Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I disagree, unless we have a different view of what "deeper" into the playoffs means. When he scored, I believe it was 63 against the Celtics, in my view there wasn't a doubt that he was the NBA's premier basketball player and that the makings of something incredibly special was unfolding right before my eyes. A truly great player, on a very short list for the best ever, yes. But what would have happened if the Bulls had continued to float along at .500, battling just to slide into the No. 8 seed every year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 You are biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's called being a "fan," the same reason I'll defend Andre Reed against Cris Carter and Tim Brown in HOF debates.) But for the rest of the country outside Chicago, the young Jordan was a sideshow, following in the flightpath of Julius Erving and Dominique Wilkins -- guys who had the moves, but only one ring between them to show for it. Jordan was fun to watch (when you could actually find a Chicago game on the air), yes, but I don't think he truly began to transcend the sport until the Bulls got deeper into the playoffs. I disagree, unless we have a different view of what "deeper" into the playoffs means. When he scored, I believe it was 63 against the Celtics, in my view there wasn't a doubt that he was the NBA's premier basketball player and that the makings of something incredibly special was unfolding right before my eyes. What the !@#$ is this ****? Basketball playoffs, on the politics board? Get this bull **** out of my playground!!! Take it to the consumer forum, nobody gives a !@#$ about that board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 What the !@#$ is this ****? Basketball playoffs, on the politics board? Get this bull **** out of my playground!!! Take it to the consumer forum, nobody gives a !@#$ about that board. My voice above all must be heard! My thoughts accounted for! My dreams and wishes and impulses and fetishes expressed! Answer me, world! I will not be ignored! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 what's amusing is how some people's opinions get in the way of nuance.this entire post echoes Lori's familiar stand against sweeping generalizations and absolutes. and i think that this is the point that's trying to be made here. but of course i could be wrong. jw Pot meet kettle. Or do we need to endure another drunken screed from you repeating the bumper sitckers? Bush Lied, WMD weren't found, etc. I suppose there isn't any nuance in the intelligence business now is there? Make sure your buddy sees this. It will make for a good laugh, although I suppose not the kind you are after. Sheesh, as if everything you have have ever posted here regarding the Iraq War isn't a sweeping generalization....nah your political opinions have never imposed on your objectivity. It's the rest of us "people" that have the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 A truly great player, on a very short list for the best ever, yes. But what would have happened if the Bulls had continued to float along at .500, battling just to slide into the No. 8 seed every year? But of course they didn't. Jordan got plugged into a relatively talentless team and was at first just a one man show like Dominique. As the team got better around him and his game changed--especially as he became the dominant post-threat--he became legend. Also, he had that crazy competitive streak that made him even more dominant (and more of an !@#$). I don't think I ever saw a guy make more shots as the shot clock wound down as Jordan. Everyone watching knew that he was going to shoot the ball on those plays and still no one could stop him. Magic and Bird were a brief pinnacle of team play between eras of individual play. Jordan was the epitome of the individual player. Sure, he didn't win until he had a decent supporting cast but no one is dumb enough to say much about Jordan's ability to make his team better. That's not what he was about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 But the argument is being derailed again in whether Jordan was a great player vs the NBA savior. The NBA was on its back enough that people peddled the theory that the league fixed the lottery to award Patrick to the Knicks. Jordan was the natural icon of that era, but it would not shine as brightly if ESPN didn't successfully argue the theory that young men will watch sports no matter what's on and Nike discovering that it can create a sneaker line around one man. The rest is history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Me! Me! Me! Me! Me! It's all about me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 A truly great player, on a very short list for the best ever, yes. But what would have happened if the Bulls had continued to float along at .500, battling just to slide into the No. 8 seed every year? As JA pointed out, he didn't. The fact is that he did win 3 championships, then he retired, they the Bulls then consequently sucked, he returned and in his first full year back they win the championship again, 3 times. I remember very clearly, as absurd as this may sound, telling my father "It's not fair they have Jordan". I almost despised the Bulls back then, because you knew they were going to win just about every game, and if the Bulls were down for most of the game and by 5-10 points, Jordan would basically say "OK boys, I gave us an opporunity to win, now give me the damn ball so we can wrap this up", and wrap it up he would. Not only was he the best offensive player to have ever played basketball, but he was one of the fiercest defenders ever, and not only was he the best and