Reply With Quote
5 rings, 2 as a #1 option is actually extremely impressive for a 16th pick..you generally don't see that, I have to show love there..
LMAO
More importantly:
is MORE than:
Spurs
Suns:0
MAvs:0
5 rings, 2 as a #1 option is actually extremely impressive for a 16th pick..you generally don't see that, I have to show love there..
What a gay thread.
I have held quite a few championship rings... not a one of em has #option on them.
BUTTHURT OBSSESIVE!!!!!
It's just gets better and better!!!
You detected it with your "Gaydar" LMAO
HELD != WON
I've held Super Bowl Championship rings...doesn't mean I actually played on the Championship team...
Duncan 3 > Kobe 2
well son then if that's the case then Robert Horry owns them all including Jordan ... ing stupid ass bandwagon jumping Laker got ass cuckold boy.
Horry = 2007 WCSF MVP
OPOOHH KILLA Crucify them!!!
NAIL THEM AND CRUCIFY THEM !!!
this is a ray allen game 3 performence in ehre by the haters
TESTIFY killa!!
Horry > Jordan
LOL this is Only for the great players which Horry is not ...
Jordan>Magic>Kobe>Duncan=Shaq
Only HOF'ers are in this discussion ...
Horry has more rings than Jordan though dude ... Kobe was a role player in every single series just like Horry
LOL ...
Your PG is a role player as well playing the " role" for:
Dantay Jones
Bruce Bowen
and
Derron Williams ...LOL
Make the playoffs or quit your whining ...
5 > 4 when you are talking about math. First of all, congratulations to the Lakers. They won the championship.
In context, Kobe's rings as a 2nd option does not equate to Duncan's rings as a 1st option. Just wanted to throw that out. I didn't say Kobe did not have 5 championships. Enjoy this championship while it lasts.
Fair post but ...
Kobe was a "big mover" (phil's words in all 5)
Magic was not the first option in all 5 of his either ...doesnt mean to me ...his 5 > Duncan's 4 too ...
And dont worry Im enjoying this ALL off-season ...
Interested to see what moves are made to end our run ...
Phil Jackson's words are true. I had to leave before seeing the finals MVP trophy presentation, I heard the announcement, and then I left. Kobe was a big mover, but not as big as Shaq in the 3-peat, which was obvious to anyone. I don't want to start a Kobe VS Shaq VS whoever debate. That's not the point. Bottom line is, Kori and timvp were kind enough not to throw the ban hammer down and let you guys celebrate however you want. Spurstalk is possibly the only forum where this is allowed. Just don't cross the line while having "fun".
Congrats to the Lakers.
with all due respect to kobe's 5 rings.....timmy's 3 as 1st option > kobe's 2 as 1st option...
What makes a player the "second option" exactly?
In both the 2000-01 and 2001-02 seasons, Kobe took more field goal attempts than Shaq in both the regular season and the playoffs. Seems like he was the first option. The ball was in his hands at the end of the game. Shaq scored more, but not by a large margin. Shaq shot a higher FG% because he was taking shots 5 feet and in. Now, what exactly determines "first option" and "second option?"
I'd argue Kobe shared the status of "first option" with Shaq for both the 2001 and 2002 Laker les teams. Kobe was every bit a first option on those teams. Granted and fully admit that Shaq was the MVP of those teams, but the "first option/second option" isn't quite an accurate one. The best compromise, which is often used, is that Shaq and Kobe were "1A" and "1B" for at least the second and third championship teams in that threepeat run.
A lot of butthurt people on this forum right now.
Maybe I phrased it wrongly. How about this? Shaq was a better player than Kobe in 2000-2002, I don't think anyone can argue that Prime Shaq was one of the most, if not most dominant player in the league, you can't say that for Kobe Bryant. That sounds good to you? Plus, when it came down to the finals, Shaq dominated, destroyed and conquered, all while Kobe has faded into his massive shadow, not because he sucked, but Shaq was just too good. Sure Kobe took more shots (how you can take more shots, score less and call him a "1st option") but Shaq still scored more and was the focal point of that Los Angeles Lakers team. That, to me, is what the 1st option is about.
Shaq was the #1 option on offense when he was in his prime because he had a physical mismatch against everyone. If any of the other great guards in NBA history (Jordan, Magic, West etc) had played with Shaq in his prime they would have been feeding the post as the #1 option through the first 3 quarters of every game too. Kobe was a scorer too for the threepeat but more importantly he was a facilitator, a defender and a closer.
Not being the #1 offensive option for every championship takes nothing away from a great player's legacy.
Bill Russell was anywhere from the 2nd to the 7th option on offense for his team. Usually he was the 3rd or 4th option.
In 1980 Magic Johnson was the 4th option on offense for the Lakers yet his play was instrumental to winning. In 1982 he was the third option. In 1985 he was the second option. In 1987 he was first option. In 1988 the third option. When Magic first arrived to the Lakers Kareem was the man on offense. Doesn't matter.
Last edited by namlook; 06-18-2010 at 04:11 AM.
I didn't say it takes anything away from his legacy. He still got 5 championships. In context, you can't argue that the role in his 5 championships has more impact that Duncan has in his 4th or what not. I didn't take away anything from Kobe Bryant. He is a great basketball player whose impact is overemphasized and overstated and with revised history when it comes to the 3-peat. And did you just say that because Shaq had a physical mismatch, that is why he is the number 1 option? Yeah, that guy had no skill at all and only used his size to dominate other players.
Who cares? It doesn't matter how many rings Phil, Kobe or whoever has. My team has won four les over a decade...a feat that 90% of NBA teams will never accomplish.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
