Draft to be your franchise player , Duncan, Kobe, or Shaq?

[Poitier]

Yeah he was fired as a GM. Phil has never been fired as a HC. It's insane that you're trying diminish his legacy to prop up your boy. If Kobe was really as good as you think we wouldn't even be talking about the HC's

If Duncan were as good as you claim then the Spurs would be a bottom feeder team since his retirement....oh wait

 

[Here Comes the Pain]

Kobe because he's a proven winner & box office attraction.

Shaq as a close second for the same reasons.

Duncan as an option

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Duncan had more seasons as the team leader to get more rings.

Kobe won damn near the same amount of rings with significantly less years as the guy.

And Pippen won even more rings with even fewer years as "the guy!"

Some of ya'alls struggle arguments got me now. You seriously giving Kobe extra credit for not being the best player on his own team?

 

[VBM]

The Spurs were just as good as ever last year without Duncan winning 60 games once again. Now they're undefeated without Kawhi (the new scrub they've been promoted as a superstar).

When will you idiots learn Duncan was nothing more than a product of a system.

Kobe is the right answer here. Shaq is too immature to be the sole leader of a franchise.

Lakers were 17-65 in Kobe's last year. They were 26-56 the following year.

Compare that with the Spurs winning 6 fewer games after Duncan retired.

 

[Poitier]

And Pippen won even more rings with even fewer years as "the guy!"

what year was this

 

[BigTyme Records]

Kobe because he's a proven winner & box office attraction.

Shaq as a close second for the same reasons.

Duncan as an option

Not saying your choice right or wrong bro but Duncan has the same amount of chips as Kobe, while having more MVPs and finals MVPs than him my G

 

[Godless Socialist CEO]

If Duncan were as good as you claim then the Spurs would be a bottom feeder team since his retirement....oh wait

This is a stupid fukking way of looking at things. But nothing you're saying makes any damn sense anyway so I'm not sure what I expected

 

[Poitier]

This is a stupid fukking way of looking at things. But nothing your saying makes any damn sense anyway so I'm not sure what I expected

I'll read is a Duncan fan tapping out because he has no rebuttal

 

[King Musa]

Duncan.

 

[Here Comes the Pain]

Not saying your choice right or wrong bro but Duncan has the same amount of chips as Kobe, while having more MVPs and finals MVPs than him my G

Tim Duncan also had a system that he was in for 100% of his career.

I honestly think Tim Duncan is a lame.

Kobe have a superstar aura that attracts fans from all around the world.

 

[Swagnificent]

Not saying your choice right or wrong bro but Duncan has the same amount of chips as Kobe, while having more MVPs and finals MVPs than him my G

Duncan was a product of a system. The Spurs are humming along just fine without him or Kawhi right now. Last year they were just fine without him.

Spurs success is product of the system not the players.

Put Duncan on any other team and he doesn't come close to 5 rings.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

what did Duncan's 50 win teams do and what did kobe's 50 win teams do?

Duncan's 50-win teams won five titles with Duncan as the leader. Kobe's 50-win teams won two titles with Kobe as the leader.

The fact that Duncan had far MORE fifty win teams than Kobe is a good thing for him, not a bad thing.

This is like the stepchild of the "Finals record!" argument.

droughts like 05-07 and then at the end and still got the same as Duncan, years before.
my point is Kobe on a contender is a more sure thing than Duncan.

lol @ including bench riding, Achilles injury, and 2012 seasons as stacked teams.

* The fact that Kobe had drought is a BAD thing on Kobe's record, not a good thing. How do you not realize that?

* The fact that Kobe rode the bench on stacked teams is a BAD thing on Kobe's record, not a good thing.

* When Kobe hurt his Achilles his team was an 8-seed in danger of falling to a 9-seed. He wasn't winning a damn title that year.

* If your team has 3 All-NBA level players with 3 other competent vets to fill it out at every position, then sorry, you are stacked.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

what year was this

What do you mean "what year was this", we're talking about their whole careers.

 

[Donald Trumps Twitter]

This is a stupid fukking way of looking at things. But nothing you're saying makes any damn sense anyway so I'm not sure what I expected

I dont take MVP voting serious. I mean steve nash won back to back MVP’s


Yet nobody considers him a top 10 PG all-time

 

[Chris Cool]

Duncan's 50-win teams won five titles with Duncan as the leader. Kobe's 50-win teams won two titles with Kobe as the leader.

The fact that Duncan had far MORE fifty win teams than Kobe is a good thing for him, not a bad thing.

This is like the retarded stepchild of the "Finals record!" argument.





* The fact that Kobe had drought is a BAD thing on Kobe's record, not a good thing. How do you not realize that?

* The fact that Kobe rode the bench on stacked teams is a BAD thing on Kobe's record, not a good thing.

* When Kobe hurt his Achilles his team was an 8-seed in danger of falling to a 9-seed. He wasn't winning a damn title that year.

* If your team has 3 All-NBA level players with 3 other competent vets to fill it out at every position, then sorry, you are stacked.

I'm talking kobe's drought in the context of this thread. you know if you give him a good enough team it's prolly finals, so why would i put him in those drought situations?

lol @Duncan having 5 titles as a leader. that 50 win shyt is cool on the surface, but who gives a fukk if you getting knocked out by 8th seeds and shyt like that.

*Lakers were the 7th seed and had best record post allstar when he injured his Achilles. it's not like Kobe ain't made a career of sonning the spurs or anything. oh wait .


also where are these 3 all nba player Laker teams at?