fiercest player to have played the game, no one and I mean no one had the will to win a game like Jordan. I will also say that yes, Pippen definitely contributed to the Bulls success, but when Jordan left, Pippen all of a sudden became just a pretty good player, with Jordan, Pippen was a very good player. Jordan on the other hand, was always a great player with or without Pippen. Jordan had it all, the work ethic, the athleticism, the leadership, the mental toughness, everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 As JA pointed out, he didn't. The fact is that he did win 3 championships, then he retired, they the Bulls then consequently sucked, he returned and in his first full year back they win the championship again, 3 times. I remember very clearly, as absurd as this may sound, telling my father "It's not fair they have Jordan". I almost despised the Bulls back then, because you knew they were going to win just about every game, and if the Bulls were down for most of the game and by 5-10 points, Jordan would basically say "OK boys, I gave us an opporunity to win, now give me the damn ball so we can wrap this up", and wrap it up he would. Not only was he the best offensive player to have ever played basketball, but he was one of the fiercest defenders ever, and not only was he the best and fiercest player to have played the game, no one and I mean no one had the will to win a game like Jordan. I will also say that yes, Pippen definitely contributed to the Bulls success, but when Jordan left, Pippen all of a sudden became just a pretty good player, with Jordan, Pippen was a very good player. Jordan on the other hand, was always a great player with or without Pippen. Jordan had it all, the work ethic, the athleticism, the leadership, the mental toughness, everything. But did he single-handedly save the NBA? And, did Reagan win the Cold War? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 And we are mocking Ronald Reagan, because? Oh, I forgot, America likes bad guys now....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 But the argument is being derailed again in whether Jordan was a great player vs the NBA savior. The NBA was on its back enough that people peddled the theory that the league fixed the lottery to award Patrick to the Knicks. Jordan was the natural icon of that era, but it would not shine as brightly if ESPN didn't successfully argue the theory that young men will watch sports no matter what's on and Nike discovering that it can create a sneaker line around one man. The rest is history. Agreed that SportsCenter dunkathons and Air Jordan commercials played their part, but the NBA's resurgence had already begun (and without much help from the Ewing lottery-fixing). I hate having to use a Wiki link, but... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bask...Nielsen_ratings It took until Jordan's third Finals appearance for the average Nielsen ratings to outpace that 1987 Lakers-Celtics matchup. Based on those numbers, I think I can safely argue that if anything, Bird and Magic were the ones who "saved" the league from irrelevance ... but I can also agree that Jordan led it even further into its most successful era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Agreed that SportsCenter dunkathons and Air Jordan commercials played their part, but the NBA's resurgence had already begun (and without much help from the Ewing lottery-fixing). I hate having to use a Wiki link, but...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bask...Nielsen_ratings It took until Jordan's third Finals appearance for the average Nielsen ratings to outpace that 1987 Lakers-Celtics matchup. Based on those numbers, I think I can safely argue that if anything, Bird and Magic were the ones who "saved" the league from irrelevance ... but I can also agree that Jordan led it even further, into its most successful era. I can agree with this, I'd even go as far as to say that Dr. J could even be mentioned with the duo you just mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I can agree with this, I'd even go as far as to say that Dr. J could even be mentioned with the duo you just mentioned. That's my guy, the sole reason I grew up as a Sixers fan. But to keep the "singlehandedly" theme alive (even though Jeff didn't use that in reference to MJ), it still took Moses to get him to the promised land ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Pot meet kettle. Or do we need to endure another drunken screed from you repeating the bumper sitckers? Bush Lied, WMD weren't found, etc. I suppose there isn't any nuance in the intelligence business now is there? Make sure your buddy sees this. It will make for a good laugh, although I suppose not the kind you are after. Sheesh, as if everything you have have ever posted here regarding the Iraq War isn't a sweeping generalization....nah your political opinions have never imposed on your objectivity. It's the rest of us "people" that have the problem well, i'm glad you're finally on board with my way of thinking. as for your other notes: the debate's relatively open on Bush lying, but ... WMD's weren't found. is this up for debate? as for this thread, i'm not entirely sure how anyone can tell my political leanings, but it's always amusing to be painted into corners by the ultra-subjective ultra-objective. jw EDIT: meant objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Agreed that SportsCenter dunkathons and Air Jordan commercials played their part, but the NBA's resurgence had already begun (and without much help from the Ewing lottery-fixing). I hate having to use a Wiki link, but...