timothy_strickland
BRUHZ
bron is on the media witness protection. this nikka is protected more than anybody else in the history of sports. they babied this cat since day 1. making excuses for him every damn day.
you mean CP3.
Why is LeBron routinely painted as an underdog?
- Thread starter DlAMONDZ
- Start date
you mean CP3.
CurrencyChase
Banned
Yeah you right. My memory foggy but my point still stands. That team was weak carried on the shoulder of the goat.
DlAMONDZ
That pu$$y got me grinning
2 all stars and a bunch of 3 point shootersYou think the team he's on now is a superteam?
How is that not a superteam?
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
First of all that doesn't make them a superteam they are just a typical team of this era of NBA. 2ndly they have no big, interior defender or any defensive specialist just being all finesse isn't going to guarantee a championship2 all stars and a bunch of 3 point shooters
How is that not a superteam?
brick james
John piffington
Breh, a typical team of this era? In this era the superteams have been the Celtics, the Heat, the Warriors after getting KD, and the Cavs. What are the other super teams?
Roman Brady
Nobody Lives Forever
Toronto has 2 all stars and 3 point shooters are they a super team? Clippers, knicks and bulls have a bevy of all stars/ex all stars with shooters does that make them a superteam? The only superteam in the nba now are the warriors I don't know what point u are trying to make with the history lesson.
Ps I actually forget what Kevin love has done outside of his initial years in Minnesota that has made him be viewed as some dirty Dirk or pau gasol type. Out of the Cavs supporting cast who actually wanted most of those guys? but because they are playing with bron the team is suddenly stacked? I like how you sidestepped my defence comment
Homeboy Runny-Ray
From Around The Way
brick james
John piffington
You're trolling right? The Cavs are a super team because they have the best player in the NBA, a very impressive 2nd option who is one of the best offensive players in the league, and a versatile all star who is averaging 18-11 over his career. All the other teams you named dont have 3 players that are as good as Kevin Love right now. Their supporting cast even has 3 former all stars breh.
I'd consider the clippers a super team if DeAndre had one post move and could shoot free throws. Since he doesn't the only super teams are the Cavs and Warriors, but if DJ miraculously adds a spin move and shoots 70 from the stripe then the Clips are also a super team.
Last edited:
GoddamnyamanProf
Countdown to Armageddon
Bron's best teammate in 2 of his Finals has been Boobie Gibson and Matt Dellavadova
This is more of the idiocy that defines "super teams" by who the best 2-3 players are and nothing else.
You named all those teams as "superteams", and didn't mention the 2014 Spurs, a team more dominant than ANYONE you mentioned except maybe the Warriors?
You claim that the 2016 Warriors, with a 73-9 record and three All-NBA guy on their team PLUS the previous year's Finals MVP, aren't a superteam yet?
Didn't mention the Durant-Westbrook-Harden-Ibaka Thunder either? Or the Kobe-Dwight-Pau-Nash Lakers?
Clippers have a top-3 point guard, a top-3 power forward, a top-3 center, a top-3 sixth man, and one of the NBA's better shooters, but they don't count because their center doesn't have enough effective most moves? Meanwhile, Kevin Love counts even though he can't play a lick of defense and his offense goes into the trash when it matters?
This "superteam" criteria is arbitrary as fukk. The only time it should really apply is when a team has talent available that is head and shoulders above the rest of the league, and not just because one player is better than anyone else.
The only real "superteams" I see in history are the Celtics of the 1950s and 1960s, the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980s, the 1996 Bulls, and the 2017 Warriors. Those are the teams that had simply stockpiled far too much talent on one team compared to what 95% of the NBA had available to even think about losing. Everyone else was, on a pure talent level, still in the same league as a number of other teams at the time.
Even in 2014 his team was
. With Wade hurt and playing like absolute crap, who was his best sidekick that year? Bosh averaging 14 and 5 and getting manhandled by Duncan?
Every Finals LeBron is the "underdog" eventhough his squad is full of allstars, just hammered through the Eastern Conference for another year in a row and had one of the best records in the league. In the next thread, they'll argue the Eastern Conference isn't weak eventhough they just spent the previous thread arguing how bad his chances are against WC teams. Those guys aren't too bright.
It's just Lebron dikkriders hedging their bets. A built-in excuse if he loses (he was an underdog! they weren't supposed to even be there! LeBron has no help! Look at how many players GSW has!) and ready made praise should he win (LeBron's better than Jordan. LeBron's the GOAT. This just cemented his legacy!).
Bron stans are insufferable. They're that kid you played basketball with growing up who was already copping pleas in the game in case he loses because he has the lowest amount of points. Pretends he doesn't care about the game only to be obnoxious to everybody on the court once he starts winning. That's Lebron's fanclub
You're a fukking mongoloid. On betting sites:
2016: Golden State -220
2015: Golden State -190
2014: San Antonio -125
2013: Miami -240
2012: Oklahoma City -160
2011: Miami -180
2007: San Antonio -500
He was the favourite in only 2 years out of 7. There's some facts for you.
brick james
John piffington
This is more of the idiocy that defines "super teams" by who the best 2-3 players are and nothing else.
You named all those teams as "superteams", and didn't mention the 2014 Spurs, a team more dominant than ANYONE you mentioned except maybe the Warriors?
You claim that the 2016 Warriors, with a 73-9 record and three All-NBA guy on their team PLUS the previous year's Finals MVP, aren't a superteam yet?
Didn't mention the Durant-Westbrook-Harden-Ibaka Thunder either? Or the Kobe-Dwight-Pau-Nash Lakers?
Clippers have a top-3 point guard, a top-3 power forward, a top-3 center, a top-3 sixth man, and one of the NBA's better shooters, but they don't count because their center doesn't have enough effective most moves? Meanwhile, Kevin Love counts even though he can't play a lick of defense and his offense goes into the trash when it matters?
This "superteam" criteria is arbitrary as fukk. The only time it should really apply is when a team has talent available that is head and shoulders above the rest of the league, and not just because one player is better than anyone else.
The only real "superteams" I see in history are the Celtics of the 1950s and 1960s, the Lakers and Celtics of the 1980s, the 1996 Bulls, and the 2017 Warriors. Those are the teams that had simply stockpiled far too much talent on one team compared to what 95% of the NBA had available to even think about losing. Everyone else was, on a pure talent level, still in the same league as a number of other teams at the time.
Even in 2014 his team was
I agree my definition of super team was somewhat arbitrary. I was going off of some twisted 3 super star combo that surfaced when the Celtics teamed up, and again when the heat did. I actually never heard the term super team even mentioned as the bulls three peated twice.
Under your definition why not the Lakers who lost only 1 game on their way to the chip? In retrospect were they a super team whos talent was far ahead of the entire leagues with a prime shaq kobe + Phil and a good supporting cast?
I'm not sure if they legit were great or if they just used their talent well in a year when everyone else was
. The Blazers fell off. Kings didn't have Bibby. Spurs had 2/3 their team over 35 and hadn't reloaded with Parker and Ginobli yet. Dirk was just about to become a star. East was awful with Detroit not having built their team yet and Lebron/Wade not around.
You could sort of call the Lakers a super team, but really, they should have lost in 2000 (calls and lucky collapse) and they should have lost in 2002 (calls x 1000000). 2001 was the only year they looked dominant, and it was really just that everyone else was between teams.
Lord_Chief_Rocka
Superstar
Pretty much thisEvery Finals LeBron is the "underdog" eventhough his squad is full of allstars, just hammered through the Eastern Conference for another year in a row and had one of the best records in the league. In the next thread, they'll argue the Eastern Conference isn't weak eventhough they just spent the previous thread arguing how bad his chances are against WC teams. Those guys aren't too bright.
It's just Lebron dikkriders hedging their bets. A built-in excuse if he loses (he was an underdog! they weren't supposed to even be there! LeBron has no help! Look at how many players GSW has!) and ready made praise should he win (LeBron's better than Jordan. LeBron's the GOAT. This just cemented his legacy!).
Bron stans are insufferable. They're that kid you played basketball with growing up who was already copping pleas in the game in case he loses because he has the lowest amount of points. Pretends he doesn't care about the game only to be obnoxious to everybody on the court once he starts winning. That's Lebron's fanclub
