EPTNBA Offseason 2012 - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On July 11 2012 14:23 Holcan wrote: Rodman was also 6'6 So that's how Barkley could hit him every game. "Hey, cut that out!" | ||
|
ERASA
Germany7 Posts
 | ||
|
krndandaman
Mozambique16569 Posts
| ||
|
ERASA
Germany7 Posts
As an orlando fan i kinda look forward to this new era... the team wasn't going anywhere anyways! thanks for answering | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
On July 11 2012 12:57 Durp wrote: I'm not remotely an LBJ fan (which has been well documented in the NBA playoffs thread) but I'd say he's the pinnacle of raw athletic ability in just about any pro sport. I can't think of a single player in any sport (Demarcus Ware is the closest to pop to mind) that matches LBJ's freak-of-nature athleticism. The guy who said he's made of adamantium had me laughing, and it wouldn't surprise me at all. LBJ kind of reminds me of the T-1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day. I was going to mention Jon Jones, but then I realized that we are talking about team sports. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 11 2012 23:57 ERASA wrote: That was obviously not my point As an orlando fan i kinda look forward to this new era... the team wasn't going anywhere anyways! thanks for answering Yes he could, but if he did he would lose about $25 million for being so stupid. IDK I like RG3 coming out right now. He could be in the Olympics for hurdles right now (if he wasn't in football), built-physique while only starting as a professional, and is really smart/logical (which seals the deal for me). Can't go wrong with LBJ though for basketball. In that USA team picture from 08, it showed that Howard really isn't that much taller than James too, which says a lot about both those guys. Pic:+ Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7Pe89.jpg) edit: to below: I hadn't heard of Bayless to the Grizzlies but good fit as well. I like also. | ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
Why are the Knicks looking to sign another PG? All indications are that they're going to have Kidd and re-sign Lin, and they would appear to have more glaring needs in their wings. Maybe as insurance for Kidd being old and Lin recovering from his injury? I'm curious why Prigioni would want to go to the trouble of coming to the NBA if he's just going to be their 3rd string PG. Bayless to the Grizzlies seems like a good deal for them since they need a backup PG pretty badly. For what is reportedly somewhere in the $3M/yr range, it seems like a pretty good deal for a guy who can give their second unit a nice offensive punch. I think it's really cool that Olajuwon is reaching out to both Ibaka and Blake to train with him during the offseason. While he'll obviously get paid in some way, it's great that a HoF player like him is taking an interest in helping young stars who he feels he can develop to their full potential by teaching them valuable skills. It'd be great if more retired greats like him would start doing the same thing. Imagine if Magic or Stockton started doing training sessions for young PGs who could use some help with pure PG skills like Rose or Wall, Mutombo had sessions teaching shotblocking and defense for young bigs like McGee or DeAndre, etc. Just look at what Kareem was able to do for Bynum. Glad the Lakers were able to hold onto Ebanks. I think he has some good potential to fill a position of need that is becoming more important in the league. He also generally seems like a good kid and comes at a great price. Not liking Crawford for the Clippers. They need a larger SG/SF kind of guy, not a combo guard. They've already got Billups and Bledsoe who can play as small SGs, they need someone to guard the Kobe/Wade/etc. types and occasionally backup Butler. They also don't need another guy to pound the rock with CP3 and Billups, and could get much more use out of a low usage sharpshooter. I would have preferred someone like Gerald Green (versatile, big and athletic) or Jodie Meeks (low-usage shooter). Personally, I'm a big fan of Bledsoe and think the Clippers should do whatever they can to get him minutes and develop him to his full potential. Crawford would seem to get in the way of that. | ||
|
DMXD
United States4064 Posts
Here is a training video with Olajuwon and Howard, the dream still got it. + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
![[image loading]](http://a4.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/532221_10151064962124124_1173987233_n.jpg) Ahhhh... "Today your Miami HEAT officially signed veteran free agents Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis! Ray Allen: "I'm looking forward to what we can do here within this organization." Rashard Lewis: "I'm hungry just to win. My goal is to win a championship." Pat Riley: "The hardest thing you're ever going to do is win a title. When you win it, you have to start thinking about what it takes to repeat. We have to raise the bar here for ourselves. We feel very good about our roster right now." | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
Gotta love ESPN. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
| ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On July 11 2012 13:19 Itsmedudeman wrote: ? None of those guys come even close. To be able to be fast, strong, and injury free while playing his minutes is insane. Dr. J, thompson, and carter were not nearly as strong, and shaq was not nearly as athletic. if I were to compare lebron to anyone it would be barkley (lol) or more likely malone, but even if those guys come close in certain aspects lebron has a whole other branch that those guys don't. It's no wonder he can guard all 5 positions cause he's built that well all around. It's honestly unbelievable that the guy is 6'8. Shaq not nearly as athletic!? I don't think you've ever seen young Shaq. He and LBJ are the two greatest athletes ever to play in the NBA. I think LeBron is #1 and will be for a long time, but don't dismiss O'Neal. Here he is at age 17 for example: | ||
|
AntiGrav1ty
Germany2310 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:21 city42 wrote: Shaq not nearly as athletic!? I don't think you've ever seen young Shaq. He and LBJ are the two greatest athletes ever to play in the NBA. I think LeBron is #1 and will be for a long time, but don't dismiss O'Neal. Here he is at age 17 for example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=br3AaISFc-A It's not that shaq is a mediocre athlete, it's that Lebron is such a freak of nature that nobody in the world even comes close. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 12 2012 03:55 Jerubaal wrote: well they aren't really wrong in saying that though. Lakers have four players from the last 2 All-star games. They arguably have top-5 players at every position except SF. And they have two of the last 3 MVP winners I think. I think it does qualify as star-laden "for their role in helping the Nets assemble the NBA's latest star-laden lineup to compete with the Miami Heat, Oklahoma City Thunder and Lakers." Gotta love ESPN.  | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:29 MassHysteria wrote: well they aren't really wrong in saying that though. Lakers have four players from the last 2 All-star games. They arguably have top-5 players at every position except SF. And they have two of the last 3 MVP winners I think. I think it does qualify as star-laden then why leave out the spurs and celtics, you know, the conference finalists?? its not that the lakers don't belong in the contender status, its that they haven't earned themselves onto the echelon yet. | ||
|
city42
1656 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:25 AntiGrav1ty wrote: It's not that shaq is a mediocre athlete, it's that Lebron is such a freak of nature that nobody in the world even comes close. I already said that LBJ is #1, but the difference isn't as big as you think. Looking at athleticism relative to height, LeBron still comes out on top, but young Shaq was not terribly far behind. The biggest difference is that LeBron takes great care of his body, while Shaq realized in about 1994 that he could dominate the league without really trying, so he put on weight and started getting hurt. The NBA only really saw one season of Shaq at his athletic peak. As funny as it might sound, Shaq actually underachieved in his NBA career because he got fat and lazy. Unfortunately people will only remember the L.A. years when he was well over 300 lbs and only tried hard for one season (99-00). | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
On July 12 2012 04:35 Holcan wrote: then why leave out the spurs and celtics, you know, the conference finalists?? its not that the lakers don't belong in the contender status, its that they haven't earned themselves onto the echelon yet. No one said anything about contenders though. The sentence was about them having a star-laden lineup. Celtics just lost Ray Allen so they are down one former All-star now but I get your point. That is who I though of at first, but compared to the Lakers, I can see why they give LA the star count. Does star-laden make you a better team? I don't think that is what ESPN meant, and it is not what I am trying to say either. | ||
|
Holcan
Canada2593 Posts
and for the record, the quote says star power to compete, implying they are talking about contending, not hogging the media spotlight. if that were the case, nyk is more popular than okc. | ||
|
MassHysteria
United States3678 Posts
You just said 3 big SA stars, and I agree. But the Lakers have 4 now. Whehter you think they will suck, or are too old and will not even make the playoffs is a different story. The article only uses those 3 teams as examples of "star-laden" teams. Are there more teams with 3 big stars, of course. But you have to realize the star power the Lakers have in those 4 players and being in the best team of the NBA. OKC and MIA don't need an explanation. If you are saying there are other teams that should be in the conversation of being a contender, then yes. But these 3 teams currently possess more star power than SA or BOS, it is just the truth. | ||
| ||
