The ONE AND ONLY Luka Doncic discussion thread
- Thread starter VF21
- Start date
- Status
You're entitled to you opinion, obviously, but I fundamentally disagree with you on this. As much as anyone can possibly disagree with someone.
The bearded hag is a fugazi. IMO those that know what to look for in a diamond can see when it isn't.
The flaw in your assessment is that all players would have to be treated and permitted to bend and even break the rules equally. But they aren't. You know it and I know it. If they were and the bearded hag was just better at it than the rest, then I'd believe you had a point.
But throughout the history of the game, and continuing today, there have been equally talented -- or even more talented -- players that weren't gifted the same set of circumstances.
I won't even get deep into the point that the bearded hag just happens to play for a team and coach that allows him unfettered latitude to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Or that the current rules, focus and landscape of the NBA has drastically changed to the point where a lot of past players could have accomplished the same (or more) given the identical circumstances. But I'll digress.
The main point is that the NBA has been a star driven league for the better part of the past 40 years. Ever since Bird and Magic appeared on the scene and changed the NBA's future forever. Then Michael Jordan happened, along with cable TV and ESPN, which raised it to a completely different level. It probably was still a star driven league prior to that, but nowhere near the same extent as far as I'm aware.
Money began driving and motivating the league's interest more than it had ever done before. And it's only grown more intense with each passing decade and each passing year. The NBA stopped caring about determining the best team a long time ago. All they're truly interested in is selling it's players. It's akin to casting a hollywood blockbuster movie or marketing someone like Taylor Swift. Talent doesn't matter so much as public appeal.
The above is driving to the point that the bearded hag isn't so much great or 'generational', but rather he's become an image the league is pushing because fans that can't recognize a fugazi when they see it, or simply don't care if it's fake, are willingly spending their time, attention and money on a cubic zirconia. They're buying into it. IMO because we're living in an era where the youth is easily bored and find themselves wow'd by the Harlem Globetrotter-esque fancy dribbling and AND1 street ball moves. They don't care whether it adheres to traditional rules.
So the NBA goes out of it's way to put lipstick and dress up the pig so that they can drive up their stock. It's really that simple.
Clearly there are at least a dozen other players in the league right now that benefit from similar status. And you're right, some of them don't push the envelope as far as the bearded hag does. IMO, players like Steph Curry and Kawhi Leonard are more interested in competition and improving their games in a productive way rather than trying to perfect flopping, flailing and clear traveling techniques solely intended to take advantage of a broken system.
Do both those players receive star treatment? Absolutely. But neither develops their game with the intent of depending upon the treatment. Or of knowingly breaking the rules of movement on the court. There's a huge difference IMO.
I'll circle back to a player and team I hated growing up. The Boston Celtics and Larry Bird. Like all star players, Bird received his fair share of star treatment. And I was predisposed to be biased against him just as much the bearded hag. But I can easily recognize that Bird was a diamond despite whatever bogus star treatment he received. He was legit. So whatever 'bias' I have doesn't preclude me from seeing or acknowledging true greatness.
Over 40 years I've seen a myriad of talented players that didn't get close to the treatment the players in the superstar club get, let alone a player that purposely takes it to the next level like the hag. If they did, you might have heard of or remembered them too.
It's important to realize that the NBA superstar club is a clique. Like a 'made man' in the mafia, once a player is in it -- they are taken care of. For life.
If you truly believe a player has to be a 'generational talent' to gain admission, you are sorely mistaken. The only real requirement is having an image the NBA can sell and make tons of money from. There have been a lot of fugazi super stars over the decades, but none as egregious as the hag.
Nobody can convince me otherwise. I'm sure the reverse is true of those that buy into him.
Again, couldn't disagree with you more. While some similarities can certainly be found, I don't see #77 and the bearded hag as the same player at all. Just as I don't see many similarities to, say Kobe Bryant.
Ball dominant and high usage players? Sure. But to me that's like comparing Buddy Hield to Steph Curry just because they both shoot a ton of three point shots and are widely known for that part of their games. They are completely different players.
#77 is only 1+ seasons into his career. By season 5 or 6 I might find myself buying into the comparison more. But I don't see it at this time.
Again, we're both entitled to our opinions.
The bearded hag is a fugazi. IMO those that know what to look for in a diamond can see when it isn't.
