- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 108,134
- Reputation
- 23,449
- Daps
- 524,175
- Reppin
- Southern California Desert
I rather be 11 and 1 bill russell than 6 -0 or what ever lebron finish with.
Did the "how many Finals losses" begin with Lebron?
- Thread starter valet
- Start date
The only thing harder than getting to the top is staying there.
When Jordan's Bulls got to the top, they stood there for 3 straight years, he left for 18 months, came back lost in the playoffs with no PF and came back and three-peated again.
It's about maintaining excellence. During the second three-peat Rodman was suspended a bunch of times and Scottie was injured through a few playoffs runs, yet Jordan steered the ship towards maintaining excellence.
I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. Once your team is good enough to play in the Finals then losing should be more amplified than losing in the first round, because losing in the first round most likely has to do with the actual whole team.
Mantis Toboggan M.D.
I’m here for the scraps
Which playoff series did rodman miss? What great team did the bulls face in the finals or in the eastern playoffs that we should be in awe of them staying on top through the 90's? Under no circumstances is it better to lose early as opposed to in the finals. This is maybe the single most illogical argument in sports. If the New England patriots lose the 2007 conference title game against the chargers, is their season somehow less of a failure than them losing to the giants 2 weeks later? Would it have been somehow less of a stain if they lost at home in the conference title game against the ravens as opposed to the giants?
Ding ding ding. The GOATs weren't catching losses in the finals 3 out of 4 years so there wasn't shyt to talk about. Lebron making records in more way than one
YoungMoneyCashMoneyBoy
Superstar
This "getting to the finals should be praised" shyt would be like praising someone for getting an interview but not getting hired.
Applying is the first round.
The interview is the finals.
If you don't get the interview, clearly your resume sucked and you didn't deserve to be interviewed. You get the interview, you better get the job. Jordan got the job each time he interviewed. Lebron got sent home with no call back.
Bron stans would be like "at least he got interviewed
".
Applying is the first round.
The interview is the finals.
If you don't get the interview, clearly your resume sucked and you didn't deserve to be interviewed. You get the interview, you better get the job. Jordan got the job each time he interviewed. Lebron got sent home with no call back.
Bron stans would be like "at least he got interviewed
".
Magic Lost 5 times in the finals
NO HE DIDNT.
LOST TO DR J
LOST TO BIRD
LOST TO ISIAH
LOST TO MJ
BRON IS ABOUT TO BECOME THE 1ST NON CIVIL RIGHTS PLAYER
TO LOSE 5 FINALS.
But people aren't in the barbershop arguing if bron is better than west. Unless that's who bron stans think he is more comparable to vs kobe/jordan
Mantis Toboggan M.D.
I’m here for the scraps
Let's take a look at the teams that Shaq and Duncan's lakers and spurs beat in the finals
1999 Knicks. 8 seed minus Patrick Ewing who was lost to injury
2000 pacers: a team with Reggie miller as its best player. Little more needs to be said.
2001 76ers: Theo Ratliff was their second leading scorer. We shouldn't have to elaborate further.
2002-03 nets: the nets. Little more needs to be said. Those two teams don't even reach the finals in any other decade. They probably don't even reach the conference finals any other decade.
2005 pistons: they were great on defense, but once again were a below average offense. Offenses were generally in the shytter at this point in time though.
2007 cavaliers: Larry Hughes or drew gooden was the second best player on that team.
There's not a single team on that list that reached 60 wins. By default I guess the best team on that list is the 2005 pistons. If any of those teams win the title, they'd be looked at among the worst teams to ever win the championship.
MJ wouldnt want to go to the finals and lose. Whether he missed the playoffs or lost the finals in game 7 he would consider it a failure.
Alpha Male
Spare me your daps
YOU DUMB fukkS THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE HOLD LEBRON'S FINALS RECORD AGAINST HIM IS BECAUSE YOU INSIST ON SAYING HE'S BETTER THAN JORDAN.
I'd say yes, it started with Lebron because pre Jordan there really wasn't a standard set based on success and failure, people were just expected to get there if they were superstars. Jordan success really fukked it up for the following NBA stars that now Finals losses carry a certain negative narrative with it because his Bulls constantly making it their made it less impressive.
Magic and Bird played well in their Finals losses so I think that sparred them the Finals loss talk the way it haunts Lebron. They didn't choke but were just outplayed.
Magic and Bird played well in their Finals losses so I think that sparred them the Finals loss talk the way it haunts Lebron. They didn't choke but were just outplayed.
Alpha Male
Spare me your daps
that was until we saw the GOAT
you wanna be called the GOAT you gotta live up to GOAT standards.
That early 90s buffalo bills team is the simple answer to this question. The only reason people speak on that team is the fact that it lost 4 Super Bowls, not because of anything else related to the team.
Regardless of anything else, being good enough to make it to a championship repeatedly but not being good enough to win speaks on something. Either the path you're taking to get the finals isn't worthy of a championship caliber team and/or your not good enough to win championships when you get the chance to...
This shyt ain't horseshoes
My thing is if you're supposedly good enough to make 10+ finals then you should be good enough to win the majority of those finals. When you're getting beat by multiple different teams in finals then whose to fault is it you weren't good enough to win when you are the only common denominator here 
especially when you're in the greatest of all time talk
Every athlete in every sport tells you their goal is to WIN championships...not just play in em so the reality is whether you lose first or last in a tournament, you still lost and there's only one winner
Regardless of anything else, being good enough to make it to a championship repeatedly but not being good enough to win speaks on something. Either the path you're taking to get the finals isn't worthy of a championship caliber team and/or your not good enough to win championships when you get the chance to...
This shyt ain't horseshoes
My thing is if you're supposedly good enough to make 10+ finals then you should be good enough to win the majority of those finals. When you're getting beat by multiple different teams in finals then whose to fault is it you weren't good enough to win when you are the only common denominator here especially when you're in the greatest of all time talkEvery athlete in every sport tells you their goal is to WIN championships...not just play in em so the reality is whether you lose first or last in a tournament, you still lost and there's only one winner