Will any current NBA players tie or eclipse Jordan's 6 rings?

best thing ever happened to him was the trade that fell through that taught him that he needed to not be afraid to take that big shot. wow. what a story. what a moment.

 

would have loved to see that matchup. as would most of the forum.

 

I think if Kobe could have a chance, because of Gasol and Odom are a great help, and he can gradually do less and less each year...but I don't think the Lakers will win this year.

There is the Spurs, Celtics, Cavs, and possibly Orlando and Denver to challenge them...and their biggest challenge, Ron Artest.

Also, Kobe is already 31 and his athleticism is declining already. He also relies ALOT on 3 point field goals and his attempts from there will rise with age, but the %'s may not. Jordan got closer and closer to the basket as he aged (posting up).

Tim Duncan has a chance to tie I believe, but it depends on how the rest of his team is built in the next couple of years. Even if he wins titles, he may not be the best player on the team, ...similar to how Drob won his titles...
so in a sense, his 5th or 6th title may not be "his" title the way Jordan's 6 titles were "his"...Duncan didn't even get Finals MVP in 2007.

Richard Jefferson was a step in the right direction, but Ginobili will be 32 and his ankle problems are troublesome. Tony Parker has been excellent, but he needs help as well.

On top of that Duncan is 33 already, and who knows how much longer he can keep up this level...its already dropped off a tad bit the last couple of years...in his standards, still a great player though today. Then Bruce Bowen is retired, Finley is old now, there's no solid center there to take the load off Duncan, so there are some issues that the Spurs have to deal with.

Shaq has a chance to get 6, but only 3 of his titles were "his" titles. He will be a factor on any team, but you can't say he led the Heat to a title...Dwade did. So even if he wins 2 or 3 more with Lebron, atleast 1/2 of his titles will be on teams that he did not lead. I doubt he gets more than 2...he is 38 years old now and 350 lbs. Not a good combination.

Lebron I think has a better chance of reaching some of MJ's individual accolades. He'll need more time than MJ did, but his age is a big reason why. He was successful from the moment he stepped onto the court and depending on the skills he develops, could play at a high level until 32 or maybe even 35.

IF he plays til he is 35 and is effective at that age, then that means he has another 10 years left to win a title. That is a scary thought...and he is entering his 7th season.

Jordan didn't win his first title until he was in his 7th season, and he was 3 years older than Lebron. I'm sure nobody thought Jordan and the Bulls would win 6 titles in 8 years...so who knows with Lebron.

He just needs some help to take pressure off of him. Shaq is a temporary solution, and he may be able to win a title or 2 with him. But in order for him to win after that, I think he would be better off with another star wing player, who can score off the ball and also create when needed to take pressure off of him.

Also there is the factor of him possibly going to NY or anywhere else.

Also, another disadvantage for him is that he still doesn't have one ring and he hasn't learned how to win a ring yet, so we can't really say until he gets 2 or 3 rings.

Dwade has one title, but with the way things are going in Miami, he won't win it this year, and if he goes to Chicago, I doubt they win right away...they are a young team also.

Plus looking back at his injury history and his style of play, it will be hard for him to keep up this level past 32 or 33, if not sooner.

I think Lebron and Wade's best chance is to team up together after next year somewhere...that would be a strong chance of them winning multiple titles.

Carmello can't lead a team anywhere, so I HIGHLY doubt 6 titles. Durant has only won 43 games in his 2 seasons in the NBA so far...he's talented, but let him have a winning season first before we go there.

Brandon Roy is a guy who I think could keep up his play for a long time, since he has a great mid-range game, ball handling abilities, and doesn't rely so much on athleticism like Dwade and Lebron.

He is only 25, and on a team with a lot of young talented role players. If he gets another all star player with him, then he has a chance to win a title, but I doubt 6.

Chris Paul is the best point guard in the NBA, and is only 24. He's proven he can take a mediocre team and lead them very well. Give him a real all star (somebody who can create for himself; a post up option), and the sky is the limit for him.

I could picture Chris Paul playing for a long time the way Stockton did, and Magic would've...his knowledge with the ball is amazing and it will only grow. He has a real shot once he's surrounded by some talent.

I would say Kobe has the best shot, but it depends on how well he ages into his 30's, and how good the other guys' supporting cast becomes. However, even if he gets to 6 or 7, 3 of those titles were won with the MOST DOMINATING BIG MAN in the modern era in Shaq, and those 3 Finals MVP's were Shaq's also...

so like I said before, Kobe, Shaq and Duncan all have, or in Duncan's case may have "david Robinson/scottie pippen titles. Very important to the team's success and wouldn't happen without them, but didn't lead the team to the title.

