# Roy or Bryant?



## BenDavis503 (Apr 11, 2007)

Would you rather have B. Roy on your team as your starting SG (on this current Blazer team), or Kobe Bryant? HYPOTHETICALLY if there was a Kobe for Brandon trade straight across... would you do it?

I had an argument with the owner of my company and he says Kobe hands down. I say I would take Roy any day of the week.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

Kobe in a heartbeat. ROY is that dude, but Bryant is the best all-round player going atm.


----------



## GrandpaBlaze (Jul 11, 2004)

Skill-wise, it is not even close. Kobe is simply incredible. 

Leadership-wise, it is also not even close, Kobe is simply pathetic. With Kobe we'd have arguably the best player in the league and we'd also have some good talent around him. However, I just don't see us really coming together as a team that everyone loves and a team that wants to stay together.

Roy, on the other hand, has already exhibited his leadership and has a group of guys who appear to enjoy playing together and will, hopefully, come together well as a team both in the near and long term.

On an individual basis, I'd take Kobe and not think twice. However, basketball is a team sport and that being the case, I'd take Roy and my second thought would be a shudder thinking of what the Blazers would become with Kobe at the head.

Gramps...


----------



## M3M (Jun 19, 2006)

kobe. duh.


----------



## RW#30 (Jan 1, 2003)

This is crazy talk. There is the reason he is your boss.:lol: :lol:


----------



## PhilK (Jul 7, 2005)

roy. duh.


----------



## yuyuza1 (May 24, 2006)

Any Blazer "fan" that says "Kome" in this poll should be banished from Blazer fandom forever.


----------



## SheedSoNasty (Dec 31, 2002)

Roy.

I just can't stand Kobe and I'd have a hard time rooting for him.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

It depends on a lot of things, like what your team make up is currently, etc. Boiling all that down, if I'm the Blazers I want Roy (who's younger, sort of a local guy, better character/chemistry guy, etc.) and if I'm the Lakers, I want Bryant (who'll bring people to the arena for a .500 basketball team).

That said, Bryant's been my least favorite player in the league at _least_ since his days in the Denver courts, and then there was all the stuff with Shaq (who's fairly cool, even if a former Laker), throwing his current teammates under the bus, etc. I figured he'd successfully dug himself such a hole that, at least with me, he'd never see the light of day again.

And _that_ said, how he's been the last few weeks with Team USA (playing defense, being at least somewhat humble and respectful, and so on) has at least put a halt to his decent. Would I be excited about some terribly lopsided trade if, for some insane reason, the Lakers have a fire sale? something like a PG of their choice, Webster, LaFrentz, cash, and a couple of draft picks? Man, I'd be awfully torn, crazy as that might sound to folks on _both_ sides of this argument. It seems a bit like trying a rattle snake on as a pet, but the temptation would still be there.


----------



## Blazed (May 24, 2006)

yuyuza1 said:


> Any Blazer "fan" that says "Kome" in this poll should be banished from Blazer fandom forever.


Are you saying that being a Blazer fan requires that you be a total moron? There's not a single person employed in the NBA that would take more than half a second to make that decision. Give me a break, you take Kobe 1000 times out of 100.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

kobe.
sells more tickets. sells more jerseys. is named after meat. has a better smile. CAN carry a team by himself to at least the playoffs. and had a better rap career than you.


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

Just say no to Kobe.


----------



## soonerterp (Nov 13, 2005)

Kobe Bryant is a great player but I want a great young man who happens to be a great player.

Brandon Roy all the way.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

BenDavis503 said:


> Would you rather have B. Roy on your team as your starting SG (on this current Blazer team), or Kobe Bryant? HYPOTHETICALLY if there was a Kobe for Brandon trade straight across... would you do it?
> 
> I had an argument with the owner of my company and he says Kobe hands down. I say I would take Roy any day of the week.


No offense, but the owner of your company probably thinks you are an idiot now.


----------



## Tersk (Apr 9, 2004)

mgb said:


> Just say no to Kobe.


Apparently, just saying no isn't enough.


----------



## Perfection (May 10, 2004)

Tersk said:


> Apparently, just saying no isn't enough.


ROTFLMFAO. Nice.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

While Kobe has more experience at anally-raping fans, Brandon has a more comnplete package of skills and leadership qualities.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

if you want to win games, you'd take kobe. if you wish to delude yourselves into thinking you know your players personally and believe you would rather go fishing with roy, and that's most important, take him. 

it's an absurd question. the blazers themselves would pull the trigger 1000 times out of 100. no disrespect to roy.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i know there's an instinct to take this personally, and grow personal attachments, but objectively, this isn't really a fair question. your best chance at winning titles, and being top contenders for years to come, is with kobe. if doing so with kobe will still leave you empty and angry, then i guess it's not worth it to you.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I've never understood all the excitement over hypotheticals. The trade could not happen per CBA. And it would hurt both teams for the reasons Porter in 2004 explained.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

I think it depends on what type of team you want to have. If you want a team built around 1 player then Kobe is easily the player you would take. If you want a guy that is a very good player, and also more of a team guy then you choose Roy.

