
Originally Posted by
spycam1
When did I ever say his Cavs teams were great? They were ****, and that's exactly the point. When Lebron was surrounded with ****, he carried them to the Finals. When Durant was surrounded with ****, they looked like, well, ****. No, I don't think that would be the case now, though.
But this is all a bit beside the point, and I think you would agree. We're comparing the Lebron of now to the Durant of now.
Let me just say I love Durant, and think he's undoubtably the second best player alive, and will go down as one of the best ever even if he never wins a ring. But when comparing him to Lebron, he's only better at one thing: shooting (though, Lebron has actually shot over 40% from 3 the past two seasons). The main argument in favor of Durant is that he's supposedly a better closer--something that I don't necessarily agree with, but even if we want to operate under the condition that this is true, that does not mean he is the better player, because I hope most would at least agree that the difference is not night and day. If you give Durant, say, a 10/10 on the clutch scale, then I think you would at least give Lebron an 8? In my opinion, it's even closer (and am not convinced Durant actually is a better closer). For instance, I'd say Reggie Miller is slightly better than Durant in terms of clutchness, but that doesn't mean I think he's the better player; Durant is far better at most other aspects of the game. Now, Durant is obviously closer to Lebron than Miller is to Durant, but the basics behind the analogy still stand. Lebron is better at EVERYTHING other than shooting, imo, and closing games according to the Durant apologists. That does not equate to him being the better player.