If Kobe Can't Win It All in 2013 Then He Should NOT Be Top 10

[NoGunzJustSkillz]

That wasn't even the question. The first one is worse, we all know that but this was clearly about expectations, not the results.

umm yeah, actually it was. you originally quoted me and that was what i was referring to.

[RaininTwos]

umm yeah, actually it was. you originally quoted me and that was what i was referring to.

True, I read that I completely misremembered.

Either way the point is ridiculous.

It's like comparing two different kinds of high mortality rate cancers, one might be more deadly but its still cancer.

Both were huge black marks that had to be made up for. If Kobe doesn't win it all or even get out of the conference he'll still be remembered as a great player but people will kill him here for it and rightfully so. He has all of the tools in order to win a championship and some.

He has two legit post threats, a HOF PG to distribute the ball, a decent wing defender who can shoot well for an 1/8 of a season( artest was so bad) and himself, the second best SG in the League.

Lebron's gaffe was worse, but he made up for it. He delivered. If Kobe doesn't he'll get some of the same backlash Bron got.

[lilgodfather1]

Players don't go down in all time rankings because of failures. Players can only go up, or get bumped down by greater/better players.

[The Iron Fist]

True, I read that I completely misremembered.

Either way the point is ridiculous.

It's like comparing two different kinds of high mortality rate cancers, one might be more deadly but its still cancer.

Both were huge black marks that had to be made up for. If Kobe doesn't win it all or even get out of the conference he'll still be remembered as a great player but people will kill him here for it and rightfully so. He has all of the tools in order to win a championship and some.

He has two legit post threats, a HOF PG to distribute the ball, a decent wing defender who can shoot well for an 1/8 of a season( artest was so bad) and himself, the second best SG in the League.

Lebron's gaffe was worse, but he made up for it. He delivered. If Kobe doesn't he'll get some of the same backlash Bron got.

kobes already a five time champ though. Huge difference when comparing him to bronze. HUGE. The only backlash he'll get will be from those who hate him already.

[IamRAMBO24]

Players don't go down in all time rankings because of failures. Players can only go up, or get bumped down by greater/better players.

Had Pippen lead the Blazers and whatever slob team he was on to a championship after the Bulls, you can sure bet his ranking will be much higher.

Had Shaq never gotten injured and won multiple championships with the Heat, do you think he would be behind Kobe?

What about Garnett.

Please.

Failure is a strong indicator of whether or not a player should be in the top ten because no legacies are set in stone.

Legacies are built on discussions and arguments. This is why they have panels of guys debating on whether or not a player should be on the top ten.

Now imagine if Kobe cannot win with this team. What do you think the discussion will be?

[IamRAMBO24]

What do these guys have in common:

Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, Tom Sanders, KC Jones, Robert Horry, and Frank Ramsey?

They have more rings than Kobe.

Rings don't secure a place in the top ten. Leadership does. This is why the panel won't budge with Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, and Kareem as the top 5. All of them have proven they can lead a team to a championship.

Kobe's three peat was lead by Shaq. *FACT*

So technically he has only won 2 as top dog and will have the opportunity to win 3 or more if he plays his cards right.

Look I don't hate Kobe; all I'm saying is he has the potential to beat Jordan if he can lead this new team to multiple rings.

If not, he will squarely be ranked 6 with Lebron and future stars inching towards his slot.

[9erempiree]

What do these guys have in common:

Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, Tom Sanders, KC Jones, Robert Horry, and Frank Ramsey?

They have more rings than Kobe.

Rings don't secure a place in the top ten. Leadership does. This is why the panel won't budge with Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, and Kareem as the top 5. All of them have proven they can lead a team to a championship.

Kobe's three peat was lead by Shaq. *FACT*

So technically he has only won 2 as top dog and will have the opportunity to win 3 or more if he plays his cards right.

Look I don't hate Kobe; all I'm saying is he has the potential to beat Jordan if he can lead this new team to multiple rings.

If not, he will squarely be ranked 6 with Lebron and future stars inching towards his slot.

To say Kobe can't lead is quite laughable.

If 5 rings isn't leading then leaders are really overrated.

They should play Kobe ball.

[amfirst]

What do these guys have in common:

Sam Jones, Tom Heinsohn, Tom Sanders, KC Jones, Robert Horry, and Frank Ramsey?

