IndyHawk wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

austinslater25 wrote:
Grew up idolizing Jordan but to me LeBron is the just the better all around player and who I would call the greatest of all time. People get romanticized by Jordan because we grew up with him but I still give a slight nod to James. Regardless its a fun debate and just glad I got a chance to watch both.

I agree.

If you're comparing the two players in a vacuum, only one player revolutionized the sport, James. He can literally play all five positions on the floor, sometimes rotating from one position to the other in the same game.

Yes Jordan won six rings, but he also had a far superior coach and supporting cast. Can't hold that against Lebron.

You forget there was Magic who played all 5 and did all well in his prime.
Lebron is great in his era which is not MJ's era or Magic's and that is obvious.
The game these days with the soft D and 3 point shootouts is just nothing to me.
You say MJ had a far superior coach/cast?He would have won with Doug Collins.
The cast he had for the first Three Peat and second is Pippen The others were not the same players.
You look at the Cavs/GS they have 3 superstars so I don't see how you can use that.
The one fact you will find is Jordan/Pippen were named on the all defensive team multiple times.
I watched most of the Bulls games for the last 10 years of MJ's time.
There is nobody that I have seen that comes close to him when it came to winning.
He had the ability to channel his will on others on the team to win.
No matter who they try to replace him with.
You will never see the likes of him again.

Magic IMO is a more fair comparison to James as far as versatility........but other than assists, Lebron far surpasses Magic in career pts per game, etc. by almost 10 pts per game over his career.

And Lebron does not have two superstars, neither Love or Irving can carry a team, as we found out when Lebron went to Miami. Did Love even score a point in the last game of the finals? Both wildly inconsistent players, and nowhere near the the level of Pippin.

Listen, this is a fun debate, and it's VERY close for me. Jordan is THE MAN, but if you forced me to choose GOAT? I'm going with Lebron, because he's the most well rounded versatile player in the history of the sport. He can do everything.

It is a fun debate and I could very well be wrong. The one thing I am sure of is that it's much closer then most people want to admit or believe. I get why some people are put off by James but you're missing a special talent in the process instead of enjoying seeing something we might not see for a long time. Not speaking to you Si just a general observation from the crown who hates James.

Indyhawk I noticed one comment from your post above. You said Jordan would will his team to win and I do agree with that. But I do think we overstate that a little. The Bulls won almost 60 games the year after Jordan left with almost the same team in place minus Jordan. How did Lebron's team fair the year after he left? Cleveland went from making the finals to being one of the worst teams in NBA history without him. I'm not saying you're not right about Jordan but I think Lebron, while doing it slightly differently, had a much greater impact on actual wins and losses because of his talent. He literally carried terrible rosters to the finals multiple times. No one else has been able to do that and may never be able to match him in that regard.

Unfortunately you're simply reinforcing them.

You are missing alot of components of the style of basketball played at that era. But it's not worth getting into. I think it just shows how different it is. "How would Stockton cover Lebron at the perimeter" shows the difference between the two eras. Stockton wouldn't cover him alone. He'd turn him into double teams and traps, push him towards the big power forward or center controlling the paind. But in the modern NBA, that's basically how it goes. Run by (or shoot over) your perimeter defender and it's basically a walk (literally, by rule) to the basket. Hardly anything is contested.

The era itself is littered with very good to great teams and a long, long list of the NBA's all time greats. This just reflects how difficult it was for Jordan's teams to make it to and win 6 titles. I listed the players he went against in his Finals, leaving out the players and teams those Western conference teams beat just to get to Jordan (as well as the teams his Bulls beat.)

In terms of LeBron, you missed another one of my points. He is certainly in the conversation as the greatest player of all time. I am saying he would not be if he came up in that era of basketball. He would be a perennial All Star, occasional MVP candidate. He would not have Jordan's scoring records, defensive awards and nowhere near his titles. Players like Durant, Westbrook and Lebron are scoring in droves due to a complete lack of individual and team defending in this era. Not sure how you can watch games from both and come to any different conclusion. You compare the big names of this era with those of Jordan's and it's almost laughable to see any parity.

In terms of what others say.. well, to suggest that a group of people look idyllically at the past is no different than to suggest that those same place far too much emphasis on the present. It's perspective.

I enjoy the scoring of the modern game, love the scoring. It's not worse, it's just different.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Listen, this is a fun debate, and it's VERY close for me. Jordan is THE MAN, but if you forced me to choose GOAT? I'm going with Lebron, because he's the most well rounded versatile player in the history of the sport. He can do everything.

Except defend and then have to play offense.

I love Lebron. We exaggerate his abilities because it's so damn easy in this iteration of the NBA.

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Listen, this is a fun debate, and it's VERY close for me. Jordan is THE MAN, but if you forced me to choose GOAT? I'm going with Lebron, because he's the most well rounded versatile player in the history of the sport. He can do everything.

Except defend and then have to play offense.

I love Lebron. We exaggerate his abilities because it's so damn easy in this iteration of the NBA.

Up until 2014 Lebron made 5 straight 1st team all defense.

We can debate intangibles like is Lebron clutch like MJ, is he a good team leader, does he make players better around him, etc. Those are real conversations when comparing him to MJ. But saying he's not a good defender is flat out incorrect, he's one of the best in the league.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Listen, this is a fun debate, and it's VERY close for me. Jordan is THE MAN, but if you forced me to choose GOAT? I'm going with Lebron, because he's the most well rounded versatile player in the history of the sport. He can do everything.

Except defend and then have to play offense.

I love Lebron. We exaggerate his abilities because it's so damn easy in this iteration of the NBA.

Up until 2014 Lebron made 5 straight 1st team all defense.

We can debate intangibles like is Lebron clutch like MJ, is he a good team leader, does he make players better around him, etc. Those are real conversations when comparing him to MJ. But saying he's not a good defender is flat out incorrect, he's one of the best in the league.

So, clutch is an intangible we can debate, but being a good (best?) defender in a league where the standard of defense is far less is not? I mean going on facts alone you could poke a number of holes in that. However, intangibly speaking, being on a first team defense with the likes of Serge Ibaka, Marc Gasol, and Tyson Chandler should be subjected to alot of debate about its merit in contrast to Dennis Rodman, Gary Payton and David Robinson.

Again, Lebron is fantastic. I don't think he reaches the same status he has now playing in the Jordan era.

Edit. Sarge said it much better in far fewer words than I did.

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Listen, this is a fun debate, and it's VERY close for me. Jordan is THE MAN, but if you forced me to choose GOAT? I'm going with Lebron, because he's the most well rounded versatile player in the history of the sport. He can do everything.

Except defend and then have to play offense.

I love Lebron. We exaggerate his abilities because it's so damn easy in this iteration of the NBA.

Up until 2014 Lebron made 5 straight 1st team all defense.

We can debate intangibles like is Lebron clutch like MJ, is he a good team leader, does he make players better around him, etc. Those are real conversations when comparing him to MJ. But saying he's not a good defender is flat out incorrect, he's one of the best in the league.

So, clutch is an intangible we can debate, but being a good (best?) defender in a league where the standard of defense is far less is not? I mean going on facts alone you could poke a number of holes in that. However, intangibly speaking, being on a first team defense with the likes of Serge Ibaka, Marc Gasol, and Tyson Chandler should be subjected to alot of debate about its merit in contrast to Dennis Rodman, Gary Payton and David Robinson.

Again, Lebron is fantastic. I don't think he reaches the same status he has now playing in the Jordan era.

You said Lebron wasn't a good defender, and I corrected you. He doesn't possess a time machine to go back and play in the Jordan era, all he can do is play now, and he's been one of the best in the league. Period.

I didnt say he wasn't a good defender. I said he never had to be a good defender and try and get his points at the same time. "except defend AND THEN have to play offense." You didn't correct anything, you inferred a statement not made.

I also didn't debate whether he was one of the best now. He is the best now. If we are going to be debate two players from different eras I would assume we would bring in perspective of those eras. It's a pretty common debate. If you don't mind, i'd like to continue having it, even without a time machine. We still do have facts. We can see the different styles and players that existed in both eras. That's part of debating "intangibles"

Period.

The real end to the Lebron Jordan debate is to ask how many finals did Jordan lose?

Uncle Si wrote:I didnt say he wasn't a good defender. I said he never had to be a good defender and try and get his points at the same time. "except defend AND THEN have to play offense." You didn't correct anything, you inferred a statement not made.

This doesn't even make sense. That's what defending in basketball is, transitioning from offense to defense, game by game, play by play.

