- 17,875
- 8,145
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6372 of your posts have been awful.
Fixed............and 100% Truth.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6372 of your posts have been awful.
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6372 of your posts have been awful.
Wait? Jordan didnt have rivals? Fam the whole league was shootin for that number 1 spot. Jordan is the reason why a lot of the greatest players in history retired with no ring. You can really sit there and say the Heat/Knicks/Sonics/Jazz were not rivals for Jordan? Hell even throw in the Pacers with Reggie.Originally Posted by Fatal Lightning
i wonder if jordan had a rival, what would have happened to his legacy, (championships).. if only len bias didnt die.. wonder if he could've been jordan's rival
Wait? Jordan didnt have rivals? Fam the whole league was shootin for that number 1 spot. Jordan is the reason why a lot of the greatest players in history retired with no ring. You can really sit there and say the Heat/Knicks/Sonics/Jazz were not rivals for Jordan? Hell even throw in the Pacers with Reggie.Originally Posted by Fatal Lightning
i wonder if jordan had a rival, what would have happened to his legacy, (championships).. if only len bias didnt die.. wonder if he could've been jordan's rival
Originally Posted by GrizztheBoss
John Starks was kind of like his rival they use to go at it.
When Mike hooped the game wasn't frail. These days, it is, with that being said Jordan is raising RAISED the bar for the new guys.
Lebron is doing the raising at this point. LBJ is probably doing what's never been seen as we speak. 50 10 and 10* in the Garden..
Originally Posted by GrizztheBoss
John Starks was kind of like his rival they use to go at it.
When Mike hooped the game wasn't frail. These days, it is, with that being said Jordan is raising RAISED the bar for the new guys.
Lebron is doing the raising at this point. LBJ is probably doing what's never been seen as we speak. 50 10 and 10* in the Garden..
Originally Posted by Murda He
I stopped trying to explain **%* to your know it all self a minute ago bruh.. it is what it is... I can only lead you TO the water.Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Originally Posted by Murda He
So...... you skipped over everything I said about being in NBA shape too? Or you just reworded it in your mind so as to understate it's significance?Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Originally Posted by Murda He
OH... I get it now! Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your thing is taking what I say in plain english, making it mean something else, and then arguing with yourself. Carry on then. I won't stop you any longer. Bcause clearly the word STILL and the word BETTER are synonymous and imply improvement through aging and physical deterioration.Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Still MJ? STILL MJ?? Are you saying that the 01-02 MJ was better than the 90-91 MJ?
Then what the hell were you talking about when you said that a 39 year-old MJ who was away from basketball 3 years in 2001-02 MJ was "still MJ"? Were you talking about the name that is on his birth certificate? Because he's STILL Michael Jordan here in 2010 as well. Maybe he should suit up and drop 50 at the age of 50 then.
Oh, so please explain to me the bottom line.. You said that you didn't mean to say that a 39 year-old MJ who was "in NBA shape" was better than a 90-91 MJ, yet you said that a 39 year-old MJ who was "in NBA shape" was still MJ. How much non-better yet still the same MJ was he in 2001-02 compared to 1990-91?
94-95 MJ who was away from basketball for less than two seasons is constantly getting a free pass for losing against the Magic because he was away from basketball, not in shape, etc. Even though he was still athletically active throughout that time. And he was only 31 at that point. Yet in your head a 39 year-old 01-02 MJ who was away from basketball for three full seasons was in shape?
How much non-better yet still the same MJ was he in 2001-02 compared to
1990-91?
Originally Posted by Murda He
I stopped trying to explain **%* to your know it all self a minute ago bruh.. it is what it is... I can only lead you TO the water.Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Originally Posted by Murda He
So...... you skipped over everything I said about being in NBA shape too? Or you just reworded it in your mind so as to understate it's significance?Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Originally Posted by Murda He
OH... I get it now! Why didn't you just say that in the first place? Your thing is taking what I say in plain english, making it mean something else, and then arguing with yourself. Carry on then. I won't stop you any longer. Bcause clearly the word STILL and the word BETTER are synonymous and imply improvement through aging and physical deterioration.Originally Posted by Xtapolapacetl
Still MJ? STILL MJ?? Are you saying that the 01-02 MJ was better than the 90-91 MJ?
Then what the hell were you talking about when you said that a 39 year-old MJ who was away from basketball 3 years in 2001-02 MJ was "still MJ"? Were you talking about the name that is on his birth certificate? Because he's STILL Michael Jordan here in 2010 as well. Maybe he should suit up and drop 50 at the age of 50 then.
Oh, so please explain to me the bottom line.. You said that you didn't mean to say that a 39 year-old MJ who was "in NBA shape" was better than a 90-91 MJ, yet you said that a 39 year-old MJ who was "in NBA shape" was still MJ. How much non-better yet still the same MJ was he in 2001-02 compared to 1990-91?
94-95 MJ who was away from basketball for less than two seasons is constantly getting a free pass for losing against the Magic because he was away from basketball, not in shape, etc. Even though he was still athletically active throughout that time. And he was only 31 at that point. Yet in your head a 39 year-old 01-02 MJ who was away from basketball for three full seasons was in shape?
How much non-better yet still the same MJ was he in 2001-02 compared to
1990-91?
thanks, juice kingOriginally Posted by Deuce King
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6372 of your posts have been awful.
Fixed............and 100% Truth.
thanks, juice kingOriginally Posted by Deuce King
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6372 of your posts have been awful.
Fixed............and 100% Truth.
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6373 of your posts have been awful.
Originally Posted by JD617
I don't know where you came from but allOriginally Posted by Fatal Lightning6373 of your posts have been awful.
Originally Posted by frshstunna
Nobody is seeing Jordan, he was that great......BUT why people in here acting like there weren't any terrible teams when MJ was playing in which he could have scored a 100 on??....Teams like the warriors and nets these days aren't the first teams to suck.....
Originally Posted by frshstunna
Nobody is seeing Jordan, he was that great......BUT why people in here acting like there weren't any terrible teams when MJ was playing in which he could have scored a 100 on??....Teams like the warriors and nets these days aren't the first teams to suck.....