Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 517 of 549 FirstFirst ... 17417467507515516517518519527 ... LastLast
Results 7,741 to 7,755 of 8229
  1. #7741
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by More-Than-Most View Post
    the same place he has him now... he said in his exact words lebron needs to win 2 more to pass kobe


    so basically how he measures things is -whatever kobe has more of over lebron is the argument i am using to justify kobe over lebron- So lebron needs the same amount of rings as kobe in order to finally pass kobe.
    Not at all. He will pass shaq and bird on my list.

  2. #7742
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    I will move him ahead of Bird and Shaq and put him right on the heels of Kobe and Magic. So #6 all-time on my list (#5 if we're not including Wilt, since I really don't know where to put Wilt and Russell given the time period the played in).
    And if he wins next year? Will he surpass Kobe/Magic or stay at #6?

    I'm assuming the players ahead of him are Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Kobe?

  3. #7743
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And if he wins next year? Will he surpass Kobe/Magic or stay at #6?

    I'm assuming the players ahead of him are Wilt, Jordan, Kareem, Magic, Kobe?
    Yeah, a win next year and he sits firmly at #3 (assuming he's still a superstar, but lakers can't win if it he's not) and he'd be right on the heels of Kareem.

  4. #7744
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yeah, a win next year and he sits firmly at #3 (assuming he's still a superstar, but lakers can't win if it he's not) and he'd be right on the heels of Kareem.
    So he surpasses Kobe if the Lakers win next year and he's still a superstar?

  5. #7745
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    So he surpasses Kobe if the Lakers win next year and he's still a superstar?
    Yep and magic.

  6. #7746
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Yep and magic.
    I'll hold you to that.

    Glad to see he's now at or almost at your Top 5, even if your agreement is 4 years too late.

  7. #7747
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,065
    Quote Originally Posted by ewing View Post
    The people saying that would be wrong. They all have more pissed off facial expressions but the play style is not alike at all


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    They are better than him being able to play under control and they also a few inches taller but as far as styles go they are all similar. Being a point guard and being in the era not heavy on the mid range he plays a different role most of the time but he wants to score and the style in which he does and how he approch it is similar. Shooting 3s is not his strength in this new NBA. Wesbrook falls in that Iverson issue. A shooting guard in a PG body. So fair if you want to say he dont play exactly like them. He falls in between Kobe and AI. 6'6 sg Klay do not play a similar style or do he display the mentality.

    MJ>Kobe>>westbrook

    The only two players that are very identical is Kobe to MJ down to the walk. The only thing he did not take was the tongue. So when one say similar it dont mean identical like these two.
    Last edited by ldawg; 10-04-2020 at 06:28 AM.

  8. #7748
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    GMT +2
    Posts
    13,919
    I cannot believe this is still dragging and half the posts were a bunch of numbers that are apparently the authority on who's the better player, ignoring that those numbers would be completely different if said players were on different teams or had different coaches, teammates, opponents etc...

    This is a discussion about two guys that aren't Top 10 locks of all time, yet people somehow pretend it's a GOAT discussion. Sure, you could claim that on the basis of longevity, but overall, they're definitely not locks for top 10.

    Bronsexuals (I grew to like this term) want to hype him for winning championships because they were bitter when he was subpar until the first title, which was a lockout season title, so there's an asterisk involved, despite playing with some of the best players in the league.

    It's probably going to be a sweep in this year's half Playoffs, half Exhibition situation we're in. That would give Lebron 4 titles, two of them having asterisks on.

    For people who claim that Kobephiles want to talk down rings and how Lebron having 4 vs Kobe's 5 is comparable so the other side has no argument anymore, that's just another take on how naive Bronsexuals can be. Every championship season is different and no ring weighs the same as another. This is why rings are irrelevant when comparing basketball players or in general team sport players.

    Winning is always important, but when it comes to greatness, losing is what matters the most. How much you lose when it matters, how you lose when it matters, how you react when it matters and in both cases, how much of it was due to your contribution.
    Kobe had taken the lonely road and he managed to win 2 more rings, while Lebron always used cop outs, always seeking to team up with the best players in the league and ends up with 4 rings from a big fat zero, 2 of which came in highly irregular seasons, while he still carries a losing records in the biggest scene. In Europe we call these guys "losers", though we do it for the relevant team more than the actual individuals, perhaps because we have a better understanding of team sport concepts, than the commercialized US sports who need to praise superstars as if no teammates exist and a team winning something automatically makes someone a better player than he was in case they lost, which may have nothing to do with his own quality...

