I fully agree
Plus, when the Rockets won the le in 1994, he didn't have the talent around him that Kobe has today
Hakeem had more than 2 years of prime.
He 20/12/3/2 for 8 years, then 26/11/4/2 for four years.
He needed a particular kind of team for him to win championships (surrounded by 3 pt shooters), but so did Bryant (3pt shooting PG and dominating inside play).
Hakeem by a mile, either in their primes for throughout their careers.
I find this to be one of lamest comments on this forum. Please tell me, what former champion did not need a particular type of team to win? That is ridiculous. Particular kinds of teams are what win championships. If they didn't need a special kind of team they would have won championships every year.
Didn't Kobe go seek out Hakeem this past summer to help him with his post game? That right there speaks volumes to me. Why didn't he seek out some other scrub? He went to probably the greatest big man of all time to seek help and advise. However, ofcourse, laker fans will never admit that Kobe is 2nd tier to anyone, aside from maybe MJ.
ill take Kobe...he'll dominate you in the post AND dominate you in the peremiter..and his defense aint so shabby either.
For 1 year, give me 1994 or 1995 Hakeem.
For the next 10 years, give me Kobe. I get more respect for this guy every time I've watched him play this year. He's added more to his game than Lebron and Dwight have combined, the sad part for them is he's the one who didn't need to add to his game. They shoulda been the ones begging Hakeem to give them an edge.
Interesting. The only time the Lakers beat the Pistons in the NBA Finals, Isiah had a severely sprained ankle in game 6 and still dropped 43 points on that ass, 25 points in a quarter even after that ankle sprain. And, the Lakers needed a phantom foul call on Laimbeer on a Kareem sky hook. How do you foul a guy shooting a sky hook?
Lakers could only beat the Pistons in the Finals when the Pistons best player was walking on one foot and still needed help with a foul call.
In his absolute prime, Hakeem was probably the greatest basketball player ever. Completely dominated both sides of the ball. For their first le, had a very weak supporting cast. And, as several have mentioned already, although it's not 100% true all the time, I still take the dominant big man over the dominant perimeter player.
I'm admittedly a Kobe fan, but I'd take Hakeem in his prime.
Me too, but, Kobe's prime has lasted a lot longer than Olajuwon's has so in the long run it's Kobe.
It's scary to think of what would've happened if that rumored Sampson for Clyde and the #2 overall pick draft day deal went down, Hakeem + MJ + Clyde
Poppy .
You cheat & fail.
I'd take Hakeem over Kobe in a second. I'd take Hakeem over LeBron too while I'm at it. Actually, I'd take Hakeem over pretty much any wing player who's ever played outside of MJ.
if we are discussing people in their prime i'd take hakeem over ANYONE for 5v5 ball. Furthermore, in a 1v1 game kobe is the best ever. I'll put it this way: "if kobe gets the ball than nobody will receive it until the game is finished" if the foul calls are legit.
2003-04 Lakers?
No, Laimbeer thinkin' he could sneak a foul in on Jabbar.
Uh, uh.
So you're saying the 2003-04 Lakers is not the "cheat & fail" you were referring to, just a different "cheat & fail?"
Yes, that's what I'm stating: The 2003-04 Lakers were not cheat & fail.
What was cheat & fail was Laimbeer figuring he'd try and sneak a foul in hoping that the refs wouldn't call it.
Uh, uh.
Cool, Cul.
But, the 2003-04 LA Lakers were definitely a cheat & fail.
Horse .
Nobody's winning a 'ship without a quality big man on their squad. Is there better quality to be had at 5 than Hakeem in his prime? Kobe's an all time great too, but this is a pretty obvious vote for the Dream, in my opinion.
Agreed.
The 2003-04 LA Lakers were horse as well as being a cheat & fail.
Good point, Cul.
Now this thread is going on for- ing-ever.
Horse .
Duncan won with 3 very different teams, for starters.I find this to be one of lamest comments on this forum. Please tell me, what former champion did not need a particular type of team to win? That is ridiculous. Particular kinds of teams are what win championships. If they didn't need a special kind of team they would have won championships every year.
Magic won with 2 very different teams (80 vs. 87 and 88, 85 is somewhere in between).
Champs don't necessarily win every year if they don't need a particularly different type of team to win, that logic is so twisted, I am not even sure how that conclusion came about.
Kobeem Bryantuwon
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote