I would hope more than anything Kobe retired with not another ring, and the league took away the rings he had for general dueshbaggery. KG isn't near the arrogant, excuse making, crybaby, ass that Kobe is.
Neither, I'd like to see Pau Gasol win one, especially if that means keeping Garnett from winning one.
If the best power forwards in NBA history like Barkley and Malone can go into the Hall without hardware, so can Garnett.
IMO, it is already planned for the Lakers to win. But I want Garnett to finally get his title, so Kobe can suffer as long as possible, until he retires.
They would be 7th. IMO, the idea of getting Gasol came to mind until Bynum got injured. So the probably would have lost to NO in the first round.
Sam Cassell, cause he's an ex-Rocket and Mario Elie and Horry got more rings post Rockets. Anything to make history write our titles as a great team.
I'd like Boston to win so that KG, PP, and Jesus can die happy... Pau and Co. will have another shot at it... I'll be happy for Kobe though if he wins.
Probably KG, Kobe has pretty had everything on platter from the beginning, especially when SHaq was in town and then they got the 2/5th's of a Dream team in 2004. That team could've crushed the Pistons and he decided he was MJ and shot under 40%. He is a great player, but very childish and untrustworthy as person. He tries to carry the same demeanor as MJ, but he is nothing of the sort. I rather see the Pistons win again or Boston win their last title for the next 20 years. LA will probably get many more shots with Kobe and without Kobe. Besides LA is probably my 2nd or 3rd least favorite team outside of Utah and Dallas. If I was God, I curse all three for the next 8 milleniums.
Ummm.....this PG to weak rated R board, it is not an X-rated board, because what I would have to say about LA fans are probably to X rated to say on this board.
exactly after the rockets dropped out i started rooting for the team with the most former rockets. It was NO at first and now its boston with cassell and posey and coach tibs. the only drawback is seeing KG win a title (i dont mind allen and pierce) and knowing that doc rivers has a ring as a coach when far superiors coaches like adeleman, jvg, svg, to just name a few do not.
If you put that way, Phil has more titles than Chuck Daly, Larry Brown, Rick Adelman, and Jeff Van Gundy. At least X's and Os wise, all of those coaches are at least equal to or better than Phil don't you think. If you had 5 teams that were comparable to Memphis Grizzlies, and put the best coaches in the league in those positions....I don't think Phil would be my 1st choice.
I guess I'm leaning towards Garnett; doesn't look like Detroit is making it. Vomit. What great choices we have here. Garnett, Rasheed Wallace, or Bryant/Phil Jackson/LA fans. The same fans who forced Rudy T to quit. There is no justice.
I'm not saying Phil is not a great coach, he is....but I wouldn't put him in the same category as say Belichick, Popovich, Parcells, and etc. Coaches who could probably do more with less talent. And besides, basketball is one of those sports where the greatest coaches are probably at lower level of play, in college with Mr. Duke, Roy Williams, John Wooden, John Thompson, Bobby Knight, Dean Smith, Jerry Tarkanian, and etc. I'm sorry, I think most coaches we could win alot of title with MJ/Shaq/Kobe and a decent bunch of players. It's just not that hard, it's ridiculous people try to make the argument that it is harder to win with a team with great talent than a team with none at all. Anybody watched Miami Dolphins, Memphis Grizzlies, and Atlanta Falcons. Those teams are terrible, and it would take a great coach who had great command over the game to truly make those teams competitive. Now look at this years Celtics, this year Patriots, or even a team that didn't pan out like Suns, Mavs, or etc. Those team could easily win 60% of their games regardless of who the coach is, Im pretty sure New England would still be a playoff team without Belichick, maybe not as good, but still 11 to 13 win team. The Celtics are the biggest example of this two, say if in some strange world that they ended up with Garnett, Pierce, and Allen around 25 to 29, and had Doc Rivers as coach in the EC. And say if this team wins at least 3 or 4 titles know Doc is probably considered a great coach. Does that seem like a good jump? I even look at teams like the 49ers post Walsh or post Johnson Cowboys.....probably throw in post Cowher Steelers... or the Celtics or Lakers throughout the years.....the teams are so talented and have so many all-pro players that it really doesn't matter who is coaching as long as it is not some taskmaster who is going to come in treat everyone like rookies. it's pretty much if you don't mess with it too much, then it is still going to be great or succeed. Im not Switzer, Seifert, Tomlin, Rodgers, and Jones are not good coaches, but it doesn't take much to win with players like Tom Brady, Shaq, Randy Moss, Jerry Rice, Deion Sanders, or etc....or having a competent GM (probably one of the more underrated aspects in sports).
