# Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant look like Amare Stoudamire



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

The King is on the throne. Stats, standings, perception, these things do not capture fully the interdimensional dominance that Lebron James has on the game of basketball.

Lebron James at 20 is playing this league like a fiddle.

We have never been witness to something so great in our lifetimes before. Savor it like the uncut raw dope that it is.

Can you see?


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

But the real question, can he hang with Dahntay Jones?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Theo!</b>!
> But the real question, can he hang with Dahntay Jones?


No. But fortunately D. Jones doesn't get the minutes and Lebron only has to see him twice a year. Otherwise we'd have to worry about his long term pysche. Dahntay is the wrong guy to mess with. I'm not saying The King fears him, but he knows what's his and what's not. And the Destroyer is not his.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

Lebron sucks , gatorade is better


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>SamTheMan67</b>!
> Lebron sucks , gatorade is better


Gatorade eventually runs out and you have to go to the store and buy some more.

Lebron James is like the river that never runs dry.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Man you guys really sweat him hard. Can he prove himself in the playoffs first? Or would that be too much to ask?


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

LeBron is probably the most gifted basketball player in terms of physical capabilities. At his age he is tremendous and a potent superstar.

The question is... will he be better than Michael Jordan.

Michael Jordan is probably less physically gifted as LeBron at the same age, but what made Michael Jordan the best is that every challenge laid upon him... he has met. Although a younger Michael Jordan is not winner, he's more like today's top shooting guards. Michael always had that competitiveness and hatred of being 2nd best.... thats what made him the best.

You cant argue how many games Jordan single handedly won and how many of those games where significant games.


Kobe in the other hand, is a winner already... although not by himself. He is one of the most talented and hard working players in the league... but from what I can see... He isnt a *Great* team player. And thats what all these arguments are about... Kobe vs T-Mac, Kobe vs LeBron etc. 
LeBron is the better team player than Kobe right now, but they both aren't great... for Lebron he is getting there.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

We've heard it all before. Kobe was better _for his age_ than Jordan, had the stats, had the rings, had the awards, had the image, had everything. Kobe supposedly had a *better* work ethic than Jordan too, and it was only a matter of time before he became the games greatest ever. Of course, that is according to the media. It was only a matter of time. 

Well guess what? The time has come, and Kobe is in his prime. Is he Jordan? Nope, but he is still a damn good basketball player and is still better than a pre-prime Lebron James by a decent margin, in my opinion. 

I'll enjoy the greatness of Lebron James when he becomes great in a few years. Until then, I choose to enjoy more of the greatness the league currently offers with guys like Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant. They are guys who are constantly overlooked because people would rather marvel at how great guys are _for their age_ and not how great they are period.


----------



## Kunlun (Jun 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The King is on the throne. Stats, standings, perception, these things do not capture fully the interdimensional dominance that Lebron James has on the game of basketball.
> 
> Lebron James at 20 is playing this league like a fiddle.
> ...


Please, do we need to hear any more of this kind of ****?


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> We've heard it all before. Kobe was better _for his age_ than Jordan, had the stats, had the rings, had the awards, had the image, had everything. Kobe supposedly had a *better* work ethic than Jordan too, and it was only a matter of time before he became the games greatest ever. Of course, that is according to the media. It was only a matter of time.
> 
> Well guess what? The time has come, and Kobe is in his prime. Is he Jordan? Nope, but he is still a damn good basketball player and is still better than a pre-prime Lebron James by a decent margin, in my opinion.


True. But LeBron James - at 19 - is so much better than *anybody* before him (incl. Bryant and Jordan). It's really hard to imagine he won't fulfill the expectations.
This guy has it. It's in his hands to be the greatest. I think he will do it.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> True. But LeBron James - at 19 - is so much better than *anybody* before him (incl. Bryant and Jordan). It's really hard to imagine he won't fulfill the expectations.
> This guy has it. It's in his hands to be the greatest. I think he will do it.


This is how causal fans are created there.

Dont look at his age, but look what he can improve on in his style of play first.

I can name a few weakness that is going to sticj with his name for years to come.

1) lack of explosiveness to score when it counts.
2) too heavy to be masted at mi-dtange jumpers like Kobe, Jordan and Iverson.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> This is how causal fans are created there.
> ...


You can teach a jumper, you can't teach the intagibles he has "Court vision, bball IQ, athletic ability (to a certain extent), all around basketball talent"


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Theo!</b>!
> 
> 
> You can teach a jumper, you can't teach the intagibles he has "Court vision, bball IQ, athletic ability (to a certain extent), all around basketball talent"


And can he lose weight epsiecally he is built like a tank?

I said he is too HEAVY to make consistent pull up jumpers!


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> And can he lose weight epsiecally he is built like a tank?
> ...


I'm saying you can teach a jumpshot, if he's heavy it may be not as freakishly good as Jordan or whatever but practise can make it normally money


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

Ot: John, how do you thik of Corey Maggette's jumpshooting ability


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> Dont look at his age, but look what he can improve on in his style of play first.


His range and his defense, for example. There's still a lot of room for improvement, even for LeBron.



> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 1) lack of explosiveness to score when it counts.
> 2) too heavy to be masted at mi-dtange jumpers like Kobe, Jordan and Iverson.


Are you serious? LeBron is probably the quickest 6'8 player out there. Sure, he's no Iverson, but at 6'8 245 he runs with the best of them.


----------



## KrispyKreme23 (Dec 22, 2003)

> Originally posted by *Theo!*!
> Ot: John, how do you thik of Corey Maggette's jumpshooting ability


It does not rival that of Vincent Lamar Carter and Rodney Rogers.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The King is on the throne. Stats, standings, perception, these things do not capture fully the interdimensional dominance that Lebron James has on the game of basketball.
> 
> Lebron James at 20 is playing this league like a fiddle.
> ...


Until he has another 2-20 game right? Then people will jump on him and say he can't shoot jumpers.


----------



## JNice (Jul 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> And can he lose weight epsiecally he is built like a tank?
> ...


Too heavy to make pull up jumpers? Wow, first time i've heard that one.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> His range and his defense, for example. There's still a lot of room for improvement, even for LeBron.
> 
> ...


Lebron may only be 19, but he coming into the NBA, he was physically more mature than a lot of college students. Unlike any of the other high schoolers, Lebron came to the NBA a near finished product, who was ready to contribute right away. You already know what kind of player he is, he does not have to develop into one 2-3 years from now like most high schoolers do. I think that Lebron is a great talent and will be the most likely candidate to take Jordan's throne as GOAT, but looking at raw talent, I think that we may have already seen most of it. Theres nothing hidden, he just needs to improve on what he already has. There are some weaknesses in his game that won't improve, there is a difference in speed and quickness. Lebron is extrordinarly fast in the open court, but he lacks quickness in the half court. Thats not going to change in a few years, his first step is average and he can't beat defenders the way that Jordan, or Kobe can. Instead when he handles the ball, he relies on screens and uses a lot of ball fakes to get the intial step on defenders, which is a skill that alot of younger players don't immediately rely on, which James does. Its not a knock on Lebron's game, but his lack of quickness in the halfcourt and first step are things that will not improve as he progresses along, his defense and shooting will though.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Drewbs</b>!
> 
> 
> Lebron may only be 19, but he coming into the NBA, he was physically more mature than a lot of college students. Unlike any of the other high schoolers, Lebron came to the NBA a near finished product, who was ready to contribute right away. You already know what kind of player he is, he does not have to develop into one 2-3 years from now like most high schoolers do. I think that Lebron is a great talent and will be the most likely candidate to take Jordan's throne as GOAT, but looking at raw talent, I think that we may have already seen most of it. Theres nothing hidden, he just needs to improve on what he already has. There are some weaknesses in his game that won't improve, there is a difference in speed and quickness. Lebron is extrordinarly fast in the open court, but he lacks quickness in the half court. Thats not going to change in a few years, his first step is average and he can't beat defenders the way that Jordan, or Kobe can. Instead when he handles the ball, he relies on screens and uses a lot of ball fakes to get the intial step on defenders, which is a skill that alot of younger players don't immediately rely on, which James does. Its not a knock on Lebron's game, but his lack of quickness in the halfcourt and first step are things that will not improve as he progresses along, his defense and shooting will though.


I think this a pretty fair assesment but I also think Lebron will go into the post much more as his career progresses. With his strength and physique (which despite him being more mature then other young guys should improve - maybe not to the extent of others but he hasn't reached his physical peak yet) he will be nearly impossible for other SF's to guard down low. Kobe and Tmac are much more in the mold of MJ in this regard then Lebron. With his passing, intangibles I think he is much more like a combo of Magic and Dr. J. The Doctor also didn't have a great first step but used his leaping ability, etc. to create shots. Lebron will be a unique player when it's all said and done IMO


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The King is on the throne. Stats, standings, perception, these things do not capture fully the interdimensional dominance that Lebron James has on the game of basketball.
> 
> Lebron James at 20 is playing this league like a fiddle.
> ...


Come on Future with posts like these you're going make just get annoyed at Lebron instead of just appreciating his game. You don't want to turn this into another Ameraca/Amare joined at the hip situation


----------



## arenas809 (Feb 13, 2003)

Yay, another day of Future deepthroating Lebron.

Gives new meaning to the term "double gulp".


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

90 percent of you are shiftless amatuers that will jump when I say so.

Rubes. All of you.

Rawse and I sit back in our ivory tower and just laugh at the lot of you.

Lebron James is better than your heroes' heroes.

Michael Jordan was a whore.

Lebron James is pimping this *****.

You all need to get off the dick of the rest of the league. Suckle some LBJ.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Yay, another day of Future deepthroating Lebron.
> 
> Gives new meaning to the term "double gulp".


LOL, I wanted to say the same thing. I just didn't want to be too graphic.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>1 Penny</b>!
> The question is... will he be better than Michael Jordan.


YES dammit! Remember, he's only in his second year in the league... and all indications say that he will be the best ever when he's done.

HKF... did MJ prove himself in the playoffs his rookie season? And what makes you doubt LeBron proving himself in the playoffs? Just wondering...


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

*Re: Re: Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant look like Amare Stoudamire*



> Originally posted by <b>Pioneer10</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on Future with posts like these you're going make just get annoyed at Lebron instead of just appreciating his game. You don't want to turn this into another Ameraca/Amare joined at the hip situation


Never thought I'd say this... but Amareca is actually proving people wrong this year.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> 
> 
> YES dammit! Remember, he's only in his second year in the league... and all indications say that he will be the best ever when he's done.


:krazy: Really? All indications? What about the fact that he can't hit a shot outside of 20 feet?


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> :krazy: Really? All indications? What about the fact that he can't hit a shot outside of 20 feet?


Who says he can't? And who says MJ could when he entered the league?

By the way, how the hell can you say anything about futuristxen's Bron riding when you do the exact same thing (but worse) for Kobe.

Don't be jealous man... and don't worry Kobe's still got a few more years of being ahead of LeBron. But after that it's all King James.


----------



## Snicka (Dec 29, 2003)

Look what Future has done, he has angered the basketball gods and forced them to use Mt Mutombo once again.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL, I wanted to say the same thing. I just didn't want to be too graphic.


man, don't even talk...


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> :krazy: Really? All indications? What about the fact that he can't hit a shot outside of 20 feet?


*Reads post*
*Looks up LeBron's Bio on NBA.com*
*See's LeBron has increased his 3PT% by 7% this season to a respectable 36%*
*Goes to 82games.com and sees LeBron's eFG% is 51.4%*
*Recalls watching LeBron's improved shot selection this year*
*Also recalls that 24ppg is still 24 points regardless of where the shots are made from*
*Promptly disregards what madskillz1_99 has to say*


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> 
> 
> *Reads post*
> ...


My bad. I was in the wrong thread. That stuff about outside of 20 feet was directed at Dwayne Wade. It wasn't supposed to be about 'Bron.


----------



## Tooeasy (Nov 4, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> My bad. I was in the wrong thread. That stuff about outside of 20 feet was directed at Dwayne Wade. It wasn't supposed to be about 'Bron.


uh huh.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Tooeasy</b>!
> 
> uh huh.


What? You think I'm lying? :laugh:


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*very good.*



> Originally posted by <b>arenas809</b>!
> Yay, another day of Future deepthroating Lebron.
> 
> Gives new meaning to the term "double gulp".


good post, i thought i was the only one who noticed.


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Budweiser_Boy</b>!
> 
> HKF... did MJ prove himself in the playoffs his rookie season? And what makes you doubt LeBron proving himself in the playoffs? Just wondering...


Well I don't have a crystal ball but I'd at least like to see him perform on the big stage before I annoint him the best player to ever play the game. I also have a hard time believing he will be regarded as the best in the game, but if he does get that distinction the same way Jordan got it over Wilt (when he shouldn't have), it will be mostly due to the media's influence of the populous' minds.


----------



## Crossword (Jun 7, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> but if he does get that distinction the same way Jordan got it over Wilt (when he shouldn't have), it will be mostly due to the media's influence of the populous' minds.


I don't think it'll be like that, because their careers pretty much overlap in a chronological sense and are really in the same time period. Not to say the media hasn't changed, but fans haven't changed and they remember. Plus the NBA is much bigger now than it was in the 60's.

MJ and Wilt were 20 years apart. When people say MJ is better than Wilt, they aren't talking about facts, they're just making assumptions. How many of those people do you think actually saw Wilt? You see this especially on BBB.net because we have so many Bulls fans... people saying Wilt only played against 5'5 white guys, people saying Wilt couldn't do this, couldn't do that.... it's not fact, it's ASSUMPTION.

With LeBron on the other hand, it's different. Because first of all, LeBron's first season was a year after MJ's last season. MJ is still heavily talked about and is still recognized in the media. Not only that, but most basketball fans will know about both of their careers when LeBron's career is over, as opposed to only knowing about one. So if they are close when it's all said and done, I think you're gonna see more informed and fact-based arguments, not just the media shoving LeBron down our throats because LeBron is the only one they've seen - because they will also have seen Michael.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> My bad. I was in the wrong thread. That stuff about outside of 20 feet was directed at Dwayne Wade. It wasn't supposed to be about 'Bron.


lol i laughed at this and I think you're telling the truth


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> 
> 
> Well I don't have a crystal ball but I'd at least like to see him perform on the big stage before I annoint him the best player to ever play the game. I also have a hard time believing he will be regarded as the best in the game, but if he does get that distinction the same way Jordan got it over Wilt (when he shouldn't have), it will be mostly due to the media's influence of the populous' minds.


It's not the first time you say that LBJ must prove himself in the Bigger Stage before you give him his due, HKF... and i agree with you.

Lebron is great. That's plainly obvious.
But the League is full of great players.

The Show (aka playoffs) is where great players become Legends... And before Lebron gets named in the same sentence as Jordan or Magic i'll wait for the chips...


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

The best thing about this thread is seeing Kobe homers bashing Lebron fans because they're proclaiming him the great one. Even though two years ago, you were all doing the same thing.

Guess it's only okay for Kobe fans to do?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pay Ton</b>!
> The best thing about this thread is seeing Kobe homers bashing Lebron fans because they're proclaiming him the great one. Even though two years ago, you were all doing the same thing.
> 
> Guess it's only okay for Kobe fans to do?


My thing is, I hate how people praise players before they deserve praise, then ignore them when they do deserve praise. Go back to some of my 1st posts and tell me that I was a Kobe homer, I hated how everyone was all over this guy pre-prime, and now that he is in his prime, he is one of my favorites. He is the best he has ever been right now, and yet everyone has hopped off his bandwagon and jumped onto the new young phenom. 

Do you have to reserve a spot on their jock? Do you have to jock them when they're teenagers in order to be considered a legit fan when they enter their prime? It doesn't make any sense. 

When Lebron James does some things in the playoffs, matures a little more, polishes his game, and enters his prime in a few years, I'll be right there to enjoy what he brings to basketball. The question is, will everyone else? With the way things are going, when Lebron is in his prime, I'll be there enjoying the things he does on the basketball court while everyone else is obsessing over some other new phenom who is so good _for his age_. Its a ridiculous cycle.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

Johnny Mac, I agree with your post.

My post wasn't defending the Lebron fans. Basically criticizing the Kobe fans (or homers, actually). 



> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> My thing is, I hate how people praise players before they deserve praise, then ignore them when they do deserve praise. Go back to some of my 1st posts and tell me that I was a Kobe homer, I hated how everyone was all over this guy pre-prime, and now that he is in his prime, he is one of my favorites.


I've been a Kobe fan for maybe three to four years now, but I certaintly couldn't stand the way most of his fans held him on a pedestal compared to every other player in the league. What's even worse is, it became a common misconception that all Kobe fans were homers, because of the way most of the Kobe fans were acting. (That is where, I think, most Kobe haters came from). When I would tell people I was a Kobe fan, I'd get ambushed from people who would automattically assume I was the typical Kobe fan with the arrogant proclamations and whatnot. At first I blamed it on "Kobe haters", but after a while I realized a large part of it was actually the "Kobe homers" who created all this unneccessary hate on Kobe. 

I even think it's okay to praise a player before they deserve it. Fans want to be able to say " I knew he was going to be good." They just don't need to be ridiculous about it (like some Kobe fans were). 



> Do you have to reserve a spot on their jock? Do you have to jock them when they're teenagers in order to be considered a legit fan when they enter their prime? It doesn't make any sense.


To add to this, not only do you have to jock them early, but you can't criticize their game at all. It happens less now, but a few years ago, If I told anyone I was a fan of Kobe, but criticized any facet of his game, other fans would quickly question my loyalty. It's like you either think the player can do no wrong, or you absolutely hate him, there can be no in between. 



> When Lebron James does some things in the playoffs, matures a little more, polishes his game, and enters his prime in a few years, I'll be right there to enjoy what he brings to basketball. The question is, will everyone else? With the way things are going, when Lebron is in his prime, I'll be there enjoying the things he does on the basketball court while everyone else is obsessing over some other new phenom who is so good for his age. Its a ridiculous cycle.


Yeah, and it's for this reason where I can understand putting an age limit in the draft. America is becoming obsessed with young phenoms. (Can you say Freddy Adu?) It seems like people begin to lose interest when they become older than 25. I mean, christ, when a 5 year old boy (or something like that) gets a shoe deal from Reebok because he can shoot the ball some consecutive times you know things are getting out of hand. (I'm talking about Mark Walker, of course).


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Pay Ton</b>!
> The best thing about this thread is seeing Kobe homers bashing Lebron fans because they're proclaiming him the great one. Even though two years ago, you were all doing the same thing.
> 
> Guess it's only okay for Kobe fans to do?


Well, if you point out the "Kobe homers" who were portraying him like The Chosen One in his SECOND season, maybe i'd agree...

If memory doesn't fail me, people would talk about Kobe AFTER his SECOND ring, wans't it?

A WORLD of diffrence...


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> We've heard it all before. Kobe was better _for his age_ than Jordan, had the stats, had the rings, had the awards, had the image, had everything. Kobe supposedly had a *better* work ethic than Jordan too, and it was only a matter of time before he became the games greatest ever. Of course, that is according to the media. It was only a matter of time.
> 
> Well guess what? The time has come, and Kobe is in his prime. Is he Jordan? Nope, but he is still a damn good basketball player and is still better than a pre-prime Lebron James by a decent margin, in my opinion.
> ...


Didn't see this post until now, but if you had ratings enabled it would be worth making another username just to give you five stars again.

:clap:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> My thing is, I hate how people praise players before they deserve praise, then ignore them when they do deserve praise. Go back to some of my 1st posts and tell me that I was a Kobe homer, I hated how everyone was all over this guy pre-prime, and now that he is in his prime, he is one of my favorites. He is the best he has ever been right now, and yet everyone has hopped off his bandwagon and jumped onto the new young phenom.


I never liked Kobe when he was a rookie, let alone now. The only reason people are jumping off his bandwagon is because his team isn't as good as it used to be, and Kobe is not the player he was pre-rape trial. People are jumping off the Kobe bandwagon for good reason.

Similiarly, T-Mac's bandwagon is losing folks because of losing and subpar performance.

Amazingly people like players when they are playing well. It's a weird phenomenon.

Lebron is playing well for his age, yes. But he is also playing well for any age. He stacks up just fine with the best this league has to offer, regardless of age. So I don't buy that arguement in the slightest.

The only thing you can bash Lebron for right now is no championships, and non-elite level defense. But the positives of his game far outweight the negatives. Both he and Dwayne Wade are just flat out playing balls to the walls this year. They are on par with Kobe and T-mac, if not better, playing the game how it used to be played.

Lastly, as far as bandwagoneering, I submit Allen Iverson, a player I also followed from High School through his pro career. He's still one of my favorites. Just because he's 29 doesn't make him any less exciting. He's playing some of the best ball of his career. And proving haters wrong left and right. I'll wait until Philly makes the playoffs to talk **** about him though.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

For me, Kobe truly went to the next level after his success in the PLAYOFFS. Take the Indiana game where Shaq fouled out and Kobe just took over down the stretch on the road hitting long jumpers and looking as cool and calm as can be. 

I'm a big Lebron fan, I was one of the few who wasn't hoping he'd be a bust. But everyone has the tendency to get too excited when something new comes along. Putting Lebron ahead of Kobe at this stage is just wrong.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> I never liked Kobe when he was a rookie, let alone now. The only reason people are jumping off his bandwagon is because his team isn't as good as it used to be, and Kobe is not the player he was pre-rape trial. People are jumping off the Kobe bandwagon for good reason.


Kobe is having his best season as a pro. He has career highs in rebounds and assists, and is having his 2nd best scoring season in his career. On top of that, he is leading the league in +/- ratings (only behind Kirilenko who hasn't played in awhile). Kobe is balling this year, and nobody cares because he is over 25. 



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> Amazingly people like players when they are playing well. It's a weird phenomenon.


Nobody in the league has played even close to the level that Duncan and Garnett play at, yet they are rarely talked about. Its probably because they've been in the league awhile and are in their prime, they're old news.  



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The only thing you can bash Lebron for right now is no championships, and non-elite level defense.


He hasn't won a championship, yeah, he also hasn't won a playoff game, he also hasn't even played in a playoff game, or made any All-NBA team. He is a rookie of the year in his 2nd year. 

Tim Duncan has been 1st team every year he has been in the league, since 1997. He has been 1st team defense 5 times and 2nd team 2 times. Kobe and Garnett have these same type of accomplishments, these guys have all been where Lebron is still a ways from reaching, and they've come full circle and are still in their prime. These three guys are the best players the NBA has to offer in 2005, so in 2005, thats who I choose to root for. Lebron will probably come around the same way these guys did, and when he does, he'll have my support even though everyone else will have moved on to the new young phenom.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Johnny Mac</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe is having his best season as a pro. He has career highs in rebounds and assists, and is having his 2nd best scoring season in his career. On top of that, he is leading the league in +/- ratings (only behind Kirilenko who hasn't played in awhile). Kobe is balling this year, and nobody cares because he is over 25.
> ...


In all fairness, no one was really that hard on either Duncan or KG's jock to begin with. I think all of their fans have stayed with them. If you can point to a few years where either player dominated sportscenter night in and night out then I might agree with you that there's some sort of trend towards the new over the old. But as I see it, Lebron is not a trend, he is Lebron. He warrants the coverage he gets. He is a very exciting player to watch play, and people can't help but drop their hate and want to watch him.

Lebron has had to overcome, and still has to overcome, a lot of hype backlashers, who refuse to give him a break, just because they think he gets too much attention. Not for any basketball reasons, just because of the attention he gets.

If your theory was true, then where is the wall to wall coverage of Dwight Howard? Number one pick out of high school, he's been playing well, but you rarely see his name on these boards or on sportscenter.

You also have to note, that guards tend to be more popular than big men. And that feeds into Lebron/Kobe/T-mac/Wade's popularity over Duncan and KG.

As far as Kobe having his best year...um...yeah right. Check his field goal percentage, his win-loss record, and his turnovers. His stats look the way they do because he is dominating the ball moreso than he ever has in his entire career. But that doesn't mean he's playing the best ball of his career. His year before the rape trial was better than his current year. That year is the year people really started in earnest to hop on his jock. 

And also I find it funny that you are so willing to try and get Kobe his props when Lebron is having arguably a better year. Both he and Wade are doing as well, if not better than Kobe. Wade's team may be playin for a championship this year with the way he and shaq are teaming up.

You've got to respect these guys for the game they are bringing to the table and stop discounting them just because they are young.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

And this thread becomes just another Lebron thread...

Initially this thread was started with the intention of mocking 7M3, as well as parodying several types of threads we see around these parts.

But I'm glad to see most of my efforts as usual are wasted.


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> You've got to respect these guys for the game they are bringing to the table and stop discounting them just because they are young.


This is where you got it twisted. 

I respect them, but I don't want to hear about them all the time just because they're young. If both Lebron and Wade were both 26, they wouldn't be talked about nearly as much. When you evaluate what players *are*, age should never be a factor. The NBA should always cover the NBA *as it is*, and not cover guys with big potential just because they're better *for their age* than guys who are considerably better basketball players, but suffer the consequence of being in their prime. 

For example, imagine if these same things started happening with the teams. Spurs and Suns are the best teams by record, but lets not cover them, lets cover the Utah Jazz and Los Angeles Clippers more often because they're incredibly good for their age. 

Bottom line is, if these guys become what supposed to become, we'll have plenty of time to cover them and give them their due while they're actually earning it.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

I agree Johnny. People often forget how players don't get _that_ much better with age. Hell, Kobe at 22 was putting up 29/6/5 and was All Defensive First Team. Kobe now (26) is certainly a better player, but not _that_ much better. 



> Originally posted by <b>bender</b>!
> 
> True. But LeBron James - at 19 - is so much better than *anybody* before him (incl. Bryant and Jordan). It's really hard to imagine he won't fulfill the expectations.
> This guy has it. It's in his hands to be the greatest. I think he will do it.


Different players have different developmental curves. Jordan developed late, but that didn't matter because he had the basketball IQ and work ethic to improve himself to become arguably the greatest ever. Not that I don't think LeBron has it, but I highly doubt LeBron has that kind of drive. We'll see. 

Kobe, on the other hand, was a fast developer and was putting up 20/5/4 at age 20, he really wasn't that much worse than LeBron is now at 20.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

Wow, Johnny Mac pretty much owned this thread. It's good to see that there are a few other people besides myself who stick up for the guys in their prime.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> Wow, Johnny Mac pretty much owned this thread. It's good to see that there are a few other people besides myself who stick up for the guys in their prime.


Tearing down younger players doesn't neccessarily equal sticking up for players in their prime, RP. 

And John, I'll take Wade and Bron's numbers and impact on their teams vs. any other perimeter players in the game right now, irregardless of age. They are both playing at an elite level, without respect to how old they are. If they were both 26, they would still be playing at an amazing level and would both still be talked about as possible MVP candidates. The well roundedness of both of their games, and the shooting percentages are fantastic for this era.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Different players have different developmental curves. Jordan developed late, but that didn't matter because he had the basketball IQ and work ethic to improve himself to become arguably the greatest ever. Not that I don't think LeBron has it, but I highly doubt LeBron has that kind of drive. We'll see.


Right. That's what I said. It's in _LeBrons_ hand. If shows the same type of determination Jordan did, sky is the limit. It's his choice.



> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Kobe, on the other hand, was a fast developer and was putting up 20/5/4 at age 20, he really wasn't that much worse than LeBron is now at 20.


C'mon. I know there is only a handfull of players who were better than Kobe Bryant at 20, but look at LeBron _now_. He's averaging 24/7/7, how many sophomores did that since the days of Big O? And he's basically carrying the Cavs on _his_ shoulders, I doubt Kobe could do that at 20. Even today it's hard for him to do that successfully.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

To finish off the thread, I will try to spend my cherish time on some fools right here. Go grab some papers drop down my thougts so u guys can go to other boards with my thoughts and act like the KING.

Kobe Byrant VS James.

The lighter body and explosiveness in Kobe Byrant should end the discussion.

Watch James first, the guy is 19 years old. Props to him that his game is so mature at such a young age.

But watch Iverson at 21 and watch Iverson at 26 when he won his MVP season?

I did, I freaking did. Iverson could no longer dunk like he used to be. What does it say? 25-26 sounds like an athletic prime for casual fans, but true athletic prime age is 18,19,20 and the athleticism will decrease year after year. Just because there vitually none guards have that much playing time at 19 as James, Carter would have even FLY higher than what he once did in his early years. And if u watch Vince Carter closedly, at the age of 24 where he made it to the SECF game 7, he couldnt dunk like when in his first year in the NBA.. Sure alot of those have to do with the defense, but some of those was his athleticism decreased.

Now Back to James being fully devleoped, study his body. His upper body is so thick that it doesnt have the smoothness of great on the move pull up shooters. When James decided to "Dance around" with the ball, his upper body force would be too heavy and it will take a lot of knees force to make pull up jumpers consistently, espeically in his later career.

2 things

1) James is at his athletic prime age, his athleticism will decrease when he is at the age of 26 for sure.

2) Sure, fans say James coulld get to the hoop through screens and drew fouls. But If he doesnt have mid range shot along with the true explosiveness which he is lacking, watch Pistion stacking the entire defense in the paint randomly to throw James off in the game where he scored 11 points alone? NBA teams arent stupid, they will steal and study other teams on how to defend James.

And one more thing fans say throw him to the post. Please say it more detailedlly, THROW HIM TO HIGHPOST only. There are no swingmans can get to the true big men area to post up. And as long as the guy is posted up in the high post, watch New Jersey 2-3 years ago where they made it to the NBA finals twice, their defense on Paul Pierce. It's not so much that they are so worry about Pierce. It his lack of ball handling ability and explsoivness where his game is limited in high pot IN PLAYOFF GAMES and Jersey just threw double teams on him so he could nothing but to give up the ball. But the area Pierce isnt as close to the basket like the Shaqs and Duncans, rotating defense is so much easier to defend on the 3 point shooters. That's why casual fans say WOW, this team A has great rotating defense, but some has to do with where the double comes from first.

I will have enough for my GENERAL THOUGHTS, if I want to push it even more specificly, I am afraid u guys will feel ashamed and wont post here again.

Mother F!er!


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> The King is on the throne. Stats, standings, perception, these things do not capture fully the interdimensional dominance that Lebron James has on the game of basketball.
> 
> Lebron James at 20 is playing this league like a fiddle.
> ...


I agree, Lebron is ripping the league apart. Just not sure what this has to do with Kobe or Amare....:whoknows: Mancrush maybe?


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 1) James is at his athletic prime age, his athleticism will decrease when he is at the age of 26 for sure.


True. But that's something every player has/had to deal with. I mean, look at Jordan. He got slower with the years, but he changed his game and relied more on skills than on pure athleticism (read: quickness).
Every player has his prime age, not just athletically but overall, between 25 and 30. I don't see that LeBron has reach his prime already.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> To finish off the thread, I will try to spend my cherish time on some fools right here. Go grab some papers drop down my thougts so u guys can go to other boards with my thoughts and act like the KING.
> 
> Kobe Byrant VS James.
> ...


John, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant look like Amare Stoudamire*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> I agree, Lebron is ripping the league apart. Just not sure what this has to do with Kobe or Amare....:whoknows: Mancrush maybe?


Maybe I just came up with a badass thread title and you need to respekt game when you see it, maybe?

And John, you're wrong that James can't go into the post. James as he gets older will just learn to play like Magic played. He'll back his man down when he's not fast breaking. James already has a nice touch around the basket, and some tricky footwork. His main problem right now is holding deep position, but as he gets older he'll get like Bird and Magic in his ability to keep his man on his back.

I think James is more of a crunch between Dr. J and Magic, that's the best thing I've read in this thread. It fits really well.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> John, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Of course there are rational thoughts there. In fact, its better than most of the stuff that has been posted in this thread.


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Drewbs</b>!
> 
> 
> Lebron may only be 19, but he coming into the NBA, he was physically more mature than a lot of college students. Unlike any of the other high schoolers, Lebron came to the NBA a near finished product, who was ready to contribute right away. You already know what kind of player he is, he does not have to develop into one 2-3 years from now like most high schoolers do. I think that Lebron is a great talent and will be the most likely candidate to take Jordan's throne as GOAT, but looking at raw talent, I think that we may have already seen most of it. Theres nothing hidden, he just needs to improve on what he already has. There are some weaknesses in his game that won't improve, there is a difference in speed and quickness. Lebron is extrordinarly fast in the open court, but he lacks quickness in the half court. Thats not going to change in a few years, his first step is average and he can't beat defenders the way that Jordan, or Kobe can. Instead when he handles the ball, he relies on screens and uses a lot of ball fakes to get the intial step on defenders, which is a skill that alot of younger players don't immediately rely on, which James does. Its not a knock on Lebron's game, but his lack of quickness in the halfcourt and first step are things that will not improve as he progresses along, his defense and shooting will though.



Lebron's first step is average? This is the first time I have heard this. Good stuff, but not true.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: Re: Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant look like Amare Stoudamire*



> Originally posted by <b>futuristxen</b>!
> 
> 
> Maybe I just came up with a badass thread title and you need to respekt game when you see it, maybe?


:laugh: why are you so snappy today?


----------



## compsciguy78 (Dec 16, 2002)

How can people say Lebron weighs too much therefore he is slower and his body will not hold up. NEWS FLASH...there has never been a Lebron before in this league. This guy is a new prototype. Watch his games and see how he moves across the court. This guy is simply amazing. 


From what I have seen with Lebron, he is almost too damn good! He can do whatever he wants, but he hasn't decided on exactly what his "go-to" moves are. 

I want to see him dunk on someone. He needs to assert that fear and dominance when he drives the lane. He could pretty much dunk on anyone he wants. With that speed and power, and his huge frame, I don't think Mt Mutombo would want any of that if LEbron brought that proper down the lane.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> Lebron's first step is average? This is the first time I have heard this. Good stuff, but not true.


Yes. Lebron does not have a great first step at all, its not bad, but he cannot beat good defenders with pure explosiveness like Kobe, Wade, Iverson can. If a teammate sets a pick for him, or if he can fake his defender to get the initial step on him, then he can penetrate and get to the rim with is 2nd or 3rd step, but if you isolate him one on one with a lockdown defender, he struggles beacuse he can't instantly explode off the dribble like some others can.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>compsciguy78</b>!
> I don't think Mt Mutombo would want any of that if LEbron brought that proper down the lane.