    The Lakers were one Anthony Davis away from being irrelevant and out of the playoffs last season to becoming contenders in this weird *** one. How does that in any way make Lebron a better player and people have to look at his differently as if he has improved on somethiing??? The only change is that the team is stronger with the addition of a superstar in Anthony Davis.

    Can anyone seriously argue that Kobe, even in his twilight years, instead of Lebron on this team would not make it to the Finals and probably also sweep the Heat?


    Either way, they're different players but if you want to weigh everything in and take these guys on their peak, it's always going to be Kobe Bryant.

  9. #7749
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    19,065
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I cannot believe this is still dragging and half the posts were a bunch of numbers that are apparently the authority on who's the better player, ignoring that those numbers would be completely different if said players were on different teams or had different coaches, teammates, opponents etc...

    This is a discussion about two guys that aren't Top 10 locks of all time, yet people somehow pretend it's a GOAT discussion. Sure, you could claim that on the basis of longevity, but overall, they're definitely not locks for top 10.

    Bronsexuals (I grew to like this term) want to hype him for winning championships because they were bitter when he was subpar until the first title, which was a lockout season title, so there's an asterisk involved, despite playing with some of the best players in the league.

    It's probably going to be a sweep in this year's half Playoffs, half Exhibition situation we're in. That would give Lebron 4 titles, two of them having asterisks on.

    For people who claim that Kobephiles want to talk down rings and how Lebron having 4 vs Kobe's 5 is comparable so the other side has no argument anymore, that's just another take on how naive Bronsexuals can be. Every championship season is different and no ring weighs the same as another. This is why rings are irrelevant when comparing basketball players or in general team sport players.

    Winning is always important, but when it comes to greatness, losing is what matters the most. How much you lose when it matters, how you lose when it matters, how you react when it matters and in both cases, how much of it was due to your contribution.
    Kobe had taken the lonely road and he managed to win 2 more rings, while Lebron always used cop outs, always seeking to team up with the best players in the league and ends up with 4 rings from a big fat zero, 2 of which came in highly irregular seasons, while he still carries a losing records in the biggest scene. In Europe we call these guys "losers", though we do it for the relevant team more than the actual individuals, perhaps because we have a better understanding of team sport concepts, than the commercialized US sports who need to praise superstars as if no teammates exist and a team winning something automatically makes someone a better player than he was in case they lost, which may have nothing to do with his own quality...

    The Lakers were one Anthony Davis away from being irrelevant and out of the playoffs last season to becoming contenders in this weird *** one. How does that in any way make Lebron a better player and people have to look at his differently as if he has improved on somethiing??? The only change is that the team is stronger with the addition of a superstar in Anthony Davis.

    Can anyone seriously argue that Kobe, even in his twilight years, instead of Lebron on this team would not make it to the Finals and probably also sweep the Heat?


    Either way, they're different players but if you want to weigh everything in and take these guys on their peak, it's always going to be Kobe Bryant.
    lets just keep it simple list the ancient ones leading up to present.

    Older player were rated just the same base on thier team, Coaches, etc as well

    * is for people looking for a reason to discredit. Boston, Bucks, Houston, Heat etc all were not going to win. Being in the bubble did not change that. They all were in the exact same environment. Had Utah won then i would have to agree.

    Larry bird was one Mchale from being irrelevant. Its weird GSW could be the leage best one season and a lotto the the next its weird.

    yes peak 1 vs 1 its always going to be Kobe. Over a career its always going to be Lebron. 16-6

  10. #7750
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Rogers Centre
    Posts
    23,094
    Are people for real on here or just trolling? How could anyone have Kobe ahead of LeBron?
    Quote Originally Posted by ChongInc. View Post
    Facts can be hypothetical.

  11. #7751
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Are people for real on here or just trolling? How could anyone have Kobe ahead of LeBron?
    Well, many of their peers and mutual teammates pick kobe so I doubt theyre being trolls. That doesnt make it definitive or anything, of course, but to think that no one could have kobe ahead of LBJ is very misguided, because many if not most of their peers have picked kobe (wade initially picked kobe ahead of LBJ a few years ago and then took it back only to say that he didnt know who he would pick but that you couldn't go wrong with either; I believe bosh also has kobe ahead of LBJ; at least he did a few years ago). So no, people who pick kobe are not trolling.

  12. #7752
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    10,648
    Quote Originally Posted by ldawg View Post
    lets just keep it simple list the ancient ones leading up to present.

    Older player were rated just the same base on thier team, Coaches, etc as well

    * is for people looking for a reason to discredit. Boston, Bucks, Houston, Heat etc all were not going to win. Being in the bubble did not change that. They all were in the exact same environment. Had Utah won then i would have to agree.

    Larry bird was one Mchale from being irrelevant. Its weird GSW could be the leage best one season and a lotto the the next its weird.

    yes peak 1 vs 1 its always going to be Kobe. Over a career its always going to be Lebron. 16-6
    Why do you keep bringing up their career matchups? Lol that's so silly dude. By that logic Curry > LBJ because his team has a 21-14 advantage. Those records are completely meaningless and say absolutely nothing about who is better (and as I already noted, the last 5 wins LBJ had came because kobe was a relatively bad teams and LBJ was on excellent teams and kobe was also no longer an elite player so at least cite the relevant record of 11-6 and then follow it up by saying its meaningless lol)

  13. #7753
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    115,216
    Quote Originally Posted by R. Johnson#3 View Post
    Are people for real on here or just trolling? How could anyone have Kobe ahead of LeBron?
    basically 2 people that have kobe over lebron in this thread with the other 100 being not homers or lebron haters

  14. #7754
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    7,470
    Quote Originally Posted by NYKalltheway View Post
    I cannot believe this is still dragging and half the posts were a bunch of numbers that are apparently the authority on who's the better player, ignoring that those numbers would be completely different if said players were on different teams or had different coaches, teammates, opponents etc...

    This is a discussion about two guys that aren't Top 10 locks of all time, yet people somehow pretend it's a GOAT discussion. Sure, you could claim that on the basis of longevity, but overall, they're definitely not locks for top 10.

    Bronsexuals (I grew to like this term) want to hype him for winning championships because they were bitter when he was subpar until the first title, which was a lockout season title, so there's an asterisk involved, despite playing with some of the best players in the league.

    It's probably going to be a sweep in this year's half Playoffs, half Exhibition situation we're in. That would give Lebron 4 titles, two of them having asterisks on.

    For people who claim that Kobephiles want to talk down rings and how Lebron having 4 vs Kobe's 5 is comparable so the other side has no argument anymore, that's just another take on how naive Bronsexuals can be. Every championship season is different and no ring weighs the same as another. This is why rings are irrelevant when comparing basketball players or in general team sport players.

    Winning is always important, but when it comes to greatness, losing is what matters the most. How much you lose when it matters, how you lose when it matters, how you react when it matters and in both cases, how much of it was due to your contribution.
    Kobe had taken the lonely road and he managed to win 2 more rings, while Lebron always used cop outs, always seeking to team up with the best players in the league and ends up with 4 rings from a big fat zero, 2 of which came in highly irregular seasons, while he still carries a losing records in the biggest scene. In Europe we call these guys "losers", though we do it for the relevant team more than the actual individuals, perhaps because we have a better understanding of team sport concepts, than the commercialized US sports who need to praise superstars as if no teammates exist and a team winning something automatically makes someone a better player than he was in case they lost, which may have nothing to do with his own quality...

    The Lakers were one Anthony Davis away from being irrelevant and out of the playoffs last season to becoming contenders in this weird *** one. How does that in any way make Lebron a better player and people have to look at his differently as if he has improved on somethiing??? The only change is that the team is stronger with the addition of a superstar in Anthony Davis.

    Can anyone seriously argue that Kobe, even in his twilight years, instead of Lebron on this team would not make it to the Finals and probably also sweep the Heat?


    Either way, they're different players but if you want to weigh everything in and take these guys on their peak, it's always going to be Kobe Bryant.
    Can’t argue numbers because every situation is different yet we can argue rings because every situation is different?

    Being subpar and playing on subpar teams with subpar owners are two different things.

    If we’re going to start asterisking titles, then half of all titles will have asterisks one way or the other.

    I stopped reading your post because I see you have no idea what you’re talking about. Figured you took some time off to learn **** but nope.

    Wait, you think Kobe’s last year or two would make it this far with this team? And you’re glossing over the Lebron injury last year?

    Haha, what drivel.

  15. #7755
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    36,269
    Quote Originally Posted by Big Moves03 View Post
    Why do you keep bringing up their career matchups? Lol that's so silly dude. By that logic Curry > LBJ because his team has a 21-14 advantage. Those records are completely meaningless and say absolutely nothing about who is better (and as I already noted, the last 5 wins LBJ had came because kobe was a relatively bad teams and LBJ was on excellent teams and kobe was also no longer an elite player so at least cite the relevant record of 11-6 and then follow it up by saying its meaningless lol)
    Won’t matter much. By this time next year you’ll also have Bron over Kobe.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •