Kobe Bryant >

[LamarOdom]

Kobe Bean Bryant has won more ships' then, wait lemme just catch my breath....


Indiana Pacers, Cavs, Jazz, Suns, Magics, Nets, Kings, Shaq, Bucks, Mavs, Trailblazers, Thunders, Hawks, Wizards, Heat, Rockets, Knicks, Warriors, Pistons, Sixers, Spurs.

He has also won more rings then these teams combined.

[KG215]

GOAT.

Undisputed.

F*** the haters.

It's time to rename Inside Hoops to Inside Kobe.

[rodman91]

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7809/5f8d5da0ba501bf54fa7.gif

[hihellohi765]

Thunder, not Thunders dumbass.

[swag2011]

Only a legend.:bowdown: He's gunna tie the bulls franchise this year:cheers:

[COnDEMnED]

http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/7809/5f8d5da0ba501bf54fa7.gif
this site has some of the most funny gifs I have ever seen. thanks for this :)

[rodman91]

Only a legend.:bowdown: He's gunna tie the bulls franchise this year:cheers:

I bet he can't even tie his shoes without a HOF big men. :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

[QUOTE=LamarOdom]Kobe Bean Bryant has won more ships' then, wait lemme just catch my breath....


Indiana Pacers, Cavs, Jazz, Suns, Magics, Nets, Kings, Shaq, Bucks, Mavs, Trailblazers, Thunders, Hawks, Wizards, Heat, Rockets, Knicks, Warriors, Pistons, Sixers, Spurs.

[B]He has also won more rings then these teams combined.

[DixieNourmous]

In b4 the haters go nuts


This is gonna be good

http://gifsoup.com/view/222993/tabby-sexy-o.gif

[KG215]

That's a great idea!

oh almost forgot, umad?
Why not? There's so many posters so far up Kobe's ass already, why not dedicate the entire forum to his greatness?

[swag2011]

I bet he can't even tie his shoes without a HOF big men. :oldlol:
Lol thats probably true, just like those HOF big men not winning anything till he came along but hey thats what bean does. Turn non winning big men into champions and Hall of Famers.

Once again,only a legend:bowdown:

[KG215]

Lol thats probably true, just like those HOF big men not winning anything till he came along but hey thats what bean does. Turn non winning big men into champions and Hall of Famers.

:oldlol:

It's funny, because you actually think it's true. I think you actually believe Kobe turned Shaq into a winner.

[ooohhh2]

this site has some of the most funny gifs I have ever seen. thanks for this :)

This.
I love ISH because it never ceases to crack me up. The only site which can make me laugh real hard.

And yeah, Kobe is king. I'm sure he can still kill anyone 1 on 1.

[kobeef24]

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/e/e1/Eating_poop.gif

[blablabla]

God of Basket-Ball
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY9HjNWbJvA

[Legends66NBA7]

this site has some of the most funny gifs I have ever seen. thanks for this :)

This is the full "action" scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9H6GHNFsXI

For more lol's.

[RRR3]

I ****ing hate Kobe Bryant. There I said it. Come at me bros.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

I ****ing hate Kobe Bryant. There I said it. Come at me bros.

I despise Lebron James. I'm sure you knew that already.

Wsupden?!

[RRR3]

I despise Lebron James. I'm sure you knew that already.

Wsupden?!
You have him ranked correctly, so don't care :banana:

[Legends66NBA7]

I despise Lebron James. I'm sure you knew that already.

Wsupden?!

Well, do be fair, you despise both, right ?

:cheers:

[blablabla]

I ****ing hate Kobe Bryant. There I said it. Come at me bros.
Lord Kobe forgives you, he loves all his children even lost souls like you.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Well, do be fair, you despise both, right ?

:cheers:

TBH, I just think Kobe is overrated by his apostles. I don't mind his personality. He actually comes across as a chill dude.

[Heavincent]

Will be top 5 all time by the time he retires.

[takai]

Lord Kobe forgives you, he loves all his children even lost souls like you.
:applause:

[Legends66NBA7]

TBH, I just think Kobe is overrated by his apostles. I don't mind his personality. He actually comes across as a chill dude.

True.

I feel most great athletes get overrated in general and Kobe's fanbase is no different (well, some are just horrible)... and I agree, his personality isn't that bothering either. He does say some outrageous things at times, but then again, so do many other players. He actually is pretty well spoken the number interviews I've seen of his.

[NumberSix]

Will be top 5 all time by the time he retires.
LeBron has a better chance of being top 5 by the time Kobe retires than Kobe does.

[Heavincent]

LeBron has a better chance of being top 5 by the time Kobe retires than Kobe does.

NumberSix.

[swag2011]

:oldlol:

It's funny, because you actually think it's true. I think you actually believe Kobe turned Shaq into a winner.

Hmmm... Still hating i see....

Shaq before kobe..... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq before kobe became a starter.... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq once kobe became a starter... 3 peat, 3fmvp, 1mvp
Shaq after kobe........ 1 ring

(now go head and write your typical crybaby thesis on how kobe becoming a starter had no effect on shaq winning.....):oldlol:

Gasol before kobe.... No playoff wins, no rings, 1 time all star
Gasol paired up with kobe... 2 rings, multiple all star, finals appearances

Odom before kobe.......:confusedshrug: All rookie 1st team lol
Odom paired with kobe.... 2 rings, 6th man of the year

Dwight before kobe... 3x dpoy:applause:
Dwight paired with kobe... His Best chance to win rings thus far


Now can you dispute any of what i said, or did i just give you straight facts? Kobe's a legend and while i know umad, you just gotta deal with it:confusedshrug:

[White Mamba]

Hmmm... Still hating i see....

Shaq before kobe..... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq before kobe became a starter.... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq once kobe became a starter... 3 peat, 3fmvp, 1mvp
Shaq after kobe........ 1 ring

(now go head and write your typical crybaby thesis on how kobe becoming a starter had no effect on shaq winning.....):oldlol:

Gasol before kobe.... No playoff wins, no rings, 1 time all star
Gasol paired up with kobe... 2 rings, multiple all star, finals appearances

Odom before kobe.......:confusedshrug: All rookie 1st team lol
Odom paired with kobe.... 2 rings, 6th man of the year

Dwight before kobe... 3x dpoy:applause:
Dwight paired with kobe... His Best chance to win rings thus far


Now can you dispute any of what i said, or did i just give you straight facts? Kobe's a legend and while i know umad, you just gotta deal with it:confusedshrug:

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[KG215]

Hmmm... Still hating i see....