I don't know son! Last time he came down the lane Mutumbo nearly knocked off his face!!!!!!!!!!!! :naughty:


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant look like Amare Stoudamire*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> :laugh: why are you so snappy today?


I'm bitter that the genius of my thread went unrecognized. I mean, c'mon, people took this really seriously for a thread title that was "Lebron James makes Kobe Bryant Look Like Amare Stoudamire".

Now it's just another typical Lebron James thread when it should have been a testament to hyperbole.

But oh, well, whatever. Anyone that thinks Lebron James has an average first step needs to buy a new stop watch. Is there a quicker player at 6-8 250? Doubtfull. He's too big for most swings, and the ones he's not too big for he is too quick for. I mean, c'mon he lit Rip Hamilton and Tayshaun Prince up for 43, he was completely unguardable in that game. He was blowing by Prince, and beating up Hamilton. He was doing whatever he wanted to against supposedly one of the best defensive teams in the league. Eventually those games will become the norm for Lebron. It's just a matter of figuring out his strengths more and more. Lebron is still learning how to operate in the half court.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

:yes:


----------



## ChiBron (Jun 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Drewbs</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes. Lebron does not have a great first step at all, its not bad, but he cannot beat good defenders with pure explosiveness like Kobe, Wade, Iverson can. If a teammate sets a pick for him, or if he can fake his defender to get the initial step on him, then he can penetrate and get to the rim with is 2nd or 3rd step, but if you isolate him one on one with a lockdown defender, he struggles beacuse he can't instantly explode off the dribble like some others can.


I actually agree with this. LeBron's got a mediocre first step and thus he isn't a very good 1 on 1 player while facing the basket. He usually needs a screen to get past good defenders. His scoring average this season has gone up cuz of his continued agressiveness in the open court. He's definitely the most explosive fast break player in the league. Nobody gets to the rim from one basket to the other quite like him.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

This is one of the most ridiculus threads that I've ever read. People are saying that LeBron is slow because he uses fakes and picks. I contend that LeBron appears to be able to get into the lane at will, but lets stick with your argument. There are plenty of outstanding players that used picks and ball fakes to get to the lane. Magic and Bird to name a few. Neither of these players were even of average quickness but both were excellent players. I don't know if LeBron will ever be as good as they were but I doubt this perceived lack of quickness will be the reason.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

This is ridiculous! Lebron has the most wicked triple threat around. He blows past flat footed defenders, then throws it down!

Lot o hatin gon on roun her!


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

Kobe is not even close to playing the best basketball of his career. I've seen him play 5+ times this year - he might be putting up the stats, but those starts certainly aren't contributing to winning basketball the way that Lebron's are - or even the way his stats a couple of years ago did. Career low FG% and career high TO's is something that the Kobe jockriders really don't want to talk about. 

Lebron makes his teammates better. You shouldn't have to be dribbling the ball 95% of the time your team has it to put up good assist numbers, and Kobe really could learn a lot from watching the kid. Lebron is a better teammate, and a better overall player at the moment.

Right now, Dwyane Wade is playing better than Kobe Bryant as well. 

It's amazing to me that two second year players understand the game of basketball better than the guy who was largely recognized as the best guard in the league heading into the year.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Kobe is not even close to playing the best basketball of his career. I've seen him play 5+ times this year - he might be putting up the stats, but those starts certainly aren't contributing to winning basketball the way that Lebron's are - or even the way his stats a couple of years ago did. *Career low FG% and career high TO's is something that the Kobe jockriders really don't want to talk about.*
> 
> Lebron makes his teammates better. You shouldn't have to be dribbling the ball 95% of the time your team has it to put up good assist numbers, and Kobe really could learn a lot from watching the kid. Lebron is a better teammate, and a better overall player at the moment.



Ouch, that must sting for Kobe fans.:laugh: 
So true though, I agree 100%.


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Kobe is not even close to playing the best basketball of his career. I've seen him play 5+ times this year - he might be putting up the stats, but those starts certainly aren't contributing to winning basketball the way that Lebron's are - or even the way his stats a couple of years ago did.


You make it seem like Kobe is ballhogging his team to the bottom of the standings, when in fact the Cavs are exactly half a game ahead of the Lakers in an easier conference.



> Career low FG% and career high TO's is something that the Kobe jockriders really don't want to talk about.


The turnovers need to come way down, but the field goal percentage isn't horrible for a guy who gets to the free throw line as much as Kobe does. I'm not sure when field goal percentage became the be-all-and-end-all of judging players, there are so many other factors involved in how much a player helps a team's offense, such as three-pointers, how often you get to the free throw line, the quality of the shot opportunities you create for your teammates. Kobe has still been an efficient offensive player this year despite his FG%. FG% is the most overrated stat in basketball.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>RP McMurphy</b>!
> 
> 
> You make it seem like Kobe is ballhogging his team to the bottom of the standings, when in fact the Cavs are exactly half a game ahead of the Lakers in an easier conference.
> ...


Havnt I seen you blast Jermaine O'Neal time and time again because of his low FG%?

Not 100% if it was you, but I seem to remember it being you.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>Drewbs</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course there are rational thoughts there. In fact, its better than most of the stuff that has been posted in this thread.


Who pissed in your cornflakes?! Lighten up!


----------



## RP McMurphy (Jul 17, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> Havnt I seen you blast Jermaine O'Neal time and time again because of his low FG%?
> 
> Not 100% if it was you, but I seem to remember it being you.


I've said Ron Artest is a better player than him, I don't think that counts as "blasting him time and time again." The only Pacers players I've really blasted on the boards have been Al Harrington and Jonathan Bender.

Offensive effiency matters, obviously, I just think it's stupid to boil offensive efficiency (which is a team thing) down to one player's FG%. In O'Neal's case, I think he's not very efficient compared to some of the other star big men in the league, but that opinion comes from watching him play (he takes too many jump shots from the elbow, doesn't pass out of double teams enough) and from looking at his entire stat sheet. I don't judge players because of a single stat.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>madskillz1_99</b>!
> 
> 
> John, what you've just written is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. Nowhere in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


Drews, thanks for the support first of all, secondly hey, I wish someday I will get respect from Anti-John guys.

I am 26, still have rooms to grow.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Kobe is not even close to playing the best basketball of his career. I've seen him play 5+ times this year - he might be putting up the stats, but those starts certainly aren't contributing to winning basketball the way that Lebron's are - or even the way his stats a couple of years ago did. Career low FG% and career high TO's is something that the Kobe jockriders really don't want to talk about.
> 
> Lebron makes his teammates better. You shouldn't have to be dribbling the ball 95% of the time your team has it to put up good assist numbers, and Kobe really could learn a lot from watching the kid. Lebron is a better teammate, and a better overall player at the moment.
> ...


lol, which team do u moderate? The Wolves?


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>The OUTLAW</b>!
> This is one of the most ridiculus threads that I've ever read. People are saying that LeBron is slow because he uses fakes and picks. I contend that LeBron appears to be able to get into the lane at will, but lets stick with your argument. There are plenty of outstanding players that used picks and ball fakes to get to the lane. Magic and Bird to name a few. Neither of these players were even of average quickness but both were excellent players. I don't know if LeBron will ever be as good as they were but I doubt this perceived lack of quickness will be the reason.


lol, good post.


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Drews, thanks for the support first of all, secondly hey, I wish someday I will get respect from Anti-John guys.
> ...


I give you support sometimes, but most of the time your posts are just too ridiculous.


----------



## Damian Necronamous (Jun 10, 2002)

Well, being compared to Amare Stoudemire is looking pretty good after last night, isn't it?


----------



## Johnny Mac (May 6, 2003)

Speaking of stats, Kobe is leading the league in +/- ratings, updated today. When Kobe has been on the court this season, they've been +4, when hes been off the court, the Lakers have been -24. 

http://www.82games.com/rolandratings0405.htm


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

speaking of stats
lebron 26/8/6 WITH THE MASK!!
http://www.nba.com/ for pics
also another 50 plus shooting night for james!


----------



## Benedict_Boozer (Jul 16, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>SamTheMan67</b>!
> speaking of stats
> lebron 26/8/6 WITH THE MASK!!
> http://www.nba.com/ for pics
> also another 50 plus shooting night for james!


26/8/6 is barely better than his average, that's whats amazing.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Kobe is not even close to playing the best basketball of his career. I've seen him play 5+ times this year - he might be putting up the stats, but those starts certainly aren't contributing to winning basketball the way that Lebron's are - or even the way his stats a couple of years ago did.


Of course his stats contribute to winning games. Without his effort, who can honest say LA would have half as many wins as they have now? 



> Career low FG% and career high TO's is something that the Kobe jockriders really don't want to talk about.


Kind of like talking to a Shaq fan about how poorly he shoots free throws, and completely ignoring the fact that he's so great in other areas, it makes up for it. This is not to say he shouldn't or doesn't need to improve on his free throw shooting because he does.... just a little nit picky when you consider how the rest of his game overshadows the flaws.



> Lebron makes his teammates better. You shouldn't have to be dribbling the ball 95% of the time your team has it to put up good assist numbers, and Kobe really could learn a lot from watching the kid. Lebron is a better teammate, and a better overall player at the moment.


This was the same criticism most Carmelo fans had of Lebron at the beginning of last season. Once the Cavs were able to bring in adaquet point guards, Lebron was able to focus more on off ball play, and his game improved tremendously. Remember how many less turnovers Kobe had when Harper was running the point, or when they had Fisher and Fox to help bring the ball up the court. Makes a major difference.



> Right now, Dwyane Wade is playing better than Kobe Bryant as well.


Wade is playing great basketball, but Kobe is playing as well as anyone in the league given his situation. I'd expect him to finish ahead of Wade accolade wise at the end of the season. Compared to Wade, defensively Bryant is in a league of his own, and offensively he's dominating just not taking care of the ball as well and not shooting as well.



> It's amazing to me that two second year players understand the game of basketball better than the guy who was largely recognized as the best guard in the league heading into the year.


That is amazing isn't it.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course his stats contribute to winning games. Without his effort, who can honest say LA would have half as many wins as they have now?
> ...



I see low FG% and tons of TO's as a guard being way more significant than a big man being a bad shooter from the stripe though man. The two arent even comparable in my books.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*uncle cliffy!*



> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> The two arent even comparable in my books.


do your books happen to resemble these


----------



## madskillz1_99 (Dec 5, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I see low FG% and tons of TO's as a guard being way more significant than a big man being a bad shooter from the stripe though man. The two arent even comparable in my books.


Sure they are, Shaq is a liablity in the 4th quarter of close games, and you certainly can't go to him for the game winning bucket. You can't say the same about Kobe.

Also, every time Shaq bricks two FT's it is just as good as a TO.


----------



## DJRaz (Aug 20, 2003)

ok i got to page 3 then gave up on this thread. 

i don't care if everyone can come to some agreement on lebron's greatness or not. i just want some rings.

and I know that he is the most fascinating player to ever play the game. there's other greats, there's others with more refined skills right now, there's plenty more with more and more valuable experience....

but there's no one with more potential right now than lebron. he's the prototype for the future player. the kids are already dressing and trying to play like lebron in high school. 

lebron will reverse the curse of michael jordan on cleveland. he is the chosen one.

and the league will ultimately change the rules to deal with him. very few players in history are so good they adjust the rules to slow them down. i think the nba will work to keep lebron in check once he starts averaging a triple double. then again he could do 25/9/9 the rest of his career and i'll be happy. just get the W's.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

*Re: uncle cliffy!*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> 
> 
> do your books happen to resemble these


Don't sleep, Clifford rules and you know it.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>R-Star</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> I see low FG% and tons of TO's as a guard being way more significant than a big man being a bad shooter from the stripe though man. The two arent even comparable in my books.


They are comparable if you consider them flaws. Plus just think about that, you're most efficient scorer is not a factor towards the end of games because he can't make a free throw. If he misses free throws, it's not much different than turning the ball over because you're essentially wasting a possession. 

Besides Kobe is still top 10 efficiency with all the turnovers and low fg%. It's nit picky to point out these types of flaws when a player like Kobe or Shaq can do so much more.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> They are comparable if you consider them flaws. Plus just think about that, you're most efficient scorer is not a factor towards the end of games because he can't make a free throw. If he misses free throws, it's not much different than turning the ball over because you're essentially wasting a possession.
> ...



That must mean that Miami should have a better record than first in the east. Shaq is holding the team down because he can't make freethrows in close games down the stretch. But why are The Heat 5-3 with games decided by 5 points or less?

That must also mean The Lakers should be winning most of the close games because Kobe is clutch down the stretch. But why is it that the Lakers are only 4-5 with games decided by 5 points or less?

The greatness of Shaq and Kobe was that just their combination could get them to the Championships. Shaq was was player who took the brunt of attacks and held off the opposition while Kobe could do his thing without being the focus of the defense. That meant that Kobe had the extra energy at the end of the game to make the winning shot or hold of the other team.

Shaq knows this and maybe that is why he wanted to go to Miami. Shaq saw a little bit of Kobe in Wade and knew that he only had to do his thing, keep the game close, and Wade would do the rest.

Kobe wanted to be the main man and not be overshadowed (literally and figuratively) by Shaq anymore. For better of for worse (right now it's for worse) Kobe now knows how it feels to be the first option, second option, and third option and how tough it is without that other person to help. Odom could help more if he was used correctly rather than play out of position.

Right now, I think more teams would rather have Shaq than Kobe, because you can still build a team easier around Shaq and Shaq makes it easier for players play the game of basketball.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> That must mean that Miami should have a better record than first in the east. Shaq is holding the team down because he can't make freethrows in close games down the stretch. But why are The Heat 5-3 with games decided by 5 points or less?


You obviously missed the point. Shaq's free throw concerns, while I admit.. it is a flaw of his. it's not that big of a deal because he makes up for it with the rest of his play. That is the reason why the heat have such a good record. 



> That must also mean The Lakers should be winning most of the close games because Kobe is clutch down the stretch. But why is it that the Lakers are only 4-5 with games decided by 5 points or less?


Why are the laker only 4-5 in games decided by 5 points or less?
haha, because they didn't score at least 6 points more points in each of those games.



> The greatness of Shaq and Kobe was that just their combination could get them to the Championships. Shaq was was player who took the brunt of attacks and held off the opposition while Kobe could do his thing without being the focus of the defense. That meant that Kobe had the extra energy at the end of the game to make the winning shot or hold of the other team.


The only team to defeat these Lakers in the finals was the only team to let Shaq *not* take the "brunt of the attacks" Instead they let Kobe face the double and triple teams, while letting Shaq go one v one. Results = W

Besides LA's magic wasn't all in Kobe and Shaq. Defensively during their dynasty the *team* was awesome. They had chemistry in a flawless system. Once that chemistry was gone, along with the other team leaders that never got much _(Rick Fox, Horace Grant, Ron Harper)_ mention they lost that magic.

IMO, the departure of Jerry West left LA without the personel needed to bring in the right role player to play with Kobe and Shaq.



> Shaq knows this and maybe that is why he wanted to go to Miami. Shaq saw a little bit of Kobe in Wade and knew that he only had to do his thing, keep the game close, and Wade would do the rest.


Yes, but this shouldn't discredited Wade because Shaq has not made him the player he is. Wade was spectacular long before Shaq. While Shaq will undoubtedly get the moajority of the credit, my opinion is Wade is caring the bulk of the load in Miami. 
IMO, without D. Wade Shaq and the Heat would have a tough time comparable to the one Kobe's having in LA.



> Kobe wanted to be the main man and not be overshadowed (literally and figuratively) by Shaq anymore.


This is the same thing Shaq wanted, and is a part of why he left LA.



> For better of for worse (right now it's for worse) Kobe now knows how it feels to be the first option, second option, and third option and how tough it is without that other person to help. Odom could help more if he was used correctly rather than play out of position.


Too bad Shaq will never know that feeling. He fortunately has always had the comfort of playing with another great player on his team.



> Right now, I think more teams would rather have Shaq than Kobe, because you can still build a team easier around Shaq and Shaq makes it easier for players play the game of basketball.


Yes but only one team had that decision to make and the Lakers did not choose Shaq.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

> quote:
> Originally posted by tatahbenitez!
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, read it wrong. At least we both agree on it.







> The only team to defeat these Lakers in the finals was the only team to let Shaq not take the "brunt of the attacks" Instead they let Kobe face the double and triple teams, while letting Shaq go one v one. Results = W
> 
> Besides LA's magic wasn't all in Kobe and Shaq. Defensively during their dynasty the team was awesome. They had chemistry in a flawless system. Once that chemistry was gone, along with the other team leaders that never got much (Rick Fox, Horace Grant, Ron Harper) mention they lost that magic.
> 
> IMO, the departure of Jerry West left LA without the personel needed to bring in the right role player to play with Kobe and Shaq.


Shaq did not take the brunt of the attacks was because Kobe was taking the brunt of the shots. Everyone knew that Shaq was not going to be double teamed, yet Kobe still took shots when he was double/triple teamed instead of passing the ball around to a single manned Shaq. That's the main reason The Lakers lost. Greed > Logic. But...

You're right, the chemistry wasn't there unlike the seasons where The Lakers won Championships, but please give the ball to the one who can score at least 60% of the time.

You're also right, that Jerry West leaving left a hole in upper management, but everyone and their great grandmother thought The Lakers would win The Championships. Even after they lost the first game of the finals.






> Yes, but this shouldn't discredited Wade because Shaq has not made him the player he is. Wade was spectacular long before Shaq. While Shaq will undoubtedly get the moajority of the credit, my opinion is Wade is caring the bulk of the load in Miami.


I don't think I was discrediting Wade. All I said was that Shaq is still doing his thing, keeping the game close so that Wade could take over. Just like Kobe. Maybe you want Wade to "see the light" just like Kobe did and get rid of Shaq.







> quote:
> For better of for worse (right now it's for worse) Kobe now knows how it feels to be the first option, second option, and third option and how tough it is without that other person to help. Odom could help more if he was used correctly rather than play out of position.
> 
> 
> Too bad Shaq will never know that feeling. He fortunately has always had the comfort of playing with another great player on his team.


I guess Shaq is smart enough to know that it takes more than one star to contend for a Championship. Kobe is learning the hard way and is still trying figure out what is happening.







> quote:
> Right now, I think more teams would rather have Shaq than Kobe, because you can still build a team easier around Shaq and Shaq makes it easier for players play the game of basketball.
> 
> 
> Yes but only one team had that decision to make and the Lakers did not choose Shaq.


I guess that's what happens when you get rid of Jerry West.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

whoa whoa, to many posts without mentioning Lebron's name.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Of course his stats contribute to winning games. Without his effort, who can honest say LA would have half as many wins as they have now?


If Kobe didn't dominate the ball and allowed Lamar Odom to create some within the offense, the team could be much better. 




> Kind of like talking to a Shaq fan about how poorly he shoots free throws, and completely ignoring the fact that he's so great in other areas, it makes up for it. This is not to say he shouldn't or doesn't need to improve on his free throw shooting because he does.... just a little nit picky when you consider how the rest of his game overshadows the flaws.


It's not nitpicky at all when you are comparing him to guys who can do everything that he can do (LeBron, Wade) are shooting 50%, averaging less turnovers, playing on better teams, and are in their second years in the league. You should be able to figure that one out...



> This was the same criticism most Carmelo fans had of Lebron at the beginning of last season. Once the Cavs were able to bring in adaquet point guards, Lebron was able to focus more on off ball play, and his game improved tremendously. Remember how many less turnovers Kobe had when Harper was running the point, or when they had Fisher and Fox to help bring the ball up the court. Makes a major difference.


You don't actually think I'm dumb enough to fall for this argument, do you? Kobe has ALWAYS dominated the ball. Harper might have brought it up every now and then, but it was in Kobe's hands the VAST majority of the time. This has been happening since he emerged as a star in LA. LeBron has been an incredible passer - completely unselfish - from the minute he stepped onto the court. A downright ludicrous comparison. 




> Wade is playing great basketball, but Kobe is playing as well as anyone in the league given his situation. I'd expect him to finish ahead of Wade accolade wise at the end of the season. Compared to Wade, defensively Bryant is in a league of his own, and offensively he's dominating just not taking care of the ball as well and not shooting as well.


I really don't see Kobe as being in another league defensively compared to anybody. He can defend well when he puts his mind to it, but he is focused on scoring this season. I haven't seen him lock people up this year the way that a Ron Artest, Bruce Bowen, or Trent Hassell can. 

I know you will bring up All-Defense team awards, but that is a popularity contest for the most part. Just because the media decides Kobe is an all-league defender doesn't mean he is. 





> That is amazing isn't it.


It's true, and that's all that matters.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> The only team to defeat these Lakers in the finals was the only team to let Shaq *not* take the "brunt of the attacks" Instead they let Kobe face the double and triple teams, while letting Shaq go one v one. Results = W


Until last season, when Kobe decided to go one-on-four in the NBA finals, instead of giving Shaq the ball in one-on-one situations. 

Result=L



> Yes but only one team had that decision to make and the Lakers did not choose Shaq.


Is it possible that Kobe being 6 years younger than Shaq MIGHT have had something to do with LA trading Shaq when it was determined that one had to go?

Do you think the Lakers would go with Bryant if they had to choose between signing Lebron and Kobe to long-term deals?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> If Kobe didn't dominate the ball and allowed Lamar Odom to create some within the offense, the team could be much better.


I think this is a common misconception among people who watch fewer than 5 Laker games a year. In reality it's Rudy T. running the same offense he ran with Steve Francis and Dream, which is dump the ball into someone, iso, draw defender, pass to 3-point shooter.



> It's not nitpicky at all when you are comparing him to guys who can do everything that he can do (LeBron, Wade) are shooting 50%, averaging less turnovers, playing on better teams, and are in their second years in the league. You should be able to figure that one out...


Wade's more comparable, as he shoots a ton of FTs and actually plays defense. LeBron not so much. I'd be more impressed with Wade, for now. Of course, this mentions nothing of defense or the fact that he is in fact scoring 4 ppg + more than either player, too.



> You don't actually think I'm dumb enough to fall for this argument, do you? Kobe has ALWAYS dominated the ball. Harper might have brought it up every now and then, but it was in Kobe's hands the VAST majority of the time. This has been happening since he emerged as a star in LA. LeBron has been an incredible passer - completely unselfish - from the minute he stepped onto the court. A downright ludicrous comparison.


Kind of hard to draw the conclusion that Kobe dominated the ball "since he became a star" when you never watched Laker games. Or is this another case of "Cassell penetrates because I watch Twolves games" again?



> I really don't see Kobe as being in another league defensively compared to anybody. He can defend well when he puts his mind to it, but he is focused on scoring this season. I haven't seen him lock people up this year the way that a Ron Artest, Bruce Bowen, or Trent Hassell can.


That's because you haven't watched many Laker games this season. He completely locked up Michael Redd twice this season, including a game winning block on him. 



> I know you will bring up All-Defense team awards, but that is a popularity contest for the most part. Just because the media decides Kobe is an all-league defender doesn't mean he is.


You might as well apply that to every great defender that has lived, which includes Gary Payton, Ron Artest, Scottie Pippen, etc. Equally pointless.



> Until last season, when Kobe decided to go one-on-four in the NBA finals, instead of giving Shaq the ball in one-on-one situations.
> 
> Result=L


Shaq's defense was just as bad. Perhaps more detrimental than Kobe's low FG%, as stopping the Pistons was the Lakers' biggest problem after all. Then again it doesn't help when 6'4" Ben Wallace outrebounds, outhustles, and outplays you defensively, after all. 



> Is it possible that Kobe being 6 years younger than Shaq MIGHT have had something to do with LA trading Shaq when it was determined that one had to go?
> 
> Do you think the Lakers would go with Bryant if they had to choose between signing Lebron and Kobe to long-term deals?


A better question is, did you think it was likely that the Lakers would trade Shaq before last summer?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> I think this is a common misconception among people who watch fewer than 5 Laker games a year. In reality it's Rudy T. running the same offense he ran with Steve Francis and Dream, which is dump the ball into someone, iso, draw defender, pass to 3-point shooter


Unfortunately, Steve Francis ran the offense exaclty the same way that Kobe does: lots of overdribbling, very little initiating the offense, and plenty of bad shots. 




> Kind of hard to draw the conclusion that Kobe dominated the ball "since he became a star" when you never watched Laker games. Or is this another case of "Cassell penetrates because I watch Twolves games" again?


I never watched Laker games? That's interesting...I thought I'd watched plenty of them. 

When are you going to let the Cassell thing go? I can't help it when you close your eyes to reality...

The fact of the matter is that you don't have any response here, so you fell back on your typical retort when I try to to confuse you with the facts...



> You might as well apply that to every great defender that has lived, which includes Gary Payton, Ron Artest, Scottie Pippen, etc. Equally pointless.


The problem here is that Artest, Payton and Pippen actually play (ed) good defense. This is evident from their actual play, not from winning a popularity contest.





> Shaq's defense was just as bad. Perhaps more detrimental than Kobe's low FG%, as stopping the Pistons was the Lakers' biggest problem after all. Then again it doesn't help when 6'4" Ben Wallace outrebounds, outhustles, and outplays you defensively, after all.


If you think this, than you are blind. Shaq was absolutely dominant out there, and Kobe took bad shot after bad shot. There's no excuse for Shaq to shoot as little as he did, and for Kobe to shoot as much as he did.

I guess you decided to join this discussion because I'm actually bringing up a few valid arguments against your hero. It's pretty clear that Kobe could do nothing to elicit anything other than your total support. 

Keeping downing Kobe's doo-doo by the pail - I'll stop trying to confuse you with reality...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, Steve Francis ran the offense exaclty the same way that Kobe does: lots of overdribbling, very little initiating the offense, and plenty of bad shots.


You answered your own question and apparently didn't realize it. 



> When are you going to let the Cassell thing go? I can't help it when you close your eyes to reality...


Reality is 89% of your shots being jumpers. That's Sam Cassell circa 2003-2004.



> The fact of the matter is that you don't have any response here, so you fell back on your typical retort when I try to to confuse you with the facts...


You didn't list any facts, you listed an opinion. Facts are facts, opinions are opinions, and you listed an opinion. 89% of Sam Cassell's shots being jumpers in 2003-2004; that's a fact. I can list the merriamwebster definitions of "fact" and "opinion" if you like. 



> The problem here is that Artest, Payton and Pippen actually play (ed) good defense. This is evident from their actual play, not from winning a popularity contest.


According to you and your opinion, which if you'll excuse me, doesn't hold much water if you don't actually watch Laker games. 



> If you think this, than you are blind. Shaq was absolutely dominant out there, and Kobe took bad shot after bad shot. There's no excuse for Shaq to shoot as little as he did, and for Kobe to shoot as much as he did.


You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I in fact agreed with you that Kobe took too many bad shots and that Shaq should have gotten more. Problem is that offense is merely one part of basketball. Defensively, Shaq was the worst player on the floor in the Finals, perhaps even worse than Payton. That's what happens when you're not in shape. Defense was the Lakers' main problem in the Finals, that much should be evident by the ppg and FG% they allowed the Pistons, who were hardly an offensive juggernaut last season.



> I guess you decided to join this discussion because I'm actually bringing up a few valid arguments against your hero.


I decided to join this thread to make fun of you and your "arguments".



> Keeping downing Kobe's doo-doo by the pail - I'll stop trying to confuse you with reality...


89% jump shots taken in 2003-2004 reality?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> You answered your own question and apparently didn't realize it.


The point is that Rudy let Franchise walk all over him, and is letting Kobe do the same thing. There's no structured offense. One player dribbling for 20 seconds and throwing up a contested fadeaway is not an offense, whether it's Steve Francis or Kobe Bryant. 



> Reality is 89% of your shots being jumpers. That's Sam Cassell circa 2003-2004.


Reality is that a large percentage of them were off the dribble, which was my original point. Reality is that you probably didn't see much of Cassell until the WCF's and he was hobbled shell of what he had done during the regular season. 



> You seem to have reading comprehension problems. I in fact agreed with you that Kobe took too many bad shots and that Shaq should have gotten more. Problem is that offense is merely one part of basketball. Defensively, Shaq was the worst player on the floor in the Finals, perhaps even worse than Payton. That's what happens when you're not in shape. Defense was the Lakers' main problem in the Finals, that much should be evident by the ppg and FG% they allowed the Pistons, who were hardly an offensive juggernaut last season.


The Pistons scored 100 points in a game exactly once in the series, and never scored more than that. In fact, except for Detroit's 100 point outing (Game 5, in which The Lakers had essentially given up) the Pistons couldn't even manage 90 points in any of their wins. Meanwhile, the Lakers averaged less than 81 points per game in the series. 

Just what "reality" do you live in, that the Lakers' problem was defense?

Never mind the facts - whatever can be further the image of great King Kobe...




> According to you and your opinion, which if you'll excuse me, doesn't hold much water if you don't actually watch Laker games.


You and the other Kobe jockriders have never managed to admit anything negative about your idol about as far back as I can remember. Of course you are going to say he's the best defender in the league. 

I have nothing against Kobe Bryant, and have no problem admitting the talent that he is. 

He is one of the more dangerous scorers in the NBA, and probably has the best pure scoring skillset in the league. 

But for some amazing reason, I'm able to see faults in the guy too. From the first time he made an All-Defense team, he has been overrated as a defender. It's certainly not a fault of his, but he's certainly not an all-league defender, either. 

So excuse me for not bowing down to the messiah from above that is Kobe Bryant, but I prefer to view things based on reality, not on some fantasy dreamland where I have protect my Idol from those evil haters on an internet message board.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> The point is that Rudy let Franchise walk all over him, and is letting Kobe do the same thing. There's no structured offense. One player dribbling for 20 seconds and throwing up a contested fadeaway is not an offense, whether it's Steve Francis or Kobe Bryant.


Wow, you still don't get it. Exactly how is not having a structured offense anyone but Rudy's own fault? Is Kobe supposed to magically shoot at the top of the league when he's getting all isos? Hello?



> Reality is that a large percentage of them were off the dribble, which was my original point. Reality is that you probably didn't see much of Cassell until the WCF's and he was hobbled shell of what he had done during the regular season.


"Off the dribble". Man you crack me up. Even in face of undisputable facts you still can't seem to grasp that Cassell has always been and will continue to be a jump shooter. You must of never watched any Bucks games either. Do we really need to go through the 82games stats again? _Again_?



> The Pistons scored 100 points in a game exactly once in the series, and never scored more than that.


That's nice, too bad it's completely irrelevant when you ignore possessions per game. :laugh: 



> In fact, except for Detroit's 100 point outing (Game 5, in which The Lakers had essentially given up) the Pistons couldn't even manage 90 points in any of their wins.


See above.



> Meanwhile, the Lakers averaged less than 81 points per game in the series.


See above. 



> Just what "reality" do you live in, that the Lakers' problem was defense?


The reality where the Lakers let Detroit shoot 46.7% from the floor, were the Lakers were outrebounded on the defensive glass an average of 31 to 27, and where the Lakers committed an average of *eight* more fouls per game, sending the Pistons to the line an ungodly amount of times. Lakers couldn’t defend without fouling, and most of it is Shaq’s fault for not blocking any shots (he blocked _one_ shot the entire series). Shaq didn’t play any pick and roll defense (never showed properly or at all), and most importantly Shaq couldn’t even outrebound 6’4” Ben Wallace. He played no defense. Neither did the Lakers as a team, for that matter. 

Really now, is it that hard to add numbers? 



> Never mind the facts - whatever can be further the image of great King Kobe...


What about King Cassell?



> You and the other Kobe jockriders have never managed to admit anything negative about your idol about as far back as I can remember. Of course you are going to say he's the best defender in the league.


I didn't nominate Kobe for all those All Defensive teams, NBA coaches did. And no one here said he was the best defender in the league. At least read before speaking.



> So excuse me for not bowing down to the messiah from above that is Kobe Bryant, but I prefer to view things based on reality, not on some fantasy dreamland where I have protect my Idol from those evil haters on an internet message board.


I'm not sure what's worse, someone telling me I shouldn't be making an argument for a player on a message board, or the same person saying that not realizing that he spends his time on a message board protecting his favorite team's players (i.e. Sam Slasher Cassell).


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> Until last season, when Kobe decided to go one-on-four in the NBA finals, instead of giving Shaq the ball in one-on-one situations.
> ...


That's a subjective opinion. An objective opinion would address all the reason why LA lost from poor team defense, Kobe's overdoing things, to Shaq not rebounding or running the floor, to GP not playing a lick of defense, and Karl Malone being hurt




> Is it possible that Kobe being 6 years younger than Shaq MIGHT have had something to do with LA trading Shaq when it was determined that one had to go?


That is possible



> Do you think the Lakers would go with Bryant if they had to choose between signing Lebron and Kobe to long-term deals?


Likely no.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> If Kobe didn't dominate the ball and allowed Lamar Odom to create some within the offense, the team could be much better.


Maybe so.




> It's not nitpicky at all when you are comparing him to guys who can do everything that he can do (LeBron, Wade) are shooting 50%, averaging less turnovers, playing on better teams, and are in their second years in the league. You should be able to figure that one out...


I thought it was not a major issue concern Lebron last year. Neither had an adaquet PG, once Lebron got one, his turnovers lessened and he was able to shine in the areas he does best. 

As far as them doing everything he can do, offensively yes. defensively... get real!



> You don't actually think I'm dumb enough to fall for this argument, do you? Kobe has ALWAYS dominated the ball. Harper might have brought it up every now and then, but it was in Kobe's hands the VAST majority of the time. This has been happening since he emerged as a star in LA. LeBron has been an incredible passer - completely unselfish - from the minute he stepped onto the court. A downright ludicrous comparison.


I don't think you're dumb enough to fall for anything, I think you just don't understand how much relief veteran players/or adaquet players can help. 



> I really don't see Kobe as being in another league defensively compared to anybody. He can defend well when he puts his mind to it, but he is focused on scoring this season. I haven't seen him lock people up this year the way that a Ron Artest, Bruce Bowen, or Trent Hassell can.


That's your bias talking. Trent Hassell has been absolutely herendous this year. He got a contract extension and his play has tumbled downward. Artest is in the studio, and Bowen is playing good defense as usual. You, along with other Kobe haters, say this every year, then he wins all nba defense teams and you make further excuses why he shouldn't have. 
It's a vicious cycle. :laugh:



> I know you will bring up All-Defense team awards, but that is a popularity contest for the most part. Just because the media decides Kobe is an all-league defender doesn't mean he is.


Coaches and Gm's decide who wins all league reckognition. But I guess they're also biased for Kobe. I wonder how he does it. :whoknows: 



> It's true, and that's all that matters.


:greatjob:


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow, you still don't get it. Exactly how is not having a structured offense anyone but Rudy's own fault? Is Kobe supposed to magically shoot at the top of the league when he's getting all isos? Hello?


If it were LeBron James out there, Rudy wouldn't have any problem getting his team to run offense. Do I still not understand the point, or did I get it all along? 



> "Off the dribble". Man you crack me up. Even in face of undisputable facts you still can't seem to grasp that Cassell has always been and will continue to be a jump shooter. You must of never watched any Bucks games either. Do we really need to go through the 82games stats again? _Again_?


Your "facts" are no more indisputable than the ones that you use below to try and tell me that the Lakers lost because Shaq was outrebounded by the 2nd best way more shots than Shaq, who was unstoppable all series. 



> The reality where the Lakers let Detroit shoot 46.7% from the floor, were the Lakers were outrebounded on the defensive glass an average of 31 to 27,


Just out of curiosity, what did the Lakers shoot? If Detroit's halfway decent FG% is a factor, why isn't Kobe's attrocious FG%? 

Four defensive rebounds per game isn't going to turn the tide in any game, much less in a series where the Lakers lost by an average of 12 points. 



> and where the Lakers committed an average of *eight* more fouls per game, sending the Pistons to the line an ungodly amount of times.


Yet the Pistons could hardly manage 90 points in a game, and the Lakers still lost. Hmm...



> Lakers couldn’t defend without fouling, and most of it is Shaq’s fault for not blocking any shots (he blocked _one_ shot the entire series). Shaq didn’t play any pick and roll defense (never showed properly or at all), and most importantly Shaq couldn’t even outrebound 6’4” Ben Wallace. He played no defense. Neither did the Lakers as a team, for that matter.


There's only one player in the entire league that should have been expected to outrebound Wallace, and that's KG. It's beyond ridiculous to pin the Lakers' failure on that. 



> I didn't nominate Kobe for all those All Defensive teams, NBA coaches did. And no one here said he was the best defender in the league. At least read before speaking.


So IV didn't say "Kobe is in a different league defensively?" Did you think you were posting in a different thread? 



> I'm not sure what's worse, someone telling me I shouldn't be making an argument for a player on a message board, or the same person saying that not realizing that he spends his time on a message board protecting his favorite team's players (i.e. Sam Slasher Cassell).


See, that's the thing. I DON'T go around protecting Sam Cassell. I post on a wide range of topics on these boards. In fact, I'm willing to bet the only time I posted about Cassell at all in 2004 is the original thread where you said Cassell couldn't take the ball to the basket, and the subsequent threads where you went off topic to bring it up. 

On other hand, everybody around here knows why you post on these boards...


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> I don't think you're dumb enough to fall for anything, I think you just don't understand how much relief veteran players/or adaquet players can help.


I understand perfectly what veteran players can add to a team. It's why Phil Jackson was a great coach. He could get veteran roleplayers to play their roles, and he had great success with it in LA and Chicago. Rudy T did a great job of it in Houston, although some of his roleplayers were younger. 

I just think it's patently absurd to say that an 18 year-old rookie is commiting less turnovers because he has better teammates, when the fact of the matter is, he's an 18 year-old rookie. Is it beyond the realm of possiblity to think that maybe he's improved a little in those areas during his first two seasons? That maybe he's just more of a team player than Kobe Bryant? Watch the guy play with an open mind, and I don't see how you can disagree with me...



> That's your bias talking. Trent Hassell has been absolutely herendous this year. He got a contract extension and his play has tumbled downward. Artest is in the studio, and Bowen is playing good defense as usual. You, along with other Kobe haters, say this every year, then he wins all nba defense teams and you make further excuses why he shouldn't have.
> It's a vicious cycle. :laugh:


I really don't have anything to back my opinion up, except for what I see on the court. Bryant shut down Allen Iverson in the finals a few years back. His length and speed really bothered the Answer. I don't think Kobe has done much defensively since then. 

As for Hassell, he isn't the problem in Minny. If anything, he should be getting more minutes. When Kobe goes out and shuts down Carmelo and Peja the way that Hassell did in the first two rounds last season, I will put him in Trent's league defensively.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> That's a subjective opinion. An objective opinion would address all the reason why LA lost from poor team defense, Kobe's overdoing things, to Shaq not rebounding or running the floor, to GP not playing a lick of defense, and Karl Malone being hurt


I don't doubt that those things were contributing factors to LA losing the series, just like I'm sure that there were more than a few reasons why the Shaq/Kobe duo was effective in the past, other than Kobe taking pressure off Shaq. But if you're going to pin it on one thing, it has to be that the guy shooting 35% is taking 30 shots a game, and the guy shooting 60% is taking 15. Kobe played right into Larry Brown's hands, Shaq got frustrated because he couldn't get the ball, and the rest of the cards fell into place.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

Wow guys watch Sportscenter tonight Lebron had the nastiest block I've seen this season on childress it sounded like a gunshot


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>SamTheMan67</b>!
> Wow guys watch Sportscenter tonight Lebron had the nastiest block I've seen this season on childress it sounded like a gunshot


yeah, so kid when other teams aer playing dont wtach them and do your freaking study.

LMAO at saying I have been seen some block on scrubs before.


----------



## SamTheMan67 (Jan 4, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, so kid when other teams aer playing dont wtach them and do your freaking study.
> ...


lmao you scrub poster i still have potential unlike you F!


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

I'm not sure about the title of this thread, as looking like Amare Stoudamire looks pretty good these days.

Kobe is an excellent two guard and obviously has the ability to be a part of a championship-caliber team. However, the notion that he is one of the elite players of all-time or even one of the top five players in the game today is in jeopardy. 

He has started for one 60-win team in his entire career, which has occurred during an era of mediocrity. While Shaq was still the unquestioned dominant player in the league and Kobe was still a developing player, the Lakers won two titles, including one dominant regular season (1999-2000) and one dominant playoffs (2001). Once Shaq's game began declining and Kobe began to reach his prime, the Lakers ceased being the league's preeminent team. They really hadn't been the best team in the league since 2001 anyway.

Kobe has essentially been given in his prime the team that Dwayne Wade had as a rookie last year (plus a quality center in Chris Mihm), and the results are about the same, which is to say slightly above-average. Compare this to the declining Shaq, who has gone to a 42-win Miami team that was gutted of most of its top players in the offseason, and they have turned into one of the two or three best teams in the league, which is just what the Lakers were for the last three years or so. It seems to me that the logic of this is inescapable.

There is a simple rule to follow when evaluating NBA players and teams: The better the star player the better the team. 

The Spurs are always among the league's best teams because Tim Duncan is always among the league's best players. When Shaq was the league's best player, the Lakers were the league's best team. When Shaq became one of the league's best two or three players, the Lakers became one of the league's two or three best teams. Now that Shaq is with Miami, they are one of the two or three best teams in the league. When the Nets traded Stephon Marbury for Jason Kidd, they became an elite team because Jason Kidd was an elite player and Stephon Marbury was not. When Stephon Marbury was Phoenix's best player, they were an average/below-average team because Stephon Marbury is an average/below-average star player. That's why the New York Knicks are an average/below-average team today. Dallas is better than Denver because Dirk Nowitzki is better than Carmelo Anthony. Orlando is better than Houston because Steve Francis is better than Tracy McGrady. Orlando was lethargic and dissapointing last season, and this year Houston is lethargic and dissapointing. Charlotte, Atlanta, New Orleans and Golden State are four of the worst teams in the league because their star players are Emeka Okafor, Antoine Walker, Baron Davis and Jason Richardson, respectively, four of the worst star players in the league.

The Lakers are a slightly above-average team right now because Kobe Bryant is a slightly above-average star player.

Witout question, every GM in the league right now would trade Kobe Bryant for Lebron James, and that includes Mitch Kupchak.


----------



## "Matt!" (Jul 24, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>QBF</b>!
> I'm not sure about the title of this thread, as looking like Amare Stoudamire looks pretty good these days.


It was one of furistxen's constant ***-rammings of LeBron. You get used to them. 



> Kobe has essentially been given in his prime the team that Dwayne Wade had as a rookie last year (plus a quality center in Chris Mihm), and the results are about the same, which is to say slightly above-average. Compare this to the declining Shaq, who has gone to a 42-win Miami team that was gutted of most of its top players in the offseason, and they have turned into one of the two or three best teams in the league, which is just what the Lakers were for the last three years or so. It seems to me that the logic of this is inescapable.


Wow. This just totally blows my mind. 

The whole prinicple that this is the same team that Dwyane Wade played with last year is just...wrong. Besides the obvious differences in coaching and team organization, scheme, and system (in which players like Lamar Odom thrive), there is no real three-point threat to share the wing with Kobe (Eddie Jones, while Chucky Atkins can hit them, he doesn't create them, he just hangs out on the 3-line), he has no real point guard to play with (Rafter Alston), Lamar Odom playing out of position on a nightly basis (natural SF playing PF), no big, rebounding bodies (Udonis Haslem/Brian Grant), among other things. Let's just take the comparisons...
Topic: Lakers '05 / Heat '04
Pure PG: Atkins / Alston
Shooters: Atkins, Cook (?) / Jones, Alston, Butler
Bangers: Mihm, Odom / Grant, Haslem

I don't see one of those where I don't like the advantage Miami had.



> There is a simple rule to follow when evaluating NBA players and teams: The better the star player the better the team.
> 
> The Spurs are always among the league's best teams because Tim Duncan is always among the league's best players. When Shaq was the league's best player, the Lakers were the league's best team. When Shaq became one of the league's best two or three players, the Lakers became one of the league's two or three best teams. Now that Shaq is with Miami, they are one of the two or three best teams in the league. When the Nets traded Stephon Marbury for Jason Kidd, they became an elite team because Jason Kidd was an elite player and Stephon Marbury was not. When Stephon Marbury was Phoenix's best player, they were an average/below-average team because Stephon Marbury is an average/below-average star player. That's why the New York Knicks are an average/below-average team today. Dallas is better than Denver because Dirk Nowitzki is better than Carmelo Anthony. Orlando is better than Houston because Steve Francis is better than Tracy McGrady. Orlando was lethargic and dissapointing last season, and this year Houston is lethargic and dissapointing. Charlotte, Atlanta, New Orleans and Golden State are four of the worst teams in the league because their star players are Emeka Okafor, Antoine Walker, Baron Davis and Jason Richardson, respectively, four of the worst star players in the league.


So since the TWolves lost to the Bobcats, Okafor > Garnett?

Randolph > Carmelo?
McGrady = Gasol?
Deng > Redd?
Allen > KG?

Actually, Marbury > Kidd right now, even though you had proven so well that Kidd was clearly the superior player. But New York is ahead, even in just the last 10 games.

But no, all of these players dominate the league by the themselves! That's why Jordan just happened to click together when Scottie came around. I don't think anyone is going to argue that Chauncy Billups is a better point guard than Kidd, nor a better player than Duncan, Dirk, KG, Shaq, etc., but guess who won the championship last year!



> The Lakers are a slightly above-average team right now because Kobe Bryant is a slightly above-average star player.
> 
> Witout question, every GM in the league right now would trade Kobe Bryant for Lebron James, and that includes Mitch Kupchak.


Every GM in the NBA would do that trade, but not for the reasons you're trying to prove. LeBron didn't magically become a better player last year, Jeff McInnis swung by.

Unless McInnis is the star, and that's the reason the team got better, but in that regard why wasn't Portland lighting it up?

I don't buy your bull**** theory.

EDIT: The reasons all of the GM's would trade for LeBron are because he's far more marketable, sells jerseys, and quite plainly puts butts in the seats, and there is no loss of talent. LeBron is a top 5-10 player in the league, just like Kobe, so I don't know what you're trying to prove with that trade.


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Matt85163</b>!
> 
> 
> Wow. This just totally blows my mind.
> ...


Blaming the system will eventually get tired as an argument. Kobe was limited by the triangle. Now he's limited by Rudy T's system. Pretty soon, we'll discover that Kobe's winning percentage is the same no matter what system he's playing in.

Is that the advantage for last year's Heat? Eddie Jones and Rafer Alston? A shooting guard who'd lost his athleticism and a back-up point guard? Chris Mihm is more skilled than any big man the Heat had last season, while Lamar Odom played a lot of power forward for the Heat last year and thrived. Not only can Mihm rebound, but he can block shots, a luxury the Heat didn't have last year. Caron Butler is a very good player who was nowhere near 100 percent last season, and he is every bit as good as, if not better than, Eddie Jones was last season. Brian Grant and Chucky Atkins are quality veterans. Brian Cook and Luke Walton are nice young players. In an expansion year, that's as nice a supporting cast as any.

The problem is, how many teams have a second-best player who's as good as Lamar Odom? Not many. 



> So since the TWolves lost to the Bobcats, Okafor > Garnett?


Based on one game, no, but if the Bobcats become a consistently better team than the Timberwolves, what other conclusion could we draw? 



> Randolph > Carmelo?
> McGrady = Gasol?
> Deng > Redd?
> Allen > KG?


This is like trying to read Chinese.



> Actually, Marbury > Kidd right now, even though you had proven so well that Kidd was clearly the superior player. But New York is ahead, even in just the last 10 games.


Well, Kidd has been hurt and is clearly not the same player this year. Their careers speak for themselves.



> I don't think anyone is going to argue that Chauncy Billups is a better point guard than Kidd, nor a better player than Duncan, Dirk, KG, Shaq, etc., but guess who won the championship last year!


Last year is a great example, as the Lakers' star player in the Finals, Kobe Bryant, was clearly inferior to Chauncy Billups, which explains a lot about why the Lakers lost.

Go back over the previous 25 years and look at the NBA champions. Unless your team had Micahel Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Dr. J, Isaiah Thomas, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan or Shaquile O'Neal on it, it didn't win the NBA title. There's a reason for that.



> Every GM in the NBA would do that trade, but not for the reasons you're trying to prove. LeBron didn't magically become a better player last year, Jeff McInnis swung by.
> 
> Unless McInnis is the star, and that's the reason the team got better, but in that regard why wasn't Portland lighting it up?
> 
> ...


Well, the title of the thread compares Lebron James to Kobe Bryant, and, right now, among league GMs, there is no comparison. The number one reason they would gladly trade Kobe for Lebron is because Lebron is more talented and a better basketball player. Maybe that would be a good trade for Kobe, as I'm sure Jeff McInnis would do wonders for Kobe's game.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> If it were LeBron James out there, Rudy wouldn't have any problem getting his team to run offense. Do I still not understand the point, or did I get it all along?


No actually, all you did was throw out some random hypothetical argument you can't prove. 



> Your "facts" are no more indisputable than the ones that you use below to try and tell me that the Lakers lost because Shaq was outrebounded by the 2nd best way more shots than Shaq, who was unstoppable all series.


You seem to have some major reading problems here. No where did I say the sole reason the Lakers lost the Finals was because Shaq was outrebounded. You clearly didn't read my post, or you didn't read it carefully enough.



> Just out of curiosity, what did the Lakers shoot? If Detroit's halfway decent FG% is a factor, why isn't Kobe's attrocious FG%?


Again, who said Kobe's FG% wasn't a factor? If you would bother to read what I said we'd have an easier time understanding each other. Kobe shot a low FG% that contributed to the Lakers' demise in the Finals. Similarly, Shaq's poor defense and inconsistent/poor rebounding also contributed to the Lakers' demise. Payton's poor defense on Billups contributed to the Lakers' demise too. Malone's injury didn't help either. 

Singling out Kobe's FG% is ultimately pointless and generally laughable.



> Four defensive rebounds per game isn't going to turn the tide in any game,


You're clueless if you truly believe this. The Lakers were also killed on the offensive glass, which I should of listed instead actually, but the point remains the same; poor rebounding. 



> much less in a series where the Lakers lost by an average of 12 points.


Do you not understand the concept of possessions in NBA basketball, where the more possessions you have, the more opportunity you have to outscore your opponent? Dominating the boards is one way to make sure you outscore your opponent. 



> Yet the Pistons could hardly manage 90 points in a game, and the Lakers still lost. Hmm...


Wow, unbelievable. You really must not study basketball that much if you're using ppg as a measure of offensive potency. 



> There's only one player in the entire league that should have been expected to outrebound Wallace, and that's KG. It's beyond ridiculous to pin the Lakers' failure on that.


When you're 7'1" 350lbs and regarded as the most dominant player in the game, if you can't step up to the challenge of controlling the boards or, at worst, anchoring your team's defense, you aren't really a dominant player. Shaq showed he was not a dominant player in the Finals. He scored like a dominant player, he anchored the defense like Shawn Bradley. That's what an every-other-day schedule and 50 lbs of weight you don't need will do to a man. 



> So IV didn't say "Kobe is in a different league defensively?" Did you think you were posting in a different thread?


I wasn't responding to that particular comment, I never mentioned it in any of my posts. And besides, did IV say Kobe was the best defender in the league like you implied I said? If he did, I certainly don't agree with that at all. 



> On other hand, everybody around here knows why you post on these boards...


I post on these boards mostly to talk about the Lakers. Unfortunately it usually turns into a Kobe bash fest, as any unbiased fan can tell you these boards just don't like Bryant (and formerly the Suns and Amare). But I'm sure you already know that, though I'm not sure you know my posting habits if I think you're implying what you're implying.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

My balls itch...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

QBF, 

As usual none of your arguments fly. To ignore the coaching and quality of players surrounding a superstar is to basically ignore common sense. If, as you say, a superstar should be able to carry his team to an elite record, and Kobe isn't doing that, is Kevin Garnett no longer the best or second best player in the league like he was last year? The Kobe-led Lakers have just as good a record as the KG-led Twolves. Is Kobe Bryant just as good as KG? Or are Kobe and KG not really top 5 players anymore, because of their team's record? Is Ray Allen better than KG and Kobe this season because the Sonics have a better record? Is water just really wine? 

You seem to be one of those Bulls fans that believe Jordan would have won six titles without Pippen, Rodman, Grant or Phil Jackson. Sorry to tell you, but he'd be ringless without them. So would Duncan without Popovich, David Robinson, and stellar triple threat role players. So would Shaq without Kobe Bryant, Phil Jackson, and stellar role players. 

Sorry QBF, but teams have good records, not superstars. Michael Jordan is still one of the best players ever with or without six championships. He was still one of the best players ever before 1991.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> Wow, you still don't get it. Exactly how is not having a structured offense anyone but Rudy's own fault?


That is why Rudy was hired, so Kobe could run the team, no if's or but's. No more being held back by Phil Jackson or the triangle offense with Shaq. Kobe got what he asked for, so it's no point to keep blaming the coach in this situation. In all honesty the biggest problem with the Lakers could be that nothing is holding Kobe back. 

Oh yeah, stop being so belittling in each of your responses to blabla97. You're waving the white flag of defeat when each of your sentences jeers at another poster without addressing the argument at hand.

QBF, you make some great points in your posts but I can't agree with the notion that a winning record will always translate into the better player. Francis is a much more passionate player than McGrady, but in no way, shape or form is he better than TMac. You aren't taking into account all the wildcard factors and do you really think Houston could have gone the distance with Francis and Yao on the same team? Calling Okafor one of the worst stars in the league in his rookie season is ignorant. Look at that Charlotte team and honestly tell me they would be a top team if you replaced Duncan with Okafor. 

I promise you this, Steve Francis will never get to the NBA Finals if he is the #1 option on his team.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> That's your bias talking. Trent Hassell has been absolutely herendous this year. He got a contract extension and his play has tumbled downward.


The Wolves poor defense is a result of Wally getting more minutes and Sprewell/Cassell playing like crap defensively. Hassell is still doing a good job, holding opposing SG's to 42% from the field.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Mr. Roger's Cardigan</b>!
> 
> That is why Rudy was hired, so Kobe could run the team, no if's or but's. No more being held back by Phil Jackson or the triangle offense with Shaq. Kobe got what he asked for, so it's no point to keep blaming the coach in this situation. In all honesty the biggest problem with the Lakers could be that nothing is holding Kobe back.


The notion that Kobe runs the team or dictates personal moves is no more true with him than it is with any franchise player. If Rudy was hired because Kobe wanted him and because Kobe could control him, then why did the Lakers go hard after Coach K, the complete antithesis of a Rudy T? Why were there reports of Kobe calling up Coach K to come coach for the Lakers? 

If the Lakers had gone at Rudy first, then there might be something to what you’re saying. But they went after Coach K first, they went after him so hard that they made a final offer of $10M per year after he rejected the $8M per year offer. 



> Oh yeah, stop being so belittling in each of your responses to blabla97.


To be fair, he started it. 



> You're waving the white flag of defeat when each of your sentences jeers at another poster without addressing the argument at hand.


I honestly don't think I've avoided addressing any of his points. If I’ve missed any, let me know.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

All I know was Bulls had good players


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> The notion that Kobe runs the team or dictates personal moves is no more true with him than it is with any franchise player. If Rudy was hired because Kobe wanted him and because Kobe could control him, then why did the Lakers go hard after Coach K, the complete antithesis of a Rudy T? Why were there reports of Kobe calling up Coach K to come coach for the Lakers?
> ...


EHL, you were just get beaten by a couple of decent posters. Only if u ask for help, one more post on James VS Kobe will end the discussion.

Like the kid Bender was only able to quote a little part of my post. If it wasnt for I refused to give credit to Drewbs where he talked about how James skills were very mature already, he would just STUU.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> EHL, you were just get beaten by a couple of decent posters. Only if u ask for help, one more post on James VS Kobe will end the discussion.
> ...


Only a true poster in his prime can pass judgement. I've said before but will repeat now, your 26 but past your prime. HK lifestyle isn't good for the mind or body.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> I understand perfectly what veteran players can add to a team. It's why Phil Jackson was a great coach. He could get veteran roleplayers to play their roles, and he had great success with it in LA and Chicago. Rudy T did a great job of it in Houston, although some of his roleplayers were younger.


:yes:



> I just think it's patently absurd to say that an 18 year-old rookie is commiting less turnovers because he has better teammates, when the fact of the matter is, he's an 18 year-old rookie. Is it beyond the realm of possiblity to think that maybe he's improved a little in those areas during his first two seasons? That maybe he's just more of a team player than Kobe Bryant? Watch the guy play with an open mind, and I don't see how you can disagree with me...


We just have a difference of opinion. I honestly don't think Lebron is such a smarter player than Kobe and Kobe just doesn't realize what he should be doing. Kobe has played the team game you speak of, it's won him a few rings, I'm sure he knows, however things are drastically different now. He's not playing with a handful of spades anymore. This is new to him, so expect the team to have hardship, and it certainly doesn't help that LA has no point guard. Remember I'm a huge Lebron James fan. I was making this same arguement for him last year when people were dogging him, but once he got Jeff McGinnis, things changed. Check the record it's true. 



> I really don't have anything to back my opinion up, except for what I see on the court. Bryant shut down Allen Iverson in the finals a few years back. His length and speed really bothered the Answer. I don't think Kobe has done much defensively since then.


I do have something to back my opinion which I'm sure wouldn't mean much to you, but he's all league awards since then should support he has been at least as good defensively, since he's gone from 2nd team to 1st team, that should convince most he's improved. That seems much more reasonable to me. 



> As for Hassell, he isn't the problem in Minny. If anything, he should be getting more minutes. When Kobe goes out and shuts down Carmelo and Peja the way that Hassell did in the first two rounds last season, I will put him in Trent's league defensively.


That's funny, but okay.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't doubt that those things were contributing factors to LA losing the series, just like I'm sure that there were more than a few reasons why the Shaq/Kobe duo was effective in the past, other than Kobe taking pressure off Shaq. But if you're going to pin it on one thing, it has to be that the guy shooting 35% is taking 30 shots a game, and the guy shooting 60% is taking 15. Kobe played right into Larry Brown's hands, Shaq got frustrated because he couldn't get the ball, and the rest of the cards fell into place.


That's one way to look at it, and okay that's fine. As a Kobe fan, you understand, when LA loses people will find a way to blame him, so alright. Here's the alternative, LA acquires Gary Payton during the offseason mainly for his defensive effort and savy veteran play. Defensively he was awful. The MVP of these finals was the guy Gary Payton was supposed to guard. Gary averaged around 4 points per game, and 3 assist. He was entirely ineffective. IMO, it's never one person's fault, but if I were to blame, one person for there poor play in the finals. I would easily choose GP.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it, and okay that's fine. As a Kobe fan, you understand, when LA loses people will find a way to blame him, so alright. Here's the alternative, LA acquires Gary Payton during the offseason mainly for his defensive effort and savy veteran play. Defensively he was awful. The MVP of these finals was the guy Gary Payton was supposed to guard. Gary averaged around 4 points per game, and 3 assist. He was entirely ineffective. IMO, it's never one person's fault, but if I were to blame, one person for there poor play in the finals. I would easily choose GP.


Not saying this is a good or bad post, but Magic Johnson is pathetic as well.. Calling out Gary Payton for not hitting spot up jumpers.

LMAO, I will give your prime years, see if you are to play off of Kobe and need to hit spot up shots in the series. lol, it wasnt like the 80s anymore like you are open for a year.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> I wasn't responding to that particular comment, I never mentioned it in any of my posts. And besides, *did IV say Kobe was the best defender in the league* like you implied I said? If he did, I certainly don't agree with that at all.


IV never said Kobe is the best defender in the NBA. IMO, and I know he's been out for a month now, but the way Kirilenko was playing before his injury..... he is the best defender in the NBA. Should he come back and dominate defensively, I'd expect him to win the dpoy award.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> Not saying this is a good or bad post, but Magic Johnson is pathetic as well.. Calling out Gary Payton for not hitting spot up shooters.
> ...


Magic is right. The triangle system needs perimeter player that will make open shots, Gary didn't. He didn't play any defense, he really didn't offer anything at all in that series. Can anyone honestly point out one thing that Payton did well for LA in the finals last year? I honestly can not.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Magic is right. The triangle system needs perimeter player that will make open shots, Gary didn't. He didn't play any defense, he really didn't offer anything at all in that series. Can anyone honestly point out one thing that Payton did well for LA in the finals last year? I honestly can not.


I see what you are saying, but give Gary some props and people should know his game when Gary was around in the NBA for 13-14 years.

Gary Payton is simply not a spot up shooter. Why Magic being so harash on him?


----------



## 33 (Nov 18, 2002)

The difference b/t Lebron last year and Kobe this year is.....Lebron started the season at the PG. He was playing out of position so the turnovers were frequent. Kobe is not starting at the PG, yet he does PG duties that he shouldn't be doing. You can't compare Lebron of last year to the Kobe of this year. Kobe has a PG and I think he should let him do more ball-handling. Or better yet, let Odom do more play-making b/c what else is he good for as a Laker. 

As far as Kobe on defense, I will give him respect in the past years for his acheivements, but this year he has not been the defensive stopper he used to be. I think Shaq not being there has something to do with it, not all of it but some of it. This year, I have only seen Kobe shut down one "star" and that would be Michael Redd. He shut him down both times they played each other. I'm not saying Kobe is slipping on defense, I just think he puts most of his energy into his offensive game, which leaves little energy to play the defense he is capable of playing. I don't think a better PG is "the" answer for the Lakers to succeed. I think the Lakers need a better big man to compliment Odom and the Lakers would be a contender again. Plus, Caron Butler is not a big enough threat so you can leave him and double Kobe or Odom.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> 
> 
> I see what you are saying, but give Gary some props and people should know his game when Gary was around in the NBA for 13-14 years.
> ...


You're right, he's not a spot up shooter and that should have come into consideration when they acquired him. However 13-14 years GP was an all league defender, and I dont think anyone could have expected him to perform to poorly, the way he did.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>33</b>!
> The difference b/t Lebron last year and Kobe this year is.....Lebron started the season at the PG. He was playing out of position so the turnovers were frequent. Kobe is not starting at the PG, yet he does PG duties that he shouldn't be doing. You can't compare Lebron of last year to the Kobe of this year. Kobe has a PG and I think he should let him do more ball-handling. Or better yet, let Odom do more play-making b/c what else is he good for as a Laker.


The concept is the same, if you are 'performing' pg duties, or you are the pg, you're essentially doing the same things. Kobe is bringing the ball up the court too much, he's handling in the half court after bringing the ball up, when he should already be in position to run a play and receive the ball. Once LA find a player to come in and take that load off, they will improve.



> As far as Kobe on defense, I will give him respect in the past years for his acheivements, but this year he has not been the defensive stopper he used to be. I think Shaq not being there has something to do with it, not all of it but some of it. This year, I have only seen Kobe shut down one "star" and that would be Michael Redd. He shut him down both times they played each other. I'm not saying Kobe is slipping on defense, I just think he puts most of his energy into his offensive game, which leaves little energy to play the defense he is capable of playing. I don't think a better PG is "the" answer for the Lakers to succeed. I think the Lakers need a better big man to compliment Odom and the Lakers would be a contender again. Plus, Caron Butler is not a big enough threat so you can leave him and double Kobe or Odom.


Shaq not being there has nothing to do with Kobe defensively. He's still as good as he's ever been.

LA does need a big man to compliment Odom, but Mihm has done an over-expected job. Atkins, IMO, isn't hte right guy for the job. I like Butler, but he's not a good shooter, which is always good to have when you have a player that can create open shots for his teammates.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> No actually, all you did was throw out some random hypothetical argument you can't prove.


It's no different than, "Shaq played poor defense in the finals"



> Again, who said Kobe's FG% wasn't a factor? If you would bother to read what I said we'd have an easier time understanding each other. Kobe shot a low FG% that contributed to the Lakers' demise in the Finals. Similarly, Shaq's poor defense and inconsistent/poor rebounding also contributed to the Lakers' demise. Payton's poor defense on Billups contributed to the Lakers' demise too. Malone's injury didn't help either.
> 
> Singling out Kobe's FG% is ultimately pointless and generally laughable.


So you ARE admitting that it was a factor...

My original point came from IV saying that Kobe's presence on the floor equaled championship wins because it forced teams to single cover Shaq. My point is that Kobe's decision to not give Shaq the ball when he was scoring at will was a major reason why the Lakers lost the 2004 finals. 

Just like there were other reasons for the Lakers losing in 04 than Kobe's ballhogging, there were other reasons for the Lakers winning championships than Kobe taking pressure off of Shaq. You mention one of them below. 



> When you're 7'1" 350lbs and regarded as the most dominant player in the game


If Kobe drawing defenses was the reason the Lakers were so successful in their past title runs, then he automatically bears responsibility for not taking advantage of this in the 2004 finals. 



> You're clueless if you truly believe this. The Lakers were also killed on the offensive glass, which I should of listed instead actually, but the point remains the same; poor rebounding.


Then please, post the offensive rebound stats. Losing 4 defensive rebounds per game gives you, at most 4 ppg. It's a factor, but a very minor one. 



> Do you not understand the concept of possessions in NBA basketball, where the more possessions you have, the more opportunity you have to outscore your opponent? Dominating the boards is one way to make sure you outscore your opponent.


Of course I understand the concept...I just think you are using it as an excuse for what really happened in the finals. Which was Kobe deciding to jack up low-percentage jumpers, instead of force-feeding the ball into Shaq, who was getting single-covered. 



> Wow, unbelievable. You really must not study basketball that much if you're using ppg as a measure of offensive potency.


If defense was the Lakers' problem, the pistons would have averaged 95+ ppg in the series. If rebounding was the problem, the Pistons would have gotten more posessions, which would have allowed the Pistons to score 95+ ppg. You can't have it both ways. It all ends up in the scoring/scoring margin in the end...



> When you're 7'1" 350lbs and regarded as the most dominant player in the game, if you can't step up to the challenge of controlling the boards or, at worst, anchoring your team's defense, you aren't really a dominant player. Shaq showed he was not a dominant player in the Finals. He scored like a dominant player, he anchored the defense like Shawn Bradley. That's what an every-other-day schedule and 50 lbs of weight you don't need will do to a man.


Sounds a little subjective to me...

Nobody outrebounds Ben Wallace. 




> I wasn't responding to that particular comment, I never mentioned it in any of my posts. And besides, did IV say Kobe was the best defender in the league like you implied I said? If he did, I certainly don't agree with that at all.


I was simply exaggerating what I assumed would be a Kobe jockriders' typical response. "of course you're going to think Kobe is the best defender in the league" were my exact words. Nowhere do I claim that IV actually said this, only that I believe he thinks it. 

There's only one reason you are pushing this discussion away from the issues and into semantics, but I can play along...it only ends up making you look bad in the end...



> I post on these boards mostly to talk about the Lakers. Unfortunately it usually turns into a Kobe bash fest, as any unbiased fan can tell you these boards just don't like Bryant (and formerly the Suns and Amare). But I'm sure you already know that, though I'm not sure you know my posting habits if I think you're implying what you're implying.


I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue. I try to stay out of it, but end up getting involved once the Kobe jockrider ends up saying something that's so ridiculous I can't help it. If people like you didn't feel the need to defend every last little criticism, people like me would go away. I've never started a thread criticizing Bryant, and never will. 

The fact of the matter is that Bryant has done a few things that desrerve criticism. People that deserve criticism get criticized on these boards - the most visible personalities in the league even more so. Let people vent their criticism, and they'll go away.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>
> 
> We just have a difference of opinion. I honestly don't think Lebron is such a smarter player than Kobe and Kobe just doesn't realize what he should be doing. Kobe has played the team game you speak of, it's won him a few rings, I'm sure he knows, however things are drastically different now. He's not playing with a handful of spades anymore. This is new to him, so expect the team to have hardship, and it certainly doesn't help that LA has no point guard. Remember I'm a huge Lebron James fan. I was making this same arguement for him last year when people were dogging him, but once he got Jeff McGinnis, things changed. Check the record it's true.


It's not that LeBron is smarter, it's just that he has a better understanding of how the team game is played. He clearly displayed this from game one in his rookie season, and anybody criticzing him for not playing a team game last season clealry wasn't watching the games. I see Kobe going out and taking 40 shots one night, and 10 the next. It's like he picks what kind of player he's going to be on a given night, or a given quarter. That's not team basketball. It's me basketball. 




> I do have something to back my opinion which I'm sure wouldn't mean much to you, but he's all league awards since then should support he has been at least as good defensively, since he's gone from 2nd team to 1st team, that should convince most he's improved. That seems much more reasonable to me.



Is that your only reason? What about his play, from game to game? I base my opinion off of watching the guy play basketball. It's got nothing to do with what award he has won, or how much I like/dislike the guy.


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> That's one way to look at it, and okay that's fine. As a Kobe fan, you understand, when LA loses people will find a way to blame him, so alright. Here's the alternative, LA acquires Gary Payton during the offseason mainly for his defensive effort and savy veteran play. Defensively he was awful. The MVP of these finals was the guy Gary Payton was supposed to guard. Gary averaged around 4 points per game, and 3 assist. He was entirely ineffective. IMO, it's never one person's fault, but if I were to blame, one person for there poor play in the finals. I would easily choose GP.


The Lakers never needed good PG or PF play in the past to win championships. Payton obviously didn't show up, but he really hadn't done anything the entire postseason and the Lakers had done fine, handling teams that were much better than Detroit ever was. Losing Malone was more of a problem, as he had played great defense the entire postseason.

Detroit's gameplan was clearly to double Kobe and leave Shaq. You clearly state that taking advantage of this in the past equaled championships. Therefore, all of a sudden not taking advantage of it is going to be a HUGE factor in the outcome of any series.

Larry Brown was going to give points to Shaq inside, and the Lakers didn't even bother taking them. In a league dominated by drawing double-teams and exploiting matchups, you can't just let a team double you and not take advantage of it. It is the sole reason that Detroit was able to effectively guard both Shaq and Kobe. Sure, Malone and GP being hurt/not showing up was a factor, once Kobe and Shaq were contained!. GP and Karl could have put 30 ppg combined, but with Shaq and Kobe under wraps, the Lakers weren't going to win a darn thing. 

Just how again are you trying to tell me that Kobe's unwillingness to get Shaq the ball wasn't a large reason for that finals loss?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> Shaq not being there has nothing to do with Kobe defensively. He's still as good as he's ever been.


This is very similar to saying that Kobe has nothing to do with Shaq's offensive success over the years. (a claim I wouldn't attempt to make) You don't think Kobe's defense was helped by having a 7-1, 350 pound shotblocking mountain behind him? Even you can't defend this one...


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> It's no different than, "Shaq played poor defense in the finals"


Sure it is, just take a little time to think about it. Has LeBron ever played for Rudy? Did Shaq play in the 04 Finals? Yeah, I’d say there’s a big difference. One never happened, the other did. 

And indeed, Shaq played poor defense in the Finals. The Pistons shot 46.7% and outrebounded the Lakers on both the offensive and defensive glass by big margins. Shaq committed many bad fouls. If you don’t think Shaq played bad defense, then you just don’t know how to watch basketball or how to integrate stats into an argument correctly. 



> So you ARE admitting that it was a factor...


I never said otherwise. You should admit you assumed wrong.



> If Kobe drawing defenses was the reason the Lakers were so successful in their past title runs, then he automatically bears responsibility for not taking advantage of this in the 2004 finals.


Sure, Kobe certainly does bear some responsibility. It’s the fact that you fail to mention other facts, like Shaq’s porous defense, Payton’s D on Billups, or Malone’s injury that is baffling. But hey, you’re just an unbiased fan!



> Then please, post the offensive rebound stats. Losing 4 defensive rebounds per game gives you, at most 4 ppg. It's a factor, but a very minor one.


Lakers were also outrebounded on the offensive glass by exactly 4 O boards a game, 10.4 to 14.4. Get it over it, they were destroyed on the glass in part because of Shaq couldn’t rebound well on every-other-game days. Do the research, it’s not that hard. 



> Of course I understand the concept...I just think you are using it as an excuse for what really happened in the finals. Which was Kobe deciding to jack up low-percentage jumpers, instead of force-feeding the ball into Shaq, who was getting single-covered.


It’s not excuse, it’s fact; the Lakers were severely outrebounded on the offensive and defensive glass in part because Shaq couldn’t physically rebound well on every-other-game days. Blame it on work ethic and weight, or age. Kobe jacking up shots was one of many reasons the Lakers faltered, something you still don’t seem to grasp or acknowledge, for whatever reason (pretty easy to guess). 



> If defense was the Lakers' problem, the pistons would have averaged 95+ ppg in the series.


You don’t understand NBA offenses that well. You don’t need to score 110 ppg to be a great offensive team. If you’re shooting a high percentage and you purposefully keep the tempo of the game slow, there’s simply not enough possessions to score a bunch of points. But that doesn’t mean you aren’t a good offensive team. The Pistons were a very good offensive team in the Finals, there’s no denying it. It’s supported by their FG% and their apg as well. I know it’s hard to admit, but maybe if you’d actually look up the stats for yourself, you’d realize just how wrong you are. You don’t have to continually ask me for proof, I’ve already given you plenty. It’s time for you to take responsibility for just how little research you did on the 04 Finals. 



> If rebounding was the problem, the Pistons would have gotten more posessions, which would have allowed the Pistons to score 95+ ppg.


Are you really this dense? The Pistons outrebounded the Lakers by 8 boards per game. It’s *fact*, rebounding was the problem. 

And no, for the last time, the pace was slow enough that 95 ppg was very difficult to attain without shooting an even higher percentage than 46.7%. Look up the stats and study them and stop embarrassing yourself. It’s fact, the Pistons were a good offensive team in the Finals. 



> You can't have it both ways. It all ends up in the scoring/scoring margin in the end...


Yes, you can. If you eat up enough clock per possession, even with the extra possessions you get off your rebounding advantage, you can still be a good offensive team and not score 95 ppg. I don’t know what else to tell you if you don’t believe this, it’s a statistical fact supported by the 2004 Finals. I’ve already listed plenty of stats for you, I suggest you study them before continuing with this debate. I can only go so far with my support before I get to a point where I have to recommend stat classes for you. 



> Sounds a little subjective to me...
> 
> Nobody outrebounds Ben Wallace.


It isn’t really that subjective; Pistons shoot 46.7% FG. Pistons outrebound the Lakers by 8 boards per game. Shaq is the center of the Lakers defense. Even if you had never watched the series (which I’m starting to think you never really did), those facts on their face pretty much summarize Shaq’s porous defense. 



> I was simply exaggerating what I assumed would be a Kobe jockriders' typical response.


I’m shocked. :laugh:



> "of course you're going to think Kobe is the best defender in the league" were my exact words. Nowhere do I claim that IV actually said this, only that I believe he thinks it.


You assumed he thought that? Good lord. 



> There's only one reason you are pushing this discussion away from the issues and into semantics, but I can play along...it only ends up making you look bad in the end...


I’ve addressed every point with statistics. So far your argument has amounted to “Kobe forced shots”. It’s pretty obvious I’ve won this debate handily so far, as you’ve done no research and presented no data of your own, merely empty comments about how I want to protect Kobe Bryant, which of course deflects completely from the debate (that you are losing). 



> I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the issue. I try to stay out of it, but end up getting involved once the Kobe jockrider ends up saying something that's so ridiculous I can't help it.


Similarly, it’s hard not to get involved when the Kobe stealth trolls come out of the woodwork with no good reasoning or supporting arguments. 



> If people like you didn't feel the need to defend every last little criticism, people like me would go away.


If people wouldn’t exaggerate or overly criticize on a _consistent_ basis in practically _every_ Laker-related or Kobe-related thread, you wouldn’t get nearly as many posters defending Bryant. It goes both ways, think about it.



> The fact of the matter is that Bryant has done a few things that desrerve criticism. People that deserve criticism get criticized on these boards - the most visible personalities in the league even more so. Let people vent their criticism, and they'll go away.


So your solution is to let people overly criticize a player (any player) or even go as far as make things up about the player to support their own agenda? No, that’s pretty stupid, any sensible person is going to call out someone who’s spreading nonsense, especially when they continually try to spread it. That’s just human nature. And if _you_ really can’t stand it, perhaps taking your own advice would be your best bet?


----------



## Jonathan Watters (Jul 20, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!
> 
> 
> Sure it is, just take a little time to think about it. Has LeBron ever played for Rudy? Did Shaq play in the 04 Finals? Yeah, I’d say there’s a big difference. One never happened, the other did.
> ...


So Shaq played poor defense because you watched the game and saw that he played bad defense. Completely subjective. The other stats you list prove nothing about Shaq's defense, other than that the Lakers played bad defense, and that Shaq is a Laker. From your statements, I could just as easily claim that Kobe played bad defense. 



> Sure, Kobe certainly does bear some responsibility. It’s the fact that you fail to mention other facts, like Shaq’s porous defense, Payton’s D on Billups, or Malone’s injury that is baffling. But hey, you’re just an unbiased fan!


I don't doubt that Payton had a bad series, but the lynchpin of the Lakers' demise was Shaq's inability to get the ball in the post, which rests entirely on Kobe. Read my other posts on this thread, in response to IV. Larry Brown was giving away points in the paint, and Kobe wouldn't take them. Only then do the abscence of Malone and the poor play of Payton even become a factor. 



> Lakers were also outrebounded on the offensive glass by exactly 4 O boards a game, 10.4 to 14.4. Get it over it, they were destroyed on the glass in part because of Shaq couldn’t rebound well on every-other-game days. Do the research, it’s not that hard.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not excuse, it’s fact; the Lakers were severely outrebounded on the offensive and defensive glass in part because Shaq couldn’t physically rebound well on every-other-game days. Blame it on work ethic and weight, or age. Kobe jacking up shots was one of many reasons the Lakers faltered, something you still don’t seem to grasp or acknowledge, for whatever reason (pretty easy to guess).


You are so quick to blame the Lakers' demise on factors such as the absence of Karl Malone, but put all the blame for the lack of rebounding on Shaq. Perhaps it's just a wild delusion of mine, but MAYBE part of the rebounding margin had to do with the fact that Malone was hurt and the Lakers didn't have a decent PF to play next to Shaq. 



> You don’t understand NBA offenses that well. You don’t need to score 110 ppg to be a great offensive team. If you’re shooting a high percentage and you purposefully keep the tempo of the game slow, there’s simply not enough possessions to score a bunch of points. But that doesn’t mean you aren’t a good offensive team. The Pistons were a very good offensive team in the Finals, there’s no denying it. It’s supported by their FG% and their apg as well. I know it’s hard to admit, but maybe if you’d actually look up the stats for yourself, you’d realize just how wrong you are.


How about listing some of those stats about how many extra posessions the Lakers got? You can talk and talk and talk about stats, but other than the 8 rpg margin, what gave Detroit extra posessions, and how many extra posessions did they get? 8 extra rebounds per game, and the Lakers still lose the series fairly handily. If Detroit shot 46%, what did the Lakers shoot? The Lakers should be able to shoot 46% from the floor. If they didn't, why not? 

I understand offenses just fine. Do you not understand the concept of the double team, and how if double teams are created, they must be exploited? How if you don't exploit a double team, it's like giving the defense an extra player? You obviously know that Shaq is the most unstoppable one-on-one player in the league, the player most capable of exploiting a double team....

It doesn't matter WHAT the rest of the team does when you have Kobe and Shaq. You know this, as it has been proven over and over in the past. If Kobe and Shaq are playing like they can, they beat the Pistons. Because the Lakers essentially let the Pistons play with 6 defenders, they lost the series. 



> Yes, you can. If you eat up enough clock per possession, even with the extra possessions you get off your rebounding advantage, you can still be a good offensive team and not score 95 ppg. I don’t know what else to tell you if you don’t believe this, it’s a statistical fact supported by the 2004 Finals. I’ve already listed plenty of stats for you, I suggest you study them before continuing with this debate. I can only go so far with my support before I get to a point where I have to recommend stat classes for you.


"Stat classes"? Hah...What kind of statistics classes? I highly doubt that you deal with "stats" half as much as I do on a daily basis. 

If you knew anything about stats, you would know that there is a stat for every opinion in the book. 

I bet it took you quite a while to find a couple of statistics that supported your viewpoint. 

In my line of work, if you don't have a sound viewpoint and context to go along with your stats, you aren't in the business for very long. Are prices going up, or are prices going down? There are dozens of statistics to support the bulls and the bears, all at the same time. The people who make it are the ones who can analyze the entirety of what's going on, understand what is moving the market, and make the right decisions. 

The fact of the matter is that no matter what the Lakers did on defense, it was their offense that was below par production wise, and that has little to do with rebounds, and everything to do with the Pistons' extra defender. The Lakers don't need to outrebound the Pistons to win the 2004 NBA finals. Kobe and Shaq have to be productive for the Lakers to win the 2004 NBA finals. They weren't. The Lakers lost the 2004 NBA finals. 



> I’ve addressed every point with statistics. So far your argument has amounted to “Kobe forced shots”. It’s pretty obvious I’ve won this debate handily so far, as you’ve done no research and presented no data of your own, merely empty comments about how I want to protect Kobe Bryant, which of course deflects completely from the debate (that you are losing).


I've brought up plenty of good points, and I can't help it if you refuse to address them. The fact of the matter is that you are here defending Kobe Bryant, using the same biased tactics that you use in every thread where somebody says something negative about Kobe Bryant. 



> Similarly, it’s hard not to get involved when the Kobe stealth trolls come out of the woodwork with no good reasoning or supporting arguments.


Stick your head in the sand, and claim the tide isn't coming in all you want. 



> If people wouldn’t exaggerate or overly criticize on a _consistent_ basis in practically _every_ Laker-related or Kobe-related thread, you wouldn’t get nearly as many posters defending Bryant. It goes both ways, think about it.


There are plenty of players overly criticized on these boards, and none of them have the voracious defenders that Kobe Bryant does. Do you think everybody around here hated Amare Stoudemire the last two seasons? Did you notice that people are starting to come around on Amare? It's because he's proven himself on the court. It's not because his self-appointed body guard managed to come up with a stat that claims Amare has a good jumper. 



> So your solution is to let people overly criticize a player (any player) or even go as far as make things up about the player to support their own agenda? No, that’s pretty stupid, any sensible person is going to call out someone who’s spreading nonsense, especially when they continually try to spread it. That’s just human nature. And if _you_ really can’t stand it, perhaps taking your own advice would be your best bet?


Just a hint...maybe when everybody except for a select few believe something, you should reconsider whether or not it's nonsense...


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Can the above poster find something interesting to ahvea go at me?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> So Shaq played poor defense because you watched the game and saw that he played bad defense. Completely subjective. The other stats you list prove nothing about Shaq's defense, other than that the Lakers played bad defense, and that Shaq is a Laker. From your statements, I could just as easily claim that Kobe played bad defense.


No, you couldn't just as easily claim Kobe had the same impact. Shaq plays center, he is the center of the Lakers defense. He's supposed to help on pick and rolls, supposed to block shots in the lane, supposed to anchor the paint when someone's man gets beat. He didn't do those things, as evidenced by the statistics I've brought up now numerous times now. A shooting guard's job is nowhere near that involved.

Centers and power forwards play a big role defensively in modern basketball. I'm sorry that you don't know these things, but that's just the way it is. 



> I don't doubt that Payton had a bad series, but the lynchpin of the Lakers' demise was Shaq's inability to get the ball in the post, which rests entirely on Kobe.


There is no lynchpin. Had Shaq gotten more touches it wouldn't have mattered if the Lakers couldn't get stops on the other end. This is a very simple, basic concept of basketball. If you can't stop the opposing team on the other end, or worse yet, don't get enough possessions to score because you're being outrebounded, you're simply not going to beat your opponent. 



> You are so quick to blame the Lakers' demise on factors such as the absence of Karl Malone, but put all the blame for the lack of rebounding on Shaq. Perhaps it's just a wild delusion of mine, but MAYBE part of the rebounding margin had to do with the fact that Malone was hurt and the Lakers didn't have a decent PF to play next to Shaq.


Sure, that was part of the reason. Then again, individually, Shaq didn't rebound well enough save for one game, and obviously that had nothing to do with Malone. The Pistons' 6'4" center outrebounding Shaq also had nothing to do with Malone. 



> If Detroit shot 46%, what did the Lakers shoot? The Lakers should be able to shoot 46% from the floor. If they didn't, why not?


One reason they didn't shoot 46% was because of Kobe. Another reason was Payton didn't show up. Another reason was Malone's injury. I fail to see your point. 



> I understand offenses just fine. Do you not understand the concept of the double team, and how if double teams are created, they must be exploited? How if you don't exploit a double team, it's like giving the defense an extra player? You obviously know that Shaq is the most unstoppable one-on-one player in the league, the player most capable of exploiting a double team....
> 
> It doesn't matter WHAT the rest of the team does when you have Kobe and Shaq. You know this, as it has been proven over and over in the past.


It was proven over and over _in the past_. When Payton didn't show up and when Malone got injured, you had an old and out of shape Shaq and Kobe. That's not good enough anymore. When Shaq was younger, quicker, and had more stamina he far more able to anchor the defense, show on pick and rolls, and rebound. His weight, toe injury, and age hampered him badly in the Finals. It's supported by the god awful rebounding numbers, the excessive amount of fouls Shaq and the Lakers committed, and the Pistons' shooting percentage.



> If Kobe and Shaq are playing like they can, they beat the Pistons.


Ah ha! No wonder you're so confused. Absolutely not, Kobe could have shot 45% and the Lakers would have still lost the series. Kobe can't outrebound the Pistons' big men, he can't block shots in the lane and can't help on pick and rolls when he's playing shooting guard. You seem to think it was as easy as making a few more shots. In actuality, the rebounding, fouling, and porous interior defense were the Lakers' biggest problems. This has been known for a couple years now since Shaq started declining. I don't know why you don't know about it. 



> I bet it took you quite a while to find a couple of statistics that supported your viewpoint.


It in fact took me between 5 and 10 minutes (this was a couple months ago) to calculate the reasons the Lakers lost the series. After formulating my own opinion of the Finals after it was over, I calculated the stats myself and found that the Lakers' inability to defend without fouling and inability to rebound were their downfall more than any other factor. You could argue Kobe's FG%, Malone's injury, or Payton's defense were other factors, but neither of them by themselves bigger than the defense/fouling/rebounding problems. 

I still find it funny that you deny that an 8 rpg differential is huge. It is *HUGE*.



> The fact of the matter is that no matter what the Lakers did on defense, it was their offense that was below par production wise, and that has little to do with rebounds, and everything to do with the Pistons' extra defender.


The Lakers' offense certainly was below par for the course, but their struggles offensively were not nearly as bad as their inability to get stops defensively. This is supported by the rebounding stats listed (+8 differential), fouling stats (+4 differential), and Piston shooting percentage (46.7%). You have yet to list a single statistic that supports your argument that the Lakers' lack of offensive production was their primary downfall. The reason you can't list that statistic is simple; there aren't any good statistics that support your argument. Prove me wrong, cite a stat that contradicts my argument, and maybe then I'll take a second look at my analysis. 



> The Lakers don't need to outrebound the Pistons to win the 2004 NBA finals.


Breaking even and not getting outrebounded by 8 boards a game would have certainly helped the Lakers pull out another victory, maybe two. 



> Kobe and Shaq have to be productive for the Lakers to win the 2004 NBA finals. They weren't. The Lakers lost the 2004 NBA finals.


News flash; Shaq can no longer play well enough to win a championship without a lot of good pieces around him. Kobe needs more than a run down Shaq to win a championship too. Together they weren't good enough to win without a healthy Malone and Payton contributing. 



> I've brought up plenty of good points, and I can't help it if you refuse to address them.


Please list the points I've refused to address, I'll be more than happy to address them. 

And no, your points have lacked statistical support (since apparently it's not clear to you that Shaq played poor defense in the Finals). 



> The fact of the matter is that you are here defending Kobe Bryant, using the same biased tactics that you use in every thread where somebody says something negative about Kobe Bryant.


I fail to see what's biased about my tactics. Are you confusing "biased" with "stats"? But please, since I'm using biased tactics, pray tell, what exactly is biased about my tactics? Were the stat collectors in the 04 Finals Lakers fans? Am I leaving out stats you feel are pertinent? Do elaborate, I'm dying to hear _precisely_ what is biased about my arguments here. 



> There are plenty of players overly criticized on these boards, and none of them have the voracious defenders that Kobe Bryant does.


That's because Kobe Bryant is criticized on this board far more than any other player, and there are a lot of Laker fans on this board. I fail to see your point. 



> Do you think everybody around here hated Amare Stoudemire the last two seasons?


Uh, yes. Where the hell have you been? People on this board have been overly critical of Amare and the Suns up for many months, until just recently. 



> Did you notice that people are starting to come around on Amare? It's because he's proven himself on the court. It's not because his self-appointed body guard managed to come up with a stat that claims Amare has a good jumper.


That's nice, too bad this doesn't really prove anything. 



> Just a hint...maybe when everybody except for a select few believe something, you should reconsider whether or not it's nonsense...


Haha, right, if the masses believe it, it has to be true. Did you vote for Bush too? Good lord. :laugh:


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>John</b>!
> Like the kid Bender was only able to quote a little part of my post. If it wasnt for I refused to give credit to Drewbs where he talked about how James skills were very mature already, he would just STUU.


What did I?
I just quoted one sentence because your whole page-long posting hadn't too much points worth to discuss.
Actually why didn't you answer to what I wrote?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> It's not that LeBron is smarter, it's just that he has a better understanding of how the team game is played. He clearly displayed this from game one in his rookie season, and anybody criticzing him for not playing a team game last season clealry wasn't watching the games. I see Kobe going out and taking 40 shots one night, and 10 the next. It's like he picks what kind of player he's going to be on a given night, or a given quarter. That's not team basketball. It's me basketball.


You have to remember the team game that earned Bryant 3 championship rings. That's noteworthy. And I've gone back and forth with you on LA's system, and you don't really understand it. It's completely normal for a player in Kobe's position in the triangle offense, to go for 10 fga one night and 30 the next. The play of the defense dictates the rhythm of the offense. 



> Is that your only reason? What about his play, from game to game? I base my opinion off of watching the guy play basketball. It's got nothing to do with what award he has won, or how much I like/dislike the guy.


It's not the only reason, it's just the best reason. Consider you do not like Kobe. Consider I do like Kobe. If you ask an outside party to guess who thinks Kobe a good defender and who thinks he a poor defender.... most people would bet the farm I have him as a good defender, you'd say he's not. So outside of bias opinion take the opinion of those who are not, and see the guy play. It's not a coincidence that he's a perennial all league defender. Don't you think that's reasonable?


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> This is very similar to saying that Kobe has nothing to do with Shaq's offensive success over the years. (a claim I wouldn't attempt to make) You don't think Kobe's defense was helped by having a 7-1, 350 pound shotblocking mountain behind him? Even you can't defend this one...


:twocents: I would make that claim. I do not think Kobe made Shaq's game better. I don't. I think they played well together, and I think it helped the team. But Shaq is going to be the player he is regardless of who he plays with. Kobe's the same. Same with Wade. A superstar like Wade, Kobe, or Shaq will make other players better like a spot up shooter, or less effective big men, becuase they will help create offense for them. I've seen a player like Damon Jones go from being a nobody in this league, to one of the league best 3 point shooters. That is because of Shaq and Wade. They create and find him the ball, this is something he could not do without them. Wade creates for Shaq, and Shaq creates for Wade, but the point is they are able to create for themselves either way. :twocents:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> 
> 
> The Lakers never needed good PG or PF play in the past to win championships. Payton obviously didn't show up, but he really hadn't done anything the entire postseason and the Lakers had done fine, handling teams that were much better than Detroit ever was. Losing Malone was more of a problem, as he had played great defense the entire postseason.


Every position is key. Especially the PG and PF positions because LA was secure in the others. GP was brought in with simple responsibilities, that he did not live up too. YOu can't expect the weight of 5 fives to sit on 2 players shoulders, and expect those two to find a way to constantly win and when they don't blame them instead of the other slots that provided nothing.



> Detroit's gameplan was clearly to double Kobe and leave Shaq. You clearly state that taking advantage of this in the past equaled championships. Therefore, all of a sudden not taking advantage of it is going to be a HUGE factor in the outcome of any series.


You misunderstood me before. Teams did not double Kobe before, they would double Shaq. So this was something new to LA. The only other coach I used to see do it was JVG with Houston last year. The Pistons were able to effectively nuetralize Kobe so it's hurt the team. You have to have other player that can step up and make plays, so the team lost together, not just blame Kobe cause he's the scapegoat.



> Larry Brown was going to give points to Shaq inside, and the Lakers didn't even bother taking them. In a league dominated by drawing double-teams and exploiting matchups, you can't just let a team double you and not take advantage of it. It is the sole reason that Detroit was able to effectively guard both Shaq and Kobe. Sure, Malone and GP being hurt/not showing up was a factor, once Kobe and Shaq were contained!. GP and Karl could have put 30 ppg combined, but with Shaq and Kobe under wraps, the Lakers weren't going to win a darn thing.


You're over simplifying things. There are many many reason why LA lost outside of blame Kobe. Detriot played a better series, they were prepared and focuse the way LA was not. 



> Just how again are you trying to tell me that Kobe's unwillingness to get Shaq the ball wasn't a large reason for that finals loss?


It's wasn't the reason they lost the way you seemed to imply. If you want to blame Kobe for everything that ever went wrong in LA while he was there, that's fine. I just don't have to agree with you because I think that completely narrowminded.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

the lakers lost because they did very little right, and were completely outplayed. every reason cited is valid, and it's the combination of all the reasons that the lakers were killed. they didn't rebound or defend. kobe shot poorly and too often, and seemed to feel like he something to prove, including that prince couldn't stop him. shaq didn't get as many touches as he should have. shaq didn't rebound or defend the paint nearly as well as he did in the prior rounds where he was dominant there. payton was terrible. malone was hurt. these were all true, and all contributed to the lakers loss. it's even possible that each contributed to the downfall of the other. payton was unhappy with his role. shaq was unhappy with kobe's shooting. they all had to pick up for the loss of malone. kobe was unhappy with shaq and payton's effort. none completely pulled their weight. including phil. the lakers came apart. 

detroit was a tough team to play. they played ugly ball. la proved to not have the mental capacity to play through it.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> You misunderstood me before. Teams did not double Kobe before, they would double Shaq. So this was something new to LA. The only other coach I used to see do it was JVG with Houston last year. The Pistons were able to effectively nuetralize Kobe so it's hurt the team. You have to have other player that can step up and make plays, so the team lost together, not just blame Kobe cause he's the scapegoat.


You're right that the Pistons neutralized Kobe, but why did Kobe have to take over 21 shots per game when he realized that he was constantly being double, and sometimes tripled teamed? Don't tell me he was trying to shoot his way out of a shooting slump because you can't shoot better with 2 or 3 people constantly around you, no matter how many times you try.

Here are some interesting averages between Kobe and Shaq during the finals. 

PPG RPG APG FG% 
S. O'Neal 26.6 10.8 1.6 .631
K. Bryant 22.6 2.8 4.4 .381

Every Kobe lover says Shaq didn't rebound enough or play defense. Well, how about Kobe? What the hell is this 2.8 rebound average? Even Earl Boykins can average that if he played as much as Kobe. So, don't tell me Shaq didn't rebound because it looks like Kobe found a way not to help either.

And what about the FG%? I have an idea, what if Kobe took less shots and let Shaq have them? Maybe that could have helped.

I know that there were other factors in The Lakers losing (like Payton having no heart, Karl Malone with too much heart and getting hurt, the Laker bench not showing up, Shaq's apparent lack of effort - like his rebounding  ), but the big fault that stood out with me was with Kobe and his "shoot first no matter how many people are guarding me" attitude. That will always stand out in my mind as the main reason how The Lakers lost the Championship.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> You're right that the Pistons neutralized Kobe, but why did Kobe have to take over 21 shots per game when he realized that he was constantly being double, and sometimes tripled teamed? Don't tell me he was trying to shoot his way out of a shooting slump because you can't shoot better with 2 or 3 people constantly around you, no matter how many times you try.


I'm not making any excuses for Kobe's play. He made his mistakes, and they were a *part* of the sum that cost LA the finals.



> Here are some interesting averages between Kobe and Shaq during the finals.
> 
> PPG RPG APG FG%
> S. O'Neal 26.6 10.8 1.6 .631
> ...


It's the Centers job on any team to clear the glass. How many second chance points did the pistons have. The had alot. The also ran the floor, Shaq did not keep up with their tempo. But again, you're making me sound like I'm blaming Shaq. I'm not. The team played poorly. The piston played better. It's not Kobe's fault, it's not Shaq's fault, it's the entire teams fault because they all could have done things different.

And stop trying to anticipate how I'll respond, because you're usually wrong. :laugh:



> And what about the FG%? I have an idea, what if Kobe took less shots and let Shaq have them? Maybe that could have helped.


It could have.



> I know that there were other factors in The Lakers losing (like Payton having no heart, Karl Malone with too much heart and getting hurt, the Laker bench not showing up, Shaq's apparent lack of effort - like his rebounding  ), but the big fault that stood out with me was with Kobe and his "shoot first no matter how many people are guarding me" attitude. That will always stand out in my mind as the main reason how The Lakers lost the Championship.


If I didn't like Kobe, I'd blame him as well.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

kobe certainly shares some responsibility for the failure on the glass.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> It's the Centers job on any team to clear the glass. How many second chance points did the pistons have. The had alot. The also ran the floor, Shaq did not keep up with their tempo. But again, you're making me sound like I'm blaming Shaq. I'm not. The team played poorly. The piston played better. It's not Kobe's fault, it's not Shaq's fault, it's the entire teams fault because they all could have done things different.
> 
> And stop trying to anticipate how I'll respond, because you're usually wrong. :laugh:



You are blaming Shaq when you say it's the centers job on any team to clear the glass. I guess then that Kobe's 2.8 rebounds was just extra icing for rebounding stats. It's Shaq job to get the rebounds.

I know what you are saying, as center and resident big man, Shaq should be getting the majority of the team's rebounds, but he can't get boards when other teammates don't box out their man or stand like manequins when their players drives past them and Shaq has to come over and help. And I am mainly speaking about Kobe.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you could forget about Kobe for a second and just evaluated the other players on the team, you'd see they their fault. 

I am not blaming Shaq for LA losing, although he had fault in that series
I am not blaming Kobe for LA losing, although he had fault in that series.

Each player on that team could have done things differently to help them win.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i'm with you on kobe taking some responsibility here, but it goes both ways. shaq was not active on defense at all. he was effective on the glass in 2 out of 5 games. he had 6 turnovers in one of the losses, and he was 4-11 from the line in a close game 4 (which, of course, is part of the reason the lakers go away from him down the stretch). 

they all could have played better in areas - shaq certainly included.


----------



## tatahbenitez (Jun 18, 2004)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> If you could forget about Kobe for a second and just evaluated the other players on the team, you'd see they their fault.
> ...


I have said before, there were other factors that led to The Lakers losing The Championships. But, I believe, most of the fault goes to Kobe.

I was a Kobe fan unti the ill fated Championship series. So, I did not try to find fault in Kobe while I was wathing the finals. This is what I believe to be was the main cause of the Laker demise.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> I have said before, there were other factors that led to The Lakers losing The Championships. But, I believe, most of the fault goes to Kobe.
> ...


That's cool


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>tatahbenitez</b>!
> 
> 
> I have said before, there were other factors that led to The Lakers losing The Championships. But, I believe, most of the fault goes to Kobe.
> ...


No doubt Kobe was awful in the Finals, easily the worst series of his career. The difference is that had he shot 45%, the Lakers still would have lost. The rebounding differential, foul differential, and layups/breakaway baskets the Lakers allowed were far more detrimental. I know it's cliché, but defense truly does win championships, and the Lakers (particularly Shaq) didn't play any during the Finals.


----------



## Drewbs (Feb 16, 2004)

Shaq's defense was not terrible. Unless you mean that he didn't effectively guard the pick and roll. Yes, that was one of hte reasons they lost, but that has been a long time criticism of Shaq. Its not like he just took a break on the series. He didn't come out of hte paint to help when Parker and Duncan or Nesterovic ran the pick and roll either. Reboundingwise, without Karl Malone, they had to get a guy like Slava to start, who can't rebound to save his life. All the Pistons had to do was box out Shaq and they controlled the boards. Shaq did not play nearly as well as he did in previous years, but after him and Kobe worked so well together for the first 3 rounds of hte playoffs, they certainly should have won the championship. Kobe hogging the ball was the most prominent reason for their loss. The Lakers were having defensive troubles true. But the Pistons are such a mediocre offensive team, that had the Lakers actually executed their offense a little better and pounded the ball in to Shaq, they would have had a better chance.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> Originally posted by <b>Drewbs</b>!
> Shaq's defense was not terrible. Unless you mean that he didn't effectively guard the pick and roll. Yes, that was one of hte reasons they lost, but that has been a long time criticism of Shaq. Its not like he just took a break on the series. He didn't come out of hte paint to help when Parker and Duncan or Nesterovic ran the pick and roll either. Reboundingwise, without Karl Malone, they had to get a guy like Slava to start, who can't rebound to save his life. All the Pistons had to do was box out Shaq and they controlled the boards. Shaq did not play nearly as well as he did in previous years, but after him and Kobe worked so well together for the first 3 rounds of hte playoffs, they certainly should have won the championship. Kobe hogging the ball was the most prominent reason for their loss. The Lakers were having defensive troubles true. But the Pistons are such a mediocre offensive team, that had the Lakers actually executed their offense a little better and pounded the ball in to Shaq, they would have had a better chance.


Are you saying that had the Lakers produced better offensively, that it would have improved their defense? Yeah, I've heard that reasoning thrown around before, and it does sort of make sense because made baskets kill any chance of a fast break, and sometimes even kill momentum. But that's the sort of thing that's impossible to predict. Who can really predict how momentum would shift? 

And the Pistons ran a ton of screens and pick and rolls, much more so than the Rockets, Spurs or Twolves did the previous three series against the Lakers. Larry Brown really did coach a brilliant Finals, you have to give him credit for the way he cut up the Lakers and exploited all their holes.


----------

