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

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by mco85

How can anyone say Hakeem was better than Shaq. The Dream was great, no doubt, but don't let his flashiness fool. He was never anywhere near as dominant as Shaq was during his prime. I think people forget how good Shaq was during those Laker championship years. Hakeem was a career 51% shooter his best year was his rookie year when he shot close to 54%, Those would be career lows for shaq even counting these last few bad years. If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant

I think people forget how crappy the rest of the centers were during those Laker championship years.

Unlike shooting 53% from the line, shooting 51% from the field isn't bad, and it certainly isn't horrible like 53% from the line. BTW Hakeem's playoffs FG% is 53% and Shaq's is 56%. Ooh, what a difference.

I like how people think that saying Shaq was more dominant somehow means he was better.

Hakeem's skills > Shaq's dominance
Hakeem's dominance on the offensive end > Shaq's dominance on the defensive end

When it comes down to it, there are two factors that don't make Shaq better than Hakeem. One is a major weakness - his free-throw shooting. The reason why he couldn't be relied on in the clutch, the reason why coaches began to see hack-a-Shaq as a legit strategy. The other one is at times lazy defense. He could be a very good defender at times (though never as good as Hakeem), but on an average Shaq day, his defense was not great. Even in his glory days he only made 3 all-defense second teams, the only ones of his career. Hakeem on the other hand made 5 all-defensive 1st teams and 4 all-defensive 2nd teams. Overall, Hakeem never had what were seen as weaknesses about his game like Shaq.

 

[seymore cake]

Xtapolapacetl wrote:  

 

[seymore cake]

Xtapolapacetl wrote:  

 

[jstar25]

There is this guy named Bill Russel, the most dominating defensive force in the history of the game people seem to completely ignore him.
He's not ignored, but you have to factor in that he played with a team of Hall of Famers which allows him to focus on defense. Also he never had to play defense on the parameter because there was no 3 point line in his day so all the traffic came to the lane where he was waiting, not to mention a team with a player taller than 6'9 in his day was a luxury. He was the most dominating defensive force in HIS day but not in the history of the league.

He is an all time great no doubt but mentally and from a team player standpoint that's what made Bill Russell so outstanding.

 

[jstar25]

There is this guy named Bill Russel, the most dominating defensive force in the history of the game people seem to completely ignore him.
He's not ignored, but you have to factor in that he played with a team of Hall of Famers which allows him to focus on defense. Also he never had to play defense on the parameter because there was no 3 point line in his day so all the traffic came to the lane where he was waiting, not to mention a team with a player taller than 6'9 in his day was a luxury. He was the most dominating defensive force in HIS day but not in the history of the league.

He is an all time great no doubt but mentally and from a team player standpoint that's what made Bill Russell so outstanding.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by JD617

^ MJ in '88.

^ nah Money did that in 87-88 too... However he is the only player to ever win MVP, DMVP, & FMVP all in the same year. Something I point out a few pages ago.

 
edit: i meant to add finals MVP on my post too my bad


anyways
  

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by JD617

^ MJ in '88.

^ nah Money did that in 87-88 too... However he is the only player to ever win MVP, DMVP, & FMVP all in the same year. Something I point out a few pages ago.

 
edit: i meant to add finals MVP on my post too my bad


anyways
  

 

[jstar25]

How can anyone say Hakeem was better than Shaq. The Dream was great, no doubt, but don't let his flashiness fool. He was never anywhere near as dominant as Shaq was during his prime. I think people forget how good Shaq was during those Laker championship years. Hakeem was a career 51% shooter his best year was his rookie year when he shot close to 54%, Those would be career lows for shaq even counting these last few bad years. If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant
I'm not saying Shaq wasn't great but seriously you can't equate Shaq being more dominant than Hakeem when he's never lead the league in anything but scoring twice and FG% which we ALL know Shaq is a dunker/lay up specialist. Shaq was not clutch because often times he was not on the court in crunch time because his kryptonite was the foul line. Not to mention the Diesel was NEVER an All NBA Defensive first teamer. How in the world does a 7'1 300+lbs mobile beast not lead the league in blocks or rebounds at least once?

