A LOT OF US DO
Jim Jackson picks Kobe over Lebron
- Thread starter SpursFanSinceNovember2017
- Start date
A LOT OF US DO
According to Kevin Durant, Kobe is better: Kevin Durant: Kobe Bryant is 'the greatest of all time,' Kobe and Michael Jordan '1 and 1A'
While D-Wade has Kobe #2 all-time to Jordan's #1 all-time: https://www.axs.com/dwyane-wade-calls-kobe-bryant-the-second-best-player-in-nba-history-15274
NBA players agree with us more than they agree with ya'll.
nikka don't nobody care about these essays you post. We watched the games and we know that Duncan isn't on the same level as Kobe.
Nobody who played against Duncan and Kobe says Duncan is better. Even Dirk who is a PF and guarded Duncan says Kobe is the best of his era. Dirk Nowitzki Considers Kobe Bryant the Best Player of His Generation
Duncan was just a beneficiary of circumstance. He's not on the same level as Kobe. PERIOD. All the NBA players know this.
Loser mentality? 20 years in the league and only led a team to the Finals 3 times
nikka getcho p*ssy ass outta here
Controversy
Superstar
Kobe lived on the perimeter...LBJ lives in the post...do you not expect someone who gets half their points on layups and dunks not to shoot a higher %??
Shooting 45% as a perimeter player is outstanding...Curry is an outlier obviously
Controversy
Superstar
Duncan is a great player, arguably top 10
I'm not sure you watched the games tho
Kobe is 4-2 against Duncan in the playoffs...and Kobe was the best player in the series 4 of those 6x
Kobe used to demoralize Duncan...he's the Spurs killer and that was while he had to face Bowen defending him and then the twin towers providing help defense
Again, Kobe KILLED Duncan...Duncan is an all time great tho
Secondary argument, Duncan's peak was 98-07 or 08...Kobe's peak was 99-13
There's a reason why Kobe made more first team all-nba's...bc he was elite for a longer stretch than Duncan
No one considered Duncan a top 3 player past 07...let alone in this decade...Kobe was
But the credit I will give both of them is that Kobe and Duncan would both have 7 or 8 rings if either was born 10 yrs earlier or later
Not this low-quality posting.
Head-to-head is meaningless when judging two players who don't have hardly anything to do with each other.
Kobe didn't "kill" Duncan, and he didn't guard Duncan. He made shots against whatever scrubs were in the game guarding him.
Since you must have been 14-15 or so when this transpired, let me give you a little education.
1. From 1999-2005 when their teams met five times, the best two players in the game were Shaq and Duncan. They combined for three MVPs and SIX Finals MVPs in that stretch. They were dominant.
2. Shaq and Duncan didn't always guard each other, but they were the two dominant forces in the middle that both teams were centered around. It was always a Shaq vs. Duncan fight.
3. Phil Jackson's defensive strategy was to load up on Duncan, because the Spurs had almost nothing that didn't start with him. In the five years they faced the Lakers, there were ZERO other Spurs in the all-star game. Not one other all-star on the whole team.
4. Pop's strategy was to load up on Shaq and leave a defender on an island against Kobe. The hope was to goad Kobe into shooting 30-40 shots, because every shot Kobe took at 40-45% was one less shot that Shaq got to take at 60%. That's why Kobe has so many ridiculous volume shooting nights against the Spurs - it was the Spurs only chance of winning since they were always outmanned trying to pit Duncan and a bunch of role players against the Shaq/Kobe combo. The most beautiful example of that was 2003, where Kobe took FIFTY-SEVEN more shots than Shaq, straight shooting the Lakers out of the series even though Shaq was averaging 25-14-4-3 on 56% shooting (but only got 17 shots/game) while Duncan didn't have a single guy on his team averaging even 15ppg.
5. Yeah, some years Kobe made the shots, and some years he didn't. But he wasn't the "best player in the series." Kobe was going one-on-one while Duncan and Shaq were constantly double-teamed and schemed around. Even in some of the years he lost (look at 2002) it was clearly Duncan who was the best player on the court, and even when the Lakers won it was still Shaq carrying them as late as 2004. Kobe took way more shots, but far less efficiently and Shaq was much more important on defense.
6. You know why Duncan doesn't have a better head-to-head against Kobe? Because they ONLY played in the years when Duncan didn't have an elite supporting cast. Where was Kobe in 2005? 2006? 2007? 2012? 2013? 2014? If the Lakers had played Duncan's teams any of those six years, they would have gotten washed. But they sucked so bad they didn't even make it there.
That's one of the biggest differences between Duncan's teams and Kobe's teams. Even when Duncan's teams were crap (like 2001 when the #2 was Derek Anderson and only 3 Spurs averaged double figures, or 2007 when Ginobli was hurt and half the top-8 in the rotation were over 35 and ready to retire), the Spurs still made the WCF to face the Lakers. But when Kobe didn't have a massive supporting cast, he dipped out too early to even see the Spurs.
Your head-to-head comparison is a joke. They played in the same era and Duncan led his team to more titles than Kobe. You don't get extra credit for having the greatest center in the game to neutralize your opponent, or for only getting to face him in the years your team is elite.
What kind of nonsensical crap is that? How do you determine those peaks?
1999 Kobe when he didn't even average 20ppg was "peak" Kobe?
You have Kobe failing to get get past the first round FOUR TIMES in his "peak."
Kobe made 11 first-team All-NBAs and Duncan made 10 of them. The difference is ONE. And that's only cause Duncan finished four years of college first - put him in the NBA in 1997 and he probably makes 1st-team All-NBA that year just like he did in 1998 and ends up tied with Kobe.
And once again, they don't face each other. Who was Kobe's biggest competition to make the All-NBA team? Some of those years he just had to beat out an injured Wade or an older Nash. Meanwhile, Duncan was listed at the forward spot where Garnett, McGrady, Lebron, Dirk, and later Durant were ALL fighting for those two first-team slots.
And he still got there ten times.
So you have a personal relationship with Phil?
Dwight Howard
Superstar
was kobe the best player in the majority of playoff games against the spurs or not? thats where the analysis ends.Not this low-quality posting.
Head-to-head is meaningless when judging two players who don't have hardly anything to do with each other.
Kobe didn't "kill" Duncan, and he didn't guard Duncan. He made shots against whatever scrubs were in the game guarding him.
Since you must have been 14-15 or so when this transpired, let me give you a little education.
1. From 1999-2005 when their teams met five times, the best two players in the game were Shaq and Duncan. They combined for three MVPs and SIX Finals MVPs in that stretch. They were dominant.
2. Shaq and Duncan didn't always guard each other, but they were the two dominant forces in the middle that both teams were centered around. It was always a Shaq vs. Duncan fight.
3. Phil Jackson's defensive strategy was to load up on Duncan, because the Spurs had almost nothing that didn't start with him. In the five years they faced the Lakers, there were ZERO other Spurs in the all-star game. Not one other all-star on the whole team.
4. Pop's strategy was to load up on Shaq and leave a defender on an island against Kobe. The hope was to goad Kobe into shooting 30-40 shots, because every shot Kobe took at 40-45% was one less shot that Shaq got to take at 60%. That's why Kobe has so many ridiculous volume shooting nights against the Spurs - it was the Spurs only chance of winning since they were always outmanned trying to pit Duncan and a bunch of role players against the Shaq/Kobe combo. The most beautiful example of that was 2003, where Kobe took FIFTY-SEVEN more shots than Shaq, straight shooting the Lakers out of the series even though Shaq was averaging 25-14-4-3 on 56% shooting (but only got 17 shots/game) while Duncan didn't have a single guy on his team averaging even 15ppg.
5. Yeah, some years Kobe made the shots, and some years he didn't. But he wasn't the "best player in the series." Kobe was going one-on-one while Duncan and Shaq were constantly double-teamed and schemed around. Even in some of the years he lost (look at 2002) it was clearly Duncan who was the best player on the court, and even when the Lakers won it was still Shaq carrying them as late as 2004. Kobe took way more shots, but far less efficiently and Shaq was much more important on defense.
6. You know why Duncan doesn't have a better head-to-head against Kobe? Because they ONLY played in the years when Duncan didn't have an elite supporting cast. Where was Kobe in 2005? 2006? 2007? 2012? 2013? 2014? If the Lakers had played Duncan's teams any of those six years, they would have gotten washed. But they sucked so bad they didn't even make it there.
That's one of the biggest differences between Duncan's teams and Kobe's teams. Even when Duncan's teams were crap (like 2001 when the #2 was Derek Anderson and only 3 Spurs averaged double figures, or 2007 when Ginobli was hurt and half the top-8 in the rotation were over 35 and ready to retire), the Spurs still made the WCF to face the Lakers. But when Kobe didn't have a massive supporting cast, he dipped out too early to even see the Spurs.
Your head-to-head comparison is a joke. They played in the same era and Duncan led his team to more titles than Kobe. You don't get extra credit for having the greatest center in the game to neutralize your opponent, or for only getting to face him in the years your team is elite.
What kind of nonsensical crap is that? How do you determine those peaks?
1999 Kobe when he didn't even average 20ppg was "peak" Kobe?
You have Kobe failing to get get past the first round FOUR TIMES in his "peak."
Kobe made 11 first-team All-NBAs and Duncan made 10 of them. The difference is ONE. And that's only cause Duncan finished four years of college first - put him in the NBA in 1997 and he probably makes 1st-team All-NBA that year just like he did in 1998 and ends up tied with Kobe.
And once again, they don't face each other. Who was Kobe's biggest competition to make the All-NBA team? Some of those years he just had to beat out an injured Wade or an older Nash. Meanwhile, Duncan was listed at the forward spot where Garnett, McGrady, Lebron, Dirk, and later Durant were ALL fighting for those two first-team slots.
And he still got there ten times.
Bilz
Superstar
What you stans don't realize is that your dismissal of Shaqs finals prowess also requires dismissal of anything Kobe did to a team like the Spurs. When Shaq was dominating the finals, its not like Kobe had Duncan level competition at the guard spot.
The Spurs beat teams with consistency and size. Teams like them are the reason people always said you can't win championships as a guard. The Lakers were the only team that had the size to fukk with them. Kobe would have been food if they were able to plan their game around him and not Shaq.
Loser mentality? 20 years in the league and only led a team to the Finals 3 times
nikka getcho p*ssy ass outta here
HOW MANY OF THOSE YEARS WERE WITH CONTENDING TEAMS? HOW MANY OF THOSE YEARS WAS POST ACHILLES TEAR?? DO THE MATH SUCKA
Not this low-quality posting.
Head-to-head is meaningless when judging two players who don't have hardly anything to do with each other.
Kobe didn't "kill" Duncan, and he didn't guard Duncan. He made shots against whatever scrubs were in the game guarding him.
Since you must have been 14-15 or so when this transpired, let me give you a little education.
1. From 1999-2005 when their teams met five times, the best two players in the game were Shaq and Duncan. They combined for three MVPs and SIX Finals MVPs in that stretch. They were dominant.
2. Shaq and Duncan didn't always guard each other, but they were the two dominant forces in the middle that both teams were centered around. It was always a Shaq vs. Duncan fight.
3. Phil Jackson's defensive strategy was to load up on Duncan, because the Spurs had almost nothing that didn't start with him. In the five years they faced the Lakers, there were ZERO other Spurs in the all-star game. Not one other all-star on the whole team.
4. Pop's strategy was to load up on Shaq and leave a defender on an island against Kobe. The hope was to goad Kobe into shooting 30-40 shots, because every shot Kobe took at 40-45% was one less shot that Shaq got to take at 60%. That's why Kobe has so many ridiculous volume shooting nights against the Spurs - it was the Spurs only chance of winning since they were always outmanned trying to pit Duncan and a bunch of role players against the Shaq/Kobe combo. The most beautiful example of that was 2003, where Kobe took FIFTY-SEVEN more shots than Shaq, straight shooting the Lakers out of the series even though Shaq was averaging 25-14-4-3 on 56% shooting (but only got 17 shots/game) while Duncan didn't have a single guy on his team averaging even 15ppg.
5. Yeah, some years Kobe made the shots, and some years he didn't. But he wasn't the "best player in the series." Kobe was going one-on-one while Duncan and Shaq were constantly double-teamed and schemed around. Even in some of the years he lost (look at 2002) it was clearly Duncan who was the best player on the court, and even when the Lakers won it was still Shaq carrying them as late as 2004. Kobe took way more shots, but far less efficiently and Shaq was much more important on defense.
6. You know why Duncan doesn't have a better head-to-head against Kobe? Because they ONLY played in the years when Duncan didn't have an elite supporting cast. Where was Kobe in 2005? 2006? 2007? 2012? 2013? 2014? If the Lakers had played Duncan's teams any of those six years, they would have gotten washed. But they sucked so bad they didn't even make it there.
That's one of the biggest differences between Duncan's teams and Kobe's teams. Even when Duncan's teams were crap (like 2001 when the #2 was Derek Anderson and only 3 Spurs averaged double figures, or 2007 when Ginobli was hurt and half the top-8 in the rotation were over 35 and ready to retire), the Spurs still made the WCF to face the Lakers. But when Kobe didn't have a massive supporting cast, he dipped out too early to even see the Spurs.
Your head-to-head comparison is a joke. They played in the same era and Duncan led his team to more titles than Kobe. You don't get extra credit for having the greatest center in the game to neutralize your opponent, or for only getting to face him in the years your team is elite.
What kind of nonsensical crap is that? How do you determine those peaks?
1999 Kobe when he didn't even average 20ppg was "peak" Kobe?
You have Kobe failing to get get past the first round FOUR TIMES in his "peak."
Kobe made 11 first-team All-NBAs and Duncan made 10 of them. The difference is ONE. And that's only cause Duncan finished four years of college first - put him in the NBA in 1997 and he probably makes 1st-team All-NBA that year just like he did in 1998 and ends up tied with Kobe.
And once again, they don't face each other. Who was Kobe's biggest competition to make the All-NBA team? Some of those years he just had to beat out an injured Wade or an older Nash. Meanwhile, Duncan was listed at the forward spot where Garnett, McGrady, Lebron, Dirk, and later Durant were ALL fighting for those two first-team slots.
And he still got there ten times.
SHUT UP, NERD