KObe disrespected Ewing, Willis Reed and Walt Frazier

[ElNono]

Whats funny is people have posted in this thread know exactly the quotes I'm talking about, but purposely let you continue to make a fool of yourself. I would point you to the exact quote, but you seem so shallow that I hand picked a long read for you. You need to catch up.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...38/1/index.htm

It's your credibility on the line, not mine. You got called out. Prove you're not talking out of your ass.
If it's so easy, just post the damn quotes instead of going around in circles...

And BTW, people that posted in this thread have pretty much all calling you out on your bull . The only one looking like a fool is you.

[carrao45]

No dependable move? GTFO the man was the most dominant player on the planet from 00-02, if you gave him the ball in the paint your chances were good. In late moments though teams would wrap him up and send him to the line where he wasnt very good. That coupled with Kobe's clutchness is the real reason and you know it. You do know I never said Kobe couldnt win without Shaq? You do know Shaq has won without Kobe just as much as Kobe has without him? You do know 'being on his way' means jack until it actually happens?

Love the way you ignore rest of the post too, so tell me...how exactly do Kobe's 4 equate to Timmy's 4 despite the fact that Kobe was second fiddle (even if it was by the smallest of margins) for three of them?

But Shaq winning w/o Kobe clearly doesn't count as much as Kobe winning w/o Shaq. Because Kobe won w/o Shaq while being "The Man."

Shaq on the other hand won w/o Kobe as the clear 2nd option, not even 1a.
This is all according to your logic

This means Kobe has done better w/o Shaq than Shaq has done w/o Kobe.

[carrao45]

You fickle little Spur fans are amazingly small minded. , Parker is a marquee player, you technical . Do I have to spell everything out for you. It took you five ing pages, and countless failed attempts to make a solid point to know that Kobe used the term marquee out of context? You thick-headed bas .

Don't overestimate their intelligence, or expect to much out of them.

It just makes you look mean

[ElNono]

Learn to google. I gave you a link. Like I said, anyone that has fllowed the game for the last 20 years knows that Barkely and Pip fell out and Pip took it personal and said some he shouldn't have. That's as much as I'm telling you.

Just say "MJ never said such a thing, I just made it up to back up my point", then we can all move on.

[FkLA]

But Shaq winning w/o Kobe clearly doesn't count as much as Kobe winning w/o Shaq. Because Kobe won w/o Shaq while being "The Man."

Shaq on the other hand won w/o Kobe as the clear 2nd option, not even 1a.
This is all according to your logic

This means Kobe has done better w/o Shaq than Shaq has done w/o Kobe.

Point taken. Although like I said Ive never been arguing that Kobe wouldnt have won without Shaq, I think thats a given. Just like Shaq wouldnt have won without Shaq. They needed each other during those years it was a nice partnership.

With that said, it was Shaq's team even if it was by the smallest of margins evidenced by Shaq's MVP and 3 Finals MVPs to Kobe's 0 and 0. So how can you possibly equate Kobe's 4 rings to Duncan's 4 when Kobe was second fiddle in 3 of them? I dont expect yall Laker fans to just throw out those 3 les and act as if Kobe wasnt a big part of them, he was a big part of them no doubt but simply not as big of a part as Duncan was for the Spurs' 4 les. Because of those reasons there is no way that you can objectively equate his 4 rings to Tim's 4 rings, it just isnt possible. Same with MJ's if Kobe ever gets to 6.

[ElNono]

They are the ones that continuously remind the world of how smart and classy they are. Just look at the pervert oligarchysaying I have a GED, all the while he like kiddy porn...

http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa203/petluvins/

Don't change the subject, please. Come on, just admit you lied to try to backup your weak ass point. A simple "MJ never said that, I made it up" will suffice.

[oligarchy]

They are the ones that continuously remind the world of how smart and classy they are. Just look at the pervert oligarchysaying I have a GED, all the while he like kiddy porn...

http://s201.photobucket.com/albums/aa203/petluvins/

Because that is definitely my photobucket album and not me linking to some picture on the internet. I assume you wrote that sports illustrated article because you posted it? Again, proving how much of a ing idiot you are. LOL. YOU ARE MARQUEE!!

[ChrisRichards]

Kobe as the lone "marquee guy" on his team barely made the playoffs. Scottie Pippen after Jordan retired took his team to the ECF. Iverson as the lone marquee guy took his team to the finals. Kobe has been blessed to play on some very talented teams with the likes of Shaq, Gasol, Odom, Glen Rice, Bynum, Payton, Malone etc. Kobe has always been arrogant, but this got under my skin. All of your les have been with A LOT of help, so maybe that makes KOBE a ROLE PLAYER too.

[carrao45]

Point taken. Although like I said Ive never been arguing that Kobe wouldnt have won without Shaq, I think thats a given. Just like Shaq wouldnt have won without Shaq. They needed each other during those years it was a nice partnership.

With that said, it was Shaq's team even if it was by the smallest of margins evidenced by Shaq's MVP and 3 Finals MVPs to Kobe's 0 and 0. So how can you possibly equate Kobe's 4 rings to Duncan's 4 when Kobe was second fiddle in 3 of them? I dont expect yall Laker fans to just throw out those 3 les and act as if Kobe wasnt a big part of them, he was a big part of them no doubt but simply not as big of a part as Duncan was for the Spurs' 4 les. Because of those reasons there is no way that you can objectively equate his 4 rings to Tim's 4 rings, it just isnt possible. Same with MJ's if Kobe ever gets to 6.

I can equate them because I know, and have seen, how unbelievably good he was during those 3 le years. Especially his 2001 playoffs. Shaq was better in the Finals, but Kobe was better in the first 3 rounds. He was beyond spectacular. 2002 Playoffs he was amazing as well.


I'll give you the 2000 Playoffs, because he wasn't really KOBE yet (Except in game 4 of the finals,Jordanesque, and also against the Suns in game 2)

[ElNono]

You want to put a lifetime ban on this? If no then move on.

There are two choices here:
A) You post the quotes from MJ clearly saying neither Barkley or Drexler are superstars or HOF'ers.
B) You admit you're a liar

They've always been the same two options since I called you out on it about an hour or so ago. Man up and make a choice.

[ChrisRichards]

I can equate them because I know, and have seen, how unbelievably good he was during those 3 le years. Especially his 2001 playoffs. Shaq was better in the Finals, but Kobe was better in the first 3 rounds. He was beyond spectacular. 2002 Playoffs he was amazing as well.


I'll give you the 2000 Playoffs, because he wasn't really KOBE yet (Except in game 4 of the finals,Jordanesque, and also against the Suns in game 2)

but lets face it.


kobe was a role player right next to the shaqtus

[carrao45]

Kobe as the lone "marquee guy" on his team barely made the playoffs. Scottie Pippen after Jordan retired took his team to the ECF. Iverson as the lone marquee guy took his team to the finals. Kobe has been blessed to play on some very talented teams with the likes of Shaq, Gasol, Odom, Glen Rice, Bynum, Payton, Malone etc. Kobe has always been arrogant, but this got under my skin as a knick fan. All of your les have been with A LOT of help, so maybe that makes KOBE a ROLE PLAYER too.

Yeah, never mind that the mediocre Laker years were in the Western Conference which was stacked. Nevermind that Malone did't play in the '04 Finals, and Payton was awful.

Nevermind that in 05-07 Kobe had possibly the worst selection of talent around him the league has seen in 20 years. Smush ing Parker, Kwami, and Luke Walton Started

[carrao45]

but lets face it.


kobe was a role player right next to the shaqtus

Points-Assists-Boards
22-5-5
25-5-5
25-5-5

Role Player stats huh?

Did you even watch the games?

[FkLA]

I can equate them because I know, and have seen, how unbelievably good he was during those 3 le years. Especially his 2001 playoffs. Shaq was better in the Finals, but Kobe was better in the first 3 rounds. He was beyond spectacular. 2002 Playoffs he was amazing as well.


I'll give you the 2000 Playoffs, because he wasn't really KOBE yet (Except in game 4 of the finals,Jordanesque, and also against the Suns in game 2)

I could easily argue about 2001 and 2002, but its really not necessary 2000 is enough. So lets play along and act as if 2001 and 2002 Shaq was second fiddle to Kobe. Thats still 3 as first fiddle to Duncan's 4 as first fiddlle...sure he was only second fiddle to Shaq in 2000 by a small margin but he was still second fiddle nontheless. So logically shouldnt Duncan's 4 rings carry slightly more weight than Kobe's?

[ElNono]

Nevermind that in 05-07 Kobe had possibly the worst selection of talent around him the league has seen in 20 years. Smush ing Parker, Kwami, and Luke Walton Started

And accordingly he missed the playoffs and then lost in the first round.
That still makes it 20% of his career. For 80% of his career, he had fairly top notch talent around him.

[ElNono]

First of all, I never said that MJ said they weren't HOF'ers. He said Barkely is a loser, and Pip would never win a le with him, and he said Drexler wasn't even close to his level, and what he said was true. Now, if you want to find that out, then google, or put up a life time self ban.

Don't move the goalposts now. You claimed that MJ said that neither Drexler or Barkley were marquee players and you equated marquee player with superstar.
MJ never said those things. Thank you for being a man, and admitting you were lying to try to make a point. Now we can put this to rest.

[carrao45]

I could easily argue about 2001 and 2002, but its really not necessary 2000 is enough. So lets play along and act as if 2001 and 2002 Shaq was second fiddle to Kobe. Thats still 3 as first fiddle to Duncan's 4 as first fiddlle...sure he was only second fiddle to Shaq in 2000 by a small margin but he was still second fiddle nontheless. So logically shouldnt Duncan's 4 rings carry slightly more weight than Kobe's?

Show me where i said Shaq was second fiddle to Kobe.

I said Kobe was spectacular during those runs and as such his championships shouldn't be discredited, as you are doing.

[FkLA]

Duncan has been in the league one year less than Kobe, yet Kobe has dominated Duncan with Shaq, and without him. Duncan only gets credit for one real le, 2003. His first came in a strike year, and the rest came during a Lakers rebuild period. Now he's on the ass end of watching Kobe win more les, while he fades away not so gracefully.

By that logic Kobe gets credit for no les at all. In 2000 Duncan was out and injured, and in 2001 and 2002 the Spurs were waiting to draft Parker and for Ginobili to come over. In 2009 the Spurs were missing Manu and in rebuild mode waiting for to come over.

[carrao45]

And accordingly he missed the playoffs and then lost in the first round.
That still makes it 20% of his career. For 80% of his career, he had fairly top notch talent around him.

Yes, him missing 16 games, Odom missing 20ish, the coach quitting halfway through the year, and Hamblim taking over and installing a new offense in the middle of the season had nothing to do with missing the playoffs

[ElNono]

Just like I thought, you wont take the bet.

Why would I bet against an admitted liar? I think this thread shows clearly how dishonest you are and how far you will go to defend your kid Kobe, even when he's flat out wrong. But I expect no less from a Kobe nutthugger!

[ChrisRichards]

Points-Assists-Boards
22-5-5
25-5-5
25-5-5

Role Player stats huh?

Did you even watch the games?

99-2000 playoffs

566 FG% 30.7ppg 15.4rpg 2.2 bpg 30.6 PER
2000-2001 Playoffs

.555 % FG 30.4 PPG15.4 RPG 2.7 BPG 30.2 PER
2001-2002 Playoffs

.529 FG% 28.5ppg 12.6 rpg 28.3 PER

Finals MVP during 3 peat
Shaq 3
Kobe-0


yes i watch the game. kobe's #'s looks like a role player next to shaq

[FkLA]

Show me where i said Shaq was second fiddle to Kobe.

I said Kobe was spectacular during those runs and as such his championships shouldn't be discredited, as you are doing.

So youre saying that in in 2000, a year in which Shaq won the MVP and Finals MVP and in which you admit that Kobe was still not thee KOBE, the Lakers were just as much Kobe's team as they were Shaq's?

Im not discrediting him at at all, Im not asking you to throw those accomplishments of his out the window...simply that you take into account the fact that he was second fiddle (even if it was by the smallest of margins). When you do that there is no way you can equate his 4 rings to Tim's 4 rings.

[carrao45]

99-2000 playoffs

566 FG% 30.7ppg 15.4rpg 2.2 bpg 30.6 PER
2000-2001 Playoffs

.555 % FG 30.4 PPG15.4 RPG 2.7 BPG 30.2 PER
2001-2002 Playoffs

.529 FG% 28.5ppg 12.6 rpg 28.3 PER

Finals MVP during 3 peat
Shaq 3
Kobe-0


yes i watch the game. kobe's #'s looks like a role player next to shaq

This isn't relative to other players. This is about Kobe's contributions, which are more than role player on any team with any other player on said team

[ElNono]

Yes, him missing 16 games, Odom missing 20ish, the coach quitting halfway through the year, and Hamblim taking over and installing a new offense in the middle of the season had nothing to do with missing the playoffs

I'm sorry, if you're trying to debunk my point that he had top notch talent around him for 80% of his career, I don't see where you're going with this response.

[carrao45]

So youre saying that in in 2000, a year in which Shaq won the MVP and Finals MVP and in which you admit that Kobe was still not thee KOBE, the Lakers were just as much Kobe's team as they were Shaq's?

Im not discrediting him at at all, Im not asking you to throw those accomplishments of his out the window...simply that you take into account the fact that he was second fiddle (even if it was by the smallest of margins). When you do that there is no way you can equate his 4 rings to Tim's 4 rings.

No, I admitted that Kobe's 2000 run was lesser in a previous post. Try to keep up.

Agree to disagree, Kobe's les are as legit as Duncan's in my eyes