# Is Charles Barkley That Bitter, or Just A Kobe Hater?



## rellim (Nov 12, 2002)

Saturday night, during the All-Star festivities on TNT Charles Barkley kept mentioning that Kobe & Jim Gray need to shut up about him becoming a free agent.

Then on Sunday night during the actual all-star he made the same statement after Cheryl Miller asked him about his free agency situation. Chuck states that he's angering the people of Colorodo (potential juror's etc.). Kenny Smith differed in opinion when he stated that if Kobe feels he's innocent, then he can talk about whatever he wants to.

Everytime he gets the chance, Charles Barkley makes the same comment. He supposedly celebrated because he "speaks his mind" but he kisses so much ***, whether it's Tiger Woods, David Stern..etc., that i've lost any respect that i've had for him.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rellim</b>!
> Saturday night, during the All-Star festivities on TNT Charles Barkley kept mentioning that Kobe & Jim Gray need to shut up about him becoming a free agent.
> 
> Then on Sunday night during the actual all-star he made the same statement after Cheryl Miller asked him about his free agency situation. Chuck states that he's angering the people of Colorodo (potential juror's etc.). Kenny Smith differed in opinion when he stated that if Kobe feels he's innocent, then he can talk about whatever he wants to.
> ...


He definately dislikes Kobe. I've mentioned it several times in the past. He criticizes Kobe all the time. In the past it was always about Kobe shooting the ball too much. He had the nerve to criticize Kobe after he dropped 52 on the Rockets in double overtime last year. He said that he shot the ball too much. Mind you, we were playing without Shaq. I guess he figured Brian Shaw and Mark Madsen should get the bulk of the shots. He had something to say about Kobe's 12 3 pointer game. He said 18 3's is too many to take. I agree but when you're shooting it that well you can't argue with success. Now, he's focused on Kobe's off the court issues. He's always saying that Kobe should do this and do that. I guess he'd know since he was no stranger to the law.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>rellim</b>!
> Saturday night, during the All-Star festivities on TNT Charles Barkley kept mentioning that Kobe & Jim Gray need to shut up about him becoming a free agent.
> 
> Then on Sunday night during the actual all-star he made the same statement after Cheryl Miller asked him about his free agency situation. Chuck states that he's angering the people of Colorodo (potential juror's etc.). Kenny Smith differed in opinion when he stated that if Kobe feels he's innocent, then he can talk about whatever he wants to.
> ...


It's no secret that Barkley does not like Kobe. I think he's just on that side of the Kobe/Shaq debate. Those of us on the Kobe side credit Kobe for things Barkley would give credit to Shaq, I'm sure he doesn't like that.


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

Barlkey likes 3 players: Shaq, Garnett and Duncan, and basically thinks everyone else in the league is garbage. He'll say stuff like, "you know, T-Mac, he's a good player, but..." or "Kobe is a pretty good player but..."

He's funny most of the time but I think he really is bitter about something - don't know what it is though and don't care either.


----------



## Laker Freak (Jul 1, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> Barlkey likes 3 players: Shaq, Garnett and Duncan, and basically thinks everyone else in the league is garbage. He'll say stuff like, "you know, T-Mac, he's a good player, but..." or "Kobe is a pretty good player but..."
> 
> He's funny most of the time but I think he really is bitter about something - don't know what it is though and don't care either.


He also loves MANU GINOBILI


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Laker Freak</b>!
> 
> 
> He also loves MANU GINOBILI


Oh yeah, how could I forget *GIN-NO-BLI.*


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!
> Barlkey likes 3 players: Shaq, Garnett and Duncan, and basically thinks everyone else in the league is garbage. He'll say stuff like, "you know, T-Mac, he's a good player, but..." or "Kobe is a pretty good player but..."
> 
> He's funny most of the time but I think he really is bitter about something - don't know what it is though and don't care either.


You know thats funny, because right now, Kenny and Charles were discussing, the picks that Phoenix traded for Keon Clark. He said, Phoenix made a big mistake, because they should build for their future and not trade away draft picks.

Then he said: "They should be going after Tim, Shaq, or Kevin Garnett, because you cant build a team around Kobe"


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> You know thats funny, because right now, Kenny and Charles were discussing, the picks that Phoenix traded for Keon Clark. He said, Phoenix made a big mistake, because they should build for their future and not trade away draft picks.
> ...


