Reply With Quote
sure i can live with that...
Derek Fisher 5
Tony Parker 4
Horry 7old cliches are the truth, dontit
Kobe 5
is also the truth
Cliches just don't say anything, that's all.
sure i can live with that...
Derek Fisher 5
Tony Parker 4
And the Lakers w/ Del Harris had more talent, but they couldn't defend the pick and roll. Phil Jackson knew how to defend against it.
That's the prevailing CW (sells a lot of "newspapers,") but, saying it aloud and then actually doing so is world's apart.
Fine. You take that one. I'm stickin' with:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
No. Duncan was the leader of his team. Kobe was a sidekick.
So we have
Pippen 6
Kobe 5
Fine. You take that one. I'm stickin' with:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
You do realize you just helped me make my point, right?
But I suppose you are just recycling some other people's shtick without really understanding what it means.
does that make you happy buddy?
It took a Herculean series by Duncan to dethrone them and Kobe shooting his team out of the series in a historic manner in 04 to stop them from ringing. 06-09 lakers could have won with shaq. In the later years he'd fill the Bynum role
It's pie-in-the-sky/magic tricks/defeatist. I don't do it.
It's my religion.
Not really. Kinda makes me sad, tbh.
I mean, I am talking to this guy/gal while s/he doesn't know what the s/he is talking about, nor the point of the discussion.
Felt like a waste of time.
Great monologue, but look at how u just shat on Duncan's supporting cast, which supports my biased point I made earlier.Put Timmy in Minny, and would have won it all in 2004 (barring injuries). Duncan is just easier to build around (as well as Shaq) than Kobe. Kobe had Shaq (these kinds of players are once every ten years talent) or one of the most unique/best frontlines in the league (while not being part of it). Yes, nobody wins alone, but top ten players, in their prime, simply do not miss the playoffs during the prime (I already explained the special cir stances of KAJ in an earlier post of mine).
I don't love MJ, and I think Pippen was very underrated throughout his career, and even more so after he retired. Could he have been the player he was without MJ and Jackson? Probably not, and probably not close, but what actually transpired should put him as one of the best SF in the history of the league, but he is better known as one of the best 2nd bananas of all time.
Shaq's time with Penny was shortlived, give them a few more years and a healthy Penny, and Shaq would have undoubtedly won at some point. And Eddie Jones was never one of the best SG in the league, nor anywhere close to a top 200 player of all time, so comparing him to Kobe is just laughable and insulting. The thing I will give Kobe is his amazing longevity, and that alone pushes him a notch above Carter, McGrady and Iverson, but that is like saying Karl Malone > Duncan and Shaq because he performed at a high level for a long time, and I just don't buy that.
Yes, there really hasn't been many players who won it all with a relatively weak supporting cast. Hakeem did it in 94, Duncan in 03, and Dirk in 11.
As for Garnett in SA, he would have won zero rings here. Garnett's problem is that he is not good enough of a #1 scoring option on a championship level team. Duncan was the entire Spurs offense in 03 (arguable in 99), a huge part in 05, and an important part in 07. Garnett just isn't good enough offensively to fill that void.
As for Malone, if Stockton wasn't enough for him, no one would have. David Robinson would have won a championship with a player of John Stockton's caliber. , Robinson never even had a guard of the caliber of Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornecek, and he took his team to 55+ wins year after year.
At the end of the day, a player should be judged on how well he helps his team wins, and guess what, Kobe Bryant NEVER led the league in WS, WS/48, PER, OWS, DWS, even when he had championship level talent around him. The only time Kobe led the playoffs in WS was because Shaq played way less minutes in the 01 playoffs.
Duncan led the league in WS twice, OWS once, DWS five times, Defensive Rating three times (and possibly this year as well), as well as the playoffs as well. The numbers are even close when you put them side by side. In 03 playoffs, Duncan actually had an offensive rating of 116 and defensive rating of 92, that is a 24 point swing when he is on the floor. The best Kobe ever managed was a 17 point swing in 01, and the only reason is because he played most of the minutes with Shaq, who had a 17 point swing of his own. Kobe never had anything close to that in the rest of his career, yet Shaq had a 10 point swing in 00, 14 point swing in 02, and 13 point swing in 04. Kobe in those years either broke even, or was within +/- 2 point swings in those years.