Shaq before kobe..... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq before kobe became a starter.... No rings, no mvp, no fmvp
Shaq once kobe became a starter... 3 peat, 3fmvp, 1mvp
Shaq after kobe........ 1 ring


(now go head and write your typical crybaby thesis on how kobe becoming a starter had no effect on shaq winning.....):oldlol:

You mean the part where I put stuff into context and use logic? That "crybaby thesis"?

But yes, it's really that simple. Shaq was a loser until Kobe came along and turned him into a winner. Shaq had no impact on Kobe becoming a winner. You're easily one of the most ignorant Kobe stans on here.

I didn't even mention Gasol, because obviously Kobe, I guess, "turned him into a winner." Obviously Kobe was the best player on those teams. Goasol never had a teammate anywhere close to Kobe's level. He was on some good teams but they weren't ever legit championship contenders. I've never tried to say Gasol was the main reason for those championships and I've said, numerous times, how great Kobe was during that three year stretch from 2008-2010.

And of course Dwight's best chance to win a ring is on this Lakers team. His second best player in his Magic years was either Hedo Turkoglu or, on occasion, Jameer Nelson. If the Lakers win, Kobe very well may be the main reason, but if/when Dwight gets back to being 100%, though, he'll play a large part as well.


I'll stop trying to actually put things into context and use some logic, though, because I don't want to sound like a crybaby. I've never denied how vital, important, and how good Kobe was on any of his championship teams, but this "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" nonsense has gone way too far with some Kobe stans.


:applause: :applause: :applause:
And then more Kobe stans come out of the woodwork and applaud you and agree with you, which makes it even more sad.

[poido123]

Will be top 5 all time by the time he retires.

Top 5 on achievements and longevity. No way Bryant is better than guys like Bird, Shaq, and Hakeem. He is questionable for top 10 as well.

Better than Jordan? no. Better than Wilt? no. Better than Russell? no. better than Kareem? no. better than Larry? no. better than magic? no. Better than Shaq? no. better than Hakeem? No. better than duncan? maybe. better than Oscar? maybe. Better than Jerry West? maybe.

Kobe is a really good player, but I find it hard to accept that he is considered one of the top 5 or 10 greats, there were some damn good players who are in that top 10 list

[Legends66NBA7]

[QUOTE]He has also won more rings then these teams combined.

[tpols]

You mean the part where I put stuff into context and use logic? That "crybaby thesis"?

But yes, it's really that simple. Shaq was a loser until Kobe came along and turned him into a winner. Shaq had no impact on Kobe becoming a winner. You're easily one of the most ignorant Kobe stans on here.

I didn't even mention Gasol, because obviously Kobe, I guess, "turned him into a winner." Obviously Kobe was the best player on those teams. He never had a teammate anywhere close to Kobe's level. He was on some good teams but they weren't ever leit championship contenders.

And of course Dwight's best chance to win a ring is on this Lakers team. His second best player in his Magic years was either Hedo Turkoglu or, on occasion, Jameer Nelson. If the Lakers win, Kobe very well may be the main reason, but if/when Dwight gets back to being 100%, though, he'll play a large part as well.


I'll stop trying to actually put things into context and use some logic, though, because I don't want to sound like a crybaby. I've never denied how vital, important, and how good Kobe was on any of his championship teams, but this "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" nonsense has gone way too far with some Kobe stans.


And then more Kobe stans come out of the woodwork and applaud you and agree with you, which makes it even more sad.
Kobe has had more success outside of Shaq than Shaq has had outside of Kobe.

Kobe turned a team of Gasol, Odom, and straight scrubs into 3 finals appearances and 2 rings. Dont get me wrong, Gasol and Odom were very high impact players but if you compare them as big men to the perimeter counterparts Shaq played with?

Prime Penny who was tmac before tmac..
Prime/peak Wade..
and then a slew of great teams in his old age..

its a joke.

Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are not on Dwayne fvcking Wade or Penny Hardaway's level. Not in any way shape or form.

Part of it is Shaqs terrible attitude and leadership stemming from his ego which everyone knows is huge. Hes selfish as fvck. We can see it on TNT right now. Shaq has a terrible personality and it was all about him everywhere he went. Kobe's a better player, leader, and winner. Hell take you farther despite a massive gap in talent.

[Heavincent]

Kobe has had more success outside of Shaq than Shaq has had outside of Kobe.

Kobe turned a team of Gasol, Odom, and straight scrubs into 3 finals appearances and 2 rings. Dont get me wrong, Gasol and Odom were very high impact players but if you compare them as big men to the perimeter counterparts Shaq played with?

Prime Penny who was tmac before tmac..
Prime/peak Wade..
and then a slew of great teams in his old age..

its a joke.

Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are not on Dwayne fvcking Wade or Penny Hardaway's level. Not in any way shape or form.

Part of it is Shaqs terrible attitude and leadership stemming from his ego which everyone knows is huge. Hes selfish as fvck. We can see it on TNT right now. Kobe's a better player, leader, and winner. Hell take you farther despite a massive gap in talent.

A lot of this is true actually. I have Shaq above Kobe on my list, but only because Shaq's talent/athleticism was simply too good. He's probably the most physically gifted player of all time, maybe in any sport. But Kobe has a better mindset and work ethic. Kobe is right up there with Shaq on the all time list despite having far less physical gifts.

[Legends66NBA7]

I wrote those teams twice, maybe that's a hint..

Yeah, I got the hint. It's another way to prop up Kobe.

Anyways, Bill Russell >>> all teams except the Lakers if were doing basic ring counting.

[Legends66NBA7]

A lot of this is true actually. I have Shaq above Kobe on my list, but only because Shaq's talent/athleticism was simply too good. He's probably the most physically gifted player of all time, maybe in any sport. But Kobe has a better mindset and work ethic. Kobe is right up there with Shaq on the all time list despite having far less physical gifts.

Do you have Shaq Top 5 all-time ?

[Heavincent]

Do you have Shaq Top 5 all-time ?

Probably #5 or 6.

[pauk]

http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/kobe-youre-welcome.gif

[KyrieTheFuture]

Bill Russell is better than Kobe.

[SwayDizzle]

Lol thats probably true, just like those HOF big men not winning anything till he came along but hey thats what bean does. Turn non winning big men into champions and Hall of Famers.

Once again,only a legend:bowdown:
:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[SwayDizzle]

Kobe owns Hakeem all time, not even close

[poido123]

Kobe owns Hakeem all time, not even close

KObe has a better resume, not the better player out of the two. Did you watch Hakeem play? or were you too young

[ihoopallday]

Robert Horry > Kobe, Jordan, Bird, LeBron, Magic...........

[SwayDizzle]

KObe has a better resume, not the better player out of the two. Did you watch Hakeem play? or were you too young
kobe is most def the better player, and yes I saw the dream play

[KG215]

Kobe has had more success outside of Shaq than Shaq has had outside of Kobe.
Shaq, without Kobe, made a Finals at 22 years old, made the WCF in 1998 with Kobe putting up 9-2-1 (not because he wasn't talented, but because he was 19 years old and "not ready" yet), the ECF where they lost in 7 games to the defending champs, and won a championship.

So yes, technically Kobe had more success without Shaq than the other way around because he won two rings to Shaq's one. It also doesn't hurt that Shaq peaked during the Lakers 3-peat and was clearly on the downswing of his career by the time the left LA, while Kobe was just entering his prime and hadn't even peaked, yet.

But yes, it's that simple. Kobe had more success without Shaq than Shaq had without Kobe. No need to use any kind of logic or context, because clearly that simple statement tells the whole story.


Kobe turned a team of Gasol, Odom, and straight scrubs into 3 finals appearances and 2 rings. Dont get me wrong, Gasol and Odom were very high impact players but if you compare them as big men to the perimeter counterparts Shaq played with?
Look at the other contenders in the league in 2009 and 2010 and tell me those teams top three players were as good as Kobe, Gasol, and Odom with a straight face. Yes, historically speaking those Lakers teams were weaker than other championship teams, which I guess can be used to prop Kobe up and make him out to be some sort of God who carried mediocre teams to a championship. But prime Kobe Bryant (top 7-10 player all-time), prime Pau Gasol, and Lamar Odom was enough to be a championship contender in 2009 and 2010 because none of the other championship contenders (other than a healthy Celtics team) had a top three that good. Maybe their 4-9 guys were better, but Kobe and Gasol were far and away the best 1-2 in the league.


Prime Penny who was tmac before tmac..
Shaq played three seasons with Penny. 1993-1994 was Penny's rookie season and Shaq was 21 years old. 1994-1995 was Penny's second season (he was 23), and he and a 22 year old Shaq got to the NBA Finals. Talent wise, athleticism wise, etc. Shaq might have been as good then as he was during the Lakers 3-peat, but he wasn't close to being the same well-rounded player he would become from 1999-2002.

Now, had Shaq stayed with Penny for another 5-7 years and they never won a championship, fine, bash him all you want. But he played three seasons with Penny when both were in their early 20s and the first 3-4 years of their career.



Prime/peak Wade..
And won a ring with him when he was 33 and clearly already on the decline. The year before that the Heat had the best record in the East and lost in the ECF to the defending champs in 7 games. Oh, and he didn't have Wade in Miami's game six loss.


and then a slew of great teams in his old age..
What other great teams are you speaking of? You mean the Cavs in 2010 when he was 37 years old? Sure, a younger closer to his prime Shaq should be criticized if he doesn't win a championship with that team, but not 37 year old 18th season Shaq.

Or maybe you mean the old ass broken down Celtics in 2011 when Shaq was 38 and in his 19th season?

Are those the "slew of great teams he was a part of later in his career"?


Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom are not on Dwayne fvcking Wade or Penny Hardaway's level. Not in any way shape or form.
Who's saying they were? Gasol was still the best second banana in the NBA in 2009 and 2010. Look at the other contenders other than the Celtics and tell me which team had a better #2 player than Gasol. The Celtics were the only ones, but they beat the Lakers in 2008, weren't healthy in 2009 and took the Lakers seven games in 2010.

[poido123]

kobe is most def the better player, and yes I saw the dream play

So you would know that hakeem was the only player in history to win the regular season MVP, Defensive player of the Year and Finals MVP award in the same year.

His best season had averages of 24 points, 14 rebounds, 3 assists, 2.1 steals, and 4.6 blocks. The steals and blocks alone are crazy.

He led a team of near nobodys to a championship, something Kobe hasn't and wouldn't be able to do.

Hakeem was a better player than Kobe, Kobe just has the better resume, through longevity and plenty of help.

[KG215]

kobe is most def the better player, and yes I saw the dream play
Resume wise, sure. Talent wise, no. Peak Hakeem >>>> peak Kobe. Prime/peak Hakeem was scary talented and could dominate games on both ends of the floor to an extent no guard could, because they can't impact a game defensively to the same degree as a center; especially one as dominant as Hakeem who was, in my opinion, one of the three best defensive anchors of all-time in his prime. Only two I'd take ahead of him in that regard are Bill Russell and Wilt.

And for what it's worth, I go back-and-forth between having Hakeem at #8 or Kobe at #8 on my all-time list. But talent wise, I think Hakeem is better than Kobe.

[Heavincent]

Peak Hakeem >>>> peak Kobe.

The gap is not that big.

[KG215]

The gap is not that big.
Well, I personally think Hakeem's peak is top 5 all-time and Kobe's isn't even top 10 (peak only, not career), so it's a decent sized gap in my opinion.

I will say this about Kobe. It's gotten to the point of his career where you have to start asking things like, "would you rather have 17+ seasons of Kobe where he's elite for 14+ seasons than 10ish years of Larry Bird?" (he wasn't elite the first 3-4 seasons of his career, 2000 was the first season he was close and he was still a borderline top 10 player). Because it's gotten to the point where he's been so incredibly great for so long, you have to at least entertain the thought.

[swag2011]

You mean the part where I put stuff into context and use logic? That "crybaby thesis"?

But yes, it's really that simple. Shaq was a loser until Kobe came along and turned him into a winner. Shaq had no impact on Kobe becoming a winner. You're easily one of the most ignorant Kobe stans on here.

I didn't even mention Gasol, because obviously Kobe, I guess, "turned him into a winner." Obviously Kobe was the best player on those teams. Goasol never had a teammate anywhere close to Kobe's level. He was on some good teams but they weren't ever legit championship contenders. I've never tried to say Gasol was the main reason for those championships and I've said, numerous times, how great Kobe was during that three year stretch from 2008-2010.

