You wrote that he's no better than dozens (24+) and dozens (24+) and dozens (24+) and dozens (24+). That's 96 at bare minimum.Someone else used the 100 number, not me.
But there’s no way that I consider him an all-time great.
He has the talent, but he had way to many indifferent performances to earn that status from me.
Just use the St John’s game at the BET as an example. That was one of many that we saw from him.
Just inviting you to back up the rhetoric or tone it down to reasonableness.