Charles has the biggest mouth on that set yet he's the only guy without a championship. He had his opportunities too. I think he likes Shaq so much because he can identify with his work ethic. He worked hard on the court but he showed no committment to keeping himself in shape during the offseason. Hell, MJ was one of his best friends and he didn't think Barkley's fatt *** worked hard enough to win a ring. Scottie Pippen also ripped into him after he left Houston. He called Barkley "fat" and "selfish" among other things. Oh well "Sir Charles". Kobe has something that you'll never have. Actually, he's got 3 things that you'll never. At the end of the day he'll probably be remembered as a better overall player because of those 3 things. What are you going to say to him then?


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

More Kobe hating by Barkley at halftime. "Pass the ball Kobe!". Hes 5-11, with 18 points. Okay, Charles!


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

I have never heard Charles say good words about Kings or give them credit.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> I have never heard Charles say good words about Kings or give them credit.


Probably too many white players for him to say anything good about them.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Probably too many white players for him to say anything good about them.


That's true and he shouldn't be allowed to work there. He was acting stupid today. Everytime they were trying to talk about the games he had that stupid magazine and was talking about it. What an idiot.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Barkley doesnt give any credit to anybody but the Spurs


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

But he is so damn funny :laugh:


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> Charles has the biggest mouth on that set yet he's the only guy without a championship. He had his opportunities too. I think he likes Shaq so much because he can identify with his work ethic. He worked hard on the court but he showed no committment to keeping himself in shape during the offseason. Hell, MJ was one of his best friends and he didn't think Barkley's fatt *** worked hard enough to win a ring. Scottie Pippen also ripped into him after he left Houston. He called Barkley "fat" and "selfish" among other things. Oh well "Sir Charles". Kobe has something that you'll never have. Actually, he's got 3 things that you'll never. At the end of the day he'll probably be remembered as a better overall player because of those 3 things. What are you going to say to him then?




Your first 8 words sum up why Barkley is popular and successful on the show. If you have a big, loud, controversial mouth, you can suceed on TV. Just ask Steven A. Smith.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Barkley doesnt give any credit to anybody but the Spurs




That's true, and that is the reason the Spurs are sucking this year. 


You're probably better off with Barkley being ignorant about your team, because the guy isn't right about anything.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> You're probably better off with Barkley being ignorant about your team, because the guy isn't right about anything.


If it's like that then I hope he never mentions my team. :laugh:


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

Barkley is blunt and straight to the point, he doesnt give credits to players that he thinks doesnt deserve it. There are plenty of players today that are "thought" to be up there with the very best of all time. And I think Barkley is aware of that, thats why he is just being blunt, he only thinks Shaq, Duncan and KG are the players that are comparable to the very best. 

Barkley tells it how he sees it, you either hate him or you love him, but I do understand what he is on about.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>1 Penny</b>!
> Barkley is blunt and straight to the point, he doesnt give credits to players that he thinks doesnt deserve it. There are plenty of players today that are "thought" to be up there with the very best of all time. And I think Barkley is aware of that, thats why he is just being blunt, he only thinks Shaq, Duncan and KG are the players that are comparable to the very best.
> 
> Barkley tells it how he sees it, you either hate him or you love him, but I do understand what he is on about.


But he says Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett are the only 3 players you can build a franchise around. What kind of thing is that to say?


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> 
> 
> But he says Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett are the only 3 players you can build a franchise around. What kind of thing is that to say?


I don't think that you can build a franchise around Shaq anymore. He's getting older and I would probably say that he has 3 to 4 years left of good game. After that he'll be just another center. 

You can build a franchise around KG, Duncan, Kobe, TMac. :yes:


----------



## Sean (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>KokoTheMonkey</b>!
> 
> If you have a big, loud, controversial mouth, you can suceed on TV. Just ask Steven A. Smith.


:laugh: :laugh:


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Steven A Smith is hillarious


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

What I hate the most is when he talks about defense. Charles Barkley talking about defense!!!! You shouldn't put any weight on what he says. Remember when he said Yao would never score 19 in a game?


----------



## Locke (Jun 16, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>erniejohnson</b>!
> What I hate the most is when he talks about defense. Charles Barkley talking about defense!!!! You shouldn't put any weight on what he says. Remember when he said Yao would never score 19 in a game?


Then why don't you ever tell him to shut up, Ernie?


----------



## erniejohnson (Oct 11, 2003)

> Then why don't you ever tell him to shut up, Ernie?


:laugh: I should!!!!


----------



## quick (Feb 13, 2004)

And then yao proved him wrong and he had to kiss a donkeys ***.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>HallOfFamer</b>!
> But he says Duncan, Shaq, and Garnett are the only 3 players you can build a franchise around. What kind of thing is that to say?


Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, Hakeem are the only 4 players to lead their teams to titles in the past 13 years. Barkley may have a point that you have to be a great great player to lead a team to a title. Shaq and Hakeem are both top 10 players of all time IMO, and Duncan could be top 10 of all time by the time hes retired, and obviously Jordans the goat. Also note, that 3 of the 4 guys are post players/centers. 

You can build around anyone, but to have a realistic chance at winning the title by building around one player, it has to be a guy like Duncan/KG/Shaq who are potential top 10 players of all time.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Shaq, Duncan, Jordan, Hakeem are the only 4 players to lead their teams to titles in the past 13 years.


Shaq never really "led" the the Laker to 3 titles. He led them in 2000, somewhat in 2001, but Kobe pretty much did the work in 2002, will do a lot of the work in 2004, and can be argued did at least half the workin 2001. 

Shaq doesn't really "lead" much these days. 

And if I had to build around one player today, it'd probably be Duncan, with KG and Kobe 2nd behind him. Then maybe LeBron.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Shaq never really "led" the the Laker to 3 titles. He led them in 2000, somewhat in 2001, but Kobe pretty much did the work in 2002, will do a lot of the work in 2004, and can be argued did at least half the workin 2001.
> ...


Duncan would be #1 just because he's done it before. KG may be everybit as good as Duncan but let me see what he can do when it matters. He'd be my second choice. After that it is a free for all. Some people would still say Shaq despite his age and all the mileage on his body. Some would say Kobe. Some would say TMac. Some would say Lebron. You probably can't go wrong with any of them.


----------



## JerryWest (Jun 24, 2002)

what ehl said... Shaq definately was main guy in 2k, in 2k1 it was split, and 2k2 definately was kobe taking carrying the team


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

I dont think Kobe was ever the leader of the Lakers, maybe emotionally, like Kenyon Martin is to the Nets. Most Net fans agree Martin is the emotional leader because of his intensity, but that team relies on Kidd point blank. The Lakers were the same way for their title run, the team rested in the hands of Shaq mainly while Kobe inspired runs and hit big shots and was the 2 in the 1-2 punch of Shaq-Kobe. The team was still centered around the big fella.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> I dont think Kobe was ever the leader of the Lakers, maybe emotionally, like Kenyon Martin is to the Nets. Most Net fans agree Martin is the emotional leader because of his intensity, but that team relies on Kidd point blank. The Lakers were the same way for their title run, the team rested in the hands of Shaq mainly while Kobe inspired runs and hit big shots and was the 2 in the 1-2 punch of Shaq-Kobe. The team was still centered around the big fella.


Sorry, but this is an awful comparison that's pretty telling about how you see Kobe as a player. Statistically Kobe has been comparable or better than Shaq in 2 of the 3 title runs during the playoffs, whereas Kenyon Martin has never even gotten even close to Kidd statistically in any of the Nets two playoff runs where they reached the Finals. Martin hasn't hit 1/1000th the amount of big shots Kobe has in the playoffs. 

Quite frankly, it's not even close, Kobe is 10 times as important to the Lakers (of the 3-peat) as Kenyon was to the Nets during their two playoff runs to the Finals in 2002 and 2003 and a much better "leader", depending on your definition. But then again, you also think Gary Payton is more important to the Lakers than Kobe Bryant, so clearly you don't know much about Laker basketball. 

Of course, you're a Spurs fan, you’d probably rather forget about how Kobe has torched the Spurs.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Sorry, but this is an awful comparison that's pretty telling about how you see Kobe as a player. Statistically Kobe has been comparable or better than Shaq in 2 of the 3 title runs during the playoffs, whereas Kenyon Martin has never even gotten even close to Kidd statistically in any of the Nets two playoff runs where they reached the Finals. Martin hasn't hit 1/1000th the amount of big shots Kobe has in the playoffs.
> 
> Quite frankly, it's not even close, Kobe is 10 times as important to the Lakers (of the 3-peat) as Kenyon was to the Nets during their two playoff runs to the Finals in 2002 and 2003 and a much better "leader", depending on your definition. But then again, you also think Gary Payton is more important to the Lakers than Kobe Bryant, so clearly you don't know much about Laker basketball.
> ...


:laugh: @ this

Actually, I've come across plenty of Nets fans who think Martin carried them through the playoffs last year. Go check the numbers from last years playoffs, Martins ARE comparable to Kidds. 

I've already admitted Kobe is a top 5 talent in the league, so claiming I underestimate him is nonsense unless you think hes some kind of god. 

Kobe has torched the Spurs alright...that 20 point outting on 9/19 shooting with 7 turnovers in that game 6 massacre on the Lakers home floor. DAMN! I guess those were happy tears of joy Kobe was crying after "torching" the Spurs in the game that really mattered. By the way, I'm a Bulls fan. 

Lakers are Shaqs team, bottom line. Kobes never got a finals MVP or a regular season MVP, while Shaq has everything.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Actually, I've come across plenty of Nets fans who think Martin carried them through the playoffs last year. Go check the numbers from last years playoffs, Martins ARE comparable to Kidds.


Yeah, sure you have. 

And no, again, it's truly sad that you think Martin's numbers or play can compare to Kidd on that Nets team. 



> I've already admitted Kobe is a top 5 talent in the league, so claiming I underestimate him is nonsense unless you think hes some kind of god.


No, you just underestimate how much worse Shaq is now compared to 2000 and how much better Kobe is since then. 



> Kobe has torched the Spurs alright...that 20 point outting on 9/19 shooting with 7 turnovers in that game 6 massacre on the Lakers home floor. DAMN! I guess those were happy tears of joy Kobe was crying after "torching" the Spurs in the game that really mattered. By the way, I'm a Bulls fan.


No, I was thinking the 4-0 massacre in 2001 and the 4-1 beating in 2002, where Kobe averaged 32-7-6 on 47% shooting. But nice try. :laugh:



> Lakers are Shaqs team, bottom line. Kobes never got a finals MVP or a regular season MVP, while Shaq has everything.


Those Finals MVPs aren't telling of how well Shaq and Kobe performed in the playoffs. But then again, I suppose you'd say that those Finals were much more competitive than any of those Western Conference series the Lakers had to go through in 2000, 2001, or 2002. :laugh:

Though, what more can I expect from someone who points to a Finals MVP award as if it means Shaq was better that particular postseason but then turns around and claims that Kobe is overrated defensively despite his two 2nd Team and two 1st Team All Defensive nominations in 4 straight years. Nah, clearly the people who decide Finals MVP know more than the people who decide All Defensive 1st and 2nd teams. 

:laugh: at your entire argument John the Cool Kid, it's truly laughable.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> :laugh: at your entire argument John the Cool Kid, it's truly laughable.


Feelings mutual, anyways I'm done here. I'm tired of reading your nonsense.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> Feelings mutual, anyways I'm done here. I'm tired of reading your nonsense.


Yeah, Kobe's overrated defensively and Shaq has been the leader of the Lakers for 5 years now. Riiiiiight.


----------



## DaUnbreakableKinG (Jun 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Shaq has been the leader of the Lakers for 5 years now. Riiiiiight.


you got that right EHL. 

*NO SHAQ - NO RING*

*NO BRYANT (but with SHAQ) - RING*


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

Now if Kobe was compltetely gone, and it was just Shaq, no ring, no way could Shaq do it by himself. Now if they put say a decent player in Kobes shoes, say a Michael Redd, whos not a superstar but is pretty good, the Lakers would have had a great shot at the title


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> Now if Kobe was compltetely gone, and it was just Shaq, no ring, no way could Shaq do it by himself. Now if they put say a decent player in Kobes shoes, say a Michael Redd, whos not a superstar but is pretty good, the Lakers would have had a great shot at the title


I don't know. Do you remember the Laker's championship runs? They were barely winning some of those games. They needed 5 games to beat Sacramento in 00'. They barely slipped by Portland in seven games. They beat Indiana in 6 games, one of which Kobe basically won by himself. In 01' when they swept through the competition (almost), they got huge contributions from Kobe in the Sacramento and San Antonio series. They won the series easily but some of the games were extremely close. I recall Kobe having huge 3rd and 4th quarters during those games. I'm sure you remember the 7 game series against Sacramento two years ago. My point is that if the Lakers were barely pulling some of these games out with Kobe, how are they going to pull them out with an inferior player? If you want to tell me that they would make the playoffs without Kobe then I would agree. I could even see them winning a series without him. However, they aren't winning a championship without Kobe and with Redd. Substitute Iverson or TMac in there and I might agree. By the same token, if you put Duncan or KG in Shaq's place, wouldn't the Lakers have a great chance at winning the title?


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> 
> 
> you got that right EHL.
> ...


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't know. Do you remember the Laker's championship runs? They were barely winning some of those games. They needed 5 games to beat Sacramento in 00'. They barely slipped by Portland in seven games. They beat Indiana in 6 games, one of which Kobe basically won by himself. In 01' when they swept through the competition (almost), they got huge contributions from Kobe in the Sacramento and San Antonio series. They won the series easily but some of the games were extremely close. I recall Kobe having huge 3rd and 4th quarters during those games. I'm sure you remember the 7 game series against Sacramento two years ago. My point is that if the Lakers were barely pulling some of these games out with Kobe, how are they going to pull them out with an inferior player? If you want to tell me that they would make the playoffs without Kobe then I would agree. I could even see them winning a series without him. However, they aren't winning a championship without Kobe and with Redd. Substitute Iverson or TMac in there and I might agree. By the same token, if you put Duncan or KG in Shaq's place, wouldn't the Lakers have a great chance at winning the title?


Ya, but a guy like Michael Redd could help Shaqs game so much more than Kobe can


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Ya, but a guy like Michael Redd could help Shaqs game so much more than Kobe can


How so?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> 
> How so?


I think it is really easy to forget that the Lakers could easily have no titles as opposed to three. Even during the 2001 run, where they went 15-1, they beat the Spurs by less than 5 points each and every game. And in every 4th quarter the Spurs were leading and Kobe had to win the game. The Spurs could have beat the Lakers that year and they had a chance. 

Why do some people think the Spurs got Bruce Bowen to begin with?


----------



## Duece Duece (Mar 28, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> I think it is really easy to forget that the Lakers could easily have no titles as opposed to three. Even during the 2001 run, where they went 15-1, they beat the Spurs by less than 5 points each and every game. And in every 4th quarter the Spurs were leading and Kobe had to win the game. The Spurs could have beat the Lakers that year and they had a chance.
> ...




You must be talkin about 2002, cause in 2001, it was a no contest. The Lakers beat them by an average of 22pts in the four games that they swept them.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> How so?


Redd doesnt need the ball in his hands, he can kick it into Shaq, hes a better spot up shooter than Kobe, so Shaq would get the ball so much more. But they would have to respect Redds three point ability and his quick release, not saying that they dont respect Kobe, but not as much from three land as Redd would deserve. Shaq would get so many more touches, he would be the focal point, there would be no Shaq getting 12 or 13 shots a night, it would be 25 a night. And for a guy that shoots 56% from the field, thats a pretty good percentage of shots. The Lakers would lose in games that came down to the last shot, because Redd is not nearly as good as Kobe as hitting the last shot. Im not saying they would have a better chance, but theyd still be pretty damn good


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Duece Duece</b>!
> 
> You must be talkin about 2002, cause in 2001, it was a no contest. The Lakers beat them by an average of 22pts in the four games that they swept them.


Yeah you're right. 2002.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>DaUnbreakableKinG</b>!
> 
> 
> you got that right EHL.
> ...


Can you spell BS? 



> Ya, but a guy like Michael Redd could help Shaqs game so much more than Kobe can


This reminds me; say no to crack.


----------



## Tragedy (Dec 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> 
> At the end of the day he'll probably be remembered as a better overall player because of those 3 things. What are you going to say to him then?




lmaoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... yeaaaaaaa right...

barkely is one of the best ever at his position... at the same time he is SHORTER than kobe... and has always been (wit the exception of houston, but i discount those years) the Man on his team.... 

Kobe won his rings cuz of shaq... period...

now i know everyone says shaq won those rings cuz of kobe too... but take kobe away and replace him with a sg capable of putting up 20ppg and has an outside shot.. and the lakers are guaranteed at least 2 of those 3 rings...

put kobe on a team wit any big man not named duncan... and u wont have the same results, because the team wit shaq and a 20ppg sg is winning those titles...




but then, yall may be right kobe is better all around than guys like stockton, ewing, and malone just to name a few... 

according to your logic...


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
> 
> 
> Redd doesnt need the ball in his hands, he can kick it into Shaq, hes a better spot up shooter than Kobe, so Shaq would get the ball so much more. But they would have to respect Redds three point ability and his quick release, not saying that they dont respect Kobe, but not as much from three land as Redd would deserve. Shaq would get so many more touches, he would be the focal point, there would be no Shaq getting 12 or 13 shots a night, it would be 25 a night. And for a guy that shoots 56% from the field, thats a pretty good percentage of shots. The Lakers would lose in games that came down to the last shot, because Redd is not nearly as good as Kobe as hitting the last shot. Im not saying they would have a better chance, but theyd still be pretty damn good


It isn't Kobe's fault that Shaq doesn't touch the ball as much as he used to. The fact is that Shaq doesn't move around and post up like he used to. He just stands in one spot and waits for the ball to come to him. In the past he'd move around and post up in different spots. He also doesn't see the ball as much because he gets fouled before attempting a shot far too often. In the past, Shaq would make a move to the basket as soon as he touched the ball. He'd often get the basket and a FT attempt because he made his move so quickly. Now, he's no nearly as quick or explosive as he used to be and he gets fouled before he even attempts a shot. That's if he's even able to attempt a shot. Teams are now using 4-5 guys to defend Shaq every night so as to distribute the fouls. However, teams with quality defenders don't even get into foul trouble anymore. Since Shaq has lost some of his explosiveness he's been much more susceptible to blocks and turnovers. He doesn't dunk as often as he used to and he's having shots thrown right back in his face now. He's also having the ball stripped from him before he can even attempt a shot. With the advent of the zone defense you are starting to see teams double team Shaq before he even touches the ball. Since the Lakers don't have a Peja or a Nash to bust the zone, teams load up on Shaq and dare Fox, George, and Fisher to beat them from the outside. Getting Shaq the ball isn't as easy as it sounds. Besides, Redd isn't exactly Jason Kidd. He takes roughly 18 shots per game. Kobe has averaged over 20 for his career. That's not a huge difference there. I agree that Redd is a better spot up shooter than Kobe. However, I don't think he'd open things up for Shaq anymore than Kobe does. You've got to remember that teams do not leave Kobe open either. He's always covered and often draws multiple defenders when he drives. Teams force the role players to beat them, not Kobe. The same would be true with Redd. They're not going to leave him open. They're going to force Fisher and Fox to beat them, just like they do now. However, Kobe brings different skills to the table that Redd does not. He's a better penetrator than Redd is. His ability to take defenders off the dribble creates easy shots for himself and for his teammates. He's a better passer than Redd is. He's a better natural scorer than Redd is. He has an assortment of moves that he can use to get a quality shot off against anyone in any situation. He's a better rebounder. With Shaq declining as a player that is more important than it used to be. He's the better defender. He's a better man-man defender. He's a better help defender. He's a more versatile defender. Tell me, would Redd be able to defend PGs like Kobe has had to do all of these years? I don't think so. Kobe brings a great deal to the table. As talented a scorer and shooter as Redd is he's just not in the same class as Kobe is. Kobe does so much more than shoot and score. For years he's been the team's best defender and playmaker as well.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Tragedy</b>!
> barkely is one of the best ever at his position... at the same time he is SHORTER than kobe... and has always been (wit the exception of houston, but i discount those years) the Man on his team....


When everything is said and done, Kobe will go down as one of the best players at his position as well. Barkley is a top 20 player of all time. Kobe could eclipse that if he continues on his current path. He's easily going to end up with 20,000 pts, 5,000 rbs, and 5,000 asts. However, if he keeps up his current averages and plays for 10 more years, he's going to have more than 25,000 pts, 7,000 asts, and 7,000 rbs. That's impressive. He's got 10 more years to win an MVP, finish first team in All NBA and All Defense. He could also add to the 3 rings that he already has. Take away the rings and he's still had a great career. With those stats he'll still be regarded as a top 20 player in the league and one of the best to ever play his position. BTW, why do you discount the Houston years? Is it because he was playing with 3 HOFers? Did you ever stop and consider that he was the man everywhere he went because he was on poor teams? How many great players did Philadelphia have? Obviously he was going to be the man on that team. Kobe would have been the man on the Sixers as well. In Phoenix he finally played with some quality players. I'd say that he and KJ were both "the man" on that team. Barkley was the "go to guy" but it was KJ's team long before Charles ever got there. Charles was the best player on that team but KJ didn't concede anything to him. They had a tumultous relationship throughout their tenure in Phoenix. Barkley got most of the big shots but it was partly due to his insistence of dominating the ball. Regardless, I don't see why everyone mocks Kobe's role in LA. "He plays second fiddle to Shaq......". So what? Tell me, which player in the NBA wouldn't play second fiddle to Shaq. He's 7-1 330 and shoots nearly 60% from the field. Obviously, you want him taking the vast majority of the shots. Barkley would play second fiddle to Shaq to. Phil Jackson wouldn't stand for Barkley dominating the ball like he used to and jacking up jumpers. He'd tell Barkley to pass the ball to Shaq and move to an open spot on the floor. Put Kobe in Philly and Barkley in LA and we'll see who the "man" is. 



> Kobe won his rings cuz of shaq... period...
> 
> now i know everyone says shaq won those rings cuz of kobe too... but take kobe away and replace him with a sg capable of putting up 20ppg and has an outside shot.. and the lakers are guaranteed at least 2 of those 3 rings...


I just discussed this with SacKings above. I'll do it again. Lets put Michael Redd in Kobe's place and see what he does. He averages 20 ppg and he can shoot. Using your logic the Lakers are guaranteed 2 titles right? Great. So tell me something, who is going to break the defense down when Shaq is getting doubled down low? Redd certainly won't be able to shoot because he's going to be covered as well. He's going to have to create something. Who is going to defend the Jason Kidds, Jason Williams, and Mike Bibbys of the world? That used to be Kobe's job when Derek Fisher's fractured legs couldn't handle them. Can Redd do that? Can Redd create something out of nothing when the shot clock is expiring? Can he make the clutch plays that Kobe made at the end of games? Can he break his defender down and throw a perfect lob to Shaquille O'Neal? Can he take his man off the dribble and find Ron Harper in the corner for the game winner against Portland? Can he rise up and hit a jumper in Jason Kidd's eye to win a game? Can he make clutch defensive plays like blocking Arvydas Sabonis' shot at the buzzer to preserve a victory? There's a hell of alot more to Kobe than scoring and shooting. Besides being a better scorer than Michael Redd, he's also the better defender, rebounder, passer, and playmaker. Don't sit there and tell me you could put any flashy SG in Kobe's place and expect the same results as he gets. AI, TMac, Pierce, okay but not your run of the mill SG.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

> I just discussed this with SacKings above. I'll do it again. Lets put Michael Redd in Kobe's place and see what he does. He averages 20 ppg and he can shoot. Using your logic the Lakers are guaranteed 2 titles right? Great. So tell me something, who is going to break the defense down when Shaq is getting doubled down low? Redd certainly won't be able to shoot because he's going to be covered as well. He's going to have to create something. Who is going to defend the Jason Kidds, Jason Williams, and Mike Bibbys of the world? That used to be Kobe's job when Derek Fisher's fractured legs couldn't handle them. Can Redd do that? Can Redd create something out of nothing when the shot clock is expiring? Can he make the clutch plays that Kobe made at the end of games? Can he break his defender down and throw a perfect lob to Shaquille O'Neal? Can he take his man off the dribble and find Ron Harper in the corner for the game winner against Portland? Can he rise up and hit a jumper in Jason Kidd's eye to win a game? Can he make clutch defensive plays like blocking Arvydas Sabonis' shot at the buzzer to preserve a victory? There's a hell of alot more to Kobe than scoring and shooting. Besides being a better scorer than Michael Redd, he's also the better defender, rebounder, passer, and playmaker. Don't sit there and tell me you could put any flashy SG in Kobe's place and expect the same results as he gets. AI, TMac, Pierce, okay but not your run of the mill SG.


No no no, i never said they had a better chance or just asa good of a chance, i said they still HAD a chance


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pinball</b>!
> Substitute Iverson or TMac in there and I might agree. By the same token, if you put Duncan or KG in Shaq's place, wouldn't the Lakers have a great chance at winning the title?


You're comparing Kobe to Tmac and Iverson, and comparing Shaq to Duncan and KG. I think that speaks volumes of the whole situation. Duncan and KG are obviously superior to Tmac and Iverson.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> 
> 
> You're comparing Kobe to Tmac and Iverson, and comparing Shaq to Duncan and KG. I think that speaks volumes of the whole situation. Duncan and KG are obviously superior to Tmac and Iverson.


No, not really. AI is a superior playoff performer compared to KG, and that's all we're really talking about here. KG is a great regular season player, but we don't know what he can do in a close playoff series. So far he has not impressed nearly as much as AI has, which is probably a combination of both his ability and his teammates. I'm sure we'll know more this postseason since the Twolves are great this year. Duncan over Tmac and AI and KG over Tmac, yes. Gap isn't huge though, and since Kobe has been better than Tmac and AI in the playoffs in his career, the gap is even smaller between Kobe and KG/Duncan.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Kobe won his rings cuz of shaq... period...


If we had a thread to post the most ignorant comments on the boards, this would have to top the list. It's the most common cliche' a Kobe hater spits. A non bias fan who knows basketball knows this is a team sport. Kobe didn't win title for Shaq anymore than Shaq won titles for Kobe. That's plain and simple.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> No, not really. AI is a superior playoff performer compared to KG, and that's all we're really talking about here. KG is a great regular season player, but we don't know what he can do in a close playoff series. So far he has not impressed nearly as much as AI has, which is probably a combination of both his ability and his teammates. I'm sure we'll know more this postseason since the Twolves are great this year. Duncan over Tmac and AI and KG over Tmac, yes. Gap isn't huge though, and since Kobe has been better than Tmac and AI in the playoffs in his career, the gap is even smaller between Kobe and KG/Duncan.


I gotta disagree, KG has put up monster numbers, much better than Iverson in the past two years in the playoffs. Its just that Iverson hasnt faced powerhouses like the Mavs and Lakers in the 1st round. If Iverson and KG were to switch places, I would have trouble believing the Twolves would even make the playoffs, while I think the 76ers would be the best team in the east. KG is just on another level from Iverson point blank, playoffs or regular season.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> If we had a thread to post the most ignorant comments on the boards, this would have to top the list. It's the most common cliche' a Kobe hater spits. A non bias fan who knows basketball knows this is a team sport. Kobe didn't win title for Shaq anymore than Shaq won titles for Kobe. That's plain and simple.


Dead on.

Kobe is waaaaay underrated when it comes to take the credit of the Lakers threepeat.

I have no doubt in my mind that, besides the Finals (who weren´t that hard to win) the Lakers wouldn´t win the West in these past years without Kobe.

What people don´t get about the kid is that he thrives under pressure and challenge.
There is absolutely no player i would trust more than Kobe to take the ball (and the game) in his hands in the last seconds of a game 7-even score-playoff game.

The guy is the best in the game in creating (for himself or for others). Period. He just doesn´t fail. Wether it´s grabbing a crutial offensive rebound in the faces of Duncan and D-Rob *and scoring*, or converting the final play of a close game into an *alley-oop* for a Shaq´s dunk, or whatever, he delivers the goods.

Besides Shaq and Duncan he is the player that has proven again and again that he will come up on top.

Hate the guy if you want, but damn! just lay back and love his game...


----------

