I predict a victory by the Blazers led by the scoring of Wallace, Wells, Stoudamire, and the defensive catalyst Scottie Pippen. Kobe will have a good game but it simply won't be enough. The loss on Friday vs Celtics was simply a fluke. I believe we will see the Blazers team which defeated Dallas the other day. And a while back they defeated the Kings. Thats two of the top teams, which leaves the Lakers, Spurs, and the T Wolves.
Give what up, I was right, the Blazers won. Wallace had a good game, Wells played well, and the pleasant suprise Patterson or better known as "the kobe stopper". Pip didn't quite have that great of a game but Stoudamire stepped in nicely for Pip picking up the assist slack. 7th place isn't reall that good but they won't have that much trouble over taking the extremely old Jazz. The Spurs are on a down ward spiral so 6th place is pretty much a given the way there playing.
Hey anyone who beats the damn Lakers in fine by me. But dont get too exited. They were playing without their best player.
What's that you say? Kobe didn't play? Oh...right...he DID play...But surely he didn't play when they lost to Atlanta? He did!?!? Oh, I get it...you mean Shaq... Don't supposes there's anything to this wild theory I've heard bandied about by blasphemous young so and so's, that Kobe and the Lakers benefit greatly from playing with Shaq, and that a lot of young very talented players could do what he does or more if they had Shaq to relieve the burden of carrying a team, a burden which gets heavier as time goes by, and teams pound you and key on you....? Nah...I thought not...must all just be "haters" to have that opinion...
JAG Build a team around Kobe as the Raptors have done w/ Vince or the Sixers w/ Iverson and we'd have a completely different story.
MAYBE...look, I don't deny the guy's got great talent..and I don't deny he could be as good, even better than Carter or Iverson...I don't think so, but it's very possible. I just don't think A) He's ever had to take the pounding, emotionally and physically of carrying a team. B) He's ever had to face the constant double/triple teams Carter/Iverson/McGrady have. or C) He's ever had to try and win anything without the single most dominant player in the league. He just hasn't proven any he could do this. But, yeah, he sure as hell might be able to...And there are only a few guys I would say that about.
All of a sudden McGrady, VC, and Iverson are winners as go-to guys? All three of their respective teams have underachieved vastly. Put Kobe on any of those 3 teams, and those teams are slightly upgraded. Those teams are at least 50 win material, as opposed to being .500. VC is the most overrated player in the NBA. He was the most overrated in college as well. The guy fails to show up in big games, and is basically soft. McGrady kicks his ass everytime they match up.
He fails to show up in big games? He looked fine to me in Game 5 against the Knicks last year on the road, which was the biggest game of his career. He also did exceptionally well in Game 7 against the Sixers, in a game that almost won. Here's numbers from their last meeting with each other: Carter-- 32 points, 7 reb, 4 asst, 13-23 shooting McGrady-- 27 pts, 10 reb, 2 asst, 8-18 shooting And Carter's team won. Whose ass is getting kicked?
Man, I can't believe the 76ers underacheived last year. I thought that AI single-handedly took them to the finals and won game 1 against a vastly superior Lakers team. Guess I must be remembering last season of super-bizarro-NBA instead of the real NBA.
The Raptors have underachieved - I'll give you that. The Magic? How can a team underachieve when their best player has been injured the past two seasons and their second option alternates between an aging point guard and a 21 year old 2nd year player? The Sixers? If they had kept the same personnel as last season, they would be vastly inferior to where they are even now, just due to injuries. Even this season, with who they have, they've been hit hard by injuries. If you put Kobe on each of those teams, you have different results. Are they all slightly upgraded? Maybe, maybe not. They don't decline, but to say that he is the best fit for each of those teams, as you imply with your post, doesn't quite work out.
Hill didn't play much at all in 2000-2001. Yet, the Magic were a pretty decent team. Hill is missing about the same amount of games as last year, and the Magic aren't as good as they were last year. Do the math. The problem with the Magic is that they wasted their 4.5 mill exception on Grant and Ewing.
Last season, the Magic were 43-39. This season, they are 27-25. They are on pace to finish with a nearly identical record as last season, with even less personnel up front than last season. That doesn't show regression. The Magic didn't "waste" their $4.5m exception on Horace and Ewing - who else were they going to sign? MJax turned them down waiting to get more money elsewhere. Ewing and Grant would've gone elsewhere.
MF-Well many people think that young players usually improve, and since Orl is a young team, that they would improve together to win 55+ games. Orl may not have regressed like I mentioned, but they definitely have not improved. Was Orl really that desperate to trade Outlaw this year, when Duncan won't be a FA until after 2003? As for the exception they used on Grant and Ewing, were they allowed to carry it over for next year? To me it seems like the Magic are putting all their eggs into the Duncan basket, especially by getting old farts like Grant and Ewing to short-term contracts.
