Players who proved widespread claims of not being able to win with them wrong.

[HardwoodLegend]

Lebron can't win without 2 all stars. Quote me on this, bookmark this, feel free to bump anytime. He can't.

You'll probably be right, because he'd be too old by the time he would be forced to do it without them.

However, prime LeBron remaining frozen with his same skillset and athleticism could win with other solid teammates.

It's not crazy to assume he could win with a team somewhere in between the quality of this Miami Heat team and his best Cleveland helping roster.

[Kblaze8855]

I feel like Shogons post wasnt meant to be taken all that serious so im gonna disregard it.

[ReturnofJPR]

Please stop starting threads with obnoxiously long titles. Thank you.

[ShaqAttack3234]

LeBron did.

No he didn't. They didn't have much offensive talent, but they were elite defensively and on the boards. Scrubs are players who really can't contribute. Obviously they did contribute, and there's no question that Z was a solid NBA center, Varejao a solid role player, Gooden was a talented offensive player(even if he had the IQ of a brick wall) and a very good rebounder, Hughes was a pretty average starting guard. Snow was a non-factor offensively, but still a good defender. Gibson shot the ball really well and had a couple of 20+ games, iirc.

[Kblaze8855]

Nah im not gonna be doing that.

[SCdac]

Or is it mostly hating and leaning on the fact that since only 30 or so guys ever led a team to a title you could say it of anyone and likely be right?

I myself have said it of Karl Malone long before ISH days. And Reggie Miller.

So im not saying I dont understand the....impulse. But I dont think I could say it these days. Perhaps ive grown up a bit...dont know.

For me, this is it... Not the "likely being right" part. The part about there being a select few. We're not talking about something any player can do. So, it's pointless to assume everybody can.... just because.

And often times, it's glaring what some player is missing (say, Dwight), other times the player has really high-highs and really low-lows... and it's legitimately deceiving when the low-lows come first.... or there's a bunch of them early on.

Honestly, I think there's nothing wrong with having some conviction. Educated conviction, mind you.

It takes all the speculative fun out of the game if you can't make serious, even "controversial", predictions for fear of being wrong or unfair or shortsighted or whatever. Then everybody is neutral just for the sake of being neutral... which is wack.

Way I see it, after roughly 5 years in the league, or around the age of 26, I think it's completely fair game to project and make relatively blanket career predictions. Even before then in some instances, or later in other instances.

You have guys like Hakeem and Dirk who win their first championship later in their careers (post 30 years old) as the main guy, but that seems uncommon. And much of it comes down to timing IMO (no Jordan in the league... Duncan/KG/Shaq all being old)... but that may or may not be a factor depending on how you look at it.

Ultimately, I think it's up to the players to prove us wrong and create their own destiny. If a player plays soft, selfish, or dumb his first 7 seasons, it's up to him to show us he's not soft, selfish, or dumb anymore, it's not on us to assume he'll turn it around.

[Teanett]

Ultimately, I think it's up to the players to prove us wrong and create their own destiny. If a player plays soft, selfish, or dumb his first 7 seasons, it's up to him to show us he's not soft, selfish, or dumb anymore, it's not on us to assume he'll turn it around.

[BoutPractice]

You can definitely make a list. For instance, I am fairly confident that Brian Scalabrine will not lead a team to the NBA title anytime soon

As for the players mentioned in the thread... I think that most people would agree Durant is capable of leading a team to the NBA championship. He's a true go-to-scorer and a matchup nightmare, has a team first mentality, and already got closer than most at a very young age.

Healthy Derrick Rose (if we ever get to see that again) also has the potential. Add Rose + a reliable second option to the current Bulls and they'd be huge contenders, possibly even favourites.

Westbrook has the ability, but not the mentality. If he matures and gets his own team at some point in his career, I don't see why this couldn't happen. His body may let him down before that though.

I could picture a team with Carmelo as their first offensive weapon winning the title. But he'd need great teammates, great coaching, and a change both in the system and in his game so he can do more with less.

[Kblaze8855]

League is like 60 years old. Players play for long periods of time. Of course there are going to be few who actually win. Kareem was in 1/6th of all the finals in history. If a different person did it yearly it would still be 60 in ten thousand...

A hell of a lot more people are special enough to win than could ever do it.

People hated on Patrick Ewing for years and still do at times when hes compared to people who won.

Dude was literally hakeems pinky finger on a John starks jumper for leading a team to a title.

Elgin Baylor lost 3 game 7s in the finals by a total of 5 points. I dont see how hes more special if someone else makes/misses a jumper.

