams to miss a big shot in a game so I can hear people bitch about him too. And the bolded part is just not true, your obviously only focusing on my posts here or you wouldn't have missed them.

ok. I (me!) am not diminishing Jordan or Magic. Heck, i think Lebron is a lot like Magic (and that his natural evolution will be to play "point forward" some day). But I cannot speak for others. I can compare Romo and Lebron to the extent of how much they show up in big games. Lebron has ALWAYS shown up in big games though they have not won them all. (But they have won quite a few.) Romo seems to NEVER show up in big games. In that context, you can compare them and you know it. It is the difference between losing in spite a great performance by your best player or losing because of a poor performance by your best player. I doubt you can find one big game that the Cavs lost where Lebron threw in a complete stinker. It is not there. Conversely, you can find a bunch of big game stinkers from Romo (though, yes, you will have to include regular season games since there are less playoff games in football). (Note: I like Romo and agree with you that the criticism heaped on him is overdone. I was only using him as a comparative example.)However, I will be the first to admit that a basketball player exerts much more influence over a game by himself than a football player. 5 players versus 22.....simple math. But the QB has quite an effect so it is not a ridiculous comparison particularly since Romo gets killed for the same things you are killing Lebron for.Your problem seems to be that Lebron has not yet realized his full potential. That we both agree on. But that is not really relevant to the argument. The argument is not has Lebron maxed out his potential. The argument is.....is lebron already amazing and clearly the best or 2nd best player in the league. Even with his lack of a midrange game he still gets his 27,7,7. He still makes his teammates better by creating open shots. And I think the low basketball IQ is unjustified. He has an excellent feel for the game and is a very good passer. He has a good sense for what he can do at different spots on the court. If anything, he looks lost without the ball because he has had the ball in his hands his whole basketball life (with pretty good results).I dont agree at all that you cant bitch about his teammates just because they made the finals. You can make two arguments. One, the one you are making, is that if they made the finals his teammates cant be so bad that they are "bitch-about" worthy. The other argument is that Lebron is so great that he carried a mediocre supporting cast to the Finals. Not only is this a legit argument.....it is the ACCEPTED argument. The group of people who think Lebron has had an above average cast of players in Cleveland is you and those players and their moms.And please, please stop using the "Philly won a game against the Lakers in the finals argument." What is that? Losing badly 4-1 in the finals is somehow so much better than losing 4-0 in the finals? The Lakers maybe had an off night? I dont think that proves anything at all other than you make weird arguments. By your own definition, losing a series is losing a series even if you score 45 on the road in game 7 and barely lose. Easy on the John kerry routine. Almost as good as the incredible excuse to explain why the Cavs gave Boston such a good run last year while the Lakers got their doors blown off. The Celtics were "playing better" after the first two rounds. First, they played the Cavs in round three. So, there is that. Then, there is the plausible conclusion that the Celtics played better in the finals because their opposition crapped the bed. But no, obviously the Celtics just stepped it up in the Finals. Completely unprovable. I think you nailed it when you said you liked trolling in this thread. Most of your sports commentary shows a lot of insight. Your comments in this thread fall under troll-like.

[Jadaki]

They played the Cavs in the second round, the Pistons in the conference finals.Reference MaterialEdit: I have more to respond to in your post, but I have to do a conference call for the next hour or so, I'll be back

[Poppy_Hillis]

I'm not getting in the middle of this, but I'm not sure how people think the Lakers "crapped the bed" or got their "doors blown off". They were one bad 3rd quarter away from taking a 3-2 lead back to Boston.

[Jadaki]

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

ok. I (me!) am not diminishing Jordan or Magic. Heck, i think Lebron is a lot like Magic (and that his natural evolution will be to play "point forward" some day). But I cannot speak for others.

You have not, I agree. I also think Lebron compares a lot more to some hybrid between Dominique and Magic than anything else.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

I can compare Romo and Lebron to the extent of how much they show up in big games. Lebron has ALWAYS shown up in big games though they have not won them all. (But they have won quite a few.) Romo seems to NEVER show up in big games. In that context, you can compare them and you know it. It is the difference between losing in spite a great performance by your best player or losing because of a poor performance by your best player. I doubt you can find one big game that the Cavs lost where Lebron threw in a complete stinker. It is not there. Conversely, you can find a bunch of big game stinkers from Romo (though, yes, you will have to include regular season games since there are less playoff games in football). (Note: I like Romo and agree with you that the criticism heaped on him is overdone. I was only using him as a comparative example.)

I guess this comes down to how you define big games, and I think that is somewhat different in basketball with its 82 game season and best of seven playoff formats than the NFL. There are plenty of examples of "big games" where Lebron didn't show up too. I'll cover some of those later.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

However, I will be the first to admit that a basketball player exerts much more influence over a game by himself than a football player. 5 players versus 22.....simple math. But the QB has quite an effect so it is not a ridiculous comparison particularly since Romo gets killed for the same things you are killing Lebron for.

I get what you're saying, but comparing cross sports seems dumb when there are better comparisons to be made within the same sport.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

Your problem seems to be that Lebron has not yet realized his full potential. That we both agree on. But that is not really relevant to the argument. The argument is not has Lebron maxed out his potential. The argument is.....is lebron already amazing and clearly the best or 2nd best player in the league. Even with his lack of a midrange game he still gets his 27,7,7. He still makes his teammates better by creating open shots. And I think the low basketball IQ is unjustified. He has an excellent feel for the game and is a very good passer. He has a good sense for what he can do at different spots on the court. If anything, he looks lost without the ball because he has had the ball in his hands his whole basketball life (with pretty good results).

My actual problem is with him being crowned the best player in the league when he has obvious weaknesses in his game, and until he learns to overcome them then I'm not supporting him being the best player in the league, that and silly Cleveland fanboys (Keith & SS24 mainly) who will be crying in 2010 are so touchy about it amuses me to point these things out. He isn't the most polished on the offensive end, I can think of several players who I would rather have the ball in their hands with the shot clock winding down than Lebron. And don't even try calling him a great defensive player. He is getting better at it, but he isn't there yet.I'd argue that with his size and power advantage at his position he should be rebounding better and his assists are great for his position, but he doesn't do everything he can to create better opportunities for other players on his team. I look at him and wonder how he isn't getting 25/12/12 every night, because he should be and I think his lack of knowledge of how to play without the ball is the cause.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

I dont agree at all that you cant bitch about his teammates just because they made the finals. You can make two arguments. One, the one you are making, is that if they made the finals his teammates cant be so bad that they are "bitch-about" worthy. The other argument is that Lebron is so great that he carried a mediocre supporting cast to the Finals. Not only is this a legit argument.....it is the ACCEPTED argument. The group of people who think Lebron has had an above average cast of players in Cleveland is you and those players and their moms.

The real argument should be that a good defensive team made it out of quite possibly the most pathetic eastern conference ever. Just because people want to be on Lebron's bandwagon and rip the rest the team apart doesn't make it right. It's more trying to inflate the guy who lost, which irritates the hell out of me.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

And please, please stop using the "Philly won a game against the Lakers in the finals argument." What is that? Losing badly 4-1 in the finals is somehow so much better than losing 4-0 in the finals? The Lakers maybe had an off night? I dont think that proves anything at all other than you make weird arguments. By your own definition, losing a series is losing a series even if you score 45 on the road in game 7 and barely lose. Easy on the John kerry routine.

Comparing Lebron who took a team full of poor players to the finals to Allen Iverson who did the same thing is a far more apt comparison than a QB from a football team. They were both on over matched teams, coming out of weaker conferences. Allen Iverson did something Lebron couldn't, if you can't see the comparison I don't know what to tell you. All the talk going into those finals was about the Lakers going undefeated in the post season and Iverson shut them up in game 1. The Lakers team Iverson was up against was better than the Spurs team the Cavs faced.

CaneBrain, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

Almost as good as the incredible excuse to explain why the Cavs gave Boston such a good run last year while the Lakers got their doors blown off. The Celtics were "playing better" after the first two rounds. First, they played the Cavs in round three. So, there is that. Then, there is the plausible conclusion that the Celtics played better in the finals because their opposition crapped the bed. But no, obviously the Celtics just stepped it up in the Finals. Completely unprovable. I think you nailed it when you said you liked trolling in this thread. Most of your sports commentary shows a lot of insight. Your comments in this thread fall under troll-like.

See previous post, they played the Cavs in the second round. Which took place after Boston played a 7 game series with no time off to rest. They were tired and Ray Allen was still playing the worst ball of his career, so what did Lebron do... went 8 for 42 in the first two games. Do those not count as big games in your book? So what he put up 45 in a losing game 7, he shows up in game one or two and they have a better shot at winning the series.Also to the QQ about homecourt from Keith earlier, that's a simple fix... win more games during the regular season.

[keith crime]

Also to the QQ about homecourt from Keith earlier, that's a simple fix... win more games during the regular season.[/quote]they had two big holdouts who never recovered from it and they made a huge tradewe'll see what happens this yearas for them being tired after atlanta - duh don't let atlanta take you to 7 games

[Jadaki]

keith crime, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 4:15 PM, said:

they had two big holdouts who never recovered from it and they made a huge tradewe'll see what happens this yearas for them being tired after atlanta - duh don't let atlanta take you to 7 games

They wouldn't have had a better record than Boston anyway, they were the 4 seed.We will.They shouldn't have, but they still beat the Cavs. Doesn't change that they were prime to get jumped on early in that series and the Cav's didn't do it.

[tskillz187]

The god damn word is dominant. Not dominate. Lebron is a dominant player. Lebron dominates a basketball game. Jesus.

[babylondonks]

Sigh, okay, where to start?

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 1:26 AM, said:

And teammates do matter. Lebron will take blame for defeats where it is due. I am not killing a guy for putting up 45 on the road in the playoffs. I bet most people on this forum would struggle to name a significant teammate of Dominique.

Doc Rivers, Kevin Willis, Moses Malone, Reggie Theus for starters. Then we can go deeper with guys like Randy Wittman. Though I have no idea what your second statement has to do with your first one.

keith crime, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 2:59 AM, said:

Jordan never got past those teams - those teams got old and disappearedthey got their asses kicked regularly by the pistons - until scottie pippen and horace grant maturedLebron is F-ing 23!!!!!!Game 7Lebron 45 - 5 6 Ben wallace 3 pts 4 rbsilgauskus 2-8 8 pts 5 rbdswally who started 0 pointsdelante west 15 ptsplayers not Lebron 16-38oh and Boston had a guy named Kevin Garnett and a guy named Ray allen in addition to pierceBoston won zero games in cleveland - in fact they didn't come close to winning one whereas three of the games in Boston were close

Okay, so let's break it down.Game 1:Big Z - 22/12/2/2/2Ray Allen - 0/4/1/4 turnoversPaul Pierce - 4/5/4/6 turnoversGame 2: Another close game 89-73Big Z - 19/5/1/2 (9/12 shooting, lucky Lebron had an extra 12 shots to score an extra two points hey?)Game 3:Big Ben: 9/9/2/1/2 - can't ask much more for a guy that actually doesn't shoot the basketballWally - 16Delonte - 21/5/7Big Z - 12/8/6Joe Smith - 17/6Ray Allen had another magnificent 10 point gameGame 4:Wally - 14 pointsBoobie - 14/6/4Sideshow Bob - 12/6Meanwhile the big 3 shot a combined 0.405 from the floor and still stayed in it until the 4th quarterGame 5:Delonte - 21 pointsThis one goes against the norm in that the Celtics mainly showed up and Ray Allen managed an astounding 11 pointsGame 6:Ah yes, another home "blowout" 74-69Big Z had an off game and still managed 7/9/1/3Delonte had 10 (both of which are significant in a game where a score of 74 wins)Ray Allen amassed 9 pointsPierce had 16 on 5/15 shootingGame 7:Well, we all know about your "woes". Meanwhile Pierce's teammates were just tearing it up.KG - 13 pointsRay Allen - 4 pointsWell, I guess that settles it then.

CindyLou, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 3:56 AM, said:

Doc Rivers!This thread is ridiculous.

Yes

keith crime, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 3:57 AM, said:

the fact is simple Kobe had a better supporting castthe cavs played the celtics infinitely betterKobe gave upso how can he possibly be the better playerbtw he has to be one of the worst teammates ever

How did Kobe give up? And what does he being a "bad teammate" have to do with anything? As for the bolded statement, it's the opposite. The celts played the cavs infinitely worse.

Jadaki, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 4:01 AM, said:

<---- am not a Kobe fanboy, will you get that through your thick ass skull. That I have to explain why Kobe is better just shows how biased you're to your home town team. If Lebron playing in NY (oh wait, he will be soon) and Kobe in Cleveland you would be flip flopping like an out of water fish.The Celtics were playing much better basketball in the Finals than they were in the first two rounds of the playoffs.

