The Final Debate - and Please Don't Bring This Up Again

[Koolaid_Man]

Listen I'm tired of the debate guys. Please let's do the right thing and just accept this and move on. Can we agree to that. This is no troll thread I'm being honest here. Face the facts for once in your life. I respect Timmy but Timmy is no Kobe this is what history will record and why Timmy is a victim of Kobe's success. Timmy came close but still no cigar, I may be hated and loved around here but you know I'm right. I'm almost always right. 99 % of the time. Well maybe with the exception of gay marriage. :lol :downspin:


Kobe vs Duncan head to head

This is from 2000 and on...(Since 99 was a shortened season)

2001:

Lakers sweep

Kobe ave- 33ppg,7rpg, 7apg,

Duncan- 23ppg, 12rpg, 4apg,

2002:

Lakers win 4-1

Kobe-26ppg, 5.4rpg, 5apg,

Duncan- 28ppg, 17rpg, 4.8apg,

2003:

Spurs win 4-2

Kobe- 32ppg, 5rpg, 4apg,

Duncan- 28ppg, 12rpg, 4.8apg,

2004:

Lakers win in 6

Kobe- 26ppg, 6.3rpg, 6apg,

Duncan- 20ppg, 12rpg, 3apg,

2008:

Lakers win in 5

Kobe- 29ppg, 6rpg, 4apg,

Duncan: 22ppg, 17rpg, 4apg,

-------------------

In this 5 series Kobes team has won 4/5 times
Kobe has averaged 29ppg, 6rpg, 5apg in the series while Duncan has averaged 24ppg,14rpg,4apg.

Kobe has beat Duncan 4 times in the playoffs last decade, while averaging more points and assist.

---------------------------

Quick facts: in his prime kobe averaged 32ppg, 9rpg, and 6apg per game verse the spurs

Kobe has more rings than duncan

(prime) Kobe is a better scorer, as well as a better passer, shooter, playmaker, clutch, than prime duncan...


Kobe overall numbers:
In 40145 minutes minutes..

27868 points
5829 rebounds
5154 assist
1653 steals
576 blocks

Tim Duncans overall numbers:
In 37733 minutes...

21663 points
12013 rebounds
3296 assist
784 steals
2381 blocks

Now take their career averages:
Kobe- 25.3ppg, 5.3rpg, 5apg, 1.5spg,.5bpg, 45% FG
Duncan-20ppg,11rpg,3apg,0.7spg,2bpg, ,50% FG

Playoff averages:

Kobe-25ppg, 5rpg,5apg
Duncan-22ppg, 12rpg,3apg
--------------

Kobe- 7 finals, 5 rings, 1mvp, 2 finals MVP, 2 scoring titles, 9 time all defensive first team, 9 time all nba first team, 14 time allstar

Duncan- 4 finals, 4 rings, 2 MVP, 3 finals MVP, 8 time all defensive first team, 9 time all nba 1st team, 13 time allstar

It's like Killakobe said Spur fan act like the NBA ended in 2007...we're still playing fellas..Wake Up and recognize...

[rayjayjohnson]

tl;dr

[Fabbs]

http://www.bombgaming.com/games/images/soundboard-ralphwiggum.gif
I can post Kobe stats.

[bbarry]

you forgot to account for the fact that tim never had a shaq-caliber type of player to lead the way. kome has been riding coattails for years which inflated his production.

give tim a superstar great big man, and he too would have better accolades and stats.

facts.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

lol anti-gay marriage Obama lover

[Leetonidas]

:sleep

[Leetonidas]

Of course he left off The '99 Skunker

" :cry It doesn't count because the regular season was short and Shaq was too fat at playoff time :cry "

[Chieflion]

Of course it doesn't count when Duncan, a Power Forward/Center, beats out Kobe in the assist department. Kobe is the best player of all-time, tbh. /schtick

[ferg]

so kobe has only been in the leage since 2000? interesting... i thought he was drafted right outta high school....hmmm guess he did go to college...silly me...

[Koolaid_Man]

you forgot to account for the fact that tim never had a shaq-caliber type of player to lead the way. kome has been riding coattails for years which inflated his production.

give tim a superstar great big man, and he too would have better accolades and stats.

facts.


Who is David Robinson...:lol

and when Tim wasn't playing with a HOF bigman he was playing with one of the best point guard and 2 guards in the NBA at that time in Tony and Manu...so Tim had all the help he needed.

and another thing...those Laker teams were built around Shaq not Kobe and Kobe still dominated Duncan...Kobe's stats as 2nd option is better than Duncan's as 1st option.

Go figure.

[Koolaid_Man]

and he had one of the best wing defenders in Bruce Bowen...Timmy's had plenty o' help

[Koolaid_Man]

Of course he left off The '99 Skunker

" :cry It doesn't count because the regular season was short and Shaq was too fat at playoff time :cry "


even if you throw in 99 we still dominate you guys head to head...So instead of it being 4-1 it's 4-2 whoop-tee-doo...

[Leetonidas]

lol considering post-1999 Robinson a "superstar"

Take Shaq off those teams and it's easily 5-1.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

even if you throw in 99 we still dominate you guys head to head...So instead of it being 4-1 it's 4-2 whoop-tee-doo...
lol we

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. As a general rule, big men are more valuable than the smaller ones, but it's next to impossible to compare them because their play is so different. Wilt vs. MJ, Kareem vs. Magic, Tim vs. Kobe.

Kool is right, both players had plenty of help, otherwise both would be ringless with nice stats.

Even though there is a strong argument Tim is the better player, Kobe will get the nod in the history books as the better player, certainly if he keeps his ring lead. Flash is valued over substance, and pure talent for both men can not be denied.

[Leetonidas]

Tim Duncan is still the only player in NBA history to win multiple titles without another All-NBA teammate

[xellos88330]

Yawn...

[xellos88330]

Oh... Duncan never cried.

[djohn2oo8]

Tim Duncan is still the only player in NBA history to win multiple titles without another All-NBA teammate


SAN ANTONIO, TX (May 12, 2011) – The NBA today announced that San Antonio Spurs guard Manu Ginobili was named to the 2010-11 All-NBA Third Team. Joining Ginobili on the third team is New Orleans guard Chris Paul, Portland forward LaMarcus Aldridge, Memphis forward Zach Randolph and Atlanta center Al Horford.
Ginobili earns his second All-NBA Third Team selection. He previously was awarded that honor for the 2007-08 season, when he became the first South American in league history to earn All-NBA recognition. This marks the 35th time in team history that a Spur has been selected to an All-NBA team, which includes 18 First Team selections, eight Second Team selections and nine Third Team selections.


http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/ginobili_allnba_110512

[djohn2oo8]

and Tony Parker

[Leetonidas]

http://www.nba.com/spurs/news/ginobili_allnba_110512

lol fail

Once again, Tim Duncan is the only player in NBA history to win MULTIPLE titles without an All-NBA teammate (1999 and 2003).

To clarify, I'm talking about in years in which he won a ring, not his entire career.

[BlackSwordsMan]

Not sure why you idiots keep posting in his threads but have fun I guess

[djohn2oo8]

lol fail

Once again, Tim Duncan is the only player in NBA history to win MULTIPLE titles without an All-NBA teammate (1999 and 2003).

2003 sure, 99' he had a capable Robinson

[Leetonidas]

2003 sure, 99' he had a capable Robinson

Doesn't make my statement any less true

[djohn2oo8]

Doesn't make my statement any less true

It doesn't. It is a fact, playoffs are about the help around a superstar

[Fabbs]

lol fail

Once again, Tim Duncan is the only player in NBA history to win MULTIPLE titles without an All-NBA teammate (1999 and 2003).

To clarify, I'm talking about in years in which he won a ring, not his entire career.
ownage

[pass1st]

Forward vs Guard :downspin:

[djohn2oo8]

http://withfriendship.com/images/i/44051/ralph-wiggum-for-president.jpg

[Koolaid_Man]

I've said this before, I'll say it again. As a general rule, big men are more valuable than the smaller ones, but it's next to impossible to compare them because their play is so different. Wilt vs. MJ, Kareem vs. Magic, Tim vs. Kobe.

Kool is right, both players had plenty of help, otherwise both would be ringless with nice stats.

Even though there is a strong argument Tim is the better player, Kobe will get the nod in the history books as the better player, certainly if he keeps his ring lead. Flash is valued over substance, and pure talent for both men can not be denied.

Flash over Substance is not a valid statement and disingenuous at best. If you're comparing Timmy vs Vince Carter then the statement might make sense. Kobe was flashy but by his productivity alone has proven to be more substantive than Duncan. The numbers speak for themselves. Duncan shoots a career 5% better only because dunks as a big man are higher percentage shots. The numbers I posted are proof that Kobe has more substance over Duncan. To say by default its always wise to choose a big man is false reasoning. If I'm not mistaken Sam Bowie was picked over MJ.

I know you want to try and seem fair to Duncan but fact is Kobe lived to torture Duncan and the Spurs during those years if he wasn't there Duncan might have eight rings and Shaq would be irrelevant today.

[Nathan89]

Flash over Substance is not a valid statement and disingenuous at best. If you're comparing Timmy vs Vince Carter then the statement might make sense. Kobe was flashy but by his productivity alone has proven to be more substantive than Duncan. The numbers speak for themselves. Duncan shoots a career 5% better only because dunks as a big man are higher percentage shots. The numbers I posted are proof that Kobe has more substance over Duncan. To say by default its always wise to choose a big man is false reasoning. If I'm not mistaken Sam Bowie was picked over MJ.

I know you want to try and seem fair to Duncan but fact is Kobe lived to torture Duncan and the Spurs during those years if he wasn't there Duncan might have eight rings and Shaq would be irrelevant today.

:lmao

Kool can you bring up the stats for Kobe,Shaq, Reggie Miller, and Jalen Rose for the 2000 finals.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Flash over Substance is not a valid statement and disingenuous at best. If you're comparing Timmy vs Vince Carter then the statement might make sense. Kobe was flashy but by his productivity alone has proven to be more substantive than Duncan. The numbers speak for themselves. Duncan shoots a career 5% better only because dunks as a big man are higher percentage shots. The numbers I posted are proof that Kobe has more substance over Duncan. To say by default its always wise to choose a big man is false reasoning. If I'm not mistaken Sam Bowie was picked over MJ.

I know you want to try and seem fair to Duncan but fact is Kobe lived to torture Duncan and the Spurs during those years if he wasn't there Duncan might have eight rings and Shaq would be irrelevant today.
Bowie picked over Jordan, and Oden chosen over Durant only proves my statement, big men are valued more. That doesn't make it right every time. For every reason you can say MJ i> Wilt you can say Wilt > MJ. That's because they play different positions.

Of course Kobe's 4-2 record over Duncan will add fuel to his fire, but then again Russell only lost once to Wilt, but Chamberlain still dominated him, he just didn't have the supporting cast. If I recall Duncan dominated in 1999 and 2003, but Kobe killed the Spurs in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. his best performance was 2001, but in 2002, Kobe closed them out in the fourth quarter in all 4 wins. Who got double teamed with 0.4 remaining in game 5, 2004? It wasn't Fisher.

I don't think the Spurs would have had 8 rings if no Kobe and/or Shaq, one more at most.

2000: No, Duncan injured.
2001: Yes, Spurs would have killed Sixers
2002: No, Kings would have beat them
2004: No, T-Wolves had HCA and Pistons would have beaten them, they weren't the same team in 2005.
2008: Celtics would have prevailed.

It's possible the Spurs don't get their 2 titles in 2005 and 2007 if Shaq stayed. That's a whole new debate, but Lakers dominance over the Spurs last decade suggests the Lakers have a great chance to win one more title themselves. I say if it happens, it does in 2005, revenge over Detroit.

Conversely, the Spurs may have cost the Lakers a 2003 title. Do the Lakers beat the Mavs, a third straight series w/o HCA? If so, the 2003 title is a cakewalk versus the Nets.

Bottom line, is, the argument is still an argument, but as I alluded earlier, it's one that Kobe will win in future debates when both are retired. 5 titles over an 11 year span is better than 4 in 9. Magic had 5 titles in 9 years, Bird had 3 in 6. Magic > Bird, most believe. It doesn't matter that Kobe is considered second banana to Shaq, and later won two with Gasol, or that Duncan had Robinson, Parker, and Ginobili. Those arguments talk about teammates, not players. You gave the stats, those will speak.

[Leetonidas]

:lmao

Kool can you bring up the stats for Kobe,Shaq, Reggie Miller, and Jalen Rose for the 2000 finals.

Allow me:

Shaq: 38 / 16.7 / 2 / 2.7
Miller: 24.3 / 2.7 / 3.7 / .3
Rose: 23 / 4.5 / 3 / .3


And as for Kobe Bryant, who is more on par with Austin Croshere:

Bryant: 15.6 / 4.2 / 4.5 / 1.5 on 36.7% :lmao:lmao

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Allow me:

Shaq: 38 / 16.7 / 2 / 2.7
Miller: 24.3 / 2.7 / 3.7 / .3
Rose: 23 / 4.5 / 3 / .3


And as for Kobe Bryant, who is more on par with Austin Croshere:

Bryant: 15.6 / 4.2 / 4.5 / 1.5 on 36.7% :lmao:lmao
Kobe's stats in 2000 finals are misleading. He only played in 5 games and in game 2, he played 9 minutes and had two points. He left the game with a sprained ankle. He returned in game 4 and closed it out in OT when Shaq fouled out. Of course Shaq dominated the finals stats, who was there to guard him? Feed Shaq Feed Shaq! That makes a finals win. Go check the real finals, the WCF in 2000-2002. Shaq had his troubles there, and Kobe was the difference maker.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Game 7, 2000 WCF Lakers vs. Portland. The defacto NBA finals. This is the game the Lakers trailed 75-60 in the 4th quarter. Why down so much? Shaq wasn't doing well. Kobe came through.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200006040LAL.html

Kobe 47 minutes, 9-19 FG, 25 points, 7 assists, 11 rebounds
Shaq 47 minutes, 5-9 FG, 18 points, 5 assists, 9 rebounds

[Nathan89]

Kobe's stats in 2000 finals are misleading. He only played in 5 games and in game 2, he played 9 minutes and had two points. He left the game with a sprained ankle. He returned in game 4 and closed it out in OT when Shaq fouled out. Of course Shaq dominated the finals stats, who was there to guard him? Feed Shaq Feed Shaq! That makes a finals win. Go check the real finals, the WCF in 2000-2002. Shaq had his troubles there, and Kobe was the difference maker.

The stats are adjusted for 5 games

Shaq: 38 / 16.7 / 2 / 2.7

:lol36.7% player being the difference maker.

:lolGiving credit to guy that let Reggie and Rose dominate him.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

The stats are adjusted for 5 games

Shaq: 38 / 16.7 / 2 / 2.7

:lol36.7% player being the difference maker.

:lolGiving credit to guy that let Reggie and Rose dominate him.
:lol Ignoring the real finals, the 2000 to 2002 WCF's. See my post above for the closeout game 7 versus the Blazers. Besdies, Kobe's numbers should be only for games 1,4,5, andd 6, four games total.

[Nathan89]

Game 7, 2000 WCF Lakers vs. Portland. The defacto NBA finals. This is the game the Lakers trailed 75-60 in the 4th quarter. Why down so much? Shaq wasn't doing well. Kobe came through.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200006040LAL.html

Kobe 47 minutes, 9-19 FG, 25 points, 7 assists, 11 rebounds
Shaq 47 minutes, 5-9 FG, 18 points, 5 assists, 9 rebounds

Looks to me Kobe wasn't passing the ball.

Speaking of game 7, Kobe once shot a whopping 6-24 in a finals game 7.

[Nathan89]

:lol Ignoring the real finals, the 2000 to 2002 WCF's. See my post above for the closeout game 7 versus the Blazers.

Oh 2002 WCF is the one they cheated for the Lakers and they still barely won the series. Is that what you are talking about?

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Looks to me Kobe wasn't passing the ball.

Speaking of game 7, Kobe once shot a whopping 6-24 in a finals game 7.
7 assists isn't passing the ball? 11 rebounds in full competition with Shaq and the Blazers defense isn't dominant? Who won the game where Kobe shot 6-24? How many rebounds did he get? Don't tell me Shaq couldn't score against the Blazers, he was 14-25 in game 1.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200005200LAL.html

Point is, when it all came down to do or die in game 7 vs, Portland, Shaq was 2nd banana to Kobe and it kills your arguments about Kobe needing Shaq to win. Shaq needed Kobe just as much!

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Oh 2002 WCF is the one they cheated for the Lakers and they still barely won the series. Is that what you are talking about?
You can't prove it's cheating. Barely winning and winning are still winning. Spurs barely won game 5 in 2005 finals. What's your point? Kobe did very well in the 2002 WCF, and Shaq needed him.

[Nathan89]

7 assists isn't passing the ball? 11 rebounds in full competition with Shaq and the Blazers defense isn't dominant? Who won the game where Kobe shot 6-24? How many rebounds did he get? Don't tell me Shaq couldn't score against the Blazers, he was 14-25 in game 1.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200005200LAL.html

Point is, when it all came down to do or die in game 7 vs, Portland, Shaq was 2nd banana to Kobe and it kills your arguments about Kobe needing Shaq to win. Shaq needed Kobe just as much!

:lol Bringing up a series where Shaq was overwhelmingly more valuable than Kobe.

Yeah and he was 5-9 in game 7. Maybe they should have passed the ball to him more.

:lol Acting like Kobe was clutch in that game 7 but he went 6-12 on free-throws. Meanwhile shaq went 8-12.

Clearly not because of Kobe.

[Nathan89]

You can't prove it's cheating. Barely winning and winning are still winning. Spurs barely won game 5 in 2005 finals. What's your point? Kobe did very well in the 2002 WCF, and Shaq needed him.

:lol Needing the refs help when 2 of the "top 10" players of all-time are on the same team.

[DAF86]

Everybody knows that PPG, Assts and rbds of 5 playoffs series is the best way to determine a player's worth. Who cares about blocks, steals, field goal percentage, efficiency, defense and the thousands of other games played by those players?

[Killakobe81]

One more thing to factor in (though morons on here, look at it as a negative) is the fact that Kobe has not only 1 more ring but 3 MORE Finals appearances.

The reason this is important, they both played in the same era in the same confrence and Kobe made it to the Finals two other times and lost with both Shaq and pau as team-mates.

Kobe is no Mj, but his career compares favorably with Magic.
Magic won in: 1980. 1982, 1985 and the repeat of 87-88.
He also LOST in in the Finals in 1983,1984, 1989 and 91

Magic won 5 out of 9 ... Kobe 5 of 7

I would take either over 4 of 4 anyday.
In Magic's first 12 years he made the Finals 9 times. That gives him the edge not only over Bird but Kobe and Duncan. Heck, a strong case can be made for Magic being the greatest winner since Russell other than MJ and even that can be argued.

Kobe's 5 of 9 in his career so far, puts him above Duncan (slightly) just below Magic and a few more notches behind MJ. And dont bring up Horry here. Kobe has rings, MVPS of all flavors, stats and head to head all in his favor over Duncan, not just rings.

On Duncan's side, he has advanced stats, his better Finals numbers and the fact though he had some great teams, he never played with anayone as good Shaq. As good as david was he is not as good as Shaq was ESPECIALLY the 2000 version.

Again for me, it is very close. Unlike BR and others, I have no issues with duncan as the greatet PF or even best big man of his era ...just a shade ahead of Shaq.

But best overall player, post MJ? That is Kobe.

BTW I Thought Lebron had a shot of taking that title but last year's Finals made me realize he aint ready yet.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

:lol Bringing up a series where Shaq was overwhelmingly more valuable than Kobe.

Yeah and he was 5-9 in game 7. Maybe they should have passed the ball to him more.

:lol Acting like Kobe was clutch in that game 7 but he went 6-12 on free-throws. Meanwhile shaq went 8-12.

Clearly not because of Kobe.
Look at the stats, except for game 1, Kobe was close to Shaq. They did pass the ball to Shaq, he just couldn't get it going, go watch the replay.

Just because Kobe went 6-12 at free throws and Shaq went 8-12 doesn't make Kobe any less clutch that game. You completely ignore Kobe's lead in assists and rebounds. The rebound lead really has to sting.

I can't believe how naive you are. If you want to believe Kobe isn't all that great, fine. I don't have him in my top 10 all time and he's far from my favorite Lakers player. I like Jerry West myself. However, you have bought into all the arguments against Kobe and use selective memory to pick stats that make your case. The fact is, there are less publicized stats where Kobe comes out just fine, and now that you have seen them, you still ignore them. Kobe deserves a lot of criticism for things he's done, like throwing Shaq or teammates under the bus, but being second banana and not leading the Lakers to 3 titles is stupid. Players don't win titles, teams do. No one devalues either Kareem or Magic for their 5 rings together, and no one takes away from Bird that he needed McHale and Parish. Kobe has 5 rings, and his team has 5.

Don't be foolish, you are helping Koolaid make his case because I am showing here what you guys don't want to hear. Probably you didn't even know it, you just bought into the hype against Kobe.

[Koolaid_Man]

Look at the stats, except for game 1, Kobe was close to Shaq. They did pass the ball to Shaq, he just couldn't get it going, go watch the replay.

Just because Kobe went 6-12 at free throws and Shaq went 8-12 doesn't make Kobe any less clutch that game. You completely ignore Kobe's lead in assists and rebounds. The rebound lead really has to sting.

I can't believe how naive you are. If you want to believe Kobe isn't all that great, fine. I don't have him in my top 10 all time and he's far from my favorite Lakers player. I like Jerry West myself. However, you have bought into all the arguments against Kobe and use selective memory to pick stats that make your case. The fact is, there are less publicized stats where Kobe comes out just fine, and now that you have seen them, you still ignore them. Kobe deserves a lot of criticism for things he's done, like throwing Shaq or teammates under the bus, but being second banana and not leading the Lakers to 3 titles is stupid. Players don't win titles, teams do. No one devalues either Kareem or Magic for their 5 rings together, and no one takes away from Bird that he needed McHale and Parish. Kobe has 5 rings, and his team has 5.

Don't be foolish, you are helping Koolaid make his case because I am showing here what you guys don't want to hear. Probably you didn't even know it, you just bought into the hype against Kobe.

nice fair and balanced post...:toast but I've given Duncan credit many times even while facing the wrath of my brother Lakaluva who is a staunch Duncan hater.

Duncan is lucky Shaq was lazy because if Shaq came to play like Kobe did the only title the Spurs would have is that * 1999 title.

[DAF86]

One more thing to factor in (though morons on here, look at it as a negative) is the fact that Kobe has not only 1 more ring but 3 MORE Finals appearances.

The reason this is important, they both played in the same era in the same confrence and Kobe made it to the Finals two other times and lost with both Shaq and pau as team-mates.

Kobe is no Mj, but his career compares favorably with Magic.
Magic won in: 1980. 1982, 1985 and the repeat of 87-88.
He also LOST in in the Finals in 1983,1984, 1989 and 91

Magic won 5 out of 9 ... Kobe 5 of 7

I would take either over 4 of 4 anyday.
In Magic's first 12 years he made the Finals 9 times. That gives him the edge not only over Bird but Kobe and Duncan. Heck, a strong case can be made for Magic being the greatest winner since Russell other than MJ and even that can be argued.

Kobe's 5 of 9 in his career so far, puts him above Duncan (slightly) just below Magic and a few more notches behind MJ. And dont bring up Horry here. Kobe has rings, MVPS of all flavors, stats and head to head all in his favor over Duncan, not just rings.

On Duncan's side, he has advanced stats, his better Finals numbers and the fact though he had some great teams, he never played with anayone as good Shaq. As good as david was he is not as good as Shaq was ESPECIALLY the 2000 version.

Again for me, it is very close. Unlike BR and others, I have no issues with duncan as the greatet PF or even best big man of his era ...just a shade ahead of Shaq.

But best overall player, post MJ? That is Kobe.

BTW I Thought Lebron had a shot of taking that title but last year's Finals made me realize he aint ready yet.

Rings count is a good argument to determine if a team is better than another, is retarded to use that argument to compare players though, specially when the player you're advocating for wasn't the best player in his own team for most of those rings.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

nice fair and balanced post...:toast but I've given Duncan credit many times even while facing the wrath of my brother Lakaluva who is a staunch Duncan hater.

Duncan is lucky Shaq was lazy because if Shaq came to play like Kobe did the only title the Spurs would have is that * 1999 title.
thanks.

Another point no one seems to want to bring up is a comparison of Shaq's 3 Lakers finals wins to 3 of Tim's finals wins. No one could guard Shaq in those finals 2000-02. Same is true in 1999, 2003, and 2007, no one coud guard Tim either. All weak teams, probably weaker than what the Lakers faced. Yet in 2007, TP got the finals MVP. Does this raise the stock of both Shaq and Tim higher than it should? Possibly, that's why examination of the defacto NBA finals, the WCF needs to be looked at in 1999-2003, and apparantly 2007 as well. Kobe's two finals losses were to two of the greatest defensive teams of all time, the 2004 Pistons and the 2008 Celtics. I can't remember when the Spurs lost to a great defensive team, or even played one outside of 2005. Aside from the Spurs defensive juggernauts, there hasn't really been a long sustained defensive team outside of the Pistons of 2003-2008.

Anyway, it all comes down to how hard it is to compare players of different positions. But the harder people try to take Kobe down, the sillier the arguments become. I mean, if you criticize LeBron for fading in the 4th quarter of the finals, you have to applaud Kobe for his 2002 4th quarters against the Spurs. I have already shown who won the critical game 7 of the 2000 WCF, it was Kobe with the game MVP. A 2001 WCF player MVP goes to Kobe as well. 2002 is a debate, Shaq or Kobe.

Hopefully, your thread title is prophetic, the debate should stop. Opinions will vary, but the facts, as I have shown, aren't exactly what people thought they were.

[Koolaid_Man]

Everybody knows that PPG, Assts and rbds of 5 playoffs series is the best way to determine a player's worth. Who cares about blocks, steals, field goal percentage, efficiency, defense and the thousands of other games played by those players?


One more thing....Go back and watch Game 1 in 2001 WCF between the Spurs and Lakers... Kobe scored 15 baskets in the paint, the paint that Duncan was supposed to be protecting. During 7 of those he scored directly over or around Duncan himself (including back to back posters in the 3rd quarter.) That's not even keeping track of all the times he went into the paint and got free throws or found an open man. When Duncan and Kobe went up against each other, Kobe went directly at Duncan in the painted area and regularly came out successful. I could understand if Kobe was just killing them with jumpers but the majority of his damage came right in the area that Duncan was in charge of. I don't think that can be overlooked.

JkvpnmAk2xU

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Rings count is a good argument to determine if a team is better than another, is retarded to use that argument to compare players though, specially when the player you're advocating for wasn't the best player in his own team for most of those rings.
Who was the best Lakers player during the 5 Showtime 1980's championships, Kareem, or Magic? Don't forget, Worthy won a finals MVP himself in there.

You can't take a player down for not being the best player on his team. you just can't. No one devalues Kareem's or Magic's 5 rings because they had each other. Note, Magic won 1980 finals MVP because of what he did in game 6, but Kareem was hurt and sat out that game yet beasted that series.

[Koolaid_Man]

Ghazi get the fuck out of here...this is grown man talk you dipshit...you know nothing about this...lol

[DAF86]

Who was the best Lakers player during the 5 Showtime 1980's championships, Kareem, or Magic? Don't forget, Worthy won a finals MVP himself in there.

You can't take a player down for not being the best player on his team. you just can't. No one devalues Kareem's or Magic's 5 rings because they had each other. Note, Magic won 1980 finals MVP because of what he did in game 6, but Kareem was hurt and sat out that game yet beasted that series.

I don't know who the best player was back in the '80s 'cause I didn't have the chnce to watch that team play, but I did see the 2000s Lakers and Shaq was clearly the best player of that team. Of course you can't take a player down for not beign the best player on his team but you can't say that player is better than another for winning more rings either, specially when in more than half of those rings he wasn't the best player on his own team.

