There are 124 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

The Official Miami Heat Bandwagon Thread

Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

Key words right there, man.

You can enter all kinds of variables into this to disrupt the argument (strength of schedule, level of competition among the seperate eras, injuries, etc) and this thing becomes the Webzone's crazed "Jordan vs. Kobe debate" all over again. Right or wrong, we get your point.
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

Magic would not go 66-16 with that team. Almost nobody would. Not a very good team. All Lebron.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

Magic would not go 66-16 with that team. Almost nobody would. Not a very good team. All Lebron.

would LBJ win multiple tittles on magics old teams...idk

[ Edited by FreddyG on Jun 27, 2011 at 17:27:05 ]
Originally posted by FreddyG:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

Magic would not go 66-16 with that team. Almost nobody would. Not a very good team. All Lebron.

would LBJ win multiple tittles on magics old teams...idk

Yes I think he would. They had Kareem, James Worthy, and Byron Scott. Add Lebron. That's not a Big 3. That's a Big 4. And Pat Riley coaching. One of the best to ever coach. I absolutely can't believe Lebron wouldn't win some Championships with that. I don't know how many but he would win. That was a phenemonal team. Better than people give it credit for.

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Jun 27, 2011 at 20:19:26 ]
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

I always liked them. I was just mad at Lebron and his lessor play in the finals. In the end I don't think it would have mattered. Dallas was shooting out of their minds. How can you beat at team shooting 70% from 3? I can see how the Lakers lost 4 in a row to them. They were shooting at an inhuman pace. They were hot and it was their year.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind trading one of the Big 3 for Dwight Howard. Take your pick. Any one of the 3. He's going to leave anyway. So at least Orlando gets something. Most ideal would be Wade. He's getting slighty older although still not old. But the longest time frame would be Lebron, Howard and Bosh.
  • BobS
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 7,573
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by FreddyG:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by Jigga:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.

Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.

The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...

A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.

B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.


By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.

I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?

And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?

They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.

As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.

Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?

When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.

The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?

Jordan, Magic, Oscar...why not? But before you answer that, do you really wanna continue this particular argument when none of us has any statistical or empiricial evidence for or against?

I can agree MAYBE Jordan. I'll give you that. And btw, I definitely do think MJ is the best ever, I'm not trying to pull a Pippen here. The logic for saying Magic, Robertson, etc. wouldn't have is that they never beat that mark even with WAY better supporting casts. They both had Kareem, etc. Yet if they couldn't beat that mark with those guys, how can you logically say they would have with Mo Williams and Andy Varejao? I can make it simpler and insteat of saying 127 over 2, how about 66 in one season. Do you think Magic would have ever won 66 games with that Cavs squad? Keep in mind even with those great Showtime squads he never won 66...

Again, not to say that LBJ>Magic. Magic's a top-5 player ever, I'm just not so sure if you take LBJ off the 08-09 Cavs and insert Magic, they still go 66-16.

Magic would not go 66-16 with that team. Almost nobody would. Not a very good team. All Lebron.

would LBJ win multiple tittles on magics old teams...idk

Yes I think he would. They had Kareem, James Worthy, and Byron Scott. Add Lebron. That's not a Big 3. That's a Big 4. And Pat Riley coaching. One of the best to ever coach. I absolutely can't believe Lebron wouldn't win some Championships with that. I don't know how many but he would win. That was a phenemonal team. Better than people give it credit for.

There are some teams that don't give their all in the regular season, many a team has won mid 50's and walked through the play-offs and won a title, others mid 60's and lost in the first round. Remember that 49er team that went 10-6 and let Joe Montana get sacked six times in the season final? Then proceeded to win a Super Bowl. Some teams know they can flip the switch when it matters and the regular season is something they have to grind through. I think after a certain point regular season win totals are not that important.
  • AmpLee
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 16,877
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

I always liked them. I was just mad at Lebron and his lessor play in the finals. In the end I don't think it would have mattered. Dallas was shooting out of their minds. How can you beat at team shooting 70% from 3? I can see how the Lakers lost 4 in a row to them. They were shooting at an inhuman pace. They were hot and it was their year.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind trading one of the Big 3 for Dwight Howard. Take your pick. Any one of the 3. He's going to leave anyway. So at least Orlando gets something. Most ideal would be Wade. He's getting slighty older although still not old. But the longest time frame would be Lebron, Howard and Bosh.

