MVP? More like MIA

[~~~~~~]

Not once has a single Laker fan here said Kobe > MJ. This is how warped you Kobe haters are.

Because he isn't, which is blatantly obvious, and doesn't need to be stated you pea-brained Neanderthal.

[DazedAndConfused]

you dumbasses. Do you realize even realize why Kobe is hated by non-Laker fans and even Laker fans like me. It's not because of his on court play. It's because Kobe-stans like you have to go out of your way and rub it into peoples faces of how "great this and how great that" he is, how you constantly fellate him and put him on a pedestal, how you have to defend his on and off the court arrogance. He's a class A1 prick, asshole and egomaniac and those are irrefutable facts. He's got no one but himself to blame for those character flaws. You're too much of a moron to realize that you're guilty by association when you make him to be more than what he is.

Just responding to your pea-brained response. Not one Laker fan in this thread has said anything of the sort that Kobe > MJ. This is you and your warped reality making up .

There are legions of Kobe 1st fans out there that fit the bill of what you are describing. And I hate to break it to you, but they AREN'T Laker fans.

[lefty]

Yea this thread has made me realize how pointless it is arguing with Kobe-haters.

Yes we really really really hate Kobe

[kingmalaki]

I'm waiting for someone to give me a real counter as to why MJ would make the Lakers win this series. Right now you all get an "F" in terms of your debating skills. You need to come up with some solid examples and substantive arguments other than "MJ WAS BETTA DAN KOBE!!!".

I have some reasons for you.

1) LeBron almost beat the Celtics, even though he shot a pathetic %. Like MJ, Lebron constantly attacked the basket. This is something Kobe doesn't do. As great as Kobe is, he is still primarily a jumpshooter. LeBron, without a jumper and limited help, almost beat Boston. I think MJ, who was just as good as attacking...and has a jumper...and would have more help on LA's team than LeBron had with the Cavs, would have beaten Boston.

2) To back up #1, I have seen MJ light up the Pistons defense (which did zone him and beat the out of him when he drove). They couldn't keep him out of the lane. So no, I don't think a worse defense would have kept him out of the lane. I know you Laker fans need to overhype Boston because to make your spanking feel better, but the Boston defense is not the best defense of all-time. The 90's Knicks, 90's Sonice and 80's Pistons defenses that MJ beat were all better.

3) I don't see MJ letting his team blow a 24 point lead at home. How did Kobe play in that game? If LA wins that game the series is 2-2 with one more game at home. That game let Boston go up 3-1 and changed the entire series, especially since KG plays better when ahead and not when behind or under intense pressure.

4) When the Bulls were winning, MJ was able to get his mid-range jumper on anyone. The fadeaway was automatic. It didn't matter if it was in the face of 3 dudes...that midrange jumper was automatic. Kobe got plenty of midrange shots. He just missed them. I even saw Pierce block one (how often did you see MJ get his fadeaway swatted??). If Kobe was hitting his midrange jumper like he was against SA (who also packed the paint against him) then there is no problem. For whatever reason he was missing them this series.

Good enough for ya?

[~~~~~~]

I have some reasons for you.

1) LeBron almost beat the Celtics, even though he shot a pathetic %. Like MJ, Lebron constantly attacked the basket. This is something Kobe doesn't do. As great as Kobe is, he is still primarily a jumpshooter. LeBron, without a jumper and limited help, almost beat Boston. I think MJ, who was just as good as attacking...and has a jumper...and would have more help on LA's team than LeBron had with the Cavs, would have beaten Boston.

2) To back up #1, I have seen MJ light up the Pistons defense (which did zone him and beat the out of him when he drove). They couldn't keep him out of the lane. So no, I don't think a worse defense would have kept him out of the lane. I know you Laker fans need to overhype Boston because to make your spanking feel better, but the Boston defense is not the best defense of all-time. The 90's Knicks, 90's Sonice and 80's Pistons defenses that MJ beat were all better.

3) I don't see MJ letting his team blow a 24 point lead at home. How did Kobe play in that game? If LA wins that game the series is 2-2 with one more game at home. That game let Boston go up 3-1 and changed the entire series, especially since KG plays better when ahead and not when behind or under intense pressure.

4) When the Bulls were winning, MJ was able to get his mid-range jumper on anyone. The fadeaway was automatic. It didn't matter if it was in the face of 3 dudes...that midrange jumper was automatic. Kobe got plenty of midrange shots. He just missed them. I even saw Pierce block one (how often did you see MJ get his fadeaway swatted??). If Kobe was hitting his midrange jumper like he was against SA (who also packed the paint against him) then there is no problem. For whatever reason he was missing them this series.

Good enough for ya?

Bryant chokes in the Finals plain and simple. In 4 of the 5 Finals he's been in, he's shot 36% (2000), 42% (2001), 38% (2004), 41% (2008).

The myopic Lakers fan homers now like to use the trendy "Bryant has to face a zone defense" argument. It's complete BS and doesn't hold water 'cause Bryant had a full 5 years of NOT facing zone defenses prior to the 2001-02 season which is when the NBA allowed zone defenses. Bryant never shot better than 47% in any season from 1996-2001.

[~~~~~~]

Just responding to your pea-brained response. Not one Laker fan in this thread has said anything of the sort that Kobe > MJ. This is you and your warped reality making up .

There are legions of Kobe 1st fans out there that fit the bill of what you are describing. And I hate to break it to you, but they AREN'T Laker fans.

Bryant choking with a 24 point lead in game 4 of the 2008 Finals is making it up??? You must be smoking too much pot like Odom

Hate to break it to ya but plently of Kobe-stans who are Laker fans regularly post on several Lakers forums, some of which I'm also a registered member. You're too dumb to understand that Kobe-stans like you all too often bring up "what if" scenarios with Bryant which completely undermines your arguments because it never happened. Jordan actually did it, his accomplishments are irrefutable facts.

[The Franchise]

1. Nope, Jordan is not penetrating and getting into the lane against this zone defense. The Celtics were keying 3-4 defenders on Bryant at all times. There simply wasn't any room to penetrate. Lebron James could barely get to the rim, and he is much more athletic and a stronger finisher than Jordan IMHO. You forget, MJ never had to play against zone defenses. The Bad Boy Pistons may have knocked him around a bit and been more physical, but that's not nearly as effective as a zone defense in terms of thwarting someone from penetrating.

2. Totally agree. MJ's defense was superb, equally as good as his offense. Still, him stopping Pierce a few more times per game isn't winning this series. Who's guarding KG, who's guarding Ray Allen, who's keeping Perkins/Powe/BBD off the glass, who's staying in front of Eddie House, who's keeping Rondo in check? The Celtics got plenty of production from players not named Pierce in this series.

3. Jordan would have been more effective on the block. Still, the Celtics did a great job of cutting off the passing lanes and making it difficult to make the entry pass. This doesn't change the outcome of the series IMHO. The Celtics would have swarmed Jordan and forced him to give up the ball if he was too effective in the post.

What you don't understand baseline is that the Celtics defense was used to stop Kobe at all costs and force someone else to make baskets. Nobody can score against a defense that is keying 3-4 defenders on you at all times. They basically play illegal defense 90% of the time but bank on the fact that they won't get called for it much. Great points though, and I agree with most of what you said. I just don't think it would have been enough to turn the tide.

This entire post was re ed. A person would have more luck talking into a baboons ass than trying to convince you of anything.