LeBron James..OVERRATED

[GPK]

The strongest part of Bird's defense was the fact that he was always thinking and seeing 2-3 passes ahead of everyone else on the floor. No one ever saw the game unfold better on both ends of the floor than Bird.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by GPK

The strongest part of Bird's defense was the fact that he was always thinking and seeing 2-3 passes ahead of everyone else on the floor. No one ever saw the game unfold better on both ends of the floor than Bird.

Oh God. another myth. The celtics (and the NBA for that matter) let him play a one man zone. He was too slow to cover his man one on one. They put him on the player that could hurt them the least and let him rover.

I can attach footage if you like.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Oh God. another myth. The celtics (and the NBA for that matter) let him play a one man zone. He was too slow to cover his man one on one. They put him on the player that could hurt them the least and let him rover.

I can attach footage if you like.

Myth?? Larry Birds ability to see the floor is a myth?

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by GPK

Myth?? Larry Birds ability to see the floor is a myth?

No, just that it made him a good defender. He was amazing at seeing the floor.

He is the equivalent of a defensive back like Terrell buckley. Would get a few picks so people thought he was okay but he really would get beat most of the game. Thats Bird on D.

Bird couldnt guard anyone one on one. He was a liability.

Originally Posted by dalakhani

No, just that it made him a good defender. He was amazing at seeing the floor.

He is the equivalent of a defensive back like Terrell buckley. Would get a few picks so people thought he was okay but he really would get beat most of the game. Thats Bird on D.

Bird couldnt guard anyone one on one. He was a liability.

Wrong.
This is just wrong.
He was put on the opposing teams more immobile power forward.
If he got put on a guy like Xavier McDaniel or such, he was toast.
If they were put on him. They were toast.

You had to play a man when Bird played. The rules were different.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Wrong.
This is just wrong.
He was put on the opposing teams more immobile power forward.
If he got put on a guy like Xavier McDaniel or such, he was toast.
If they were put on him. They were toast.

You had to play a man when Bird played. The rules were different.

LOL. shut up.

[GPK]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

No, just that it made him a good defender. He was amazing at seeing the floor.

He is the equivalent of a defensive back like Terrell buckley. Would get a few picks so people thought he was okay but he really would get beat most of the game. Thats Bird on D.

Bird couldnt guard anyone one on one. He was a liability.

If Bird DIDN'T see the floor as well as he did, then his defense REALLY would have sucked. But, his ability to see the floor made up for alot of his physical shortcomings on defense.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by GPK

If Bird DIDN'T see the floor as well as he did, then his defense REALLY would have sucked. But, his ability to see the floor made up for alot of his physical shortcomings on defense.

No mistaking his defense did REALLY suck.

No disrespect kev, but i find it hilarious when people are talking about "seeing the floor" and using "hands" when discussing man to man defense.

See man see ball is basic man to man principles. Nothing special. "seeing the floor" defending against a pro player will get you left about five steps late when he cuts back door.