iverson or kobe

I thought your post was a poem .

coleman may have dunked on shaq but him, stack, and 'spoon aren't exactly worldbeaters, jae

it took 1 season for the shaq and the heat to get to the eastern conference finals

and that average team iverson lead to the finals, it was indeed average. it was a great defensive unit but pretty damn poor on offense. you could argue that last year's philly team had more talent then that 2001 team

I was just saying that Shaq ans Kobe had harder teams to go up against than AI. I'm not trying to make Iverson's accomplishment smaller.

Like Andrew & Sit said, there were some Eastern teams that had talent in that year. They played Indiana (Miller, a young O'Neal), Raptors (with an awesome Vince Carter, Antonio Davis) and the Bucks (Cassel, Robinson and Allen). Even though the Lakers had to play against harder teams in the West, they still swept all of them, but Philly won one game against them.

So you agree with me that the Lakers had to play harder teams??? That was what I was trying to get across.

Kobe. I think he is one of the best all-around players in the NBA no matter what kobe-hating-bandwagoners might think

So you agree with me that the Lakers had to play harder teams??? That was what I was trying to get across.

In a way, yes. They were great teams. San Antonio, Sacramento and Portland were great teams, but didn't looked like themselves playing against the Lakers.
And it seemed like you were trying to downplay the accomplishment of the Sixers reaching the Finals

Quote:
So you agree with me that the Lakers had to play harder teams??? That was what I was trying to get across.

In a way, yes. They were great teams. San Antonio, Sacramento and Portland were great teams, but didn't looked like themselves playing against the Lakers.
And it seemed like you were trying to downplay the accomplishment of the Sixers reaching the Finals

Nah I wasn't trying to downplay it as such. I was merely stating that you also had to take that into account when saying AI lead them to the finals and Kobe had Shaq so it was a billion times easier.

i would have to say AI because he was able to take a team with basically role players and nothing else to guide them to the finals that one year. he has mainly carried the team himself, even when webber came here, webber wasnt playing like a star, but AI kept us in everything. kobe, however, always had shaq next to him during those championship years, and when shaq left, it showed that he could not lead a team by himself without the diesel. you might take part of that blame on his injury, but nonetheless, the lakers wouldn't have made the playoffs. plus, if im picking a player that is the star of my team, i would want someone unselfish, like iverson, which is proved by his 8 assists per game, then bryant, who is a ball hog, "uncoachable", and a rapist.

coleman may have dunked on shaq but him, stack, and 'spoon aren't exactly worldbeaters, jae

it took 1 season for the shaq and the heat to get to the eastern conference finals

and that average team iverson lead to the finals, it was indeed average. it was a great defensive unit but pretty damn poor on offense. you could argue that last year's philly team had more talent then that 2001 team

Who said they were World beaters? They're not exactly World beaters, but you can't tell me they weren't a decent team Shaq had Wade in Miami, who did Kobe have again apart from the basketballer formerly known as Lamar Odom.

As far as people saying Iverson can "win" on his own... can win what exactly? He has no rings, the closest he's got was 1 game away from being swept by the Lakers... I don't see it.

i would have to say AI because he was able to take a team with basically role players and nothing else to guide them to the finals that one year. he has mainly carried the team himself, even when webber came here, webber wasnt playing like a star, but AI kept us in everything. kobe, however, always had shaq next to him during those championship years, and when shaq left, it showed that he could not lead a team by himself without the diesel. you might take part of that blame on his injury, but nonetheless, the lakers wouldn't have made the playoffs. plus, if im picking a player that is the star of my team, i would want someone unselfish, like iverson, which is proved by his 8 assists per game, then bryant, who is a ball hog, "uncoachable", and a rapist.

First of all, I think your argument has been used three billion one hundred and forty nine thousand, six hundred and seven times in this thread alone.
Second, Kobe seems to be pretty "coachable" this year, doing the right things for the team whlie still scoring a bundle.
Third, what the hell does being a "rapist" have to do with who you would choose based on talent.....

Last edited by Carmo on Mon Nov 14, 2005 1:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bryant, who is a ball hog, "uncoachable", and a rapist.

Wow, not much bias there.

Wasn't your name "cwebbsixers" at one point? Did you find another player to bandwagon?

bryant, who is a ball hog, "uncoachable", and a rapist.

Wow, not much bias there.

Wasn't your name "cwebbsixers" at one point? Did you find another player to bandwagon?

ok ill admit it, i am sort of biased here. and kobe being a "rapist" does have nothing to do with this.
my name was "aisixers3" when I came here and I changed it to get rid of the number on the end.

of course I am biased here on this decision. any laker fan would pick kobe too, regardless of who was better. i do think, however, that iverson is a better leader and more unselfish then bryant.

Kobe by a rather large margin.

coleman may have dunked on shaq but him, stack, and 'spoon aren't exactly worldbeaters, jae

it took 1 season for the shaq and the heat to get to the eastern conference finals

and that average team iverson lead to the finals, it was indeed average. it was a great defensive unit but pretty damn poor on offense. you could argue that last year's philly team had more talent then that 2001 team

Who said they were World beaters? They're not exactly World beaters, but you can't tell me they weren't a decent team Shaq had Wade in Miami, who did Kobe have again apart from the basketballer formerly known as Lamar Odom.

As far as people saying Iverson can "win" on his own... can win what exactly? He has no rings, the closest he's got was 1 game away from being swept by the Lakers... I don't see it.

i'd say that was an above average team that overachieved. many of those players had career years

That average NBA team was custom built around Iverson for seasons previous to that. I don't think it's even remotely fair to say "Well Iverson can win on his own so he's better" at this point because Kobe hasn't really had the chance to develop on his own with a set of teammates that are suited to him specifically.

It doesn't matter whether the players fit him or not, they were average and the team expected Iverson to lead them and he did. It wasn't too strange to me that they lost 4-1 to the Lakers, but the only reason for this was Shaq. Superman Mutombo was defending him, but after he had 6 fouls (about every game) or had to rest, Matt fucking Geiger came in.

You can say Iverson has been in a better situation for him individually to prove he's that good, but that's exactly why I gave him the nod over Kobe. Iverson's got the chance to prove himself and he did, Kobe still has to prove himself a winner.

It took Iverson 3 years before he even made the play-offs, Kobe's had what, 1 season?

If Shaq can be involved to prove points here, I'll call on Kevin Garnett to prove a point about good players and playoffs..

You can say Iverson has been in a better situation for him individually to prove he's that good, but that's exactly why I gave him the nod over Kobe. Iverson's got the chance to prove himself and he did, Kobe still has to prove himself a winner.

Isn't that a contradiction? Iverson got the chance to prove himself and he did, Kobe hasn't proven himself because he hasn't had the chance. I don't call one season, with a bunch of new teammates and two new coaches a "chance".

If Shaq can be involved to prove points here, I'll call on Kevin Garnett to prove a point about good players and playoffs..

How does that prove a point? Garnett's won just as many championships as Iverson. Funnily enough, Garnett's also made the play-offs more times than Iverson. I'm assuming that's not what you meant, but an interesting stat nonetheless.

The argument that people would take Iverson over Kobe because he's a proven "winner" on his own is complete garbage... for starters he hasn't won anything, and secondly Kobe's had Shaq his entire career. It's not like we're taking two players who have been "the man" their entire NBA careers and comparing their team achievements. We're taking Iverson, who's been "the man" since the day he was drafted and Kobe a guy who was drafted onto a team with quality players and one superstar. As I said, give Kobe three years or so and then the argument may or may not work.

The argument that people would take Iverson over Kobe because he's a proven "winner" on his own is complete garbage...

How is that garbage? Isn't that what people rate good NBA players on? It seems to me that you do too..

for starters he hasn't won anything, and secondly Kobe's had Shaq his entire career. It's not like we're taking two players who have been "the man" their entire NBA careers and comparing their team achievements.

OK, let's not compare team achievements then, you're only proving my point more.
How can you say Iverson hasn't won anything? How about ROY and MVP, maybe some other stuff that I might forget, while the best individual award Kobe has won is probably ASG MVP or All-NBA First Team (which Iverson also has won multiple times).
And that's certainly not comparing team achievements..

Oh and nice explanation of my KG point. What I meant to say (and I think you understood that) was that Garnett, a future hall-of-famer had problems making/winning in the playoffs as well.
It took Iverson 3 years, but that's because he needed time to develop while his team almost only got worse.
The Lakers went to the playoffs in Kobe's second season, but when did they get Shaq again..

Kobe might prove himself a winner and a good leader in the next couple of seasons, but that hasn't happened yet. So right now Iverson > Kobe.
Otherwise it's like saying Lebron > Jordan because someone expects him to have achieved more at the end of his career.

I'll try and clarify myself better so you don't overload on those confused looking smileys.

How is that garbage? Isn't that what people rate good NBA players on? It seems to me that you do too.

How? For whatever reason you've taken the term "winner" to mean winning individual awards... individual awards voted on by the media which are virtually irrelevant. PJ Brown 1 MVP vote? Please.

By winner I mean team success... and once again, play-off appearances and 1 finals appearance doesn't really make someone a "winner". Iverson will more than likely retire without a single championship, but of course he's small and scores alot so he's a God to some people. Not to discredit him, he's become one of my favourite players, but I don't buy the "he's a winner" argument.

How can you say Iverson hasn't won anything? How about ROY and MVP, maybe some other stuff that I might forget, while the best individual award Kobe has won is probably ASG MVP or All-NBA First Team (which Iverson also has won multiple times).

Covered that in my first paragraph. It can be discredited other ways however, since as has been stated a million times Iverson's been "the man" on his team for his entire career... I would've thought someone who's got virtually no other offensive options would be inclined to win alot of individual awards. The fact that Kobe's been ASG MVP, All-NBA First Team or whatever while playing with the most dominant big man of our generation is just further proof of his superiority.

Edit: Before the "Well (player) scores alot why hasn't he won the MVP" thing pops up, the point is that basically the best player on a team is more likely to win individual awards. Just because various "best players" might not have, doesn't mean it isn't true. Plus, Iverson would probably be better than (player).

Of course Iverson might've been able to succeed as much as Kobe had he been paired with Shaq, but we'll never know.

Oh and nice explanation of my KG point. What I meant to say (and I think you understood that) was that Garnett, a future hall-of-famer had problems making/winning in the playoffs as well.

I knew what I said wasn't the point you were making, but I didn't actually know what you meant. He's hardly had problems making the play-offs, he's made the play-offs in 8 of his 10 years in the league. Winning them is another thing, but hey, basketball is a team game

So right now Iverson > Kobe.

I get your point, but what are you judging that based on exactly? Individual statistics aren't really far apart, and you have to make allowances for the whole Shaq thing... same goes for pointless individual awards. Iverson has achieved more as "the man", I won't doubt that for a second... and at this point in time he's probably more capable of being "the man" than Kobe is for obvious reasons.

Otherwise it's like saying Lebron > Jordan because someone expects him to have achieved more at the end of his career.

Well no, it's not like that at all. We're comparing two players who've had entirely different career paths, and the biggest argument seems to be that Iverson is superior because he's won on his own, which is ridiculous because Kobe hasn't even had the chance. I don't expect Kobe to have achieved more than Iverson by the time his career is up, and from an objective point of view I'd be surprised to see the Lakers make the play-offs this season or next... but really, based on the arguments put forward the comparison is unfair.

Anyways for whatever reason, this is quite fun lol.

I'll try and clarify myself better so you don't overload on those confused looking smileys.

Well you're still confusing me, you switch from individual feats/stats being important to individual feats/stats saying nothing..
"Iverson or Kobe" means it's about individual achievements IMO.

Anyways for whatever reason, this is quite fun lol.

Yeah, I was thinking so too, but it's kind of tiring responding to every word we both say because we're both not giving in..
Maybe we should you stop it right here and accept having different opinions (if you think I'm surrendering, just tell me and I'll make another 1000+ character post ).

I liked responding to someones elses posts the Jackal way for once though.

Lol you've worn out the quote button. I'll take the differing opinions thing, I'd just be making the same posts over and over again anyway. Plus we all know LeBron will be better than both of them when all's said and done