Mainly yes

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 5:21 AM, said:

I dont agree at all that you cant bitch about his teammates just because they made the finals. You can make two arguments. One, the one you are making, is that if they made the finals his teammates cant be so bad that they are "bitch-about" worthy. The other argument is that Lebron is so great that he carried a mediocre supporting cast to the Finals. Not only is this a legit argument.....it is the ACCEPTED argument. The group of people who think Lebron has had an above average cast of players in Cleveland is you and those players and their moms.Almost as good as the incredible excuse to explain why the Cavs gave Boston such a good run last year while the Lakers got their doors blown off. The Celtics were "playing better" after the first two rounds. First, they played the Cavs in round three. So, there is that. Then, there is the plausible conclusion that the Celtics played better in the finals because their opposition crapped the bed. But no, obviously the Celtics just stepped it up in the Finals. Completely unprovable. I think you nailed it when you said you liked trolling in this thread. Most of your sports commentary shows a lot of insight. Your comments in this thread fall under troll-like.

I agree with most of what you posted, aside from the football references which went way above my head :)However, almost everybody seems to be underrating the Cavs cast. Big Z is basically the best possible fit for Lebron. He runs the pick and pop better than almost anybody I've seen and his height and D is what keeps the Cavs in games. He is a top player, and I think you're all blind for not noticing this. Or we're just conveniently forgetting about him. The guy has basically infinite range, a strong body, can post up, can block shots both on-ball and weakside, rebounds well and is just a massive presence.As for the second paragraph, the Lakers didn't get their door blown off. It was only because ESPN idiots decided that the Lakers were clear favourites for no real reason. As for the statement that the C's played the Cavs in "round 3" makes me automatically discount anything else you may have said in that paragraph.

Poppy_Hillis, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 6:50 AM, said:

I'm not getting in the middle of this, but I'm not sure how people think the Lakers "crapped the bed" or got their "doors blown off". They were one bad 3rd quarter away from taking a 3-2 lead back to Boston.

Ehhh, sure, why not. I'm too tired to argue what is basically true (but the Lakers should carry a 3-2 lead to Boston because of the retarded way the finals are played)

[SuitedAces21]

keith crime, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 10:59 AM, said:

oh and you're own personal hero Kobe Bryant - got his ass kicked in the finals and basically gave up

OUTRAGEOUS.RIDICULOUS.LUDICROUS.

[chgocubs99]

I'm not trying to be a douche here but keith and ss24 are clearly biased and while you may be able to occasionally find something of substance in their arguments, posting things like the press clippings from his 2OT games really don't add much value to the discussion here.

[keith crime]

please dont put me with ss24Z is fine for what he isthe pick and roll is overrated for years its been their only offense and utterly predictablewhen he gets the ball in the post he's a black hole and he gets a lot of his rebounds on his own misses - he's been the second best player on the team but nothing outrageously special - maybe it's the coaches fault for years they've gotten him his 10 points in the first quarter and then ignored him the rest of the gamethe pick and roll now seems to work much better with Verajao now that he's matured and is in shape - he has more mobility and is a better finisherKobe clearly was extremely frustrated by the Celtics last finals - although i'll admit that Lebron had his troubles too and was most of the reason they didn't steal one of the first two games but as for this year theyve now won 17 of 18 and the last nine by an average of 22 pointslebron may not win the scoring title this year because he's sat on the bench for the entire fourth quarter for like 6 of the last 7 gamesthere's definitely good reason to be excited in clevelandif Lebron goes to New York I'll be bummed but it wont change my opinion of him as a playerI've been down about the indians losing ramirez for years and i still love him

[keith crime]

chgocubs99, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 10:26 PM, said:

I'm not trying to be a douche here but keith and ss24 are clearly biased and while you may be able to occasionally find something of substance in their arguments, posting things like the press clippings from his 2OT games really don't add much value to the discussion here.

the reason i posted that detroit clipping is thiswhen was the last time you saw such a dominant big game performance in the NBA like that one esp by a 22 year old?it's games like that that denote that someone is special - much like when Magic played center in the NBA finals against Phillyalso when lebron first came into the league he was a defensive liability - now he's the cavs all time leader in stealsrecently"Though clearly known more for his offensive exploits, James has been working hard to improve his defense the past few seasons and has often volunteered to guard the opponent's best player - like Indiana's Danny Granger. Granger came into The Q last Friday averaging more than 24 points per game. He scored four against James. In fact, in his past three games, James has held the opponents' starting small forward (New York's Wilson Chandler, Granger and Charlotte's Gerald Wallace) to a total of 17 points and 25.9 percent shooting (7 of 27). Granger and Wallace recorded their season lows. "

[showstopper24]

Cavs are sick. Congrats to Z and 'Bron.

