Skrrrrrrr:


There is not reason at all for him to leave.
If he stays, Kyrie stays too. Simmons isn't a bum, his shot needs improvement but he is fine. They have TJ, Seth Curry can shoot.
If they all stay healthy, that's a pretty solid Team.
The nets have showed him loyalty, signed him, knowing that he'd sit out a year and may not be the same player. They took the Gamble. It's time for him to return the favor...
I am sure Kyrie would behave, going forward. No one cares for his antics anymore.

These new players are just divas and buttersoft. This is what they are calling Player empowerment? Smh. All I see is the softest era ever

Even as much of a fraud I consider Ben Simmons I don't see why he's not a good fit with the Nets. There's enough guys and shooters they are never going to need shooting from him and he can defend. It's a crying disgrace if KD is allowed to run from this team. If he wins just 1 chip with the Nets. he will win back so much respect. There's something about winning a team it's first title. It permanently alters your legacy positively. Guys like Olajuwon, Dirk, Wade and Giannis will forever live off that tax and be respected like KD never will unless he can do it with the Nets.

Khanben:


That is one way of looking at it, but one of the salient point, is Steph has a reputation for selflessness and willingness to sacrifice for the team's glory.
So based on that, the equation for the team is simple. All but guarantee the next 3 chips barring injury and then start a rebuild after that, or have a very good chance of winning any of the next 3 chips and also have a strong core that will remain competitive after those 3 yrs. Also it might actually be cheaper for the team to bring in KD and if Wiggins and Poole are the ones leaving, yes a 3rd team has to be involved if Wiggins is going to be part of the deal, but GSW will definitely save money on luxury tax payments if those 2 are the core of what they are giving up.

But that's the thing. They have shown they don't need KD to win. Steph has finally shown he's an Alpha dog. And forget his selflessness it's clear he's heard the slander and wants to prove again he's that guy. Adding KD again just waters down and cannibalizes his legacy.

I'm sure he wants to surpass Magic as the GOAT PG. He's never going to do that with KD on the team.

Warriors are like the Yankees of NBA right now. If there's a team that will gladly pay luxury tax it's them. If the owner puts them on the market today he will not get less than $4-5bn

A40:
But that's the thing. They have shown they don't need KD to win. Steph has finally shown he's an Alpha dog. And forget his selflessness it's clear he's heard the slander and wants to prove again he's that guy. Adding KD again just waters down and cannibalizes his legacy.

I'm sure he wants to surpass Magic as the GOAT PG. He's never going to do that with KD on the team.

Warriors are like the Yankees of NBA right now. If there's a team that will gladly pay luxury tax it's them. If the owner puts them on the market today he will not get less than $4-5bn

The Magic conversation will only exist if KD does not come. Steph and his group will have that in the back of their mind, if GSW can win just one more with this group or 2 more as Green is predicting, then I can comfortably say Steph and Magic is an argument to be had and I might even lean Steph.

One thing I want to ask about the nba in the late 70s and 80s. How did the showtime Lakers with prime Kareem get the number 1 pick to get Magic, then with both of them in the team, they somehow also got another 1st pick and then got Worthy. How did the nba allow that or how did it even happen.

Khanben:
One thing I want to ask about the nba in the late 70s and 80s. How did the showtime Lakers with prime Kareem get the number 1 pick to get Magic, then with both of them in the team, they somehow also got another 1st pick and then got Worthy. How did the nba allow that or how did it even happen.

The Lakers received two 1st round picks and a 2nd round pick after trading HOF, G. Goodrich to Jazz who were in NO at the time. One of the 1st round pick turned out to be the number 1 overall pick Magic Johnson in 1979.

There was no wururu involved.. The Lakers got great assets for Goodrich.

Hmmm.

A40:
I would have picked Duncan just for consistency and stability till I dug into their playoff series clashes. Kobe used to absolutely destroy them. I can't in good conscience put Duncan over Kobe after seeing how much Kobe used to torch Duncan and the Spurs.

Kobe averaged 28 a game on Duncan. And dethroned him and his team 3x. There's a reason Timmy never repeated. Kobe

You do have a point there. Kobe Lakers whopped Duncan Spurs the first 2 WC finals and had a 3-1 advantage in all their first 4 matchups.

But was that Kobe's doing? I think not. Remember Kobe had Shaq at his most dominant! In fact the year Shaq left to Miami, Lakers didnt even make the playoffs! So it wasnt so much Kobe's brilliance as much as having a superior supporting cast. In fact Shaq was responsible for dousing Duncan's fire, not Kobe.

After the Kobe/Shaq era, the next time Spurs would meet Lakers in the playoffs, Kobe again had a Pau Gasol to help offset Duncan. Finally, as both Duncan and Kobe's careers came to an end, Duncan's consistency helped them get to the finals versus the deadly Heat back-to-back, and they won another ring.

Duncan can carry a team to a ring. Kobe can will a team to win games. Big difference.

I hope this report of Lakers courting Kyrie is not true - nahah

birdman:


You do have a point there. Kobe Lakers whopped Duncan Spurs the first 2 WC finals and had a 3-1 advantage in all their first 4 matchups.

But was that Kobe's doing? I think not. Remember Kobe had Shaq at his most dominant! In fact the year Shaq left to Miami, Lakers didnt even make the playoffs! So it wasnt so much Kobe's brilliance as much as having a superior supporting cast. In fact Shaq was responsible for dousing Duncan's fire, not Kobe.

After the Kobe/Shaq era, the next time Spurs would meet Lakers in the playoffs, Kobe again had a Pau Gasol to help offset Duncan. Finally, as both Duncan and Kobe's careers came to an end, Duncan's consistency helped them get to the finals versus the deadly Heat back-to-back, and they won another ring.

Duncan can carry a team to a ring. Kobe can will a team to win games. Big difference.

While I agree with some of your points especially with the fact that Duncan had consistent success for a longer period of time. I disagree a bit on the having help part.
It's not like Duncan was playing with some scrubs. Duncan had David Robinson earlier in in his career then ginobili, Tony Parker and lastly Kawhi.

etidy:


While I agree with some of your points especially with the fact that Duncan had consistent success for a longer period of time. I disagree a bit on the having help part.
It's not like Duncan was playing with some scrubs. Duncan had David Robinson earlier in in his career then ginobili, Tony Parker and lastly Kawhi.

With due respect to the Admiral, he averaged 15.6pts and 10rbs for the Spurs first chip and 8pts and 7rbs for the 2nd one. So he was no longer the MVP caliber player he used to be

Khanben:


With due respect to the Admiral, he averaged 15.6pts and 10rbs for the Spurs first chip and 8pts and 7rbs for the 2nd one. So he was no longer the MVP caliber player he used to be

Yeah, I was going to say this, but, I think everybody is set on who they want lol. Those were his last years in the league, and he was a shadow if himself by then. The second ring he was averaging like 10pts or something.

Robinson was never a showman, so most folk are surprised to hear he dropped a 70pt game once. But by the time Duncan got drafted to become the face of the Spurs, Robinson was an old man. Just like Olajuwon.

birdman:


You do have a point there. Kobe Lakers whopped Duncan Spurs the first 2 WC finals and had a 3-1 advantage in all their first 4 matchups.

But was that Kobe's doing? I think not. Remember Kobe had Shaq at his most dominant! In fact the year Shaq left to Miami, Lakers didnt even make the playoffs! So it wasnt so much Kobe's brilliance as much as having a superior supporting cast. In fact Shaq was responsible for dousing Duncan's fire, not Kobe.

After the Kobe/Shaq era, the next time Spurs would meet Lakers in the playoffs, Kobe again had a Pau Gasol to help offset Duncan. Finally, as both Duncan and Kobe's careers came to an end, Duncan's consistency helped them get to the finals versus the deadly Heat back-to-back, and they won another ring.

Duncan can carry a team to a ring. Kobe can will a team to win games. Big difference.

You are factually wrong.

It was definitely Kobe's doing. Shaq was a perennial underperformer vs Duncan and the Spurs. All their matchups the Lakers won was primarily because of Kobe's play. Kobe always outplayed Shaq wherever they were able to get the win. Duncan always outplayed Shaq as well in the series the Lakers lost to San Antone

1999. Shaq 23ppg Duncan 29 ppg

2001 Kobe 33-7-7 Duncan 23 ppg

2002 Kobe 26 ppg Shaq 21 ppg

2004. Kobe 26ppg Shaq. 22ppg

They were 3-2 and Kobe was the best player in all 3 series wins unquestionably. People always get caught up in Shaq's final numbers. Go and watch all their playoff series after 2000 season and see the work Kobe was doing

Lakers missing the playoffs is majorly due to Kobe missing 16 games while adding dross like Caron Butler etc.

Again another myth and urban legend. Paul Gasol in 08 averaged 13ppg in that 5 game series. He averaged fewer pts, fewer assists, fewer rebounds, fewer blocks so pray tell how did he offset Duncan? Duncan averaged 22ppg. It was Kobe's 29ppg that enabled them wipe the defending champion San Antonio Spurs with oraimo cord in 5.

Duncan played in a position that allowed him age with grace. He wasn't picking up guys 90 ft like Kobe could. Also anyone being honest will know that from 07 onwards Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were arguably the best players on that Spurs team. At the very worst they were essentially a big 3. And in their battle with the Heatles claiming Timmy was still carrying the Spurs then is just flat out dishonest. They had like 4-5 guys averaging double digits every night

If you say Kobe can't carry a team to a ring then what did he do in 2009 and 2010? What do we call that? Kobe was the OG Spurs killa and the biggest reason Tim Duncan never repeated. Never forget it

etidy:


While I agree with some of your points especially with the fact that Duncan had consistent success for a longer period of time. I disagree a bit on the having help part.
It's not like Duncan was playing with some scrubs. Duncan had David Robinson earlier in in his career then ginobili, Tony Parker and lastly Kawhi.

Exactly. Duncan prime years was 98-07. But aside the first Championship when they beat a Knicks team without Ewing. (You can argue they were winning without him) but it still has to be said. And 03 vs the Nets. Where he had help just not superstar help.

Every other title since he's had more than significant contributions from others. Just look at the numbers from their 05 and 07 Championship. People are pretending like he was playing with bums

Thanks for all those who contributed to the kobe vs TD debate. I really appreciated the thought put behind each person's choice.
I just want to ask another question, which criteria is best for ranking players?.
Some background,I came across a podcast where everyone on it believes that Prime Draymond Green is better than Prime Blake Griffin, which was shocking to me, and they kept repeating their reason as Draymond impacts winning more than Blake.
My issue with that approach is, one guy is judged on his impact as the 4th best player on a championship winning team, while the other is judged on being the 1st option on a team. I truly believe that players should be ranked on a level playing field.
So really looking forward to reading your opinions

A40:
You are factually wrong.

It was definitely Kobe's doing. Shaq was a perennial underperformer vs Duncan and the Spurs. All their matchups the Lakers won was primarily because of Kobe's play. Kobe always outplayed Shaq wherever they were able to get the win. Duncan always outplayed Shaq as well in the series the Lakers lost to San Antone

1999. Shaq 23ppg Duncan 29 ppg

2001 Kobe 33-7-7 Duncan 23 ppg

2002 Kobe 26 ppg Shaq 21 ppg

2004. Kobe 26ppg Shaq. 22ppg

They were 3-2 and Kobe was the best player in all 3 series wins unquestionably. People always get caught up in Shaq's final numbers. Go and watch all their playoff series after 2000 season and see the work Kobe was doing

Lakers missing the playoffs is majorly due to Kobe missing 16 games while adding dross like Caron Butler etc.

Again another myth and urban legend. Paul Gasol in 08 averaged 13ppg in that 5 game series. He averaged fewer pts, fewer assists, fewer rebounds, fewer blocks so pray tell how did he offset Duncan? Duncan averaged 22ppg. It was Kobe's 29ppg that enabled them wipe the defending champion San Antonio Spurs with oraimo cord in 5.

Duncan played in a position that allowed him age with grace. He wasn't picking up guys 90 ft like Kobe could. Also anyone being honest will know that from 07 onwards Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were arguably the best players on that Spurs team. At the very worst they were essentially a big 3. And in their battle with the Heatles claiming Timmy was still carrying the Spurs then is just flat out dishonest. They had like 4-5 guys averaging double digits every night

If you say Kobe can't carry a team to a ring then what did he do in 2009 and 2010? What do we call that? Kobe was the OG Spurs killa and the biggest reason Tim Duncan never repeated. Never forget it

You no see say I no bother replying the argument. When someone use him full chest talk say Duncan was better than Kobe by a far margin. That's blasphemy now .