[Koolaid_Man]

Here is the 2nd half of that game:

PCdhA41wgms

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I don't know who the best player was back in the '80s 'cause I didn't have the chnce to watch that team play, but I did see the 2000s Lakers and Shaq was clearly the best player of that team. Of course you can't take a player down for not beign the best player on his team but you can't say that player is better than another for winning more rings either, specially when in more than half of those rings he wasn't the best player on his own team.
Ok, then you have proved my point. You gave no argument for who was the better player, and none whatsoever whether their rings should be devalued because one was better than another. That was an honor that rotated. Kareem was the best player in 1985, and probably 1980. Magic was in 1982 and 1987. However, a debate can be made for either player who was better and in what years. It was between Magic and Worthy by 1987, Kareem had declined. Neither was the best player on the team more than half the time, Worthy messes that up in 1988. In 1984, Magic gave the Celtics the series. Magic and Kareem won the same number of rings together, Kareem got one more in 1971. Shaq was the better player in 2000-02, but not by as much as you believe, go back and read my posts for what Kobe did in the WCF's 2000-02, and read what has been said by a few about Kobe's and Duncan's performances in the 6 series in which they met. Essentially, it puts Shaq and Kobe closer to Kareem and Magic than you expected. I believe Tim is the better player between him and Kobe, but eventually I am going to change my mind. The main reason is I believe Kobe still has a good year or two left in him. Let's see what he can do. Tim's legacy is secure, but unfortunately for him, it's the Lakers franchise he's up against, not Kobe Bryant. The Mamba will be more remembered because of a great career on a storied franchise.

[Lincoln]

dat nigga kobe shittin all over old ass spurs :lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

dat nigga kobe shittin all over old ass spurs :lmao


for those Spur fans that can watch those vids I posted it's going to make them sick...that Nigga was insane against the Spurs in the paint and on the wings...In his prime he couldn't be guarded...that 2nd vid I posted is just fucking raw if I've ever seen it...

Sorry Spur fan but Kool won't let you re-write history...I witnessed that shit and even though my nigga is past his prime he's still the face of the league almost 10 yrs later...

[DAF86]

Ok, then you have proved my point. You gave no argument for who was the better player, and none whatsoever whether their rings should be devalued because one was better than another. That was an honor that rotated. Kareem was the best player in 1985, and probably 1980. Magic was in 1982 and 1987. However, a debate can be made for either player who was better and in what years. It was between Magic and Worthy by 1987, Kareem had declined. Neither was the best player on the team more than half the time, Worthy messes that up in 1988. In 1984, Magic gave the Celtics the series. Magic and Kareem won the same number of rings together, Kareem got one more in 1971. Shaq was the better player in 2000-02, but not by as much as you believe, go back and read my posts for what Kobe did in the WCF's 2000-02, and read what has been said by a few about Kobe's and Duncan's performances in the 6 series in which they met. Essentially, it puts Shaq and Kobe closer to Kareem and Magic than you expected. I believe Tim is the better player between him and Kobe, but eventually I am going to change my mind. The main reason is I believe Kobe still has a good year or two left in him. Let's see what he can do. Tim's legacy is secure, but unfortunately for him, it's the Lakers franchise he's up against, not Kobe Bryant. The Mamba will be more remembered because of a great career on a storied franchise.

I never said the rings should be devalued, I said that they shouldn't be the factor to determine if a player is better than another. And about the other stuff, if Magic and Kareem shared the "best player on the team" distinction back in the 80s fine, all I know is that Shaq was clearly the best player in the 00/02 Lakers, swap Kobe for any other star SG and the Lakers still win those championships, swap O'neal for another center and they wouldn't.

[Koolaid_Man]

I never said the rings should be devalued, I said that they shouldn't be the factor to determine if a player is better than another. And about the other stuff, if Magic and Kareem shared the "best player on the team" distinction back in the 80s fine, all I know is that Shaq was clearly the best player in the 00/02 Lakers, swap Kobe for any other star SG and the Lakers still win those championships, swap O'neal for another center and they wouldn't.


:lol So Kobe and Duncan wouldn't have won shit....:lmao

dude look at the vids I just posted...T-Mac, A.I, nor Vince was playing at Kobe's level back then and in particular at that time...at least not on both sides of the ball...

[DAF86]

:lol So Kobe and Duncan wouldn't have won shit....:lmao

Going against a T-Mac/Shaq for example, no they wouldn't. Prime Shaq is the most dominant player I've ever seen.

[DMC]

So you cherry pick a video and say he always played that dominant? If so, why doesn't he have 8 rings and why did he do jack shit without Shaq or Pau?

Pippen was not the most dominant player in the game when he and MJ played together. He never won a ring without MJ. Shaq had been to the Finals before Kobe, won 3 with him and then proceeded to win another before Kobe did. If you contend it was Wade, why couldn't Wade with Lebron get over Dallas?

Face it, Kobe was a decent shooter, had moments of unbelievable success which happens to decent shooters who become high volume chuckers. He's got the ability to attack the rim and does so with reckless abandon, and he's in the top 20 to ever play the game.

However, let's not get all dick sucky about him. He's a second wheel and has been since the beginning. It doesn't matter if he gets more press, more money from sponsors... on the court he's a second wheel and not even a good one now. He's bone on bone and done. Dallas fucked him so hard in his brown puckered starfish that he's taken a whole summer to recover. He's finished. He will never be thought of as the best to ever play his position. Tim Duncan will.

[Koolaid_Man]

So you cherry pick a video and say he always played that dominant? If so, why doesn't he have 8 rings and why did he do jack shit without Shaq or Pau?

Pippen was not the most dominant player in the game when he and MJ played together. He never won a ring without MJ. Shaq had been to the Finals before Kobe, won 3 with him and then proceeded to win another before Kobe did. If you contend it was Wade, why couldn't Wade with Lebron get over Dallas?

Face it, Kobe was a decent shooter, had moments of unbelievable success which happens to decent shooters who become high volume chuckers. He's got the ability to attack the rim and does so with reckless abandon, and he's in the top 20 to ever play the game.

However, let's not get all dick sucky about him. He's a second wheel and has been since the beginning. It doesn't matter if he gets more press, more money from sponsors... on the court he's a second wheel and not even a good one now. He's bone on bone and done. Dallas fucked him so hard in his brown puckered starfish that he's taken a whole summer to recover. He's finished. He will never be thought of as the best to ever play his position. Tim Duncan will.


Less emotion are more facts please...

my suggestion Cherry Pick A vid....:lmao your constant drivel is intoxicating and invites me to fuck you some more....BOHICA BOHICA :lol

[Koolaid_Man]

Going against a T-Mac/Shaq for example, no they wouldn't. Prime Shaq is the most dominant player I've ever seen.


all we have are the facts and those vids...hundreds of them...Kobe owns the SpursPERIOD...

[LkrFan]

Game 7, 2000 WCF Lakers vs. Portland. The defacto NBA finals. This is the game the Lakers trailed 75-60 in the 4th quarter. Why down so much? Shaq wasn't doing well. Kobe came through.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/200006040LAL.html

Kobe 47 minutes, 9-19 FG, 25 points, 7 assists, 11 rebounds
Shaq 47 minutes, 5-9 FG, 18 points, 5 assists, 9 rebounds

Great post(s) man. This one many Kobe haters like to ignore. Of course Shaq dominated when he played against weak front lines (which was 95% of the time). But that other 5%? You see stats like the above. Kobe has been consistent in his dominance. So much so that the Spurs went out and signed Bruce Lee Bowen. They didn't make such moves to deal with Shaq.

Kobe has consistently been great throughout his 15-year career. The head to head stats v. TD only tell part of the story. Even with the mileage he has endured, he is still arguably on top of his game. The same cannot be said for TD, as 13/8 last year illustrates.

For me, Kobe is clearly better and has had the better career than TD. Most Spur fans on ST won't admit it.

[LkrFan]

By the way, great thread Kool. Most will just troll it instead of giving a legit debate. Why? It's all they can do.

[djohn2oo8]

Great post(s) man. This one many Kobe haters like to ignore. Of course Shaq dominated when he played against weak front lines (which was 95% of the time). But that other 5%? You see stats like the above. Kobe has been consistent in his dominance. So much so that the Spurs went out and signed Bruce Lee Bowen. They didn't make such moves to deal with Shaq.

Kobe has consistently been great throughout his 15-year career. The head to head stats v. TD only tell part of the story. Even with the mileage he has endured, he is still arguably on top of his game. The same cannot be said for TD, as 13/8 last year illustrates.

For me, Kobe is clearly better and has had the better career than TD. Most Spur fans on ST won't admit it.

The retardedness is strong with you.

[DAF86]

Without Shaq in his team Kobe wouldn't have had the chance of playing that game. As much as you like to pointout single games and spin things around Shaq was the best player in the league back then and by a distance.

[Koolaid_Man]

By the way, great thread Kool. Most will just troll it instead of giving a legit debate. Why? It's all they can do.


when I'm posting facts with numbers and finding lost youtube tapes and shit what in the fuck can they say...except troll...these bastards don't want to get into a fact check with me...they'll lose everytime...

Part of me feels like I'm wrong for doing this (bringing the truth) to Spur fan but then another part of me says fuck em...I listen to the fuck em part of me...they deserve it...Kobe shitted all over them at least most of the time...:lol

[djohn2oo8]

I think the sad part about this is Kool is a 60 something year old man child with a crush on a man half his age

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

I never said the rings should be devalued, I said that they shouldn't be the factor to determine if a player is better than another. And about the other stuff, if Magic and Kareem shared the "best player on the team" distinction back in the 80s fine, all I know is that Shaq was clearly the best player in the 00/02 Lakers, swap Kobe for any other star SG and the Lakers still win those championships, swap O'neal for another center and they wouldn't.
Ok, rings are be devalued if you say they shouldn't be a factor in determining who is better. Some people want to place Kobe top 10 all time because of his 5 rings. I don't count rings in determining who is greater either, that's why.

I don't buy swapping Kobe out for another all star SG means the Lakers win 3 titles, you simply can't forget what he did in the western playoffs. I am not certain any all star SG could have been as clutch as Kobe in so many series. Koolaid posted from the 2001 WCF. Spurs win that game if Kobe doesn't penetrate, period. Put another SG in there, Spurs still win, they had Duncan and Robinson in the paint for crying out loud, but Kobe broke that defense down and scored. Who else could get by both #21 and #50? 2000 WCF Lakers were ready to choke that series away and Kobe stepped up in game 7. Not certain if the Lakers get by the Kings in 2002 with another SG.

Now, on the other hand, I do believe it's possible the Lakers still win titles in 2000-2002 with a different center, at least a defensive one. All they had to do was get to the finals. They had offensive diversity in 2000 and 2001, less so by 2002. Anyway, this is all speculation and that is for the most part worthless. If the dog hadn't have stopped to shit, he would have caught the fox. Facts say Kobe had Shaq, and Shaq had Kobe. Together they won 3 titles and nothing can change it, and each stepped up for the most part to do their job, when needed.

[Koolaid_Man]

Without Shaq in his team Kobe wouldn't have had the chance of playing that game. As much as you like to pointout single games and spin things around Shaq was the best player in the league back then and by a distance.


there's a huge difference between best player and dominant...I happen to think during that time Shaq was the most dominant big man but Duncan was actually better (skill wise) then Shaq...:lol...there's no doubt that Kobe and Shaq benefited each other...Kobe's game helped open up the inside and Shaq's inside presence helped to open up the perimeter.

[Koolaid_Man]

I think the sad part about this is Kool is a 60 something year old man child with a crush on a man half his age

not even close...come again...my dreams of playing in the league were derailed....now largely unfulfilled...so I live vicariously through my team...my Ace...:lol

[DAF86]

there's a huge difference between best player and dominant...I happen to think during that time Shaq was the most dominant big man but Duncan was actually better (skill wise) then Shaq...:lol...there's no doubt that Kobe and Shaq benefited each other...Kobe's game helped open up the inside and Shaq's inside presence helped to open up the perimeter.

Fuck skills, if I'm building a team from scratch give me O'neal anyday of the week.

[djohn2oo8]

not even close...come again...my dreams of playing in the league were derailed....now largely unfulfilled...so I live vicariously through my team...my Ace...:lol

6-26-2011, 4:56 pm : Koolaid_Man admits he's pathetic

[dunkman]

'99 must be counted. It was the first match between Duncan vs. Shaq and Kobe. Duncan dominated, setting up the things forever who's the best player of that generation.

In '00 the Lakers avoided the Spurs because Duncan got injured before the playoffs. It would have been contested series. The Lakers got solid refs help against the Blazers in Q4 of game 7.

For '01 the Spurs had DA injured, he was the second Spurs scorer and the third best player. DA and Daniels from the bench would have pressured Kobe to play some defense and it would be more difficult for Kobe to shot over DA as he did over Daniels.

In '02 the Lakers were slightly better, the Spurs were still rebuilding, but Duncan was the MVP that season and much better than Kobe.

Kobe was important sometimes, but most elite teams had a capable wing defender, the Spurs were a bit late to add such player (Bowen). For the teams that had a good wing defensive player, Kobe wasn't any problem. It was all about the refs and Shaq.

Shaq commanded not only double, but triple teams. Only two teams had a good answer for him: D-Rob with Duncan help defense, Sabonis with other Portland bigs and Divac who would put Shaq in foul problems. In those years, it was easy for Kobe to play, and he was also supported by clutch players like Horry and Fisher that couldn't be left open. The teams that emerged from the east were good defending the perimeter, but they didn't had answers for Shaq, Kobe alone would never got that titles for the Lakers even reaching the finals.

For '03 everyone else gave up, except the Spurs. And Duncan was very dominant in that series, he couldn't be stopped by Shaq and Horry, on the other hand Kobe suffered with Bowen.

In '04 the Spurs were inferior in talent. The Lakers added Malone $1M and Payton for $5M, both instrumental in winning the series, that has nothing to do with Kobe being better than Duncan. The Spurs had to pay market value for their players and when didn't like in the case of S-Jax the players signed for another team.

In '05 Kobe's lead Lakers missed the playoffs, that has to be counted against him.

In '06 and '07 the Kobe was out in first round, and lucky not to play the Spurs.

For '08 the Lakers the Lakers added Gasol shipping very long term projects and bad players with expiring contracts. For a 7 footer franchise player? When the Spurs wanted to add some talent for the the '08-'09 season, the best option was a player with max contract owed $30M over two seasons, that isn't a bigman nor even an all-star.

From '08 to '10 the Lakers had success because of Gasol, Odom and Bynum, and other quality players. Kobe was important, but he wasn't the main reason the Lakers were successful, the Lakers won critical playoffs games even when Kobe sucked. Gasol was very important for the Lakers too. When Gasol played at serviceable level only, the Lakers suffered with shorthanded Hornets and got swept by the Mavs (the only team the Mavs swept in their championship run).

Kobe can't take full credit for 5 championships and 7 finals, he had awful lot of help. Kobe was able to shot inefficiently and the Lakers would still win.

Kobe is a great player that had a great career, but his impact in the game wasn't the same as Duncan.

Also, it's a fact, the NBA rigged the '02 WCF. How can one pretend to say Kobe has 5 championships?

[dunkman]

'99 must be counted. It was the first match between Duncan vs. Shaq and Kobe. Duncan dominated, setting up the things forever who's the best player of that generation.

In '00 the Lakers avoided the Spurs because Duncan got injured before the playoffs. It would have been contested series. The Lakers got solid refs help against the Blazers in Q4 of game 7.

For '01 the Spurs had DA injured, he was the second Spurs scorer and the third best player. DA and Daniels from the bench would have pressured Kobe to play some defense and it would be more difficult for Kobe to shot over DA as he did over Daniels.

In '02 the Lakers were slightly better, the Spurs were still rebuilding, but Duncan was the MVP that season and much better than Kobe.

Kobe was important sometimes, but most elite teams had a capable wing defender, the Spurs were a bit late to add such player (Bowen). For the teams that had a good wing defensive player, Kobe wasn't any problem. It was all about the refs and Shaq.

Shaq commanded not only double, but triple teams. Only two teams had a good answer for him: D-Rob with Duncan help defense, Sabonis with other Portland bigs and Divac who would put Shaq in foul problems. In those years, it was easy for Kobe to play, and he was also supported by clutch players like Horry and Fisher that couldn't be left open. The teams that emerged from the east were good defending the perimeter, but they didn't had answers for Shaq, Kobe alone would never got that titles for the Lakers even reaching the finals.

For '03 everyone else gave up, except the Spurs. And Duncan was very dominant in that series, he couldn't be stopped by Shaq and Horry, on the other hand Kobe suffered with Bowen.

In '04 the Spurs were inferior in talent. The Lakers added Malone $1M and Payton for $5M, both instrumental in winning the series, that has nothing to do with Kobe being better than Duncan. The Spurs had to pay market value for their players and when didn't like in the case of S-Jax the players signed for another team.

In '05 Kobe's lead Lakers missed the playoffs, that has to be counted against him.

In '06 and '07 the Kobe was out in first round, and lucky not to play the Spurs.

For '08 the Lakers the Lakers added Gasol shipping very long term projects and bad players with expiring contracts. For a 7 footer franchise player? When the Spurs wanted to add some talent for the the '08-'09 season, the best option was a player with max contract owed $30M over two seasons, that isn't a bigman nor even an all-star.

From '08 to '10 the Lakers had success because of Gasol, Odom and Bynum, and other quality players. Kobe was important, but he wasn't the main reason the Lakers were successful, the Lakers won critical playoffs games even when Kobe sucked. Gasol was very important for the Lakers too. When Gasol played at serviceable level only, the Lakers suffered with shorthanded Hornets and got swept by the Mavs (the only team the Mavs swept in their championship run).

Kobe can't take full credit for 5 championships and 7 finals, he had awful lot of help. Kobe was able to shot inefficiently and the Lakers would still win.

Kobe is a great player that had a great career, but his impact in the game wasn't the same as Duncan.

Also, it's a fact, the NBA rigged the '02 WCF. How can one pretend to say Kobe has 5 championships?

[Koolaid_Man]

Fuck skills, if I'm building a team from scratch give me O'neal anyday of the week.


and give me Duncan...why? Because Duncan with Kobe easily wins 6-8 titles...Shaq had a shelf life because of his work ethic...and Duncan's personality tells me that Kobe would have dominated him...meaning Duncan would have deferred to Kobe without the arguing back and forth like Shaq did... knowing what I know now...I'd choose Duncan...Duncan got more rings than Shaq had it not been for the 06 dallas choke job...

[LkrFan]

Here is the 2nd half of that game:

PCdhA41wgms

Spurs gave up 88 ppt that year. They gave up 45 to Kobe that night! :lol

[dbreiden83080]

Who is David Robinson...:lol


A great player who was 33 and past his prime when Duncan came to town.. And Duncan carried the load to the tune of 2 titles with D-Rob. Kobe played great but needed a prime Shaq to carry the load.. What does Kobe do when he is not playing with great bigs? He loses to the Suns or misses the playoffs..

[Koolaid_Man]

For '01 the Spurs had DA injured, he was the second Spurs scorer and the third best player. DA and Daniels from the bench would have pressured Kobe to play some defense and it would be more difficult for Kobe to shot over DA as he did over Daniels.


:lmao

[dbreiden83080]

2003 sure, 99' he had a capable Robinson

D-Rob was very very good in 99 but no longer dominant. He knew it so he handed the reigns over to Duncan..

[Koolaid_Man]

A great player who was 33 and past his prime when Duncan came to town.. And Duncan carried the load to the tune of 2 titles with D-Rob. Kobe played great but needed a prime Shaq to carry the load.. What does Kobe do when he is not playing with great bigs? He loses to the Suns or misses the playoffs..

But you didn't address my main argument...Kobe > Duncan....give me proof if you have some....:lol

[djohn2oo8]

But you didn't address my main argument...Kobe > Duncan....give me proof if you have some....:lol

Kobe didn't carry one team to a championship as the MAN. There's your proof

[dbreiden83080]

But you didn't address my main argument...Kobe > Duncan....give me proof if you have some....:lol

I'd say you can make a case either way.. Both have done shit-loads in their careers. Duncan made first team all NBA a ton, so did Kobe.. Duncan was a great defender, Kobe is (At least accoding to ESPN). Both won multiple rings and finals MVP's with different supporting casts. Both were league MVP's..

Can go either way..

[DAF86]

iEkZVW9SSzQ

Richard Hamilton > Kobe

[LkrFan]

The retardedness is strong with you.

When Shaq played against formidable front lines, he was not MDE. '94 Rockets, '99 Spurs, '00 Spurs, '01 Spurs, etc. (off the top of my head) are a few examples. It's just more often than not he feasted off of shitty centers. Pretty easy to do when there are only one handful of decent bigs out there.

This is a guard dominated league. Through it all Kobe has done damage against the likes of AI, VC, McGrady, LBJ, and Wade. 15 years of damage.
Can TD say that? :toast

[Koolaid_Man]

Kobe didn't carry one team to a championship as the MAN. There's your proof


:lol stop whining....Kobe carried the Lakers to 2 titles...and Co-Carried 2 more...the only one I give Shaq more credit for is the 1st one....begrudgingly :lol

now that's fact for your ass devoid of emotional sensationalism...:lol

[Koolaid_Man]

iEkZVW9SSzQ

Richard Hamilton > Kobe

so you need outside help in a Kobe > Duncan debate....:lol

tickle my ass some more will ya....:lol

[DAF86]

4oNSitnvoNM

Paul Pierce > Kobe

[djohn2oo8]

:lol stop whining....Kobe carried the Lakers to 2 titles...and Co-Carried 2 more...the only one I give Shaq more credit for is the 1st one....begrudgingly :lol

now that's fact for your ass devoid of emotional sensationalism...:lol

Kobe rode in in the arms of Shaq the first three, the rode in on Bynum AND Gasol the next two

[DAF86]

j0Ed5IpSvhE

Leandro Barbosa > Kobe

[djohn2oo8]

j0Ed5IpSvhE


Leandro Barbosa > Kobe
:lol

[Riddler]

Duncan > Kobe

Ck9nyiwaTIg

[Koolaid_Man]

Kobe rode in in the arms of Shaq the first three, the rode in on Bynum AND Gasol the next two


All in all :

Kobe 5 San Antonio 4

Kobe 5 Dallas 1

Kobe 5 Houston 0

[djohn2oo8]

All in all :

Kobe -1 San Antonio 4

Kobe 0 Dallas 1

Kobe 0 Houston 0

Kool, we're tied with Kobe

[Koolaid_Man]

Kool, we're tied with Kobe


like hell you are....:lol

MJ didn't play in the league then so those titles don't count....:lol

[djohn2oo8]

like hell you are....:lol

MJ didn't play in the league then so those titles don't count....:lol

Yet you say Kobe is the GOAT. Make up your mind :lmao

[Koolaid_Man]

Yet you say Kobe is the GOAT. Make up your mind :lmao


If any one deserves a big fat * next to their titles it's the 99 Spurs team and the Rockets back-2-back.....Asterik Muthafucker....A-S-T-E-R-I-K :lol

[djohn2oo8]

If any one deserves a big fat * next to their titles it's the 99 Spurs team and the Rockets back-2-back.....Asterik Muthafucker....A-S-T-E-R-I-K :lol

as·ter·ik- A common misspelling of the word "asterisk."

[DMC]

All in all :

Kobe 5 San Antonio 4

Kobe 5 Dallas 1

Kobe 5 Houston 0

That's all bullshit you swiped from someone else.

Duncan never lost a Finals. He won 4 of 4.

He has 3 Finals MVPs

He has 2 regular season MVPs

He's the best to ever play his position.

Done

[Killakobe81]

Rings count is a good argument to determine if a team is better than another, is retarded to use that argument to compare players though, specially when the player you're advocating for wasn't the best player in his own team for most of those rings.

If rings dont matter a case can be made for Malone being better than Duncan ...so they do matter. without rings Chuck, Hakeem and shaq all have cases as better players than Duncan. The rings are the main (though not only) reason i choose duncan over those guys ...

[DMC]

It's not the rings, it's the performances in the playoffs and Finals. The rings do matter, but Malone choked in the playoffs. Duncan never did.

Duncan actually got better in the playoffs.

[DAF86]

so you need outside help in a Kobe > Duncan debate....:lol

tickle my ass some more will ya....:lol


m4abhqvfNsc
rR6AgYWdoBQ

Tim Duncan >> Kobe

[Killakobe81]

Especially hakeem and Shaq who played both ends, especially Hakeem for being greater than Duncan.

[Killakobe81]

It's not the rings, it's the performances in the playoffs and Finals. The rings do matter, but Malone choked in the playoffs. Duncan never did.

Duncan actually got better in the playoffs.

I agree that does make a case over Malone but what about Hakeem and Shaq? they both did all of those things ...and their numbers are greater.

[DMC]

Hakeem was a center

[TE]

I can't believe people still respond to this troll.

[Ghazi]

122-86

[DMC]

I agree that does make a case over Malone but what about Hakeem and Shaq? they both did all of those things ...and their numbers are greater.
If you want to credit Shaq, you have to take credit from Kobe. If you want to credit Kobe, you have to take credit from Shaq. You cannot give both all the credit.

[djohn2oo8]

If rings dont matter a case can be made for Malone being better than Duncan ...so they do matter. without rings Chuck, Hakeem and shaq all have cases as better players than Duncan. The rings are the main (though not only) reason i choose duncan over those guys ...

Rings don't tell you which player is better. So you choose Duncan over Hakeem AND Shaq? :lol

[djohn2oo8]

There have been some conflicting posts in the last couple seconds :lol

[DAF86]

Especially hakeem and Shaq who played both ends, especially Hakeem for being greater than Duncan.

I don't know about Hakeem 'cause I don't remember much of him, but Shaq > Duncan, I have no problem in admitting that.

[DMC]

Shaq is a better center than Duncan. Duncan would destroy him at the PF.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Duncan never lost a Finals. He won 4 of 4.


This logic is a misuse of statistics to make a point. It also contradicts your next post.


It's not the rings, it's the performances in the playoffs and Finals. The rings do matter, but Malone choked in the playoffs. Duncan never did.

Duncan actually got better in the playoffs.
Malone with the Jazz made the finals twice, and lost to Jordan. He also lost 3 times in the WCF. So, it's easy to see Duncan did much better than Malone in the playoffs. However this topic is about Kobe and Duncan, and Kobe's resume against Duncan needs a bit more explanation in relation to your first post.

Since Duncan came into the league in 1997-98:
Kobe 5 Rings, Duncan 4. That's 5/14 vs. 4/14
Kobe 7 finals appearances, Duncan 4 That's 7/14 vs. 4/14
Kobe is 7-1 in 8 appearances in the WCF, Duncan is 4-2 in 6. That's 8/14 vs. 6/14
Kobe got to the 2nd round 11 times, Duncan got to it 11 times as well. that's 11/14 vs. 11/14
Kobe's 2nd round record is 8-3, Duncan's is 6-5.
Kobe got to the playoffs 13 of 14 seasons, Duncan all 14, that's 13/14 vs. 14/14.
Kobe's first round playoff record is 11-2. Duncan's first round playoff record is 11-3, 11-2 if you examine what follows next.

Now granted, Spurs lost in first round in 2000 with Duncan injured, but Kobe's team's have gone further than Duncan's teams by every margin except playoff appearances. the Spurs 4-0 finals record looks great, as does the Bulls 6-0 Finals mark, but what about everything else? To compare two players or two teams, everything needs to be examined. This could go on ad infinitum it seems, trying to look at "everything". Duncan may have played a better game in the playoffs than the regular season as you infer, but his team didn't perform as well as Kobe's teams did. It isn't as close as 5-4, it's more to Kobe's advantage than that when you count all playoffs as you suggest.

[DAF86]

Very nice but that proves that since 1999 the Lakers are more succesful than the Spurs, not that Kobe is a better player than Duncan.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Very nice but that proves that since 1999 the Lakers are more succesful than the Spurs, not that Kobe is a better player than Duncan.
Oh yeah, I agree. I favor TD over Kobe as I have stated. It's just that so many arguments simply don't belong. Or they are not thought out.

[Koolaid_Man]

Very nice but that proves that since 1999 the Lakers are more succesful than the Spurs, not that Kobe is a better player than Duncan.


:lol Stats aside.... Man to a Man...1 on 1 - Kobe would run Duncan's ass out tha fucking gym....He did in his prime and what's hilarious is that he can still do it to this day...:lol

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but I will go with the experts on this. By default Kobe's position makes him a better player than Tim Duncan...you can say Tim is your preference but don't say it on the basis of Tim being a better player, because when you do that you make a joke out of you. Listen to Hakeem speaking on Kobe...and specifically the difference between a big man and Kobe:


When a big man makes a move, for example, he has one dribble or two dribbles and has to go up, but with a guard, you don’t pick up that dribble until the moment you’re ready to shoot. That gives him the advantage over every big guy that plays in the post because he often will have more dribbles to do more things.

Q. If you look at the Top 10 all-time scorers, Kobe and Jordan are the only guards other than Oscar Robertson.


A. Olajuwon: Well, the two guard is the toughest position, the most athletic position. The average two would be a superstar at the four or five position with the skill set. So, for someone to dominate at the most difficult, the hardest position, it’s just something else. Both what set Kobe and Michael apart was that they were too big for most 2’s, and too mobile for most 3’s, so they have the advantage over most everybody. Very, very seldom do you find a player that matches up with them.

nothing else you guys say really makes a difference. The players that play the game by and large agree with my thinking...Outside of SA players I'm almost certain that all other players would pick Kobe over Duncan in their sleep. It's not personal it's just common fucking sense. :lol

http://www.nba.com/lakers/news/110129kobehakeem.html

[Ice009]

Who is David Robinson...:lol

and when Tim wasn't playing with a HOF bigman he was playing with one of the best point guard and 2 guards in the NBA at that time in Tony and Manu...so Tim had all the help he needed.

and another thing...those Laker teams were built around Shaq not Kobe and Kobe still dominated Duncan...Kobe's stats as 2nd option is better than Duncan's as 1st option.

Go figure.

You're a fucking retard. PLAIN and SIMPLE. You just answered it yourself.

How the fuck do you think Kobe scored all those points as the second option. Do you remember a guy called Shaquille O'neal? The Spurs or any other team had to focus most of their defense on him, thus leaving Kobe to play one on one most of the time.

If you put Tim Duncan with a prime Shaq and Shaq was double and triple teamed leaving Duncan to go one on one then Tim probably averages 30-35ppg.

How do you think Kobe scored all those points as the second option? You're not even a Laker fan if you don't know that. Shaq took a lot of pressure off of him as the defense always focuses on the 1st option, the most dominant player on the court. Same as Tim Duncan was the focus of the other teams defense which is usually geared to shut him down first.

You just can't compare a first option to a second option. Put up Shaq Vs Tim's stats. That would be a better thread.

The debate Vs Kobe and Tim is a waste of time as you just can't compare a guy who was a second option for half of his career to a guy that was first from day 1. Head to heat also is just a small sample size and a conclusion can't be drawn from that either.

[Ice009]

lol considering post-1999 Robinson a "superstar"

Take Shaq off those teams and it's easily 5-1.

Take Shaq off those teams and Kobe has zero rings. I can't even see where you'd get the 1 ring from for Kobe. It'd be 5-0 or 4-0. Kobe wouldn't have won anything between '99 and '03 with out Shaq.

[ElNono]

Burrito

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Burrito (disambiguation) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito_%28disambiguation%29).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/Mission_burrito.jpg/220px-Mission_burrito.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mission_burrito.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mission_burrito.jpg)
A burrito


A burrito (US English / (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ə (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)ˈ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)r (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)t (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)oʊ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English#Key)/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English), Spanish: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_Spanish)), or taco de harina, is a type of Mexican food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_cuisine). It consists of a wheat flour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat_flour) tortilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortilla) wrapped or folded around a filling. The flour tortilla is usually lightly grilled or steamed, to soften it and make it more pliable. In Mexico, refried beans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refried_beans), Mexican rice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_rice), or meat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat) are usually the only fillings and the tortilla is smaller in size. In the United States, however, fillings generally include a combination of ingredients such as Mexican rice, beans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean), lettuce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lettuce), salsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa_%28sauce%29), meat, avocado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avocado), cheese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese), and sour cream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_cream), and the size varies, with some burritos considerably larger than their Mexican counterparts.
Contents

[hide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#)]


1 History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#History)

1.1 Antecedents (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Antecedents)
1.2 Development in Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Development_in_Mexico)
1.3 Development in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Development_in_the_United_States)


2 Varieties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Varieties)

2.1 Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Mexico)
2.2 United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#United_States)

2.2.1 San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#San_Diego)
2.2.2 San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#San_Francisco)
2.2.3 Breakfast burrito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Breakfast_burrito)


2.3 Others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Others)


3 Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Research)
4 See also (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#See_also)
5 References (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#References)
6 Further reading and resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#Further_reading_and_resources)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=1)] History

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=2)] Antecedents

Hand-held take-out (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-out) foods like the burrito have a long history. Before the Spanish colonization of the Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas), indigenous peoples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas) were eating hand-held snack foods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snack_food) like corn on the cob (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_on_the_cob), popcorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn) and pemmican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican). In Mexico, the Spanish observed Aztecs selling take-out foods like tamales (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamale), tortillas, and sauces in open marketplaces. The Pueblo people (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_people) of the desert Southwest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_United_States) also made tortillas with beans and meat sauce fillings prepared much like the modern burrito we know today.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-0)
Cuisine preceding the development of the modern taco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco), burrito, and enchilada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchilada) was created by the Pre-Columbian Mesoamerican Aztec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztec) peoples of Mexico, who used tortillas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortilla) to wrap foods, with fillings of chile sauce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_sauce), tomatoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato), mushrooms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom), squash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squash_%28plant%29), and avocados (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avocado). Spanish missionaries like Bernardino de Sahagún (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernardino_de_Sahag%C3%BAn) wrote about Aztec cuisine, describing the variety of tortillas and their preparation, noting that the Aztecs not only used corn in their tortillas, but also squash and amaranth, and that some varieties used turkey, eggs, or honey as a flavoring.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-tortillas-1)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=3)] Development in Mexico

The word "burrito" appears in the 1895 Diccionario de Mejicanismos, where it is identified as a regional term from Guanajuato (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guanajuato) and defined as "Tortilla arrollada, con carne ú otra cosa dentro, que en Yucatán llaman coçito, i en Cuernavaca i en Mejico, taco" (A rolled tortilla with meat or other ingredients inside, called 'coçito' in Yucatan and 'taco' in the city of Cuernavaca and in Mexico CIty).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-2)
The word burrito means "little donkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donkey)" in Spanish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language), coming from burro (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/burro), which means "donkey". The name burrito possibly derives from the appearance of a rolled up wheat tortilla, which vaguely resembles the ear of its namesake animal, or from bedrolls and packs that donkeys carried.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Duggan-3) Mexican popular tradition tells the story of a man named Juan Mendez who used to sell tacos in a street stand, using a donkey as a transport for himself and the food, during the Mexican Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Revolution) period (1910–1921) in the Bella Vista neighborhood in Ciudad Juárez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] To keep the food warm, Mendez wrapped food in large home made flour tortillas inside individual napkins. He had a lot of success, and consumers came from other places around the Mexican border looking for the "food of the burrito" (i.e., "food of the little donkey"), the word they eventually adopted as the name for these large tacos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco).
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=4)] Development in the United States

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/%21Discreeto%21Burrito%21.jpg/220px-%21Discreeto%21Burrito%21.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%21Discreeto%21Burrito%21.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%21Discreeto%21Burrito%21.jpg)



In 1923, Alejandro Borquez opened the Sonora cafe in Los Angeles, which later changed its name to the El Cholo Spanish Cafe.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-4) Burritos first appeared on American restaurant menus at the El Cholo Spanish Cafe during the 1930s.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Smith2004-5) Burritos were mentioned in the U.S. media (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_media) for the first time in 1934,[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Smith-6) appearing in the Mexican Cookbook, a collection of regional recipes from New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico) authored by historian Erna Fergusson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erna_Fergusson).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Smith2007-7)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=5)] Varieties

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=6)] Mexico

Burritos are a traditional food of Ciudad Juárez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciudad_Ju%C3%A1rez), a city in the northern Mexican state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_divisions_of_Mexico) of Chihuahua (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chihuahua_%28state%29), where people buy them at restaurants and roadside stands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_food). Northern Mexican border towns like Villa Ahumada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villa_Ahumada) have an established reputation for serving burritos. Authentic Mexican burritos are usually small and thin, with flour tortillas containing only one or two ingredients: some form of meat, potatoes, rice, fish, beans, asadero cheese, chile rajas, or chile relleno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_relleno).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Franz-8) Other types of ingredients may include barbacoa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbacoa), mole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28sauce%29), chopped hot dogs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog) cooked in a tomato and chile sauce, refried beans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refried_beans) and cheese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheese), deshebrada, and (shredded slow-cooked flank steak). The deshebrada burrito also has a variation with chile colorado (mild to moderately hot) and salsa verde (very hot). The Mexican burrito may be a northern variation of the traditional taco de Canasta, which is eaten for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Although burritos are one of the most popular examples of Mexican cuisine outside of Mexico, in Mexico they are only popular in the northern part of the country. However, they are beginning to appear in some nontraditional venues in other parts of Mexico.
Wheat flour tortillas used in burritos are now often seen throughout much of Mexico (possibly due to these areas being less than optimal for growing maize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maize)), despite at one time being peculiar to northwestern Mexico, the Southwestern US Mexican American community, and Pueblo Indian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puebloan_peoples) tribes.
Burritos are commonly called tacos de harina (wheat flour tacos) in central and southern Mexico and burritas (feminine variation, with 'a') in northern-style restaurants outside of northern Mexico proper. A long and thin fried burrito similar to a chimichanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimichanga) is prepared in the state of Sonora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora) and vicinity, and is called a chivichanga.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-9)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=7)] United States

See also: Cuisine of the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_the_United_States)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Diana%27s_wet_burrito.jpg/220px-Diana%27s_wet_burrito.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diana%27s_wet_burrito.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diana%27s_wet_burrito.jpg)
Wet burrito style


The most common style of the burrito in the United States is not as common in Mexico. Typically, American style burritos are larger than Mexican ones, and stuffed with more ingredients than the principal meat or vegetable filling. Pinto or black beans, rice (with cilantro and lime or Mexican style), guacamole, salsas, cheese, and sour cream are frequently added.
A wet (or enchilada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchilada) style) burrito is smothered in a red chili sauce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chili_sauce) similar to enchilada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enchilada) sauce with melted shredded cheese on top. It is typically eaten off a plate with a fork and knife, rather than hand held. When served in a Mexican restaurant in the U.S., a melted cheese covered burrito is typically called a burrito suizo (suizo meaning Swiss, an adjective used in Spanish to indicate dishes topped with cheese or cream (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream)).
Some cities, such as San Diego (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego,_California) and San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco,_California), have local burrito styles.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=8)] San Diego

The Southern California style of burrito has been described as "austere" and "simple".[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Newberry-10) A carne asada burrito in San Diego, for example, can consist of chunks of carne asada and guacamole,[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Leonard-11) or carne asada, guacamole, and pico de gallo salsa.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Weisbrod-12) One may also encounter non-traditional, "healthy" burrito fillings such as eggplant.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Ryan-13)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Lolita%27s_California_Burrito.jpg/200px-Lolita%27s_California_Burrito.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lolita%27s_California_Burrito.jpg) http://bits.wikimedia.org/skins-1.17/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lolita%27s_California_Burrito.jpg)
Contents of a California Burrito from San Diego.


The California burrito, a San Diego-area specialty,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Arellano-14) consists of chunks of carne asada meat, French fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_fries), cheese, and either pico de gallo, sour cream, or guacamole (or some combination of these three).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Lee-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Hiss-16) The ingredients are similar to those used in the carne asada fries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carne_asada_fries) dish, and it is considered a staple of the local cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_San_Diego,_California#Cuisine) of San Diego, California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego,_California).[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-17) With its merging of French fries with more traditional burrito fillings, the California burrito is an example of fusion border food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_cuisine).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Ryan-13) Although it has been theorized that the California burrito, as it is now known originated in San Diego sometime in the 1980s, the first documentation of a burrito in its style can be found in a 1995 article in the Albuquerque Tribune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albuquerque_Tribune).[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-18)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=9)] San Francisco

Main article: San Francisco burrito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_burrito)
The origins of the San Francisco burrito can be traced back to Mission District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_District,_San_Francisco,_California) taquerias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqueria) of the 1960s. Other theories state the original San Francisco burritos began with farmworkers in the fields of the Central Valley,[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Roemer-19) or with miners of the 19th century.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Duggan-3) In 1961, Febronio Ontiveros began offering the first retail burrito in San Francisco at El Faro (The Lighthouse), a corner grocery store on Folsom Street. Ontiveros is credited with inventing the "super burrito" style leading to the early development of the "San Francisco style". This innovation involved adding rice, sour cream and guacamole to the standard meat, bean and cheese burrito. El Faro got its start when firemen from a nearby station requested sandwiches, which Ontiveros was unable to make. Instead, Ontiveros offered the firemen burritos. Large tortillas were unavailable in the early 1960s, so three six-inch tortillas were used to hold the filling. Ontiveros sold the burritos for one US dollar.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-Roemer-19)[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-chron_20060913-20)
The San Francisco burrito emerged as a regional culinary movement during the 1970s and 1980s. The typical San Francisco burrito is produced on a steam table assembly line, and is characterized by a large stuffed tortilla, wrapped in aluminum foil, which can include variations on different ingredients. The popularity of San Francisco-style burritos has grown locally, with Mission Street taquerias like El Farolito, and nationally with chains such as Moe's Southwest Grill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe%27s_Southwest_Grill), Chipotle Mexican Grill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill),[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-21) Illegal Pete's, Freebirds World Burrito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freebirds_World_Burrito), Qdoba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qdoba_Mexican_Grill), and Barberitos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barberitos). In 1995, World Wrapps opened in San Francisco's Marina District, bringing a burrito-inspired sandwich wrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_wrap) style to the restaurant industry.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-22)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=10)] Breakfast burrito

The breakfast burrito, a variety of American breakfast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast#Anglo-America), is composed of breakfast items wrapped inside a flour tortilla. This style was invented and popularized in several different regional American cuisines, most notably New Mexican cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexican_cuisine), Southwestern cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwestern_cuisine), and Tex-Mex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tex-Mex). Southwestern breakfast burritos may include scrambled eggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrambled_eggs), potatoes, onions, chorizo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorizo), guisado, or bacon.[24] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-23) Tia Sophia's, a Mexican café in Santa Fe, New Mexico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe,_New_Mexico), claims to have invented the original breakfast burrito in 1975, filling a rolled tortilla with bacon and potatoes, served wet with chili and cheese.[25] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-24) Fast food giant McDonald's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s) introduced their version in the late 1980s, and by the 1990s, more fast food restaurants caught on to the style, with Taco Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco_Bell), Sonic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Drive-In), and Carl's Jr. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl%27s_Jr.) offering breakfast burritos on their menus.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=11)] Others

A burrito bowl is a burrito or fajita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fajita) served without the tortilla, with the fillings placed in a bowl, with a layer of rice at the bottom. Its establishment can be traced to the beginning of the low carb fad in the early 2000s.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)] It is not to be confused with a taco salad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco_salad), which has a foundation of lettuce inside a fried tortilla. The burrito bowl is found in some form at many national Mexican food chain restaurants.
A chimichanga (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimichanga) is a deep-fried burrito popular in Southwestern and Tex-Mex cuisines, and in the Mexican states of Sinaloa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinaloa) and Sonora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora).[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=12)] Research

Taco Bell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taco_Bell) research chef (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_science) Anne Albertine experimented with grilling burritos to enhance portability. This grilling technique allowed large burritos to remain sealed without spilling their contents.[26] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-25) This is a well known cooking technique used by some San Francisco taquerias and Northern Mexico burrito stands. Traditionally, grilled burritos are cooked on a comal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comal_%28cookware%29) (griddle).
Bean burritos, which are high in protein and low in saturated fat have been touted for their health benefits. Black bean burritos are also a good source of dietary fiber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_fiber) and phytochemicals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytochemical).[27] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_note-26)
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=13)] See also



Sandwich wrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandwich_wrap)
Korean burrito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_burrito)
Popiah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popiah)
Corn burrito (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_burrito)

[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=14)] References



^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-0) Keoke, Emory Dean; Kay Marie Porterfield (2001). "Snack foods, American Indian". Encyclopedia of American Indian Contributions to the World: 15,000 Years of Inventions and Innovations. New York: Facts On File, Inc..
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-tortillas_1-0) Keoke, Emory Dean; Kay Marie Porterfield (2001). "Tortillas, American Indians and". Encyclopedia of American Indian Contributions to the World: 15,000 Years of Inventions and Innovations. New York: Facts On File, Inc..
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-2) Ramos y Duarte, Féliz (1895). Diccionario de Mejicanismos (http://books.google.com/books?id=u2xQAAAAMAAJ). Imprenta de Eduardo Dublan.
^ [B]a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Duggan_3-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Duggan_3-1) Duggan, Tara. (Apr. 29, 2001). The Silver Torpedo (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/04/29/CM162769.DTL). San Francisco Chronicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Chronicle).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-4) Shindler, Merrill (February 2001). "Comfort Food" (http://web.archive.org/web/20050520231428/http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_8_23/ai_70885200). Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_8_23/ai_70885200) on 2007-10-11.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Smith2004_5-0) Smith, Andrew F. (2004). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. 1. Oxford University Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press). p. 171. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0195154371 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0195154371).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Smith_6-0) Smith, Andrew F. (1999). "Tacos, Enchiladas and Refried Beans: The Invention of Mexican-American Cookery" (http://food.oregonstate.edu/ref/culture/latinamerica/mexico_smith.html). In Mary Wallace Kelsey and ZoeAnn Holmes. Cultural and Historical Aspects of Foods. Corvallis: Oregon State University. pp. 183–203.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Smith2007_7-0) Smith, Andrew F. (2007). The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. Oxford University Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press). p. 75. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0195307968 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0195307968).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Franz_8-0) Franz, Carl; Lorena Havens (2006). The People's Guide to Mexico. Avalon Travel Publishing. p. 379. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1566917115 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1566917115).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-9) Bayless, Rick and Deann Groen Bayless. (1987). Authentic Mexican: Regional Cooking from the Heart of Mexico. Morrow Cookbooks. p. 142.ISBN 0-688-04394-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0688043941)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Newberry_10-0) Newberry, Jan. The hunt for the best burrito (http://www.sunset.com/food-wine/flavors-of-the-west/california-burrito-00418000067407/). Sunset Magazine. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Leonard_11-0) Leonard, James. University of San Diego Off the Record (http://books.google.com/books?id=KKLwWf_zjO8C&pg=PA12&dq=%22carne+asada+burrito%22+%22san+diego%22&hl=en&ei=yoDtTKPfFo2-sQPL7YWuBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22carne%20asada%20burrito%22%20%22san%20diego%2 2&f=false). p. 12.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Weisbrod_12-0) Weisbrod, Justin (2008-03-18). "Burritology 101: What lies beneath the tortilla" (http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2.7448/burritology-101-what-lies-beneath-the-tortilla-1.793963). The Daily Aztec. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Ryan_13-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Ryan_13-1) Ryan, Richard (Winter 2003). "Is it border cuisine, or merely a case of NAFTA indigestion?". Journal for the Study of Food and Society 6 (2): 21–30.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Arellano_14-0) Arellano, Gustavo (2010-06-17). "The California Challenge at Pepe's" (http://www.ocweekly.com/2010-06-17/food/hole-in-the-wall-pepes-mexican-food/). OC Weekly. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Lee_15-0) Lee, Mike (2009-07-13). "Burritos aren't safe on their plate" (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/jul/13/1n13burrito234047-burritos-arent-safe-their-plate/). San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2010-11-24.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Hiss_16-0) Hiss, Mark. Frommer's San Diego 2011 (http://books.google.com/books?id=EpOL7Ml2mrMC&pg=PA13&dq=%22california+burrito%22&hl=en&ei=wontTMjIC4_msQOFvIi0Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFMQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22california%20burrito%22&f=false). p. 13.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-17) See for example: Berkmoes, Ryan; Sara Benson (2009). "California Iconic Trips: A Burrito Odyssey". California Trips. Lonely Planet. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 1741797276 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/1741797276).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-18) Gustavo Arellano (13 May 2011). "When Did the California Burrito Become the California Burrito?" (http://blogs.ocweekly.com/stickaforkinit/2011/05/when_and_wheree_did_san_diegos.php). OC Weekly. Retrieved 22 June 2011.
^ a (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Roemer_19-0) b (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-Roemer_19-1) Roemer, John (1993-05-05). "Cylindrical God". SF Weekly.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-chron_20060913_20-0) Addison, Bill (September 13, 2006). "In search of the transcendent taqueria / Our critic puts 85 beloved Bay Area burrito joints to the test". San Francisco Chronicle.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-21) Slodysko, Brian (2008-06-25). "Chipotle serves up free burritos and drinks" (http://www.lancastereaglegazette.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200880625027). Lancaster Eagle-Gazette (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster_Eagle-Gazette). Retrieved 2008-06-28.[dead link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Link_rot)]
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-22) Hanson, Gayle M.B. (1996-12-02). "It's a Wrap! California offers America the next food craze" (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n45_v12/ai_18917409). Insight on the News. Retrieved 2007-04-25.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-23) Cheek, Lawrence. (Oct, 2001). Rise and shine - breakfast - Recipe (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1216/is_4_207/ai_78901500). Sunset (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_%28magazine%29).
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-24) Anderson, Judith (1998-05-24). "What's Doing In; Santa Fe" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5DD1639F937A15756C0A96E9582 60&sec=travel&pagewanted=print). The New York Times. Retrieved 2007-08-18.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-25) Crosby, Olivia. (Fall, 2002). You're a What? Research Chef (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/careertraining/?article=researchchef). Occupational Outlook Quarterly. Vol. 46, Num. 3.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burrito#cite_ref-26) The University of Pennsylvania Health System. Breakfast, Dinner or Anytime Burrito (http://web.archive.org/web/20060325211924/http://www.pennhealth.com/pahosp/cancer/prog_comp/entrees.html). Adapted from the Cancer Nutrition Information, LLC. Archive URL: Mar 25, 2006.


[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burrito&action=edit&section=15)] Further reading and resources

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg/40px-Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg.png Wikibooks Cookbook (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook) has a recipe/module on Burrito (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cookbook:Burrito)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Burrito (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Burrito) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg/30px-Commons-logo.svg.png Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Aztec cuisine (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Florentine_Codex)

Aft, Lawrence S. (2000). Work Measurement and Methods Improvement. Wiley-IEEE. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0471370894 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0471370894).
Ellman, Mark; Barbara Santos (2003). Maui Tacos Cookbook. Pendulum Publishing. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0965224333 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0965224333).
Fox, Peter (1998-07-02). "Burrito Search" (http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/980702.atc.14.ram) (Real Media). All Things Considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered). National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).
Fox, Peter (1998-07-17). "Burrito Odyssey" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1034371) (Real Media). All Things Considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered). National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).
Fox, Peter (1998-07-31). "Burrito" (http://www.npr.org/ramfiles/atc/19980731.atc.15.ram) (Real Media). All Things Considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered). National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).
Fox, Peter (1998-08-12). "Burrito Trail" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1033908) (Real Media). All Things Considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered). National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).
Fox, Peter (1998-09-03). "End of the Burrito Trail" (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1033459) (Real Media). All Things Considered (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Things_Considered). National Public Radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Public_Radio).
Fox, Peter (1998-11-04). "Burritos: A Search For Beginnings". Food (The Washington Post): pp. E.01.
Gold, Jonathan (2000). Counter Intelligence: Where to Eat in the Real Los Angeles. Macmillan. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0312267231 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0312267231).
Johnson, Lisa (2006). Mind Your X's and Y's: Satisfying the 10 Cravings of a New Generation of Consumers. Free Press. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0743277503 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0743277503).
Sparks, Pat; Barbara Swanson (1993). Tortillas!. Macmillan. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0312089120 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0312089120).
Thomsen, David; Derek Wilson (1998). Burritos! Hot on the Trail of the Little Burro. Gibbs Smith Publishers. ISBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number) 0-87905-835-8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-87905-835-8).
Young, Marc (2005-02-25). "Bringing the Burrito to Berlin" (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1500156,00.html). Culture & Lifestyle. Deutsche Welle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Welle). Retrieved 2008-02-18.

Categories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Categories): Mexican cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mexican_cuisine) | Tortilla-based dishes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tortilla-based_dishes) | Cuisine of the Southwestern United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cuisine_of_the_Southwestern_United_States ) | Tex-Mex cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Tex-Mex_cuisine) | American cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_cuisine) | New Mexican cuisine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:New_Mexican_cuisine) | Street food (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Street_food)

[Koolaid_Man]

You're a fucking retard. PLAIN and SIMPLE. You just answered it yourself.

How the fuck do you think Kobe scored all those points as the second option. Do you remember a guy called Shaquille O'neal? The Spurs or any other team had to focus most of their defense on him, thus leaving Kobe to play one on one most of the time.

If you put Tim Duncan with a prime Shaq and Shaq was double and triple teamed leaving Duncan to go one on one then Tim probably averages 30-35ppg.

How do you think Kobe scored all those points as the second option? You're not even a Laker fan if you don't know that. Shaq took a lot of pressure off of him as the defense always focuses on the 1st option, the most dominant player on the court. Same as Tim Duncan was the focus of the other teams defense which is usually geared to shut him down first.

You just can't compare a first option to a second option. Put up Shaq Vs Tim's stats. That would be a better thread.

The debate Vs Kobe and Tim is a waste of time as you just can't compare a guy who was a second option for half of his career to a guy that was first from day 1. Head to heat also is just a small sample size and a conclusion can't be drawn from that either.

:rolleyes

[Nathan89]

Who is David Robinson...:lol

and when Tim wasn't playing with a HOF bigman he was playing with one of the best point guard and 2 guards in the NBA at that time in Tony and Manu...so Tim had all the help he needed.

and another thing...those Laker teams were built around Shaq not Kobe and Kobe still dominated Duncan...Kobe's stats as 2nd option is better than Duncan's as 1st option.

Go figure.


:lmaoKobe
:lmaois
:lmaoa
:lmaosecond
:lmaooption
:lmaoand
:lmao:lmaothis
:lmaojoke
:lmaois
:lmao:lmao:lmaotrying
:lmaoto
:lmaocompare
:lmao:rollinhis
:rollin accomplishments
:rollinto
:rollin:lola
:lolfirst
:loloption
:lolthat's
:lol a
:lol fucking
:loljoke
:lol:lmaoright
?

[Killakobe81]

REally the debate needs to be put in context. the previous thread, the one that led to this one ...posed the question of knowing what we know now who would we choose to start a franchise with. Then we started talking about who has had the greater career. in BOTH cases I take Kobe narrowly over Duncan even though I freely admit both cases are close, especially the "start a franchise" argument ...

As for the Duncan over Shaq and hakeem we ALL know at the peak or prime Shaq is more dominant than either duncan or Hakeem because both are small centers and duncan is supposedly a PF ... but when we look at their careers both Shaq and hakeem dominate Duncan in points, rebounds and blocks.

The thing that gives duncan the edge in my opinion is the rings ...those that cant see that are foolish. Shaq and hakeem were more dominat scorers. hakeem was a better defender. Both were superior athletes. Post moves Duncan and Hakeem have moves that shaq can only dream of ...

So when you talk about the 3 best big man post Kareem (I never saw Wilt) I give duncan the edge BECAUSE Of his rings ...if yall insist rings dont matter ... than Tim may only edge Malone ...as a big man. if we look just at their numbers etc.

BTW the only reason I think it's so close because Tim's Final performances are better, and more consistently dominate than Kobe's. If not for that this argument would not be as close.

I dont get why anyone sees it as some type of insult, that Kobe is ahead of Duncan. I never saw it that way in 2007 when Duncan was STILL better than Kobe. They are two of the best players since MJ and i would argue they are actually the two best, career wise with Hakeem and shaq just slightly below.

Some of yall need to take some of the emotions out of your argument, it comes across childish it's just sportstalk it's not like anything we see here will ultimately decide this debate ...

[4>0rings]

I can't believe people still respond to this troll.
He even came out and said who he is and people still talk to this troll as if he is a real Laker fan. :lmao

[Leetonidas]

Tim destroys Kobe in career accolades and advanced metrics. He has more Finals MVPs, more regular season MVPs, ROY, and the only player in NBA history to be selected both All-NBA and All-Defensive Teams during each of his first 13 seasons. We're talking about an individual matchup here so whose coattails Kobe road to 7 Finals appearances is irrelevant because for one, he was not the #1 option on 3 of those teams and that weighs heavily in determining who is better because he had the most dominant player ever in his prime commanding triple teams in the paint, allowing Bryant to operate more freely in on the wings, and with elite shooters like Fisher and Horry that team was tough as shit to defend.

I guarantee you give Kobe Bryant the players Tim has had over his career and he has ZERO championships. You really think young Kobe is winning with old David? Is he really winning 3 titles with Ginobili as his best teammate? How about with Elson/Nesterovic/Oberto/Mohammed/Bonner manning the middle for him?

Yeah, fuck no he doesn't win any titles.

Like I said, Tim has him beat in accolades. The only thing Kobe has is more points on shittier efficiency.

[Leetonidas]

And performances in the Finals DO MATTER. Everyone is shitting on LeBron for choking versus Dallas, and that is definitely going to taint his legacy because no one give a fuck how he played like a beast the rest of the playoffs.

Duncan dominated on the biggest stage, something Kobe has yet to do.

[DMC]

This logic is a misuse of statistics to make a point. It also contradicts your next post.


Malone with the Jazz made the finals twice, and lost to Jordan. He also lost 3 times in the WCF. So, it's easy to see Duncan did much better than Malone in the playoffs. However this topic is about Kobe and Duncan, and Kobe's resume against Duncan needs a bit more explanation in relation to your first post.

yadda yadda etc...

Follow the thread, fuck stick. I was responding to a comment about Malone.

Jesus you are a tard. For the Daddy of trolls, you act like the unwanted offspring of someone who the troll raped.

As for your stats, Derrick Fisher did all those same things...

Duncan never lost a Finals. Kobe lost 2. One of those was against the Detroit Pistons who the Spurs beat the following year.

Kobe is TMac with a bigger budget.

The mere fact that you have to compare your mega-super star big name huge market player to a small market Tim Duncan who's played along side Euro low draft picks his entire NBA career, while your guy has played alongside the best players in the game with Shaq and Pau, Ron Artest, Karl Malone and Gary Payton, just screams out insecurity and that you also don't believe the shit you spew.

But I ain't mad at ya. :lol

[MR.SILVER&BLack]

i get it know. when comparing 2 players individual achievements dont cant for anything. only team achievements.

gotta love the NBA forum. it keeps you entertained.

[Daddy_Of_All_Trolls]

Follow the thread, fuck stick. I was responding to a comment about Malone.

Jesus you are a tard. For the Daddy of trolls, you act like the unwanted offspring of someone who the troll raped.

As for your stats, Derrick Fisher did all those same things...

Duncan never lost a Finals. Kobe lost 2. One of those was against the Detroit Pistons who the Spurs beat the following year.

Kobe is TMac with a bigger budget.

The mere fact that you have to compare your mega-super star big name huge market player to a small market Tim Duncan who's played along side Euro low draft picks his entire NBA career, while your guy has played alongside the best players in the game with Shaq and Pau, Ron Artest, Karl Malone and Gary Payton, just screams out insecurity and that you also don't believe the shit you spew.

But I ain't mad at ya. :lol
Ok, glad you aren't mad. I read the thread, you didn't. Try again. I knew you were talking about Malone, I mentioned that. I brought it back to Kobe, because some people seem to think 4-0 is greater than 5-2 because 4-0 is undefeated. It isn't and I explained why. Also, Kobe isn't my guy, I said that many times. I also said many arguments don't fit or aren't thought out. The Pistons who the Spurs beat in 2005 weren't the same team that beat the Lakers in 2004, just like the Nets the Spurs beat in 2003 4-2 weren't the same Nets the Lakers beat in 2002 4-0. One could foolishly say the Lakers of 2002 were better than the Spurs of 2003 because they beat the Nets in 4 games and it took the Spurs 6 games. It takes more than that to compare those two teams just as it does to compare the 2004 Lakers to the 2005 Spurs. Its simple, let me explain it. 2002 and 2004 Lakers > 2002 and 2004 Spurs respectively. 2003 and 2005 Spurs > 2003 and 2005 Lakers respectively. Comparing teams of different years is complicated, as can be seen when the Spurs fan base tries to rank their 1999, 2003, 2005, and 2007 championship teams.

Back on point to why losing in the finals isn't a big deal. At least the team that lost got there, how on earth can they even think of winning it if they don't make it? By this logic, it's better not to even make the playoffs! Then no one beats you! Duncan never lost the finals, but he never defended his title in the finals. He only once made it as far as the WCF in his title defense, 2008. Those Spurs had no chance against Boston, but the Lakers take the big hit for losing it, even though they beat the defending champs 4-1. Lost in the shuffle is that Kobe's team beat Duncan's team, Kobe led the Lakers to victory in their one matchup without Shaq. Yeah, Kobe always had help, so did Duncan. No one player ever won a ring by themselves. Look at the Chicago Bulls franchise record outside of those 6 Jordan championships. It's a disaster! Why? Jordan didn't have teammates when he was new, and they never really ever had another true mega-star. The Spurs do way much better in non-championship years, but this isn't about comparing those two teams, it's about Tim vs. Kobe.

One more example of why undefeated finals marks don't always mean much. I made a thread months ago about Kobe Bryant and John Havlicek, who is one of the all time greats. Like Kobe, he spent some of his career as a "sidekick". He won 6 rings coattailing Russell and his stacked teams. Then, everyone good on the Celtics left, and the team was rebuilt around him. After missing the playoffs 2 straight years, new draft picks JoJo White and Dave Cowens jelled and Boston won 2 titles, keeping Havlicek undefeated in the finals as the leader of his team. However, he falls short of Kobe's leadership from 2005-2011. The biggest stain on Havlicek's resume as leader is he lost 3 times in the ECF with home court advantage! The Knicks got him in 1972 and 1973, and Washington in 1975. In 1977 he got bounced in the 2nd round, and in 1978, Boston didn't even make the playoffs. (A third time under Havlicek). Then he retired. However, he remained undefeated in the finals! Those Celtics titles of 1974 and 1976 were a bit lucky IMO. Milwaukee lost starting SG Lucius Allen, and the Big O played hurt. He retired after that year, his body was broken. In 1976, the defending champion Warriors were upset in the WCF by the 42-40 Phoenix Suns. Golden State would have had HCA in the finals had they made it.

Some of the Tim vs. Kobe arguments don't belong. Comparing their teams and teammates really complicates things. Opinions will vary, but no one can prove a thing, it's too close.

[joshdaboss]

Rings as alpha male:
Duncan 4
Kobe 1

[Leetonidas]

/thread

[Ice009]

Kobe 'Second Option' Bryant. It's got a ring to it, and that's how he got 3 of them.

[elbamba]

Since Duncan has been in the league, how many times has his team missed the playoffs?

Kobe?

[Spur_Fanatic]

Why's the welcher still posting here?

And why people get trolled by his idiotic Kobe threads?

[Leetonidas]

Only GNSF is getting trolled. Replying doesn't necessarily indicate being trolled. Don't you see we have actually engaged in serious basketball discussion amidst Kool's failed attempt to troll?

[Koolaid_Man]

Only GNSF is getting trolled. Replying doesn't necessarily indicate being trolled. Don't you see we have actually engaged in serious basketball discussion amidst Kool's failed attempt to troll?


you can't hold my jock...whether I'm trolling or delivering the goods...go back and look at my bball takes in this thread alone...you're a light weight son...

[Killakobe81]

Rings as alpha male:
Duncan 4
Kobe 1

that would be 4 - 2 if you say 4-1 you are an imbecile or Pau's gay love slave ...

[Killakobe81]

Follow the thread, fuck stick. I was responding to a comment about Malone.

Jesus you are a tard. For the Daddy of trolls, you act like the unwanted offspring of someone who the troll raped.

As for your stats, Derrick Fisher did all those same things...

Duncan never lost a Finals. Kobe lost 2. One of those was against the Detroit Pistons who the Spurs beat the following year.

Kobe is TMac with a bigger budget.
The mere fact that you have to compare your mega-super star big name huge market player to a small market Tim Duncan who's played along side Euro low draft picks his entire NBA career, while your guy has played alongside the best players in the game with Shaq and Pau, Ron Artest, Karl Malone and Gary Payton, just screams out insecurity and that you also don't believe the shit you spew.

But I ain't mad at ya. :lol

You were doing fine until you got all emo ...

[Killakobe81]

One last note Kobe is on a list even rarer than "4x champion" ....

Kobe is one of a few "alpha males" to defend his title. That list excludes: Bird, Duncan, Wade, Moses, Wilt etc.

Since 1980:
Magic (87-88),
Isiah (89-90),
MJ (with 2 3 peats, that is why he is GOAT)
Hakeem (the MJ baseball years but still AMAZING)
Shaq (yes he was the alpha for the first two, I say co-alpha by the 3 peat)
Kobe (09-10)

again for every pro duncan case, there is a Kobe case as well. Again very close to me but it's Kobe ...

[z0sa]

There was never a debate.

Tim will always be > Kobe.

[z0sa]

The Lakers defended their title. Not Kobe alone defending the Kobe 1on1 title. Faggot

[Killakobe81]

There was never a debate.

Tim will always be > Kobe.

aww so like many on here you ended your case after 2007? even if Duncna>Kobe now you cant make an asinine statement like that ...oh wait you just did ...

[LkrFan]

Kobe won
Kobe repeated
Kobe 3peated
Kobe won
Kobe repeated

Tim won
Tim won
Tim won
Tim won
Tim done

:lol

[Killakobe81]

The Lakers defended their title. Not Kobe alone defending the Kobe 1on1 title. Faggot

LOL getting all upset ...so let me get this straight. duncan's 4>1 as alpha but when he did NOT defend the title then it was because he lost as a "team" is that right?

Just like when Kobe missed the playoffs or lost in the first round that is on Kobe but the last two titles are because Pau Gasol was the "alpha male"?!

You guys are hilarious ...

[LkrFan]

LOL getting all upset ...so let me get this straight. duncan's 4>1 as alpha but when he did NOT defend the title then it was because he lost as a "team" is that right?

Just like when Kobe missed the playoffs or lost in the first round that is on Kobe but the last two titles are because Pau Gasol was the "alpha male"?!

You guys are hilarious ...

:lol

[Leetonidas]

you can't hold my jock...whether I'm trolling or delivering the goods...go back and look at my bball takes in this thread alone...you're a light weight son...

Hence why you ignore my arguments because they shit all over yours. If Kobe is a better INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, why does Duncan destroy him in individual accolades?

" :cry B-b-b-but Kobe has been to 7 Finals :cry "

And lost two while Timothy Theodore Duncan has lost no series in the Finals, took his team there as the undisputed best player and number one option, displayed much better performances on the biggest stage, and never missed the playoffs.

What Kobe did with Shaq is irrelevant when being compared to Duncan because he's scoring all these points while the best player on the planet (at the time) was on his team getting tripled teamed so Mr. Rapist could operate more freely on the perimeter. Fact.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

One last note Kobe is on a list even rarer than "4x champion" ....

Kobe is one of a few "alpha males" to defend his title. That list excludes: Bird, Duncan, Wade, Moses, Wilt etc.

Since 1980:
Magic (87-88),
Isiah (89-90),
MJ (with 2 3 peats, that is why he is GOAT)
Hakeem (the MJ baseball years but still AMAZING)
Shaq (yes he was the alpha for the first two, I say co-alpha by the 3 peat)
Kobe (09-10)

again for every pro duncan case, there is a Kobe case as well. Again very close to me but it's Kobe ...
Bill Russell is the only alpha male to 8-peat.

Russell = G.O.A.T.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

LOL getting all upset ...so let me get this straight. duncan's 4>1 as alpha but when he did NOT defend the title then it was because he lost as a "team" is that right?

Just like when Kobe missed the playoffs or lost in the first round that is on Kobe but the last two titles are because Pau Gasol was the "alpha male"?!

You guys are hilarious ...

My nigga up in here spittin FiYUHHHHH :lol

[LkrFan]

Hence why you ignore my arguments because they shit all over yours. If Kobe is a better INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, why does Duncan destroy him in individual accolades?

" :cry B-b-b-but Kobe has been to 7 Finals :cry "

And lost two while Timothy Theodore Duncan has lost no series in the Finals, took his team there as the undisputed best player and number one option, displayed much better performances on the biggest stage, and never missed the playoffs.

What Kobe did with Shaq is irrelevant when being compared to Duncan because he's scoring all these points while the best player on the planet (at the time) was on his team getting tripled teamed so Mr. Rapist could operate more freely on the perimeter. Fact.
Kobe: 5
Duncan: 4

How's that for accolades? :downspin:

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Kobe - 5
Duncan - 4

That's all folks

[Leetonidas]

LOL getting all upset ...so let me get this straight. duncan's 4>1 as alpha but when he did NOT defend the title then it was because he lost as a "team" is that right?

Just like when Kobe missed the playoffs or lost in the first round that is on Kobe but the last two titles are because Pau Gasol was the "alpha male"?!

You guys are hilarious ...

To me, a winning a title depends a lot on the players around your superstar(s). Obviously your team is only going to go as far as your best player can carry you but he needs his teammates to step it up and bail him out. Kobe fans should know better than anyone that 1 player can't do it by himself.

When I personally weigh the greatest players, I look at their rings in context. Because everyone likes to bring up Horry or K.C. Jones or some shit, you have to put some guidelines on this. Did Kobe lead his Lakers are the undisputed best player and #1 option on offense? In 2009 and 2010 I would say yes, but from 2000-2002 Shaq was CLEARLY the better player and the alpha on those teams. Those were Shaq's Lakers, not Kobe's. And while Kobe did put up some legendary performances in the Western playoffs, he was not their best player. This is Spurfans who try to argue that Manu was our best player in 2005 when it was easily Tim because of the tremendous impact he had in all facets of the game.

Trolling aside I think Kobe is a top 11-15 player of all-time. Perhaps me being a Spurs fan makes me biased as well as most Laker fans in here picking Kobe, but there is no way you can say that Kobe Bryant has more impact on a basketball game than Tim Duncan. I will concede that Bryant was a great man defender many years ago but he never had the ability to anchor an all-time elite defense like Tim Duncan.

[Leetonidas]

Kobe: 5
Duncan: 4

How's that for accolades? :downspin:

Horry: 7
Kobe: 5

/thread

[Leetonidas]

:madrun Horry was just a role player!! :madrun

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Hence why you ignore my arguments because they shit all over yours. If Kobe is a better INDIVIDUAL PLAYER, why does Duncan destroy him in individual accolades?

" :cry B-b-b-but Kobe has been to 7 Finals :cry "

And lost two while Timothy Theodore Duncan has lost no series in the Finals, took his team there as the undisputed best player and number one option, displayed much better performances on the biggest stage, and never missed the playoffs.

What Kobe did with Shaq is irrelevant when being compared to Duncan because he's scoring all these points while the best player on the planet (at the time) was on his team getting tripled teamed so Mr. Rapist could operate more freely on the perimeter. Fact.

Kobe went back to back as the BEST player on the team. Call me when shit bag does that :lmao

[LkrFan]

Horry: 7
Kobe: 5

/thread

That's about as hilarious as Russell winning in an era that had no free agency and may 3 good good teams as competition. Raise the bar if you can. :wakeup

[DAF86]

Duncan was so much more dominant, efficient and important in many more aspects of the game than Kobe that is not even funny.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Duncan was so much more dominant, efficient and important in many more aspects of the game than Kobe that is not even funny.

And still couldn't win more than 1 in a row. :lmao

And owes Avery Johnson all the credit in 99

[Phillip]

Kobe has a greater place in basketball history than Duncan, no question about it.

However, its not as big of a margin as Koolaid_Man tries to say. And honestly, if I were building a team, and could choose to build around either Kobe or Duncan, it would be a very tough choice, and I think there is a great chance I might lean toward picking Duncan. IMO, there are only two players I would outright choose to build a team around before Duncan. MJ and Kareem. After that, I'd say Timmy, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, and perhaps a couple more are in the next class down, of players I would choose to build a team around.

[Leetonidas]

And still couldn't win more than 1 in a row. :lmao

And owes Avery Johnson all the credit in 99

Hey....I know you think it's cool to say stupid outlandish bullshit and you think you're really sticking it to us by putting a :lmao after every post to make it seem funny, but shut the fuck up you stupid faggot. You're a terrible troll, get some new material, although your last account was pretty terrible and your schtick is exactly the same so there's no hope for that.

lol faggot thinking he's trolling but failing miserably.

[Phillip]

Hey....I know you think it's cool to say stupid outlandish bullshit and you think you're really sticking it to us by putting a :lmao after every post to make it seem funny, but shut the fuck up you stupid faggot. You're a terrible troll, get some new material, although your last account was pretty terrible and your schtick is exactly the same so there's no hope for that.

lol faggot thinking he's trolling but failing miserably.

lol emo stoner fag getting trolled and not even realizing it

[Leetonidas]

Responding = trolled. Good work, you're awesome. :rolleyes

[Leetonidas]

You're a terrible troll, get some new material,


lol faggot doesn't know he's getting trolled lololololol

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Hey....I know you think it's cool to say stupid outlandish bullshit and you think you're really sticking it to us by putting a :lmao after every post to make it seem funny, but shut the fuck up you stupid faggot. You're a terrible troll, get some new material, although your last account was pretty terrible and your schtick is exactly the same so there's no hope for that.

lol faggot thinking he's trolling but failing miserably.

:lmao Barely beating a Knicks team that MJ shat on

:lmao beating a d-league team in the Cavs and act like that was serious competition

:lmao Duncan being so dominant that he never went back to back

[Phillip]

Responding = trolled. Good work, you're awesome. :rolleyes

responding is one thing

saying the defensive shit you said and telling him to shut the fuck up is another thing

trolled.

[Koolaid_Man]

I just thank god Timmy wasn't the face of the league. Going to church on Sunday was bad enough.

[LkrFan]

lol emo stoner fag getting trolled and not even realizing it

:lol

[Leetonidas]

Oh yeah according to you using the words "fuck," "faggot," and the phrase "shut the fuck up" = defensive and mad. lol faggot

[Phillip]

Oh yeah according to you using the words "fuck," "faggot," and the phrase "shut the fuck up" = defensive and mad. lol faggot

depends on context

your context was defensive

thus

trolled




:lmao

[Leetonidas]

lol assuming my "context" and tone from an internet message post.

trolled.

/thread

[Phillip]

lol assuming my "context" and tone from an internet message post.

trolled.

/thread

lol assuming the posters "context" you were responding to from an internet message post as being an attempt as "trolling"

Perhaps he was being dead serious, being that all he stated were facts. Timmy never did win 2 in a row. And Avery Johnson absolutely did hit the biggest shot in Spurs history to close the series out, something Timmy gave a lot of credit to Avery for doing.

either way

trolled

LMAO

/thread

[DAF86]

Kobe has a greater place in basketball history than Duncan, no question about it.

Please explain how Kobe has a greater place in basketball history without question other than the fact that he has a more fans because he played for the Lakers his whole career.

[Leetonidas]

brah he said Timmy owes Avery all the credit. c'mon son

[Leetonidas]

Please explain how Kobe has a greater place in basketball history without question other than the fact that he has a more fans because he played for the Lakers his whole career.

the media, he plays in la, tries his hardest to emulate jordan, etc

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

brah he said Timmy owes Avery all the credit. c'mon son

Butthurt Explosion:lol

[Leetonidas]

Not really, it's too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. That's like saying Robert Horry deserves all the credit for the 2002 title when it was easily the refs

[Killakobe81]

Kobe has a greater place in basketball history than Duncan, no question about it.

However, its not as big of a margin as Koolaid_Man tries to say. And honestly, if I were building a team, and could choose to build around either Kobe or Duncan, it would be a very tough choice, and I think there is a great chance I might lean toward picking Duncan. IMO, there are only two players I would outright choose to build a team around before Duncan. MJ and Kareem. After that, I'd say Timmy, Bird, Kobe, Shaq, and perhaps a couple more are in the next class down, of players I would choose to build a team around.

I think this is about as unbiased a take on here (outside of mine LOL) I could definitely agree with Phillip here ...

And As great as duncan's team defense is some of yall overrate his 1 on 1 defense ...dont get me wrong I agree duncan was the better "anchor" but his 1 on 1 defense was overrated it's not like he was a "stopper" like Bowen ...

[Killakobe81]

Duncan was so much more dominant, efficient and important in many more aspects of the game than Kobe that is not even funny.

Actually most of the posts on here are quite :lol

[Isitjustme?]

I should start posting in these retarded threads more if I really want to raise my profile. They seem to boom exponentially round here.

[Phillip]

And As great as duncan's team defense is some of yall overrate his 1 on 1 defense ...dont get me wrong I agree duncan was the better "anchor" but his 1 on 1 defense was overrated it's not like he was a "stopper" like Bowen ...

+1

I'd give Timmy's team defense an A to A+, but 1-on-1, he definitely drops down in the B category. He is a very good post defender, but when forced to go out on the perimeter, he struggled a bit. As an example, even when Timmy was in his prime, while Dirk was just coming into his own, Timmy could never keep up with Dirk's ability to take him off the dribble, pump fakes, jumpers and such.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Not really, it's too outlandish for anyone to take seriously. That's like saying Robert Horry deserves all the credit for the 2002 title when it was easily the refs

Yet you've taken it very seriously 3 posts in a row. LOL 10,000 posts and still can't realize you're getting trolled:lol

[Phillip]

Please explain how Kobe has a greater place in basketball history without question other than the fact that he has a more fans because he played for the Lakers his whole career.

Please explain how he is not?

Also, don't forget the fact that Timmy's career is very close to being over. Kobe still has several years of very high levels of production left in him.

[Leetonidas]

Yet you've taken it very seriously 3 posts in a row. LOL 10,000 posts and still can't realize you're getting trolled:lol

no

[DAF86]

Please explain how he is not?

Also, don't forget the fact that Timmy's career is very close to being over. Kobe still has several years of very high levels of production left in him.

Well, Tim has back to back regular season's MVPs, three finals MVPs, is regarded by most as the greatest ever at his position among many other things. I don't see how can anyone say that Kobe or any other player for that matter has a greater place in history without a question than him.

[KobeOwnsDuncan]

Well, Tim has back to back regular season's MVPs, three finals MVPs, is regarded by most as the greatest ever at his position among many other things. I don't see how can anyone say that Kobe or any other player for that matter has a greater place in history without a question than him.

Holy shit spurfan :lmao:lmao:lmao

[Leetonidas]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Leetonidas]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Leetonidas]

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Leetonidas]

:lmao

[NewcastleKEG]

(prime) Kobe is a better scorer, as well as a better passer, shooter, playmaker, clutch, than prime duncan...
LOL @ the phrase Kobe and ''better shooter'' being included together

Duncan is a better shooter, rebounder, defender and team mate

[DAF86]

Also for a bigmen Duncan is a better passer than Kobe for a guard.

[Leetonidas]

Duncan is an excellent passer. lol @ the idea of Kobe "passing" the ball

[DMC]

I just thank god Timmy wasn't the face of the league. Going to church on Sunday was bad enough.


lol troll fail

[Killakobe81]

Also for a bigmen Duncan is a better passer than Kobe for a guard.

No he is not, he maybe more "willing" but better that line alone proves how little you know about ball. in fact Duncan was a poor passer his first few years but improved as he matured but he aint ever been "better" at passing ..

[Killakobe81]

Duncan is an excellent passer. lol @ the idea of Kobe "passing" the ball

:lol very good but apparently EXCELLENT passer means dyck in this forum ... he is above average to pretty good as a passer.

[Killakobe81]

hell, by my definition Kobe is not one either ...

[pass1st]

Why are people still comparing a guard to a forward

[Jloyola]

Why are people still comparing a guard to a forward

Well there's nothing else to talk about... No real FA talk, pending NBA lockout, Lebron has been quiet, ehh :wakeup

[Ice009]

that would be 4 - 2 if you say 4-1 you are an imbecile or Pau's gay love slave ...

I thought he was talking about between '99-'03 if Kobe didn't have Shaq he'd have zero rings.

[Phillip]

Well, Tim has back to back regular season's MVPs, three finals MVPs, is regarded by most as the greatest ever at his position among many other things. I don't see how can anyone say that Kobe or any other player for that matter has a greater place in history without a question than him.

so MJ or Kareem dont have a greater place in history without question than Tim Duncan?

where is the bullshit detector when we need him?

[DMC]

so MJ or Kareem dont have a greater place in history without question than Tim Duncan?

where is the bullshit detector when we need him?

Justin Beiber haircut, Southpark shirt and a very feminine mustache/goatee.

Close?

[NewcastleKEG]

Duncan is better at not losing in the Finals & winning without a dominant big man

[z0sa]

lol @ kobeluvas getting destroyed in this thread

[Killakobe81]

LOL not knowing when to use the word "destroy"

LOL @ hyperbole ...

[z0sa]

Kobeluvas got destroyed in this thread, no hyperbole

and Please Don't Bring This Up Again

[DAF86]

so MJ or Kareem dont have a greater place in history without question than Tim Duncan?

where is the bullshit detector when we need him?

Those I can give you. Kobe not.

[DAF86]

No he is not, he maybe more "willing" but better that line alone proves how little you know about ball. in fact Duncan was a poor passer his first few years but improved as he matured but he aint ever been "better" at passing ..

Duncan is a great passer for a bigmen, if you don't know that you don't know shit about basketball. Kobe is an average passer for a guard.

[dunkman]

It's a fact the NBA rigged the '02 WCF's, so Kobe has only 4 rings, Webber / Bibby / Divac most probably or Kidd / K-Mart / Jefferson would have that one. The Lakers must be stripped of that ship'.

Kobe connected Bibby so savagely, he almost stated crying. No call was made, it deserved an immediate expulsion and 2 games suspension. Bibby was clutch and the Lakers had no answer for him.

The '00 WCF's were also too strange (game 7, 4Q), but there is still no evidence it was rigged.

For '00 and '01 (also for '02) Kobe wasn't the best Lakers player. So he simply can't compare with Duncan, who was the best Spurs player for all 4 Spurs ship's.

Arguments could be made about Shaq being better than Duncan, he was a terrific player in his prime. He never had a bad game in the playoffs, he was very similar in that aspect to MJ, but Shaq won less than Duncan if the '02 rigged ship' isn't counted and he wasn't the Heat best player in '06.

Finally, Duncan won an extra MVP award over both Shaq and Kobe.

[Koolaid_Man]

Kool was boss hogging wiggas in this thread

[BD24]

Please explain how he is not?

Also, don't forget the fact that Timmy's career is very close to being over. Kobe still has several years of very high levels of production left in him.
Holy shit :lol Thanks for the bump Kool, glad we could find this gem.