Hakeem was a Defensive Player of the Year twice, lead the league in blocks 3 times lead the league in rebounds twice, was a much better free throw shooter than Shaq. Hakeem averaged more rebounds, blocks, steals than Shaq, and for a career was 3 points shy of Shaqs career average.

I just don't think saying "If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant" was a very accurate. At the end of the day either one for a prime season would be terrific but neither out does the other by a mile.

 

[jstar25]

How can anyone say Hakeem was better than Shaq. The Dream was great, no doubt, but don't let his flashiness fool. He was never anywhere near as dominant as Shaq was during his prime. I think people forget how good Shaq was during those Laker championship years. Hakeem was a career 51% shooter his best year was his rookie year when he shot close to 54%, Those would be career lows for shaq even counting these last few bad years. If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant
I'm not saying Shaq wasn't great but seriously you can't equate Shaq being more dominant than Hakeem when he's never lead the league in anything but scoring twice and FG% which we ALL know Shaq is a dunker/lay up specialist. Shaq was not clutch because often times he was not on the court in crunch time because his kryptonite was the foul line. Not to mention the Diesel was NEVER an All NBA Defensive first teamer. How in the world does a 7'1 300+lbs mobile beast not lead the league in blocks or rebounds at least once?

Hakeem was a Defensive Player of the Year twice, lead the league in blocks 3 times lead the league in rebounds twice, was a much better free throw shooter than Shaq. Hakeem averaged more rebounds, blocks, steals than Shaq, and for a career was 3 points shy of Shaqs career average.

I just don't think saying "If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant" was a very accurate. At the end of the day either one for a prime season would be terrific but neither out does the other by a mile.

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by JStar25

I'm not saying Shaq wasn't great but seriously you can't equate Shaq being more dominant than Hakeem when he's never lead the league in anything but scoring twice and FG% which we ALL know Shaq is a dunker/lay up specialist. Shaq was not clutch because often times he was not on the court in crunch time because his kryptonite was the foul line. Not to mention the Diesel was NEVER an All NBA Defensive first teamer. How in the world does a 7'1 300+lbs mobile beast not lead the league in blocks or rebounds at least once?

Hakeem was a Defensive Player of the Year twice, lead the league in blocks 3 times lead the league in rebounds twice, was a much better free throw shooter than Shaq. Hakeem averaged more rebounds, blocks, steals than Shaq, and for a career was 3 points shy of Shaqs career average.

I just don't think saying "If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant" was a very accurate. At the end of the day either one for a prime season would be terrific but neither out does the other by a mile.

/thread

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by JStar25

I'm not saying Shaq wasn't great but seriously you can't equate Shaq being more dominant than Hakeem when he's never lead the league in anything but scoring twice and FG% which we ALL know Shaq is a dunker/lay up specialist. Shaq was not clutch because often times he was not on the court in crunch time because his kryptonite was the foul line. Not to mention the Diesel was NEVER an All NBA Defensive first teamer. How in the world does a 7'1 300+lbs mobile beast not lead the league in blocks or rebounds at least once?

Hakeem was a Defensive Player of the Year twice, lead the league in blocks 3 times lead the league in rebounds twice, was a much better free throw shooter than Shaq. Hakeem averaged more rebounds, blocks, steals than Shaq, and for a career was 3 points shy of Shaqs career average.

I just don't think saying "If you got to pick between Shaq and Hakeem for one season in their Prime it would be Shaq by a mile, he was far more dominant" was a very accurate. At the end of the day either one for a prime season would be terrific but neither out does the other by a mile.

