"RealGM" top 100 NBA player of all time list

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

The best of all time are supposed to give a team a great shot at winning in the playoffs. Where do I begin with Malone? He found all sorts of ways to choke in the 96 conference finals, the 97 finals, and for the hat trick the 98 finals! Missed free throws, pathetic shot selection, mind numbingly bad turnovers, reverting to gambling style defense, and many many more. Don't even compare Malone's shooting in the clutch to Stockton's because it isn't close. Stockton smokes his loser teammate in the clutch. His decision making on screen and rolls was second to none and he always put Malone in positions to succeed. Make no mistake, this was Stockton's team and the Jazz would have appeared in the Finals with or without Malone. I cant say the same if they didnt have Mr. Stockton. Unfortunately, those Bulls team of the 90s were great teams led by legit superstars like Pippen and Jordan. Malone's utter ineptitude in the clutch was too much to overcome even for Stockton. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJmNrGSXpgA Classic Malone at 4 minute mark.

I like how you just skipped the whole part about Sidney. Guess you can't come up with anything to defend him that high on any list. Or the fact that those guys you labeled as overrated ALL outperformed him in BOTH the regular season and PLAYOFFS.

But to the Malone thing. I mean it is obvious to see that you don't like the guy. But to just call it Stockton's team with Karl just along for the ride is pretty foolish. I mean Malone was already a 20 and 10 player in BOTH the regular season and playoffs before Stockton was even a starter. Plus you say Malone chocked in those series you can say the same for Stockton except the 98 finals. So now are they both chockers?? Cause you can't have them both playing sub par ball in the SAME series and one be labeled a choke and the other great.

Both Malone and Stockton go hand and hand. Neither one of them would have had the success the had without each other. Stockton wouldn't have assists he had if Malone wasn't there to finish those pick and rolls. Just like Malone wouldn't have the amount of points he had if Stockton wasn't there putting the ball where he wants it. There is no way you can say those Jazz teams would have went to the finals with or without Malone. You just can't replace a league leading scorer and league MVP. You just can't find 27 and 10 guys on every team. In reality they both are very deserving HOF and top 50 players.

[Lumalu]

I hate Malone, but to say the Jazz would of made the playoffs with out him is .

Only a silly person will deny that Karl Malone is one of the greatest Power Fowards of all time.

[AlexBrady]

Quote: Originally Posted by billmatic

lol, yep, they would have steamrolled right through the playoffs with Antoine Carr running the pick and roll with Stockton.

More like Cliff Robinson. Stockton could make anyone look much better than they truly were.

[billmatic]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

More like Cliff Robinson. Stockton could make anyone look much better than they truly were.

That's ridiculous. Replace Malone w/ Robinson and the Jazz were a .500 team.

[Lumalu]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

More like Cliff Robinson. Stockton could make anyone look much better than they truly were.

If that was true, Sloan might not have lasted as long as he has.

[AlexBrady]

Sidney Moncrief was an all around player. Something Malone, Robinson, and Ewing could not claim. Like I said he was one of the most dominant defensive forces of his time and he was an extremely efficient scorer. When it came down to it, Sid just did not have the parts around him needed to win a title. Terry Cummings was an effective scorer, Pressey was decent, and Ricky Pierce was a nice 6th man but it isn't good enough.

[PrettyT11]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

Sidney Moncrief was an all around player. Something Malone, Robinson, and Ewing could not claim. Like I said he was one of the most dominant defensive forces of his time and he was an extremely efficient scorer. When it came down to it, Sid just did not have the parts around him needed to win a title. Terry Cummings was an effective scorer, Pressey was decent, and Ricky Pierce was a nice 6th man but it isn't good enough.

Aight man you got it. You keep dipping and dodging the question. You keep hating on Robinson yet all he had done since coming into the league is have a season leading the league in scoring, rebounding, and blocks. What more do you want your center to do?? You talk about all around skills how many other player can say they had a quadruple double?? How exactly wasn't he all around?? He is the only player in HISTORY to be in the top 5 in rebounds, blocks, and steals in the same season. Only player in history to win ROY,MVP,DPOY, scoring title, rebounding title, and block shots title. Only the third player in hiastory to be top 10 in FIVE catergories in the same season. Again that is all around. The only player at his position better than him in his prime was Hakeem and Shaq but Robinson was a far better defender than Shaq.

You want your center to dominate the paint and he did that. The only player with more blocks and rebounds when he played was again only Hakeem. So if the only guy who did his job better than you was arguably a top 10 all time player you have to be pretty good your damn self. But I guess all those 10,000 plus rebounds, close to 3,000 blocks, and 20,000 plus points where overrated too??

You then talk about Sidney's team as the reason for HIS play in the playoffs and lack of winning. Yet in still Sidney's playoff number where WORSE than his regular season numbers. Plus he had a legit 20 plus scorer in Cummings. That's something Ewing never had and Robinson never had until Duncan. Let's not act like Robinson and Ewing where playing on super star loaded teams. Robinson was leading a team full of role players until Duncan got there. Sean Elliot was a nice player but he was nothing close to Tery Cummings. Yet they still won MORE and did MORE in the playoffs than Sidney. And that doesn't include the other players like Barkley and Payton you wanted to call overrated as well. They did more than Sidney as well. Plus Payton was a damn good all around player.

[KG]

Quote: Originally Posted by AlexBrady

Valid question. Gary Payton was a shoot first point guard (admittedly, not my favorite type of player) who posted smaller guards and had to come off of screens to get his shots off. The Bulls totally dismantled Gary Payton's defense in the finals and made "the glove" seem more like "the mitten". Most times he would gamble for steals (failing a good amount of the time) which placed the onus on his teammates to bail him out. Payton was routinely mentioned among the game's greats during his hey days. In comparison, Moncrief was overshadowed because he played in Milwaukee. There is no doubt that a team featuring Moncrief would have a better chance at winning a championship than a team featuring a shoot first point guard like Payton.

There is no way you can justify a statement like that without playing the "IF" game. For example, Tony Parker is a shoot first PG and he has 3 rings