I think what a lot of people do when making these comparisons is forget about chemistry. Kobe has shown that he has a hard time playing with others. He want's to be like Jordan, but can't seem to get there with his teammates. Roy on the other hand isn't as good as Kobe, but is a much better teammate, and I think he tends to make guys better. 


It's almost like asking if you'd rather have the Lakers with Kobe, or the Pistons of a couple years ago. No one on the Pistons is as good as Kobe, but together that team was easily better than the Lakers. 

Kobe is great, but he'll never win another title without another dominant player.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Who says it has to be "Roy or Bryant?" Given that Kobe can opt out of his contract with the Lakers the summer of 2009 when the Blazers can have significant cap space, there's a possibility that we could have Roy AND Bryant. Did you notice the glowing comments that Kobe had for Nate McMillan as a head coach for his work on the US team? I couldn't help but think that Kobe might be eyeing the Blazers' talented front line and picturing himself as a key component of multiple championships in a few years.

Whether Kobe gives you the creeps or not, you have to admit that he's one of the top players in the game. Whether he plays SG and Brandon moves to the point, or Kobe plays SF and Brandon remains at SG, it would certainly be a huge upgrade for the Blazers.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> I think it depends on what type of team you want to have. If you want a team built around 1 player then Kobe is easily the player you would take. If you want a guy that is a very good player, and also more of a team guy then you choose Roy.
> 
> I think what a lot of people do when making these comparisons is forget about chemistry. Kobe has shown that he has a hard time playing with others. He want's to be like Jordan, but can't seem to get there with his teammates. Roy on the other hand isn't as good as Kobe, but is a much better teammate, and I think he tends to make guys better.
> 
> ...


you'll need less around kobe than you would around roy. 

kobe and shaq ultimately had personality issues. and blame lies with both guys.


----------



## It's_GO_Time (Oct 13, 2005)

Kome


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

kflo said:


> you'll need less around kobe than you would around roy.
> 
> kobe and shaq ultimately had personality issues. and blame lies with both guys.




Though Shaq has won without Kobe. All I am saying is that Kobe NEEDS to be the guy. If that's how you want to build your team then great.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> Though Shaq has won without Kobe. All I am saying is that Kobe NEEDS to be the guy. If that's how you want to build your team then great.


what does that mean, kobe needs to be the guy? kobe should be the guy. and would be the guy. and gives your team a better chance of winning. 

kobe needed something he wasn't getting from shaq, and vice-versa, and it could have been handled better by both of them. 

and shaq winning without kobe means what? that it was all kobe's fault?


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

With the current team, I'd go with Roy.

Kobe is a better individual player, but I really don't think he will win ANY championships in the post-Shaq era.

Kobe is a great closer, but needs to make those around him better instead of trying to go all Allen Iverson and score 30 a night.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

kflo said:


> what does that mean, kobe needs to be the guy? kobe should be the guy. and would be the guy. and gives your team a better chance of winning.
> 
> kobe needed something he wasn't getting from shaq, and vice-versa, and it could have been handled better by both of them.
> 
> and shaq winning without kobe means what? that it was all kobe's fault?




You say Kobe should be the guy, and is. That Lakers have been ousted early in the playoffs since Kobe has BEEN the guy. I really don't want you to think that I feel Kobe isn't a great player because I do think he is a great player. What I have been saying is that Kobe being the guy hasn't won **** without the most dominant player in the league at his side. In theory Kobe wouldn't need as many pieces to be a contender as Roy would, but I'm not sure those pieces would play as well with Kobe as they would with Roy. None of the players on the Spurs are as good as Kobe, but together they kill Kobe. If you were to replace Ginobili with Kobe I'm not sure that team would be as good because Kobe NEEDS to be the man.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

kflo said:


> what does that mean, kobe needs to be the guy? kobe should be the guy. and would be the guy. and gives your team a better chance of winning.
> 
> kobe needed something he wasn't getting from shaq, and vice-versa, and it could have been handled better by both of them.
> 
> and shaq winning without kobe means what? that it was all kobe's fault?


Kobe needs the support of a team who can get him to the 4th quarter so Kobe can close it out. Shaq has been great for 3 quarters, but needs a Kobe or a D.Wade to close out the game.

Kobe needs a Garnett or a Jermaine to lean on and get him to crunch time without killing himself. The current team relies on Kobe to GET them to the 4th quarter, and Kobe is gassed by then.


----------



## ebott (Jan 7, 2003)

kflo said:


> if you want to win games, you'd take kobe. if you wish to delude yourselves into thinking you know your players personally and believe you would rather go fishing with roy, and that's most important, take him.
> 
> it's an absurd question. the blazers themselves would pull the trigger 1000 times out of 100. no disrespect to roy.


+1

X 1000 if you're just talking about an isolated "which guy do you want?" situation without regard for the rest of the players on the team.

BUT....

If you're talking about this team. The current Blazer team that's built around Oden, Aldridge and Roy and assorted youngins there is a shred of an argument for Roy simply based on age. The theory is that if (in a hypothetical world where it could happen) we traded Roy for Kobe then just about the time Oden, Aldridge and the rest of the kids are getting good Kobe would start to decline. So you'd have a championship window of a year or two. But if you keep Roy, he peaks at about the same time as Aldridge and Oden. Then you've got a 10 year window.

Then again, you'd be legendarily good for those two years. Like if Michael Jordan had joined up with the Spurs in 99 rather than retiring.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

Roy. i will take a leader over an amazing scorer any time. and wow the thought of Kobe on our team in 2009 gave me chills down the spine.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

I don't know if this thread is hilarious or what... I guess it is just what it is.

Bryant might be the best player of the current generation, and people are arguing that, from a basketball perspective, "with this team", the Blazers are better off with Roy.

Haha.

Ed O.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

mediocre man said:


> You say Kobe should be the guy, and is. That Lakers have been ousted early in the playoffs since Kobe has BEEN the guy. I really don't want you to think that I feel Kobe isn't a great player because I do think he is a great player. What I have been saying is that Kobe being the guy hasn't won **** without the most dominant player in the league at his side. In theory Kobe wouldn't need as many pieces to be a contender as Roy would, but I'm not sure those pieces would play as well with Kobe as they would with Roy. None of the players on the Spurs are as good as Kobe, but together they kill Kobe. If you were to replace Ginobili with Kobe I'm not sure that team would be as good because Kobe NEEDS to be the man.


kobe hasn't won without shaq, but he also hasn't had oden and aldridge. you could say shaq hasn't won **** without a superstar player next to him as well. kobe currently doesn't have a superstar next to him. he also doesn't have championship level teammates.

and one could certainly argue duncan is as good as kobe.

and kobe would still be the primary offensive weapon with the spurs, he simply wouldn't need to score as much as he does now. he'd likely be enough of the man that you say he needs to be (because you know him so well) to satisfy him. 

kobe gives the blazers an instant focal point. he aleviates pressure from oden to have to step in and produce offensively right away. he makes them a contender instantly. with roy, your years away, and still need other pieces to step up, as well as significant improvement from roy.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

ebott said:


> +1
> 
> X 1000 if you're just talking about an isolated "which guy do you want?" situation without regard for the rest of the players on the team.
> 
> ...


but kobe just turned 29. he still likely has far more than a couple of prime years left.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Blazer Maven said:


> Kobe needs the support of a team who can get him to the 4th quarter so Kobe can close it out. Shaq has been great for 3 quarters, but needs a Kobe or a D.Wade to close out the game.
> 
> Kobe needs a Garnett or a Jermaine to lean on and get him to crunch time without killing himself. The current team relies on Kobe to GET them to the 4th quarter, and Kobe is gassed by then.


defense, rebounding, and another all-star caliber offensive player. it's not necessarily a garnett or jermaine (although they contribute to all 3 of the above).


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

e_blazer1 said:


> Who says it has to be "Roy or Bryant?" Given that Kobe can opt out of his contract with the Lakers the summer of 2009 when the Blazers can have significant cap space, there's a possibility that we could have Roy AND Bryant. Did you notice the glowing comments that Kobe had for Nate McMillan as a head coach for his work on the US team? I couldn't help but think that Kobe might be eyeing the Blazers' talented front line and picturing himself as a key component of multiple championships in a few years.
> 
> Whether Kobe gives you the creeps or not, you have to admit that he's one of the top players in the game. Whether he plays SG and Brandon moves to the point, or Kobe plays SF and Brandon remains at SG, it would certainly be a huge upgrade for the Blazers.


My wife made this point to me just after I posted last night. It's certainly intriguing, and both Pritchard and McMillan have been praising Bryant recently.

I'm not worried about Kobe's need to "be The Man." He _is_ The Man and would be on any team in the league. That said, I've been impressed with how he's redefined himself with Team USA.

On the Blazers, he and Roy could start at any of 1, 2, or 3. Then you just start the next best player you have at any of those positions: Rodriguez, Fernandez, Jones, Blake, Jack, Webster, Outlaw.... It wouldn't much matter.

I'm even _almost_ willing to let go of that sexual assault case -- we don't really know what happened there and never will. And while it's a grim question mark over him, I haven't heard about _any_ legal trouble with him on either side of that event.

Then there's throwing his teammates under the bus, not to mention Lakers' management....

