Mark Jackson Comment?

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Did I really hear what I think I heard from Mark Jackson. First he said that Derek Fisher was as good or arguably a better pickup for the Lakers this season than Gasol. This isn't an outrageous comment and Fisher is certainly clutch as hell in the playoffs, but IMO it is wrong since the Lakers have Farmar off the bench at PG.

But did Jackson actually say that his all-time starting 5 team from the Celtic-Laker rivalry would be "at PG Magic, at the 2 Kobe Bryant, at the 3 "Paul Pierce", at the 4 Kevin Garnett, at Center Wilt Chamberlain. Did he actually leave off Larry Bird? If he did there is no other reason I could come up with, but racism and hatred of white males. Pierce is no where near as dominant a player as Bird and has "zero" rings up to this point coming off a 23 win season last year. Pierce may not even be the "second best" SF playing "currently" in the NBA.

This comment by Mark Jackson is even worse than Cris Carter leaving off Wes Welker from his analysis of the Patriots offense on "white extinction" Yahoo.com (the group that owns Rivals) right before the Super Bowl. Carter didn't forget to mention Dante Stallworth. I wouldn't be surprised to hear a comment like this from the company that also owns ESPN. The Disney corporation is anti-white male. They are part of the cultural Marxist agenda.

Bird was certainly as clutch and "arguably" as good as Michael Jordan and was the biggest reason "by far" that those 80s Celtics teams won 3 rings. The steal off of Isiah Thomas that year in the Eastern conference finals against the Pistons was one of the most memorable plays ever. I recently just watched some Youtube highlights of Bird because I was too young to really enjoy Bird when he played and Bird is without a doubt in my mind the greatest SF to ever play. I really get the sense that lots of American blacks resent white males and are harboring ill feelings from the past and many of the black males in broadcasting are no exception.

When I was in Canada I sensed much less cohesiveness and racism from Canadian blacks. In Canada it is unacceptable to play the race card unless it is really warranted. Most Canadians would prefer to pretend that there are "zero" differences between the races. But in Canada one of the "big 3" networks never would hire a fool that would leave Bird off his list as the greatest Celtics small forward of all-time. It is enough to make me sick!

Could someone tell me if I misheard this during the broadcast? I sure hope I did or this country really has no hope for the white athlete. The caste system here, even blows away France's version.Edited by: ToughJ.Riggins

 

[celticdb15]

Larry Bird was the best of all time. Hands down he had D, he could rebound (for supposedly not being able to jump) he could pass, and damnit he may have the most consistent jump shot of all time. His knowledge of the game you do not come by anymore. Mark Jackson should go ask magic how good of a player he is. Magic will tell the truth.Edited by: celticdb15

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I just realized it was Mark Jackson who was on the ABC broadcast not Stephen A. Smith. I am not positive he said it though, if someone wants to watch the ESPN replay at 3 AM Eastern time the comment was said right before the half.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I edited the post to change it to Mark Jackson, but if he said this I lose all respect for him as an analyst, just like I have no respect for Stephen A "Smiff"!

 

[Deacon]

He also said that Magic Johnson is the greatest point guard in history and it isn't even close.

 

[forty-four]

Mark Jackson is probaly just experiencing flashbacks of this traumatic experience with another notable white player.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDyBSTQDwH8Edited by: forty-four

 

[michiganblkman]

Its obvious what the network thinks. Larry Bird is on almost all of the Boston vintage clips.

I think mark had to add current players to the "list" to add drama to the series

 

[whiteafflete15]

I could be mistaken, but I believe that what Mark Jackson said was somewhere along the lines of "I bet I could put together a starting lineup *in this building* that could match up against any 5 of all time. Magic at the point, Kobe at the 2, Pierce at the 3, Garnett at the 4, and Russell at the five." He only chose players in the building; I doubt he thinks Pierce is greater than Larry, although he did make it obvious that he thinks Kobe is the 2nd greatest talent of all-time after Jordan.

And while true that Fisher was a very helpful pick up, it was foolish to say it was as important as Gasol.