Its not their fault, but Jordan is the Greatest of all time for a reason...no matter who you teamed him with until age 35, he was always going to be the best player on the team no matter what.

We can't say the same for Kobe (1st 3 titles with Shaq leading), (4th title with Dwade leading) and maybe Duncan to a lesser extent if he were to win a 5th title at age 33 or older...Parker may be the best player on the Spurs by then.

 

I don't know about that for the first 3 titles. In 1991, Horace Grant averaged an underwhelming 13ppg and 8.5 rpg. And he was their third best player. To me, the fact that only Jordan and Pippen were there for all 6 titles tells me that the Bulls organization didn't think highly enough of the role players (from the first three titles) to retain anyone else.

 

I agree Duncan's titles to date are all with him being the leader, I agree with you there. But his game is already diminishing slightly and if he were to win 1 or 2 more, there is a chance that he may not be best player of the Spurs if they win a 5th or 6th, or 7th title.

Duncan's cast is pretty good...he had an HOF 7'1 center that allowed him to play the power forward at 7 feet tall in 99.

2003, your argument is valid for one season...but you could say the same about Jordan in 1991. Pippen was good, but he was still young and somewhat raw back then. Parker was good, but he didn't have the jumper he has now, and didn't have the bball IQ back then. Both teams had 2 scorers in double digits outside of Jordan and Duncan.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/CHI/1991.html

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2003.html

2005 and 2007, Duncan's cast was much better. He had 2 all star players in Parker and Ginobili, he had proven veterans and a lock down defender in Bowen, and 3 point shooters in Barry and Finley.

Jordan for the most part had either Pippen, Grant, and Paxson or Pippen, Rodman and Kukoc with a bunch of 3 point shooters and Ron Harper as an extra defender for the last 3.

I would say the talent was about equal. Duncan's 1st title team was full of proven veterans. So was his 2005 and 2007 title.

Jordan only had that in his 2nd 3 titles, his 1st 3, that team grew together.

 

Duncan didn't win all of the Finals MVP for the 4 titles he's won. Tony Parker won the last time the Spurs won. It may just be an award, but Jordan being NBA Finals MVP for all the titles he's won means he was the man for each of those titles. To me, that's a blemish to the Tim Duncan argument.

 

I don't think anybody will ever get 6 Finals MVP again simply because the Bulls getting Jordan, Pippen and PJ all together was the perfect storm. Most people belittle Pippen as the "sidekick", but the fact is Pippen was a legitimate franchise talent who only pales when you compare him to Jordan. So then you have two all world talents combined with the best coach in the league, as well as a great GM who surrounded them with good role players (Kerr, Rodman etc.).

How often does that happen? The closest thing you have to that is Kobe and Duncan, but Duncan spent most of his career battling prime Shaq, while Kobe's falling out with Shaq wasted his career with a rebuilding phase. LBJ IMHO has the biggest shot, he's already the league's best player and he won't stay in Cleveland if they don't have a contending team ready.

 

The other perfect storm was that they managed to play flawed teams in the finals.

1. An old, injured Lakers team with Dunleavy as coach.
2. A Portland team that looked a little psyched out after being beat in the Finals before
3. A team led by Barkley that blew big playoff leads.
4. A Sonics team that was a little flaky.
5. Jazz
6. Jazz

So, in the six trips to the Finals, the only team the Bulls faced twice were the Jazz. The only team that could come close to mentally challenging for a Championship was the Lakers and they were missing 2/5 of their lineup for most of the series. There was never much drama over who would win any of those series. A lot of that is attributable to Jordan, but a lot belongs with his opponents as well. Maybe it's a factor of growing up during the Lakers/Celtics (where games and series were truly in doubt), but while Jordan was definitely great, the lack of a worthy rival player or team deserves a small asterisk in my book. (Of course, there could have been, but it didn't quite pan out.)

 

In that case, the Rockets beat a Knicks team that choked in Game 7 (Starks 2-18 and Ewing didn't play well most of the series)

Then we beat a young and inexperienced Orlando team that would eventually be swept 3 years in a row at some point in the playoffs. (Shaq swept 6 or 7 tiems in his career).

Also we won because Jordan wasn't there.

The Spurs only legit competition was the Pistons in 2005 and they won in a shortened season in 99, the Lakers only legit competition was the Pacers in 2000.

The Heat beat a Dallas team that choked, the Pistons beat the Lakers without Malone and Kobe jacking up 25 shots per game and shooting poorly.

