# How will Kobe be remembered?



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I know this has nothing to do with the Bulls, but purely from a basketball lovers stand point. How do you think you will remember Kobe after his retired from the game?

I personally hated him from the beginning. He was an arrogant teenager, who had a tonne of talent, yet he couldn't put it all together, because he was too selfish. Than he put that aside and he exploded to become a superstar, and only cemeted his legacy by winning 3 straight championships. 

I still dont like him and i would never root for him ever in my life, and would probably continue to root for the team he is playing against, but i respect his talent and his basketball skills. He is just a phenomonal scoring threat. I honestly think he could be one of the best scorers the nba has to offer, even on par with Jordon. Yes, Jordan was a great scorer, but what made him great was he was a complete player. He was great and scoring, passing, and also playing defense. But purely on a scoring stand point, i think there could be an arguement that Kobe has all the moves.

I know ill remember him as a player straight out of high school that i wanted to fail and made an example of why not to jump from high school. Yet he made many people change his mind that he did deserve to be in the league by being one of the greatest. He will always be the player that i loved to hate and root against, but secretly marveled at his scoring brillance. 

How will you remember Kobe?

[He has 17 in the first quarter against GS. On pace to score 50 points again. I honestly think he'll one day go for 100 to beat out Wilts record]


----------



## thegza (Feb 18, 2003)

I don't even want to start a post about how great I think Kobe is or isn't, because as long as I've been on BBnet it's always been ridiculous and low to consider him to be one of the greats.

I'll just let you know that I admire your post, though. Good read.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

Great offensive player. Doesn't do it defensively anymore. Sort of the anti-Jordan. Jordan became a better leader, defender and team player as he got older. Kobe seems to be a better scorer as he gets older. Unless he wins a title w/o Shaq, he will be in a level below Magic, Bird, Jordan all of whom let their teams to titles.


----------



## VincentVega (Oct 12, 2003)

Top 5 offensive player of all time, top 15 player all time, most complete player of the last 10 years.


----------



## Pinball (Aug 3, 2002)

Top 3 SG of all time with a realistic shot of being the second best SG of all time and a top ten player.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Respect his skills, don't think much of him otherwise.

I'll admit I had somewhat more morbid thoughts running through my mind when I read the subject line. I admit I'm no Kobe lover but I would NEVER wish ill or catastrophe upon him.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

I've never really understood why people hate Kobe as much as they do. You don't have to like him, obviously. I'm not even sure I do. But for some reason, people root so passionately against him.

Why? Because he's arrogant? How many superstar shooting guards aren't? His arrogance makes him better, so I'm sure he wouldn't give a rats arse if you told him you didn't like him for it. And nor should he.

The other main reason people give is the whole Kate Faber thing. Errrr....oh?

I can't understand why people manage to feel so much anger towards this one particular NBA player because he's extremely self confident and an adulterer. Because obviously that's what seperates him from the rest of the humble God-fearing commandment-abiding NBA.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

In truth its too early to tell, if he wins a couple of titles without shaq , he will probably go down as the #2 shooting guard of all time.

if he doesn't he could be a guy considered to have piggybacked a few titles on shaq's back and get much of the undeserved scorn scottie pip gets nowadays.

his actually ability is basically this .

he is the best player in the game, and has been for a couple of years now...and i'm not sure the margin is all that close. between him and whoever is #2.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

VincentVega said:


> Top 5 offensive player of all time, top 15 player all time, *most complete player of the last 10 years.*



Jalen Rose man, Jalen Rose.


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

Depends on how much he wins as his team's leader before retiring. If he wins a championship or two then easy Top 10 and possibly Top 5(though unlikely) depending on some statistical accomplishments and MVP type stuff. But if he keeps putting up great numbers but doesn't win the ultimate prize he will stay at his current position(Top 15-20). How will he be remembered? As the closest thing to MJ we ever saw but not on the same planet as far as likeability is concerned. Yes, the big polarizing figure that Kobe is will be a part of his legacy. A lot of people dislike/hate him and so do I. You know how some people just rub you the wrong way? Kobe's that guy to millions.

I'll say one thing. As Kobe's offensive game improves the rest of his game has regressed. His defense especially hasn't been All NBA worthy for years. This season especially his D hasn't been anything beyond average. I'm also very iffy on his ability to get his yet still keep the team involved. This is something MJ eventually improved at under PJ. Kobe's had Phil for years yet still seems to struggle to play within the team concept w/o alienating himself. When he's "involving" his teammates he usually becomes a nonfactor on O. The opposite when he gets aggressive. This often gets exposed against good teams. But he's only 28 and still has time to improve.


----------



## TripleDouble (Jul 26, 2002)

2nd best shooting guard ever.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Probably top 15 of all-time, unless he can lead a team to a title, then he'll enter into top 10 conversations. He could conceivably reach Bird/Magic level if somehow he is the best player on a dynasty ( atleast 3 titles in a 7 or 8 year span). 

Otherwise, he'll stay at the top 15 level. As fun as it is for me and other fans of him to watch him put up ridiculous numbers and do silly things on the court, it's not his talent that's in question. Even those who hate him know what he is capable of in that regard. His legacy needs titles in order to move into that top 5-10 range, and that's not so much dependant on him as it is the Lakers front office. We'll see what happens I guess, and we'll see how his game changes as he gets older.


----------



## Dancon7 (Jan 13, 2005)

I see a parallel between Kobe and Barry Bonds. I remember in about '93 the hype machine had decided that Ken Griffey, Jr. had become the preferred face of baseball, and that Bonds had a few really good years, but there was alot of "just wait until this Griffey kid enters into his prime" stuff. We all know how that turned out. Not that Griffey hasn't proved to be a HOFer, but one of the best players in history was staring the cogniscenti in the face and they seemed happier to fellate Griffey instead. I think most people figured that Bonds would become complacent after he got a big contract and that Griffey truly loved the game, or some stupid baseball-is-life-and-this-kid's-a-lifer crap.

I see the same thing going on with Kobe and LaBron. The whole world seems to be waiting for LBJ to take his rightful place in the NBA pantheon, but Kobe is still the best player in the NBA, and he's probably going to be the best player in the NBA for another 5-7 years. It's really unfair to Bryant, and it's probably costing him alot of money, but that mess he got into in Colorado is going to haunt him for as long as he's playing basketball, no matter if he scores 101 points in a game or not.

I think that part of Kobe's problem is that he's American, but he lived overseas for a long time growing up, and that shows through in his personality and actions. It's subconsciously offputting to the average Joe on the couch. Foreign guys? Love 'em. They're funny when they talk. Americans? They're like me. Love them too. Kobe's a weird hybrid though, and I really think that his personality has alot to do with his childhood. How many African-American kids were there in Italy while he was there. That had to effect him.