Jordan comes down wrong on his ankle in game one of the 93 finals and gets hurt like Magic did when the Pistons won...that prove anything about Barkley?


Bob Petitt gets on the "You can win with him" list since he did it....nevermind Russell kinda broke his ankle?


Luck is a hell of a lot of it.

[steve]

I could easily see Anthony winning a title under the right team (well, more the right coach). Chocolatethunder pointed out something important and KBlaze alluded to this with his mention of a player playing in the right system. There are reasons why a George Karl team has never won a title, has seemingly disappointed multiple seasons, and continually make similar mistakes despite roster turnover (it starts to become impressive that Karl's team always seem to fail late in tight games). When looking at teams have that have won titles, can anyone say a bad coach has won an NBA title? Hell, I'd be hard pressed to say just "good" coach has one an NBA title. My personal memory (and I think this is more important when judging coaches, because you really need a feel for how good a coach is) goes back to Chuck Daly and between him, Jackson, Tomjanovich, Poopvich, Riley, Brown, Carlisle, and Spoelstra these aren't mediocre coaches winning championships (there are a few like Van Gundy, Nelson, and Adelman I'd throw in to off the top of my head). So yeah, for truly great players, I think it's much important for the player to be in the right system to really maximize how far they go.

[DMAVS41]

For me, this is it... Not the "likely being right" part. The part about there being a select few. We're not talking about something any player can do. So, it's pointless to assume everybody can.... just because.

And often times, it's glaring what some player is missing (say, Dwight), other times the player has really high-highs and really low-lows... and it's legitimately deceiving when the low-lows come first.... or there's a bunch of them early on.

Honestly, I think there's nothing wrong with having some conviction. Educated conviction, mind you.

It takes all the speculative fun out of the game if you can't make serious, even "controversial", predictions for fear of being wrong or unfair or shortsighted or whatever. Then everybody is neutral just for the sake of being neutral... which is wack.

Way I see it, after roughly 5 years in the league, or around the age of 26, I think it's completely fair game to project and make relatively blanket career predictions. Even before then in some instances, or later in other instances.

You have guys like Hakeem and Dirk who win their first championship later in their careers (post 30 years old) as the main guy, but that seems uncommon. And much of it comes down to timing IMO (no Jordan in the league... Duncan/KG/Shaq all being old)... but that may or may not be a factor depending on how you look at it.

Ultimately, I think it's up to the players to prove us wrong and create their own destiny. If a player plays soft, selfish, or dumb his first 7 seasons, it's up to him to show us he's not soft, selfish, or dumb anymore, it's not on us to assume he'll turn it around.

This is true if you can actually speak accurately about said player.

And I really hope you aren't implying that the Mavs won in 11 due to lack of competition. It really sounds like you are, but I'll give you a chance to explain what that comment meant.

[DMAVS41]

League is like 60 years old. Players play for long periods of time. Of course there are going to be few who actually win. Kareem was in 1/6th of all the finals in history. If a different person did it yearly it would still be 60 in ten thousand...

A hell of a lot more people are special enough to win than could ever do it.

People hated on Patrick Ewing for years and still do at times when hes compared to people who won.

Dude was literally hakeems pinky finger on a John starks jumper for leading a team to a title.

Elgin Baylor lost 3 game 7s in the finals by a total of 5 points. I dont see how hes more special if someone else makes/misses a jumper.

Jordan comes down wrong on his ankle in game one of the 93 finals and gets hurt like Magic did when the Pistons won...that prove anything about Barkley?


Bob Petitt gets on the "You can win with him" list since he did it....nevermind Russell kinda broke his ankle?


Luck is a hell of a lot of it.

Of course. It's all about what you do given the circumstances you find yourself in.

Ewing, for example, might have won a title playing in Duncan's place for his career. But is he winning 4? Hell no based on the evidence.

Is Kobe winning titles given the help Iverson had? Of course not.

Everyone understands this concept and is simply why winning and rings matter a lot...but only when put into proper context.

[B-Low]

He wasn't the star but back in his Sacto days everyone said a team could never win a title with Jason Williams as their starting PG, so the Kings traded him for the more responsible/tame Mike Bibby. Couple years later and



Started every game of the playoffs and the Heat won the title with J Dub averaging only 1.6 TO per game.

[Kblaze8855]

That Heat team had Jason Williams AND Antione Walker. Two "You cant win with...." guys playing big roles.

[DMAVS41]

That Heat team had Jason Williams AND Antione Walker. Two "You cant win with...." guys playing big roles.

But in diminished roles from where they got that stigma. I think that is different than what everyone is talking about.