The LeBron James Thread

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

King: My point was this, LeBron's ability to elevate his teammates is what made the team overachieve and seem better than they actually were. I can't name another player during those 7 years who would have elevated that team to the heights they reached. Kobe Bryant was considered the best during that time and in my eyes if Kobe would have had that cast they wouldn't have won close to 60 games nor been considered contenders.

Takeaway: those teams overachieved

[wwharton]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

No my point is LeBron made those players overachieve during the Cleveland years. If you swapped LeBron out with any other superstar at the time, Kobe Bryant included, I don't see them getting close to 60 wins or being considered as a contender.

It doesn't matter. If we're talking about the "team" Lebron is a part of that team. That's my point... and he wasn't anywhere near as good as he is now. That was a very good team in 09 and 10. A better coach, a piece here or there, and maybe even 24th letter calls them contenders (lol).

I literally can't think of anyone but the Mav's and Pistons in the past 14 years that were complete dark horses to contend and win a championship. Plenty of people picked the Spurs to win this year...I don't understand what your getting at there.

Like I said before, from the jump I personally never thought that team was built to win a championship...and break the mold of winning a ring with just one guy capable of creating for himself...just never saw it...and I am not the only one who believed that...

Now for all these people making the Cav's supporting Cast out to be complete trash, that's on them...just like the guys who believe MIA should blow it up because of their casts failure this year...people are going to be extreme...whatever....don't know of that equals the majority.

Who are all these people (that's don't have the username HeatFan8679) calling the Cav's complete trash anyway?

What are we considering contenders? Nobody thought the Spurs would be in the lottery but very few thought they'd be back in the finals again. If we're talking just "contenders" like the Clippers, Thunder and maybe even Pacers would be considered this year, then I don't believe any of you didn't think those Cavs teams were in a group like that.

We're splitting hairs for the most part though. We're on the same page with this discussion. As for who's saying it? I've seen it plenty in posts in this thread and other threads. This is the first time I've said anything in response since "the decision" but even people responding to my comments here (a common argument is "well then why did they go from 60 wins to 19 when he left").

[ProfessaPackMan]

The LeBron James Thread

I don't know about people not considering the Spurs as NBA championship(had to add this part in considering how many different terms/phrases get thrown out on here over the years)contenders this year, especially considering most had them coming out of the West(with OKC receiving some of the votes as well). They were pretty much the consensus pick out West.

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I still don't think my point is being properly communicated, could be my fault. But I have said it too many times throughout the past 5 years haha. LeBron had that team overachieving and no other player would have elevated them to being contenders.

Predictions from SI, ESPN and CBS from October...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20131025/nba-2014-picks-kevin-durant-lebron-james/

http://espn.go.com/nba/notebook/_/page/nba1314/2013-14-nba-champion

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/24151066/2013-2014-cbssportscom-nba-predictions

[ojandpizza]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I think the point ex is making is that the drop off of that team without LeBron would be a lot bigger than what a "contending" team losing it's superstar typically would be.

Lakers would have still had Gasol, Bynum, Odom. Celtics Rondo, Ray, KG. Orlando Hedo, Lewis (not much better). Spurs Manu, Parker.. Pistons Rip, Prince, Wallace.

Cleveland would have been Mo and Jamison, Mo and West, West and Big Z, Hughes and Big Z.. I think ex's point about them overachieving is that without LeBron we're likely talking lottery here. And no matter how much we want to talk up how good any of these guys were Mo Williams was never worth being a 2nd option on a team trying to win a championship, West a 3rd option, and Gibson a 6th man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ex carrabba fan]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

My point, OJ, actually doesn't have to do with how the Cavs would have looked without James, it's that with any other star player they don't look like contenders. They don't win 60 games twice..

Mo Williams was really the only All-Star James had and Williams was the second alternate to make the team, only got on due to two injuries. That was the only season he made the All-Star team.

Other than that James has never had any other All-Star level talent in Cleveland

[lilteapot]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Anyone else think it's a wonder how Lebron ever became a good shooter with that ugly shooting form? I mean it isn't nearly as bad as MKG's or Marion's, but it doesn't look pretty either

it's gotten better but his free throw shooting as well. i don't know if i'll ever be comfortable with him shooting free throws.

[The 24th Letter]

The LeBron James Thread

Anyone else think it's a wonder how Lebron ever became a good shooter with that ugly shooting form? I mean it isn't nearly as bad as MKG's or Marion's, but it doesn't look pretty either

it's gotten better but his free throw shooting as well. i don't know if i'll ever be comfortable with him shooting free throws.

It's funny watching old footage of players and seeing how their jump shots have evolved...even KDs has changed over the years...

LeBrons footwork on his shot is the biggest improvement IMO....he's always balanced...

[Caveman24]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

Anyone else think it's a wonder how Lebron ever became a good shooter with that ugly shooting form? I mean it isn't nearly as bad as MKG's or Marion's, but it doesn't look pretty either

it's gotten better but his free throw shooting as well. i don't know if i'll ever be comfortable with him shooting free throws.

He's changed his shooting form. Worked a lot on his base and the way his elbows and shoulders arch.

[lilteapot]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

It's funny watching old footage of players and seeing how their jump shots have evolved...even KDs has changed over the years...

LeBrons footwork on his shot is the biggest improvement IMO....he's always balanced...

MJ's form was strange at the beginning of his career too, developed into a lights out midrange shooter. so much respect for how hard these guys work to get better

[BringTheHeat]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I think I get what you're asking but let me know if I'm wrong.

When I say "What does that say about LeBron?" I'm speaking to the people that thinks he needs to be surrounded by HOF talent to continue getting rings on a quest to being the GOAT. How can they think as highly of him as they do if they think he needs to jump ship every year his team doesn't win it all?

I thought that what you were getting at. I agree, you can't say LeBron needs a better team and then say he carried a team, just doesn't work like that.

But this Cavs vs Heat comparison wouldn't even be a thing if we didn't lose so badly. It's a crazy comparison and it seems people are already forgetting how GOOD the Spurs played. Sure the Heat played below average for them but the Spurs damn near played perfect offense. LeBron's numbers look great because they allowed him to be great and keep everyone else in check, which worked perfectly.

[BluFu]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

LeBron's numbers look great because they allowed him to be great and keep everyone else in check, which worked perfectly.

i think if LeBron went Cleveland Mode the whole series it might have been way more competitive. i felt like he was focusing too much on efficiency than actually trying to hammer the spurs (besides game 2).

during some of the spurs' biggest runs, he would only take 1 or 2 shots and often defer to guys like wade or lewis even when they weren't playing great.

i think spurs used that pacers series against the heat. wade played out of his mind so they knew James wasn't going to be ultra aggressive in the ensuing series.

damm good strategy popovich.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[wwharton]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

I still don't think my point is being properly communicated, could be my fault. But I have said it too many times throughout the past 5 years haha. LeBron had that team overachieving and no other player would have elevated them to being contenders.

Predictions from SI, ESPN and CBS from October...

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nba/news/20131025/nba-2014-picks-kevin-durant-lebron-james/

http://espn.go.com/nba/notebook/_/page/nba1314/2013-14-nba-champion

http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ba-predictions

My point, OJ, actually doesn't have to do with how the Cavs would have looked without James, it's that with any other star player they don't look like contenders. They don't win 60 games twice..

Mo Williams was really the only All-Star James had and Williams was the second alternate to make the team, only got on due to two injuries. That was the only season he made the All-Star team.

Other than that James has never had any other All-Star level talent in Cleveland

I think I get what you're saying but it doesn't work that way. The team was built around him. It's like the Colts with Manning... but in basketball, one player has a bigger impact on the game. So if you're going to talk about the team, you HAVE to talk about it with Lebron. I understand the other points... some I feel you guys, some we can agree to disagree. This one is really minor in the grand scheme of themes, but you can't judge a team based on how they would look if you take the best player away, even if you're substituting him with another great player. Works even less when the player you're taking away is the best in the NBA.

As for the links, in all 3 of them I saw 2 people pick the Spurs to win the championship. That's why I said how do we define "contenders"? Because if we could go back to 2009 or 2010 and find lists like this, my guess is we'd have more people picking the Cavs to win the championship. So if the Cavs weren't considered "contenders" back then, how many teams do we really call contenders now? The Heat and that's it? If the Spurs were considered contenders this year then the Cavs were back then too. It's one or the other.

[Scofield]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

So if the Cavs weren't considered "contenders" back then, how many teams do we really call contenders now? The Heat and that's it? If the Spurs were considered contenders this year then the Cavs were back then too. It's one or the other.

There are really only about 3-4 teams that have realistic chances at winning titles. Thats the way its been for years now (something tells me thats not news lol). Sometimes the media and fans get caught up in what teams do in the regular season and only pay attention to teams winning games and not how those wins are accumulated. But in the end only a few teams have the metal to win once the real season kicks off.

In addition to having good to great specialists and at least two high level scorer/playmaker types (to go along wiht the obvious needs on D) these teams also have to have a system that maximizes talent and coaches that can adapt in real time. I can't see an argument for those Cavs teams being expected to win titles based on these historical requirements. The "contender" tag that was slapped on them was a function of most people being seduced by their regular season success. The Cavs weren't built for winning playoff series against high caliber competition, however. Their losses in both '09 and '10 should have been case studies on this fact. In the cases of Orlando and Boston, the coaching and system disparities alone would have been enough to pick against the Cavs each time, all other things being equal (which they weren't in the Boston case, that team was superior across the board).

[wwharton]

Re: The LeBron James Thread

There are really only about 3-4 teams that have realistic chances at winning titles. Thats the way its been for years now (something tells me thats not news lol). Sometimes the media and fans get caught up in what teams do in the regular season and only pay attention to teams winning games and not how those wins are accumulated. But in the end only a few teams have the metal to win once the real season kicks off.

In addition to having good to great specialists and at least two high level scorer/playmaker types (to go along wiht the obvious needs on D) these teams also have to have a system that maximizes talent and coaches that can adapt in real time. I can't see an argument for those Cavs teams being expected to win titles based on these historical requirements. The "contender" tag that was slapped on them was a function of most people being seduced by their regular season success. The Cavs weren't built for winning playoff series against high caliber competition, however. Their losses in both '09 and '10 should have been case studies on this fact. In the cases of Orlando and Boston, the coaching and system disparities alone would have been enough to pick against the Cavs each time, all other things being equal (which they weren't in the Boston case, that team was superior across the board).

I don't disagree, but that's a 2014 analysis. I used the Spurs as an example... coming into this season, they would've checked off some of the important things you mentioned, but were considered too old in their best positions. Nobody expected Leonard to do what he did, etc. But if that's a controversial choice then we can go back to the Mavs.

My point is it's easy to say NOW that the Cavs had no shot but that's not what was believed at the time... just like now people are saying the Heat aren't built to win another one, just because they lost. The fact is championships are just hard to win, no matter the team. Along with a lot of predictable things, a lot of unpredictable things need to happen as well. The "blow it up" mentality after a team doesn't win a ring doesn't make sense.