Newskoolbulls
New member
- Joined:
- Mar 28, 2009
- Posts:
- 2,897
- Liked Posts:
- 6
- Location:
- Bullspodcasters>Any other bulls board
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playo...olumnist=broussard_chris&page=MJShadow-090528
Everything they do on the basketball court is compared to Jordan. Obviously, that's a compliment to their great skills, but it's also a near-impossible standard that often clouds the judgment of their critics.
I mentioned to LeBron a few weeks ago that he's always being compared to Jordan. His response was a healthy one that I'm sure allows him to keep his sanity.
"Man, there'll never be another Michael Jordan," he said. "You'll drive yourself crazy trying to be the next Michael Jordan."
I'm not saying it's wrong to compare these guys to Jordan, mind you. In every field of endeavor, we compare today's best to the best ever, so this is quite natural.
My point is just that Jordan changed the standard by which NBA superstars are measured, and that can often diminish the achievements of the great ones who follow him.
Kobe and LeBron will have a hard time matching MJ's six rings.
For instance, with Jordan winning six titles without a dominant big man and with just one perennial All-Star teammate (Scottie Pippen) and with such nondescript guys as Stacey King, Bill Wennington, Will Perdue, Jud Buechler, Randy Brown, Steve Kerr, John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, Scott Burrell, Luc Longley, Jason Caffey and Scott Williams playing key roles, a title is not just a title anymore.
It's no longer enough for a truly, truly great player to win just a title; he must win multiple titles. Then, even if he wins multiple titles, we analyze who he won them with and how good his teammates were.
That's why people seem to have forgotten that Kobe already has won three championships. We always belittle Kobe's three rings by saying, "But he had Shaq."
Yeah, and?
It's like Kobe has to win a championship without Shaq to validate himself.
He can thank Jordan for that.
And if the Cavs fail to defy history by rallying from their 3-1 deficit in the East finals versus Orlando, LeBron will take hits in some quarters for not being Jordanesque enough.
Never mind that he's scored more points in the first four games of a conference finals series than anyone else (including Jordan); LeBron is averaging 42 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists on 50 percent shooting. Or that he hasn't had one teammate score 20 or more points in this series, a sad reality that hasn't happened in a conference final since MJ's Bulls lost to Detroit in 1989. Or that he has just one other starter hitting at least 44 percent of his shots. Or that the Cavs are the only team left standing that doesn't have at least two legitimate stars. Or that he doesn't have anything close to a Pippen or a frontline stopper like Dennis Rodman.
But such is life After Mike.
The legends we lift up and adore from the B.M. (Before Mike) days weren't held to nearly as high a standard.
First of all, before Mike, perimeter players weren't measured by their championships, because no matter how good you were, you needed a big man to win big.
There is more at the link. Pretty good article. Like I said in the other thread I dont think Lebron will ever be as great as MJ but I am not saying he isnt great, i just hate the comparisons.
Everything they do on the basketball court is compared to Jordan. Obviously, that's a compliment to their great skills, but it's also a near-impossible standard that often clouds the judgment of their critics.
I mentioned to LeBron a few weeks ago that he's always being compared to Jordan. His response was a healthy one that I'm sure allows him to keep his sanity.
"Man, there'll never be another Michael Jordan," he said. "You'll drive yourself crazy trying to be the next Michael Jordan."
I'm not saying it's wrong to compare these guys to Jordan, mind you. In every field of endeavor, we compare today's best to the best ever, so this is quite natural.
My point is just that Jordan changed the standard by which NBA superstars are measured, and that can often diminish the achievements of the great ones who follow him.
Kobe and LeBron will have a hard time matching MJ's six rings.
For instance, with Jordan winning six titles without a dominant big man and with just one perennial All-Star teammate (Scottie Pippen) and with such nondescript guys as Stacey King, Bill Wennington, Will Perdue, Jud Buechler, Randy Brown, Steve Kerr, John Paxson, B.J. Armstrong, Scott Burrell, Luc Longley, Jason Caffey and Scott Williams playing key roles, a title is not just a title anymore.
It's no longer enough for a truly, truly great player to win just a title; he must win multiple titles. Then, even if he wins multiple titles, we analyze who he won them with and how good his teammates were.
That's why people seem to have forgotten that Kobe already has won three championships. We always belittle Kobe's three rings by saying, "But he had Shaq."
Yeah, and?
It's like Kobe has to win a championship without Shaq to validate himself.
He can thank Jordan for that.
And if the Cavs fail to defy history by rallying from their 3-1 deficit in the East finals versus Orlando, LeBron will take hits in some quarters for not being Jordanesque enough.
Never mind that he's scored more points in the first four games of a conference finals series than anyone else (including Jordan); LeBron is averaging 42 points, 7 rebounds and 7 assists on 50 percent shooting. Or that he hasn't had one teammate score 20 or more points in this series, a sad reality that hasn't happened in a conference final since MJ's Bulls lost to Detroit in 1989. Or that he has just one other starter hitting at least 44 percent of his shots. Or that the Cavs are the only team left standing that doesn't have at least two legitimate stars. Or that he doesn't have anything close to a Pippen or a frontline stopper like Dennis Rodman.
But such is life After Mike.
The legends we lift up and adore from the B.M. (Before Mike) days weren't held to nearly as high a standard.
First of all, before Mike, perimeter players weren't measured by their championships, because no matter how good you were, you needed a big man to win big.
There is more at the link. Pretty good article. Like I said in the other thread I dont think Lebron will ever be as great as MJ but I am not saying he isnt great, i just hate the comparisons.