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 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.Gil was a 2nd round draft pick.
He didn't underachieved
In regard to winning? His teams never really mattered. So yeah, as a winner he underachieved in the NBA.Gil was a 2nd round draft pick.
He didn't underachieved
In regard to winning? His teams never really mattered. So yeah, as a winner he underachieved in the NBA.
Lol those Wizards teams weren't built to win anything, worst version of Dame's Portland teamsGil 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.
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..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.
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.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
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..
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 anythingIverson'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.
ThisIt'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.
Parker is maybe the most overlooked great player of the last 25 years.Tony Parker was left off the top 75
He was 4 time champion and a finals mvp