More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

More impressive: Jordan's 6 or Russell's 11?

1) Jordan
8
38%
2) Russell
13
61%
 
Total votes : 21

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:19 am

Troll be trolling....
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23017
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:23 am

Magic Skywalker wrote:
LetsGoLakers wrote:What was I thinking. This is a Laker site. Kobe is God and considered MJ's arch rival so of course he is not going to get his just due while poor Kobe gets no credit.


I was gonna say something more about the "debate", but I don't think this is really a debate anymore.

Just one thing: As a Lakers fan, I really don't care much about MJ's 6 rings. Sure, I love Kobe and it's a shame that everything he's done in his life comes with a "but Michael has...". I don't like it.... But I like even less.... MUCH less, the fact that every historical accomplishment by my team always comes with a "17>16"... I HATE that, I really HATE that, I HATE it to a level you certainly can't even begin to imagine (but I'm sure many posters here do understand me perfectly well). And that's because of Bill's 11 titles.

Things is... even though I hate it, I've yet to become such a bad loser, and just blame the eras as the reason the Celtics have more championships than the Lakers. I'm not going to take that away from them... not like that. I want the Lakers to take that away from them winning at least one more title.

I do feel the Lakers are the best team in NBA history, even if they're one title short (which I do admit is the most important category). We had a lot of chances in the 60s, and we blew them, while Boston took them all.

I'll be honest... I also don't know what were you thinking. This is a Laker site. How in the world would you think we would care more about 6 Bulls titles over 11 Celtics titles. I would gladly exchange the 6 MJ titles for the 11 Bill Russell's title if that means stripping 5 titles out of Boston... but that just isn't the reality.


I see where you're coming from. I would rather have the Lakers 16 titles over the Celtics 17 titles because the Celts got 11 of theirs in one run. It was a historic run but nevertheless, one run with primarily one collection of players. A lot of them who are in the HOF. The Lakers had dynasties in more eras and since 1980, we have 10 rings while they only have 4.

And I never COMPLETELY discredited Russell's 11 rings. I just think you have to CONSIDER the era and level of comp and can't look at rings at face value. I mean Mikan won what, 3 or 4 championships in the 50's? Can anyone say that his 3/4 rings are more impressive than the Lakers 3 peat in 2000-02 given the level of comp? I don't know if Mikan even makes an NBA team today. I say without a doubt that Russell is a top 10 ATG. He has to be if you are being objective. But I don't get overwhelmed by his 11 rings and think it's the be all, end all.

And imo, I think MJ's 6 rings in his last 6 full seasons as a Bull is more impressive given the fact that the NBA was a global sport where the talent was being scouted all over the world. You just didn't have that in the 60's. Basketball wasn't even mainstream back then, not even close. It was a great era for superstars but not of great teams. There is a difference. The only great team were the Lakers and as you said, they kept coming up short and for that, you have to give Russell and his Celts credit.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 11:27 am

Image
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23017
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Juronimo on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:26 pm

Another reason as to why you can't just dismiss Russell's rings.

If you take the top teams in the NBA for the last 30 or 40 years or whatever, what you have is in any given year he have maybe 4 teams or so with a legitimate chance or winning a ring, give or take 1 or 2 teams. So just because you have more teams now doesn't really change that, since only a few of those teams are ever good, and it has to do with quality of ownership/management, the market, and transcendent talent. Only a few teams at any given time can benefit from all three.

So if you're an elite team, do you have to worry about the Milwaukee Bucks or the Charlotte Bobcats, of course not. You have to worry about OKC, Indiana, Miami. You're not concerned as much with all of the average teams.

If you look at the modern era, there have only been a few good teams in any given time frame.

80's: Lakers, Those Guys, 76ers, Pistons, Rockets (only 5 teams!)
Teams that actually won: Lakers, 76ers, Those Guys, Pistons
90's: Bulls, Rockets, Magic, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics, Suns, Pistons, Trailblazers (a whopping 8 teams over an entire decade)
Teams that actually won: Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Pistons
2000's: Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Those Guys, Queens, Nets, Pistons, Mavs (only 8 teams in a league with 30 teams)
Teams that actually won: Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Heat, Those Guys
2010+ Lakers, Heat, OKC, San Antonio, Indy, Dallas (currently 5 teams in a league with 30 teams)
Teams that won: Lakers, Heat, Mavs

The point is most of the other teams in the league are cannon fodder for the elite teams in the league (look at the current eastern conference). In Russel's era there would be less cannon fodder which means if anything it might even be more difficult to win in his era.

The point is looking at the increase in teams doesn't necessarily make things more difficult for a well run club or for a club that is able to build around transcendent talent. Those good teams still have to get through the other 4 - 8 good teams in the league to get to the chip just as they had to do back then.

If you had parity in the NBA, then the argument that Jordan's rings were more difficult would have merit but that isn't nor has that ever been in the case in the modern NBA.
Image

Ferguson, we hear you.
RIP Mike Brown.
User avatar
Juronimo

 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Fist in the air on a quest for justice

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Tue Mar 04, 2014 12:44 pm

Juronimo wrote:Another reason as to why you can't just dismiss Russell's rings.

If you take the top teams in the NBA for the last 30 or 40 years or whatever, what you have is in any given year he have maybe 4 teams or so with a legitimate chance or winning a ring, give or take 1 or 2 teams. So just because you have more teams now doesn't really change that, since only a few of those teams are ever good, and it has to do with quality of ownership/management, the market, and transcendent talent. Only a few teams at any given time can benefit from all three.

So if you're an elite team, do you have to worry about the Milwaukee Bucks or the Charlotte Bobcats, of course not. You have to worry about OKC, Indiana, Miami. You're not concerned as much with all of the average teams.

If you look at the modern era, there have only been a few good teams in any given time frame.

80's: Lakers, Those Guys, 76ers, Pistons, Rockets (only 5 teams!)
Teams that actually won: Lakers, 76ers, Those Guys, Pistons
90's: Bulls, Rockets, Magic, Knicks, Jazz, Sonics, Suns, Pistons, Trailblazers (a whopping 8 teams over an entire decade)
Teams that actually won: Bulls, Rockets, Spurs, Pistons
2000's: Lakers, Spurs, Heat, Those Guys, Queens, Nets, Pistons, Mavs (only 8 teams in a league with 30 teams)
Teams that actually won: Lakers, Spurs, Pistons, Heat, Those Guys
2010+ Lakers, Heat, OKC, San Antonio, Indy, Dallas (currently 5 teams in a league with 30 teams)
Teams that won: Lakers, Heat, Mavs

The point is most of the other teams in the league are cannon fodder for the elite teams in the league (look at the current eastern conference). In Russel's era there would be less cannon fodder which means if anything it might even be more difficult to win in his era.

The point is looking at the increase in teams doesn't necessarily make things more difficult for a well run club or for a club that is able to build around transcendent talent. Those good teams still have to get through the other 4 - 8 good teams in the league to get to the chip just as they had to do back then.

If you had parity in the NBA, then the argument that Jordan's rings were more difficult would have merit but that isn't nor has that ever been in the case in the modern NBA.


You're ignoring the talent pool factor. It's like saying I have to compete against a bunch of 5th grade basketball players in a tournament to play one on one. Just because there are a few good players in that group and I beat them doesn't make it impressive. Level of comp is EVERYTHING. I know that's an extreme example but i'm trying to stress the importance of talent pool and level of comp. The 60's just didn't have the all encompassing talent pool the NBA has experienced in recent decades. Now that doesn't mean there can't be any great talent in a smaller talent pool as the 60's might be the greatest era ever for individual superstar talent. But the bigger the talent pool, the more likely the better the competition will be. By the time Jordan started winning rings, teams were already scouting for international talent. I would say the league really started to scout for international talent in the late 80's. That's when you started seeing guys like Petrovic, Sarinas, etc. playing in the league. And after the Dream Team in 1992, the game really took off internationally.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Juronimo on Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:43 pm

You failed to address any point I made.
Image

Ferguson, we hear you.
RIP Mike Brown.
User avatar
Juronimo

 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Fist in the air on a quest for justice

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:47 pm

Juronimo wrote:You failed to address any point I made.


That's what he does. Next you'll be told that if you don't see it his way that it's not worth the effort any longer.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23017
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby charvin on Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:23 pm

I typed and tried to come up with a more detailed argument, but I don't see the need to anymore.

Lets Go Lakers, you seem to have your answer already and if that's the case, there's no need for a debate. If you say that international talent made all the difference between the two comparisons, then it's clear that you want to hear an argument swing in favor of Jordan's 6 rings.
charvin

 
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 12:53 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:33 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote: ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.


"Steve Kerr" and "defense" in the same sentence? So you are on record saying that Pippen could score as easily as MJ and that Kerr was a defensive jaggernaut? I mean anyone with any common knowledge of basketball would know without a shadow of a doubt that both statements are 100% false. But hey, keep calling me ignorant, it's kind of amusing.


LMAO. So you highlighted what I said as to prove something but all you did was prove that you are trolling. In the very sentence you highlighted I said "and the rest" were a defensive juggernaut. Yes, the Chicago Bulls TEAM was considered a defensive juggernaut. As usual you took one portion and ran with it foolishly without any real thought or understanding of the time, the team or the abilities of any of them. And funny enough you say "keep calling me ignorant" when you were the one that said it in the first place. What really is amusing is that all you are doing is proving what everyone has been saying in this thread and that is 1) you are a troll. 2) you have no idea what you are talking about past what you can look up. 3) you can't defend your point so you revert back to junior highschool banter. Whenever you really have a point I'll be interested to see it as of yet I have seen nothing from you but nonsense.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30604
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:34 pm

Rooscooter wrote:
Juronimo wrote:You failed to address any point I made.


That's what he does. Next you'll be told that if you don't see it his way that it's not worth the effort any longer.

yes it is pretty clear
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30604
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby John3:16 on Tue Mar 04, 2014 5:36 pm

charvin wrote:Lets Go Lakers, you seem to have your answer already and if that's the case, there's no need for a debate.


Well said. :jam2:
Image
User avatar
John3:16
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31882
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Anywhere but LD after a loss.

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:45 am

Juronimo wrote:You failed to address any point I made.


Actually I did, just in an indirect way. I was stressing the importance of the talent pool. So no matter what teams rises to the "cream of the crop", it's the talent pool that's also important. But I see your points.

As for parity in the NBA, you will never see that regardless of era and that's because basketball has always been a superstar driven league. The team with a couple of dominant superstars will almost always rise to the top. You almost never see a team with just a bunch of solid players becoming an elite team. Basketball is a superstar driven league and will always be one. So to say because there was no parity in MJ's league and that somehow made his era weak is not very fair to MJ because there will always be a few dominant teams in the league at any given time.

But I just don't get how some of you (not saying you specifically) can bash MJ's era but praise the 80's. The 80's is the toughest era ever, I will give you that, but MJ also played in the 80's! He beat the Lakers (Finals) and the Pistons in the playoffs. And those are two of the teams that made the 80's what it is. So how come he never gets credit for that? Maybe it's simply because we are in a Lakers forum. Granted, expansion took place in 1989 and that somewhat diluted the talent but I still think the talent pool was sufficient to compensate for 2 extra teams.

Also on a side note, MJ's Bulls have the two best seasons ever in terms of regular season wins. 72 wins in 1996 and 69 wins in 1997 (tied with 1972 Lakers). That's incredibly impressive. To have back-to-back seasons where you win the most games ever in league history is insane.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby John3:16 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:49 am

^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.
Image
User avatar
John3:16
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31882
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Anywhere but LD after a loss.

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:52 am

charvin wrote:I typed and tried to come up with a more detailed argument, but I don't see the need to anymore.

Lets Go Lakers, you seem to have your answer already and if that's the case, there's no need for a debate. If you say that international talent made all the difference between the two comparisons, then it's clear that you want to hear an argument swing in favor of Jordan's 6 rings.


No, i'm not saying international talent made all of the difference in the world. I'm saying that because the game became popular in recent decades, it forced the league to scout for talent around the world, something that would've never happened in the 1960's. Everything is correlated to some extent. The popularity of the game attracts more fans, which drives up league revenue, which increases player salaries, which increases a young kid's interest in becoming a professional player (increase in talent pool). So when you look at the situation from a macro level, the modern era clearly had a larger talent pool to work with.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:56 am

puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote: ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.


"Steve Kerr" and "defense" in the same sentence? So you are on record saying that Pippen could score as easily as MJ and that Kerr was a defensive jaggernaut? I mean anyone with any common knowledge of basketball would know without a shadow of a doubt that both statements are 100% false. But hey, keep calling me ignorant, it's kind of amusing.


LMAO. So you highlighted what I said as to prove something but all you did was prove that you are trolling. In the very sentence you highlighted I said "and the rest" were a defensive juggernaut. Yes, the Chicago Bulls TEAM was considered a defensive juggernaut. As usual you took one portion and ran with it foolishly without any real thought or understanding of the time, the team or the abilities of any of them. And funny enough you say "keep calling me ignorant" when you were the one that said it in the first place. What really is amusing is that all you are doing is proving what everyone has been saying in this thread and that is 1) you are a troll. 2) you have no idea what you are talking about past what you can look up. 3) you can't defend your point so you revert back to junior highschool banter. Whenever you really have a point I'll be interested to see it as of yet I have seen nothing from you but nonsense.


MJ, Pip and Grant were what made them a defensive jaggernaut in the first 3 peat while MJ, Pip, Rodman and Harper are what made them such in the 2nd 3 peat. Kerr had nothing to do with any of their defensive dominance. The guy was nothing but a spot up shooter. Nothing more. He doesn't belong in any sentence regarding defense. So yeah, when I see that, I had to respond. Maybe you should clarify your posts.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:00 am

John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:04 am

John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


Yeah, the Pistons beat the Lakers in 1989 with Jabbar (granted Magic and Scott were injured) but that same Pistons team took a healthy Showtime Lakers to 7 games in the Finals and had Isiah not been hurt, they might've won that series and possibly had a 3 peat. And MJ's Bulls dominated those same Pistons. But I get it, the agenda here is the discredit MJ at all costs.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby therealdeal on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:21 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.

Image
Stu : "Yeah, that's an old fashioned whoopin'."
therealdeal
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 40417
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:03 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby John3:16 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:24 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.


Overreact much?
Image
User avatar
John3:16
CL Global Moderator
 
Posts: 31882
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 12:23 am
Location: Anywhere but LD after a loss.

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:25 am

John3:16 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.


Overreact much?


It deflects from a lack of knowledge.....
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23017
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:32 am

Rooscooter wrote:
John3:16 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.


Overreact much?


It deflects from a lack of knowledge.....


Pretty sad you keep adding in these low blows despite the fact that I haven't addressed you for days. Are you THAT bored?
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Lets Go Lakers on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:40 am

John3:16 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.


Overreact much?


Nitpick much? Because that's all you did.
User avatar
Lets Go Lakers

 
Posts: 2864
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:25 pm

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Rooscooter on Wed Mar 05, 2014 11:46 am

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
Rooscooter wrote:
John3:16 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


I agree, that MJ sure does suck. So overrated.


Overreact much?


It deflects from a lack of knowledge.....


Pretty sad you keep adding in these low blows despite the fact that I haven't addressed you for days. Are you THAT bored?


You haven't addressed my points at all....ever. That's why you stopped. I called you on the BS of completely ignoring the people you wish to debate and your having nothing behind you arguments to push back at people who actually have seen several eras in the NBA. You show contempt and no respect for those opinions and rely on obscure stats, YouTube videos and hyperbole to deflect rather than substantiate your points.

This is yet again another attempt to deflect the arguments down to a personal level..... Poor you..... Grumpy guy is being unfair again......

I'll be here as long as you keep brushing off the thoughtful arguments of well respected posters with your silly crap.
"If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

“The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded." Dwight Eisenhower

"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it" Thomas Sowell
User avatar
Rooscooter

 
Posts: 23017
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:25 pm
Location: Chandler AZ and Andalué

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby Juronimo on Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:23 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
John3:16 wrote:^^^ MJ didn't beat the 80s Lakers with Kareem.

Big difference.


Yeah, the Pistons beat the Lakers in 1989 with Jabbar (granted Magic and Scott were injured) but that same Pistons team took a healthy Showtime Lakers to 7 games in the Finals and had Isiah not been hurt, they might've won that series and possibly had a 3 peat. And MJ's Bulls dominated those same Pistons. But I get it, the agenda here is the discredit MJ at all costs.


No one is discrediting MJ.

What is happening is you're on a campaign to discredit Russell at all costs and cherry picking arguments to make your point. Some of us disagree with that, even though we're Laker fans and most of us hate the team Russell played for. Fact is he deserves the respect he gets, the respect you refuse to give him due to your agenda.

Also you're incorrect about MJ dominating the Pistons. They didn't get past the Pistons until '91. Before then they lost to them 2 years in a row.
Image

Ferguson, we hear you.
RIP Mike Brown.
User avatar
Juronimo

 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:20 pm
Location: Fist in the air on a quest for justice

Re: More Impressive: Jordan's 6 rings or Russell's 11 rings?

Postby puffyusaf#2 on Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:38 pm

Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote:
Lets Go Lakers wrote:
puffyusaf#2 wrote: ignorant? Some of the best posters on the board have said your post are full of holes and eventually you fall back to nothing but stats. It is obvious you have no idea about who Michael Jeffrey Jordan (Holy quote ESPN batman) played with or the value of his teammates. MJ was able to be MJ because of the guys he had around him. Pippin, Kerr, Rodman and the rest were a defensive juggernaut in a, lets say it again week decade, and allowed MIke the scorer go crazy on other teams. The BULLS, you know his team, was at the time an amazing defensive squad add to that Scottie and MJ both could take the ball off the rim and push it from coast to coast. I'll take my ignorance based in facts than yours based in wwhatever it is you have found on Wikipedia.


"Steve Kerr" and "defense" in the same sentence? So you are on record saying that Pippen could score as easily as MJ and that Kerr was a defensive jaggernaut? I mean anyone with any common knowledge of basketball would know without a shadow of a doubt that both statements are 100% false. But hey, keep calling me ignorant, it's kind of amusing.


LMAO. So you highlighted what I said as to prove something but all you did was prove that you are trolling. In the very sentence you highlighted I said "and the rest" were a defensive juggernaut. Yes, the Chicago Bulls TEAM was considered a defensive juggernaut. As usual you took one portion and ran with it foolishly without any real thought or understanding of the time, the team or the abilities of any of them. And funny enough you say "keep calling me ignorant" when you were the one that said it in the first place. What really is amusing is that all you are doing is proving what everyone has been saying in this thread and that is 1) you are a troll. 2) you have no idea what you are talking about past what you can look up. 3) you can't defend your point so you revert back to junior highschool banter. Whenever you really have a point I'll be interested to see it as of yet I have seen nothing from you but nonsense.


MJ, Pip and Grant were what made them a defensive jaggernaut in the first 3 peat while MJ, Pip, Rodman and Harper are what made them such in the 2nd 3 peat. Kerr had nothing to do with any of their defensive dominance. The guy was nothing but a spot up shooter. Nothing more. He doesn't belong in any sentence regarding defense. So yeah, when I see that, I had to respond. Maybe you should clarify your posts.

so what you are saying is that my point was right and you had nothing to argue so you jumped on the name "Kerr" in order to try and distort the point being made. The post I made was clear that MJ's TEAM (see post for several references to that word) was a defensive juggernaut. Again, you have no point and really you seem to not know what you are talking about. As Roo has stated I have yet to see you actually defend a point with anything of substance. All this back and forth about defense and then you simply agree in a, how did you say to juranimo, Oh "in an indirect way" agree with my statement. Sorry but maybe you need help with your own clarifications.
For what it's worth, the Lakers also clinched the Pacific Division, an achievement Bryant dismissed by saying "We don't hang divisions." No, only the big NBA championship banners are considered wall-worthy for the Lakers.
User avatar
puffyusaf#2

 
Posts: 30604
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 3:15 pm
Location: Chasing the dream to an Oscar

PreviousNext

Return to NBA Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 12 guests

cron
Advertise Here | Privacy Policy | ©2008 Sculu Sports. Come Strong.