lebron is better than both, although u may say otherwise, lebron is also more clutch than both, just look at how he crushed the spurs last night, tim duncan looked like amateur in front of king james
Valid point... perhaps loaded is too strong a word for those first championships. But, there are two ways to view loaded. Were they Miami Heat of today like loaded? No. But like the Lakers, they had 2 GREAT players, and then a BUNCH of very very very solid role players, each of whom even excelled in certain areas. Horace Grant was a solid defensive players (2nd team all NBA for multiple years in a row), a competent offensive player and a great rebounder. Not the Worm with regards to defense and rebounding, but very good in his own right, and better offensively. I could go down the Bulls and Lakers first 3 peat rosters and make comparisons, but I'd take the Bulls. The issue is that in that comparison, the apt comparison is Shaq to MJ, and Kobe to Pippen.
Since you've only been here a year I must advise you.... You have to indicate when you are joking or being sarcastic. They will really lay into you if you pass off posts like this as your intended thought process.
Kobe has always been much more of a shooter than Jordan. Jordan was more of a slasher, like Wade. Yes, he could shoot from mid range, but he got to the rim with ease. IMO, he was a much better athlete in his era than Kobe is in his. Kobe's always been average to below average athletically when compared to other all-star wings of his time. MJ was usually one of the top guys.
LeBron joined Dwade, who already won a championship and was the finals mvp. Jordan and the Bulls were hungry cause they had never won a championship. Pippen was not proven like Wade at that time. So Jordan had the harder path to the championship and shouldered more of the leadership burden. If you watch Kobe, he is cloning MJ, same mannerisms and same style of play. LeBron is more unique than Kobe, but Kobe has more rings and has proven his clutchness. LeBron though is built like a tank so he will be around for along time and probably will win some championships.
Say what? Prime Kobe was a ridiculous athlete. Who has he been behind? Vince Carter and T-Mac, maybe? But if so, just barely, and then only because of the obvious "in game dunks". Kobe certainly got up and down the court much better than T-Mac.
u can't deny the truth, i used to hate the king,but after he came to miami, he has been playing great basketball, like he's a perfect cross between mj and nash
Maybe so, but that doesn't mean Kobe is the 2nd greatest player of all time, as much as this will kill some MJ fans or NBA historians, you could argue MJ wasn't greatest NBA player of all time. Outside of six titles, what made MJ a better player than Kareem Abdul Jabbar, Wilt Chamberlain, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, and for good measures ... Hakeem Olajuwon? People often look at me crazy, when I throw Olajuwon in there, but honestly MJ did not impact the overall gameplan of a team, like Olajuwon did (or Wilt), because of defense and rebounding. Early on, MJ's teams didn't win anything of significance with a bad roster, as good as he was he needed a much-maligned GM, who often went against his wishes in roster moves to make an outstanding team (which could be good without the Great One). I do not care how good your superstar is, if you have horrible GM, you are not winning any championships. Give Wilt (in his prime) the 90-93 Bulls or Olajuwon, the 60s Celtics or 80s-90s Knicks, you cannot tell me that those teams would suddenly drop off significantly or get better with those players. 35 ppg and 22 rebs of Wilt Chamberlain playing with Horace Grant, Scottie Pippen, John Paxson, and BJ Armstrong. The only team in the East that would stand remote chance against that team were the Knicks and Cavs. I'm going to really take flack for this one as an MJ fan, he did not make players around him as good as Bird and Magic could, as well as *cough* Lebron *cough* and a few centers out there (like Shaq, Wilt, or Olajuwon). He could do it very well, but it was not to the level of say those three. Even MJ at his best, he might struggle to get the 01-03 Wizards to the playoffs or have a very unimpressive record, and at best probably lose in the first round. This is why over the years, as I've grown older and learned more about basketball, in which a player who can maximize the abilities of his teammates. Bradshaw won 4 Super Bowls, but he is nowhere as good as Marino, Moon, Kelly, or Manning. Mark Sanchez has 4 playoff wins on the road, does that make him better than all of the QBs who have less? Heck no. It's about the team and context of the game. Even after all of that, I still think MJ is the greatest (and most exciting) player in NBA history, but I could understand most arguments for other players, while I could also make a great case that MJ is not greatest player (or even amongst the top 2-5 in NBA history). People often are a prison of the moment, to history, or their favorite player, and don't realize the other factors involved to get a player to a particular point. Which is why I do not think Kobe is amongst the top 4 to 7 players ever, because he was a carbon copy of MJ with slightly better shooting range, though much worse at making his teammates better and inferior at most thing across the board. I have had newbies laugh at me for suggesting that Larry Bird was better than Kobe, "Oh, you are a stupid old timer, or a Kobe hater," or worse,"You are a racist, who cannot stand a black man suceeding." Even though, I am black woman, myself. Kobe could score a boat load of points, like Rick Barry, yet with more athleticism, but he was as nearly the efficient assassin Bird was in his prime. Much more dangerous shooter than Kobe, and 10x as efficient. 45% and 33% vs. someone who was near 50% and 40%. Moreover, Bird could've been legitimately point guard or (was a) power forward, like LeBron could be. Kobe was a better defender in his earlier days than Bird in his prime, but I would say the disparity is not as much as his homers, like to think. When Bird was healthy and young, he was a good defender, himself.
I don't think he's ever been as good an athlete as VC, Mcgrady (he didn't get up the court quick because he didn't want to), Marion, Wade, or Lebron. He's a better athlete than guys like Ray Allen but he's closer to the younger Stackhouse and Paul Pierce type athletes. They were a little stronger and he was a little quicker. But, even in his prime Kobe couldn't just get to the rim at will like a Dwayne Wade. Jordan was THE guy every year. That's really the only reason people compare Lebron to him. He was the most talented/skilled wing AND the most athletic. Kobe never had both of those going for him.
Jordan is greater but Kobe is closing the gap between the two. Jordan is not the greatest of all time regardless
Kobe is 10 times the athlete Paul Pierce is. Kobe is just not a freak like VC, Tmac and Lebron, but none the less he's more athletic than 98% of the NBA when he was young
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Vtgtw3bRNKo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Teams who could or would beat the 91-92 Bulls in a series. In fact, there are some non-title teams who are included. 83-87 Boston Celtics 82-89, 97-98, 00-01, 03-04, 08-09 Los Angeles Lakers 65-68, 82-83, 84-86 Philadelphia 76ers 87-90 Detroit Pistons (for good measures I'll throw in 03-06 versions), the same team that was annually beating down on Chicago. 99-00, 76-77 Portland Trailblazers 85-86, 93-95 Houston Rockets My biggest thing about these discussion is context (matchups), Chicago doesn't matchup well at all against some of these teams. Chicago is going to struggle against teams with dominant frontlines, or who have a good big with an outstanding backcourt.
Wrong. Rodman, Harper, Kukoc, Kerr, Longley > Horrace Grant, BJ Armstrong, Bill Cartwring, Stacy King
I know this has nothing to do with kobe or Jordan but people including my friends keep saying Jordan got the most rings in the nba ever. you can tell they never heard of Bill Russell