The flaw in your assessment is that all players would have to be treated and permitted to bend and even break the rules equally. But they aren't. You know it and I know it. If they were and the bearded hag was just better at it than the rest, then I'd believe you had a point.
But throughout the history of the game, and continuing today, there have been equally talented -- or even more talented -- players that weren't gifted the same set of circumstances.
I won't even get deep into the point that the bearded hag just happens to play for a team and coach that allows him unfettered latitude to do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. Or that the current rules, focus and landscape of the NBA has drastically changed to the point where a lot of past players could have accomplished the same (or more) given the identical circumstances. But I'll digress.
The main point is that the NBA has been a star driven league for the better part of the past 40 years. Ever since Bird and Magic appeared on the scene and changed the NBA's future forever. Then Michael Jordan happened, along with cable TV and ESPN, which raised it to a completely different level. It probably was still a star driven league prior to that, but nowhere near the same extent as far as I'm aware.
Money began driving and motivating the league's interest more than it had ever done before. And it's only grown more intense with each passing decade and each passing year. The NBA stopped caring about determining the best team a long time ago. All they're truly interested in is selling it's players. It's akin to casting a hollywood blockbuster movie or marketing someone like Taylor Swift. Talent doesn't matter so much as public appeal.
The above is driving to the point that the bearded hag isn't so much great or 'generational', but rather he's become an image the league is pushing because fans that can't recognize a fugazi when they see it, or simply don't care if it's fake, are willingly spending their time, attention and money on a cubic zirconia. They're buying into it. IMO because we're living in an era where the youth is easily bored and find themselves wow'd by the Harlem Globetrotter-esque fancy dribbling and AND1 street ball moves. They don't care whether it adheres to traditional rules.
So the NBA goes out of it's way to put lipstick and dress up the pig so that they can drive up their stock. It's really that simple.
Clearly there are at least a dozen other players in the league right now that benefit from similar status. And you're right, some of them don't push the envelope as far as the bearded hag does. IMO, players like Steph Curry and Kawhi Leonard are more interested in competition and improving their games in a productive way rather than trying to perfect flopping, flailing and clear traveling techniques solely intended to take advantage of a broken system.
Do both those players receive star treatment? Absolutely. But neither develops their game with the intent of depending upon the treatment. Or of knowingly breaking the rules of movement on the court. There's a huge difference IMO.
I'll circle back to a player and team I hated growing up. The Boston Celtics and Larry Bird. Like all star players, Bird received his fair share of star treatment. And I was predisposed to be biased against him just as much the bearded hag. But I can easily recognize that Bird was a diamond despite whatever bogus star treatment he received. He was legit. So whatever 'bias' I have doesn't preclude me from seeing or acknowledging true greatness.
Over 40 years I've seen a myriad of talented players that didn't get close to the treatment the players in the superstar club get, let alone a player that purposely takes it to the next level like the hag. If they did, you might have heard of or remembered them too.
It's important to realize that the NBA superstar club is a clique. Like a 'made man' in the mafia, once a player is in it -- they are taken care of. For life.
If you truly believe a player has to be a 'generational talent' to gain admission, you are sorely mistaken. The only real requirement is having an image the NBA can sell and make tons of money from. There have been a lot of fugazi super stars over the decades, but none as egregious as the hag.
Nobody can convince me otherwise. I'm sure the reverse is true of those that buy into him.
Again, couldn't disagree with you more. While some similarities can certainly be found, I don't see #77 and the bearded hag as the same player at all. Just as I don't see many similarities to, say Kobe Bryant.
Ball dominant and high usage players? Sure. But to me that's like comparing Buddy Hield to Steph Curry just because they both shoot a ton of three point shots and are widely known for that part of their games. They are completely different players.
#77 is only 1+ seasons into his career. By season 5 or 6 I might find myself buying into the comparison more. But I don't see it at this time.
Again, we're both entitled to our opinions.
This game just justifies everything that has been said here:
1) Kings have a better roster than the Mavs
2) Luka is leading his team to a far superior record than Sacramento thus far this season
3) Despite the injuries, if Luka was leading the Kings, the Kings would be a serious playoff threat for years to come
I think the hard part about this thread is people seem to think we are Luka fans first and Kings fans second. At least in my case, I want the Kings to succeed. That requires making the most of opportunities that do not come our way very often. So when you see a star doing things nobody his age has done since Lebron, and winning basketball games while doing it, it stings. This is the cherry on top of an inept front office that has had to get help with the CBA and cap rules, and that has made blunder after blunder when it comes to the draft (including trades that involve draft picks).
Vlade needs to resign. And it isn't based on this one player alone, but this being the culmination of events that has resulted in the Kings losing out on the best player in that draft.
1) Kings have a better roster than the Mavs
2) Luka is leading his team to a far superior record than Sacramento thus far this season
3) Despite the injuries, if Luka was leading the Kings, the Kings would be a serious playoff threat for years to come
I think the hard part about this thread is people seem to think we are Luka fans first and Kings fans second. At least in my case, I want the Kings to succeed. That requires making the most of opportunities that do not come our way very often. So when you see a star doing things nobody his age has done since Lebron, and winning basketball games while doing it, it stings. This is the cherry on top of an inept front office that has had to get help with the CBA and cap rules, and that has made blunder after blunder when it comes to the draft (including trades that involve draft picks).
Vlade needs to resign. And it isn't based on this one player alone, but this being the culmination of events that has resulted in the Kings losing out on the best player in that draft.
As mentioned almost entirely Powell and Kleber.
Luka was almost never guarding Bjelica and yet Bjelica went off. Kleber can really defend too and Bjelica schooled him a couple times. As I've been told ad-nauseum the key to beating Dallas on the offensive end is to attack Luka.......and yet that hardly happened. His much maligned defense is mostly based on fantasy and wishful thinking. He's not that bad on defense.
Luka was almost never guarding Bjelica and yet Bjelica went off. Kleber can really defend too and Bjelica schooled him a couple times. As I've been told ad-nauseum the key to beating Dallas on the offensive end is to attack Luka.......and yet that hardly happened. His much maligned defense is mostly based on fantasy and wishful thinking. He's not that bad on defense.
Well, if they put him on CoJo, that's a good way to hide him on defense. Btw. I saw another video that Bjelly blocked Lukas' shot. I looks like Vlade did not draft Luka, because we already had Bjelica 
I thought Fugazi was an awesome rock band from DC so I may be misinterpreting your comments here, but I don't see how anyone can claim at this point that James Harden is overrated or not a superstar. He averaged 36 points per game last season and nobody else even had 30. Giannis got the MVP award but that's mostly because of Milwaukee's record. As a scorer Harden is way out in front of everyone in the league right now. So far this season he's averaging 38 a game and Giannis is 2nd in the league with 30. That 8 point gap between 1 and 2 on the top scorers lists is almost unprecedented -- except that Harden did the same thing last year when Paul George was #2 with 28 points per game. And historically, other than Wilt's singular dominance, it's really just MJ left for Harden to beat as a scorer... and he may already be there. Kobe Bryant never averaged 36 a game for a full season, even at his post-Shaq chuckiest. MJ only did it once. It doesn't make sense to me to argue for style points. 38 points a game is still 38 points a game -- if it's so easy how come nobody else is doing it? And he's consistently adding to that total by ranking in the top 10 in assists as well. He's flat out getting it done.
You've argued that D'Antoni's system has made Harden what he is, and I'll agree that the right fit of system and player is hugely important, but is that a reason to discount what a player has accomplished? Are we going to penalize Kobe because he played for a Hall of Fame coach most of his career? Do Steve Nash's 2 MVP awards playing for D'Antoni not count? It seems to me like you have to start with the conclusion that Harden is a fraud and then work backward to find the justification. By any objective measure he's an all-time great at this point. Do superstars get a lot of help from the referees? Of course they do. Dwyane Wade basically had a championship gift-wrapped to him early in his career. That doesn't mean he wasn't an elite player. The thing is, these guys had to earn that status first. Other than maybe Lebron, nobody is gifted preferential treatment out of the gate. Not to mention, James Harden is not charismatic or exceptionally attractive (as far as I can tell, maybe I'm wrong), he doesn't have a chiseled physique (by professional athlete standards), he'll never compete in a dunk contest, he doesn't have Westbrook's style or ham it up in commercials or make witty post-game quips. He doesn't whip behind the back elbow passes. He isn't a one-on-one ball-handling legend. He doesn't have a crossover (heh) rap/movie career or a zany Youtube channel. All he does is get himself to the basket and score points.
At some point you just have to look at the results and respect what the man has accomplished despite overwhelming public backlash. Almost nobody likes this guy outside of Houston -- I rarely see anyone rushing to defend his style of play. And yeah, for years I felt like he was basically a cheater who was allowed to get away with it. Adam Silver even made a point of cracking down on flopping one season and we all assumed that'd be the end of The Beard as a thing but if anything he's just gotten even better. The Luka comparison isn't a great one but that's because you can't really compare any player to someone else, especially when you're talking about elite players. There are a lot of differences which make the comparison a stretch, however, in terms of impact on the game and sheer ability to create shots without highlight-reel athletic gifts, it's illustrative to describe Luka's games in terms of how he relates to Harden.
Which brings me around to the question I have for you, If you don't think James Harden, err, the Bearded Hag as you call him, exhibits true greatness as an NBA player -- just a player mind you, not as a brand or anything like that -- what does it mean to you to call a player a superstar? Is winning enough or do they also need to change the game like a Michael Jordan? What if they unquestionably do change the game but don't win a ring, like Allen Iverson? Does that disqualify them? I'm just trying to understand your point. If it's just "I like who I like and the rest, eff 'em" that's fair enough. It's no skin off my back if you don't care to acknowledge Harden as anything more than a very successful grifter but I feel like you might also want to acknowledge in that case that your definition of who gets to be called a superstar appears to be more narrow and mercurial than the commonly accepted one.
You've argued that D'Antoni's system has made Harden what he is, and I'll agree that the right fit of system and player is hugely important, but is that a reason to discount what a player has accomplished? Are we going to penalize Kobe because he played for a Hall of Fame coach most of his career? Do Steve Nash's 2 MVP awards playing for D'Antoni not count? It seems to me like you have to start with the conclusion that Harden is a fraud and then work backward to find the justification. By any objective measure he's an all-time great at this point. Do superstars get a lot of help from the referees? Of course they do. Dwyane Wade basically had a championship gift-wrapped to him early in his career. That doesn't mean he wasn't an elite player. The thing is, these guys had to earn that status first. Other than maybe Lebron, nobody is gifted preferential treatment out of the gate. Not to mention, James Harden is not charismatic or exceptionally attractive (as far as I can tell, maybe I'm wrong), he doesn't have a chiseled physique (by professional athlete standards), he'll never compete in a dunk contest, he doesn't have Westbrook's style or ham it up in commercials or make witty post-game quips. He doesn't whip behind the back elbow passes. He isn't a one-on-one ball-handling legend. He doesn't have a crossover (heh) rap/movie career or a zany Youtube channel. All he does is get himself to the basket and score points.
At some point you just have to look at the results and respect what the man has accomplished despite overwhelming public backlash. Almost nobody likes this guy outside of Houston -- I rarely see anyone rushing to defend his style of play. And yeah, for years I felt like he was basically a cheater who was allowed to get away with it. Adam Silver even made a point of cracking down on flopping one season and we all assumed that'd be the end of The Beard as a thing but if anything he's just gotten even better. The Luka comparison isn't a great one but that's because you can't really compare any player to someone else, especially when you're talking about elite players. There are a lot of differences which make the comparison a stretch, however, in terms of impact on the game and sheer ability to create shots without highlight-reel athletic gifts, it's illustrative to describe Luka's games in terms of how he relates to Harden.
Which brings me around to the question I have for you, If you don't think James Harden, err, the Bearded Hag as you call him, exhibits true greatness as an NBA player -- just a player mind you, not as a brand or anything like that -- what does it mean to you to call a player a superstar? Is winning enough or do they also need to change the game like a Michael Jordan? What if they unquestionably do change the game but don't win a ring, like Allen Iverson? Does that disqualify them? I'm just trying to understand your point. If it's just "I like who I like and the rest, eff 'em" that's fair enough. It's no skin off my back if you don't care to acknowledge Harden as anything more than a very successful grifter but I feel like you might also want to acknowledge in that case that your definition of who gets to be called a superstar appears to be more narrow and mercurial than the commonly accepted one.
Last edited:
Harden is as far out of other players in scoring as is lead to believe. Players know he’ll get every and any call there scared to guard him and I don’t blame them. He’s a great scorer but when defenders are scared for there lives it makes scoring easier just look at the post season when his efficiency goes down. Imagine if players knew they could breathe on guys like Lebron and Giannis or even step in there path they’d be scoring 35+ too. I’ve seen defenders literally run away from harden only for harden to throw his body at them and get a foul. Also he’s taking 4 more shots than the next guy if they shot as much as Harden there ppg would be: Giannis 36.5 and Luka 35.4 while 6 other players would be above 30ppg.
I’m not impressed with harden at all, 50 points on 11 FGs made **** outta here.
this dudes a clown the epitome of what’s wrong with the game right now. That foul on MCW is an absolute farce, could call a tech on Harden for a non basketball related move for jumping on his back but no foul on the defender
I’m not impressed with harden at all, 50 points on 11 FGs made **** outta here.
this dudes a clown the epitome of what’s wrong with the game right now. That foul on MCW is an absolute farce, could call a tech on Harden for a non basketball related move for jumping on his back but no foul on the defender
Let's just say that Harden is more than a Minor Threat.
(Not DC I know, but with my Bad Brains it was the best I could come up with)
Okay, I take back what I said about James Harden not being a one-on-one ball-handling legend. I was off base with that one. Everything else though? Naw. You've got to see the forest through the trees here. Posting clips from a half dozen games spread out over several years doesn't prove much of anything. He averaged nearly 40 points per game last month. In the last 2 weeks alone he's had a 60 point game, a 55 point game, and a 50 point game. Who else has proven that they're capable of sustaining a scoring run like that? What he's doing is incredible.
It's entirely possible for him to be one of the best scorers of all time and also a clown and the epitome of what's wrong with the game right now. These things are not mutually exclusive. I haven't argued that he's not a clown (although come on, that MCW play is damn funny so he's at least a pretty good clown!) -- but unless he's somehow gotten access to flubber and managed to keep it a secret, I don't see how anyone can call him a fraud. His ability to get to the line is absurd and reflects poorly on the state of NBA officiating but you know what? It's still entirely fair and legal within the confines of the rules as written. Shaq's size and strength in the post when he was in peak form were absolutely game breaking and he was also a bit of a clown (still is) but maybe it takes a loose screw or two for anybody to ascend to that level of dominance.
It's entirely possible for him to be one of the best scorers of all time and also a clown and the epitome of what's wrong with the game right now. These things are not mutually exclusive. I haven't argued that he's not a clown (although come on, that MCW play is damn funny so he's at least a pretty good clown!) -- but unless he's somehow gotten access to flubber and managed to keep it a secret, I don't see how anyone can call him a fraud. His ability to get to the line is absurd and reflects poorly on the state of NBA officiating but you know what? It's still entirely fair and legal within the confines of the rules as written. Shaq's size and strength in the post when he was in peak form were absolutely game breaking and he was also a bit of a clown (still is) but maybe it takes a loose screw or two for anybody to ascend to that level of dominance.
I'm glad there's someone else in this thread with enough perspective to recognize that comparing Luka Doncic to James Harden is hardly some kind of slight. I'm no fan of Harden's game, but it takes either a total lack of awareness or some impressive cognitive dissonance to dismiss what he's doing as the result of league-engineered favoritism. The guy has completely upended the NBA's understanding of dominance on the offensive end of the court. Yes, he's done so by leveraging the current rule set and by bending reality around the shape of a foul call, but at this point there should be no question that James Harden is perhaps the most gifted scorer of his generation (and among the most gifted scorers of all time).
The ******** guy speaks pretty decent Spanish too. Blake Griffin must have been cursing him out in his head.
I wish the Mavs just the first overall pick somehow and took him because I would totally be a fanboy for Luka then (if I’m not already). My only hesitation is the fact that my own stupid team drafted a juicer over a freaking legend.
And that is different from Harden. Last year Luka made 8 TDs, this year he's made 8 in 24 games. If he keeps it up, he will have 35 total at the end of the season, which will put him into 10th place for career TDs in the NBA, passing people like Havlicek and Cousy. If he did it again next year, he'd pass Harden and Larry Bird, move into #7, and be threatening Wilt. In that respect he's really much closer to Westbrook (all-time #2 behind Oscar, 144 TDs and counting).
But, but.......remember tyreke was better than curry in the beginning so luka vs. Bagley is far from settled. Luka is overrated. Luka is a ball hog, I’m glad we have Bagley.........
There are so many people, particularly kings fans, who are making themselves look foolish by trying to downplay and badmouth luka.
There are so many people, particularly kings fans, who are making themselves look foolish by trying to downplay and badmouth luka.
Last edited:
- Status