Gilbert Arenas Responds To Draymond About Why “Rings Don’t Matter”

WhoShotCha

Superstar
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,600
Reputation
647
Daps
24,747
Reppin
DUUVALLLL
The dudes that do the most talking are always the dudes who didn't win anything. The mentality shows why they were never guys who won. And he mentioned A.I., but Iverson was still a winner because he overachieved--you guys UNDERACHIEVED. T-Mac couldnt even get out of the 1st round with Yao and Gil never did anything of note other than bringing a gun in the locker room and get some buckets. These guys are so insecure that they don't have a seat at the table that they're trying to change the criteria. Pathetic, really.
 

Big Boss

Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
182,674
Reputation
14,083
Daps
359,309
Reppin
NULL
The dudes that do the most talking are always the dudes who didn't win anything. The mentality shows why they were never guys who won. And he mentioned A.I., but Iverson was still a winner because he overachieved--you guys UNDERACHIEVED. T-Mac couldnt even get out of the 1st round with Yao and Gil never did anything of note other than bringing a gun in the locker room and get some buckets. These guys are so insecure that they don't have a seat at the table that they're trying to change the criteria. Pathetic, really.


Gil was a 2nd round draft pick.

He didn't underachieved
 

Apprentice

RIP Doughboy Roc
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
20,735
Reputation
5,549
Daps
93,961
Reppin
DMV
In regard to winning? His teams never really mattered. So yeah, as a winner he underachieved in the NBA.
Gil wasn’t a second round pick because he underachieved during the draft process. If Gil acted like a normal person he would have been a late lottery pick.
Lol those Wizards teams weren't built to win anything, worst version of Dame's Portland teams

I late lottery pick with multiple All-NBA and All-star appearances still didnt underachieve; yall gotta learn how to address topics without attacking the messenger, you wouldnt be able to do it in a real convo with Gil about the topic
 

Barney Rubble

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
4,000
Reputation
3,064
Daps
18,251
Reppin
NULL
The dudes that do the most talking are always the dudes who didn't win anything. The mentality shows why they were never guys who won. And he mentioned A.I., but Iverson was still a winner because he overachieved--you guys UNDERACHIEVED. T-Mac couldnt even get out of the 1st round with Yao and Gil never did anything of note other than bringing a gun in the locker room and get some buckets. These guys are so insecure that they don't have a seat at the table that they're trying to change the criteria. Pathetic, really.
Gil, personally, thinks rings matter. He's said so, and think it's the whole point of playing basketball, to win a championship. He's making this argument because the voters and media he talked to told him the criteria for how they rank players. They don't value rings because they are a team accomplishment. They only count rings when two players are tied, they use them as a tiebreaker. They value MVP's first, scoring titles second, all nba first team third, defensive player of the year fourth, second team all nba, all defensive team, all nba third team, all-star selection, and then personal stats like points, assists, rebounds etc..
 

WhoShotCha

Superstar
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
5,600
Reputation
647
Daps
24,747
Reppin
DUUVALLLL
Lol those Wizards teams weren't built to win anything, worst version of Dame's Portland teams

I late lottery pick with multiple All-NBA and All-star appearances still didnt underachieve; yall gotta learn how to address topics without attacking the messenger, you wouldnt be able to do it in a real convo with Gil about the topic
Iverson's teams weren't built to go on a Finals run. I don't think the expectation was for the Wizards to win a ring. But that doesn't mean he maximized their potential, either.

I don't really care to address individual accolades that are media-voted. He was a good at basketball, we get that. My point is that winning is paramount when discussing the best players.
 

Big Boss

Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
182,674
Reputation
14,083
Daps
359,309
Reppin
NULL
Gil, personally, thinks rings matter. He's said so, and think it's the whole point of playing basketball, to win a championship. He's making this argument because the voters and media he talked to told him the criteria for how they rank players. They don't value rings because they are a team accomplishment. They only count rings when two players are tied, they use them as a tiebreaker. They value MVP's first, scoring titles second, all nba first team third, defensive player of the year fourth, second team all nba, all defensive team, all nba third team, all-star selection, and then personal stats like points, assists, rebounds etc..


Tony Parker was left off the top 75

He was 4 time champion and a finals mvp
 

Apprentice

RIP Doughboy Roc
Joined
Oct 10, 2017
Messages
20,735
Reputation
5,549
Daps
93,961
Reppin
DMV
Iverson's teams weren't built to go on a Finals run. I don't think the expectation was for the Wizards to win a ring. But that doesn't mean he maximized their potential, either.

I don't really care to address individual accolades that are media-voted. He was a good at basketball, we get that. My point is that winning is paramount when discussing the best players.
Iverson played with a top 5 defense lol this notion that sixers team was just garbage is revisionist and Iverson's team overachieving =/= Gilbert's teams "underachieving" nobody in the mid 00's had those Wizards squads doing anything
 

Primetime

Superstar
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
13,279
Reputation
2,903
Daps
43,204
Reppin
H-Town
It's kinda whatever. We've known for over 30 years what the pecking order is:

winning rings as "the man" >> winning rings as "the side kick" >/= not winning shyt but being "the man" >> winning as "the others"

Was it fair for Kobe in '03 to be compared to TMac? Well, life ain't fair. Kobe knew what had to be done and did it in '09 and '10; so when LeBron was arguably/probably better than him in 2010 and 2011, ppl used the ring argument in Kobe's favor. Came full circle.

We're only bashing "ring culture" now bc a couple current greats (y'all know who) couldn't fully capitalize on ring culture like they wanted to stacking super teams.
 

KidJSoul

Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2014
Messages
19,176
Reputation
3,892
Daps
83,506
It's kinda whatever. We've known for over 30 years what the pecking order is:

winning rings as "the man" >> winning rings as "the side kick" >/= not winning shyt but being "the man" >> winning as "the others"

Was it fair for Kobe in '03 to be compared to TMac? Well, life ain't fair. Kobe knew what had to be done and did it in '09 and '10; so when LeBron was arguably/probably better than him in 2010 and 2011, ppl used the ring argument in Kobe's favor. Came full circle.

We're only bashing "ring culture" now bc a couple current greats (y'all know who) couldn't fully capitalize on ring culture like they wanted to stacking super teams.
This

Arguing against ring Culture is silly

At the end of the day, we know the impact of superstars
 
Top