/thread

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 




Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 




Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 

Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.
I got myself a groupie. 

at you just going along with your own mind that since I asked, "why didn't Hakeem win more", that means I am  " thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient".  What in the hell are you talking about? 

  My point was, and is, simple.  Hakeem is great, nobody disputes that, we all know.  And every one of us big time ball fans can rattle off rings for those "special" players.  We all know the numbers.  People were talking about Shaq and Kareem and whoever else.  My point was just like I said, why didn't he win more?  At the end of the day, he has TWO rings.  Great.  He got 2, back to back even.  Larry Bird never did that. Tim Duncan never did that.  Admiral never did that.   Dream deserves credit.  No question.  And I hear what you have said about not havin other talent around him, I'm so sorry, that's too bad, wish he coulda had it better, but at the end of the day, it's TWO.  I'm not "discrediting" a God damn thing.  That FACT is, he has two.  Are you with me so far?  Do we need to break out pie charts, graphs and @#$%?  Shaq 4, Duncan 4, Kareem 6, Bill 47, Pat zero.  Do whatever you want, the numbers don't change.  If you want to answer the question, why didn't Hakeem win more by saying, he didn't have talent around him, fine, there ya go.  That's an answer.  Simple.  No problem.  All I asked was a simple question, I wanted to know why over the course of his long career didn't more get done.  He did at one time have Chuck and Pip on his team.  He had Pip BEFORE Pip went to the Blazers, and Pip got pretty darn close to making run there, so it's not like he was completely outta gas in 99.  Someone said earlier (maybe it was you) that it was Chuck's fault.  Ok, again, I'm good with that.  But it doesn't change the fact, the number stands at 2, and I was asking NT, why?  That in no damn way shape or form is me "discrediting" Dream.  You have a @#$%^& problem just assuming stuff for folks.  I already said, IN THIS THREAD, Dream/Shaq, or Shaq/Dream, I have no problem with either way.  I am GIVING him credit for his career.  I said, Shaq was a force, Dream was finesse, both were savages in the way they did it.  They KILLED you with their ways of playing the game, that doesn't make one better or worse, just different styles.  It's the same as one guy nails jumpers, the other guy dunks all day.  At the end, it's two points both ways.  Not better or worse, different. 

So again, so we are clear, I do not discredit anything Dream did.  He was a bad bad boy.  If you try to read between any lines to make up some @#$%^& ******ed  bull^%$#  just cuz you feel like it, that is on you man, not me.  But you need help seriously since you keep doin this kind of stuff. 



LeBron joined the other two.  I don't care what you say, dude joined the other guys.  Agree to disagree, no problem by me.  If he wins one, then we will see how it was done.  If Bron goes out and triple doubles a finals series, I have no prob givin him his due.  If Wade goes out and gets a 50 while Bron sits around and does nothing, naw, I'll be all over that.  Why wouldn't I be?  You the one that keeps puttin this boy in all the greatness arguments with all the winners, but until he wins, all he can do is sit the sidelines.  Your heart just can't take that.  But that ain't my problem. 

So go right ahead and re-translate all that I have said yet again, add it to your book you're writing about me, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 

Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.
I got myself a groupie. 

at you just going along with your own mind that since I asked, "why didn't Hakeem win more", that means I am  " thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient".  What in the hell are you talking about? 

