Is Kobe Bryant Top 5 All Time? (List ur top 5)
Options
Comments
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomAlso proves they weren't ? without him
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomits....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ? -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomEther44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings
I mentioned he wouldn't win 11 in any other era but ? hes getting faulted for that when he should be credited for dominating the way he did, you can say "well this player would of dominated that era too" maybe but Russ is the one to have done it and that system worked because of him -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomits....JOHN B wrote: »Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings
I mentioned he wouldn't win 11 in any other era but ? hes getting faulted for that when he should be credited for dominating the way he did, you can say "well this player would of dominated that era too" maybe but Russ is the one to have done it and that system worked because of him
how is he a better all around player than Hakeem tho? dont aswer with metaphores and poetry ...answer with facts...the only fact that puts Russell over anybody is rings other than that his stats dont prove he is better than guys like hakeem 13 rebounds in the 80's and 90's = 20 in the 60's -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomHe had a better offensive skillset than Russ, there were things KG could do that Duncan couldn't but Duncan won, then the hypotheticals come in "well if KG played for POP or if KG had Pierce and Allen longer" well we don't know that, what we do know is Russ and Duncan were two of the best players of their generation and have the rings to show for it
-
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomThat Boston team wouldn't win a game in this era.Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ?
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomShizlansky wrote: »That Boston team wouldn't win a game in this era.Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ?
and you would of beat Cousy one on one we know -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomEther44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ?
You edited this post so I didn't see bolded, but don't tell me to answer with facts and then say some ? like this, Duncan made the Spurs what they are, its not a fact that you could plug Barkley in and get similar results, and no rings aren't everything like I said he wouldn't win 11 in every era but he does have more rings than he can fit on both hands -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomits....JOHN B wrote: »Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ?
You edited this post so I didn't see bolded, but don't tell me to answer with facts and then say some ? like this, Duncan made the Spurs what they are, its not a fact that you could plug Barkley in and get similar results, and no rings aren't everything like I said he wouldn't win 11 in every era but he does have more rings than he can fit on both hands
Whatever i'm done arguing you believe what you want but rings is not everything when comparing players, to me stats and fg% is the most important thing who is better a player scoring 30 a game on 40% or the player scoring 25 on 48% ? this ? Russell score 15 on 44% ...as a CENTER ! its not like he shot jumpers from 20 feet he's Rodman on steroids wich is great but not top 5 or top 10 worthy -
Yall ? smh
-
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomhakeem ain't top 5 over Kobe... Neither is Bird, Wilt, or Russell... Now ? off
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomits....JOHN B wrote: »Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings
I mentioned he wouldn't win 11 in any other era but ? hes getting faulted for that when he should be credited for dominating the way he did, you can say "well this player would of dominated that era too" maybe but Russ is the one to have done it and that system worked because of him
His TEAM Dominated the era ...WILT was the player who Dominated that era dont get it twisted now... -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomEther44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Ether44mag wrote: »its....JOHN B wrote: »Also proves they weren't ? without him
you getting away from the subject ...you trynna prove he was great...we dont argue that!!! I'm sayin he was not greater than Hakeem ,Kobe,Lebron etc do you really think he would win 11 rings in any other era ?? maybe 3 or 4 or 5 but not no 11and his fame is based on his rings mostly and to win 11 rings that right there tells you his team and system helped ALOT
just like Duncan would not have won 5 rings if he played for the Suns and if you put for exemple Barkley on the spurs Barkley would certainly have at least 2 rings...The rings are very important but its not the only way to see if a player is great because nobody puts Russell over jordan and he has alot more rings than Jordan ,feel me ?
You edited this post so I didn't see bolded, but don't tell me to answer with facts and then say some ? like this, Duncan made the Spurs what they are, its not a fact that you could plug Barkley in and get similar results, and no rings aren't everything like I said he wouldn't win 11 in every era but he does have more rings than he can fit on both hands
Whatever i'm done arguing you believe what you want but rings is not everything when comparing players, to me stats and fg% is the most important thing who is better a player scoring 30 a game on 40% or the player scoring 25 on 48% ? this ? Russell score 15 on 44% ...as a CENTER ! its not like he shot jumpers from 20 feet he's Rodman on steroids wich is great but not top 5 or top 10 worthy
Keep it that way -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomjoeyfkncrakk wrote: »hakeem ain't top 5 over Kobe... Neither is Bird, Wilt, or Russell... Now ? off
Kobe does nothing better than any of those guys minus scoring in regards to Russ, not to mention all men are more accomplished individually. -
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomsmittysmith wrote: »joeyfkncrakk wrote: »hakeem ain't top 5 over Kobe... Neither is Bird, Wilt, or Russell... Now ? off
Kobe does nothing better than any of those guys minus scoring in regards to Russ, not to mention all men are more accomplished individually.
Pure hate lol google them ? accomplishments and you'd be surprised how Kobe matches up -
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomericb4prez wrote: »smittysmith wrote: »joeyfkncrakk wrote: »hakeem ain't top 5 over Kobe... Neither is Bird, Wilt, or Russell... Now ? off
Kobe does nothing better than any of those guys minus scoring in regards to Russ, not to mention all men are more accomplished individually.
Pure hate lol google them ? accomplishments and you'd be surprised how Kobe matches up
this thread proves all the hate is real against the Bean... More accomplished my ass smh -
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomhttp://hoopshype.com/2016/08/03/the-top-25-players-in-lakers-history/
Check it for yourself, even Hoopshype has Kobe as the 2nd greatest Laker of All time... -
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomjoeyfkncrakk wrote: »http://hoopshype.com/2016/08/03/the-top-25-players-in-lakers-history/
Check it for yourself, even Hoopshype has Kobe as the 2nd greatest Laker of All time...
I got Magic as the greatest Laker as well -
joeyfkncrakk wrote: »http://hoopshype.com/2016/08/03/the-top-25-players-in-lakers-history/
Check it for yourself, even Hoopshype has Kobe as the 2nd greatest Laker of All time...
I have that same exact top 5. -
The "Greatest Laker" conversation is different than the "Greatest Player" Conversation ...
In the former discussion, there are a lot of contextual factors being considered outside of the players ability and overall accomplishments.
This list has Byron Scott as a "better Laker" than Wilt...
Does that mean that Byron Scott is a "better player" than Wilt Chamberlain? ...
Kobe is arguably the Greatest Laker for a lot of reasons, but on my all time list I wouldn't put him above Magic, Kareem, or even Shaq
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomThe "Greatest Laker" conversation is different than the "Greatest Player" Conversation ...
In the former discussion, there are a lot of contextual factors being considered outside of the players ability and overall accomplishments.
This list has Byron Scott as a "better Laker" than Wilt...
Does that mean that Byron Scott is a "better player" than Wilt Chamberlain? ...
Kobe is arguably the Greatest Laker for a lot of reasons, but on my all time list I wouldn't put him above Magic, Kareem, or even Shaq
when I think of the lakers the first name that comes up in my mind is still Magic Johnson ,Him and Bird SAVED the Nba so on Lakers Impact alone, Magic is number one for me, with Kobe second, The Lakers are the Lakers because of Magic, he was the face of the franchise in the Era when they became a sport phenomenon -
Yes, Kobe's in that top 5 roomKobe holds the following Lakers' records:
Minutes Played
Steals
3pt FG made
FTs made
Field Goals made
Points in the regular season
Points in the playoffs
Points in the season
Points in a half
Points in a quarter
Most games in the regular season
Most playoff games in the regular season
Most seasons played
Most playoff seasons played
Most all-star game selections
Most all-NBA first teams
Most all-Defensive first teams
In other words, Kobe is the greatest Laker of all-time and it's not even close. Kobe would also embarrass Magic on the court, so stop the ? . -
Ether44mag wrote: »The "Greatest Laker" conversation is different than the "Greatest Player" Conversation ...
In the former discussion, there are a lot of contextual factors being considered outside of the players ability and overall accomplishments.
This list has Byron Scott as a "better Laker" than Wilt...
Does that mean that Byron Scott is a "better player" than Wilt Chamberlain? ...
Kobe is arguably the Greatest Laker for a lot of reasons, but on my all time list I wouldn't put him above Magic, Kareem, or even Shaq
when I think of the lakers the first name that comes up in my mind is still Magic Johnson ,Him and Bird SAVED the Nba so on Lakers Impact alone, Magic is number one for me, with Kobe second, The Lakers are the Lakers because of Magic, he was the face of the franchise in the Era when they became a sport phenomenon
This guy said it all. -
Man it's an endless debate to be as nitpicky as to try and list a top ANYTHING in numerical order. "Nah he aint 4th hes 6th!" ? outta here there will never be agreements.
Tiered listing is a much more logical way of doing things. Best way of defining a tier is "If I'm starting a team now, I would take all of the players in tier 1 above the players in tier 2. All of the players in tier two over tier 3. etc...' And the tiers are not in any order, just a big group.
For example:
Tier 1
Mj, Lebron,
Tier 2
Wilt, Kobe, Magic, Kareem
Tier 3
Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan
Tier 4
Big O, Isaiah, Barkley, Bird, Curry
etc....
Keep in mind doing it this way leads to more of a player vs player basketball wise as opposed to accomplishments vs accomplishments. It is also based on the current NBA climate. So there's flaws, but cross era comparisons are nearly impossible anyways.
-
Nope, Kobe's not in that too 5 roomWait.... you would take Kobe over 3 7 footers? Really?