Anyway, this is long, but to sum up: his talent is undeniable. If you're the type who likes character with your talent, then he's not for you. Years from now though, he'll be remembered more fondly, since his greatness shows up in the numbers more than anyone else playing in this era.


----------



## lorgg (Dec 8, 2003)

To me, as a selfish player that destroyed a championship team and quibbled with the most dominant center in the league. Until "Kobe's team" wins a championship that's all he will ever be.

He had Shaq. They were champs together and now, sure he's scoring, but winning nothing.


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

TripleDouble said:


> 2nd best shooting guard ever.


Still behind Jerry West IMHO. West had 27 ppg, 6.7 apg and defensive 1st team 4 years (only had this award his last 5 years). Not to mention his 29.1 ppg scoring average in the playoffs and played in 9 NBA Finals (only winning one). All this before the 3-point line and hand-checking. Kobe can still pass him certainly with a title of his own. But I just don't see that happening.


----------



## kulaz3000 (May 3, 2006)

I know im going to get snickered at for defending him in a way, but every great player had another great player along side him to win championships. Yet i dont understand why Kobe can't be considered amoungst the greatest because he had Shaq?

Jordan had Scottie.

Jerry had Wilt.

Magic had Jabber, Worthy and a whole heap of other talent.

Bird had Mchale, Parish and also a whole lot of great players.

Dr J had Mose Malone.

Duncan had Robinson.

Russels had a whole load of HOF's on his team.


I could go on and on and on.. i missing some other great combo's so don't blast me. The only team not having the HOF team, would be the Pistons team, but besides them i can't think of a team that didn't have atleast two HOF's on their team.

Should someones championships be looked as less worthy just because they had another great player playing on their teams. Shaq AND Kobe were the main players on the 3 championships they had just like the other two greatest combo's on previous championship teams. You look at the Boston, and Laker teams of old, and they were talented and had hall of famers from 1 to 10 on their team. 

In conclusion, who does he have now that is even close to being a great player on his current team?? People will argue Odom? But give me a break. He is a good player, but his is not close to being great. I just think he'll be remembered as probably the most explosive scorer in the history of the game behind Wilt and Jordan... YET he still has a another solid 5-8 years in him, 5 of them being in his prime to accomplish even more. 

So with my hatered towards him ever since he was a rookie until now, i've come to think subjectively and to respect him as a basketball, and a player who posesses extreme talent. Which leads me to my next thought, who is even close to being a great player on our CURRENT Bulls team, that could bring us home a championship? We all know we need atleast ONE hall of famer on a team and more likely two, yet, i don't even see ONE hall of famer on our team. 

Deng? I don't think his aggressive enough.

Gordon? I don't think his consistently aggresive enough.

Hinrich? I don't think he is Nash-like enough.

Wallace? He'll get in to the HOF but more for his achievenments in Detriot.

Tyrus?


----------



## PD (Sep 10, 2004)

No question, Kobe will be considered one of the best ever. Don't forget that he is only 28. He could easily have another 7-8 dominant years. Scoring wise, he might be top 5 of most pts scored. If he won an MVP and a ring, I would put him top 5 of all time. So far in his career, he has accomplished Jordanesque statistics or better.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

The greatest basketball player ever who you wouldn't want to leave your daughter alone with?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

kulaz3000 said:


> I know im going to get snickered at for defending him in a way, but every great player had another great player along side him to win championships. Yet i dont understand why Kobe can't be considered amoungst the greatest because he had Shaq?
> 
> Jordan had Scottie.
> 
> ...


And Shaq had Kobe. (Shaq won the Championship MVPs)

Kobe Top 25 all-time. (Note: IMHO not the most complete player of the last 10 years, per VV, as Duncan and Garnett showed more on the defensive side of the ball.)


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

Honestly, I'll remember him as a guy who probably raped a young girl in Colorado, who then had her name dragged through the mud until she decided to settle for a sum of money instead of continuing through legal channels.

And he scored 81 points in a game... but as someone who knows several rape victims, its kind of hard to see past the first part...


----------



## lougehrig (Mar 1, 2005)

PD said:


> No question, Kobe will be considered one of the best ever. Don't forget that he is only 28. He could easily have another 7-8 dominant years. Scoring wise, he might be top 5 of most pts scored. If he won an MVP and a ring, I would put him top 5 of all time. So far in his career, he has accomplished Jordanesque statistics or better.


Don't forget Kobe has already shown wear and tear. He started earlier than MJ and has alot more miles on him than MJ did at this point. 7-8 more dominant years is a stretch. 3-4 is more realistic.

As far as this comment, "So far in his career, he has accomplished Jordanesque statistics or better", I think you'd better check the statistics sometimes.

In MJ prime statistically: his 3-7 seasons in the league he averaged 33.9 ppg (on 52.4% shooting!), 6.1 apg, 6.3 rpg, 2.9 spg and missed a total of 1 game.

In Kobe prime: his last 5 seasons he has averaged 29.6 ppg (on 44.9% shooting), 5.4 apg, 5.9 rpg, 1.7 spg and has missed 39 games.

Close, but certainly not better.


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

I used to think that _Kobe Bryant_ is the greatest guy NBA has had since _MJ_.

Kobe does posses great skills.
Kobe does posses great athletism.
Kobe does posses great killer instinct and great drive - things that make great players legends.

But his ego is leading him in wrong direction and as in results very often leading him to his biggest (and only IMO) flaw - forcing plays.

That's probably a reason why _Kobe_ very often fails when he goes against another top-talent wing player.
Last time he went against Miami, he just got humiliated by _Dwayne Wade_, who may not have such God-given skills, but has superior basketball mind. And if _D-Wade_ can stay healthy to average at least +75 per season I think he may overtake _KB_ when it's all said and done.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Thorgal said:


> I used to think that _Kobe Bryant_ is the greatest guy NBA has had since _MJ_.
> 
> Kobe does posses great skills.
> Kobe does posses great athletism.
> ...


actually, the last time he went against miami, the lakers won. selective sample sizes can lead to eroneous conclusions. his ego has not specifically led to his recent explosion - it was instructions from his coach.


----------



## transplant (Jul 31, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The greatest basketball player ever who you wouldn't want to leave your daughter alone with?


Jordan? Chamberlain?


----------



## Thorgal (Feb 1, 2003)

kflo said:


> actually, the last time he went against miami, the lakers won. selective sample sizes can lead to eroneous conclusions. his ego has not specifically led to his recent explosion - it was instructions from his coach.


Acutally last couple of weeks are not good example of KB being mislead by his ego 

What I meant as an example are previous 2 and 3/4 seasons or so 

As for last Miami game - Lakers did won, but I watched that game and the way D-Wade outplayed (not necessarily stats-wise) made me think that Kobe - which may sound a bit crazy - still hasn't matured as a player. 

If he ever reach the point when he's basketball mind will be as good as D-Wade, I would label him the all-time 2nd best SG and all-time Top 5.


----------



## ¹²³ (Jan 8, 2003)

He will be remembered in different ways by different people. But his love/hate relationships with the fans will probably loose some intensity.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The greatest basketball player ever who you wouldn't want to leave your daughter alone with?


Magic Johnson.

its not just a name anymore.


----------



## bre9 (Jan 8, 2006)

One of the greatest


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

transplant said:


> Jordan? Chamberlain?





Da Grinch said:


> Magic Johnson.
> 
> its not just a name anymore.


Let me preface by saying I have two sons and no daughters but:

MJ? What Bulls fan wouldn't prefer their daughter to hook up with MJ rather than Kobe? :lol: Seriously though... No credible rape allegations there as far as I know. 

Chamberlain? Seems pretty unlikely to do anything untoward to anyone in his present form. Still, it might be scary to be left alone with him.

Magic Johnson? After 15 minutes she'll never want to watch a talk show again... ever. Probably a good thing!


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Jalen Rose man, Jalen Rose.


Ron Mercer man, Ron Mercer.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

Sham said:


> I've never really understood why people hate Kobe as much as they do. You don't have to like him, obviously. I'm not even sure I do. But for some reason, people root so passionately against him.
> 
> Why? Because he's arrogant? How many superstar shooting guards aren't? His arrogance makes him better, so I'm sure he wouldn't give a rats arse if you told him you didn't like him for it. And nor should he.
> 
> ...


Kobe isn't a "hip-hop" player like Iverson, Carmelo, etc. When you have the "street cred" you can be as arrogant as you like and it only boosts your young, jersey-and-shoe-buying fanbase. Only old white men aren't impressed.

But when you're Kobe, who's unapologetically imitated Jordan's every nuance, it's like he's entered a forbidden "How dare you" territory. He's an intellgent man, despite some bad decision, and without the hip-hop bravado his intelligence is considered "*****". 

Lastly he's hated because he's as close to Jordan as anybody could be, and people will continue to deny this just as they pretend that Michael Jordan was perfect and never made a mistake in his life.


----------



## Electric Slim (Jul 31, 2002)

double post


----------



## sov82 (Nov 5, 2003)

If he wins one w/o Shaq, he is easily one of the all-time greats. If he doesn't, then I think there will always be questions surrounding his top 10 status.


----------



## BULLHITTER (Dec 6, 2005)

kobe will be remembered as a HOF player who always got more criticism than he deserved as well as less credit than he deserved; and i don't believe a rape took place in colorado; sex/adultery yes, rape, no.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Dornado said:


> Honestly, I'll remember him as a guy who probably raped a young girl in Colorado, who then had her name dragged through the mud until she decided to settle for a sum of money instead of continuing through legal channels.
> 
> And he scored 81 points in a game... but as someone who knows several rape victims, its kind of hard to see past the first part...














> In recent weeks, there were clear indications that the alleged victim had become reluctant to pursue the case. Her personal lawyer, John Clune, said the woman's concern increased sharply when the judge ruled that evidence of her sexual activity in the days surrounding her encounter with Bryant could be made public at the trial.
> 
> [ ]
> 
> ...


And: 



> But the defense challenged the testimony, and Mackey, Bryant's attorney, asked an explosive question during cross-examination of the detective. Could vaginal injuries found during a "rape kit" medical exam after the encounter be "consistent with someone who had sex with three different men in three days?" she asked.
> 
> It became a linchpin in the defense case that challenged the accuser's truthfulness. Key to the defense was DNA evidence that Bryant's lawyers said would show that his accuser had sex with other men around the time of the encounter, including afterward. Several legal analysts had predicted such testimony could be devastating at trial.


In short, the prosecuter was aware that the "victim" had had sex with three men in a 72 hour time period surrounding the "rape" and still, disgustingly, pursued the prosecution because he was up for re-election in November. At least one of Faber's ****-buddies hooked up with her within a short period of time after the "rape" - some reports claiming it was within less than 8 hours.

I feel badly for real rape victims, and this whole affair demeans the significance of their pain. Katelyn Faber was a gold-digger, plain and simple. She got paid. I'm sure she gets a great laugh over the whole thing every once and again. She proved to be an able extortionist which, if you have no soul, is commendable


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> In short, the prosecuter was aware that the "victim" had had sex with three men in a 72 hour time period surrounding the "rape" and still, disgustingly, pursued the prosecution...


The implications of this statement are downright perverse. Effectively it seems to me to be a license to rape anyone who's sufficiently promiscuous.


----------



## T.Shock (Feb 11, 2003)

Jemele Hill has an article at ESPN claiming Kobe is better than Jordan. 

The thing nobody has mentioned is the fact that during Jordan's heyday, defenses were allowed to mug an offensive player to stop him. The Knicks, who Jordan saw many times were perhaps the most aggressive team in the league. Kobe OTOH benefits from the new NBA rules which forces defenders to basically hope he misses the shot because any physical contact with an offensive player results in a foul. The fact that Jordan shot nearly 8 pts higher than Kobe while facing the hands-on defenses is a testament to how much better he is than Kobe. 

She also claims Kobe is a better defender than Jordan which I can't even begin to comprehend. Somehow I doubt she even understands what makes a good defender. It's most likely a "Kobe is a hot button topic, I'll stir up some controversy and get my name out there" article.


----------



## BeZerker2008 (Jun 29, 2006)

I read that article & I'm wondering what the hell she's smoking? Right now people are like "oh Kobe this, Kobe that" "Greatest Player, blah, blah, blah" for what a couple of 50 point games, whatever. I think if Kobe was such a great player he would help out the rest of the team to get better in order to win, How are the rest of the players going to learn to win, when Kobe takes the game over all to himself? 

In my opinion Kobe doesn't have the amount of talent defending him in games day in day out. While there are good players/defenders currently in the league, they don't match to level in which Jordan had loads of players to go through to get his scoring & titles from.

Kobe may have changed his arrogant way since his trial & such but he's not fooling me, I think the guys just as arrogant as he was when he entered the league.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> The implications of this statement are downright perverse. Effectively it seems to me to be a license to rape anyone who's sufficiently promiscuous.



Without wanting to discuss this subject at length, cos it's icky.....

......who has consensual sex with someone after just being raped by someone else?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

Sham said:


> Without wanting to discuss this subject at length, cos it's icky.....
> 
> ......*who has consensual sex with someone after just being raped by someone else?*


That is the whole point, and I guess I should have elaborated on it further (but I thought I emphasized the timing issue the first time). 

Without being able to find the articles, I read that the prosecution (understandably) wasn't able to find a credible expert who would be willing to testify that a rape victim would - instead of reporting the rape - go out and promptly bang someone else (or multiple someones) within mere hours of the attack. Whereas Kobe's lawyers (understandably) could have filled a soccer stadium with experts to say that conduct is absolutely inconsistent with post-rape behavior. 

Indeed, the circumstances were so bizarre and inconsistent with rape that the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's findings that they constituted an exception to the rape shield law - which is in place to prevent the "perverse" results that MikeDC is (rightly) concerned with.

Once the "victim" ( :lol: ) learned that this was all going to come out and likely lead to an acquittal that would be damaging to her pre-meditated civil money grab, she promptly filed a civil suit and informed the prosecution that she would not testify at the criminal trial. 

It was the Colorado Gold Rush and Kobe Bryant was the mining claim. I don't care for Kobe Bryant, but I simply can't let a statement that he "raped" that woman stand without comment. Her accusations, and the politically motivated prosecution of Bryant with knowledge that the "victim" lol: ) engaged in conduct that could not possibly be more inconsistent with the allegation of rape, are criminal in my opinion.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> It was the Colorado Gold Rush and Kobe Bryant was the mining claim. I don't care for Kobe Bryant, but I simply can't let a comment that he "raped" that woman stand without comment. Her accusations, and the politically motivated prosecution of Bryant with knowledge that the "victim" lol: ) engaged in conduct that could not possibly be more inconsistent with the allegation of rape, are criminal in my opinion.


I followed the case pretty closely at the time and agree with Ron that the alleged victim had 0% credibility. She either got her feelings hurt after consensual sex or it was a money grab from the get-go. Bryant was guilty of bad judgment (including ratting out Shaq) but not rape.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Sham said:


> Without wanting to discuss this subject at length, cos it's icky.....
> 
> ......who has consensual sex with someone after just being raped by someone else?


I'll keep the ickiness to a minimum and not go into great detail, but the nature of the evidence of her having consensual sex after the incident was quite speculative (an interpretation from a defense witness that was hardly the only explanation to the situation). It isn't anything like finding the "born on" date on a beer.

That, coupled with the relatively tight timeline makes it fairly unlikely to me.

Beyond that, why would anyone have sex after a rape? Well, for pretty much the same reasons that rapes are vastly under-reported and difficult to prove. If there is a rape, it's a traumatic experience and people react in very strange ways to traumatic experiences.

I doubt personally if there was sufficient evidence to convict Bryant, but the evidence here was certainly stronger than in say, the Duke Lacrosse team rape case. In that case, the DNA evidence apparently was clearly exculpatory, the prosecution clearly was acting on information it should have known was false. From everything I've read, in the Bryant case the accuser provided a consistent story on the material details and that was corroborated by others. A colleague nearly immediately after the incident. An ex, her parents. Heck, even in the initial interview with the police, Bryant (after lying about the whole thing first and asking the police to simply avoid it, but before throwing a spunk covered shirt at a detective's face) walks through pretty much the stereotype "guy's account" of a date rape.

According to him:
* They were messing around
* Her "eyes" told him she wanted to have sex
* He held her by the neck
* He stopped when at some point he recognized she said no.

That's really the problem with a date rape sort of situation. How is consent defined? Did she really say no before that? Did he stop as soon as she did?

 If he didn't, then at least according to common law precedent, that's rape. Perhaps that's not what the average guy wants to think, but my understanding has been that anything less than immediate compliance with a woman's wishes in this respect are consistent with rape.

Beyond actually saying yes and no, there's some gray area as where the circumstance implies one thing or the other. On the one hand, there was some other intimate activity. On the other, pulling down a woman's panties bending her over and holding her by the neck, I would think typically points things in the other direction.

The problem here isn't the particular testimony of the accuser, it's the reality of what happens in most of these "acquaintance rape" sort of situations. 

Which is exactly why the sort of commentary here is so reckless and inappropriate. It's one thing to pay lip-service to "taking rape seriously" or whatever, but if your actions, in every possible way, belittle and attack the accuser in a situation where there was at least enough evidence to bring the case to trial.

Again, contrast with the Duke case, where, when the evidence has resulted in the prosecutor stepping down and having misconduct charges brought against him, and where it appears the charges will be dropped a fair amount earlier in the process.

In that case, I'd say that maybe the evidence possibly supports the sort of accusations being made here. In this case, whether a rape occured, or there was sufficient evidence to convict, there seemed clearly enough to go to trial without the prosecution getting in deep ethical trouble for lying. 

It's a messy, sick process, but within the system we've got, that's indicative of something at least. I agree it's completely possible she just felt badly afterwards. Or in the middle of it and wanted it to stop. People have major hangups about sex after all. But based on the law and the evidence here it appears to me this is the wrong case to launch into a gold digger diatribe about a rape accusation.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Hmm...Kobe...Kobe...

Isn't he the guy who used to make those Hertz rent-a-car commercials where he'd run through the airport, jumping over chairs?


----------



## RageofDaBulls (Feb 2, 2007)

Cant beleave we are already talking about this,seems like yesterday he was a 2nd,3rd yr player.same with Shaq and KG.when did they stop calling Kg "the Kid"?


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> Which is exactly why the sort of commentary here is so reckless and inappropriate. It's one thing to pay lip-service to "taking rape seriously" or whatever, but if your actions, in every possible way, belittle and attack the accuser in a situation *where there was at least enough evidence to bring the case to trial.*
> 
> In that case, I'd say that maybe the evidence possibly supports the sort of accusations being made here. In this case, whether a rape occured, or there was sufficient evidence to convict, *there seemed clearly enough to go to trial* without the prosecution getting in deep ethical trouble for lying.
> 
> It's a messy, sick process, but within the system we've got, that's indicative of something at least. I agree it's completely possible she just felt badly afterwards. Or in the middle of it and wanted it to stop. People have major hangups about sex after all. *But based on the law and the evidence here* it appears to me this is the wrong case to launch into a gold digger diatribe about a rape accusation.


First, don't talk about there being sufficient evidence to take the case to trial. The case *didn't go to trial* precisely because *there was not sufficient evidence.* She opted to drop the criminal case, refused to testify, and opted for her money grab instead. The "sufficient evidence" argument simply isn't true. If there was "sufficient evidence" then they would have gone to trial. They had every motivation to do so. They didn't, and she got paid. 

Second, what "law" exactly are you referring to? The "law" that deemed her promiscuity before and after the "rape" to be admissible despite the existence of a rape shield statute? 

Not only is this the right case to "launch into a gold digger diatribe" - it is one of the best publicized cases in which to do so. The existence of the Duke incident does not make the Bryant incident less disgusting. The existence of Jeffrey Dahmer doesn't make Chuck Manson a nice guy. 

This was a miscarriage of justice averted, luckily and somewhat ironically, by the accuser's undeniable preference for money over vindication.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

MikeDC said:


> It's one thing to pay lip-service to "taking rape seriously" or whatever, but if your actions, in every possible way, belittle and attack the accuser in a situation where there was at least enough evidence to bring the case to trial.


And I wanted to point something out, given that you seem to be of the opinion that my "lip service" suggest that I don't think rape is serious: It is precisely because it is so serious that false allegations such as those leveled against Bryant should be strongly condemned. 

False allegations make it all that much more difficult for real rape victims to obtain justice because the more often it is falsely alleged, the more likely people are not to believe it when it really happens. 

For victims who seek convictions - not just monetary settlements - allegations like Faber's make those convictions, and real justice, more difficult to obtain.


----------



## DaBullz (Jul 15, 2002)

The ramifications for the athlete who's accused, even wrongly, of rape are significant. Wrongly accused, a lot of people are going to believe the charges anyhow. There's the courts and then there's the court of public opinion. 

I personally don't think he's a rapist. Adulterer, certainly. That speaks to his judgement being poor, not criminality. It's not like he's the president of the united states or something - where judgement is a key part of the job.

In any case, he's Dominique who won three rings when he had Shaq as a teammate.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> That is the whole point, and I guess I should have elaborated on it further (but I thought I emphasized the timing issue the first time).
> 
> Without being able to find the articles, I read that the prosecution (understandably) wasn't able to find a credible expert who would be willing to testify that a rape victim would - instead of reporting the rape - go out and promptly bang someone else (or multiple someones) within mere hours of the attack. Whereas Kobe's lawyers (understandably) could have filled a soccer stadium with experts to say that conduct is absolutely inconsistent with post-rape behavior.


Since we're getting into the details here, I think this is pretty misleading. The only source of the speculation that she had sex with someone afterward that I'm aware of was based on the fact that a third person's DNA was found upon examining the accuser, but that person's DNA was not found on Bryant. 

The accuser having sex with the third person afterward is consistent with these facts, but it's hardly definitive. It's one possible explanation. It's also possible, perhaps more so, that
1. The encounter was brief and the skin to skin contact was relatively small (were' probably talking about hair folicles here) so Bryant didn't get any of the third party's DNA on him.
2. Or, somewhat more probably, there was some present, but it wasn't picked up in the examination of Bryant.
3. Or that she simply put on another set of unwashed panties when she went for the examination.

In short, it could still be horrible evidence against the prosecution (because it raises a reasonable doubt) while still being the abject opposite of definitive (as it's being stated here).

From reading through the affidavit, it appears to me the timeline for a post Bryant sexual encounter would be pretty tight. The encounter appears to have happened between 11:00 and 11:20 on June 30. She was seen by a colleague distraught, saying she was assaulted and going home to her parents house immediately afterward. She talked to an ex-boyfriend at approximately this time too, again sounding distraught. The ex apparently thought she was at home (because he tried to call there). The next afternoon she called the police and was examined at a hospital, apparently with her parents present.

I haven't immediately found any interview or testimony about what time she arrived home, which would appear crucial, but it doesn't appear to me that there was a lot of time for her to stop off and "bang someone" before going home. And certainly nobody has stepped forward to suggest this.

This, plus the fact that two seperate people reported her distraught immediately afterwards, and she clearly made her parents aware of it and was likely in their presence for a good portion of the unknown time frame makes it fairly difficult, though not impossible for me to buy the idea she was out partying it up in the immediate time.



> Indeed, the circumstances were so bizarre and inconsistent with rape that the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's findings that they constituted an exception to the rape shield law - which is in place to prevent the "perverse" results that MikeDC is (rightly) concerned with..


As I understand it, the exception was granted on rather technical grounds, as you might find when your average prosecutor goes up against a top flight defense attorney on a case that's inherently very difficult to prove in the first place.

The basic facts, I think, are this:
CO law allows rape to be demonstrated through evidence of either non-consensual sex through statements (inherently hard to prove, of course) or by using injury to the accuser to imply violence. The prosecuters were going the latter route.

The rape shield law is in effect in the former case, but there's a loophole in the second case to the effect that prior sexual activity, if it can reasonably be the cause of the injury. That is, the history is (ostensibly, of course) relevant to showing injury, not promiscuity. Of course, what it does in practice is entirely diferent, and the defense hit a home run in going down this road. 

But again, the facts are quite a bit less definitive than you make them. They are certainly evidence that gives some room for reasonable doubt, but they still pretty strongly suggest violent, non-consensual sex.. To some extent, vaginal lacerations open the possibility of multiple consensual sexual encounters. This is consistent with the finding of many small abrasions of about a millimeter. It is quite a bit less consistent with the two 1 cm lacerations found, and the accuser's blood recovered on Bryant's shirt.

Again... I'm not arguing that any of this evidence should be inadmissible, and it certainly raises some doubts. Probably enough to get Byrant off. However, the weight of the evidence suggests to me he's probably not innocent... just not guilty.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

In my opinion, the fact that the girl decided not to testify (therefore obliterating the criminal case) is not dispositive as to whether there was consent or not. The evidence does pretty clearly show she was upset after the fact -- which is not dispositive either, but does make it seem likely to me that there was a problem that night.

I also don't think the fact that she went after civil damages is damning to her either. She wanted vindication and got some vindication, without having to continue with the three ring circus that the criminal pretrial hearings had become -- and which would have only intensified at actual trial. PLus looking forward to the defense putting her on the stand and calling her a slut over and over. Who would want to go through that? I can't blame her for being reluctant. Finally, we've seen some dubious results in high profile criminal cases. Its always easier to prove preponderence of the evidence than it is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Finally, I agree that the 3rd party DNA could very well be a red herring. As Mike points out, the timeline was pretty tight to pull off a tryst. Not to mention the fact that while it has been pointed out that having consensual sex after the incident is inconsistent with rape, it is also inconsistent with reporting a rape to be a gold digger. If she was trying to set up a civil case, no way she taints the best evidence (Kobe's dna in her honeypot) by having sex with someone else before going for her exam.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

Ron Cey said:


> And I wanted to point something out, given that you seem to be of the opinion that my "lip service" suggest that I don't think rape is serious: It is precisely because it is so serious that false allegations such as those leveled against Bryant should be strongly condemned.


I think you believe rape is serious, but your actions render that belief a completely abstract notion while having the practical effect of just the opposite. 

I can't imagine any circumstance in your world where a victim of an aquaintance rape, could expect to have her criminal case proved beyond a reasonable doubt when confronted with a capable defense team with unlimited money. Nor can I imagine any circumstance where, in recognition of that reality (and the hardships certain to be incurred in fighting it), the victim wouldn't be summarily tarred and feathered for recognizing that reality and seeking civil recompense (which, in any practical sense, compensate her much better anyway).

Your ideals are high-minded, of course. In a world of high-minded ideals, perfect people and complete certainty, it'd be great. Implementing those ideas in the real world, with real people, seems to have the opposite effect of what you want though.


----------



## Dornado (May 26, 2003)

MikeDC said:


> I think you believe rape is serious, but your actions render that belief a completely abstract notion while having the practical effect of just the opposite.
> 
> I can't imagine any circumstance in your world where a victim of an aquaintance rape, could expect to have her criminal case proved beyond a reasonable doubt when confronted with a capable defense team with unlimited money. Nor can I imagine any circumstance where, in recognition of that reality (and the hardships certain to be incurred in fighting it), the victim wouldn't be summarily tarred and feathered for recognizing that reality and seeking civil recompense (which, in any practical sense, compensate her much better anyway).
> 
> Your ideals are high-minded, of course. In a world of high-minded ideals, perfect people and complete certainty, it'd be great. Implementing those ideas in the real world, with real people, seems to have the opposite effect of what you want though.


apparently "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MikeDC again."... but great post.

It seems for the most part people are going to see what they want to see when it comes to the Kobe Bryant case... but the visceral nature with which some people go after the alleged victim in this case is really revealing. 

Just because a case doesn't go to trial doesn't mean the evidence isn't sufficient... (in fact, cases like this are a perfect example of prosecutorial descretion at work) and, just as an aside... Kobe paid her off... you can call her a "gold digger"... but if Kobe didn't do anything wouldn't he want his name cleared in the civil trial? Why settle? If your answer is "he didn't want to go through the hassle and negative publicity of a trial"... well... some consideration should be given to viewing the victims reluctance to go to trial through the same forgiving lens...


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Since we're getting into the details here, I think this is pretty misleading. The only source of the speculation that she had sex with someone afterward that I'm aware of was based on the fact that a third person's DNA was found upon examining the accuser, but that person's DNA was not found on Bryant.
> 
> The accuser having sex with the third person afterward is consistent with these facts, but it's hardly definitive. It's one possible explanation. It's also possible, perhaps more so, that
> 1. The encounter was brief and the skin to skin contact was relatively small (were' probably talking about hair folicles here) so Bryant didn't get any of the third party's DNA on him.
> ...


Didn't they had a statement from the person she had sex with.

p.s. Saying this isn't as agregious as the Duke case is about as high a bar as there could possibly be set. At least in terms of prosecutor's unethical behavior.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> Great speculation, but as I recall, they had a statement from the person she had sex with.


Link? I've read things pretty carefully and I'm fairly certain this was not the case. If it were, then Bryant was certainly a fool to even settle the civil case.

Here's an SI article that indicates the Mr. X had sex with her after Bryant theory was based, as I stated, on the circumstance of not finding Mr. X's semen on Bryant.



> When Bryant's accuser underwent her medical exam, swabs were taken from her vagina and thighs. Also, fabric samples were taken from the yellow underpants she wore to the exam and the purple pair worn during her encounter with Bryant. Initially, this evidence was analyzed by the Colorado Bureau of Investigation at the crime lab in Denver, which found that the pair worn to the exam contained a semen stain belonging to a man other than Bryant.
> 
> 
> The defense subsequently ran its own forensic tests on the underwear and the swabs collected from the accuser. The analysis was performed by a private lab in Ventura, Calif., operated by Marc Taylor, a former L.A. Medical Examiner's Office criminalist who worked as an expert witness for the O.J. Simpson defense team. Taylor's lab reported that it found sperm from a man other than Bryant -- identified as Mr. X -- in both pairs of the accuser's underwear and on the swabs taken from her body.
> ...


That is, the defense's speculation is exactly as I said and they didn't mention a statement from anyone. If they had a witness to come forward and say he had sex with her after Bryant, they obviously would have (and they'd be obligated to in fact) mentioned it. 


The article then goes on to mention several of the points I did.





> The accuser told investigators that she had sex about three days before meeting Bryant but no sex between that encounter and her exam. It has been reported that the DNA on the purple panties establishes that the accuser had sexual contact soon after her encounter with Bryant, but prosecutors have filed a document that says cotton cloth can retain semen even after it has been repeatedly "soaked or washed."
> 
> 
> This does not explain sperm and semen on the swabs from the woman's body, but SI has learned that besides being a small sample, the DNA from Mr. X consisted of only the portions of sperm that remain after it has degraded over time. "Generally, when degraded sperm is all you see, it means several days have gone by," said Singer.
> ...


Finally, I looked through the CourtTV coverage and didn't see anything like "Defense witness states he had sex with Accuser after Bryant", which would pretty obviously have been a major story.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> Here's an SI article The article then goes on to mention several of the points I did.


Gee, the author is Jeff Benedict, a frequent contributor to SI, also the author of *Out of Bounds: Inside the NBA's Culture of Rape, Violence and Crime*. I wonder which way he is going to want it to go?

As I recally, this particular article was the most daming at the time and conflicted with others written at a similar time. Also written 6 weeks or so before the case collapsed. I can't find any good "after the fact" summaries. Hard to believe since so much was written prior.

At the time, I read and believed some radically diffirent accounts. Some of it was blogged so I don't expect everyone or anyone to believe the sources. If I could find them. But that's ok. Everyone can take (or don't take) this with as many grains of salt as they want.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

johnston797 said:


> At the time, I read and believed some radically diffirent accounts. Some of it was blogged so I don't expect everyone or anyone to believe the sources. If I could find them. But that's ok. Everyone can take (or don't take) this with as many grains of salt as they want.


CourtTV and The Smoking Gun both have pretty extensive archives of Kobe rape trial stuff and I looked and found nothing. I'm all for being skeptical, but I have a pretty hard time believing there was something as obvious as a star defense witness that didn't even merit a headline on one of those two sites.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> If it were, then Bryant was certainly a fool to even settle the civil case.


It's a nuisence and privacy fee. Kobe as a corporation needs to think of corporate sponsers. If it's proven that Kobe is a SUPER-FREAK, but not a rapist, this might be a real, real hard sell for Sprite.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

MikeDC said:


> CourtTV and The Smoking Gun both have pretty extensive archives of Kobe rape trial stuff and I looked and found nothing. I'm all for being skeptical, but I have a pretty hard time believing there was something as obvious as a star defense witness that didn't even merit a headline on one of those two sites.


I couldn't call it comprehensive. For instance, I didn't see anything on CourtTV annoucing the civil settlement.

It's thought that Person X is the bell-hop, no?


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

OK - When i said I had read some dodgy sources but found them to have some credibility this is the type of thing I am refering to:

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/kobe-bryant-accuser.html



> In this case, more than a dozen of the American Idol reject's 'friends' have come forward to discuss the matter and their alleged conversations with the accuser. In just the past week alone, Lindsey McKinney, 18, Ashley Scriver, 19, Sara Lombardi, 17, Rachel Yandle, Janelle Medina, 19, Casey Strickler, Sharon Smith, 17, Tyson Ivie, 18, Brigitte Lowry, Sara Dabner, 17, Josh Putnam, Stephanie Morris, 17, Steve Evancho, and Luke Bray, have all had their fifteen minutes of fame to discuss the various aspects of the case - and many have corroborated facts that are not necessarily complimentary to the accuser.
> 
> According to a *July 22nd NBC report*, the alleged 'rape victim' was at a party last week - three days before Kobe Bryant was formerly charged - "bragging" about the incident, and even gave a graphic description of Bryant's anatomy to the astonishment of five witnesses.


At the time, I read some very detailed accounts from of these friends that related direct conversations that they had with the accuser. This started circulating right at the time the case fell apart.

Again, take it for what it's worth.

p.s. Never heard of Tabloidcolum but they do have a very, very extenstive list of articles about the case.

http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/kobe-bryant-archives.html


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm a little late to this thread, but my two cents is that Kobe is the best player in the NBA this year. I don't know if that makes him MVP or not, but for my money he's the best individual player by far. 

If he's not asked to be on the USA team next summer something is very wrong.

As for how he'll be remembered... Guys who don't wear championship rings are ranked below those who do. He's wearing enough to be remembered as one of the best players of all time. If Bynum comes along he could wear a couple more.


----------



## 7RINGS? (Sep 28, 2004)

He will be remembered as another guy who couldn't live up to the next Jordan tag.He will also be remembered for the rape scandle and for breaking up the Laker dynasty by helping get rid of Shaq.If Shaq could win another one with D-Wade he shurly could have won another one with Kobe.Heck if Wade gets back in time they still have a shot at another one!Kobe has a huge ego and in the end it will cost him watch!Kobe is a guy that has damaged his rep so bad that he gets suspended for droping accidental bows during his shots.Can't feel sorry for the guy,he cries too much.Oh and if the Bulls didn't blow out so many teams during Jordan's carrer I'm sure he would of had at least a few more 60-65 pt games,if not more.Can someone find the number of blow outs the Bulls had while Jordan played?Ya find me those stats.Then see how mant 4th quarters he sat out.I heard espn say that Kobe has the red light,he's in what his 10th or 11th season?!!! He still has the red light?? Jordan had the red light early in his carrer but became a more complete player later on.Thats why he has 6 finals MVP awards to Kobe's 0!! If Jordan had the red light his whole carrer he wouldn't have won 3 rings but he would be doing what Kobe's doing now,scoring like crazy being a one man show but never winning another title! He taught the guys around him how to get better instead of slacking off in games to show his teamates how bad they are!kOBE LACKS LEADERSHIP!! He isn't half the deffender Jordan was and not even a quarter of the player.Kobe will go down as the guy who couldn't live up to the hype!


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

> I think you believe rape is serious, but your actions render that belief a completely abstract notion while having the practical effect of just the opposite.


My "actions" relate to one specific fact pattern, not rape allegations in general. The vast majority of which bear no resemblence to the facts that concern me with this case. 



> *I can't imagine any circumstance in your world where a victim of an aquaintance rape, could expect to have her criminal case proved beyond a reasonable doubt when confronted with a capable defense team with unlimited money.* Nor can I imagine any circumstance where, in recognition of that reality (and the hardships certain to be incurred in fighting it), the victim wouldn't be summarily tarred and feathered for recognizing that reality and seeking civil recompense (which, in any practical sense, compensate her much better anyway).


You can't? I can imagine lots of circumstances where the victim doesn't have 3 kinds of semen on her, at least one of which very likely appeared within mere hours after the rape (uh, unless you believe someone working at a 5 star resort only showers every 4 days despite having sex with multiple partners during the interem), and where the victim didn't file a civil suit before the criminal prosecution and then refuse to testify.

Yes, I can imagine lots of circumstances like that. Let me give you an example. Woman X gets date-raped. She reports it to the police. She testifies at the criminal trial. She then files a civil suit seeking monetary damages. See? Pretty easy to imagine.

I have no problem with the filing of a civil suit. I do have a problem with the early filing of a civil suit and bargaining away your criminal testimony for a fast settlement. I'm a lawyer who defends civil suits. The timing of the way this played out literally screams money grab. And frankly, you wouldn't need to be a lawyer to figure that out. 



> Your ideals are high-minded, of course. In a world of high-minded ideals, perfect people and complete certainty, it'd be great. Implementing those ideas in the real world, with real people, seems to have the opposite effect of what you want though.


Correct, my ideals are high-minded. I disapprove of false allegations of rape.


----------



## McBulls (Apr 28, 2005)

I'm no lawyer, but the circumstances of this case smelled of extorsion from the start. Since Kobe was acquitted of the charges, the case is history as far as I'm concerned. 

This was no OJ Simpson case. My guess is that he didn't rape the girl. So he shouldn't be treated like a criminal now.


----------



## Soulful Sides (Oct 10, 2005)

Basketball wise, the answer to the question *How will Kobe be remembered?* is:

A lot more favorably than he is looked upon right now. And thats a shame.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

I'll remember him as a rapist. The only reason the charges were dropped was because a bunch of retards were threatening the victim everywhere she went, and she was sick of being tormented and persecuted herself. Sex is hardly consensual when you're a little woman being held in a chokehold, bent over a chair by a 6'6" 220 lb man. 

Prior to that, he was already my most hated player in the NBA by far, and that cemented him as the guy that will always be my most hated ever. He was always cocky, arrogant, over-rated, selfish, etc etc. If he'd been a team player, and not so damn arrogant, the Lakers would still be winning championships. To even compare him to Jordan is asinine. Jordan made all of his teammates better, and that's what makes a good player truly great. 

I sincerely hope he rots in hell.


----------



## step (Sep 19, 2005)

> Sex is hardly consensual when you're a little woman being held in a chokehold, bent over a chair by a 6'6" 220 lb man.


She enjoyed it enough to want an encore shortly afterwards.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

> He was always cocky, arrogant, over-rated, selfish, etc etc.
> 
> To even compare him to Jordan is asinine.


Heh.


----------



## MikeDC (Jul 16, 2002)

_Homer is invited to be a guest on Smartline. Kent Brockman interviews
him.
_
*Kent: *Mr. Simpson, how do you respond to the charges that petty
vandalism such as graffiti is down eighty percent, while heavy
sack-beatings are up a shocking nine hundred percent?
*Homer: *Aw, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent.
Forty percent of all people know that.
*Kent: *I see. Well, what do you say to the accusation that your group
has been causing more crimes than it's been preventing?
*Homer: *[_amused_] Oh, Kent, I'd be lying if I said my men weren't
committing crimes.

*Kent: *[_pause_] Well, touche'.
</pre>


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

> I'll remember him as a rapist.



http://snltranscripts.jt.org/97/97tjeopardy.phtml










Alex Trebek: [ interrupting ] Right, Mr. Connery. why don't you pick? 










Sean Connery: It looks like this is my lucky day! I'll take "The Rapists" for $200.

Alex Trebek: That's "Therapists." That's "Therapists," not "The Rapists." Let's skip "Therapists" and try "Household Objects", for $400. And the answer is, "You usually drink water out of one of these." [ Sean Connery buzzes in ] Sean Connery.

Sean Connery: A leather glove!

Alex Trebek: No. [ Minnie Driver buzzes in ] Minnie Driver.

Minnie Driver: A toilet!

Alex Trebek: That is awful. [ Jeff Goldblum buzzes in ] Jeff Goldblum.

Jeff Goldblum: [ marvels at the buzzer until time runs out ]

Alex Trebek: And you're an idiot! The answer was "a glass."

Sean Connery: Then the day is mine!

Alex Trebek: [ hesitant ] Technically, it's still Mr. Goldblum's board, but since he's a human wasteland, I'll let Mr. Connery pick again.

Sean Connery: Ohhhh, I'll play your game, you rogue! Let's try "The Rapists" for $20.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> Celebrity Jeopardy
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:lol: God, I loved that one.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sham said:


> Heh.


What were you getting at there? Laughing at what I said, or why'd you just quote that part and that laugh or w/e it is?


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

It's the fact that you list Kobe's flaws and then claim him incomparable to Jordan, yet it's not like Jordan was immune to those things himself. Except maybe the overrated bit.


----------



## DaBabyBullz (May 26, 2006)

Sham said:


> It's the fact that you list Kobe's flaws and then claim him incomparable to Jordan, yet it's not like Jordan was immune to those things himself. Except maybe the overrated bit.


Jordan had charisma out of this world, whereas a vast majority of people HATE Kobe's guts, always have and always will. I know some people considered Jordan arrogant/over-rated, etc, but that was the minority in his case, instead of the vast majority that view Kobe that way. Jordan was an international star that took the NBA global. Kobe's a scorer-only, and is selfish. Jordan was just as good at defense, maybe better even, than he was at offense, plus he made every junk player they put on his team look much better than they really were. Kobe had Shaq and a bunch of good role players to win his championships. Jordan had Pippen, who was much better because of Jordan, and a few good role players. Kobe didn't make Shaq better at all...Shaq was just Shaq, and he's what made that team roll. The only thing selfish that Jordan ever did in my opinion was his stupid retiring and unretiring crap. 

So basically, MJ might've been a LITTLE cocky, arrogant, selfish, but he was very moderate in those degrees, whereas Kobe is off the charts. That's like comparing someone who got a speeding ticket to someone who was arrested for being a serial-killer. There was NOTHING over-rated about MJ, but I think you agree with me there at least.


----------



## Ron Cey (Dec 27, 2004)

DaBabyBullz said:


> *Prior to that, he was already my most hated player in the NBA by far*, and that cemented him as the guy that will always be my most hated ever.


Do you think its possible that this colored the way you viewed the whole thing? 

Kobe was - and is - one of my least favorite NBA players as well. I too think he's a smug, arrogant, selfish player who put his own interests above title contention to the detriment of all his teammates and the organization that pays him $126 million. 

When the allegations came down, I frankly wanted him to be guilty of it. But as the circumstances unfolded, it became - in my opinion - clear as day that this whole thing was extortion. The facts as I've laid them out here lead only to that conclusion, in my opinion. And if not that concrete of a conclusion (and I understand why some wouldn't find it as obvious as I do), it at least casts MAJOR doubt as to whether or not he did it. I find it strange that anyone would believe Faber's conduct here doesn't at least create significant issues with her credibility. 

And for what its worth, I don't think the reports support your theory that she only backed out because "whackos" were giving her a hard time. That had been going on for quite some time, and she didn't back down. It wasn't until the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the trial court's order admitting evidence of the multiple sources of semen and her sexual conduct during the 72 hours surrounding the alleged rape that she refused to testify in the criminal case and opted to get paid instead. 

Furthermore, the reason we know about at least some of the "whackos" is because Kobe Bryant himself reported to the FBI that he had received a solicitation from a man offering to kill Faber for him. 

Anyway, as for Kobe the player, whom I have not yet commented on, it pains me to say that I think he's a top 25 all-time player and the 3rd best shooting guard in the history of the game. MJ, Big O, Kobe.


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

In the end Kobe will be remembered as the 2nd greatest SG of all time. And the delta between him and MJ won't be nearly as great as some of us MJ fans hope. 

Just to put some things into perspective, Kobe is possibly the greatest individual player in the game right now and has been for a while. While his gaudy numbers haven't translated into titles as of late, neither did MJ's in the early part of his career. His 81 point outburst absolutely shattered MJ's records and to put an asterix next to it because he was running up the score against the Raptors and MoPete and Jalen Rose is a little unfair. His ability to score at will is Jordanesque the attention that he draws on both sides of the court is as well.

The general population despises Kobe for the same reasons MJ was embraced. A young MJ would have butt heads with Shaq as well. Cocky, arrogant, ballhog? There's a fine line between those qualities and leader, confident, and superstar. MJ wasn't known for the latter qualities until he started winning.

I'd love to continue this discussion because Kobe's a player I've gone from loving to hating to now simply appreciating in spite of his criticisms. Unfortunately work is brutal right now.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> In the end Kobe will be remembered as the 2nd greatest SG of all time. And the delta between him and MJ won't be nearly as great as some of us MJ fans hope.


In this case, the "delta" being the hairy jungle that is Katelyn Faber's honeypot. Not nearly as great? Depends who you ask, I guess.










But sometimes its best to take the road less traveled...


----------



## SecretAgentGuy (Jul 15, 2003)

TomBoerwinkle#1 said:


> In this case, the "delta" being the *hairy jungle* that is Katelyn Faber's honeypot. Not nearly as great? Depends who you ask, I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Touche.


----------



## johnston797 (May 29, 2002)

SecretAgentGuy said:


> In the end Kobe will be remembered as the 2nd greatest SG of all time. And the delta between him and MJ won't be nearly as great as some of us MJ fans hope.
> 
> Just to put some things into perspective, Kobe is possibly the greatest individual player in the game right now and has been for a while. While his gaudy numbers haven't translated into titles as of late, neither did MJ's in the early part of his career. His 81 point outburst absolutely shattered MJ's records and to put an asterix next to it because he was running up the score against the Raptors and MoPete and Jalen Rose is a little unfair. His ability to score at will is Jordanesque the attention that he draws on both sides of the court is as well.
> 
> ...


Close? MJ was named MVP of the league or MVP of the NBA Championship 11 times. Wake me up when Kobe gets ONE.


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

Money, It's GOT to be The Shoes...!!!!


----------



## TomBoerwinkle#1 (Jul 31, 2002)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0LDOTJ_7Zo0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0LDOTJ_7Zo0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zezwd8mNOnE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zezwd8mNOnE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xc_cVL7vgKs"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xc_cVL7vgKs" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/X0NUTBAAMdg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/X0NUTBAAMdg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>\

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1C0J8HDLETA"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1C0J8HDLETA" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N4Czwz56dxQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N4Czwz56dxQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZlSqK7eR3A"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_ZlSqK7eR3A" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>


----------