You don't make 5 all defense teams by picking and choosing when to play defense.

btw, if your point was valid, it'd even make a stronger case for how good of a defender Lebron is, because he's still considered a great defender by his peers and coaches even though sometimes he focuses on scoring. That's how much of a freakish athlete he is.

Jesus Christ. My point is not if he was a good defender. It's that defending and scoring in this era of the NBA is far easier. I'm sorry you can't grasp that from the multitudes of times I've said.

Lebron being an accomplished defender in this NBA is far different than in years previous. And because it's easier he's not putting the same effort into it as Jordan would've. My point was what impact that had on scoring was an intangible worth considering.

Skip it. You too are seemingly picking points while skipping others anyways. And since Lebrons coaches said it really doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is.

I'm just not a big fan of these kind of debates. For one, LeBron is still playing. What is the point of debating when he still has at least 5 really good years left in his career. We are prematurely arguing between a guy who hasn't played in over a decade and a guy who still has a decade left in his career.

They are two completely different type of players who played in two different eras. MJ's best comparison was Kobe. LBJ's best comparison is Magic. There is no doubt Jordan is the better scorer and competitor, but LBJ is the better all around player.

It's so hard to debate between the two eras. To be fair, Jordan's main competiton was Stockton and Malone. That Jazz team isn't even comparable to what the Warriors have now. The Jazz were a really good team, but the Warriors will go down as one of the greatest teams off all time. The Warriors had the best record in NBA history last year, and then added a top 5 player in Durant. That would be like Jordan's Bulls adding Clyde Drexler in his prime. It's almost impossible to compare teams across decades, but i personally tihnk Warriors would have beaten the Bulls.

Uncle Si wrote:Jesus Christ. My point is not if he was a good defender. It's that defending and scoring in this era of the NBA is far easier. I'm sorry you can't grasp that from the multitudes of times I've said.

Lebron being an accomplished defender in this NBA is far different than in years previous. And because it's easier he's not putting the same effort into it as Jordan would've. My point was what impact that had on scoring was an intangible worth considering.

Skip it. You too are seemingly picking points while skipping others anyways. And since Lebrons coaches said it really doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is.

I wasn't addressing your main opinion that Lebron plays in a softer era, because it's the most tired of all arguments when comparing players. It's an impossible task.

I could argue that Lebron plays against far superior athletes than Jordan did, because the modern athlete has been hyper focused on his craft 12 months a year from the age of 10, nutrition, 24/7/365 coaching and development. Bigger, faster and stronger than any era previous.

Is that a fun debate to have? No, cause it's pure speculation. Just like the points you're trying to make.

Fact is my guess is more than ANY other modern day athlete, Lebron would dominate in any era. He's insanely talented and athletic.

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Uncle Si wrote:Jesus Christ. My point is not if he was a good defender. It's that defending and scoring in this era of the NBA is far easier. I'm sorry you can't grasp that from the multitudes of times I've said.

Lebron being an accomplished defender in this NBA is far different than in years previous. And because it's easier he's not putting the same effort into it as Jordan would've. My point was what impact that had on scoring was an intangible worth considering.

Skip it. You too are seemingly picking points while skipping others anyways. And since Lebrons coaches said it really doesn't matter what anyone's opinion is.

I wasn't addressing your main opinion that Lebron plays in a softer era, because it's the most tired of all arguments when comparing players. It's an impossible task.

I could argue that Lebron plays against far superior athletes than Jordan did, because the modern athlete has been hyper focused on his craft 12 months a year from the age of 10, nutrition, 24/7/365 coaching and development. Bigger, faster and stronger than any era previous.

Is that a fun debate to have? No, cause it's pure speculation. Just like the points you're trying to make.

Fact is my guess is more than ANY other modern day athlete, Lebron would dominate in any era. He's insanely talented and athletic.

Yes. I agree with much of this except two key facets:

I don't think we can say he would dominate to the degree he does now. I hesitate to agree that the athletes of todays NBA are far superior. There are some far superior athletes in todays NBA. But overall? I also think we can look at both eras and draw many conclusions. It's not tired in any way. It's actually pretty fascinating and there is alot of information to digest and apply to the argument. It's not often two athletes can be compared in this way with so little to separate them. Comparing the way in which the sport was played is certainly a plausible and interesting way to compare them.