"He's getting slightly older although still not old."

What, does Wade age differently than the rest of the universe? What kind of bs is this? You do realize that Wade was drafted the same year as Lebron and Bosh, and that he ages at the same rate as them. LOL.
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

I always liked them. I was just mad at Lebron and his lessor play in the finals. In the end I don't think it would have mattered. Dallas was shooting out of their minds. How can you beat at team shooting 70% from 3? I can see how the Lakers lost 4 in a row to them. They were shooting at an inhuman pace. They were hot and it was their year.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind trading one of the Big 3 for Dwight Howard. Take your pick. Any one of the 3. He's going to leave anyway. So at least Orlando gets something. Most ideal would be Wade. He's getting slighty older although still not old. But the longest time frame would be Lebron, Howard and Bosh.

"He's getting slightly older although still not old."

What, does Wade age differently than the rest of the universe? What kind of bs is this? You do realize that Wade was drafted the same year as Lebron and Bosh, and that he ages at the same rate as them. LOL.

Lebron came out of high school. Wade came out of college. Lebron is several years younger. Why is that hard to understand? Wade still has 2 - 3 top years left but I'm not sure about 5 - 6? I think Lebron can have 6 - 7 top years left.
If LeBron's on the Showtime Lakers, is Worthy gonna come off the bench
Originally posted by JerryRice1848:
If LeBron's on the Showtime Lakers, is Worthy gonna come off the bench

Why can't he play point guard? He kind of handles that role on the Heat albeit not from that position. But he can facilitate.
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

aint that the truth, another lebron fan boy who was upset for a few days after the finals
  • AmpLee
  • Hall of Fame
  • Posts: 16,877
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by AmpLee:
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

I always liked them. I was just mad at Lebron and his lessor play in the finals. In the end I don't think it would have mattered. Dallas was shooting out of their minds. How can you beat at team shooting 70% from 3? I can see how the Lakers lost 4 in a row to them. They were shooting at an inhuman pace. They were hot and it was their year.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind trading one of the Big 3 for Dwight Howard. Take your pick. Any one of the 3. He's going to leave anyway. So at least Orlando gets something. Most ideal would be Wade. He's getting slighty older although still not old. But the longest time frame would be Lebron, Howard and Bosh.

"He's getting slightly older although still not old."

What, does Wade age differently than the rest of the universe? What kind of bs is this? You do realize that Wade was drafted the same year as Lebron and Bosh, and that he ages at the same rate as them. LOL.

Lebron came out of high school. Wade came out of college. Lebron is several years younger. Why is that hard to understand? Wade still has 2 - 3 top years left but I'm not sure about 5 - 6? I think Lebron can have 6 - 7 top years left.

By several, you mean 3, right? And Bosh? Surely he isn't aging at a slower rate than Wade. You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that they've all had the same amount of NBA seasons logged on their bodies.
Originally posted by SanDiego49er:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

I always liked them. I was just mad at Lebron and his lessor play in the finals. In the end I don't think it would have mattered. Dallas was shooting out of their minds. How can you beat at team shooting 70% from 3? I can see how the Lakers lost 4 in a row to them. They were shooting at an inhuman pace. They were hot and it was their year.

Nevertheless I wouldn't mind trading one of the Big 3 for Dwight Howard. Take your pick. Any one of the 3. He's going to leave anyway. So at least Orlando gets something. Most ideal would be Wade. He's getting slighty older although still not old. But the longest time frame would be Lebron, Howard and Bosh.

By playing better defense?

-9fA
  • Amir
  • Veteran
  • Posts: 25,754
Originally posted by crabman82:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
I see SanDiego is back on the bandwagon this week. Next week, who knows?

aint that the truth, another lebron fan boy who was upset for a few days after the finals

This.