And "Sir Charles". I always kind of liked "the Worm". I thought it was a fitting description for Dennis Rodman and his game. The best HAS to be Magic, though. It's so perfect that it replaced his actual name.

All Time 2007 to present? How does THAT work?

Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I disagree with Lebron being a better player than Dirk or not, I'm just curious as to why Dirk not winning on the "big stage" is a knock, but it's thrown out the window in eyes for Lebron.

One quick question for mere13: How do you knock Dirk for not winning on the "big stage" but turn around and argue FOR Lebron?

As much as like Durant, you HAVE to have Lebron in the starting line-up. He does more of the little things and plays more of an all around game that makes up for the fact that Durant scores two more points per game and is a better free throw shooter. I also greatly enjoy watching the heart that Noah plays with, as he isn't the biggest, strongest or most talented guy, but works his ass off and puts up quality numbers. But I think I'd go with Chandler, because I think that he has done a lot to help bring a defensive swagger to Dallas and inject that whole team with energy at the defensive end.

It was a horrible day, but the series worked out to my liking. As far as the Heat-Bulls go, I think that the Bulls can win the series, too. I also think that, overall, they're a better team than Miami. But that doesn't mean that the series is over. Lebron and Wade are more than capable of carrying a team to a series win. They are great players and, if they can get anything out of their role players, can win not just this series, but the whole shibang. Chicago is also more than capable of playing poorly and letting teams beat them. The point is, and what that faithful day in 1985 show, is that no matter how poorly or how great one team appears to be, it's still just one game, and game one at that. The Bulls were supposed to win a game one at home.

One game is one game. It was a good game for Chicago, but that doesn't automatically give them the series. For proof, look into what happened May 27th, 1985 in the NBA Finals.

I think sweeping LA HURTS Dallas (and, I'm sorry, but they didn't "dominate" the Lakers. They dominated game 4 because they couldn't miss a shot, but the other three were close with LA choking away games 1 and 3). The reason that they beat LA was because they were shooting lights out. 8 days off isn't good for a team that's shooting hot, and the Thunder, even though they aren't a great 3 point shooting team, have better individual 3 point shooters in Harden, Durant and Robinson than LA does.

Send him home. If they can re-sign Rice, adding Fitzgerald to a receiving corps that includes Percy Harvin would be formidable.

As long as Brad Childress, Darrell Bevell and Brett Favre are gone, I don't care who it is. One note on Jackson, however, he's a free agent at the end of this season. I have long stated that I felt that Jackson could be a quality quarterback if he had a decent coaching staff, playbook and quality supporting cast. When he was last the starter, the leading receiver was Bobby Wade, Bernard Berrian couldn't catch a cold (still can't), Sidney Rice was laboring through an injury riddled season and they had no Percy Harvin. And Brad Childress is the worst coach and playcaller in the league. The shock of the Vikings this season has amazed me. I've been pointing all of this crap out for YEARS now. How guys who are paid to see this stuff haven't noticed it is beyond me. They have been winning on talent, not coaching. The roster is stacked, and Childress still can't get a victory. It doesn't help when the overrated quarterback that you BEGGED to come back has a season more typical to what we've come to expect from him, but again, whose fault is that?

Why so quick to dismiss Andy Pettitte? He's battle tested, won't get rattled in the big game situation and his postseason record speaks for itself.

Woah, woah, woah! Are you trying to tell me that you HONESTLY believe that Babe Ruth was better than Pete Incaviglia?!

I'm a Notre Dame fan, and even I don't believe that.

As Notre Dame fan, I love me some Tim Brown. But, IN NO WAY does he deserve to be in before Cris Carter.

And, by the way, another accomplishment you are forgetting. He was on the 1990 All Decade team with Jerry Rice. Cris Carter had 835 receptions in the 90's, second only to Rice's 860, and he's the only guy to catch more than 120 passes in a season twice. Like I said, those were his only full seasons with a Hall of Fame quarterback (Moon at the end of his career). The guy was a vacuum.

No, no. That's not what I'm saying. He had MAJOR drug and alcohol problems at the start of his career in Philadelphia. It REALLY hindered the his first few years. I wasn't saying that it warranted being thrown out, the point that I was making is that THAT is what kills his per-season averages. Buddy Ryan didn't get along with him, in large part because of his drug abuse. The Vikings then got one of the best deals in NFL History (a rumored $100 waiver fee), and he went on to have the outstanding career in Minnesota that he had. You were saying that he was a "bit of a stat collector". That is far from the truth, in my opinion. Really, the ony "hang-on" type season he had was a partial at the end of his career in Miami. I'd say that Jerry Rice was more guilty of being a "stat collector", by far. And it STILL doesn't change the fact that, while Jerry Rice was no doubt a GREAT receiver, Cris Carter didn't get to play the bulk of his career with two Hall of Fame quarterbacks. And it also doesn't change the fact that he retired in the number 2 spot all-time in the major receiving statistics to Rice who, like I said, is considered the best receiver ever. If Carter's numbers are second only to that man, why WOULDN'T he be a first ballot Hall of Famer?

Only because he had issues while with the Eagles. In his prime, he was arguably the best receiver in football. He didn't have the run after catch ability that Rice had, but he had the best hands in the history of the game. The guy played with a new quarterback seemingly every season, and most of them were marginal guys. The only time he had the luxury of playing with a HoF quarterback (2 seasons with a 38 year old Warren Moon), he caught 244 balls. It would have been VERY interesting to see him not only play with the same quarterback to develop a rapport, but with a HoF guy like Montana and Young. He retired ranked 2nd to the guy widely considered the best receiver ever in pretty much every receiving category out there. He should have been a first ballott guy, no matter WHO ELSE was up for election.

I think Shane is looking more at the payday than anything else. He wants to cash in on his earlier success while he still can. Not that he isn't still a productive fighter, but he's not what he once was and he sure as hell isn't an elite fighter any more.

You're correct about Auerbach having more of hand in the building process of teams, for the most part, but that still goes against the theory that he was a great coach. A great gm/team president? Sure. But, with your line of reasoning that "loaded" teams don't need an excellent coach to win, that would translate into Red just being along for the ride with great players. Like I said, Phil has coached 5 hall of fame players for significant time in their productive years. Red had teams with 5 hall of famers on it at once. With your line of logic, Red's coaching job should have been much easier than Phil's. And that's not taking into consideration free agency issues, the 24/7 365 scrutiny today's celebrities face or the ego that players have.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me about the "key additions" responsible for his success. And I didn't say that Rodman was in Chicago for the first three-peat. I listed him as a hall of famer that he coached. None of what you said changes a thing. He came in and took teams that couldn't get over the hump and made them champions. Looking back, it's easy to say that they underachieved, but hindsight is always 20/20. If you're old enough to remember, Jordan was looked at the same way Lebron is now before he won a ring. A great and talented player, but he wasn't looked at as a guy who could take a team to that next level. Shaq and Kobe's Lakers underachieved BIG TIME. They actually had more talent the years they WEREN'T winning. Phil comes in and they are immediately a dominant team. He gets guys to buy in. He handles the modern day athlete, especially "problem" players as well as anybody has.

Really? What "key" additions would those be?

And, again, Phil has coached 5 sure-fire hall of famers (Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, Shaq and Kobe). All on teams that were good but probably underachieved. He came in and they won. They were surrounded by role players. It's not like he had 5 hall of famers on his team at a time like Red did. It's not his starting center took over as coach and they won two more rings.