# OT: If You Played In The NBA....



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

If you played in the NBA, would you rather be "the man" and never have a title or have multiple titles and never be "the man" on your team?


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

*Re: If You Played In The NBA....*

I'd rather have multiple titles. Good role players are hard to come by and could play forever(i.e Horry). where as "the man" could be great but if he isnt winning anything eventually the team will get rid of you(i.e Iverson).


With multiple titles whenever somebody says anything all you have to do is show them your jewelry and that would shut them up pretty fast


----------



## 0oh_S0o_FreSh!! (Jun 3, 2006)

Id rather be the man. I want them to know that i could bring titles, whether it is a team or it is doing it myself.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

If by the man you mean a player who is great, but for whatever reason cannot get to the very end, rather than "the man" who leads his team to the lottery, I would rather be that than just be a part of a multiple title team.

However, if by having multiple titles, I would have played a significant role, or at least a solid role in the team, I'd take that over having multiple titles being someone who is just there.


----------



## hroz (Mar 4, 2006)

This seems to be a choice between Robert Horry and Charles Barkley.

I would be Barkley because he is more respected and watching him play was a delight.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

while winning is more fun , basketball is a job , I'd be the man, put up stats and make my $


----------



## Pain5155 (May 28, 2006)

hroz said:


> This seems to be a choice between Robert Horry and Charles Barkley.
> 
> I would be Barkley because he is more respected and watching him play was a delight.



id rather be a karl malone then a robert horry.


----------



## TwinkieFoot (Jul 8, 2006)

If I had the choice, I'd easily be "the man" because role players are never remembered. Besides, winning a title does not mean anything if you have not really apart of the main reason why it was won.


----------



## Gotham2krazy (Nov 22, 2005)

Pain5155 said:


> id rather be a karl malone then a robert horry.


Are you serious? We all play for the greater cause. Besides, Robert Horry is a PLAYOFFS LEGEND, no doubt no doubt. I mean, Robert Horry was a role player, but he played as probably the best damned role player there ever was. 2 with the Rockets, 3 with the Lakers, 1 with the Spurs, I mean how many other guys have as many rings as he does? I honestly think that in 20 somewhat odd years from now, I'll remember how he stuck that three on the Kings to give the Lakers the win. That's forever golden, the image of his face, body, intensity will forever resonate in my head. What about Karl Malone? Well unfortunately, he played in the wrong era, overshadowed by the likes of MJ, Hakeem, the Bad Boys, Spurs, but then again, you couldn't possibly have bad luck for 10+ years could you?


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Its about the GAME*

Basketball is a beautiful game when played well but there are few teams that play it well. The key word is TEAMS. The closest any team got to being a one-man show and winning was Jordan's Bulls and he had plenty of help. Even the guys off the bench contribute to the outcome and winning chemistry. It is an honor to be part of something special and rare. What you see with guys that are "THE MAN" is usually not team basketball, but instead a display of offensive talents that fall short in the long run. Kobe won't win it this year...neither will leBron (unless the league says so), neither will 'melo. et al. Dirk may...with his great team behind him. Same with Nash.....and Duncan..maybe even the superstarless Pistons. Thirty+ years ago they used to have one on one championship that they showed during half times on Sunday's games. That is where this stuff belongs. I'll play Oak for Ewing anyday. Not a star but necessary to win. Ask any of the old Knicks what they would choose and I bet everyone would take the rings and be thrilled...even Jackson and Meminger.


----------



## The True Essence (May 26, 2003)

"the man." im a ballhog by nature.... and i could give a **** if my team was winning if i was dropping 25 a game... but......as a fan,i hate that ****. so im a hypocrit i guess, but i do not care.


----------



## ChosenFEW (Jun 23, 2005)

for a second there i thought i was going to be the odd man out.

i agree with most of what gotham and orange said


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

*Guess I don't understand that....*

Being good at scoring doesn't even necessarily make you a good player. I'd rather be good at the whole game than great at one facet. Everybody's making millions...how much do you need? Ballhogs are dikkheads...who needs or wants them? If you mean "the man" by being able to elevate your team mates and doing whatever your team needs to win, then, by all means, I am with you. It is far easier to be a scorer...its the easiest part of the game.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

*Re: Guess I don't understand that....*

It depends on what not the man means. I'll be Marion or Diaw, but I'm not gonna be Burke.


----------



## alphaorange (Jul 2, 2006)

Hey man...some of my best friends are Burkes....lol. Great point and I agree. Having some real importance would be nice.


----------



## CocaineisaHelluvaDrug (Aug 24, 2006)

whichever paid the most,its all about getting paid


----------