Supporters of Kobe doesn't like numbers, because every single one just shows him to be inferior to Shaq, and every one of the proves that he was a clear side kick to Shaq during the early 00s. Funny thing is, that was actually common knowledge back in the early 00s as well. But some time in the late 00's, ESPN tries to prop up ratings, and start to rewrite history, devaluing Shaq and propping up Kobe as an equal, ignoring all the numbers, ignoring that Kobe + Shaq actually was only 3-2 vs. Duncan in their primes and could somehow say Kobe = Shaq > Duncan despite that record. I mean, really, if Kobe = Shaq, and both of them > Duncan, shouldn't it be a 5-0 record or at least a 4-1? How was Duncan supposed to defeat Shaq + Kobe, both superior players, when he had a hobbled Robinson, an out of control Ginobili, and a Parker who got destroyed by Stephon Marbury and needs Claxton to bail his ass as supporting players?
Kobe supporters ignore all points, and points to the 5 championship rings when comparing him to Duncan, somehow acting like Shaq didn't have anything to do with those rings despite being FMVP all three times. But when they talk about Bill Russell, they go all "but he had 8 HoF teammates
LOL the 2011,mavs are not weak poor example. That team got career years from Chandler and Barea and elite clutch play from Kidd and Jet, Marion was amazing on defense and Dirk put on an all time shooting exhibition that year. Outside of 3 peat Lakers those Mavs push any other championship team to at least 6 or 7 games and beat plenty of others since MJ retired ...Mavs underrated tbh as champs plus they beat LeBron in hos prime with a great supporting cast.
I don't know about that, and I really wasn't trying to diminish the 03 Spurs, they were great role players, but they were certainly not Kobe, Pippen, McHale, Jabbar, Drexler, or even Dumars/Rodman level of support.
And I sort of disagree with the 11 Mavs, again, great bunch of role players, but they wouldn't have made much of a difference if they played for other teams.
No one forced you to respond.
The obsession this dude has with MJ is creepy as tbh. I understand when he was a kid but hes a grown ass 35 yr old and still worried about being like Mike instead of just being Kome. At every chance he gets he emulates and compares himself to Mike, didnt he just make an MJ reference when he was a warrior and played through the pain against the Pacers for the 1st quarter ?
I haven't read the whole thread nor will I read it because I know it's filled with the usual suspects, you have the people that just hate him because they simply hate anything that's associated with success, then you have the opposing fans who hate him because he has gotten the best of them, then you have Laker fans that will defend him to death, which one to listen to? Nah, I think I'll just keep viewing him with rationality, him being one of the best off all-time and an all-time Laker is just a plus for me, you all can argue about his arrogance.
By the way Lakersarebesteva, what kind of Laker fan hates a player that has contributed in a major way to their teams success?
MJ isn't better than Kobe because 6>5 lol. Championships are a big part of ranking/valuing players, but it's not an end-all-be-all factor. So this whole horry 7 > Kobe 5 > Tim 4 shtick is pretty lame. Peyton manning > Troy aikman tbh.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Then you won't mind:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Put Timmy in Minny, and would have won it all in 2004 (barring injuries). Duncan is just easier to build around (as well as Shaq) than Kobe. Kobe had Shaq (these kinds of players are once every ten years talent) or one of the most unique/best frontlines in the league (while not being part of it). Yes, nobody wins alone, but top ten players, in their prime, simply do not miss the playoffs during the prime (I already explained the special cir stances of KAJ in an earlier post of mine).
I don't love MJ, and I think Pippen was very underrated throughout his career, and even more so after he retired. Could he have been the player he was without MJ and Jackson? Probably not, and probably not close, but what actually transpired should put him as one of the best SF in the history of the league, but he is better known as one of the best 2nd bananas of all time.
Shaq's time with Penny was shortlived, give them a few more years and a healthy Penny, and Shaq would have undoubtedly won at some point. And Eddie Jones was never one of the best SG in the league, nor anywhere close to a top 200 player of all time, so comparing him to Kobe is just laughable and insulting. The thing I will give Kobe is his amazing longevity, and that alone pushes him a notch above Carter, McGrady and Iverson, but that is like saying Karl Malone > Duncan and Shaq because he performed at a high level for a long time, and I just don't buy that.
Yes, there really hasn't been many players who won it all with a relatively weak supporting cast. Hakeem did it in 94, Duncan in 03, and Dirk in 11.
As for Garnett in SA, he would have won zero rings here. Garnett's problem is that he is not good enough of a #1 scoring option on a championship level team. Duncan was the entire Spurs offense in 03 (arguable in 99), a huge part in 05, and an important part in 07. Garnett just isn't good enough offensively to fill that void.
As for Malone, if Stockton wasn't enough for him, no one would have. David Robinson would have won a championship with a player of John Stockton's caliber. , Robinson never even had a guard of the caliber of Jeff Malone or Jeff Hornecek, and he took his team to 55+ wins year after year.
At the end of the day, a player should be judged on how well he helps his team wins, and guess what, Kobe Bryant NEVER led the league in WS, WS/48, PER, OWS, DWS, even when he had championship level talent around him. The only time Kobe led the playoffs in WS was because Shaq played way less minutes in the 01 playoffs.
Duncan led the league in WS twice, OWS once, DWS five times, Defensive Rating three times (and possibly this year as well), as well as the playoffs as well. The numbers are even close when you put them side by side. In 03 playoffs, Duncan actually had an offensive rating of 116 and defensive rating of 92, that is a 24 point swing when he is on the floor. The best Kobe ever managed was a 17 point swing in 01, and the only reason is because he played most of the minutes with Shaq, who had a 17 point swing of his own. Kobe never had anything close to that in the rest of his career, yet Shaq had a 10 point swing in 00, 14 point swing in 02, and 13 point swing in 04. Kobe in those years either broke even, or was within +/- 2 point swings in those years.
Supporters of Kobe doesn't like numbers, because every single one just shows him to be inferior to Shaq, and every one of the proves that he was a clear side kick to Shaq during the early 00s. Funny thing is, that was actually common knowledge back in the early 00s as well. But some time in the late 00's, ESPN tries to prop up ratings, and start to rewrite history, devaluing Shaq and propping up Kobe as an equal, ignoring all the numbers, ignoring that Kobe + Shaq actually was only 3-2 vs. Duncan in their primes and could somehow say Kobe = Shaq > Duncan despite that record. I mean, really, if Kobe = Shaq, and both of them > Duncan, shouldn't it be a 5-0 record or at least a 4-1? How was Duncan supposed to defeat Shaq + Kobe, both superior players, when he had a hobbled Robinson, an out of control Ginobili, and a Parker who got destroyed by Stephon Marbury and needs Claxton to bail his ass as supporting players?
Kobe supporters ignore all points, and points to the 5 championship rings when comparing him to Duncan, somehow acting like Shaq didn't have anything to do with those rings despite being FMVP all three times. But when they talk about Bill Russell, they go all "but he had 8 HoF teammates
Damn, that was beautiful.
Duncan = Shaq > Kobe
Boiled down:::
Kobe: 5
the tired old bag Duncan: 4
Daddy: 4
True that, but big man dependant. Tbh.
Which is I always say.....if Shaq and Kobe are two of the top at their position of all time, and they played on the same team in their primes for three rings, how can Duncan, who has never played with someone on Shaq / Kobe level, but has has 4 rings going through Shaq and Kobe twice, not ever be lsited above them as an individual all time greatest?
This is revisionist, west coast media bias at its fullest.
You're looking at 5-4 Kobe over the tired old bag Duncan as a judgment from a 60 year old man who just fell on this by cir stance & watching film.
It don't get better than that.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions