Advertisement

Russell Westbrook Dunked On Stephen A Smith So Naturally He Doubled Down On His Shitty Take

After Russell Westbrook's monster night on Monday, you knew there were going to be two ways to look at it. Like I blogged, I was rather impressed. I mean you watch someone make NBA history, it's OK to just accept that for what it is, a pretty cool moment that doesn't come around all that often. Of course, you could also do what Stephen A Smith did

This isn't exactly a new take. It's pretty much the main thing anyone who tries to discredit Westbrook goes to. RINNNGGGZZZ culture has broken our brains for the most part. Nothing can be good unless you win a title. It's a little odd. I just don't see the connection. An individual historic performance is no big deal because a player doesn't have a championship? You say shit like that and then immediately turn around and kill players for ring chasing and joining super teams. It's all so confusing.

Naturally, this didn't sit well with the Westbrooks. First, there was Nina Westbrook taking to IG to roast the shit out of Stephen A

Advertisement

When asked about Stephen A's comments after last night's loss, I thought Westbrook had a great response

Not sure how anyone could have a problem with that response. Kind of makes Stephen A look like a dick if you ask me. I was interested to see if after all this blowback if Stephen A would walk his take back at all. I don't know why I thought he would, because he basically doubled down

It all makes my head explode. Players like Karl Malone, Charles Barkley, Iverson etc are NBA legends and players who are talked about as being some of the greatest players to ever play. Are their individual accomplishments diminished because they never won a title? In my opinion, they shouldn't be. When Chris Paul became the 6th player in NBA history with 10,000 career assists a few weeks ago, was that not a big deal because he doesn't have a title? He's about to become the first player ever with 20k points and 10k assists. Should we not give a shit because he never got to the top of the mountain? That seems silly to me. 

Why can't both be true? Why can't a performance like what Westbrook had the other night be wildly impressive and a big deal at the moment, while also acknowledging that he needs to come through in the playoffs? If nothing else matters other than a ring, will Stephen A be cool if somehow Westbrook ends up on the Lakers or something with LeBron/AD? He seems all bothered by what the Nets are doing with their superteam. He called Durant to the Warriors the weakest move he's ever seen. But then he turns around and discredits what Westbrook does on the floor because he doesn't have a title? How does that make any goddamn sense.