NBA Mount Rushmore

Kind of sucked? That '07 team was ridiculously bad.

As for the team you listed: Jamison was old, Shaq was washed up, Mo Williams is at best a sixth man, Delonte had sex with Lebron's mom, Boobie isn't even in the league anymore, JJ Hickson is nothing without Lebron, Varejao has been hurt all year which shows he's unimportant, Telfair was an NBA bust, and Danny Green was an NBA journeyman until Pop fixed him.

Let's face it, you just hate Lebron. You know deep down Carmelo is his bitch.

Antwan 16 ppg, Telfair 10ppg, Varejao 10ppg West 10ppg, Bobbie 6ppg, Hickson, 10ppg, Shaq 12ppg, (Sixth man at best?) Mo Williams 16 ppg. Give or take thats 90 points right there. Without LeBron 30. Now let's look at the 72 wins Bulls. Rodman 5ppg, Kerr 10ppg, Pippen 20ppg, Longley 10ppg, Kukoc 15ppg, Harper 10ppg. 70 points give or take. Add me Jordan 30, thats 100. Not counting all those other bums, that's 100 points with Jordan vs 90 points without LeBron. The proof is in the pudding. Melo is LeBron bitch? I think you need to look at their head to head games again.
 
Now let's look at the Atlanta Hawks all stars.

Horford 15ppg
Kover 12ppg
Millsap 16ppg
Teague 16ppg
 
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird


I'll take you on four-on-four and kick your phony ghetto butt.
 
The answer, obviously, is:

1. Bill Russell
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
3. Michael Jordan
4. LeBron James

I opted for diversity in eras (except for Jordan and Kareem, none of their careers overlapped) and teams (no repeat Lakers or Celtics), which is the main reason Wilt Chamberlain would be left out.

It's a little early for LeBron to be on a Mount Rushmore, but the current century comprises one-fourth of NBA history, and he's the best player of that century. So he has to be there.



You could also make a good Mount Rushmore out of

George Gervin
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Tony Parker

I might have a slight bias here.
 
Wilt Chamberlain
Oscar Robertson
Michael Jordan
Larry Bird


I'll take you on four-on-four and kick your phony ghetto butt.
Wilt Chamberlain
Michael Jordan
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Special mention for the ABA version of Julius Erving. Bill Russell has the rings, but his Celtics teams were better than Wilt's Sixers.
 
I'm not tryna make a ass of myself. I'm just saying, he was 7"1 and the people that was playing D on him was 6"5.
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Walt Bellamy 6'11
Bill Russell 6'9
Clyde Lovellette 6'9
Willis Reed 6'9
Wayne Embry 6'8
Jerry Lucas 6'8
 
Wilt Chamberlain
Michael Jordan
Oscar Robertson
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Special mention for the ABA version of Julius Erving. Bill Russell has the rings, but his Celtics teams were better than Wilt's Sixers.

I don't get this downplaying of Bill Russell. The main reason he has the rings is he was a hell of a basketball player, and one of the main reasons the Celtics were so good when he played for them was because of him. The other players didn't make him better, he made them better.
 
Nate Thurmond 6'11
Walt Bellamy 6'11
Bill Russell 6'9
Clyde Lovellette 6'9
Willis Reed 6'9
Wayne Embry 6'8
Jerry Lucas 6'8

I don't know enough about this era to give you a good argument. So you win. But the fact that he scored 100 points but name never is referred to as the best, says a lot about his competition.
 
I don't get this downplaying of Bill Russell. The main reason he has the rings is he was a hell of a basketball player, and one of the main reasons the Celtics were so good when he played for them was because of him. The other players didn't make him better, he made them better.

Just for the record, I would take Wilt Chamberlain over Bill Russell, too. Winning more championships doesn't necessarily make him a better player. If that was the case, Robert Horry would be considered better than Michael Jordan.
 
Just for the record, I would take Wilt Chamberlain over Bill Russell, too. Winning more championships doesn't necessarily make him a better player. If that was the case, Robert Horry would be considered better than Michael Jordan.

I guess I win our LeBron argument? Being that you didn't reply.
 
I don't know enough about this era to give you a good argument. So you win. But the fact that he scored 100 points but name never is referred to as the best, says a lot about his competition.

How about five 40-40s. And a double double in just about every game he played. And by the way there are many who think he was the best.
 
Back
Top