Hawk-Lock wrote:I'm just not a big fan of these kind of debates. For one, LeBron is still playing. What is the point of debating when he still has at least 5 really good years left in his career. We are prematurely arguing between a guy who hasn't played in over a decade and a guy who still has a decade left in his career.

They are two completely different type of players who played in two different eras. MJ's best comparison was Kobe. LBJ's best comparison is Magic. There is no doubt Jordan is the better scorer and competitor, but LBJ is the better all around player.

It's so hard to debate between the two eras. To be fair, Jordan's main competiton was Stockton and Malone. That Jazz team isn't even comparable to what the Warriors have now. The Jazz were a really good team, but the Warriors will go down as one of the greatest teams off all time. The Warriors had the best record in NBA history last year, and then added a top 5 player in Durant. That would be like Jordan's Bulls adding Clyde Drexler in his prime. It's almost impossible to compare teams across decades, but i personally tihnk Warriors would have beaten the Bulls.

The Warrior team now doesn't have to deal with a good defensive league and large talent pool. As has been stated, defense is no more. A team full of so called firepower in a bad defensive league wouldn't look so great in the 90s. The Warriors would just be another top 10 90s team, like the rockets, sonics, suns, etc.

It actually seems like all the top athletic specimens started drifting from the nba to the nfl. Where have all the good centers gone? The changed sports.

cymatica wrote:
It actually seems like all the top athletic specimens started drifting from the nba to the nfl. Where have all the good centers gone? The changed sports.

Not sure bout the athletes going to the NFL, but as Kareem said a decade ago when asked where did all the good centers go, he said the NBA has decided to make centers obsolete.

So if you're a 6'10-7 foot kid, why work tirelessly on your foot movement, blocking out, sky hook and inside game when the NBA game is now clearing out the lane to isolate one on one chances for the star of the team to drive to the hoop........or kick it out to 3-4 players who can shoot the three?

KD is the new hotness for big men. Forget developing center skills, work on your three point shot and ball handling skills on the perimeter.

cymatica wrote:

Hawk-Lock wrote:I'm just not a big fan of these kind of debates. For one, LeBron is still playing. What is the point of debating when he still has at least 5 really good years left in his career. We are prematurely arguing between a guy who hasn't played in over a decade and a guy who still has a decade left in his career.

They are two completely different type of players who played in two different eras. MJ's best comparison was Kobe. LBJ's best comparison is Magic. There is no doubt Jordan is the better scorer and competitor, but LBJ is the better all around player.

It's so hard to debate between the two eras. To be fair, Jordan's main competiton was Stockton and Malone. That Jazz team isn't even comparable to what the Warriors have now. The Jazz were a really good team, but the Warriors will go down as one of the greatest teams off all time. The Warriors had the best record in NBA history last year, and then added a top 5 player in Durant. That would be like Jordan's Bulls adding Clyde Drexler in his prime. It's almost impossible to compare teams across decades, but i personally tihnk Warriors would have beaten the Bulls.

The Warrior team now doesn't have to deal with a good defensive league and large talent pool. As has been stated, defense is no more. A team full of so called firepower in a bad defensive league wouldn't look so great in the 90s. The Warriors would just be another top 10 90s team, like the rockets, sonics, suns, etc.

It actually seems like all the top athletic specimens started drifting from the nba to the nfl. Where have all the good centers gone? The changed sports.

I don't buy the theory that there is a talent drought in the NBA. There is more talent than ever. The problem is that the talent isn't distributed evenly in the league. Anthony Davis is probably a top 5-10 player and could't make the playoffs. The TWolves have two of the better young guys in the league in Wiggins and Towns. There is plenty of talent in the league, it is just hard to win. I do agree that there is little to no emphasis on the defensive end. You're crazy if you think the Warriors would be just another top 10 team in the 90's. There was never a player like Durant or Curry who played in the 90's. There were spot up 3-point shooters in the 90's like Reggie Miller, but none who could shoot off the dribble like Curry can. We are likely looking at one of the best teams off all time. When it comes to sports, people like to dismiss teams from today's game and we fall in love with the past. Twenty years from now, we will talk about this Warriors team as one of the best ever. I still think there is a good chance they peaked, assuming they keep Durant and Curry, good chance that Livingston and Iguodala leave.

Hawk-Lock wrote:
I don't buy the theory that there is a talent drought in the NBA. There is more talent than ever. The problem is that the talent isn't distributed evenly in the league. Anthony Davis is probably a top 5-10 player and could't make the playoffs. The TWolves have two of the better young guys in the league in Wiggins and Towns. There is plenty of talent in the league, it is just hard to win. I do agree that there is little to no emphasis on the defensive end. You're crazy if you think the Warriors would be just another top 10 team in the 90's. There was never a player like Durant or Curry who played in the 90's. There were spot up 3-point shooters in the 90's like Reggie Miller, but none who could shoot off the dribble like Curry can. We are likely looking at one of the best teams off all time. When it comes to sports, people like to dismiss teams from today's game and we fall in love with the past. Twenty years from now, we will talk about this Warriors team as one of the best ever. I still think there is a good chance they peaked, assuming they keep Durant and Curry, good chance that Livingston and Iguodala leave.

This is also nothing new. The NBA has had a ton of eras where there were only 1-2 dominant teams. Name the decade, and there are only a handful of dominant teams, and the rest of the league never had a chance.

Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, Heat, and now possibly the Warriors.

The league is trying to balance it out, but when your KD does it really affect your decision making process on whether to stay in OKC ONLY making 27 million a year instead of 30 million?

Sgt. Largent wrote:

Hawk-Lock wrote:
I don't buy the theory that there is a talent drought in the NBA. There is more talent than ever. The problem is that the talent isn't distributed evenly in the league. Anthony Davis is probably a top 5-10 player and could't make the playoffs. The TWolves have two of the better young guys in the league in Wiggins and Towns. There is plenty of talent in the league, it is just hard to win. I do agree that there is little to no emphasis on the defensive end. You're crazy if you think the Warriors would be just another top 10 team in the 90's. There was never a player like Durant or Curry who played in the 90's. There were spot up 3-point shooters in the 90's like Reggie Miller, but none who could shoot off the dribble like Curry can. We are likely looking at one of the best teams off all time. When it comes to sports, people like to dismiss teams from today's game and we fall in love with the past. Twenty years from now, we will talk about this Warriors team as one of the best ever. I still think there is a good chance they peaked, assuming they keep Durant and Curry, good chance that Livingston and Iguodala leave.

This is also nothing new. The NBA has had a ton of eras where there were only 1-2 dominant teams. Name the decade, and there are only a handful of dominant teams, and the rest of the league never had a chance.

Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Spurs, Heat, and now possibly the Warriors.

The league is trying to balance it out, but when your KD does it really affect your decision making process on whether to stay in OKC ONLY making 27 million a year instead of 30 million?

The superstars dominate the sport. LeBron is so much better than your average NBA star. Put him on any team and they become a title contender. Stars can showcase their talent in the NBA more than any sport. Get a superstar and a couple other good players and you can dominate the league.

Hawk-Lock wrote:

cymatica wrote:

Hawk-Lock wrote:I'm just not a big fan of these kind of debates. For one, LeBron is still playing. What is the point of debating when he still has at least 5 really good years left in his career. We are prematurely arguing between a guy who hasn't played in over a decade and a guy who still has a decade left in his career.

They are two completely different type of players who played in two different eras. MJ's best comparison was Kobe. LBJ's best comparison is Magic. There is no doubt Jordan is the better scorer and competitor, but LBJ is the better all around player.

It's so hard to debate between the two eras. To be fair, Jordan's main competiton was Stockton and Malone. That Jazz team isn't even comparable to what the Warriors have now. The Jazz were a really good team, but the Warriors will go down as one of the greatest teams off all time. The Warriors had the best record in NBA history last year, and then added a top 5 player in Durant. That would be like Jordan's Bulls adding Clyde Drexler in his prime. It's almost impossible to compare teams across decades, but i personally tihnk Warriors would have beaten the Bulls.

The Warrior team now doesn't have to deal with a good defensive league and large talent pool. As has been stated, defense is no more. A team full of so called firepower in a bad defensive league wouldn't look so great in the 90s. The Warriors would just be another top 10 90s team, like the rockets, sonics, suns, etc.

It actually seems like all the top athletic specimens started drifting from the nba to the nfl. Where have all the good centers gone? The changed sports.