I dunno. _If_ Pritchard really does add Kobe through free agency or in a trade that somehow doesn't include Roy, Aldridge, or Oden (fat chance, I know) then I'll probably come around, much as I get a little nauseous imagining rooting for Bryant. And if there's a trade that _does_ include Roy, Aldridge, or Oden.... Well, I probably won't stop being a Blazers fan but that'd be a tough pill to swallow, it really would.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

I won't come around. 

Fortunately it's not likely to happen.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

crandc said:


> I won't come around.


I hear you. In admitting I might I feel a sickening twinge inside:

A. He _might_ be a rapist.
B. He at least cheated on his wife.
C. He would be a former Laker.
D. He's at least something of an ***.
E. There's some huge piece missing in his attempt to run down Jordan. There's something there that reminds me of the whole thing with Bonds, though I don't particularly suspect Kobe of taking steroids.



> Fortunately it's not likely to happen.


I think that depends on how one defines "likely" in this case. It seems to me that no move in the NBA is "likely" until very nearly the point it's completed -- too many things can go wrong. That said, when asked if he's got a player in mind to add via free agency, Pritchard has pretty consistently said one or both of two things:

A) Not really. We want to see what the team looks like in a couple of years, see where the holes are, and go from there.

and

B) Yes, though you wouldn't believe me if I told you.

I find it very believeable that Pritchard, McMillan, and company have had a conversation about it. They want to go through with it and they realize it'll be a tough sell for a significant part of the fanbase. Thus, they're relatively subtly putting in a good word here and there on Bryant's behalf, to test the waters and/or start trying to shift that piece of fan paradigm.

Or I might be imagining the whole thing.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Or I might be imagining the whole thing.


I hope so.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Any thread with the explicit purpose of making Blazer fans say something positive about Kobe should be considered baiting.

As such, I refuse to answer the question.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

All in all, Kobe's greatest value from my perspective is as villian. I'd love to see the Lakers (with Bryant still on the team) get good enough to be making serious playoff runs while continually coming up short against the Blazers.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

Roy..Yea I'm a Homer...Doh!

I'd rather have Roy grow with his new team than have Kobe come in a take over. I think that Kobe is a better player, while Roy is a better teammate. I'd think that Oden and Aldridge would fade into the background with Kobe, but that is just my opinion and what do I know, I'm a Homer.​


----------



## LameR (Jan 4, 2004)

Kobe's easily the better player. Roy's the better fit with the current team. That could easily change though if our young guys improve quick enough to contend before Kobe starts to get worse.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

roy or prime michael jordan?

just checking?

what sg's in history would you trade roy for?


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

i would trade him for jordan cuz jordan makes players better too. that is a skill that kobe will never have and that is why jordan is the king and kobe is not and wont be. roy i think will be more like jordan and not like kobe. leadership is the key word.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

sorry double post. i don't think i would trade roy for any other sg in the league. i'm a homer too though but i really wouldn't want another 2 then the one we got.


----------



## Freshtown (May 24, 2004)

Kobe is the currently the best player on the planet. No questions asked.

While I personally despise Kobe at times, none of you can logically argue that for achieving the goal of a championship, Kobe wouldn't get us there faster than Roy.

Our current team is going to take 3-4 years to win a championship, or at least be in championship contention.

If we traded Kobe for Roy today, you're looking at the very least Western Conference Finals, and at the best, a championship if not this year, next year.

LOL @ people saying Roy because Kobe isn't "a leader". HA!

I can be one of the biggest Kobe haters at times, but I'm not such a blind homer to understand that from a pure basketball standpoint, this team would be much better off with Kobe.

Roy is an amazing player that will most likely have a hall-of-fame career, but let's not kid ourselves. Kobe is the best player in the world, and one of the most prolific players of all-time.


----------



## Resume (Jul 17, 2007)

james is better then kobe. no doubt.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Freshtown said:


> Kobe is the currently the best player on the planet. No questions asked.
> 
> While I personally despise Kobe at times, none of you can logically argue that for achieving the goal of a championship, Kobe wouldn't get us there faster than Roy.
> 
> ...


Largely you're right. That catch is that some of us would:

A. rather not win "at all costs" and rooting for Kobe is too high a price to pay;

B. think that while Kobe may be better than Roy right now, that might well not be the case say, four or five years from now, when Oden and Aldridge will have a chance to be household names like Duncan and Shaq are now.

Myself, I'm on the fence with A and all the way over to B.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Resume said:


> james is better then kobe. no doubt.


I'm not sure I'm ready to say James is better than Bryant, but I'd certainly rather _have_ James than Bryant, especially to go with the current Blazers roster but really on pretty much any current NBA roster.


----------



## c_note (Jan 30, 2007)

Resume said:


> i would trade him for jordan cuz jordan makes players better too. that is a skill that kobe will never have and that is why jordan is the king and kobe is not and wont be. roy i think will be more like jordan and not like kobe. leadership is the key word.


oh so you would trade roy for michael jordan? Wow man, way to put yourself out there on a limb.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

i absolutely hate kobe bryant...it's compulsory when you are a clipper fan...that being said, there is no doubt, you take kobe over roy any day of the week, and twice on sundays...no disrespect to roy as he is a good up and coming player, but you have to take kobe...


----------



## Draco (Jun 28, 2003)

I'd take Kobe because I want the team to win games and ultimately a championship.

If you would rather have a team that wins less games but has people you personally like more, than fine take Roy. I'd rather go camping with Roy but I'd rather watch Kobe play basketball.

It is a no brainer that Kobe puts the Blazers much closer to a championship than Roy. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a Mike Barrett level homer IMO.


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Kobe has clashed with many past teammates and future hall of fame teammates at that. 

IMO in a couple years Roy will be captain of a championship team. All the players get along with him and he doesn't need to shoot every time he gets the ball to be effective.

Plus I hate Kobe probably more than any other athlete.

I would keep Roy.


----------



## dudleysghost (Mar 24, 2006)

I prefer Roy. If I had money riding on it though, I'd pick Kobe easily. Look what he has done with Team USA. He very clearly and easily gives us the best chance to win.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Draco said:


> I'd take Kobe because I want the team to win games and ultimately a championship.



The way I'm looking at it, Bryant would provide really good odds at two or three titles over the next five years and Roy would provide pretty good odds at four to five or more titles over the next ten or even twelve years. The second option interests me more, even apart from how much I like Roy and how much I don't like Bryant.

And sure, I may not be looking at it well -- Bryant's not _that_ much older than Roy. However, he's got a _lot_ more miles on him, hugely more. He's nearly KG level old given all the playoff games and international play.

For a different spin, I'm a huge Nash fan. He absolutely makes players around him better and no one's ever questioned his character that I know of. He'd be perfect on this team with Oden and Aldridge behind him... and I'd still not trade Roy for him due to age/window issues.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Also, for me it's really not all about winning, or at least not _only_ about winning. I'm great with Allen being able to offset some of the disadvantages that come with Portland (in that NBA players perhaps rightly think of it as a small, sleepy city) but if the Blazers were just buying players the way the Yankees have been I'd likely start following another team. And no, the Yankees haven't been able to buy titles but in the NBA where one or two players can make so much of a difference, take away the salary cap and I bet you could.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

crandc said:


> I won't come around.
> 
> Fortunately it's not likely to happen.


Nor will I.

I'll be done.

Unfortunately, as I've stated for quite awhile now, it's exactly what KP has been planning all along.

Culture indeed.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

MARIS61 said:


> Nor will I.
> 
> I'll be done.
> 
> ...


Nice. Condemn KP for something that you've surmised that he's planning to do. Nothing like a little "innocent until MARIS61 says you're guilty".

Has there ever been a Blazers GM that you didn't gripe about?


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

im (again) with Ed O on this. Im amazed people are even thinking twice about this - but this board is homer central about certain things so maybe it shouldn't be such a shock.

drop the poll in the general NBA forum , if you were the Blazers, would you trade Roy for Bryant if you could?!

could be interesting...


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

The fact that someone has the nerve to say that Roy could be the reason for Portland winning four or five championships is laughable. Look, the same with San Antonio, if Portland wins 4-5 titles, it will be on the back of Greg Oden. I really like Roy and Aldridge, but these guys are not untouchable (nor should they be).


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> And sure, I may not be looking at it well -- Bryant's not _that_ much older than Roy. However, he's got a _lot_ more miles on him, hugely more. He's nearly KG level old given all the playoff games and international play.


Do players age more rapidly based on the number of games they've played, or the number of serious injuries they've had?

Roy has, in spite of his relative lack of experience, suffered more injuries (of a substantial nature, at least) than Bryant.

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

HKF said:


> The fact that someone has the nerve to say that Roy could be the reason for Portland winning four or five championships is laughable. Look, the same with San Antonio, if Portland wins 4-5 titles, it will be on the back of Greg Oden. I really like Roy and Aldridge, but these guys are not untouchable (nor should they be).


You're misquoting me. With both Bryant and Roy I was assuming the rest of the roster. And no, I don't think either are untouchable. I could maybe see moving Roy for someone like Chris Paul -- someone young enough to still be in the window with the rest of the team.

And that said, one of the things that bums me out about the NBA today is all the player movement. Every year there seem to be three or four new faces on most teams. While I get that, on the whole, fans are expected to root for their team's jersey, I still like rooting for _players_. I like Roy, Aldridge, Oden, and several of the others. I'm gonna follow them whatever teams they're on but I'd _rather_ they stay on the team I'm already following the most.

It seems like the NBA has become something approaching real-life fantasy league, especially as fans are concerned, plugging and unplugging players solely in an attempt to maximize wins. I enjoy my team winning but I also nearly stopped following them altogether during the "Jail Blazers" era because I was so put off by the off the court stuff. It matters to me. And (getting back to topic) while I _might_ be able to stomach Bryant being added to the roster as a free agent, the thought of trading Roy to get him, when it doesn't even make sense to me to do that _without_ taking the off the court stuff into account....


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> Do players age more rapidly based on the number of games they've played, or the number of serious injuries they've had?



Maybe you're asking rhetorically? Honestly I don't know the answer (to either question). I suppose one could research it somehow. It's true Bryant's stayed pretty healthy thus far but it's got to be taking a toll of some sort. And yeah, Roy's had to deal with that heel issue. Is there something beyond that I'm missing? It seems like the heel thing wasn't so very serious, but it's always hard to know. I'll worry more if it's bothering him again this season.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> Maybe you're asking rhetorically? Honestly I don't know the answer (to either question). I suppose one could research it somehow. It's true Bryant's stayed pretty healthy thus far but it's got to be taking a toll of some sort. And yeah, Roy's had to deal with that heel issue. Is there something beyond that I'm missing? It seems like the heel thing wasn't so very serious, but it's always hard to know. I'll worry more if it's bothering him again this season.


I asked rhetorically... except for us to speculate, of course.

Roy's heel is probably more serious than any injury Bryant has had in his life, but Brandon also had a significant knee problem that cost him a big chunk of his junior season at UW.

It's possible that Bryant's health has simply been superior luck, and it's possible that Kobe will be worn out for having missed so (relatively) few games.

I dunno 

Ed O.


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I asked rhetorically... except for us to speculate, of course.
> 
> Roy's heel is probably more serious than any injury Bryant has had in his life, but Brandon also had a significant knee problem that cost him a big chunk of his junior season at UW.
> 
> ...


Even if there haven't been injuries, we've certainly seen guys fall off with what would seem to be fatigue when they've played into the playoffs, gone on to play for their national teams during the summer, and then come back to a full NBA season. Even a guy like Duncan -- a workhorse of a player who's not particularly reliant on stunning athletism to do what he does has had down years.

To be fair to Kobe, it doesn't seem like he _has_ had down years, despite fairly deep playoff runs and at least occasional summer games (though he's not logged a lot with the national team until this year). Still, I worry about him on that level (and I'm sure he'd be touched to know I care). He's clearly great for the NBA and basketball in general, and I currently enjoy rooting against him a great deal. Rooting _for_ him? It would virtually be fighting my DNA. It'll be interesting if I ever am seriously faced with that choice.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

BenDavis503 said:


> Would you rather have B. Roy on your team as your starting SG (on this current Blazer team), or Kobe Bryant? HYPOTHETICALLY if there was a Kobe for Brandon trade straight across... would you do it?
> 
> I had an argument with the owner of my company and he says Kobe hands down. I say I would take Roy any day of the week.


Never argue with your boss.

What's even worse - you are wrong. He must must be wondering about you at this point.


----------



## Blazer Maven (Sep 27, 2005)

Ed O said:


> Do players age more rapidly based on the number of games they've played, or the number of serious injuries they've had?
> 
> Roy has, in spite of his relative lack of experience, suffered more injuries (of a substantial nature, at least) than Bryant.
> 
> Ed O.


If you look at how Kobe plays the game, he relys on his athleticism to a huge degree, and is likely to decline quickly once he begins to fade physically.

Roy, on the other hand, has a mature feel for the game and while he can run and jump, does not rely on that to be effective.

However, Roy is not in Kobe's class and is not the dominant player that Kobe is. Roy is more of a facilitator than a go to/dominant player.

Oden is the dominator and Roy the facilitator. Aldridge is the option 1A and will keep defenses honest.


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

Blazer Maven said:


> If you look at how Kobe plays the game, he relys on his athleticism to a huge degree, and is likely to decline quickly once he begins to fade physically.
> 
> Roy, on the other hand, has a mature feel for the game and while he can run and jump, does not rely on that to be effective.



kobe did rely on his athleticism back in his earlier days...however, right now he seems to be using his jumpshot a lot more frequently...in my eyes, he has already lost a lot of his athleticism, but he has added a nice post game, and his jumper is good out to 30 feet...his game has been evolving as his body has been changing...

now, if shawn marion were to lose his hops, he would be totally ineffective, but kobe has adjusted his game as he has gotten older...


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> im (again) with Ed O on this. Im amazed people are even thinking twice about this - but this board is homer central about certain things so maybe it shouldn't be such a shock.
> 
> drop the poll in the general NBA forum , if you were the Blazers, would you trade Roy for Bryant if you could?!
> 
> could be interesting...


Not a bad idea, made a poll over there to get an idea about what others thought about the subject. I'm thinking that Kobe wins in a landslide.

NBA Forum, Poll Question, Roy vs. Bryant


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

Blazer Maven said:


> If you look at how Kobe plays the game, he relys on his athleticism to a huge degree, and is likely to decline quickly once he begins to fade physically.


I disagree. Kobe is a _great_ player because of his athleticism, but he doesn't rely primarily on it. He is a smart player, with a good all around game. There's no doubt the loss of athleticism will affect him, but I doubt it would be a particularly quick decline (unlike say Darius who has nothing else going for him). He's also known to be a gym rat so his body should hold up longer then your average NBA player. I think he's got plenty of good years left in him.


----------



## Rip City Reign (Jul 1, 2007)

HKF said:


> The fact that someone has the nerve to say that Roy could be the reason for Portland winning four or five championships is laughable. Look, the same with San Antonio, if Portland wins 4-5 titles, it will be on the back of Greg Oden. I really like Roy and Aldridge, but these guys are not untouchable (nor should they be).


A superstar still needs a supporting cast. Roy will do for the Blazers much of what Ginobili does for the Spurs. I think Ginobili would qualify as untouchable for the Spurs.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

HOWIE said:


> Not a bad idea, made a poll over there to get an idea about what others thought about the subject. I'm thinking that Kobe wins in a landslide.
> 
> NBA Forum, Poll Question, Roy vs. Bryant



amazingly enough its only 27-3 in favor of Bryant atm.


----------



## HOWIE (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> amazingly enough its only 27-3 in favor of Bryant atm.


I'm thinking that many people are taken back by the question, Bryant is clearly the better player so why even answer the question.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

Freshtown said:


> Kobe is the currently the best player on the planet. No questions asked.


I might favor Kobe in a dunk contest or a bet on who is going to win the scoring title, but if I wanted win a game or championship I'd take Duncan. 

TD gives a team the best chance to win. Besides being the best post threat in the game on offense he's probably the post defender as well. Win the battle(s) in the paint and more often then not you win the game is a hoops truism. If they were somehow traded for each other, I suspect the Lakers and Spurs would swap records and championship potential too.

STOMP


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

BenDavis503 said:


> Would you rather have B. Roy on your team as your starting SG (on this current Blazer team), or Kobe Bryant? HYPOTHETICALLY if there was a Kobe for Brandon trade straight across... would you do it?
> 
> I had an argument with the owner of my company and he says Kobe hands down. I say I would take Roy any day of the week.




From a Laker fan perspective, this is like asking, "Who would you rather have as your starting C, Kwame Brown or Greg Oden?"


----------



## mgb (Jun 26, 2004)

angrypuppy said:


> From a Laker fan perspective, this is like asking, "Who would you rather have as your starting C, Kwame Brown or Greg Oden?"


Was Kwame Brown ROY and the leader of your team? Does Oden have the bad image or me first attitude Bryant does or at least many people feel he has. Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison.


----------



## angrypuppy (Jul 5, 2005)

mgb said:


> Was Kwame Brown ROY and the leader of your team? Does Oden have the bad image or me first attitude Bryant does or at least many people feel he has. Doesn't seem like a very fair comparison.




It also isn't fair comparing someone who is arguably the best player in the game today to someone who finished his rookie year.

Answering the original question, it just crazy. The Blazers have some very nice pieces. What they lack is championship experience, and a true go-to guy. Kobe Bryant would fill both... at this point, Roy fills neither.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

angrypuppy said:


> It also isn't fair comparing someone who is arguably the best player in the game today to someone who finished his rookie year.
> 
> Answering the original question, it just crazy. The Blazers have some very nice pieces. What they lack is championship experience, and a true go-to guy. Kobe Bryant would fill both... *at this point, Roy fills neither.*


As with your previous post, you're overstating things in a big way. The Blazers went-to Roy with the game on the line many times last season and more often then not he came through. Maybe you didn't catch many Blazer games last year (which would be understandable), but Brandon is pretty darned good at most everything including getting and making his own shot. 

Thats not to say he's as good or better then Bryant (he's not IMO), but he's a lot more of a player then you're giving him credit for... a whole lot more. Kwame Brown :nonono: 

STOMP


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> As with your previous post, you're overstating things in a big way. The Blazers went-to Roy with the game on the line many times last season and more often then not he came through. Maybe you didn't catch many Blazer games last year (which would be understandable), but Brandon is pretty darned good at most everything including getting and making his own shot.
> 
> Thats not to say he's as good or better then Bryant (he's not IMO), but he's a lot more of a player then you're giving him credit for... a whole lot more. Kwame Brown :nonono:
> 
> STOMP



kobe vs. roy = kwame vs. oden 

imo...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

bootstrenf said:


> kobe vs. roy = kwame vs. oden
> 
> imo...


well, I think your way off base and heres my reasoning.

-Kobe is an all time talent

-Roy is a very good player 

-Oden is expected to be the best big of his generation. 

-Kwame is a rotation level player. 

I'd expect Oden and Roy to be much better then average starters at their positions this year. Kwame has never been even average. If I were rating them in on-court effectiveness 1-10 compared to other starters at their respective positions, I'd rate Kobe a 10, Roy and Oden 7.5, and Kwame a 2.5... and that might be a generous rating. I struggle to think of many starting Bigs I think less of. Hands of stone, little passion or feel for the game, and opposed to the intagables of the two Blazers, he's a proven bonehead.

Please expand on why you think this is a good comparison because I don't see it at all

STOMP


----------



## bootstrenf (May 24, 2006)

STOMP said:


> well, I think your way off base and heres my reasoning.
> 
> -Kobe is an all time talent
> 
> ...


the big thing is that oden is still an unkown...of course everyone expects him to be better than kwame, but by how much???

you are correct that people are expecting oden to be the next big thing, but he hasn't done anything yet...

as of right now, kobe is miles ahead of roy in every facet of the game...will oden be that much better than kwame??? we just don't know...


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

bootstrenf said:


> as of right now, kobe is miles ahead of roy *in every facet* of the game


The 2006-7 stats disagree 

Kobe - Roy
*FG%* 46% - 46%
*FT%* 87% - 84%
*3pt%* 34% - 38%
*Asst* 5.4 - 4
*Ast/TO* 1.6 - 1.9
*RBs* 5.7 - 4.4
*Stls* 1.4 - 1.2

Factor in that Kobe played 5.4 minutes more (or 12%) per game, and the cumulative statistics get that much closer. Next factor in that while Kobe's stats have plateaued off the last few years to their current high level, if Roy follows the norm for good players in their 2nd year, his should improve. With 1st option blackhole Zach gone, he's going to have the ball a lot more.



> will oden be that much better than kwame??? we just don't know...


I don't know if I'll be able to get out of bed tommorrow... but I've a good guess that I will.

There are many reasons why Greg is one of the most highly thought of prospects ever. Other then being derailed by health issues, I think it's an absolute lock that he'll enjoy a much better season then Kwame ever has. Just highlighting a couple of the many reasons why... Greg has proven he can both catch the ball and knock down his FTs. Dude shot 80% with his right hand as a HS senior. Conversely besides being unable to catch the ball, Kwame shot 44% from the line last season. Why should his teammates even pass it to him?

STOMP


----------



## veve130 (Aug 29, 2007)

pretty interesting developement now we have kwame vs oden as well as kobe vs roy. i like him and he may be the blazers go to guy and rookie of the year but fact is kobe is miles better and even though oden hasnt played in the nba yet i think this speaks a lot of the expectations for him but id say hes miles better than kwame and it will show during the course of the season. but Kobe over Roy id make that trade i think unless someone has something personal against kobe its an obvious choice


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

I wonder how many Lakers fans would trade Bryant and Brown for Roy and Oden? I wonder the same for Blazers fans, too, actually. Me, I wouldn't consider it seriously at all, even with the questions about Oden's health, but then that's more for off-the-court reasons than on the court. If asked to decide purely on an on-the-court basis it gets a lot closer.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I wonder how many Lakers fans would trade Bryant and Brown for Roy and Oden? I wonder the same for Blazers fans, too, actually. Me, I wouldn't consider it seriously at all, even with the questions about Oden's health, but then that's more for off-the-court reasons than on the court. If asked to decide purely on an on-the-court basis it gets a lot closer.


I wouldn't do it, and I think that Kobe is an awesome player. Oden's upside is so massive that I seriously doubt I'd do an Oden-Kobe swap... and giving up Roy to get Brown would be a big-time loss on the Blazers' side of things.

Ed O.


----------



## STOMP (Jan 1, 2003)

PorterIn2004 said:


> I wonder how many Lakers fans would trade Bryant and Brown for Roy and Oden? I wonder the same for Blazers fans, too, actually. Me, I wouldn't consider it seriously at all, even with the questions about Oden's health, but then that's more for off-the-court reasons than on the court. If asked to decide purely on an on-the-court basis it gets a lot closer.


Its only reasonable to argue for Kobe-Brown over Roy-Oden if you're talking here and now IMO.

While I'd be curious to see how your trade proposal would would play out as a poll on the Laker board, I'm sure I could guess how it would go here. Not just a decided no, but a resounding hell no!!!

STOMP


----------



## PorterIn2004 (Jan 1, 2003)

STOMP said:


> Its only reasonable to argue for Kobe-Brown over Roy-Oden if you're talking here and now IMO.
> 
> While I'd be curious to see how your trade proposal would would play out as a poll on the Laker board, I'm sure I could guess how it would go here. Not just a decided no, but a resounding hell no!!!
> 
> STOMP


Regarding this board, I'd agree, though I'd have thought more of us would've argued Roy over Kobe than did.

As for the Lakers' side, yeah, I'm interested enough that I might even go post it. I agree that next year the Bryant Brown combination may be more potent but by even the year after, _if_ all four players are in good health, I'd be ready to put my money on Roy and Oden.


----------