I pick Duncan has being better but it's really a game of splitting hairs because both of them were awesome.

Khanben:
Thanks for all those who contributed to the kobe vs TD debate. I really appreciated the tought put behind each person's choice.
I just want to ask another question, which criteria is best for ranking players?.
Some background,I came across a podcast where everyone on it believes that Prime Draymond Green is better than Prime Blake Griffin, which was shocking to me, and they kept repeating their reason as Draymond impacts winning more than Blake.
My issue with that approach is, one guy is judged on his impact as the 4th best player on a championship winning team, while the other is judged on being the 1st option on a team. I truly believe that players should be ranked on a level playing field.
So really looking forward to reading your opinions

Lol Blake vs Draymond is an asinine comparison. You wouldn't even make the playoffs with prime Draymond Green as your second best player. Let him keep enjoying his Golden State tax abeg. MFJPM

etidy:


You no see say I no bother replying the argument. When someone use him full chest talk say Duncan was better than Kobe by a far margin. That's blasphemy now .

I pick Duncan has being better but it's really a game of splitting hairs because both of them were awesome.

Me I pick Kobe over Duncan

I have
MJ
Lebron
Kareem
Kobe
Magic
Duncan
Shaq
Bird
Olajuwon
Steph

A40:
Lol Blake vs Draymond is an asinine comparison. You wouldn't even make the playoffs with prime Draymond Green as your second best player. Let him keep enjoying his Golden State tax abeg. MFJPM

Thank you, I don't understand people who claim that someone who is great at being the 4th best player of a championship side, is somehow better than someone who is the number 1 option for a playoff team. The usual excuse is that they impact winning, which is just ridiculous.

A40:
Me I pick Kobe over Duncan

I have
MJ
Lebron
Kareem
Kobe
Magic
Duncan
Shaq
Bird
Olajuwon
Steph

Good list, everyone there has a case for where they were placed

Khanben:


Thank you, I don't understand people who claim that someone who is great at being the 4th best player of a championship side, is somehow better than someone who is the number 1 option for a playoff team. The usual excuse is that they impact winning, which is just ridiculous.

Impact winning. What does that even mean? I hate hearing vague nonsense like that.

Anyone making comparisons like that IMO doesn't understand basketball. That would be like saying Draymond Green is better than Chris Webber. He can never be even if they win 7 chips.

A40:
Impact winning. What does that even mean? I hate hearing vague nonsense like that.

Anyone making comparisons like that IMO doesn't understand basketball. That would be like saying Draymond Green is better than Chris Webber. He can never be even if they win 7 chips.

A40:
Lol Blake vs Draymond is an asinine comparison. You wouldn't even make the playoffs with prime Draymond Green as your second best player. Let him keep enjoying his Golden State tax abeg. MFJPM

Facts only!
No cap!!

You don find abbreviation for our favorite quote ba?

Roland17:




Facts only!
No cap!!

You don find abbreviation for our favorite quote ba?

Assinn, the way people rate players sometimes just based on rings is just asinine.

PS: I saw one who said Robert Horry had a better career than Chuck because he won 7 rings . It's just baffling

Khanben:


Assinn, the way people rate players sometimes just based on rings is just asinine.

PS: I saw one who said Robert Horry had a better career than Chuck because he won 7 rings . It's just baffling

Some of these conversations are not coming from a place of deep thoughts. They are mostly superficial and hasty. The one of Green vs Blake is quite easy to disprove. Green is not impacting anything outside of the Warriors when it comes to winning and that’s the fact. Robert Horry? Who be dis people wen dey yarn dis kain rubbish sef? Even if he won 20, he is no where near Chuck!

Speaking about prime, for me it’s not just being in the prime of your career but the length of your prime and dominance in the league.. That is a more compelling metric for me.

@Birdman said something about Kawhi last week. Ordinarily when you look at it on the surface, you may argue otherwise, I nearly did, especially when you consider he is one my favorite players in the league. However, when you realize he has not done anything over the last 3 years, then you can see why that position makes sense.

Roland17:




Facts only!
No cap!!

You don find abbreviation for our favorite quote ba?

