LABron James Discussion: The Final Year?

James will fit into our "pace" philosophy... He can run with our young players and he'd find them for easy scores both on the open floor or half court. My question is how much will James defer to Ball or Ingram so that the latter two can stay engaged...further develop? With James on the floor, will Ball or Ingram become too passive?

It is a good problem to have... Currently constructed, our young core is so much better than what Cleveland has (no offense to Clarkson and Nance).

 

That's absolutely a fair point and one compounded when you consider Paul George coming with him. There's certain to be less opportunities around, but as long as everyone is pulling in a championship direction, then I don't honestly care. Their development will continue and when they need to step up, they will. They're all so young that they could play with LeBron for four years and STILL not be in their prime.

The way I view it honestly is like a young Kobe playing with Shaq or a young Magic playing with Kareem. The youth of the former is going to push the talent, skill, and steadiness of the latter. As the latter fades, the former will rise and be more dominant for their patience.

 

Dominated...

Durant played a wonderful Finals and could score when he wanted to. Sure.

LeBron averaged a triple double. He went for 33.6/12/10/1.4/1 in the Finals. You know who else has done that? Nobody. Nobody has done that. That's 4 years past his prime according to you too, which is all the more impressive.

It seems clear no amount of arguing is going to change your mind. You've even shrugged off all statistical evidence so far.

 

I think you're overrating our team. We're playing fabulous basketball right now. This is still not a championship level team and it's unlikely to be one next year with just George (Just George doesn't get us past the Warriors, maybe not the Rockets- and that's assuming George is willing to come alone). Maybe the year after that, but probably not (win a lot of games, but come up short due to inexperience). Perhaps by year four we'll be a true and legitimate contender after the Warriors have fallen apart.

Or we can just skip those chapters and head right to contention. I'd rather do that.

 

I was about to add the question is who will be our go-to-option when a score is needed? Who will have make that key initial stop or help in one? My answer is George if we get him. James is a great set-up man but will impose his will in key moments. I juuust don't trust his offense even if the numbers say to the contrary. We do need to find a way to retain Randle. That physical, relentless presence is hard to find.

I don't think Ball or Ingram will care too much but will buy into the winning and learn. Kuzma? Oh, he'll thrive and do what he does best...be a scorer, not worry about the other things.

 

It'll probably depend on match-ups, but I'd say George or LeBron. Probably you put the ball in LeBron's hands and run some screen actions for George. If we've got one shot to win, I would probably trust George over LeBron, but it's a good problem to have.

 

I feel like you're trolling at this point.

 

Open floor on the dead run? James. No contest. Those scenarios will happen more given how much we push the ball. Half court off screens or on transitions after a catch? George.

 

It's not rude man. You're just flippantly knocking away legitimate arguments with "so what" and "who cares" and "it doesn't matter".

We've given you statistical evidence that' he's not declining and all you can say is "inflated stats". If that's true, then what Julius did last night isn't that important because stats are inflated (that's not what I believe at all).

We've proven to you that LeBron didn't get "b**** slapped" by Durant, but no "inflated stats" again.

You are unwilling to even entertain an opposing view while continuing to spout your own as fact when it's clearly not. If you don't want LeBron, that's fine. I've more than conceded an understanding to that point. When you try to flippantly dismiss all arguments as insignificant just because they don't line up with your predetermined biases, that's not a good way to discuss something. I've conceded that LeBron is a jerk. I've already told you (as well as everyone else) that I don't even really like LeBron.

That doesn't mean I'm going to sit here and jump through hoops to try to justify my hatred. The guy is one of the all time greats and shrugging off his accomplishments doesn't help your argument, it hurts it. The best arguments against LeBron are the ones that accept he's great, but don't lean on it or don't trust it. Trying to throw around this shade like LeBron got "dominated" by Durant when he clearly didn't just makes your position look worse.