Kobe Bryant BETTER than Michael Jordan?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

And so without Nash, the Suns are nothing? Amare, Shawn Marion, Barbosa, Diaw... But without Kobe, ....Lamar Odom, Smush, Andrew Bynum, Luke Walton, Sasha Vujavic are better off? The Lakers had a better record without Kobe, right? Sure.

I agree with you; Steve Nash and Kobe are different players. Nash is a point guard and Kobe is a swingman. But when you're constantly double and triple-teamed, you're above .500 in the Western Conference, with a roster full of scrubs and "9th mans" and Luke Walton starts to look promising, I'd think you're making you're teammates better.

Yes... yes. We all know the arguments, "Nash is so unselfish and Kobe is a ball-hog." "Kobe plays for himself." ...blah, blah, blah... In case anyone hasn't been watching, Kobe has completely changed his game. Phil said he was "uncoachable". He comes back. Talks it over with Kobe last season and they make the playoffs and almost knock-off the would-be, "MVP" and his Suns. Same thing this season. Kobe is ALOT different now than he was 2 years ago.

The Lakers go on a 7 game losing streak and Phil basically had to force Kobe to start shooting and STOP PASSING!!! And now they're on a 5 game winning streak since then. 4 consecutive 50-point games, 43 on Sunday and a winning streak, while the rest of the team has been playing poorly.

Yea... I'd rather take Steve Nash too.

All I'm sayng is last year without Stoudamire (who I would consider one of their key players) the Suns went to the Western Conf. Finals. This season when Nash misses games the Suns are criticised for uninspired play.

As I said, if I was picking a fantasy team where personal stats were all that mattered, I'd pick Kobe. But since basketball is played with 5 guys on each team, one player who can make the other 4 that much better is a rare quantity.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Are you really going to tell me that it's "all the other players" that have made a Nash-led team lead the league in scoring for the last SEVEN seasons? That includes a couple years in Dallas, by the way... Also, try to remember that no one even heard of Diaw Marion or Barbosa until Nash gave them all career season last year - the first year he'd ever played with them, I might add.

Shawn Marion was a Top 10 lottery pick in a year with, Elton Brand, Baron Davis (yes, Lamar Odom), Rip Hamilton, Ron Artest, Andrei Kirilenko, Jason Terry...etc. Boris Diaw was the best player in France with Tony Parker. Barbosa is an athletic freak. The point I was making was this team, the Suns, without Steve Nash are eons better than the Lakers are without Kobe. ...and you forgot that they still have Amare Stoudamire.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

All I'm sayng is last year without Stoudamire (who I would consider one of their key players) the Suns went to the Western Conf. Finals. This season when Nash misses games the Suns are criticised for uninspired play.

As I said, if I was picking a fantasy team where personal stats were all that mattered, I'd pick Kobe. But since basketball is played with 5 guys on each team, one player who can make the other 4 that much better is a rare quantity.

I give Steve Nash a lot of respect for coming in first (in the Pacific) without Amare. And yes, he does make that team. He's the point guard. It's his job to distribute the ball. He comprises the offence. I don't think the Suns are "uninspired" without him, they're just lost because their back-up is obviously not as skilled, (Marcus Banks) and the guy never gets any PT. But to start a franchise with a pass first point guard is not something 100% of the GMs in the NBA would do. I would guarantee that they would all pick Kobe over Steve Nash.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Think about it: You 1.3 seconds left and you're down by 1. Are you really giving the ball to Nash and hoping he'll make a great pass? Or are you giving the ball to Kobe for the win? You're right, Kobe and Nash are the same.

While that might be true, if you take out Kobe and put in Nash in that one game, you're probably not down by 1 at that point in the game.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Think about it: You 1.3 seconds left and you're down by 1. Are you really giving the ball to Nash and hoping he'll make a great pass? Or are you giving the ball to Kobe for the win? You're right, Kobe and Nash are the same.

Nash has made his share of last second shots, too. Quite a few of them, in fact.

Perhaps you missed the last game against the Mavs where nash put up 10 points in the last 50 seconds of the game, including a three at the buzzer to force OT?

... and what about the play in the 2nd OT when he stole the ball and put it out off of Terry to get the throw-in? He was two rebounds short of a triple-double, including the final rebound of the game off of Dirk's missed shot at tying it up.

A lot of people knock Nash's D... but he's a POINT gaurd. D isn't his job. He's there to create O and O only. That would be like people saying Gretzky sucked because he couldn't check anyone and was useless at defending against a breakaway.

The thing is, when the game is on the line, Nash shows up just as well as anyone else.

I'm not knocking Kobe's obvious natural talent and his ability to score points. I just don't see one guy getting 50ppg on a losing team as being more valuable than another guy getting 20ppg himself and 30ppg for the other guys on his team - a team that wins and goes deep.

Hey... I just thought of a neat experiment. I wonder what would happen if we put Kobe in Phx and Nash in LA? Ha! I would seriously put money down on LA finishing higher than Phx.

[socalwingfan]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Hey... I just thought of a neat experiment. I wonder what would happen if we put Kobe in Phx and Nash in LA? Ha! I would seriously put money down on LA finishing higher than Phx.

If you're talking about present day line ups - I would take that bet in a heartbeat. Nash is a great player, but no way he could improve the scrubs that play for the Lakers this year. Apart from Lamar Odom (except possibly Andrew Bynum - who is only 19). , the Lakers do not have a single player that would make Phoenix's roster today

[SpitFire40]

Why did Kobe change his number to #24??

[socalwingfan]

Fresh Start. He wanted to originally change to 33 (he wore in high school and was his Dad's number) but that was Kareem's number, so he went for 24 the first number he wore in high school.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by calculoso

While that might be true, if you take out Kobe and put in Nash in that one game, you're probably not down by 1 at that point in the game.

Yea... okay. Good one.

[FlamesFanInEdm]

wow there are alot of Kobe haters here it seems. He is an incredible player, probably the closest to Jordan we have seen but not at Jordans level by any means. As far as the argument goes between Nash and Kobe, they both serve their teams well respectively.

If you put traded Kobe for Nash straight up, the Suns would likely be as good or better. Barbosa is a starter for most other teams in the league anyways. LA may be a little better although they would be stuck starting Vujacic (shudder). I couldnt see them winning much more than they are now though anyways.

At this point, I would pick Kobe over anyone in the league.
________
VAPOR GENIE REVIEW

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Nash has made his share of last second shots, too. Quite a few of them, in fact.

Perhaps you missed the last game against the Mavs where nash put up 10 points in the last 50 seconds of the game, including a three at the buzzer to force OT?

... and what about the play in the 2nd OT when he stole the ball and put it out off of Terry to get the throw-in? He was two rebounds short of a triple-double, including the final rebound of the game off of Dirk's missed shot at tying it up.

A lot of people knock Nash's D... but he's a POINT gaurd. D isn't his job. He's there to create O and O only. That would be like people saying Gretzky sucked because he couldn't check anyone and was useless at defending against a breakaway.

The thing is, when the game is on the line, Nash shows up just as well as anyone else.

I'm not knocking Kobe's obvious natural talent and his ability to score points. I just don't see one guy getting 50ppg on a losing team as being more valuable than another guy getting 20ppg himself and 30ppg for the other guys on his team - a team that wins and goes deep.

Hey... I just thought of a neat experiment. I wonder what would happen if we put Kobe in Phx and Nash in LA? Ha! I would seriously put money down on LA finishing higher than Phx.

No. I didn't miss that game. Dampier and Juwan were both fouled out. And though Phoenix won, Nash had 5 turnovers and one crucial one with a minute left in overtime. I'd like you to youtube that moment (when he hit this "clutch lay-up" you speak of) in the game and tell me:

a. Was Nash double-teamed?
b. If he WAS actually being defended, who was guarding him?

You're basically saying that Steve Nash is more of a clutch player than Kobe. Ridiculous. Watching hi-lights doesn't constitute, watching basketball.

So because Nash doesn't play defense, he gets a pass? Because he's an "offensive threat"? All Kobe is supposed to do is score too, right? Oh wait... he's made 6 All-Defensive Teams. If being a point guard means only playing offence, what do you call, Jason Kidd? Gary Payton? Mookie Blaylock?

Scoring 50 points, 4 games in a row and 43 in the 5th game while losing??? They're above .500. They've been above .500 all season. Including being in first place of the Pacific the first 20 games of the season. As well, NO ONE on the Suns is averaging 20ppg.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Hey... I just thought of a neat experiment. I wonder what would happen if we put Kobe in Phx and Nash in LA? Ha! I would seriously put money down on LA finishing higher than Phx.

It'd be neat because Phoenix would become the hands-down, #1 contender for a championship and the Lakers would be going straight to the lottery.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

It'd be neat because Phoenix would become the hands-down, #1 contender for a championship and the Lakers would be going straight to the lottery.

Yeah...maybe if Shaq coming to Phoenix was part of the deal too.

This just in.....skill doesnt win championships.......Kobe doesnt have what it takes to lead a team or carry a team to a title. He is better compared with Scotty Pippen, not MJ....Kobe like Scotty is a amazingly skilled bit player that needs that true franchise guy to play behind to achieve any level of sucess.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Yeah...maybe if Shaq coming to Phoenix was part of the deal too.

This just in.....skill doesnt win championships.......Kobe doesnt have what it takes to lead a team or carry a team to a title. He is better compared with Scotty Pippen, not MJ....Kobe like Scotty is a amazingly skilled bit player that needs that true franchise guy to play behind to achieve any level of sucess.

So a team that would have: Amare, Shawn Marion, Barbosa, Diaw, Kurt Thomas, Raja Bell and Kobe would not be a contender? ...but Steve Nash with Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Sasha Vujacic, Andrew Bynum, Ronny Turiaf and Luke Walton would? You are sadly mistaken. Just think about what you're saying.

You're right... "skill doesn't win championships" ...Defence wins championships.


The whole argument of Kobe v.s. Michael is always brought up because Kobe is the closest comparison. The attributes and traits of both players are all there. Their game is similar. Kobe will probably not match Michael's championships, MVP titles or accolades, but there are absolutely points that could be thrown out for Kobe, more than any other player. Scottie is not a comparison to Kobe. They're not even the same type of player. Scottie had the skills, but he was a defensive stalwart who learned how to score. Kobe is a scoring machine who became the best defensive player in the league....almost like Michael.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

So a team that would have: Amare, Shawn Marion, Barbosa, Diaw, Kurt Thomas, Raja Bell and Kobe would not be a contender? ...but Steve Nash with Lamar Odom, Smush Parker, Sasha Vujacic, Andrew Bynum, Ronny Turiaf and Luke Walton would? You are sadly mistaken. Just think about what you're saying.

You're right... "skill doesn't win championships" ...Defence wins championships.


The whole argument of Kobe v.s. Michael is always brought up because Kobe is the closest comparison. The attributes and traits of both players are all there. Their game is similar. Kobe will probably not match Michael's championships, MVP titles or accolades, but there are absolutely points that could be thrown out for Kobe, more than any other player. Scottie is not a comparison to Kobe. They're not even the same type of player. Scottie had the skills, but he was a defensive stalwart who learned how to score. Kobe is a scoring machine who became the best defensive player in the league....almost like Michael.

I never made mention of a Lakers team with Nash, just commented on the fact that Kobe doesnt make a team better.

Oh BTW Mr.MVP went an amazing 7 for 26 tonight leading his team to a loss to the GRIZZ......oh yeah he is the best all right.....what a joke. If I was picking players to start a team I would have to get through 5 or 10 guys before Bryants name even crossed my mind. He is a slightly better and slightly less concieted Stephen Starbury....that is all.

Edit: I think I would take every decent big in the NBA before I took Bryant, if I were starting a NBA team and had my druthers.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

I never made mention of a Lakers team with Nash, just commented on the fact that Kobe doesnt make a team better.

Oh BTW Mr.MVP went an amazing 7 for 26 tonight leading his team to a loss to the GRIZZ......oh yeah he is the best all right.....what a joke. If I was picking players to start a team I would have to get through 5 or 10 guys before Bryants name even crossed my mind. He is a slightly better and slightly less concieted Stephen Starbury....that is all.

Before you go back to your stat reading on espn.com and listening to Martine Guillard call the highlights on SportsNet, trying to pretend you actually know anything about basketball, it's Stephon not Stephen. And FYI: No one calls him "Starbury" anymore.

Kobe didn't dominate last night's game as much as he could've. I could see that. I watched the game. I'm sure he'd be willing to admit that. However, if you were actually watching any part of the game, you would've seen that he allowed his teammates a chance to win the game themselves. After all, it was the Grizzlies and the talent level between the two teams is pretty even. Smush was hot in the first half hitting his shots, but went cold in the 2nd. Kobe insisted on getting him the ball to try and boost his confidence throughout the 2nd half and Smush just couldn't get there. Sasha Vujacic was constantly open from the arc, where Kobe would be double-teamed and he'd dish off. Obviously, Sasha isn't Ray Allen so he hit, 3-15 or some ##### like that. Lamar had one field goal all night, but contributed mostly on defense and distributing. The point is: (Which I've been pointing out since the beginning.) The Lakers are the worst team in the league without Kobe. They're basically a sub-.500, NDBL team without Kobe. If you're trying to say that he doesn't improve the scrubs that fill the Lakers' roster, you're obvously not watching the game-perhaps you're watching the wrong player.

Obviously it's both if you really believe that Kobe is "slightly better" than Stephon.

[socalwingfan]

Please don't use last night's game as an indicator on Kobe's game. The Lakers shot 34% last night - Lamar Odom had 3 pts. It was one of those games, Kobe was horrible and was still the Lakers leading scorer.
Using last night's game to illustrate how weak Kobe's game is - is like basing Kiprusoff's play on the Chicago game last weekend.

[kipperfan]

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

Before you go back to your stat reading on espn.com and listening to Martine Guillard call the highlights on SportsNet, trying to pretend you actually know anything about basketball, it's Stephon not Stephen. And FYI: No one calls him "Starbury" anymore.

Thanks bud...I wil make sure to keep on eye on your post history and you sure as hell better not mispell a single name, place or word or else I will be down your throat telling you that you know nothing about whatever it may be that you errored on. And someone does call him Starbury still.....ME. I guess for guys like you it has to be "cool" and if Jim Rome or Charles Barkley or whomever the heck else doesnt use a certain reference anymore you have to drop it....fine, but me personally I think for myself, and if I hear something I like...I will stick with it...thanks for the tip though.

Originally Posted by StrayBullet

After all, it was the Grizzlies and the talent level between the two teams is pretty even.

Very good. Now your getting the point...the talent is very even because like the Lakers, the Grizz dont have a franchise player that can lead the team when they need it most.

[StrayBullet]

Originally Posted by kipperfan

Thanks bud...I wil make sure to keep on eye on your post history and you sure as hell better not mispell a single name, place or word or else I will be down your throat telling you that you know nothing about whatever it may be that you errored on. And someone does call him Starbury still.....ME. I guess for guys like you it has to be "cool" and if Jim Rome or Charles Barkley or whomever the heck else doesnt use a certain reference anymore you have to drop it....fine, but me personally I think for myself, and if I hear something I like...I will stick with it...thanks for the tip though.
Very good. Now your getting the point...the talent is very even because like the Lakers, the Grizz dont have a franchise player that can lead the team when they need it most.

Hey, no sweat. If you wanna stalk my posts, be my guest. If you're that obsessed with things I have to say because you have nothing else to do, you're right, that's your prerogative. The reason you don't call him "Starbury" is because in Minnesota, Kevin Garentt and him were "KG and The Starbury Band"-in reference to KC and The Sunshine Band. That was over 10 years ago. But hey, after all... you think for yourself, right? That's why you believe (with your tunnel vision) that Kobe isn't a great player.
...if you could read, I was referring to the fact that without Kobe, the Lakers and the Grizzlies are evenly matched.The Lakers are probably worse, come to think of it. Kobe gave his teammates the chance to win it on their own by distributing the ball (so selfish of him) and allowing Smush to control the triangle offence with Luke Walton and Andrew Bynum.
I understood the point from the beginning. I was the one who pointed it out. If you want to read my post history, than please(!!!) do so. Read them again. Kobe plays with less-than adequate players and inexperienced youth.
...but hey, you think for yourself. Good luck with that.

[gcycheun]

Kobe is definitely the best player in basketball (just pure skills) but not the greatest team player.