And of course Dwight's best chance to win a ring is on this Lakers team. His second best player in his Magic years was either Hedo Turkoglu or, on occasion, Jameer Nelson. If the Lakers win, Kobe very well may be the main reason, but if/when Dwight gets back to being 100%, though, he'll play a large part as well.


I'll stop trying to actually put things into context and use some logic, though, because I don't want to sound like a crybaby. I've never denied how vital, important, and how good Kobe was on any of his championship teams, but this "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" nonsense has gone way too far with some Kobe stans.


And then more Kobe stans come out of the woodwork and applaud you and agree with you, which makes it even more sad.

You said all of that, YET STILL didn't dispute any of what i said did you? I don't think i lied or exaggerated what happened did I? I mean correct me if i'm wrong, did Shaq win a ring, FMVP, or MVP until Kobe became a starter? Yes or no? Did he win a finals game before Kobe became a starter? Yes or No? So since Kobe becomes a starter, Lakers start winning rings, don't you think Kobe has something to do with it? Clearly they weren't winning when he wasn't a starter so he obviously had something to do with it right? :confusedshrug:

Of course Shaq was option number 1 and all that other stuff, but look at it from a Kobe fan perspective. ALL Kobe haters talk about how he can't win without a big man and all that sh*t. And all we say is how none of these big men won anything of significance until being paired up with Kobe. Is that a fact or not? Correct me if i'm wrong.


All you do is give nothing but excuses for Shaq. One he was too young to win with Penny, nevermind the fact that he made the finals. Then it's he was declining after winning with Wade so that's why he wasn't more successful without Kobe than Kobe was without him. When in fact he was 33 once he won with Wade, and Kobe's 34 now and still going strong. Pretty sure you won't make the "Declining" excuse for Kobe if he doesn't win it all this year with Dwight and crew now will you? :rolleyes: Yet if he wins, it's all because the team is stacked blah blah blah, typical kobe hater responses.

Where are those stacked responses for Shaq's Lakers teams? Since he can do no wrong and he clearly won those 3 rings solo. You sit up and say look at the league in 09/10 and no one had a better 1, 2 punch than Kobe and Gasol, but how many teams in the early 00s had a better 1,2 punch than Shaq and Kobe?

[KG215]

You said all of that, YET STILL didn't dispute any of what i said did you? I don't think i lied or exaggerated what happened did I? I mean correct me if i'm wrong, did Shaq win a ring, FMVP, or MVP until Kobe became a starter? Yes or no? Did he win a finals game before Kobe became a starter? Yes or No?
I've put everything into context for you I don't know how many times on this thread and other threads. I'm not going into it anymore. You ride Kobe's d*** as hard as anyone on here, so it's pointless.

So yes, the black-and-white "truth" is that Shaq didn't win until Kobe came along. If you want to ignore absolutely everything else (circumstances, eras, etc.) that's on you. No logical person would do that, but apparently that's what you want to do, so fine. I'm not trying to dispute Kobe's role and how vital he was to those 3-peat Lakers team. But to simplify it down to "Shaq didn't or couldn't win until Kobe became a starter for the Lakers" is about as ignorant as it gets.


So since Kobe becomes a starter, Lakers start winning rings, don't you think Kobe has something to do with it? Clearly they weren't winning when he wasn't a starter so he obviously had something to do with it right? :confusedshrug:
I never said he didn't have anything to do with it. In fact, I've made a point of noting how vital Kobe was to those teams, and how good he was - he was really freaking good. Apparently you're either not reading that or just ignoring it.


Of course Shaq was option number 1 and all that other stuff, but look at it from a Kobe fan perspective. ALL Kobe haters talk about how he can't win without a big man and all that sh*t. And all we say is how none of these big men won anything of significance until being paired up with Kobe. Is that a fact or not? Correct me if i'm wrong.
It is a fact, on the surface. None of Shaq, Gasol, and maybe eventually Howard won a ring until the played with Kobe. I don't have a problem with Kobe stans countering Kobe haters with that nonsense. I've never tried to make it that simple. I've never said "Kobe couldn't win without a dominant big man." I've tried to put the "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" bullshit to bed. You and other Kobe stans just refuse to read any of what I post with an open mind, and call me a hater.


All you do is give nothing but excuses for Shaq. One he was too young to win with Penny, nevermind the fact that he made the finals.
Not excuses, dumbass. It's putting things into perspective. How many times, off the top of your head, can you recall a 22 year old in his third season (as his teams best player) and a 23 year old in his second season (as his teams second best player) winning an NBA championship? Why should we be critical of Shaq in that situation? Like I said, had he and Penny played together another 5-7 years, and had a chance to grow and mature as players, and still never won a ring or two together fine, criticize away. But they played together for three seasons (Penny's first three years in the league and three of Shaq's first four), so I'm not going to be critical of the fact that 21-22 year old Shaq failed to win a championship in his three seasons with 21-23 year old Penny.


Then it's he was declining after winning with Wade so that's why he wasn't more successful without Kobe than Kobe was without him.
So Shaq wasn't on the downswing of his career/prime after he left LA? I mean he was in his mid-30s, and I watched him play, and he clearly wasn't the same player he was when he was peaking from 1999-2002.


When in fact he was 33 once he won with Wade, and Kobe's 34 now and still going strong. Pretty sure you won't make the "Declining" excuse for Kobe if he doesn't win it all this year with Dwight and crew now will you? :rolleyes: Yet if he wins, it's all because the team is stacked blah blah blah, typical kobe hater responses.
Good for Kobe. He still hasn't won a ring at 34 years old or older. Shaq was stil pretty damn good through the age for 33-34, he just wasn't as dominant and good as he was his first 11-12 seasons. Still, he had about 14 seasons where he was an elite player, which is about equal to how many seasons Kobe has been an elite player.

Big men tend to breakdown and decline quicker than guards, too. Kobe's a freak of nature and what he's dong this year is incredible. But he hasn't won a championship, yet.


Where are those stacked responses for Shaq's Lakers teams? Since he can do no wrong and he clearly won those 3 rings solo. You sit up and say look at the league in 09/10 and no one had a better 1, 2 punch than Kobe and Gasol, but how many teams in the early 00s had a better 1,2 punch than Shaq and Kobe?
You need to go back and re-read my posts on this subject. I've never spouted off the typical Kobe hater bullshit responses like "Kobe could only win with a dominant big man" and "Kobe could only win with stacked teams." In fact, you and I have had this almost exact conversation before and you said you realized I wasn't saying that type of stuff.

I've also said that, like during the Shaq/Kobe Lakers 3-peat, the 2009 and 2010 Lakers had far and away the best 1-2 duo in the NBA, but their 3-9 (or whatever) wasn't as good as the other contenders. It's the same thing with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Their 3-9 players weren't as good as most of the other contenders, but they didn't really need it to be because Shaq and Kobe were so damn good. Shaq was the best player in the league and Kobe was a top 3-5 player. In 2009 and 2010 Kobe was either the best or second best player in the league, and Gasol was a top 10 player. I also think some of the teams the Lakers had to go through during the 3-peat were better than the teams in the West Kobe had to go through in 2009 and 2010. But Shaq and the 2000-2002 Lakers don't get through those teams without Kobe. He was vital to their success.

[ZaaaaaH]

KObe has a better resume, not the better player out of the two. Did you watch Hakeem play? or were you too young


Young gun like you asking question about Hakeem .... :oldlol:

Kids like you care about only Peak but if you ask people who has played the game its about Resume.

Stop hating youngen and appreciate the game.

[Wally450]

Didn't mention Celtics in the OP :bowdown:

[Beatlezz]

[QUOTE=LamarOdom]Kobe Bean Bryant has won more ships' then, wait lemme just catch my breath....


Indiana Pacers, Cavs, Jazz, Suns, Magics, Nets, Kings, Shaq, Bucks, Mavs, Trailblazers, Thunders, Hawks, Wizards, Heat, Rockets, Knicks, Warriors, Pistons, Sixers, Spurs.

He has also won more rings then these teams combined.

[swag2011]

I've put everything into context for you I don't know how many times on this thread and other threads. I'm not going into it anymore. You ride Kobe's d*** as hard as anyone on here, so it's pointless.

So yes, the black-and-white "truth" is that Shaq didn't win until Kobe came along. If you want to ignore absolutely everything else (circumstances, eras, etc.) that's on you. No logical person would do that, but apparently that's what you want to do, so fine. I'm not trying to dispute Kobe's role and how vital he was to those 3-peat Lakers team. But to simplify it down to "Shaq didn't or couldn't win until Kobe became a starter for the Lakers" is about as ignorant as it gets.


I never said he didn't have anything to do with it. In fact, I've made a point of noting how vital Kobe was to those teams, and how good he was - he was really freaking good. Apparently you're either not reading that or just ignoring it.


It is a fact, on the surface. None of Shaq, Gasol, and maybe eventually Howard won a ring until the played with Kobe. I don't have a problem with Kobe stans countering Kobe haters with that nonsense. I've never tried to make it that simple. I've never said "Kobe couldn't win without a dominant big man." I've tried to put the "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" bullshit to bed. You and other Kobe stans just refuse to read any of what I post with an open mind, and call me a hater.


Not excuses, dumbass. It's putting things into perspective. How many times, off the top of your head, can you recall a 22 year old in his third season (as his teams best player) and a 23 year old (in his second season) winning an NBA championship? Why should we be critical of Shaq in that situation? Like I said, had he and Penny played together another 5-7 years, and had a chance to grow and mature as players, and still never won a ring or two together fine, criticize away. But they played together for three seasons (Penny's first three years in the league and three of Shaq's first four), so I'm not going to be critical of the fact that 21-22 year old Shaq failed to win a championship in his three seasons with 21-23 year old Penny.


So Shaq wasn't on the downswing of his career/prime after he left LA? I mean he was in his mid-30s, and I watched him play, and he clearly wasn't the same player he was when he was peaking from 1999-2002.


Good for Kobe. He still hasn't won a ring at 34 years old or older. Shaq was stil pretty damn good through the age for 33-34, he just wasn't as dominant and good as he was his first 11-12 seasons. Still, he had about 14 seasons where he was an elite player, which is about equal to how many seasons Kobe has been an elite player.

Big men tend to breakdown and decline quicker than guards, too. Kobe's a freak of nature and what he's dong this year is incredible. But he hasn't won a championship, yet.


You need to go back and re-read my posts on this subject. I've never spouted off the typical Kobe hater bullshit responses like "Kobe could only win with a dominant big man" and "Kobe could only win with stacked teams." In fact, you and I have had this almost exact conversation before and you said you realized I wasn't saying that type of stuff.

I've also said that, like during the Shaq/Kobe Lakers 3-peat, the 2009 and 2010 Lakers had far and away the best 1-2 duo in the NBA, but their 3-9 (or whatever) wasn't as good as the other contenders. It's the same thing with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. Their 3-9 players weren't as good as most of the other contenders, but they didn't really need it to be because Shaq and Kobe were so damn good. Shaq was the best player in the league and Kobe was a top 3-5 player. In 2009 and 2010 Kobe was either the best or second best player in the league, and Gasol was a top 10 player. I also think some of the teams the Lakers had to go through during the 3-peat were better than the teams in the West Kobe had to go through in 2009 and 2010. But Shaq and the 2000-2002 Lakers don't get through those teams without Kobe. He was vital to their success.


I'm not even mad or critical about the fact that Shaq didn't win with Penny. I get all the bullshit that you are saying. It's the fact that Kobe haters sit up and act like Kobe had NOTHING to do with that 3 peat and it was all Shaq, so OUR point is that if Shaq was a one man show for the 3 peat and he clearly did it alone, why couldn't he do it in Orlando with Penny? :confusedshrug:

I'm simplifying it down to Shaq didn't win until Kobe became a starter because that's what happened. Kobe haters simplify it down to Kobe can't win without a big man, so how am I any different? Where is your "perspectives" when Kobe haters say that or say something to downplay him? :rolleyes:

Why do you even come in these threads ANYWAY? You claim to be a fan of Kobe's, yet any thread that has to do with Kobe, I certainly find you on the side with the "haters".

You know what, we can agree to disagree and i'mma just leave it at this. Clearly, you have an issue with any Kobe stan taking up for Kobe or praising him, so my suggestion to you is to just stay out of any Kobe related threads, period. Clearly, it gets you all riled up to the point where you CLAIM you aren't taking anything away from him, but you sorta are. For the past few weeks, in any Kobe related thread you've done nothing but be stupidly sarcastic, mocking Kobe fans, or disputing anything and everything about him. Just let it go, what you or any other Kobe hater says isn't going to change the fact that he's a legend, consensus top 10 player of all time. (that's another fact for you)

[KG215]

Why do you even come in these threads ANYWAY? You claim to be a fan of Kobe's, yet any thread that has to do with Kobe, I certainly find you on the side with the "haters".
And am I saying the same bullshit nonsense the real haters say?


You know what, we can agree to disagree and i'mma just leave it at this. Clearly, you have an issue with any Kobe stan taking up for Kobe or praising him, so my suggestion to you is to just stay out of any Kobe related threads, period.
No, I've got an issue with you and maybe three or four of the other who knows how many Kobe stans on here because you blindly defend him and act like any time I or someone else puts some of the go-to bullshit you and those Kobe stans live by into some context, we're labeled haters. The real haters, though, are the ones constantly saying things like "Kobe could only win with stacked teams" or "Kobe has to have a dominant big man to win." Two things I've never said.

How about you stop acting like a little bitch and stop getting so easily offended anytime I say something obviously sarcastic about Kobe?

[Legends66NBA7]

So you would know that hakeem was the only player in history to win the regular season MVP, Defensive player of the Year and Finals MVP award in the same year.

While i get what your trying to get say, there should be context with DPOY and Finals MVP, as they were not available pre 1982 and 1969, and even MVP wasn't available during George Mikan's era.

So, in a sense, Hakeem is technically not the first, it would probably have been Bill Russell.

[Legends66NBA7]

How about you stop acting like a little bitch and stop getting so easily offended anytime I say something obviously sarcastic about Kobe?

I don't even get how people on this website identify you as a Kobe hater. Maybe a realist, but not even close to an actual hater.

But that's problem arguing with fanboys. Anything that is even the slightest bit negative towards their idol and these guys put the hater tag on you.

[KG215]

I don't even get how people on this website identify you as a Kobe hater. Maybe a realist, but not even close to an actual hater.

But that's problem arguing with fanboys. Anything that is even the slightest bit negative towards their idol and these guys put the hater tag on you.
Meh...I don't even really care being labeled a "hater." But I've never lived by the same bullshit nonsense the real haters spout when trying to downplay how good Kobe is/was. It is what it is, and I understand how some of the bigger Kobe fans on here see me as a hater.

It's partially my fault, anyway, since I get into too many arguments with some of the biggest Kobe stans.

[tpols]

So yes, technically Kobe had more success without Shaq than the other way around because he won two rings to Shaq's one. It also doesn't hurt that Shaq peaked during the Lakers 3-peat and was clearly on the downswing of his career by the time the left LA, while Kobe was just entering his prime and hadn't even peaked, yet.
Kobe was full swing in his prime for 2/3rds of the 3 peat and was already up for debate as the BEST perimeter player in the entire world. And both players had monster stretches of ball without each other. Shaq from the early 90s til 1999/2000 before Kobe was a superstar and after 04 for a 2 year span when he was still a top MVP candidate in the league.. And of course Kobe from 05 to 2010.




But yes, it's that simple. Kobe had more success without Shaq than Shaq had without Kobe. No need to use any kind of logic or context, because clearly that simple statement tells the whole story.
I've provided plenty of context. Shaq won 1 ring as the lead dog without Kobe having a commanding impact on the game and that was in 2000 when I admit Shaq absolutely dominated. I mean sure, Kobe was a 22/6/5 all defensive first team guard(back when he was earning his reputation for the spot) who was voted as the 12th place most valuable player in the entire league, but Ill throw you a bone and concede that just to make things interesting. ONE ring as the lead dog without Kobe in his prime. The other ring Wade and his 100 free throws being 95% responsible for.

Kobe meanwhile has two rings and a final appearance all consecutively as the without a doubt leader and main influence.



Look at the other contenders in the league in 2009 and 2010 and tell me those teams top three players were as good as Kobe, Gasol, and Odom with a straight face.
You cant include Kobe in a comparison for the top three players.:oldlol: He's 95% of the REASON the comparison is even remotely valid. Gasol and Odom dont stand for shit on their own two as compared to other team's superstars.



Yes, historically speaking those Lakers teams were weaker than other championship teams,
Yup.



which I guess can be used to prop Kobe up and make him out to be some sort of God who carried mediocre teams to a championship. But prime Kobe Bryant (top 7-10 player all-time), prime Pau Gasol, and Lamar Odom was enough to be a championship contender in 2009 and 2010 because none of the other championship contenders (other than a healthy Celtics team) had a top three that good. Maybe their 4-9 guys were better, but Kobe and Gasol were far and away the best 1-2 in the league.
Not a god, but just what you said he was. A top ~7 player of all time leading a team to a championship. Was his team good? Yes. Championship caliber w/o him? Not close. LA had no one to LEAD outside of Kobe. Gasol and Odom are both EXTREMELY talented.. but they're both gigantic *******. The Lakers would have been at best the nuggets of current day minus the strong depth. They wouldve been a perennial low tier seed. Which basically means they wouldve been a top 10-15 team in the league.. is that really so much to ask for as a superstar player? To win with a squad that could stand on its own two in the top 50% of the league?



Shaq played three seasons with Penny. 1993-1994 was Penny's rookie season and Shaq was 21 years old. 1994-1995 was Penny's second season (he was 23), and he and a 22 year old Shaq got to the NBA Finals. Talent wise, athleticism wise, etc. Shaq might have been as good then as he was during the Lakers 3-peat, but he wasn't close to being the same well-rounded player he would become from 1999-2002.

Now, had Shaq stayed with Penny for another 5-7 years and they never won a championship, fine, bash him all you want. But he played three seasons with Penny when both were in their early 20s and the first 3-4 years of their career.
You're just making excuses for why Shaq didnt win.:oldlol: What.. theres an age limit on championships nowadays? He played with Penny and was on a super talented team. Thats it. The main point I was making was that he had great help outside of Kobe which he did.



What other great teams are you speaking of? You mean the Cavs in 2010 when he was 37 years old? Sure, a younger closer to his prime Shaq should be criticized if he doesn't win a championship with that team, but not 37 year old 18th season Shaq.

Or maybe you mean the old ass broken down Celtics in 2011 when Shaq was 38 and in his 19th season?

Are those the "slew of great teams he was a part of later in his career"?
Yes. The 1 seeded Cavs and NBA Finals making Boston Celtics were great teams. Im not saying Shaq's at fault for their losses, just pointing out thats he has played for AMAZING teams his whole career.. which he has. Even moreso than Kobe yet people will go on all day abpout how Kobe had shaq, and gasol, and dwight, and 39 year old Nash..:rant Well Shaq had penny, kobe, wade, lebron, pierce etc etc. You would have no problem pointing out the big time players Kobe currently plays with despite the fact that hes playing with them

a) in his 17th season just like Shaq with the cavs/C's

and

b) one of the players is almost a fvcking grandpa

So dont act like I cant mention the fact that Shaq hopped dick from one great team to the next before he retired when you and many others will condemn Kobe's achievments because of superstars he played with in the twilight of his career(even if his superior conditioning/work ethic/mindset/attitude and overall skill allow him to much more effectively mold his game into old age).



Who's saying they were? Gasol was still the best second banana in the NBA in 2009 and 2010. Look at the other contenders other than the Celtics and tell me which team had a better #2 player than Gasol. The Celtics were the only ones, but they beat the Lakers in 2008, weren't healthy in 2009 and took the Lakers seven games in 2010.
There's more to a basketball team than who you're fvcking second banana is. You sound like one of the idiots arguing with me after the 2011 NBA Finals that Dirk was the second coming of Jesus Christ because his second best player was Jason Terry. IT DOESNT MATTER. Players win with second options carrying 40% of the load, they win with second options carrying 30% of the load while the third and fourth carry 10 a piece, they win with second options carrying 20% of the load while benches and coaches outcoach their opponents, etc. This is a TEAM game. You give Kobe any team from a slew full of your average playoff teams like Houston or Denver or Utah and he makes them instant championship contenders. Do you know what Carlos Boozers numbers were in 09?

21/13 on 53% shooting. Gasol's in the same year? 20/11 on the same percentages.

Where are they both now? In the fvcking gutter. Why is Boozer more widely denounced than Gasol? Well thats what a few rings will do. Fact of the matter is you couldve taken any 20/10 big man and put him next to Kobe and the same shit wouldve happened. all he needed after that was a solid bench to round out the team which is something a whole lot of teams couldve provided.

[KG215]

Kobe was full swing in his prime for 2/3rds of the 3 peat and was already up for debate as the BEST perimeter player in the entire world. And both players had monster stretches of ball without each other. Shaq from the early 90s til 1999/2000 before Kobe was a superstar and after 04 for a 2 year span when he was still a top MVP candidate in the league.. And of course Kobe from 05 to 2010.

[QUOTE]I've provided plenty of context. Shaq won 1 ring as the lead dog without Kobe having a commanding impact on the game and that was in 2000 when I admit Shaq absolutely dominated. I mean sure, Kobe was a 22/6/5 all defensive first team guard(back when he was earning his reputation for the spot) who was voted as the 12th place most valuable player in the entire league, but Ill throw you a bone and concede that just to make things interesting. ONE ring as the lead dog without Kobe in his prime. The other ring Wade and his 100 free throws being 95% responsible for.
None of that means Kobe "turned Shaq into a winner." It just so happened Shaq's peak coincided with Kobe emerging as one of the 3-5 best players in the league. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand. Kobe didn't all of a sudden turn Shaq into a winner.


Kobe meanwhile has two rings and a final appearance all consecutively as the without a doubt leader and main influence.

And Shaq has three rings, and a Finals appearance as the without a doubt main influence. Only the biggest of Kobe homers think otherwise. Yes, Kobe in 2001 and 2002 was 1b to Shaq's 1a, at best, but Shaq was the bigger reason those Lakers teams 3-peated.


You cant include Kobe in a comparison for the top three players.:oldlol: He's 95% of the REASON the comparison is even remotely valid. Gasol and Odom dont stand for shit on their own two as compared to other team's superstars.
Still doesn't change the fact that Gasol was a top 10-12 player in the league at the time, while LeBron's second banana was Mo Williams, Dwight had Hedo Turkoglu or maybe Jameer Nelson, and Carmelo's second banana was Chauncey Billups. I've gone into this ad nauseam, but go back and look at the other best teams in the league in 2009 and 2010. The only two that you could dispute had a better second best player than the Lakers is a healthy Celtics team and the Spurs. But neither of those teams had a best player as good as Kobe, and with the Spurs Duncan was past his prime and neither Manu or Tony Parker were as good as '09 and '10 Gasol.

Yes, I know Kobe is the main reason the Lakers top two in '09 and '10 was better than everyone else's. I've never denied that. But what happens if Gasol swaps places with Mo Williams, Hedo Turkoglu, or Chauncey Billups in either of those seasons?


Not a god, but just what you said he was. A top ~7 player of all time leading a team to a championship. Was his team good? Yes. Championship caliber w/o him? Not close.
Again, that's not what I'm arguing. Take LeBron off the Cavs, Carmelo off the Nuggets, and Dwight off the Lakers and they aren't close to championship caliber teams. Take those players off those teams and Kobe off the Lakers, though, and the Lakers have the best player. Take the best player off the Celtics and Spurs in '09 and '10 (along with taking Kobe off the Lakers) and the Lakers still arguably have the best player.



LA had no one to LEAD outside of Kobe. Gasol and Odom are both EXTREMELY talented.. but they're both gigantic *******. The Lakers would have been at best the nuggets of current day minus the strong depth. They wouldve been a perennial low tier seed. Which basically means they wouldve been a top 10-15 team in the league.. is that really so much to ask for as a superstar player? To win with a squad that could stand on its own two in the top 50% of the league?
And what happens to the Cavs, Magic, Nuggets, Celtics, and Spurs if you take LeBron, Dwight, Carmelo, KG or Pierce, and Duncan or Parker off their teams in '09 and '10?


You're just making excuses for why Shaq didnt win.:oldlol: What.. theres an age limit on championships nowadays? He played with Penny and was on a super talented team. Thats it. The main point I was making was that he had great help outside of Kobe which he did.
And this really shows how ignorant and close-minded you are, which is a common theme among Kobe stans. Of course there's not an age limit to win a championship. I don't even know how you can get that from what I've said. Why should we be critical of a YOUNG (22 years old and in his third season) Shaq not being able to win a championship with a YOUNG (23 years old in his second season) Penny in their three seasons together? Surely you're smart enough to realize my point is that the Shaq and Penny Magic were a young inexperienced team. And, like I sad, if they had played together another 5-7 years while Shaq evolved into 1999-2002 Shaq and Penny stayed healthy, then I can understand why you'd criticize him for not winning a championship in Orlando.

I'm not making an excuse. I'm trying to put things into context because, once again, it's not as simple as "Shaq couldn't win in Orlando even though he had Penny." It's really not hard to understand, so I don't know why you and other Kobe fanboys insist on making it so difficult on yourselves.



Shaq had penny, kobe, wade, lebron, pierce etc etc. You would have no problem pointing out the big time players Kobe currently plays with despite the fact that hes playing with them
And, like I said, Shaq had Penny for three seasons when both were inexperienced early 20-somethings, and LeBron and Pierce when he was in his late 30's and well past his prime. He got at least one ring when he was still in his prime with Kobe and Wade.


So dont act like I cant mention the fact that Shaq hopped dick from one great team to the next before he retired when you and many others will condemn Kobe's achievments because of superstars he played with in the twilight of his career(even if his superior conditioning/work ethic/mindset/attitude and overall skill allow him to much more effectively mold his game into old age).
Not once have I criticized Kobe for winning on stacked teams. Find one post where I've said anything remotely close to "Kobe could only win with a stacked team" or "Kobe could only with with a dominant big man."



This is a TEAM game. You give Kobe any team from a slew full of your average playoff teams like Houston or Denver or Utah and he makes them instant championship contenders.
Again, nothing I've disputed. All I've tried to do is point out that, while Kobe clearly was the main reason the Lakers were a championship caliber team from 2008-2010 is because not only did they have the best player in the world, but because they also had arguably the best second best player in the NBA. That can did go a long way. It's a pretty simple concept to understand. I'm not just going to ignore how good of a second option Kobe had in '09 and '10, because you can't do that for any all-time great who won multiple championships. Those guys have a major role in their team winning a ring or two or three. I don't ignore Kobe and his significance to the 3-peat Lakers.


Where are they both now? In the fvcking gutter. Why is Boozer more widely denounced than Gasol? Well thats what a few rings will do. Fact of the matter is you couldve taken any 20/10 big man and put him next to Kobe and the same shit wouldve happened. all he needed after that was a solid bench to round out the team which is something a whole lot of teams couldve provided.
Maybe so. We don't know if you could've simply plugged any 20/10 big man into the lineup for the '09 and '10 Lakers and get the same results, but of course it's possible. But we don't know that for sure. What we do know is Pau Gasol was on those Lakers teams and he was a very good player from 2008-2010. Where he's at now and how he's regarded as a player now has absolutely nothing to who he was from '08-'10.


I don't even disagree with most of what you said. But his "Kobe turned Shaq into a winner" ridiculousness has been carried away in the Kobe stan circle. For whatever reason you guys really think it's that simple, and when someone puts things into context we're a hater. Fact is, I've never denied Kobe's greatness, and give him his just due for all five of his championships. But when I try and put things into some context, I stand out more than the brainless Kobe haters who spout off nonsense like "Kobe couldn't win without a stacked team or a dominant big man" and get lumped in with them.

[raptorfan_dr07]

Kobe meanwhile has two rings and a final appearance all consecutively as the without a doubt leader and main influence.


And Shaq has 3 rings consecutively as the without a doubt leader and main influence.

Shaq>>>>Kobe

[swag2011]

And am I saying the same bullshit nonsense the real haters say?


No, I've got an issue with you and maybe three or four of the other who knows how many Kobe stans on here because you blindly defend him and act like any time I or someone else puts some of the go-to bullshit you and those Kobe stans live by into some context, we're labeled haters. The real haters, though, are the ones constantly saying things like "Kobe could only win with stacked teams" or "Kobe has to have a dominant big man to win." Two things I've never said.

How about you stop acting like a little bitch and stop getting so easily offended anytime I say something obviously sarcastic about Kobe?

I'm acting like a little bitch? Yet you are the main one in every Kobe thread crying about "putting things into perspective" and being called a "hater". Soon as a Kobe thread pops up you bitch and complain about this site being full of Kobe stans. :oldlol: Case in point, the night Kobe and Durant both got a triple double. You whined like a lil ******* because multiple threads were made about Kobe getting a triple double, yet there wasn't multiple ones about Durant. I have no problem when you put things into context, but don't bitch when i give you straight facts that you can't dispute (which you still didn't by the way)...

Whatever man... see you in the next kobe thread (because we all know you'll be there)

[KG215]

I'm acting like a little bitch? Yet you are the main one in every Kobe thread crying about "putting things into perspective" and being called a "hater".
I try to put basically one thing into perspective, and that's bullshit nonsense that Kobe essentially turned Shaq into a winner.


Case and point, the night Kobe and Durant both got a triple double. You whined like a lil ******* because multiple threads were made about Kobe getting a triple double, yet there wasn't multiple ones about Durant.
I made one off the cuff post. That's hardly "whining." And I even said I didn't give two shits that there was only one Durant thread. I mean more than one thread would've just been sillly.


I have no problem when you put things into context, but don't bitch when i give you straight facts that you can't dispute (which you still didn't by the way)...
What facts did I not dispute?


Whatever man... see you in the next kobe thread (because we all know you'll be there)
Probably so. And you'll be there blindly defending him and taking offense when someone criticizes him.

[MetsPackers]

So has the GOAT

http://img.bleacherreport.net/img/images/photos/001/957/921/hi-res-6654084_crop_exact.jpg?w=650&h=440&q=75

http://mattlerman18.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/morrisontrophy.jpg

http://thesportshernia.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b84f69e201157128bcad970b-450wi

[NumberSix]

'
No.

Nets 0, Thunder if you don't count SS 0, Heat 2 and Knicks 2.

5>4 last I checked:confusedshrug:

[
Why would you not count? :confusedshrug:

If the Lakers count Minneapolis' 5 titles (1 of which wasn't in the NBA) then why are we arbitrarily not counting Seattle's?

My guess would be that when you wrote that, you didn't know Seattle won a championship. Not to mention that the Nets have 2 ABA titles.

So yeah, Kobe doesn't have more than those teams combined.