The 76ers beat the Lakers having a lot of injuries in 1983, The Pistons beat the Lakers in 1989 with the Lakers having a lot of injuries, The Celtics beat a 40-42 Rockets team in the Finals in 81 and a young Rockets team in 86.


My point is, you can't control who you play, and you can't control who's healthy on the other team. Its not their fault that the other conference was weaker or that the the other team had injuries. Its not like they took away players from the other conference or went there and personally injured those players.

All you can do is beat whoever is in front of you. The Bulls did that 6 times in 8 years. Jordan did that 6 times in 7 years. He never lost a Finals series, and was never taken to 7 games in a Finals series.

He took care of business and dominated. He has almost every Finals record in the book, and he 6 NBA Finals MVP's.

You can make a case about almost any championship team having it easy for a title or 2. However, in the 80's, the Lakers and Celtics were always the constant in the NBA finals and the early part of the decade it was the 76ers and then later the Detroit Pistons.

Those teams took care of business more often than not. The usually beat whoever was in front of them and atleast made the conference finals.

The one constant in the 90's was the Bulls and the Rockets in the middle for 2 years. These teams took care of business when they had to.

People say we won because Jordan wasn't there...we still beat out 26 other teams...everybody could've done it, but we did it...TWICE.

All you can do is take care of your end of the deal. Only so many things you can control.

If you read the statements I first posted earlier on here, you can see how laughable it becomes when you see how often people can find excuses dealing with the other team.

Give the championship teams some credit. They earned, especially the teams that won multiple titles.

 

they would have to win 6 or 5 rings respectively as a duo. lets say they both have 8-12 years left in them.

that's a tough task.

if the Spurs keep their nucleus, i don't see why they wouldn't have just as good of a chance than the Lakers...

 

I've always said this: You have to be BOTH GOOD AND LUCKY to win a title. That's why ring-counting should NEVER be a single measurement of greatness.

 

Yes, a couple of players will win 6 rings.


6 Finals MVPs, no chance.

 

A lot of players get lucky and don't take advantage of it...the Great players make sure they don't screw up their chances more often than not.

Thats why they have multiple appearances in the finals and atleast 1 title, if not more.

Look at the greatest of all time players and all of them have atleast 2 finals appearances and atleast 1 title, with the exception of Baylor who had 5-7 finals appearances.

 

It's not a blemish, because everything revolved around Tim on each one of those teams. MJ just happens to score more while Duncan doesn't. But if you add up everything Duncan gave (scoring, boards, blocks, setups, etc)....he was clearly the centerpiece.

 

So why did Tony Parker win the Finals MVP the last time the Spurs won the title? The voters made a mistake? Duncan may have still have been the centerpiece, but his performance wasn't deemed great enough compared to Tony's performance to vote TD as Finals MVP. To me, that's a blemish of a great player.

Even with Dennis Rodman and Scottie Pippen, you can still say without a doubt that Jordan was the de facto reason the Bulls won in each of the 6 titles.

 

I have to say, I agree with this right here. You knew that the clear cut best player and the leader on the team was always Jordan. You couldn't always say that for the Spurs, Ginobili also flourished at times.

 

In Duncan's defense, they dominated the Cavs, and he didn't have to do much. The Cavs were severely outplayed, and Duncan had a lot to do with that.

He had 2 average games in the series in blowouts, so not really his fault.

Even when the Rockets won in a sweep, Hakeem still put up unbelievable #'s, and 3 of the 4 games were very close, and nobody else stepped up all 4 games...close to the level Hakeem did.

Horry was solid for 4 games, but not Finals MVP level. Elie was big in 3 games, Drexler had 3 average games by his standards, and Cassel had a big Game 2, while Smith had a big game 1.

Parker had an easy time scoring against Gibson, and also was able drive, and thus create for everybody as well. Duncan just took care of rebounding and interior defense.

So the reason why he didnt win the Finals MVP was because it was a sweep, with only 1 close game, so Duncan didn't have to much,and Parker just had a field day with Gibson, since he had the ball in his hands so much.

 

That's what happens when your centerpiece doesn't win the Finals MVP like he's suppose to. People come to his defense with reasons of the why's and what's. Sure, those are legit reasons of why TD didn't win the Finals MVP. The fact of the matter is he still didn't win it, leaving a small blemish in his resume.

Jordan doesn't need anybody to come to his defense. He left no room of doubt in his work. Therein lies the difference.

 

This is pretty stupid. Winning a championship is NOT only about who you play in the finals. It's an ENTIRE playoff run. We all know that sometimes the best team to beat is not in the Finals. Chicago had to play some great teams in the east to get to the finals (Indiana, New York, Miami, etc.).