Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis
I think at the peak of his abilities LeBron can be a better all-time player than Kobe, but he simply hasn't done it enough when it matters the most. Rings really do matter cause why else play the game if you don't want to win? I think the exception for ringless players are guys from the Jordan era (Stockton and Malone namely) because well Jordan is Jordan.
Kobe is interesting because I think had they lost the second Finals against Boston, his legacy would be viewed differently. He had just a horrible game (I'll always remember, 6-24) but they won that imporant 5th title. I'd also say its insulting to say Gasol and Bynum are decent secondary players. Kobe needed both of them, as obviously he wasn't doing so great on his own. He needed Gasol more than Bynum, but without them both in 08 they lost to the Celtics. I'm guessing LeBron would have a ring with two pretty talented 7 footers. I'd say top 5 is almost impossible for Kobe to get to without another ring (MJ, Bird, Magic, Wilt, The Big O), but top 10 for sure. LeBron will need at least 3 to be in the conversation.
|
I just don't think rings are the be all and end all when comparing players. if someone of Lebron's talent never does win a ring, certainly that would tarnish his career like nothing else.
But Steve Nash is still an incredible point guard, clutch, has had great playoff performances but doesn't have a ring. It doesn't make him any less of a HOF'er.