Gil would be a 2 stringer on the CAVS in 1991 at best, Maybeeeeeeeee the nets.
Gil: “MJ was a Bugatti in an era of Honda Civics”
- Thread starter HandyWithTheSteel
- Start date
WhatLol the bulls were not that much talented than the teams they faced, meanwhile Lebron was playing with top 5 picks every year, I mean D Wade is the 3rd greatest shooting guard of all time man.
Anthony Davis, Kyrie, Love was statistically speaking a top 5 player the year before he joined Lebron. That Cavs team was better than the warriors pre KD.
?! No the fùck they weren't
. Golden State only needed Harrison Barnes to shoot 45% for the series and they would've won in 6. That's with LBJ and Kyrie going crazy. Pippen is better than anyone LeBron has played with by a mile. And, yes, I'd say that he's better than Wade because he could actually stay on the court.
This is the path we've been on with this garbage discourse for years. Took Gen Z long enough to implement the "but he was taller than everyone" with a new age spin. And yet people still don't see how we got here and how much worst it's gonna get. Essentially the latest is the greatest. Enjoy
The problem with this is, you're starting your statement off with a false premise -Congratulations sir your statement has officially been declared as the dumbest statement in all of Coli basketball history.
When Barkley came into the NBA his Philadelphia team had Hall of Fame Players like Moses Malone and Julius "Dr. J" Erving. He also had NBA stars Mo Cheeks, Andrew Toney and Bobby Jones.
1984-85 Philadelphia 76ers Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
Checkout the latest Philadelphia 76ers Roster and Stats for 1984-85 on Basketball-Reference.comwww.basketball-reference.com
Now take a look at Michael Jordan's rookie roster. Other than Orlando Woolridge; have you ever heard or seen any of those other dudes?
1984-85 Chicago Bulls Roster and Stats | Basketball-Reference.com
Checkout the latest Chicago Bulls Roster and Stats for 1984-85 on Basketball-Reference.com
When Barkley came into the NBA.
Chuck wasn't a superstar when he first came into the league. He became a superstar around '88, which by that time Moses Malone had been traded to Washington long ago, and Dr. J was long past his prime and in the final season of his career. Andrew Toney was a shell of his former self at the point too given all the stress fractures in his feet (he could barely walk after games). And Bobby Jones had retired by then too.
Essentially, by the time that Chuck became a superstar, he didn't even have a window with those aforementioned players to make the most of it. But make no mistake about it, he still played with a lot of talent in Philly and when he got traded to Phoenix.
Whereas the opposite rang true for MJ, where he might've started off with a less-than-stellar support cast, when he became a superstar it didn't take long for Chicago to surround him with young, up-and-coming star talent in Pippen and Grant; strong, stabilizing vets like Cartwright and Paxson; and strong role players like B.J. Armstrong. Later on when they needed a reboot, they added: Harper, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley, Perdue etc.
Keep in mind, this support cast* won 55 games in 1994 (without MJ), and were a bad call away from possibly making the Finals. Marinate on that.
It's important that you take what I said in its rightful context instead of cherry-picking one part of it on some gotcha shyt. When I mentioned MJ had the best supporting cast, I also mentioned in the same frame, that he had the best coaching staff. Those support casts he had for both three-peats wouldn't have been as good if not for the player management of Phil Jackson, and the Xs and Os of Tex Winter. That's the differentiator between him and Chuck. They might have had comparable support casts, in a vacuum, but it was the timing and the harnessing of the support casts from coaches and the system which gave MJ more of an advantage.
This is what shyts me with cats like you, instead of simply bringing up a counterargument and addressing me like a grown ass man, you come with this disrespectful ass shyt (especially since I wasn't even talking to you), and then you end up looking stupid because you didn't take the time to really understand what I was stating nor looking at the appropriate timelines of both players and their respective support casts.
Except there weren't "plenty" of other superstars who had the coaches and support cast like MJ had.
Are you going on record to say that neither the 80s Celtics and Lakers would've stood a chance if MJ's prime had coincided with that period? Cap/Magic would be ringless? Bird would be ringless? The Bulls would've just dominated every season throughout the 80s and those two aforementioned teams and players would be a footnote in history?
What would've Jordan's and Pippen's "elite level defense" done against someone like Cap or Parish? They tag teaming them in the post too?
What the fukk does this even mean? What kind of analytics even existed when Red learned his craft as a coach?
Look at what happened to Phil Jackson when he stuck his nose up at analytics and new-ways of coaching - he ended up with egg all over his face, because he was too damn stubborn to change with the times during his last stint in NY. The Triangle was no longer useful (especially with the players he tried to get to run it), and his player management style quickly wore thin on the squad, leaving the Knicks in a worst state than when he first arrived.
Capped off by this tweet -
The Warriors, Cavs, Hawks and Rockets were the top-four in 3-point oriented teams that season, and funnily enough, they were the four teams which made the conference finals. Phil's complete disdain for the 3-pt shot was the final nail in his coffin.
I swear y'all cats jump out the window on the silliest shyt.
Last edited:
Ozymandeas
Veteran
That's kinda like saying Usain Bolt was a Bugatti in an era of Honda Civics.
They make it sound like Jordan left 2024, got in a time machine and went back to unfairly beat up on the athletes in the 90s.
The reason the game is so advanced now is because he laid the foundation. He was the prototype.
They make it sound like Jordan left 2024, got in a time machine and went back to unfairly beat up on the athletes in the 90s.
The reason the game is so advanced now is because he laid the foundation. He was the prototype.
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
Y’all are in for a rude awakening 20 years from nowbetter hope you know who’s legacy holds up
We already saying Zion and Wemby better than Bron…..
Kobe too
Ozymandeas
Veteran
They claim that Jordan had to wait until the Pistons got old. Isiah Thomas was only two years older than Jordan. Joe Dumars was Jordan's age. Jordan dominated until 1998 so Isiah and Joe should've been good until at least 1996 right. But they were washed by 1991. Even if we go by that silly argument, that's their fault for not getting better throughout the years.
Rell84shots
Veteran
This man got shook by calming words.
You call it downplaying, I call it putting his skillset, ability, career, competition and fortune in its rightful frame. The only folks that seem to have a problem with that are those who're caught up in the religion of him.
Players have said similar about Cap, Wilt and Bron; calling them the greatest and every other hoops superlative under the sun.
As it relates to this argument, what players say about one another is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. At the end of the day, they're all humans, and like all humans they're prone to exaggerating, contradiction, bias, being impressionable etc. shyt, we just had KG saying players of this era wouldn't last 20 years ago, when only just a couple years ago, he said players from 20 years ago wouldn't keep up with this era. See my point?
This isn't even about whether he MJ is the GOAT or not, because quite frankly that's such a reductive argument, and it really gives folks the margin to amplify his feats, instead of speaking about them objectively.
It's like if someone is the best at something, you're going to hear accounts that aren't exactly reflective of reality, but more so an exaggerated account of how good they were, like for example, MJ being able to average 50 in this era. Any rational person knows he wouldn't, but we've had some of MJ's peers and fans alike saying that he would.
Yeah he had no skills
What
No the fùck they weren't
Pippen is better than anyone LeBron has played with by a mile. And, yes, I'd say that he's better than Wade because he could actually stay on the court.
What? Pippen is better than Wade by a mile? Most lists would disagree with you.
Pippen is your example of health? 88 played 1 minute of elimination game against pistons. 89 had migraine in g7, went 1/10. 98 played hurt in g6 finals, under 30 minutes. Said he would’ve missed g7 if Mj didn’t have historic last minute.
I'm giving you the same energy you gave me. Nothing I said in my initial post should've been offensive, and yet you chose to go out of you way and quote me (when I wasn't even talking to you), coming at me sideways, talking all this nonsense about younger generations and being disrespectful, in general.
You know you could've just broached it in a more tactful manner, right? But instead here we are arguing about some trivial shyt.
But I digress.
Well, here's the thing with this.
The cat who I quoted said Jokic resembled "a 80’s-early 90’s type of ball player", which I took to mean the style of his play in combination with his size, as if that was the norm back then (or at least common), when players like Jokic were never the norm back then. You named me 4 players, which is an outlier to begin with, and most of whom don't really fit the style and size of Jokic. The only thing that someone like DRob had in common with Jokic was they were similar in height (and even then that's more relative to bigs, than of height, in isolation).
Jokic does NOT resemble DRob in any way, shape or form, past that, so why would you even think to bring him up as an example? One is a face-up big, whose offensive existence was using his athleticism in every way that he possibly could and supplementing it with jumpshots. The other is a slow, methodical all-encompassing post-scoring and playmaking big. They're at either ends of the spectrum in terms of how they play the game.
If someone asks you what past player resembles Jokic, are you really going to bring up DRob?
There really isn't a player from the 80s/early 90s who resembles his state (let alone players), so it's strange to me why anyone would argue that point, let alone take exception like you did when I said there weren't players like that. Shaq would be the closest one, in real time, and like I said, that is an outlier, and not what was typical of that era. The closest player comparison had he come into the NBA earlier (and not had all the injuries) would've been the OG Sabonis, and that would've been the prototype to what we see what Jokic is doing today. Not any of these other players you're referencing.
See, now, instead of asking me to clarify what I meant when I said "cats his size", you took it as to mean bigs, in general, when that's not what I was talking about.
This isn't the hill to die on.
After I specificially said in my initial post that cats Jokic's size weren't running up and down the floor for 40 minutes regularly during the playoffs, you mention a player whose minutes capped off between 28-30 during the postseason. In Smits' three main playoff runs as a main option scorer for the Pacers, he averaged 28, 32 and 30 minutes, respectively. Whereas Jokic averages 38 minutes for his postseason career (meaning, he regularly has games where he plays 40+ minutes); the same cat who holds the record for most minutes in a playoff game at 65.
And that's before we get into the overarching point of Jokic's offensive load, where Smits' doesn't even remotely compare.
Smits is such a strange player to reference in comparison to Jokic. Even stranger why you'd keep doubling down on the example. Only on TheColi are nxggas willing to sacrifice themselves to land a point by comparing Smits to Jokic. Lord have mercy.
Now you're just proving my point even further.
All three of those players had smaller roles compared to Jokic.
But let's just take Duckworth as the nail to hammer my point home here. His prime years were so finite because of his health issues, that if he was asked to play a role like Jokic, whilst playing 40 minutes regular in the playoffs, he probably would've literally died on the court -- even more abruptly that he did.
Which again, overlays my position that players Jokic's size back then weren't tasked with being the lead playmaker and lead scorer of their teams, all the while playing maximum minutes. This is why I made it known that Jokic isn't really comparable to players of that era. The fact that you think this is a wild position for me to take is wild. This conversation around how Jokic compares (physically and stylistically) to players of the past didn't need to be this serious until you turned it into some nonsensical shyt about this 'younger generations' bullshyt.
If you're an old head, then you're all the more proof that being misinformed isn't isolated to young cats, as evidence by you tripping over every single point you've tried to make during our exchange.
Jokic now resembles Smits and DRob. TheColi never ceases to surprise me with the new ways they find to argue some dumb shyt.
fifth column
Superstar
So let’s speak objectively about MJ then. Did MJ not lead the Bulls dynasty to win 6 chips 6 fmvps without allowing a game 7 in the finals?
Did the Bulls dynasty not lose 3 in a row regular season games from 1991-1998 when MJ played?
Did MJ not win every championship series that he played in since college? NCAA championship, FIFA gold, 2x Olympic gold, a perfect 6-0 NBA titles?
Does MJ not avg the highest ppg in the regular season and the playoffs in NBA history?
Did MJ not get drafted to a trash franchise and had to grind to the top by getting better each year? 1st 3 years by himself losing in the 1sd round then with a little help from Pip and Grant lose to the Pistons in the semi then conf finals twice then dynasty?