HAKEEM THE DREAM BEING UNDERAPPRECIATED DISAPPRECAITION POST...vol. Best Ever.

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  


Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  


Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by TheRealMcCoy12

He gets overlooked by Kareem and Shaq, because....he wasn't better than Prime Kareem or Shaq.a

uhhh.......

Hakeen was great, but you're a Texas homer and your opinion on this topic is bias as hell.

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by TheRealMcCoy12

He gets overlooked by Kareem and Shaq, because....he wasn't better than Prime Kareem or Shaq.a

uhhh.......

Hakeen was great, but you're a Texas homer and your opinion on this topic is bias as hell.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Too much emphasis on rings. This isn't Karl Malone vs Tim Duncan here. Both The Dream and Shaq won rings, so can you guys focus more on what really separates the two players individually?

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Too much emphasis on rings. This isn't Karl Malone vs Tim Duncan here. Both The Dream and Shaq won rings, so can you guys focus more on what really separates the two players individually?

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  

Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.
But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  

Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.
But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  

 

[do be doo]

CP1708 wrote:

---

But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  
Calling ANYONE out about not repeating is lame dude.

Kobe is then the BEST LA player EVER just because he three-peat and repeat not like that dude MAGIC.

  

 

[do be doo]

CP1708 wrote:

---

But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  
Calling ANYONE out about not repeating is lame dude.

Kobe is then the BEST LA player EVER just because he three-peat and repeat not like that dude MAGIC.

  

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  


Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.
But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  


Come on, man. If you're judging Hakeem for not winning in 93 and 96 just cause those teams were relatively similar to the championship ones, then what about the years in the 80s where the Lakers and the Celtics didn't win the championship, I am sure that some of those teams were virtually identical to the previous/following season team that won the championship. What about the 89-90 Bulls? They were identical to the 90-91 Bulls. Yet no one judges MJ for not winning a championship in 90, just like they don't judge Magic/Bird for not winning every single year in the 80s. Hakeem did something remarkable in 94 and won with a bunch of role players, yet you keep on asking why he didn't win in 93 as well? That's like me saying yeah, it's a great accomplishment that Kobe scored 81 in a game, but why didn't he score 81 the previous or following game as well, and then use the fact that he didn't score 81 the previous and following game as well against him.

I repeat, if you look at Hakeem's career reasonably, all the while considering the situation he was in, he pretty much got the maximum out of the hand he was dealt. Plus most people agree that he was screwed out of at least one more MVP and DPOY.

I should also mention something regarding Hakeem's late years. He developed a heart condition that limited his performance and this should be taken into account when evaluating his late career.

Malone was 33 in 96-97 when he won the first of his two MVPs. He wasn't as athletic as he was in the late 80s/early 90s, but his mid-range jumper was unstoppable and his passing was considerably better.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

Don't give me that numbers crap or else I'll start asking the obvious. If you want to say that Hakeem is inferior to other players simply because he won a smaller quantity of rings throughout his career, then I have to ask the obvious whenever someone starts using this dumb logic. Is Bill Wennington > Hakeem then? Is Mark Madsen = Hakeem? Is Robert Horry > MJ? Is Darko Milicic > Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing combined? You know damn well that it's not simply the amount of rings you win that measure greatness, but how, where and when you win them. Larry Bird has 3 rings. A solid amount, but not phenomenally high on a list of players with most rings. Yet everyone knows that even though someone who is a GOAT candidate like Bird could've won more than 3 rings, the fact that he played his entire career next to Magic Johnson and the rest of the great players who were on the 80s Lakers teams gives him somewhat of a free pass for not winning more rings. And this is where you're being unreasonable regarding Hakeem. It's simply unreasonable and flat out mean to have demanded from Hakeem to win more rings prior to 94, like how you mentioned. The teams he played on were flat out NOT championship material. His supporting cast in 1994 was not championship material yet he won anyway and beat the teams he faced in the playoffs, even though all four of them were stronger on paper. The only two years in Hakeem's career where it is reasonable to say that he perhaps should have won are 1996 and 1997. And him winning a championship that he shouldn't have won in 1994 pretty much makes up for one of those arguably wasted years. So basically Hakeem got almost as much as he could get out of his NBA career CONSIDERING the hand he was dealt: Sampsons injury early on, being surrounded by nothing but role players later on, playing in an era that was the best in NBA history when it came to the quality of players playing Hakeem's position, etc. And BTW, mentioning that 1999 lockout season and implying that a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36 year-old Barkley and a 33-year old Pip who played below everyone's expectations that year should've won the chip is ridiculous.

Now we're talkin. 

First, I wasn't DEMANDING Hakeem win more or anything, I was asking.  And since you brought up a good point about Bird, you mention him playing at the same time as Magic and the like.  Well, when did Hakeem win?  That's right, when MJ was gone.  I know that sucks, and is unfair, but facts are facts.  Dream won his two when Mike was missing curveballs.  It's not fair, it sucks, I wish like hell we could have seen them square off in 96 or something, but it didn't happen. 
You can complain all you want about how fair it is with titles, face it, Karl Malone is not in the top 10 all time, why?  You know why.  Dan Marino isn't the best QB all time why?  You know that answer too.  They can be GREAT, ELITE, ALL TIME players.  But they can never be "ONE OF THEM"  Don't be foolish with Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen and all that, it is beyond obvious that they do not belong.  But when you measure greatness, fair or unfair, when all the numbers are poured over, and all the games are finished, something comes down as a tie breaker, what is it gonna be?  What is that all these guys play for? 

Rings. 


I've said it several times now, Dream was a bad man.  I have ZERO issue with where he fits in all time, he belongs whereever the majority wants to put him.   I'm cool with him either way.  But when you are discussing something, and rings come up, the question I asked is indeed a fair one. 


You have brought up Shaq vs garbage centers a few times.  Great point.  Reminds me of Simmons book when he talks about Malone and Stockton.  They play thru their 20's, never get to a finals.  (Magic in their way)  Magic retires, they are now in their early 30's, still no finals.  Drexler, Bark, then Hakeem, and now it's their late 30's, they make it to back to back finals.  Were they better players in their late 30's, or did the level of comp simply fall off a little?  We all know the answer.  

So if you want to say, Shaq's 4 < Hakeem's 2 because Dream faced tougher competition, and did it with less talent around him then Shaq, then guess what?  That is a fair argument to make.  Very reasonable.  But when that happens, you must be prepared for someone else to say.......well, yes, I agree sir, but what if Mike hadn't left those 2 years? 

What if.........


There are multiple angles to many many many sports arguments.  I am not so dumb and narrowminded to simply ask a question and expect it to mean one and only one thing.  There can be many answers.  You felt the need to throw tons of sentences in my mouth for me, when that simply was not the case.  Maybe it's my fault for not making my point clearer before, if so, my bad on that, but I assure you, Dream is held in high regard by CP1708.  Always has been, always will be.  But that doesn't mean that I can't ask tough questions, or make points that I would like light to be shed on.  All in all, good discussion in here.  This is what makes NT good place to be sometimes, when people can hammer out arguments from 15 years ago. 

  


Oh, you were asking. Well, there's a simple answer for you why Hakeem didn't win prior to 94 and after 97: His supporting cast simply wasn't good enough. He won when Jordan left, but those were the only years he went to the finals where he possibly could've met Jordan, other than 86. But let's not get into the detailed discussion about how early 90s Rockets were owning early 90s Bulls whenever they met in the regular season that I already explained so many times on this forum, and how it's probably good for Jordan's legacy that he chose those two exact years to be away from basketball. It certainly isn't bad as this way at least it remains unknown.

If Darko Milicic and Mark Madsen don't suit you, then how about Chauncey Billups, Tony Parker and Paul Pierce... Are they greater than Charles Barkley, Karl Malone and Patrick Ewing?

FYI, Hakeem was one of beat Malone and Stockton both championship playoff runs in 94 and 95. And Stockton wasn't as good in his 30s, but Karl Malone's peak was the 96-97 season.
But those were the same teams in 93 and again in 96.  I think you mentioned him being hurt in 92, but 93 was that same roster as 94.  96 maybe they were just done after 2 straight long playoff runs. 

Malone peaked in his late 30's?  He on that Barry Bonds type road or somethin? 

  I think he was just a freak athlete, and nobody was left to check him anymore once Kemp got fat, Chuck was old, KG and Dunc weren't ready yet, etc etc.  I dunno if it was his physical peak though. 

If it makes you feel better, I enjoy askin why Bird gets so much love but was never able to repeat.  But a Laker fan callin out a Celtic great obviously doesn't work out well. 

  


Come on, man. If you're judging Hakeem for not winning in 93 and 96 just cause those teams were relatively similar to the championship ones, then what about the years in the 80s where the Lakers and the Celtics didn't win the championship, I am sure that some of those teams were virtually identical to the previous/following season team that won the championship. What about the 89-90 Bulls? They were identical to the 90-91 Bulls. Yet no one judges MJ for not winning a championship in 90, just like they don't judge Magic/Bird for not winning every single year in the 80s. Hakeem did something remarkable in 94 and won with a bunch of role players, yet you keep on asking why he didn't win in 93 as well? That's like me saying yeah, it's a great accomplishment that Kobe scored 81 in a game, but why didn't he score 81 the previous or following game as well, and then use the fact that he didn't score 81 the previous and following game as well against him.

I repeat, if you look at Hakeem's career reasonably, all the while considering the situation he was in, he pretty much got the maximum out of the hand he was dealt. Plus most people agree that he was screwed out of at least one more MVP and DPOY.

I should also mention something regarding Hakeem's late years. He developed a heart condition that limited his performance and this should be taken into account when evaluating his late career.

Malone was 33 in 96-97 when he won the first of his two MVPs. He wasn't as athletic as he was in the late 80s/early 90s, but his mid-range jumper was unstoppable and his passing was considerably better.

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

Originally Posted by Seymore CAKE

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

another point

if hakeem was so great,why didnt he win more rings?


look at the talent he had:

ralph sampson in his prime (they went to the chip and lost... they also played against the Lakers who won 5 in the 80's)
clyde drexler in his prime (definitely wasn't in his prime I take it you didnt' see the portland years, his prime ended in 93-94 and they won that year)
otis thorpe in his prime (I'll leave this one be)
barkley right as his prime ended (his prime had ended 3yrs prior he was a shell of himself by the time he was in Hou, horrible back limited mobility and chucking 3's)
pippen right as his prime ended (I'll leave this one be as well)
steve francis (Keem had damn near 20 yrs in the L by then not to mention Francis is a headcase who put himself above the team constantly)




and a lot of great role players:
robert horry (Role Player who hit big shots, nothing more)
sam cassell (At the time he was a role player his first three years... and they won two straight)
cutino mobely (Role Player)
kenny smith
mario ellie
veron maxwell



thats not amazing talent,but he definetly played with more talent than jordan,and jordan got 6 rings all while hakeem was playing. (Are you serious with this statement? You do realize that Mike played with a top 50 player and arguably the best Small Forwarrd for all but 4yrs right? And that he never won a chip without Pippen? And that Pippen was arguably more important to the Bulls defense, considering he guarded 1-5 at times? Not saying that he was as important to their offense as Money was but he was damn close.  Arguably the best rebounder of all time, and one of the best defenders of all times. Not to mention he had 6 man of the year Toni Kukocs who was a 6'10 guard. Three point champions on both separate 3 Peats. And One Of The Greatest Coaches Of All Time.  Don't get me wrong I love Money, he brought my squad from the gutter to royalty but I'm not about to sit here and let you act like he did all this %%!! by himself bro bro.)


if hakeem was so great why didnt he win more rings? (Jordan, Magic, & Bird... for 16yrs (from the time he entered the league) only 5 teams won the title. Those 3 individuals are responsible for a list of hall of famers/all stars longer than letters in your sn not receiving a title by themselves. However he did manage to take his squade there and win twice. Jordan - 6, Magic - 5, Bird - 3, Isiah, Keem -2 a piece)

i mean since he was such a force on both ends of the court. (Widely accepted/acknowledged fact, I mean he is the only player to have won MVP,DMVP, and FMVP in the same year, and truth be told he should repeated in all catagories but they gave it to Dave in which you saw the outcome of that soooooo... Yea.)

dont forget he was kind of a black hole once the ball went into the post,because he'd be doin all his moves and his teammates would be standing around. 


to me he aint that great because after the second championship he had some great teams from 95-96 til 98-99 (4 seasons) and like somebody said they were never the best team in the league.

he should have still been effective those years just because of his skill level and because of the fact that he was a big man.

old big men are usually more effective than old guards,because of their size.

hes still the most skilled big man ever though. (Only Thing that Made Sense In This Post)

See Bolded Sections.
  

man argue all you want

like i said if he was so great,why didnt he win more rings?

he had plenty of talent and like i said he probably played with more talent than jordan did.








  

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

Originally Posted by Seymore CAKE

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

another point

if hakeem was so great,why didnt he win more rings?


look at the talent he had:

ralph sampson in his prime (they went to the chip and lost... they also played against the Lakers who won 5 in the 80's)
clyde drexler in his prime (definitely wasn't in his prime I take it you didnt' see the portland years, his prime ended in 93-94 and they won that year)
otis thorpe in his prime (I'll leave this one be)
barkley right as his prime ended (his prime had ended 3yrs prior he was a shell of himself by the time he was in Hou, horrible back limited mobility and chucking 3's)
pippen right as his prime ended (I'll leave this one be as well)
steve francis (Keem had damn near 20 yrs in the L by then not to mention Francis is a headcase who put himself above the team constantly)




and a lot of great role players:
robert horry (Role Player who hit big shots, nothing more)
sam cassell (At the time he was a role player his first three years... and they won two straight)
cutino mobely (Role Player)
kenny smith
mario ellie
veron maxwell



thats not amazing talent,but he definetly played with more talent than jordan,and jordan got 6 rings all while hakeem was playing. (Are you serious with this statement? You do realize that Mike played with a top 50 player and arguably the best Small Forwarrd for all but 4yrs right? And that he never won a chip without Pippen? And that Pippen was arguably more important to the Bulls defense, considering he guarded 1-5 at times? Not saying that he was as important to their offense as Money was but he was damn close.  Arguably the best rebounder of all time, and one of the best defenders of all times. Not to mention he had 6 man of the year Toni Kukocs who was a 6'10 guard. Three point champions on both separate 3 Peats. And One Of The Greatest Coaches Of All Time.  Don't get me wrong I love Money, he brought my squad from the gutter to royalty but I'm not about to sit here and let you act like he did all this %%!! by himself bro bro.)


if hakeem was so great why didnt he win more rings? (Jordan, Magic, & Bird... for 16yrs (from the time he entered the league) only 5 teams won the title. Those 3 individuals are responsible for a list of hall of famers/all stars longer than letters in your sn not receiving a title by themselves. However he did manage to take his squade there and win twice. Jordan - 6, Magic - 5, Bird - 3, Isiah, Keem -2 a piece)

i mean since he was such a force on both ends of the court. (Widely accepted/acknowledged fact, I mean he is the only player to have won MVP,DMVP, and FMVP in the same year, and truth be told he should repeated in all catagories but they gave it to Dave in which you saw the outcome of that soooooo... Yea.)

dont forget he was kind of a black hole once the ball went into the post,because he'd be doin all his moves and his teammates would be standing around. 


to me he aint that great because after the second championship he had some great teams from 95-96 til 98-99 (4 seasons) and like somebody said they were never the best team in the league.

he should have still been effective those years just because of his skill level and because of the fact that he was a big man.

old big men are usually more effective than old guards,because of their size.

hes still the most skilled big man ever though. (Only Thing that Made Sense In This Post)

See Bolded Sections.
  

man argue all you want

like i said if he was so great,why didnt he win more rings?

he had plenty of talent and like i said he probably played with more talent than jordan did.








  

 

[xtapolapacetl]

look at the talent he had:

ralph sampson in his prime


He played only two seasons with Sampson and one of them was his rookie year. The next year he beat Magic and Kareem only to lose to the Celtics in the finals in 6.

clyde drexler in his prime


Drexler was definitely not in his prime when he came to Houston, but Hakeem won the championship with Clyde anyway in 95. And Drexler was even further away from his prime in 96 and 97.

otis thorpe in his prime


Prime Otis Thorpe was some strong asset?

Now you're just getting desperate.

barkley right as his prime ended


See Drexler. In the four games that the Rockets lost to the Jazz that series, Barkley just played bad. Hakeem is the last person who should be blamed for the loss to the Jazz. Check how he played that series.

pippen right as his prime ended


Again, a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36-year old Drexler and a 33-year old Pip are supposed to win a chsmpionship?

steve francis



The man was 37 by the time he played with Steve Francis. A rookie Steve Francis. The same Steve Francis who went on to play 5 playoff games in his whole NBA career. Again, a desperation move that makes no sense, like Otis Thorpe. Just to add another player to the list to make it look like he had more players.

Bla bla bla. Michael Jordan had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge. And couldn't win a playoff game with them.

By the way, you forgot Vince Carter. Remember, he played with the Raptors that last year of his career.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

look at the talent he had:

ralph sampson in his prime


He played only two seasons with Sampson and one of them was his rookie year. The next year he beat Magic and Kareem only to lose to the Celtics in the finals in 6.

clyde drexler in his prime


Drexler was definitely not in his prime when he came to Houston, but Hakeem won the championship with Clyde anyway in 95. And Drexler was even further away from his prime in 96 and 97.

otis thorpe in his prime


Prime Otis Thorpe was some strong asset?

Now you're just getting desperate.

barkley right as his prime ended


See Drexler. In the four games that the Rockets lost to the Jazz that series, Barkley just played bad. Hakeem is the last person who should be blamed for the loss to the Jazz. Check how he played that series.

pippen right as his prime ended


Again, a 36 year-old Hakeem, a 36-year old Drexler and a 33-year old Pip are supposed to win a chsmpionship?

steve francis



The man was 37 by the time he played with Steve Francis. A rookie Steve Francis. The same Steve Francis who went on to play 5 playoff games in his whole NBA career. Again, a desperation move that makes no sense, like Otis Thorpe. Just to add another player to the list to make it look like he had more players.

Bla bla bla. Michael Jordan had Charles Oakley and Orlando Woolridge. And couldn't win a playoff game with them.

By the way, you forgot Vince Carter. Remember, he played with the Raptors that last year of his career.

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

^^^otis thorpe was an all star caliber player for awhile,he was definitely more than a role player.

just because you dont know how good he was dont try to down play him




at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

and yet mike has 4 more rings

and mike missed two seasons in his prime

just the fact that hakeem was a big man should have made him have an overall bigger impact on a game than jordan who was a guard




so yea,he's not as great as yall are overrating him to be



and dont forget if john starks didnt shoot 2 for 19 he would only have one ring

 

[Girl Thats Jules]

^^^otis thorpe was an all star caliber player for awhile,he was definitely more than a role player.

just because you dont know how good he was dont try to down play him




at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

and yet mike has 4 more rings

and mike missed two seasons in his prime

just the fact that hakeem was a big man should have made him have an overall bigger impact on a game than jordan who was a guard




so yea,he's not as great as yall are overrating him to be



and dont forget if john starks didnt shoot 2 for 19 he would only have one ring

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

  

For the benefit of society, please stop talking about basketball. Forever.

 

[dmbrhs]

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

  

For the benefit of society, please stop talking about basketball. Forever.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

^^^otis thorpe was an all star caliber player for awhile,he was definitely more than a role player.

just because you dont know how good he was dont try to down play him




at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

and yet mike has 4 more rings

and mike missed two seasons in his prime

just the fact that hakeem was a big man should have made him have an overall bigger impact on a game than jordan who was a guard




so yea,he's not as great as yall are overrating him to be



and dont forget if john starks didnt shoot 2 for 19 he would only have one ring

I know exactly how good he was. Dude made ONE all-star game in his career. Dale Davis, Chris Gatling and Jamaal Magloire have been all-stars. He was more suited to be a #3 man than a #2 man, which he was those years under Hakeem. Michael Jordan had Pippen through all his six championships. On top of that he had Horace Grant in the first three-peat and Dennis Rodman in the second three-peat, two players that were both on Thorpe's level or above it.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by Girl thats Jules

^^^otis thorpe was an all star caliber player for awhile,he was definitely more than a role player.

just because you dont know how good he was dont try to down play him




at the end of the day he played wit just as much talent as jordan if not more

and yet mike has 4 more rings

and mike missed two seasons in his prime

just the fact that hakeem was a big man should have made him have an overall bigger impact on a game than jordan who was a guard




so yea,he's not as great as yall are overrating him to be



and dont forget if john starks didnt shoot 2 for 19 he would only have one ring

I know exactly how good he was. Dude made ONE all-star game in his career. Dale Davis, Chris Gatling and Jamaal Magloire have been all-stars. He was more suited to be a #3 man than a #2 man, which he was those years under Hakeem. Michael Jordan had Pippen through all his six championships. On top of that he had Horace Grant in the first three-peat and Dennis Rodman in the second three-peat, two players that were both on Thorpe's level or above it.