[chgocubs99]

showstopper24, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 2:26 AM, said:

Cavs are sick. Congrats to Z and 'Bron.

I bumped this for you or please click on the link. http://www.fullconta...howtopic=130620PS I don't think Z and 'Bron read this thread

[CaneBrain]

babylondonks, on Tuesday, December 9th, 2008, 5:39 PM, said:

I agree with most of what you posted, aside from the football references which went way above my head :)However, almost everybody seems to be underrating the Cavs cast. Big Z is basically the best possible fit for Lebron. He runs the pick and pop better than almost anybody I've seen and his height and D is what keeps the Cavs in games. He is a top player, and I think you're all blind for not noticing this. Or we're just conveniently forgetting about him. The guy has basically infinite range, a strong body, can post up, can block shots both on-ball and weakside, rebounds well and is just a massive presence.As for the second paragraph, the Lakers didn't get their door blown off. It was only because ESPN idiots decided that the Lakers were clear favourites for no real reason. As for the statement that the C's played the Cavs in "round 3" makes me automatically discount anything else you may have said in that paragraph.

alright alright....I dont know why I thought the Cavs played the Celts last year in round 3. Does not invalidate the other points. Mea culpa. And Dominique played with an old Moses Malone not the real Moses Malone. I am not impressed by the other three guys. None of them were ever as good as Garnett or Pippen or Shaq or any of the other second bananas on the title teams that are being talked about the most.Big Z would be a perfect teammate for Lebron if he could play any D (too slow to cover the pick and roll) and stay on the court (constant foot issues). They end up having to have Varejao (offensive skills absent) on the floor at crunchtime. But, yes, Big Z does some nice things. I watched most of the NBA Finals last year and the Lakers were outplayed for 80% of it. Game 6 was an embarrassment. The Lakers did NOT give the Celtics a good series.

[CaneBrain]

let me just say that the argument I was interested in has gotten sidetracked. that argument is if you are starting a team from scratch right now you should be taking lebron and that Lebron is clearly either the best or the 2nd best player in the league. Wade is third.

[Jadaki]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 11:30 AM, said:

Wade is third.

But he is so much prettier than Lebron...

[CaneBrain]

Jadaki, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 9:32 AM, said:

But he is so much prettier than Lebron...

lol. And I would not trade him for Lebron either. Loyalty.....the guy has been awesome since the moment he stepped on the court for the Heat. But I know when I watch them both play who is the better player by a decent margin.Heat are looking good this year.

[Jadaki]

CaneBrain, on Wednesday, December 10th, 2008, 11:49 AM, said:

who is the better player by a decent margin.

I disagree, even if you want to say one is better the margin isn't that wide.

[babylondonks]

CaneBrain, on Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 4:21 AM, said:

alright alright....I dont know why I thought the Cavs played the Celts last year in round 3. Does not invalidate the other points. Mea culpa. And Dominique played with an old Moses Malone not the real Moses Malone. I am not impressed by the other three guys. None of them were ever as good as Garnett or Pippen or Shaq or any of the other second bananas on the title teams that are being talked about the most.Big Z would be a perfect teammate for Lebron if he could play any D (too slow to cover the pick and roll) and stay on the court (constant foot issues). They end up having to have Varejao (offensive skills absent) on the floor at crunchtime. But, yes, Big Z does some nice things. I watched most of the NBA Finals last year and the Lakers were outplayed for 80% of it. Game 6 was an embarrassment. The Lakers did NOT give the Celtics a good series.

If I recall Doc averaged a double double or close to it for most of those seasons and while Moses was there he was around a 16-18PPG scorer, so not completely useless. But yes, at that stage none of them were the second guy good enough to bring them over the hump.It's too early in the morning to go and check, but I'm pretty sure that since that season around 2001 where he had the major foot surgery, the most games he's missed in a season was nine, which was last season.I actually think the Lakers were closer in some respects that others think, but they certainly didn't play as well as the Cavs. Especially on the defensive end.

CaneBrain, on Thursday, December 11th, 2008, 4:30 AM, said:

let me just say that the argument I was interested in has gotten sidetracked. that argument is if you are starting a team from scratch right now you should be taking lebron and that Lebron is clearly either the best or the 2nd best player in the league. Wade is third.

Agreed :)Well, 2nd after Sam Cassell