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bask...Nielsen_ratings It took until Jordan's third Finals appearance for the average Nielsen ratings to outpace that 1987 Lakers-Celtics matchup. Based on those numbers, I think I can safely argue that if anything, Bird and Magic were the ones who "saved" the league from irrelevance ... but I can also agree that Jordan led it even further into its most successful era. That was well-covered in the HBO documentary. The NBA was bombing until CBS bought the rights and created the Bird-Magic thing. That rivalry saved the NBA. Jordan took it to its zenith by being the sole superpower in his sport, grinding every challenger to dust. His first two retirements probably cost him 3-4 more titles. I wouldn't say Jordan saved the NBA. Bird-Magic saved it from an advertising and rating's abyss. Jordan was able to become a one-man focal point where Bird and Magic needed their teams and each other to carry the league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 You are biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's called being a "fan," the same reason I'll defend Andre Reed against Cris Carter and Tim Brown in HOF debates.) But for the rest of the country outside Chicago, the young Jordan was a sideshow, following in the flightpath of Julius Erving and Dominique Wilkins -- guys who had the moves, but only one ring between them to show for it. Jordan was fun to watch (when you could actually find a Chicago game on the air), yes, but I don't think he truly began to transcend the sport until the Bulls got deeper into the playoffs. actually, being a fan of the bad-boy Pistons, Jordan was schooled by Laimbeer and Co., a team that actually led the Bulls and Jordan to make changes. so, Jordan didn't save the NBA. the Pistons did. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 actually, being a fan of the bad-boy Pistons, Jordan was schooled by Laimbeer and Co., a team that actually led the Bulls and Jordan to make changes. so, Jordan didn't save the NBA. the Pistons did. jw Heh. You would like Laimbeer, wouldn't you? (To be honest, I thought that team was fun to watch, and it didn't hurt that Chuck Daly was a local legend ...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 well, i'm glad you're finally on board with my way of thinking. Your way of thinking being? Smugly act like other people who don't share your opinions don't "get it"? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that thinking at all. If you, or your fellow journalist guy is unhappy with the fact that nobody agrees with you, or, that you can't seem to win a single debate on a political message board, perhaps its time to stop blaming us, the "rules", cell phones, twitter, Holy God, and start blaming: the crappy ideas you espouse? as for your other notes: the debate's relatively open on Bush lying, but ... WMD's weren't found. is this up for debate? Ok, Mr. Nuance...and I use that term with extreme irony...Perhaps you would care to explain why well over half the Democrats in office at the time saw the same intelligence, concluded the same thing = we can't let another 9/11 just happen, we have to go get whatever WMD he has BEFORE he gives them away to Hamas, Al Queda, whoever? Did they lie too? Were they manipulating intelligence? Or is it: that you aren't perceiving the nuances properly? Not seeing the gray are we? So why aren't you holding them accountable for not finding the WMDs? Or, is that simply too black and white? How about this: another command decision is rapidly approaching along the same lines. Iran is about to obtain nukes. What should we do there Mr. Nuance? Let them have them? What if we make the wrong decision? What if Obama ends up sending in troops, and God forbid, we find out it was all a hoax? Then what? Do all the people that "disagreed"(with no possible chance of having any real knowledge either way) with "the war" all get to print out Obama Lied bumper stickers and self congratulate themselves for being able to "perceive nuance" better than everyone else? What if Obama does nothing and Iran is allowed to proceed, thus touching off a Middle East arms race? Just what the doctor ordered for a region already in constant tension...what comfort will those who were for action and not appeasement gain? That they "perceived nuance" better? as for this thread, i'm not entirely sure how anyone can tell my political leanings, but it's always amusing to be painted into corners by the ultra-subjective ultra-objective. jw EDIT: meant objective. Well, there is that matter of the drunken post you wrote stating things in one absolute after the next, ranging on all manner of topics, and each time, showing clear leftist thinking. But I suppose the rest of us "people" weren't able to perceive the nuances properly and therefore we misinterpreted it, huh? EDIT: Perhaps we shouldn't be complaining about others painting us into corners when we are the ones holding the paint can and the brush? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 well, i'm glad you're finally on board with my way of thinking. Your way of thinking being? Smugly act like other people who don't share your opinions don't "get it"? Sorry, I don't subscribe to that thinking at all. If you, or your fellow journalist guy is unhappy with the fact that nobody agrees with you, or, that you can't seem to win a single debate on a political message board, perhaps its time to stop blaming us, the "rules", cell phones, twitter, Holy God, and start blaming: the crappy ideas you espouse? Sarcasm detector busted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Sarcasm detector busted? We usually reserve sarcasm for the politics board; he's probably not used to seeing it on the friggin' basketball board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts