I've seen enough, and I'm not the one being over-reactionary to one series. The man has been NBA MVP multiple times and has the stellar stats to back it up. You cannot call LeBron James an underachiever.

 

As long as he is playing significantly under his potential, he is underachieving, by definition.

That is another way of saying pretty much the same thing that I have been.

you didn't answer my question.

 

 

 

you didn't answer my question.

 

As long as he is playing significantly under his potential, he is underachieving, by definition.

As long as he is playing significantly under his potential, he is underachieving, by definition.

Who defines his potential?

Who defines his potential?

 

Really? Are you telling me that you don't think LeBron should be better than he has shown?

Should MJ have been on that list too at age 26?? By 26, he achieved everything statistically like LeBron and never won a championship yet...

 

Way too early to annoint LeBron an underachiever. Only one year has he truly underachieved and it was the most recent year. When he lost in the playoffs in the past years, it was with a bad supporting cast.

Edited June 20, 201114 yr by maggsmaggs

Really? Are you telling me that you don't think LeBron should be better than he has shown?

I'm just asking how much better you think he should be?

 

Because for him to be on an "All time underachievers" list, he needs to be significantly above where he is now.

LeBron has to be on that team at this point.

 

 

Should MJ have been on that list too at age 26?? By 26, he achieved everything statistically like LeBron and never won a championship yet...

 

Way too early to annoint LeBron an underachiever.

 

But would MJ have fit that bill too at that point in his career?? That's my point. He is 26, you need a breadth of a career to establish if someone is truly an underachiever.

Really? Are you telling me that you don't think LeBron should be better than he has shown?

Not really, he's been a multiple NBA MVP and quite amazing. What do you want? 35/10/10?

Edited June 20, 201114 yr by Steve9347

just, two things. Is Lebron underachieving, I do believe he is. I also believe D. Howard is. I don't believe they are lazy. I do believe that lebron is still a top 10-15 all time great. But his underachieving means he will never be in greatest all-time status and that does carry a lot more weight. And I also think the reason for it is entirely that he's afraid to fail.

Only thing I agree with SS2K5 about when it comes to LeBron is that he could have a little more to offer from the post. Especially at his size. But even with that, I can't classify him as an underachiever. If Lebron is an underachiever, every player in the NBA is an underachiever.

If Lebron is an underachiever, every player in the NBA is an underachiever.

How do you conclude that every player in the NBA isn't playing up to his potential?

I'm just asking how much better you think he should be?

 

Because for him to be on an "All time underachievers" list, he needs to be significantly above where he is now.

 

You are looking for an exact quantification of an obscure individually determined ideal? Yes, this thread has been Balta'd.

 

I think he should be 11.23 better.

 

All of these numbers are just noise. John Paxson has three rings. He isn't one of the greatest players of all time. Players have scored lots of points, all while underachieving. Players got lots of rebounds and assists too, it doesn't mean they were the players that they could be. Take a look at Zach Randolph. Looking at his numbers he has always put up impressive lines. Does anyone doubt he was an underachiever until the last year or two?

 

LeBron disappears during vital sections of the most important games of his career. He hasn't added to his game in his eight years in the NBA. He takes long stretches off on the defensive end of the floor.

 

I honestly feel with his potential he should be at the top of the greatest of all time list. He has physical gifts that make MJ go "damn". To me, he is still an underachiever just based on what he should be doing.

But would MJ have fit that bill too at that point in his career?? That's my point. He is 26, you need a breadth of a career to establish if someone is truly an underachiever.

 

I honestly remember MJ coming back from most off-seasons with a new facet to his game. I never remember seeing him quit on plays and games. I remember his very well working on his game. I don't ever remember looking back at any game or series and thinking "if only Michael had..."

Not really, he's been a multiple NBA MVP and quite amazing. What do you want? 35/10/10?

 

His numbers don't matter to me. I want him to play up to his potential.

Because LeBron is the best player in the NBA. So wouldn't that classify everybody else as an underachiever if LeBron is an underachiever.

No, that would mean you don't understand the term "underachiever."

No, that would mean you don't understand the term "underachiever."

 

I deleted that post for a reason. As I didn't word it right. I'll get back to you in a minute. Nehphew is calling.

Edited June 20, 201114 yr by Jordan4life

His numbers don't matter to me. I want him to play up to his potential.

Specific much? This is just silly. This very well could be the man's potential, and his potential is elite.

Specific much? This is just silly. This very well could be the man's potential, and his potential is elite.

 

I outlined some of the things in his game that bother me. He could fix those, and not change his stats a bit. That's why the stats are pointless. I don't think the game he has now is as good as he can be. Listening to others talk, I have yet to hear a single person say that LeBron shouldn't be better.

Bill Simmons' "everything package" comparison really just sums it up the best

Only thing I agree with SS2K5 about when it comes to LeBron is that he could have a little more to offer from the post. Especially at his size. But even with that, I can't classify him as an underachiever. If Lebron is an underachiever, every player in the NBA is an underachiever.

 

A little more? He's 6'8, strong as hell AND FAST, for nights when his shot is off he should put his ass down there. It would be game over, greatest modern offensive player ever, hands down. He doesn't.

A little more? He's 6'8, strong as hell AND FAST, for nights when his shot is off he should put his ass down there. It would be game over, greatest modern offensive player ever, hands down. He doesn't.

That's exactly it. The guy is 6'8", 270 lbs, stronger than hell, runs like a gazelle, jumps out of the gym and he doesn't have a f***ing post move.

Your basic argument seems to be that because he's on track to be "only" one of the 10-20 players of all time instead of #1 makes him a massive underachiever. That is patently ridiculous and I shall not be commenting on this line of discussion anymore.

 

Also, Zach Randolph isn't really THAT big an underachiever. He's been putting up 20-10 for years even though he can't jump. Outside of trying a little more often on defense, there's really not all that much more you can expect him to do. He was never going to be a Tim Ducan-caliber defender, which along with a bad attitude have been his main issues.

Your basic argument seems to be that because he's on track to be "only" one of the 10-20 players of all time instead of #1 makes him a massive underachiever. That is patently ridiculous and I shall not be commenting on this line of discussion anymore.

 

Clearly it's the fact that he is constantly brought up as having the potential to be or in line to be #1 all-time when his actual performance, although impressive, has just not been at that level is what bothers people when it comes to "arguing his greatness."