They have more rings than Kobe.

Rings don't secure a place in the top ten. Leadership does. This is why the panel won't budge with Jordan, Magic, Bird, Russell, and Kareem as the top 5. All of them have proven they can lead a team to a championship.

Kobe's three peat was lead by Shaq. *FACT*

So technically he has only won 2 as top dog and will have the opportunity to win 3 or more if he plays his cards right.

Look I don't hate Kobe; all I'm saying is he has the potential to beat Jordan if he can lead this new team to multiple rings.

If not, he will squarely be ranked 6 with Lebron and future stars inching towards his slot.

Bottom line is that LeBron has more to lose. He is in his prime if he can't win again, he will never win again because he isn't going to get any better. My understanding is that players start to go downhill gradually after 27.

[IamRAMBO24]

Bottom line is that LeBron has more to lose. He is in his prime if he can't win again, he will never win again because he isn't going to get any better. My understanding is that players start to go downhill gradually after 27.

But Lebron has proven he is a leader. He can probably remain in the top ten with only 3 like Bird.

Don't forget, when all is said and done, nobody will give a sh*t if Kobe or Lebron are on a stacked team.

In fact, it even looks better in the panel discussion if they can lead a bunch of all-stars rather than a bunch of scrubs. This shows a high level of leadership. That's where the argument centers around.

Now if they can turn a bunch of scrubs into all-stars, that's a whole new ballgame, hence why Jordan is top dog.

[IamRAMBO24]

To say Kobe can't lead is quite laughable.

If 5 rings isn't leading then leaders are really overrated.

They should play Kobe ball.

The argument is still lingering whether or not Shaq is the true leader of the 3-peat. This is a cloud on Kobe's head so if he can't win with this new team as their leader, trust me, there will be no doubt everyone's mind Shaq was responsible for those 3 rings, not Kobe.

[9erempiree]

The argument is still lingering whether or not Shaq is the true leader of the 3-peat. This is a cloud on Kobe's head so if he can't win with this new team as their leader, trust me, there will be no doubt everyone's mind Shaq was responsible for those 3 rings, not Kobe.

Shaq was not the sole leader of those teams.

Why is it that everytime the 3peat Lakers were mentioned...it would be mentioned like this.......

"Shaq and Kobe's Lakers"

"Can role players step up"

They were always mentioned in the same breath but the other players were called "role players".

It was during this time the term "role players" were widely used when referring to the Lakers. It was always "Shaq and Kobe and company...."

[funnystuff]

Shaq was not the sole leader of those teams.

Why is it that everytime the 3peat Lakers were mentioned...it would be mentioned like this.......

"Shaq and Kobe's Lakers"

"Can role players step up"

They were always mentioned in the same breath but the other players were called "role players".

It was during this time the term "role players" were widely used when referring to the Lakers. It was always "Shaq and Kobe and company...."

He definitely was, and keep in mind that Lebron will never defer to a sidekick to anyone.

[IamRAMBO24]

Shaq was not the sole leader of those teams.

Why is it that everytime the 3peat Lakers were mentioned...it would be mentioned like this.......

"Shaq and Kobe's Lakers"

"Can role players step up"

They were always mentioned in the same breath but the other players were called "role players".

It was during this time the term "role players" were widely used when referring to the Lakers. It was always "Shaq and Kobe and company...."

It was also Jordan and Scottie .. look where Scottie ended up.

[IamRAMBO24]

He definitely was, and keep in mind that Lebron will never defer to a sidekick to anyone.

Lebron did defer to Wade in his first year, but this championship belongs to him.

If he wins 3 or more, his legacy will be strong enough to put him in the top 10 and challenge Kobe for that slot.

He did it as a leader; Kobe has in the past deferred to Shaq and is now looking to defer to Dwight.

[funnystuff]

Lebron did defer to Wade in his first year, but this championship belongs to him.

If he wins 3 or more, his legacy will be strong enough to put him in the top 10 and challenge Kobe for that slot.

He did it as a leader; Kobe has in the past deferred to Shaq and is now looking to defer to Dwight.

Once he gets as many FMVPs as Kobe he pretty much passes him. IMO.


And Lebron did not defer to Wade. No way in hell he was a 'sidekick' in 2011.