That is an...interesting take.

I've already quoted it several times: "Horace Grant had a moderate career outside Chicago..." Again, not true. He averaged about 8 win shares per season over his first four years in Orlando. That's quite a bit better than moderate. By then he was 32 years old.

I don't think Jordan is overrated anywhere but Chicago. He's an unquestionably great player and I would argue that he's better than LeBron. I just don't think it's an article of faith that he is unquestionably the best ever. Anyway, my personal opinions aren't the point here.

The entire point of Rick's argument was that Jordan dragged bums around while guys like LeBron and Durant "manufactured" all-star teams to play on. Either Rodman and Pippen are great or they aren't. It doesn't switch back and forth depending on what the argument is.

Grant is a seriously underrated component on those first threepeat teams. He was a better all-around player than Rodman and that first run was better than the Rodman teams.

Your first sentence is pretty much my entire point in the thread. As of today, I think Jordan is the greatest ever, but people in Chicago get hysterical if someone even dare mentions someone else, as though the whole thing's not completely subjective to begin with.

I have to part ways with you on your Grant > Wade thought, though. You should walk that one back.

I have to part ways with you on your Grant > Wade thought, though. You should walk that one back.

Grant is a seriously underrated component on those first threepeat teams. He was a better all-around player than Rodman and that first run was better than the Rodman teams.

Your thread title was "Lebron = GOAT".

Rodman was better than Grant and the 2nd three peat teams were better. Won more games and were more dominant. They were also deeper. Williams (1 year) and Kukoc alone made them better and I'd take Rodman over Grant anyday.

I don't think Jordan is overrated anywhere but Chicago. He's an unquestionably great player and I would argue that he's better than LeBron. I just don't think it's an article of faith that he is unquestionably the best ever. Anyway, my personal opinions aren't the point here.

The entire point of Rick's argument was that Jordan dragged bums around while guys like LeBron and Durant "manufactured" all-star teams to play on. Either Rodman and Pippen are great or they aren't. It doesn't switch back and forth depending on what the argument is.

Almost everything you said there is wrong.

Rick's argument is that Jordan's teams weren't more talented than LeBron's. Whether you agree or not, that's a reasonable opinion to hold.

And yeah, if you're gonna dig in on a guy for expressing a personal opinion you disagree with, it's fair to bring up your opinions as well.

Rick's argument is that Jordan's teams weren't more talented than LeBron's.

I have to disagree with you on the outside of Chicago thing jorr. You think Jordan is the 6th best player ever and worse than shaq. The general concensus nationally is that Jordan is still the best and LeBron is the only one with a case to be made over him. So you necessarily have to think he's overrated in AND out of Chicago.

That's the funny thing. Lebron did make a run at him. He was poised to make a strong case to do it. The problem is that Miami and the Cleveland years have too many blemishes on them to make a real claim.

It then goes to the "BUT REBOUNDS!" argument but that one is just dumb.

Right. And I'll remember it the next time there's an argument on the greatness of Rodman and Pippen who are now deemed to be less than Love and Irving.

The general concensus nationally is that Jordan is still the best and LeBron is the only one with a case to be made over him.

But your opinions on them are as inconsistent as anyone's here. That was my point of bringing it up earlier. You think Buck williams was better than rodman because, in your words, offense matters more than defense and rebounding. Yet you're offended someone would then suggest Love is better? Doesn't add up.

That's a consensus only among those under 35. I know many guys who think Magic and Oscar Robertson were both better than Jordan.

I wouldn't compare Love to Rodman. They're completely different types of players.

They are, because of the evolution of the game. But they play the same position on championship teams. You can't sit this comparison out just because it destroys your Buck > Rodman logic.

I'm sure you do. You rarely see anyone make such a case on a national platform regardless of age. You see old and young men alike say it's Jordan or LeBron.

Are you really gonna pretend you don't know it's a two horse race in the eyes of most national NBA observers regardless of age? I can drown this thread with links you won't be able to counter, but let's just agree on this very obvious point. I don't even think LeBron is close to the second best ever, but I'm also not gonna pretend that's not a pretty near consensus nationally.

It doesn't destroy my logic at all. I'm not comparing either Williams or Rodman to Love. Do you think LeBron has played with anyone better than Pippen or not?

It's not though. The guys who are commenting on the NBA generally act as if the league started with Bird and Magic.

I think the second 3-peat was better. Jordan was past his prime, but he was still the MVP. Also, Pippen was right in the middle of his prime, Rodman was still dominating with the things he did well, Longley wasn't bad, and Ron Harper was 2nd team defense. They also had a slew of role players who were perfect at what they did. Kerr, Kukoc, Wennington, Buechler,etc.

First three-peat might have been a little more explosive with a younger Jordan, but second 3-peat was a machine. Suffocating team defense and offensive efficiency in the triangle

Alright jorr, you don't want to accept reality here so let's do it. Find any links you can saying Oscar and Magic are the best ever. I'll do the same for Jordan and LeBron. I suppose after I win this handily your next argument will be old people don't know how to use the internet or something.