New franchise: Kobe Bryant or Charles Barkley?

[Segatti]

I would go for Kobe, but I think it's close http://forum.imguol.com//forum/images/smiles/icon_rimbuk.gif

[dh144498]

I would go for Kobe, but I think it's close http://forum.imguol.com//forum/images/smiles/icon_rimbuk.gif

uh oh, inb4 a million pages and round mound.

[crisoner]

I got Kobe and it isn't close.

Look at their careers and what they accomplished.

Now...watch this topic some how turn in to Kobe vs. LeBron....it will happen. WATCH

[dh144498]

I got Kobe and it isn't close.

Look at their careers and what they accomplished.

Now...watch this topic some how turn in to Kobe vs. LeBron....it will happen. WATCH

or just some posts about how Kobe is a chucker and he was carried/gifted rings by his teammates.

[Psycho]

Kobe.

Here's a better question:
Kobe or Lebron?

[dh144498]

Kobe.

Here's a better question:
Kobe or Lebron?

"ain't fukk'n wit me."

[gengiskhan]

I would go for Kobe, but I think it's close http://forum.imguol.com//forum/images/smiles/icon_rimbuk.gif

Sir Charles

& its not even close.

give me a career 24/10 player any given day over career 25/4.

Barkley's efficiency & stats are much better than Kobe.

Barkley never stat padded against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

Kobe has made a career out of stat padding against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

like I said. ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Sir Charles >> Kobe.

[Element]

Kobe back then, but it's a bit more arguable. Chuck was a revolving door on D tho (at PF).

In today's league? Kobe without a single doubt. A Frobe/03 Kobe level slasher, without the handcheck rules? Sign me up!!

Also Chuck is pretty much doomed due to 3 in the key and 5 second backdown. He'd just pound your ass for 15 seconds straight back in the days.

[Parps]

Is it a Dunkin donuts franchise?

[Sparts Arwell]

I got Kobe and it isn't close.

Look at their careers and what they accomplished.

Now...watch this topic some how turn in to Kobe vs. LeBron....it will happen. WATCH


I'd be interested to hear your case for Kobe over Barkley, but only based on individual comparisons. Unless you have D Fish ahead of Barkley too becuase of "5 ringz"

It's not like there aren't reasons to take Kobe but to say "it isn't close" and that your reasons are "what they accomplished" Im curious how you'd make a case for Kobe based only on himself and not his team achievements that would make him such an obvious choice over Sir Charls.


But for the record my pick would be Barkley, and it's not close.

[TheMarkMadsen]

Troll bait

[jstern]

It depends on the rules and what kind of talent they have around them.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Kobe.

I question how much of a winner Barkley really was. And he is one of my favorite NBA personalities for the record.

[kennethgriffin]

hmmmm

A) lazy fat man never done shit, never won shit, never played defense, ring chases, leaves franchises on bad terms, top 18-20 player ever

vs

B) hardest working athlete of all time, most accomplished player of his generation, all time most defensive 1st team awards, stays with 1 franchise, legend, top 5-6 player ever



:lol

[AlphaWolf24]

Barkley!...he played in the hand check era!!....and grabbed more rebounds.



oh yeah....and he had FG%....you know, good efficiency and all that stuff.

[Quintilianus]

Sir Charles

& its not even close.

give me a career 24/10 player any given day over career 25/4.

Barkley's efficiency & stats are much better than Kobe.

Barkley never stat padded against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

Kobe has made a career out of stat padding against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

like I said. ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Sir Charles >> Kobe.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


This is not close in any way, barkley was a fat guy with less than average defense and absolutely no bball IQ. Horrible leader, horrible teammate.
I never got why this forum always defended sir charles so much.

[kNicKz]

Now...watch this topic some how turn in to Kobe vs. LeBron....it will happen. WATCH

especially since you just tried to make it one

[kNicKz]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


This is not close in any way, barkley was a fat guy with less than average defense and absolutely no bball IQ. Horrible leader, horrible teammate.
I never got why this forum always defended sir charles so much.

you just confirmed that you in fact have never watched charles barkley play basketball

[SilkkTheShocker]

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


This is not close in any way, barkley was a fat guy with less than average defense and absolutely no bball IQ. Horrible leader, horrible teammate.
I never got why this forum always defended sir charles so much.


This is false. Your posts have been absolutely terrible since getting registered.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

Sir Charles

& its not even close.

give me a career 24/10 player any given day over career 25/4.

Barkley's efficiency & stats are much better than Kobe.

Barkley never stat padded against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

Kobe has made a career out of stat padding against BOTTOM FEEDERs.

like I said. ITS NOT EVEN CLOSE.

Sir Charles >> Kobe.

Do you post in any threads that aren't Kobe threads?

Kobe lives so deep in your psyche, it's quite hilarious to watch.

[SilkkTheShocker]

I got Kobe and it isn't close.

Look at their careers and what they accomplished.

Now...watch this topic some how turn in to Kobe vs. LeBron....it will happen. WATCH

I don't know if you know this, clown. But you have a habit of bringing up LeBron all the time in threads that don't deal with him. In fact, when it comes to LeBron, you come off as extremely passive-aggressive. So why don't you take your own advice and just stfu about it. This thread is about Barkley/Kobe. Try to keep up, boy.

[dunksby]

With hindsight it's a close thing but I probably would go with Kobe, but without hindsight it's Barkley, you always go with the big.

[kNicKz]

Kobe lives so deep in your psyche, it's quite hilarious to watch.



KobeClutchAsFK

:roll:

[kennethgriffin]

With hindsight it's a close thing but I probably would go with Kobe, but without hindsight it's Barkley, you always go with the big.

without hindsight people would pick len bias... so wtf is the point of just going by pre nba potential

:roll:


ofcourse a college star would get picked over an unproven highschooler

[RoundMoundOfReb]

you just confirmed that you in fact have never watched charles barkley play basketball
:applause:

All these newbies are morons.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

With hindsight it's a close thing but I probably would go with Kobe, but without hindsight it's Barkley, you always go with the big.

Just because he could play PF does not make him a big man. Dude was like 6'4" - 6'6"

The only aspect of a big man that Charles can bring is rebounding. Anchoring your defense? Forget about it.

[dunksby]

Just because he could play PF does not make him a big man. Dude was like 6'4" - 6'6"

The only aspect of a big man that Charles can bring is rebounding. Anchoring your defense? Forget about it.
Without hindsight you would pick Kobe over Barkley? You were not even a Kobe fan when he was drafted.

[SilkkTheShocker]

It depends on the rules and what kind of talent they have around them.

Not really. With Kobe you are getting 17 seasons at least of longevity. Barkley had arguably a more dominant prime. Although, I think its lame someone is giving Kobe props for staying in LA his whole career. The guy demanded a trade when he didn't get the help he wanted. People can sugarcoat it all they want, but he did infact demand a trade.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Without hindsight you would pick Kobe over Barkley? You were not even a Kobe fan when he was drafted.

He is a troll, but he is kind of right. Barkley isn't your typical big. And didn't Barkley have questions about his weight even in college? Maybe some one of the older posters remember.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

Without hindsight you would pick Kobe over Barkley? You were not even a Kobe fan when he was drafted.

No, without hindsight I'd probably pick Barkley. Nobody could have known when Kobe was 17 that he would become what he did.

If Kobe had gone to college though, then he may have been able to boost his draft stock higher and then it'd be more arguable.

[jstern]

Not really. With Kobe you are getting 17 seasons at least of longevity. Barkley had arguably a more dominant prime. Although, I think its lame someone is giving Kobe props for staying in LA his whole career. The guy demanded a trade when he didn't get the help he wanted. People can sugarcoat it all they want, but he did infact demand a trade.

He wouldn't be as effective at this age if the league was more physical, and you just cannot factor in the rule changes. He would be effective, but not as much. It's just the way the league is.

[Sarcastic]

Pretty easily Kobe.

[PJR]

Kobe. He's the protypical size for his posistion (pause), thus he's easier to build around. Plus prime Kobe is a much better defender at his respective posistion as well.

[Sparts Arwell]

Not really. With Kobe you are getting 17 seasons at least of longevity. Barkley had arguably a more dominant prime. Although, I think its lame someone is giving Kobe props for staying in LA his whole career. The guy demanded a trade when he didn't get the help he wanted. People can sugarcoat it all they want, but he did infact demand a trade.


Not to mention he singlhandedly broke up a nucleus that had been to 4 finals, which brought the team three years of first-round-exit misery under his leadership. Then he demanded to be traded away from the mess he created. Luckily for him Mitch Kupchak came to the rescue and saved him from himself, and saved the team by putting together the most dominant frontcourt at the time. Just like they had when they won the first three titles.

Kobe's "5 ringz" credit should also be divided between Shaq, Kupchak, and Fisher. So really Kobe has earned about 1.25 rings. Uness we include the other players who had to bail out his last second hero-shot failures and bricks. Then it'd be even less.

[kNicKz]

Not to mention he singlhandedly broke up a nucleus that had been to 4 finals, which brought the team three years of first-round-exit misery under his leadership. Then he demanded to be traded away from the mess he created. Luckily for him Mitch Kupchak came to the rescue and saved him from himself, and saved the team by putting together the most dominant frontcourt at the time. Just like they had when they won the first three titles.

Kobe's "5 ringz" credit should also be divided between Shaq, Kupchak, and Fisher. So really Kobe has earned about 1.25 rings.

Shaq was as guilty as Kobe in that feud

[jcsrplumply]

hmmmm

A) lazy fat man never done shit, never won shit, never played defense, ring chases, leaves franchises on bad terms, top 18-20 player ever

vs

B) hardest working athlete of all time, most accomplished player of his generation, all time most defensive 1st team awards, stays with 1 franchise, legend, top 5-6 player ever



:lol
He never won shit because he played against a guy called Michael Jordan.
And don't tell me he should have won with Hakeem and Drexler because that team is really old.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

Not to mention he singlhandedly broke up a nucleus that had been to 4 finals, which brought the team three years of first-round-exit misery under his leadership. Then he demanded to be traded away from the mess he created. Luckily for him Mitch Kupchak came to the rescue and saved him from himself, and saved the team by putting together the most dominant frontcourt at the time. Just like they had when they won the first three titles.

Did you just call Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum on 1 leg "the most dominant frontcourt of all time"?

:biggums:

[SilkkTheShocker]

Not to mention he singlhandedly broke up a nucleus that had been to 4 finals, which brought the team three years of first-round-exit misery under his leadership. Then he demanded to be traded away from the mess he created. Luckily for him Mitch Kupchak came to the rescue and saved him from himself, and saved the team by putting together the most dominant frontcourt at the time. Just like they had when they won the first three titles.

Trust me, im far from a Kobe fan. But if im a GM, im taking Kobe and not even thinking twice. The only thing Barkley has on Kobe is arguably being more dominant in his prime. Prime Barkley was one of the most double teamed players of all time. Not to mention he was extremely efficient. Neither were that great of leaders imo. Kobe was always kind of a front runner. And Barkley has a history of throwing his teammates under the bus. But your still have to give Kobe the edge seeing as he has been the best player on three teams that made the Finals. Barkley's teams have also had some epic collapses. And thats not even bringing up that Kobe is a lot more marketable.

[kNicKz]

Trust me, im far from a Kobe fan. But if im a GM, im taking Kobe and not even thinking twice. The only thing Barkley has on Kobe is arguably being more dominant in his prime. Prime Barkley was one of the most double teamed players of all time. Not to mention he was extremely efficient. Neither were that great of leaders imo. Kobe was always kind of a front runner. And Barkley has a history of throwing his teammates under the bus. But your still have to give Kobe the edge seeing as he has been the best player on three teams that made the Finals. Barkley's teams have also had some epic collapses. And thats not even bringing up that Kobe is a lot more marketable.

A rational post from silkk?

*dies*

[SilkkTheShocker]

Did you just call Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum on 1 leg "the most dominant frontcourt of all time"?

:biggums:

If you learned how to read properly, he stated they were the most dominant frontcourt "at the time". Which is absolutely true. You have a stacked frontcourt if prime Odom is coming off your bench.

[Sparts Arwell]

Shaq was as guilty as Kobe in that feud



But Shaq was justified in not wanting his touches taken away since he was the driving force behind three championships, not to mention a finals appearance with Orlando, not to mention he would go on to win another title two years later.

Kobe was basically demanding a change in the way the team played, which would cause the team to be less successfully but allow Kobe to shoot more. And the result was missed playoffs, first round exit, first round exit. Until he got carried back to the finals again two years later by an Odom/Bynum/Gasol trio that was unmatched in the NBA. Plus wasn't it always Ariza or Artest guarding the Carmelo's, Durant's, Pierce's?? Kobe basically took all the 'difficult hero shots' throughout the playoffs which did essentially nothing except win a Phoenix series they would have won anyway.

In all honesty Kobe Bryant, to objective basketball minds, will probably go down as the most overrated basketball player in history if you compare his impact vs. the adoration of his fans. The stuff he does at an 'elite level' is basically play like a globetrotter. He doesn't rebound or defend or even score with efficiency at an elite level. He's a selfish streetballer who has been spoiled by the team around him. The need to "jesusify" players on winning teams has resulted in him becoming the most undeservingly credited player for his team success that I've sen in all my years.

[SilkkTheShocker]

A rational post from silkk?

*dies*

I just don't see how this is an argument. Would people take D-Rob over Shaq?

[Sparts Arwell]

Did you just call Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom, and Andrew Bynum on 1 leg "the most dominant frontcourt of all time"?

:biggums:


I think you misquoted me on purpose here fella. You can clearly see I said "at the time" but since you don't have a way to disprove that you tried to attribute different words to me.

Twinkle toes, go play somewhere Im busy.

[SilkkTheShocker]

But Shaq was justified in not wanting his touches taken away since he was the driving force behind three championships, not to mention a finals appearance with Orlando, not to mention he would go on to win another title two years later.

Kobe was basically demanding a change in the way the team played, which would cause the team to be less successfully but allow Kobe to shoot more. And the result was missed playoffs, first round exit, first round exit. Until he got carried back to the finals again two years later by an Odom/Bynum/Gasol trio that was unmatched in the NBA. Plus wasn't it always Ariza or Artest guarding the Carmelo's, Durant's, Pierce's?? Kobe basically took all the 'difficult hero shots' throughout the playoffs which did essentially nothing except win a Phoenix series they would have won anyway.

In all honesty Kobe Bryant, to objective basketball minds, will probably go down as the most overrated basketball player in history if you compare his impact vs. the adoration of his fans. The stuff he does at an 'elite level' is basically play like a globetrotter. He doesn't rebound or defend or even score with efficiency at an elite level. He's a selfish streetballer who has been spoiled by the team around him. The need to "jesusify" players on winning teams has resulted in him becoming the most undeservingly credited player for his team success that I've sen in all my years.


This is a great post. I feel when it comes to actual impact on team basketball, Kobe is very overrated in that department.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

If you learned how to read properly, he stated they were the most dominant frontcourt "at the time". Which is absolutely true. You have a stacked frontcourt if prime Odom is coming off your bench.

Yeah my bad, I misread that.

[kNicKz]

I just don't see how this is an argument. Would people take D-Rob over Shaq?
:roll:

Barkley was still somewhat disrespected though in some posts

[SilkkTheShocker]

:roll:

Barkley was still somewhat disrespected though in some posts

Agreed. Especially when people say stupid shit like him having "no basketball IQ". You don't become that efficient of a scorer by having no b-ball IQ.

[Sparts Arwell]

This is a great post. I feel when it comes to actual impact on team basketball, Kobe is very overrated in that department.


Kobe reminds me of Mark McGuire. All the advanced statisticians can look at McGuire's career and tell you that overall he was a good solid player but definitely nowhere near one of the all-time best. But back when McGuire broke the home run record, every casual baseball fan probably thought it meant he was the new best player ever. Becuase they don't know the game on any deeper level than "home runs = best player". Pretty much same with Kobe Bryant and point totals. Kobe is the dumb fans' champion. In reality, he's probably not top 20.

[Quintilianus]

This is false. Your posts have been absolutely terrible since getting registered.
This isn't false. And thank you for your incredible compliment.
First of all, to be smart on the court, you have to be smart off of it. And Charles is definitely not the brightest guy you can think of. Jealousy is boiling in his veins for people that done it, since he hasn't won anything, mostly because of his dumb play and uncountable amount of excuses.

[Quintilianus]

Kobe reminds me of Mark McGuire. All the advanced statisticians can look at McGuire's career and tell you that overall he was a good solid player but definitely nowhere near one of the all-time best. But back when McGuire broke the home run record, every casual baseball fan probably thought it meant he was the new best player ever. Becuase they don't know the game on any deeper level than "home runs = best player". Pretty much same with Kobe Bryant and point totals. Kobe is the dumb fans' champion. In reality, he's probably not top 20.
:oldlol:

[kNicKz]

Agreed. Especially when people say stupid shit like him having "no basketball IQ". You don't become that efficient of a scorer by having no b-ball IQ.

http://i.imgur.com/wsibR.gif

[Sparts Arwell]

:oldlol:


If you strip away "5 ringz" his credentials become significantly weaker. I don't think there is as big a disparity with any other player between what people think based on their "ringz" and what their resume would look like without them.

As far as how much the teams he won titles with really needed him, he's above Fisher and Horry but nowhere close to Duncan, Magic, Larry. Probably somewhere around Rodman or Billups, but with a much flashier role. Like Mark McGwire and his 70 home runs (super excitements) and five billion strikeouts.

[SilkkTheShocker]

This isn't false. And thank you for your incredible compliment.
First of all, to be smart on the court, you have to be smart off of it. And Charles is definitely not the brightest guy you can think of. Jealousy is boiling in his veins for people that done it, since he hasn't won anything, mostly because of his dumb play and uncountable amount of excuses.


Yea, whatever f.aggot.

[crisoner]

especially since you just tried to make it one

Actually I was hoping it had the opposite effect. Which it seems to be working. But a couple pages deep and it will turn in to what we all know it will.

[Legends66NBA7]

I'd take Kobe, for similar reasons I would take K.Malone over Barkley too to start a franchise.


He never won shit because he played against a guy called Michael Jordan.

Bad logic, since he never faced Jordan all the time in the playoffs. He only faced him 3 times, he had more than enough chances when he didn't face Jordan.

[KobeClutchAsFK]

This isn't false. And thank you for your incredible compliment.
First of all, to be smart on the court, you have to be smart off of it. And Charles is definitely not the brightest guy you can think of. Jealousy is boiling in his veins for people that done it, since he hasn't won anything, mostly because of his dumb play and uncountable amount of excuses.

To be fair, Barkley was the only one in the media that I remember picking the Mavericks to win it all in 2011.

The guy does know basketball.

[Quintilianus]

Yea, whatever f.aggot.
Amazing arguments, you're a very smart individual.

[Quintilianus]

If you strip away "5 ringz" his credentials become significantly weaker. I don't think there is as big a disparity with any other player between what people think based on their "ringz" and what their resume would look like without them.

As far as how much the teams he won titles with really needed him, he's above Fisher and Horry but nowhere close to Duncan, Magic, Larry. Probably somewhere around Rodman or Billups, but with a much flashier role. Like Mark McGwire and his 70 home runs (super excitements) and five billion strikeouts.
Have you watched any of Kobe's finals?
I'm not trying to insult you in any way, I respect your opinion, but if you really think that he is around rodman or billups it automatically makes me feel like you've never seen any of his finals.
I do realize that his 2000 and 2004 finals are pretty poor, but all other are very decent to great

[Mrofir]

well, I agree that quint has never seen barkley play basketball. I wonder if he has ever seen nba basketball at all actually.

I think based on career accomplishments, duh kobe won more rings and had more success at the highest level. But if you actually want to use your imagination and critical thinking skills a bit, consider the following questions:

1) Would Kobe\Shaq have been able to defeat the 92-93 bulls, 93-94 rockets, or 94-95 rockets? Barkley's strong Suns teams fell to these eventual champions each year. He actually wasn't that far from a 3-peat if you give some cognitive leeway (ie again, think in an open minded fashion)

2) Would Barkley\Shaq\early 2000s lakers have been able to defeat any of these teams?

3) Would Barkley\Shaq\early 2000s lakers have been able to win the same amount of championships as kobe/shaq? Would they have had a better chance of staying together longer, and possibly winning more championships in an era where the eastern conference was weak?

4) Would Barkley have been able to lead the Kobe/Gasol Lakers to 2 championships in the same time frame?

Here is my attempt to answer these questions, please note I'm talking about 92-94 barkley, vs kobe from shaq years, or as applicable, from the gasol years.

1) Very likely defeat 94-95 Rockets, but I'm going to say probably not for the Bulls, and it's a crap shoot for 93-94 rockets, so Kobe + Shaq would have probably been able to capture 1 championship in that time frame, vs Barkley's zero. However I also feel that if the universe rewound itself and played that time frame over, statistically speaking Barkley would have a great shot at 1 or 2 as well. Just didn't happen that way.

2) Same result. Probably not for bulls, very likely 94-95, and a tossup with the 93-94 rockets.

3) I think so. This is where Barkley would score the most points in this head to head. I think the Lakers win 3 championships with either player, but it's possible Barkley and Shaq would have coexisted and even won a 4th (replacing the Heat's run).

4) This is where Kobe wins the head to head. Probably not. Maybe 1, but I think those Celtics were a team that would be well equipped to handle Barkley. I also don't see Barkley and Gasol playing off each other as well as Kobe and Gasol during their title runs, but I could be wrong. The one against the Magic, if they got that far, I think they could have won with Barkley on the court, salivating over the thought of Barkley and D12 going after each other.

I think it's fair to say it's close.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Is it a Dunkin donuts franchise?
:oldlol:

[dh144498]

i'm going to be objective here with the following:

with hindsight: kobe

without hindsight: Charles. Be honest here, no one could have predicted what a legend Kobe could have become when he was just 17-18 years old. So it comes down to rookie Charles vs rookie Kobe, I definitely have to go with Charles here.

[Mr. Jabbar]

lol, where are the mods?

[Round Mound]

[B]I Would Pick a 1987-1995 Barkley Over Any Kobe, Any Day!

A 1996-2000 Barkley, Then I

[9erempiree]

Kobe in a heartbeat.

Charles was an era-specific player.

[Xiao Yao You]

Barkley no doubt.

[bdreason]

If it's based on raw ability, without knowing the outcome of their careers, I would take Chuck.

If we're picking based on how their careers played out, I'll take Kobe.

[Round Mound]

Kobe in a heartbeat.

Charles was an era-specific player.

[B]Era-Specific Player? You Keep Repeating This Nonsense :rolleyes: :facepalm

Barkley

[tazb]

Barkley no contest.

[NumberSix]

Barkley by far. How is this even a question? It's like asking Hakeem or T-Mac?

[MisterAmazing]

Kobe.

I question how much of a winner Barkley really was. And he is one of my favorite NBA personalities for the record.


never thought id see the day....

[Just2McFly]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I Would Pick a 1987-1995 Barkley Over Any Kobe, Any Day!

A 1996-2000 Barkley, Then I

[MaxFly]

lol, where are the mods?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Threads like these are great because it lets people dig their own graves. You should be happy that we keep these open because it give people like you great opportunities to both bump and quote some of the nonsensical things others post. We have a poster here saying that Bryant has really only earned 1.25 rings as an NBA player. Why would you want any posts deleted or this thread closed? This seems like a gold mine of useful content. We're not in the business of protecting people from the foolish things they say. Seize the opportunity.

You're welcome.

[Segatti]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Threads like these are great because it lets people dig their own graves. You should be happy that we keep these open because it give people like you great opportunities to both bump and quote some of the nonsensical things others post. We have a poster here saying that Bryant has really only earned 1.25 rings as an NBA player. Why would you want any posts deleted or this thread closed? This seems like a gold mine of useful content. We're not in the business of protecting people from the foolish things they say. Seize the opportunity.

You're welcome.

Besides is really a well-thought thread in my opinion.

[dh144498]

[QUOTE=Round Mound][B]I Would Pick a 1987-1995 Barkley Over Any Kobe, Any Day!

A 1996-2000 Barkley, Then I

[red1]

kobe will make your franchise more money and he will play for 17 years minimum so he takes this solidly

[KOBE143]

Kobe and it's not even close..

Dude is already in his 17 years in the league and still the best compared that to Barkley who was already washed up when he was only in his 10+ years in the league.. If I remember, Charles had never been the best player in his generation.. In before he played in Jordan era..:facepalm Kobe played with Shaq, Duncan, KG, LeBron, etc. all are/were in their primes and Kobe still comes up on top.. Only idiot will choose Barkley over Kobe..

[NumberSix]

kobe will make your franchise more money and he will play for 17 years minimum so he takes this solidly
Hmmmmm. That's debatable. We say that now, because Kobe's career has followed a certain path. It's kinda like saying that about Derek Jeter.

If Jeter didn't play on the league's marquee team, he wouldn't have the 5 rings and the star power that he currently does. If he played for the A's, he'd just be one of the better SS's in the league. Not a superstar player by any stretch.

If Kobe had been drafted to Philly, he'd have 0 championships (assuming he stayed there) and would be much less of a star. If he was drafted to NYK, he'd still have 0 chips, but he'd still be a superstar player.

It really depends on the circumstances.

[dh144498]

Hmmmmm. That's debatable. We say that now, because Kobe's career has followed a certain path. It's kinda like saying that about Derek Jeter.

If Jeter didn't play on the league's marquee team, he wouldn't have the 5 rings and the star power that he currently does. If he played for the A's, he'd just be one of the better SS's in the league. Not a superstar player by any stretch.

If Kobe had been drafted to Philly, he'd have 0 championships (assuming he stayed there) and would be much less of a star. If he was drafted to NYK, he'd still have 0 chips, but he'd still be a superstar player.

It really depends on the circumstances.

you can say that about every single player. What a stupid "hmm that's debatable" argument.

:biggums:

[NumberSix]

you can say that about every single player. What a stupid "hmm that's debatable" argument.

:biggums:
Hmmmmm. Not really. Guys like LeBron, Dwight, Shaq, are gonna be stars regardless of circumstance. We're talking about guys who came into the league as high profile #1 picks who have the kind of impact to instantly make any team relevant. A guy who comes into the league as a 13th pick bench player doesn't have that same star power. Sorry, just reality. Now, would Kobe have became a star later on? Perhaps, but it's dependant on circumstances.

[PieceOfFelt]

Kobe. He plays defense and has the longevity.

- Felt

[Psycho]

Hmmmmm. Not really. Guys like LeBron, Dwight, Shaq, are gonna be stars regardless of circumstance. We're talking about guys who came into the league as high profile #1 picks who have the kind of impact to instantly make any team relevant. A guy who comes into the league as a 13th pick bench player doesn't have that same star power. Sorry, just reality. Now, would Kobe have became a star later on? Perhaps, but it's dependant on circumstances.

Hmmmmmmm, NumberSix is a piece of sh1t!

[Quintilianus]

Hmmmmm. That's debatable. We say that now, because Kobe's career has followed a certain path. It's kinda like saying that about Derek Jeter.

If Jeter didn't play on the league's marquee team, he wouldn't have the 5 rings and the star power that he currently does. If he played for the A's, he'd just be one of the better SS's in the league. Not a superstar player by any stretch.

If Kobe had been drafted to Philly, he'd have 0 championships (assuming he stayed there) and would be much less of a star. If he was drafted to NYK, he'd still have 0 chips, but he'd still be a superstar player.

It really depends on the circumstances.
How the hell would you know how many championships he would've had in other teams?

[NumberSix]

Hmmmmmmm, NumberSix is a piece of sh1t!
http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/7079/12124.gif

[NumberSix]

How the hell would you know how many championships he would've had in other teams?
Who?

[dh144498]

Who?

anyone..

[DFish24]

Kobe Bryant pretty easily.

[daily]

Hmmmmm. Not really. Guys like LeBron, Dwight, Shaq, are gonna be stars regardless of circumstance. We're talking about guys who came into the league as high profile #1 picks who have the kind of impact to instantly make any team relevant. A guy who comes into the league as a 13th pick bench player doesn't have that same star power. Sorry, just reality. Now, would Kobe have became a star later on? Perhaps, but it's dependant on circumstances.

Just stop it. You're clueless.
Having watched Kobe from the minute he became a Laker he had star power before training camp even opened.

As soon as Jerry West said he'd move mountains to get that kid in LA Kobe was a fan favorite

[dajadeed]

lmao @ thinking Kobe wouldn't be a big star somewhere else. :oldlol:

Kobe was voted to start in the ASG as a 19 year old when he didn't even start for the Lakers. This was before online voting got big and snotty people listened to John Tesh.

Anyone who says Barkley either doesn't know basketball or is just trolling. I lean towards trolling, and Barkley is one of my favorite players ever.

I wouldn't take Kobe over Jordan, Magic, certain players... but mother****ing Charles Barkley? :roll: