Why Kobe is Overrated, WHy It Takes Two To Win, and Why Hakeem Was The Greatest...

Hmmm... LA's worse than the Bulls without Kobe and Shaq. But with Kobe they're better than the Wizards .

 

Just to respond --

Yes, but he hasn't done it for a full season. We're trying to make the point that there is a difference.

Carter doesn't do less by himself than Bryant, because Bryant's never led a team by himself. A more accurate comparison would be Carter to Shaq, since those two are the best players on their teams. We're trying to compare guys that are leading their teams, and Bryant isn't one of those guys.

For the record, I'm not saying that those other guys are superior. I'm saying it hasn't been proven because Bryant hasn't had to lead a team for a full season.

Yes they can, they just have to be the best player on their team, and the main focus of the defense (for starters). By your system of measurement, it would seem that Scottie Pippen would have been declared great. I would say that he was a great sidekick, just like Bryant. You simply can't be an all-time great if you're never the best player on your team and main focus of the defense, in my measurement system.

 

I don't like the implications of this. That would mean, current circumstances aside, that if a management picked brilliantly and acquired the actual best and second best players of all time in consecutive drafts then the second best player of all time couldn't even be considered great.

There has to be a better method of evaluation, than that.

 

<B>Yes they can, they just have to be the best player on their team, and the main focus of the defense (for starters). By your system of measurement, it would seem that Scottie Pippen would have been declared great. I would say that he was a great sidekick, just like Bryant. You simply can't be an all-time great if you're never the best player on your team and main focus of the defense, in my measurement system.</B>

But then you still can't be a great player if there's another great player on your team. By your definition, it's impossible to have two great players on a team.

 

How else would you do it? Like it or not, that's how a lot of people (including myself) will view Kobe until he's the main man on the team.

 

But how would you know he was the 2nd-best player of all-time, if he never proved it? You can't reach that status unless you do something to warrant it.

By the way, let me change that and say they can still be considered "great". John Stockton was obviously a great player. But I'm talking about "all-time greats", like the Jordans, Magics, Olajuwons, Shaqs, Birds, etc.

See my definition above for "all-time great". How can you ever put a player that was never the best player on his team ahead of someone who clearly was, and led his team to a championship? You have to make it more objective.

 

<B>my definition above for "all-time great". How can you ever put a player that was never the best player on his team ahead of someone who clearly was, and led his team to a championship? You have to make it more objective.</B>

But no one's doing that... Kobe's being compared to Carter, McGrady, and Iverson, who have done nothing of the sort. No one's putting Kobe in the all-time greats category just yet (or at least I'm not).

<B>How else would you do it? Like it or not, that's how a lot of people (including myself) will view Kobe until he's the main man on the team.</B>

I would look at what he actually does on the court. Even during a regular healthy Lakers game, he's going to be on the court at times without Shaq. It's not like they play the same 35-40 minutes every game. He takes over games whenever he needs to, and that tells me he's a great player.

 

I'm not sure if that's what your hinting at, but I dislike the perception that Kobe should leave the Lakers, because somehow he's getting a free ride in LA.

I don't see how players should be considered more great for wanting to go-it-alone. Then again, maybe players are screwed eitehr way. If they demand a trade like Marbury, their selfish bastards. If they're willing to mesh their game with another star, they're selfish.

Oh well. We'll definitely see Kobe be "the man" on his team eventually, barring some horrible injury. Shaq's beginning to look pretty fragile...

 

We can only hope.

 

That's a moot point, if McGrady Iverson or Carter played with Shaq they'd also be the second best player on the team, anyway I don't see why Shaq gets all the credit.

Remember..

The Lakers were 6-2 without Shaq last season
The Lakers are 8-4 this season without Shaq


That's a record of 14-6 over 2 seasons without Shaquille, that would be good enough as a top seed in the West.

The team has proven it can win without Shaquille, so why does he get all the credit? It doesn't make sense. it's not like Shaq is leading a team of no hopers to the title, Shaq and Kobe both deserve credit for the titles, remember Shaq won nothing before Kobe's emergence, I read Shaq once had a team with 4 all stars on it yet still got swept.

 

oops... double post.

 

Phil Jackson has <B>NOTHING</B> to do with the Lakers success.

People that talk about how Del Harris and Kurt Rambis couldn't do what he's done with the same core are overlooking two very important factors:

1) Before 1999, there were actually other centers in the league that could neutralize Shaq.

and

2) Harris and Rambis only had an infant Kobe(the guy was still a teenager, for crying out loud!).

Had Harris been given another year, the results would be the same, as the only difference between the Lakers of today and four seasons ago is experience and the maturity and improvement that come with it.

 

Kobe's great but he's also a cancer. Basketball is a team game. The Lakers would be better of with anyone of Carter, Francis, Allen, Payton or Pierce.

 

Carter averages 4.3 assists, ranking 9th among SGs.
Allen averages 4.1 assists ranking 10th among SGs.
Pierce averages 3.1 assists, ranking 7th among SFs.
Payton averages 9.2 assists, ranking 3rd among PGs.
Francis averages 6.6 assists, ranking 15th among PGs.

Bryant averages 5.8 assists, ranking #1 among SGs...

How is he selfish, now? And that's with playing beside the Big Blackhole.

 

Phil Jackson had nothing to do with the lakers success??? Are you serious?? He came in his first year and boom they win a championship. They couldn't have matured that fast. Before him they were getting swept. He obviously had a part in their success IMO. And the lakers certainly agree.

 

I don't know how under- or over- rated kobe is, but I do know that I wouldn't mind seeing him in rocket gear. Like angelina jolie I don't find her that sexy but she'd be hard pressed to get kicked out of my bed, if she ever found her way in it.