A much bigger caste whore I thought was Van Gundy and I've noticed it continually throughout the playoffs. Last night Jackson was saying how Garnett said Gasol was one of the most underrrated players in the league and a great defensive player who doesn't get credit. Jackson seemed to agree with that statement. Van Gundy then replied with, "Well I don't know about THAT. I think Garnett is talking in PC terms" Then later Van Gundy remarked that the Celtics don't need to double on Gasol....now I know why he is no longer a coach. In the first half when Gasol was played man to man (by GARNETT), he scored 12 easy points. In the second half, when they doubled, he scored 3. Its like Van Gundy refuses to admit that Gasol is a great player. Not to menion he sucks as an analyst, constantly trying to make unfunny jokes at inappropriate times.
Edited by: whiteafflete15

 

[GiovaniMarcon]

The Celts' current starting 5 would get about as close as you can to being metaphorically raped and then kicked out the door against a front court with Bird, Parish, and McHale on it.

*edited to add*

Mark Jackson's single greatest contribution to the sport of basketball is showing the world how to look like a flaming queer making his little "X" gang sign with his forearms whenever he gets spoonfed an assist.Edited by: GiovaniMarcon

 

[pt.guard2]

Would be surprised to to hear that Jackson said that. He has always been highly complimentary to Bird...Jackson played for Bird while at Indiana and is old enough to have played against him (and be dominated by Bird and the Celtics) while he was a pt. gd on the Knicks.

I think most basketball people acknowledge that both the Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's were far superior to these teams with 3 to 4 hall of famers on each team.

The guys at PTI agreed that the only current starter on either team that would have started in the 87 series would be Kobe. Even Garnett or Pierce could not crack a starting frontcourt of Bird, McHale and Parrish/Walton.

 

[guest301]

Would be surprised to to hear that Jackson said that. He has always been highly complimentary to Bird...Jackson played for Bird while at Indiana and is old enough to have played against him (and be dominated by Bird and the Celtics) while he was a pt. gd on the Knicks.

I think most basketball people acknowledge that both the Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's were far superior to these teams with 3 to 4 hall of famers on each team.













The guys at PTI agreed that the only current starter on either team that would have started in the 87 series would be Kobe. Even Garnett or Pierce could not crack a starting frontcourt of Bird, McHale and Parrish/Walton.

I mostly agree with all that. I do think that Garnett would get more playing time than Walton who was mostly a injury riddled player in the mid 80's and a shadow of his former dominating self when he was with the Trailblazers.Edited by: guest301

 

[pt.guard2]

Would be surprised to to hear that Jackson said that. He has always been highly complimentary to Bird...Jackson played for Bird while at Indiana and is old enough to have played against him (and be dominated by Bird and the Celtics) while he was a pt. gd on the Knicks.

I think most basketball people acknowledge that both the Lakers and the Celtics of the 80's were far superior to these teams with 3 to 4 hall of famers on each team.













The guys at PTI agreed that the only current starter on either team that would have started in the 87 series would be Kobe. Even Garnett or Pierce could not crack a starting frontcourt of Bird, McHale and Parrish/Walton.

I mostly agree with all that. I do think that Garnett would get more playing time than Walton who was mostly a injury riddled player in the mid 80's and a shadow of his former dominating self when he was with the Trailblazers.

 

[pt.guard2]

Walton had a revival when he got to the Celtics and was still the best passing center that has ever played, but Parish was the starter and I do not think that Garnett would have started over Parish, who was bigger and stronger and able to handle Kareem. Garnett could not have handled Kareem and would have played power forward on that team.Edited by: pt.guard2

 

[guest301]

So you think he would have backed up McHale instead of Parrish. That's a good point. But on just pure playing ability, the current Garnett is a better player than the mid 80's Walton regardless of position.

 

[pt.guard2]

Yes, I think that with 2 legitmate low post centers who were both over 7 feet, Garnett would be a power forward and would NOT start over McHale. I agree that Garnett is in his prime, while the mid 80's Walton was past his, but for that team, Walton's passing ability, especially his outlet passing and willingness to put aside his scoring for the team was a great fit.

 

[Guest]

You guys sound EXACTLY like every black boxing fan who thinks the heavyweight boxers today are weak.

Modern basketball players would beat all the legends from 25 years ago.

I'm not sure why people do not accept stuff like this, going on and on about it in football in particular and babbling about how quarterbacks were better 20 years ago and how we are in a "quarterback crisis" today.

 

[guest301]

You guys sound EXACTLY like every black boxing fan who thinks the heavyweight boxers today are weak.

Modern basketball players would beat all the legends from 25 years ago.

I'm not sure why people do not accept stuff like this, going on and on about it in football in particular and babbling about how quarterbacks were better 20 years ago and how we are in a "quarterback crisis" today.

Hey nevada,the 80's Celtics/Lakers championship teams wasn't that long ago. They could most certainly compete and in my opinion beat any NBA team out there today. The only team that has come close to their level of play is a couple of those Jordan led Bulls championship teams and maybe the Spurs of last year. Those Lakers/Celtics teams were far better athletes than giving credit for today and fundamentally they would beat either team in this years finals by 20 points or more and I would bet the house on it. Preferably your house, Nevada.

 

[pt.guard2]

Nevada - you are comparing apples to oranges.....heavyweights or QB's from years past to today vs. TEAMS.

Anyone who follows basketball will agree that before expansion and the rash of players entering the pros with little or no college experience, that the quality of play (on average) is far below where it was 15 or 20 years ago.

Guest301 makes a good point, the size and athletic ability of players 15 or 20 years ago is close enough to the players today and they had better skills overall than the players today.

This does not mean that many players today are not equal to or even better than the players of a generation ago, but they are spread out over far more teams.

The Lakers and Celetics had at least 4 hall of famers on EACH team when they played each other in those finals.

Other than Kobe, which Laker do you believe is a lock for the hall of fame? As far as the Celtics go, do you really believe that Paul Pierce or Kendrick Perkins would start over Bird or McHale?

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

Garnett would probably start over McHale, but no way Pierce starts over Bird. As brilliant of a series as Pierce had Bird is one of the top 5 players in NBA history by almost everyone's book. Pierce would probably be moved to shooting guard with Allen coming off the bench.

 

[Kaptain]

Try this link: Chambers on Jackson

 

[Kaptain]

You guys sound EXACTLY like every black boxing fan who thinks the heavyweight boxers today are weak.

Modern basketball players would beat all the legends from 25 years ago.

I'm not sure why people do not accept stuff like this, going on and on about it in football in particular and babbling about how quarterbacks were better 20 years ago and how we are in a "quarterback crisis" today.

Hey nevada,the 80's Celtics/Lakers championship teams wasn't that long ago. They could most certainly compete and in my opinion beat any NBA team out there today. The only team that has come close to their level of play is a couple of those Jordan led Bulls championship teams and maybe the Spurs of last year. Those Lakers/Celtics teams were far better athletes than giving credit for today and fundamentally they would beat either team in this years finals by 20 points or more and I would bet the house on it. Preferably your house, Nevada.

Gotta agree with 301 on this one, size difference, interest in the game, and training technique having not changed much since the 80's I can think of absolutely no reason modern basketball players would be better than the past ones. The 80's teams appeared to play the game better to boot. The only thing that has really changed is the individualism in today's NBA and the degredation of the rules of the game. Both not boding well for today's game.

 

[Kaptain]

Garnett would probably start over McHale, but no way Pierce starts over Bird. As brilliant of a series as Pierce had Bird is one of the top 5 players in NBA history by almost everyone's book. Pierce would probably be moved to shooting guard with Allen coming off the bench.

No way does the "counterfeit ticket" (as the Boston fans call him) start over Kevin McHale ever. I watched Garnett in Minnesota for years. McHale was better in every facit of the game. No comparison. That shouldn't be an opinion but a fact and no further discussion needed.

 

[ToughJ.Riggins]

I'm not so sure about that Kaptain. McHale was a great player, but so is Garnett. McHale was helped a lot by Birds brilliant passing, just as Garnett was finally aided to win a championship by quality teammates this year. Garnett to me is a slightly taller, slightly more athletic version of McHale. McHale was "slightly" tougher than Garnett and has a slight edge as a passer. However, McHale was no Lambeer or Ben Wallace as far as toughness and was even illegitimately given the "soft" label by some. Either way whoever came off the bench between the two would be the best "sixth man" in NBA history.

I think a lot of you guys are underrating Kevin Garnett, which makes our site look unreasonably pro-white. Garnett will be inducted to the Hall of Fame one day. You couldn't expect Garnett to win a championship in Minnesota without any quality help. He had some good play from Wally early in his career and later from Sam Cassell, but there was no quality depth on the team and Wally and Cassell are pretty good players, but not "great".

 

[Bart]

I think a lot of you guys are underrating Kevin Garnett, which makes our site look unreasonably pro-white.

Perhaps you are over estimating Garnett and under estimating McHale.Kevin was an excellent defender and wasa much better shooterwith a higher percentageand awesome assortmentof moves. Yes, KG averaged a few morerebounds per game, because he was usually the main board man,whereasKevin had Bird and Parrish to snatch up lots of rebounds in additon to himself.

 

[Guest]

I knew I could count on you guys to be totally deluded.