  My point was, and is, simple.  Hakeem is great, nobody disputes that, we all know.  And every one of us big time ball fans can rattle off rings for those "special" players.  We all know the numbers.  People were talking about Shaq and Kareem and whoever else.  My point was just like I said, why didn't he win more?  At the end of the day, he has TWO rings.  Great.  He got 2, back to back even.  Larry Bird never did that. Tim Duncan never did that.  Admiral never did that.   Dream deserves credit.  No question.  And I hear what you have said about not havin other talent around him, I'm so sorry, that's too bad, wish he coulda had it better, but at the end of the day, it's TWO.  I'm not "discrediting" a God damn thing.  That FACT is, he has two.  Are you with me so far?  Do we need to break out pie charts, graphs and @#$%?  Shaq 4, Duncan 4, Kareem 6, Bill 47, Pat zero.  Do whatever you want, the numbers don't change.  If you want to answer the question, why didn't Hakeem win more by saying, he didn't have talent around him, fine, there ya go.  That's an answer.  Simple.  No problem.  All I asked was a simple question, I wanted to know why over the course of his long career didn't more get done.  He did at one time have Chuck and Pip on his team.  He had Pip BEFORE Pip went to the Blazers, and Pip got pretty darn close to making run there, so it's not like he was completely outta gas in 99.  Someone said earlier (maybe it was you) that it was Chuck's fault.  Ok, again, I'm good with that.  But it doesn't change the fact, the number stands at 2, and I was asking NT, why?  That in no damn way shape or form is me "discrediting" Dream.  You have a @#$%^& problem just assuming stuff for folks.  I already said, IN THIS THREAD, Dream/Shaq, or Shaq/Dream, I have no problem with either way.  I am GIVING him credit for his career.  I said, Shaq was a force, Dream was finesse, both were savages in the way they did it.  They KILLED you with their ways of playing the game, that doesn't make one better or worse, just different styles.  It's the same as one guy nails jumpers, the other guy dunks all day.  At the end, it's two points both ways.  Not better or worse, different. 

So again, so we are clear, I do not discredit anything Dream did.  He was a bad bad boy.  If you try to read between any lines to make up some @#$%^& ******ed  bull^%$#  just cuz you feel like it, that is on you man, not me.  But you need help seriously since you keep doin this kind of stuff. 



LeBron joined the other two.  I don't care what you say, dude joined the other guys.  Agree to disagree, no problem by me.  If he wins one, then we will see how it was done.  If Bron goes out and triple doubles a finals series, I have no prob givin him his due.  If Wade goes out and gets a 50 while Bron sits around and does nothing, naw, I'll be all over that.  Why wouldn't I be?  You the one that keeps puttin this boy in all the greatness arguments with all the winners, but until he wins, all he can do is sit the sidelines.  Your heart just can't take that.  But that ain't my problem. 

So go right ahead and re-translate all that I have said yet again, add it to your book you're writing about me, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. 

  

 

[jstar25]

Swearing to make your point = 

Harping on why he didn't do more is discrediting what he did accomplish.

 

[jstar25]

Swearing to make your point = 

Harping on why he didn't do more is discrediting what he did accomplish.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Pretty interesting argument above. Not sure why the number of rings should be such an important topic though. Everyone knows no matter how great of a player you are, you still need a great supporting cast to win the whole thing. Just last year, when folks were yappin about Kobe or Duncan being the best player in the past decade (I guess most people felt Shaq fell off too much), where was the question of "how come dude don't have more rings like 10, a ring for each year" if he was the best? But honestly, just appreciate The Dream and Shaq.

 

[nicedudewithnicedreams]

Pretty interesting argument above. Not sure why the number of rings should be such an important topic though. Everyone knows no matter how great of a player you are, you still need a great supporting cast to win the whole thing. Just last year, when folks were yappin about Kobe or Duncan being the best player in the past decade (I guess most people felt Shaq fell off too much), where was the question of "how come dude don't have more rings like 10, a ring for each year" if he was the best? But honestly, just appreciate The Dream and Shaq.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 




Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.
I got myself a groupie. 

at you just going along with your own mind that since I asked, "why didn't Hakeem win more", that means I am  " thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient".  What in the hell are you talking about? 

  My point was, and is, simple.  Hakeem is great, nobody disputes that, we all know.  And every one of us big time ball fans can rattle off rings for those "special" players.  We all know the numbers.  People were talking about Shaq and Kareem and whoever else.  My point was just like I said, why didn't he win more?  At the end of the day, he has TWO rings.  Great.  He got 2, back to back even.  Larry Bird never did that. Tim Duncan never did that.  Admiral never did that.   Dream deserves credit.  No question.  And I hear what you have said about not havin other talent around him, I'm so sorry, that's too bad, wish he coulda had it better, but at the end of the day, it's TWO.  I'm not "discrediting" a God damn thing.  That FACT is, he has two.  Are you with me so far?  Do we need to break out pie charts, graphs and @#$%?  Shaq 4, Duncan 4, Kareem 6, Bill 47, Pat zero.  Do whatever you want, the numbers don't change.  If you want to answer the question, why didn't Hakeem win more by saying, he didn't have talent around him, fine, there ya go.  That's an answer.  Simple.  No problem.  All I asked was a simple question, I wanted to know why over the course of his long career didn't more get done.  He did at one time have Chuck and Pip on his team.  He had Pip BEFORE Pip went to the Blazers, and Pip got pretty darn close to making run there, so it's not like he was completely outta gas in 99.  Someone said earlier (maybe it was you) that it was Chuck's fault.  Ok, again, I'm good with that.  But it doesn't change the fact, the number stands at 2, and I was asking NT, why?  That in no damn way shape or form is me "discrediting" Dream.  You have a @#$%^& problem just assuming stuff for folks.  I already said, IN THIS THREAD, Dream/Shaq, or Shaq/Dream, I have no problem with either way.  I am GIVING him credit for his career.  I said, Shaq was a force, Dream was finesse, both were savages in the way they did it.  They KILLED you with their ways of playing the game, that doesn't make one better or worse, just different styles.  It's the same as one guy nails jumpers, the other guy dunks all day.  At the end, it's two points both ways.  Not better or worse, different. 

So again, so we are clear, I do not discredit anything Dream did.  He was a bad bad boy.  If you try to read between any lines to make up some @#$%^& ******ed  bull^%$#  just cuz you feel like it, that is on you man, not me.  But you need help seriously since you keep doin this kind of stuff. 



LeBron joined the other two.  I don't care what you say, dude joined the other guys.  Agree to disagree, no problem by me.  If he wins one, then we will see how it was done.  If Bron goes out and triple doubles a finals series, I have no prob givin him his due.  If Wade goes out and gets a 50 while Bron sits around and does nothing, naw, I'll be all over that.  Why wouldn't I be?  You the one that keeps puttin this boy in all the greatness arguments with all the winners, but until he wins, all he can do is sit the sidelines.  Your heart just can't take that.  But that ain't my problem. 

So go right ahead and re-translate all that I have said yet again, add it to your book you're writing about me, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. 

  


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.

 

[xtapolapacetl]

Originally Posted by CP1708

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

CP1708 wrote:

---

Xtapolapacetl wrote:

---

And for being one of the numerous haters *****ing about how there will be an asterisk next to every championship LeBron wins because of a great supporting cast yet discredits Hakeem for winning a chip with the weakest supporting cast ever, you really shouldn't preach about stance reversal.

You makin stuff up as you go along?  WHEN HAVE I EVERRRRRRRRR DISCREDITED Hakeem for winning with a weak cast? 

 

How on earth would one even go about that argument?  I mean, that's ridiculous, come on man. 

And what Bron did was an act of cowardice, joining two other guys.  Not being traded, or joining just a decent team, he went and joined two other high end players who had signed the day before him.  And that would be fine if you thought I was the only one questioning that, but I'm not, millions around the country called him out for it.  It was an unprecedented move by someone that claims to be "The chosen one" even though it should read "hoosing one." 

 

Discredit Hakeem. 

  Come on man. 




Of course you discredited him. You asked why he didn't win more, thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient, when it in fact was a remarkable feat. You were judging him for not winning prior to 94. Let me ask you this then: How many championships more should he have won with 0 all-stars, 0 all-defensive team members and 0 all-NBA team members to satisfy you and not judge him for not winning more?

And LeBron did not join the other two, they all agreed to join each other. But of course a hater like you would try to make it look like anything but that. And the point is not how he joined the Heat, you and your fellow haters didn't just say "I only have a problem with how he joined the Heat, but every championship he wins from now on is legit and deserved" and stopped there. No, you said that every championship will be tainted because it will be won with Wade and Bosh. Everyone who has taken this stance against LeBron should in fact be all over Hakeem's nuts for winning that 94 championships, yet you aren't. Well, what do you expect from a flip-flopper who constantly customizes his criteria for greatness, one day clutchness is all that matters, another day a performance in game 7 of the NBA finals isn't that important.
I got myself a groupie. 

at you just going along with your own mind that since I asked, "why didn't Hakeem win more", that means I am  " thereby automatically lowering the value of the 94 championship he did win because it apparently was insufficient".  What in the hell are you talking about? 

  My point was, and is, simple.  Hakeem is great, nobody disputes that, we all know.  And every one of us big time ball fans can rattle off rings for those "special" players.  We all know the numbers.  People were talking about Shaq and Kareem and whoever else.  My point was just like I said, why didn't he win more?  At the end of the day, he has TWO rings.  Great.  He got 2, back to back even.  Larry Bird never did that. Tim Duncan never did that.  Admiral never did that.   Dream deserves credit.  No question.  And I hear what you have said about not havin other talent around him, I'm so sorry, that's too bad, wish he coulda had it better, but at the end of the day, it's TWO.  I'm not "discrediting" a God damn thing.  That FACT is, he has two.  Are you with me so far?  Do we need to break out pie charts, graphs and @#$%?  Shaq 4, Duncan 4, Kareem 6, Bill 47, Pat zero.  Do whatever you want, the numbers don't change.  If you want to answer the question, why didn't Hakeem win more by saying, he didn't have talent around him, fine, there ya go.  That's an answer.  Simple.  No problem.  All I asked was a simple question, I wanted to know why over the course of his long career didn't more get done.  He did at one time have Chuck and Pip on his team.  He had Pip BEFORE Pip went to the Blazers, and Pip got pretty darn close to making run there, so it's not like he was completely outta gas in 99.  Someone said earlier (maybe it was you) that it was Chuck's fault.  Ok, again, I'm good with that.  But it doesn't change the fact, the number stands at 2, and I was asking NT, why?  That in no damn way shape or form is me "discrediting" Dream.  You have a @#$%^& problem just assuming stuff for folks.  I already said, IN THIS THREAD, Dream/Shaq, or Shaq/Dream, I have no problem with either way.  I am GIVING him credit for his career.  I said, Shaq was a force, Dream was finesse, both were savages in the way they did it.  They KILLED you with their ways of playing the game, that doesn't make one better or worse, just different styles.  It's the same as one guy nails jumpers, the other guy dunks all day.  At the end, it's two points both ways.  Not better or worse, different. 

So again, so we are clear, I do not discredit anything Dream did.  He was a bad bad boy.  If you try to read between any lines to make up some @#$%^& ******ed  bull^%$#  just cuz you feel like it, that is on you man, not me.  But you need help seriously since you keep doin this kind of stuff. 



LeBron joined the other two.  I don't care what you say, dude joined the other guys.  Agree to disagree, no problem by me.  If he wins one, then we will see how it was done.  If Bron goes out and triple doubles a finals series, I have no prob givin him his due.  If Wade goes out and gets a 50 while Bron sits around and does nothing, naw, I'll be all over that.  Why wouldn't I be?  You the one that keeps puttin this boy in all the greatness arguments with all the winners, but until he wins, all he can do is sit the sidelines.  Your heart just can't take that.  But that ain't my problem. 

So go right ahead and re-translate all that I have said yet again, add it to your book you're writing about me, I'm sure it'll be a fascinating read. 

  


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.

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl


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. 

  

 

[CP1708]

Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl


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.