Kobe worked with the same pieces of from 04-07 that Garnett had to work with basically his whole tenure in Minny, except in 03-04, when Garnett had Spree and Sam Cassell. people arguing that Kobe leadership> KG's leadership are stupid. Kobe isn't even the leader of the Lakers. Derek Fisher and Phil Jackson are. Kobe is still the same guy that constantly threw his teammates under the bus, and whom Phil Jackson called "unchoachable." the only difference now is that he has nothing to about. i judge a guy's leadership partly on how he does when the ship is sinking and Bryant historically fails at this. he's the first to abandon ship.
the only thing that Kobe has over KG is his scoring ability and clutchness. KG superior at everything else.
c'mon these guys weren't that spectacular.How is this a question? Prime Kobe without a doubt. He's one of the top three players of all time. How could Prime Garnett be better?
And on another note...I hate the argument that KG had no supporting cast in Minny as a defense for their playoff suckitude. He had Marbury for two years when Marbury averaged 18/9. He had Terrell Brandon for four years averaging around 16/8, etc.
Historically Dirk has had a steady stream of talent next him for an entire decade. Couldn't win jack with it and horribly under achieved in embarrassing fashion some years.
Whereas Minny KG teams would consistently over achieve and rarely the bed against lower seeded team.
Objectively and realistically there is absolutely no argument for Dirk > KG. It's not even close. Dirk is a 6'11 one-trick pony shooting guard that has to be hidden defensively at times.
Yeah when I think "stellar supporting cast" the first thing that comes to mind is a 6-2 streak shooter that plays no defense, a pothead with the IQ of a duck, an incredibly fast flopper that unfortunately couldn't beat a 5th grader at HORSE, and Erick Dampier.
Outside of Nash & Finley, Dirk hasn't had an All-Star caliber teammate around him. One of year of Jamison was unfortunately cancelled out by Walker.
2 time mvp Steve Nash, tbh
Mav Fan defends like every Cuban move ever then pulls "they were overrated card" when talking about Dirk's legacy.
No actually. Dirk is an overrated pansy that can only play one side of the ball effectively.
Everyone acting like KG's best teammate in Minnesota was Mark Madsen is even worse. Sam Cassell in his Minnesota days is a better player than anyone Dirk has played with post-Nash.
You're so insecure. It shines through with every post you make.
What an insult to Kobe Bryant. He obviously wins because he scores more points.
So all Mavfans are pretty much going to keep ting on Garnett? I wonder why...
For me, in their primes it has to be KG. HarlemHeat pretty much summarized it perfectly... he was pretty much the LeBron James of 2000-2005 in terms of his statistical dominance, no one had done what KG had done EVER.
Stupid ass poll. Kobe, by a long shot. Prime Kobe is top 5 all time, Garnett ain't close.
at calling Cassell and Sprewell "fringe players".
In each of their primes, they were both great players. KG in his prime was very good at everything, a very good scorer, an excellent rebounder, great versatile defender, and played unselfishly. Kobe in his prime was also very good to great at everything for his position, was one of the best scorers in the league, very good but slightly overrated defender, very good but not great playmaker and rebounder for his position.
The distinction isn't in stats necessarily. It isn't in locker room leadership or at ude or heart or popularity.
The distinction is that Kobe could (and still can) completely take over a game and win it single-handedly and would do it quite often. Even when KG would dominate the boards or even if he put up a 30+ point game here and there, it was almost quietly done. You knew KG was a great player and would be a force on the boards and on his offensive end, but you simply didn't fear him the way you would fear Kobe taking over the game. It's been proven over both of their respective careers that KG in his prime was a great player who could be a difference maker but better suited as a superstar role player, while Kobe was the guy who would demand the ball be in his hands and proceed to tear the other team's heart out.
Don't have to look at stats. Don't have to look at all star or all NBA honors. Don't have to look at team wins and losses. KG was the guy who's all around game you had a great deal of respect for, while Kobe was the guy you feared.
That's why the answer is simple.
You are really into s. Must be a Paki thing.Must be a thing.
KG easily. If KG had someone like Bynum and even Ariza with him all along, he's going to be more successful than kobe
Interesting how some Spurs fans are choosing KG over Kobe when both Tim Duncan and Gregg Popovich have called Kobe the greatest player on the planet.
Does that mean KG > Kobe > Duncan?
Kobe has been better than Garnett since 2006 and he's been as good or better than Duncan since then as well, so the fact that the media and coaches/players have been jocking him since 2006 doesn't really change anything..no arguing that he's been better than both during that time(Duncan was better in 2007 IMO, but it doesn't really change anything)..
I don't see your point though..are you saying Garnett in 2004 didn't have an argument as the best player on the planet for that season?..no, he definitely wasn't clear-cut, but Kobe has never been the clear-cut best player in any season, not even his lone MVP season..
Kobe has the advantage of entering his prime during the Youtube/hype media of the NBA, where interviewers are always asking other players and coaches about him, always hyping him up..people on twitter write , and his fans use it as an argument..
In all my time as an NBA fan, I never even once remember an interviewer asking other players or coaches about the best player in the NBA while Shaq, Duncan and Garnett(for one season) were on top of the NBA, adding to the revisionist history that Kobe receives..
It's amazing how quickly everybody forgot about the dominance of these 3 guys, especially Shaq and Duncan, since they're both top 10 players..
Not this Spurs fan.
I obviously didn't mean fringe NBA players, I should have worded it better..I meant fringe All-Star caliber players, like a Mo Williams would be in Cassell's case(although Sam was better)..
lol. Post-Jordan, the greatest players on the planet were Shaq and Duncan. Kobe's best year, 08 was even question since CP3 played out of his mind all season long. Kobe's reign as the best was brief and sadly, it was immediately snatched away by Lebron.
Can anybody that thinks prime Kobe is a top 5 player of all-time make an argument for it?..Kobe is regarded as highly as he is due to his longevity IMO, his peak isn't really up here(in the top 5 range) IMO, I don't see how it would be..
and oh, when Kobe won his lone MVP trophy in 08, he got berstomped to death by the Celtics. To be the best, you gotta have the ring at the end of the year, which Shaq and Duncan did for most part of the Decade.
-Sabonis, Divac and Webber were all better passing big men than Garnett.
-The difficult part with Bryant is discerning his prime or peak, but Garnett's peak was better than Bryant's (whatever stretch you want to pick).
-That being said, it's close enough to where I see the argument for Bryant. As overrated as he is in the clutch (granted, he's had a great season in the clutch), he's still much more reliable and relishes the moment far more than Garnett has ever been.
-I have never heard Duncan call Bryant the best player on the planet. Best scorer, yes, but not player.
-Bryant wasn't better than Duncan until '08 and for a good eight year stretch, there wasn't even an argument to be made.
-Nowitzki shouldn't be mentioned in the same breathe as prime Garnett, that's just more revisionist history.
-Thinking back to prime O'Neal, Duncan and Garnett compared to the so-called best big men of today, Howard and Gasol, it shows you how far big man play has fallen off. Probably at any other point in the last 50 years, neither Howard nor Gasol would be considered the league's premier big man or even second, in fact, they'd have almost always been considered second tier big men.
Well Sprewell went to 4 all-star games, Cassell only 1, which was during his time in Minny. They both got All-NBA honors at points in there career, Cassell again making it on the 2nd team with Minnesota.
I'd say that's a definite step above the Mo Williams/Josh Howard/Jason Terry/etc caliber of player.
The revisionist history that Garnett played with a bunch of nobodies in Minnesota is ridiculous.
I'll give you Cassell, I fell into the hyperbole trap with that one, I'll give him credit for that season, I said he was better than a Williams-type, but ya, he's even better than what I said I guess..still, when the playoffs came, he wasn't a legit #2 option, more like a #3..Cassell also missed half the WCF though, and who knows what would have happened had he played, Garnett could have made the Finals..
Spree was past his prime at that point..he was extremely inefficient and inconsistent, better off as a 6th man IMO..
Using that logic though, you could say the same thing for Josh Howard's "peak" in 2007..I wouldn't consider him a legit #2, same thing as Cassell, but a lot of Spurs fans here have used Howard as an argument when arguing for Dirk's previous supporting casts..
I don't think Garnett had a bad supporting cast in 2004, it was bad for a team with le hopes, but it wasn't bad overall..however, on the teams that missed the playoffs, I would definitely say they were bad..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