I don't buy the theory that there is a talent drought in the NBA. There is more talent than ever. The problem is that the talent isn't distributed evenly in the league. Anthony Davis is probably a top 5-10 player and could't make the playoffs. The TWolves have two of the better young guys in the league in Wiggins and Towns. There is plenty of talent in the league, it is just hard to win. I do agree that there is little to no emphasis on the defensive end. You're crazy if you think the Warriors would be just another top 10 team in the 90's. There was never a player like Durant or Curry who played in the 90's. There were spot up 3-point shooters in the 90's like Reggie Miller, but none who could shoot off the dribble like Curry can. We are likely looking at one of the best teams off all time. When it comes to sports, people like to dismiss teams from today's game and we fall in love with the past. Twenty years from now, we will talk about this Warriors team as one of the best ever. I still think there is a good chance they peaked, assuming they keep Durant and Curry, good chance that Livingston and Iguodala leave.

I don't buy it either and its the point I tried to make earlier. To say Lebron would be very good and possibly win an MVP award and make a few all star teams is in the words of Mike Tyson ludicrous. He would absolutely dominate that era just like Jordan would of dominated the era before him(and any era for that matter).

Leaving the Lebron argument, you brought up Durant. He would of been unstoppable in Jordan's era. a seven footer who can create on his own, drive, shoot from anywhere on the court....there was no one like him at that time. I don't care how tough they played on defense, he would be literally unstoppable. Sports evolve and basketball just like every other sport has evolved. I'll stand by my original comment......we tend to romanticize the past, myself included at times.

My goodness. Never suggested there is a talent draught. But let's be honest, it's nowhere near the level of talented players of the late 80s to mid 90s.

My point, and I stand by it for those willing to consider it, is the league then had better coaches, more superstars but also emphasized defense. Scoring was harder. Defense was a priority. It is obviously much different now.

Doesn't make Lebrons accomplishments any less. I just think he'd struggle to match (just match) his all world level of play in that era.

I think the statement about Durant sums it up for me. He'd be "unstoppable?" Failing to recognize the considerable differences in teams of that era (where is this eras Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, etc?) lacks perspective. Durant would get his points, but it would be so much harder. there is no Bruce Bowen in the modern era, no centers contesting every shot, rotating defenses, etc.

Claiming others are idealizing the past while doing it to the future just reinforces the hyperbole. Today's superstars are that... superstars. They're also playing in a league akin to the NFL playing two hand touch. My point is while they'd be great players in the Jordan era I don't see them reaching the same heights as today. Simple.

Uncle Si wrote:
Claiming others are idealizing the past while doing it to the future just reinforces the hyperbole. Today's superstars are that... superstars. They're also playing in a league akin to the NFL playing two hand touch. My point is while they'd be great players in the Jordan era I don't see them reaching the same heights as today. Simple.

It's a very fair comparison, the current state of the NFL and NBA. Both leagues have moved towards a safer offensive oriented style of play, with more and more rule changes punishing the defensive side of the ball.

But I still content that Lebron would dominate just as much if he played in the 80's and/or 90's, with what a freakish athlete he is.

In fact he might have elevated his game even higher having to go up against the Jordans and Magics.

Uncle Si wrote:My goodness. Never suggested there is a talent draught. But let's be honest, it's nowhere near the level of talented players of the late 80s to mid 90s.

My point, and I stand by it for those willing to consider it, is the league then had better coaches, more superstars but also emphasized defense. Scoring was harder. Defense was a priority. It is obviously much different now.

Doesn't make Lebrons accomplishments any less. I just think he'd struggle to match (just match) his all world level of play in that era.

I think the statement about Durant sums it up for me. He'd be "unstoppable?" Failing to recognize the considerable differences in teams of that era (where is this eras Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem, etc?) lacks perspective. Durant would get his points, but it would be so much harder. there is no Bruce Bowen in the modern era, no centers contesting every shot, rotating defenses, etc.

Claiming others are idealizing the past while doing it to the future just reinforces the hyperbole. Today's superstars are that... superstars. They're also playing in a league akin to the NFL playing two hand touch. My point is while they'd be great players in the Jordan era I don't see them reaching the same heights as today. Simple.

I'll quit going around and around and I'll end it with saying I really don't think I could disagree any more then I do now and our debate solidified my thoughts on the subject. Lots of subjectivity both sides have to wade through so its a never ending debate. Just spend the weekend knowing I'm right.