Lol normal levels. Keep it short and sweet

Khanben:
Thanks for all those who contributed to the kobe vs TD debate. I really appreciated the thought put behind each person's choice.
I just want to ask another question, which criteria is best for ranking players?.
Some background,I came across a podcast where everyone on it believes that Prime Draymond Green is better than Prime Blake Griffin, which was shocking to me, and they kept repeating their reason as Draymond impacts winning more than Blake.
My issue with that approach is, one guy is judged on his impact as the 4th best player on a championship winning team, while the other is judged on being the 1st option on a team. I truly believe that players should be ranked on a level playing field.
So really looking forward to reading your opinions

Bwahahaha , I think some of these podcasts are just trying to stir sh** up and generate online buzz. Draymond is so way overhyped, there are at least a dozen SF/PF type guys who make the same or better impact in the league. Thats why Draymond talks so musch ish. He knows, deep down, that he is just a role player riding the coat tails of a great.

Imaging the Warriors having Blake Griffin instead. LOL! Blake is his prime was stronger, nastier on offense, dirtier on defense and hustled way more - in fact I hated Blake most of his career, he would play you like you owed his mom money. Dude had a legit midrange, and could create his own offense and dunk over you and your mama . Blake's main weakness was that injury bug

A40:
These new players are just divas and buttersoft. This is what they are calling Player empowerment? Smh. All I see is the softest era ever

Even as much of a fraud I consider Ben Simmons I don't see why he's not a good fit with the Nets. There's enough guys and shooters they are never going to need shooting from him and he can defend. It's a crying disgrace if KD is allowed to run from this team. If he wins just 1 chip with the Nets. he will win back so much respect. There's something about winning a team it's first title. It permanently alters your legacy positively. Guys like Olajuwon, Dirk, Wade and Giannis will forever live off that tax and be respected like KD never will unless he can do it with the Nets.

You forgot to add Lebron na . He won Cavaliers first title. That was Lebron's finest leadership moment imo. Team chemistry was excellent until the Kyrie debacle.

Which is why I cant understand why he would entertain reuniting with Kyrie, assuming the rumors are true. Kyrie is locker room cancer. He camoflages it by being silent and pleasant, but the results speak for itself.

A40:
You are factually wrong.

It was definitely Kobe's doing. Shaq was a perennial underperformer vs Duncan and the Spurs. All their matchups the Lakers won was primarily because of Kobe's play. Kobe always outplayed Shaq wherever they were able to get the win. Duncan always outplayed Shaq as well in the series the Lakers lost to San Antone

1999. Shaq 23ppg Duncan 29 ppg

2001 Kobe 33-7-7 Duncan 23 ppg

2002 Kobe 26 ppg Shaq 21 ppg

2004. Kobe 26ppg Shaq. 22ppg

They were 3-2 and Kobe was the best player in all 3 series wins unquestionably. People always get caught up in Shaq's final numbers. Go and watch all their playoff series after 2000 season and see the work Kobe was doing

Lakers missing the playoffs is majorly due to Kobe missing 16 games while adding dross like Caron Butler etc.

Again another myth and urban legend. Paul Gasol in 08 averaged 13ppg in that 5 game series. He averaged fewer pts, fewer assists, fewer rebounds, fewer blocks so pray tell how did he offset Duncan? Duncan averaged 22ppg. It was Kobe's 29ppg that enabled them wipe the defending champion San Antonio Spurs with oraimo cord in 5.

Duncan played in a position that allowed him age with grace. He wasn't picking up guys 90 ft like Kobe could. Also anyone being honest will know that from 07 onwards Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili were arguably the best players on that Spurs team. At the very worst they were essentially a big 3. And in their battle with the Heatles claiming Timmy was still carrying the Spurs then is just flat out dishonest. They had like 4-5 guys averaging double digits every night

If you say Kobe can't carry a team to a ring then what did he do in 2009 and 2010? What do we call that? Kobe was the OG Spurs killa and the biggest reason Tim Duncan never repeated. Never forget it

Well lets here from the horse's mount how important Pau was:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM0DbbZnkKU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJeQAxo1T4

Without Pau, no ring. No way around it.

birdman:


Well lets here from the horse's mount how important Pau was:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM0DbbZnkKU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOJeQAxo1T4

Without Pau, no ring. No way around it.

You could say the same about Duncan. No one wins without help. Not lebron, not even MJ

etidy:

You could say the same about Duncan. No one wins without help. Not lebron, not even MJ

Hence I tried to compare them without looking at rings etc - you need a great team and great organization and few injuries to win a ship. But if we talking player vs player, thats a different ballgame.

As for the the Blake Griffin vs Draymond debate I won't be too quick to dismiss it.

Griffin may have been the better scorer by a wide margin but Draymond has had the career by far.

I am a Draymond critic, but We should not ignore his brilliance on the defense end. If you look at the totality of his work over the length of his career, He's not just any other good defender, he's amongst the all time greats.
He could easily have been 3 DPOY. Injury robbed him of one last season and he controversially lost one to Kawhi.
He's the first modern player who could defend 1-5 position effectively while also being an effective rebounder.

He's also the second best ever play maker in his position behind LeBron. That's no small feat.

Blake Griffin was a 6 time all star, Draymond has been selected four times, missing the last one due to injury add it to the team success draymond has had and its really not a walkover for Griffin.

Last of you check their head to head during the clipper vs warriors days. Draymond almost always outplayed and locked up Blake Griffin head to head.

Overall Blake Griffin's offensive skill set wins out but it's not a walkover. There is a debate to be had

etidy:
As for the the Blake Griffin vs Draymond debate I won't be too quick to dismiss it.

Griffin may have been the better scorer by a wide margin but Draymond has had the career by far.

I am a Draymond critic, but We should not ignore his brilliance on the defense end. If you look at the totality of his work over the length of his career, He's not just any other good defender, he's amongst the all time greats.
He could easily have been 3 DPOY. Injury robbed him of one last season and he controversially lost one to Kawhi.
He's the first modern player who could defend 1-5 position effectively while also being an effective rebounder.

He's also the second best ever play maker in his position behind LeBron. That's no small feat.

Blake Griffin was a 6 time all star, Draymond has been selected four times, missing the last one due to injury add it to the team success draymond has had and its really not a walkover for Griffin.

Last of you check their head to head during the clipper vs warriors days. Draymond almost always outplayed and locked up Blake Griffin head to head.

Overall Blake Griffin's offensive skill set wins out but it's not a walkover. There is a debate to be had

Draymond Green's basketball IQ is on flick. Clearly one of the most (if not the most) intelligent player of his generation. Draymond Green is shorter Lebron without his offensive game. I hate his big mouth and team-sabotaging antics but I will only place Lebron above him in terms of basketball intelligence. Not Rondo, CP3, Steph etc.

etidy:
As for the the Blake Griffin vs Draymond debate I won't be too quick to dismiss it.

Griffin may have been the better scorer by a wide margin but Draymond has had the career by far.

I am a Draymond critic, but We should not ignore his brilliance on the defense end. If you look at the totality of his work over the length of his career, He's not just any other good defender, he's amongst the all time greats.
He could easily have been 3 DPOY. Injury robbed him of one last season and he controversially lost one to Kawhi.
He's the first modern player who could defend 1-5 position effectively while also being an effective rebounder.

He's also the second best ever play maker in his position behind LeBron. That's no small feat.

Blake Griffin was a 6 time all star, Draymond has been selected four times, missing the last one due to injury add it to the team success draymond has had and its really not a walkover for Griffin.

Last of you check their head to head during the clipper vs warriors days. Draymond almost always outplayed and locked up Blake Griffin head to head.

Overall Blake Griffin's offensive skill set wins out but it's not a walkover. There is a debate to be had

If Griffin had Steph and Klay, and all he had to do was play excellent defense and playmake, he would have been miles ahead of Green. For goodness sake we've all seen dead Griffin play Giannis 1v1 as tough as anyone can play him while on the Nets.
Wiggins who for the past years had been called the not just one of the worst contracts in the nba, but also a very bad defender, just walked into a team with Draymond and became not just the 2nd best player, but also played DPOY level defense while doing it.
Yes Draymond is exceptional at what he does but as an overall player he and Blake are not in the same category.
Personally I use the draft criteria to rank players. If you have the number 1 overall pick, and you are choosing based on the Primes of both Blake and Draymond, I don't know anyone who would pick Draymond ahead of Griffin.

PS: The show specifically said in their Primes, if it was their total career then longevity helps out Green, in making it a conversation. but in their primes I think it's not even worth a debate.