holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

Detroit Pistons...

The Piston team they finally did beat had become old, and at that point you can't compare them to the Spurs team of this decade. The prior series against the Pistons they ultimately lose (not any fault of Jordan). And Kobe has had to deal with the Spurs for most of this decade. Bulls-Pistons fizzled out after 91 because Detroit got old

I just find this competition argument very weak

Across the board you cannot compare the competition...Please tell top 50 players on teams such as Drexler and Portland, Utah and Mailman, Houston and Hakeem, Seattle and the Glove, Knick's Ewing...Who was Kobe facing year in and out besides Duncan that had to lead a legit team??

I find it curious why you think teams like the Knicks, who i lived and died with every day but were highly flawed, were any better than teams like the Kings, or the 00 Portland team the Lakers beat, let alone the Duncan Spurs they had to go through. Lets not flatter ourselves and make the Knicks better than they were. As far as top 50 players they faced? Thats going to open up a whole other can of worms comparing guys who would knock the old top 50 guys off the list. They've had to go through several HOFers though. In fact I think you could argue in every single round the Kobe Bryant Laker teams played in the playoffs, with the exception of round 2 last year against the rockets, they played a future HOFer in every single round they have ever played from 2000 on. You mention Seattle and the glove like that Seattle team was some all time great team. They've knocked Deron Williams out of the playoffs the last 3 years and hes playing on a higher level now than GP ever did and i loved GP. And I don't know why you would even mention Houston and Hakeem as the bulls only played them in 2 meaningless regular season games every year. Lets not boil it down to just great players faced, even then its close. The teams faced is also close. The competition argument is weak

GP led his team to the finals one year, maybe the best defensive point guard of all time...I don't understand why you can't name names to compare...

Why? Because i think its pretty even on both sides and doesn't prove much. Why just boil it down to individual players? The 2004 Pistons didn't have a Patrick Ewing but they were better than the Knicks. I'll tell you this, the wing players today are much deeper and better than the 90s. John Starks was good enough to make a token all star game in the 90s, hes a modern day Delonte West with more minutes.The next best wing to MJ in the 90s was on his own team

I think the Lakers have played a future hall of famer in every playoff series since 2000 with the exception of the houston series. Every single series.

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

Detroit Pistons...

The Piston team they finally did beat had become old, and at that point you can't compare them to the Spurs team of this decade. The prior series against the Pistons they ultimately lose (not any fault of Jordan). And Kobe has had to deal with the Spurs for most of this decade. Bulls-Pistons fizzled out after 91 because Detroit got old

I just find this competition argument very weak

Across the board you cannot compare the competition...Please tell top 50 players on teams such as Drexler and Portland, Utah and Mailman, Houston and Hakeem, Seattle and the Glove, Knick's Ewing...Who was Kobe facing year in and out besides Duncan that had to lead a legit team??..the Cavs was legit, Indiana and Miller was legit...Charlotte was coming along, Miami later...

C'mon, you are citing to the HOF talent from the 90s when it is clearly too early to tell who will have a HOF career and those players have already been inducted? I mean Nash vs Stockton? Malone vs Garnett? Olajuwan vs Duncan? Wade vs Drexler? Howard vs Ewing? Lebron vs Magic? Kobe vs Michael?

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

Detroit Pistons...

The Piston team they finally did beat had become old, and at that point you can't compare them to the Spurs team of this decade. The prior series against the Pistons they ultimately lose (not any fault of Jordan). And Kobe has had to deal with the Spurs for most of this decade. Bulls-Pistons fizzled out after 91 because Detroit got old

I just find this competition argument very weak

Across the board you cannot compare the competition...Please tell top 50 players on teams such as Drexler and Portland, Utah and Mailman, Houston and Hakeem, Seattle and the Glove, Knick's Ewing...Who was Kobe facing year in and out besides Duncan that had to lead a legit team??

I find it curious why you think teams like the Knicks, who i lived and died with every day but were highly flawed, were any better than teams like the Kings, or the 00 Portland team the Lakers beat, let alone the Duncan Spurs they had to go through. Lets not flatter ourselves and make the Knicks better than they were. As far as top 50 players they faced? Thats going to open up a whole other can of worms comparing guys who would knock the old top 50 guys off the list. They've had to go through several HOFers though. In fact I think you could argue in every single round the Kobe Bryant Laker teams played in the playoffs, with the exception of round 2 last year against the rockets, they played a future HOFer in every single round they have ever played from 2000 on. You mention Seattle and the glove like that Seattle team was some all time great team. They've knocked Deron Williams out of the playoffs the last 3 years and hes playing on a higher level now than GP ever did and i loved GP. And I don't know why you would even mention Houston and Hakeem as the bulls only played them in 2 meaningless regular season games every year. Lets not boil it down to just great players faced, even then its close. The teams faced is also close. The competition argument is weak

GP led his team to the finals one year, maybe the best defensive point guard of all time...I don't understand why you can't name names to compare...

Why? Because i think its pretty even on both sides and doesn't prove much. Why just boil it down to individual players? The 2004 Pistons didn't have a Patrick Ewing but they were better than the Knicks. I'll tell you this, the wing players today are much deeper and better than the 90s. John Starks was good enough to make a token all star game in the 90s, hes a modern day Delonte West with more minutes.The next best wing to MJ in the 90s was on his own team

I think the Lakers have played a future hall of famer in every playoff series since 2000 with the exception of the houston series. Every single series.

So u think teams that the Fakers beat for rings like the Nets and Sixers are on par with the Utah, Lakers, Portland???

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

holfresh wrote:

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:MJ faced better competition period at all levels of the playoffs. The EAST was the stacked conference in MJ's day.

No he didn't. From 91 to 98 name me the team in his conference who was as good as the Duncan Spurs? No one is remotely close. Orlando had about a 2 year window where they were real good and did in fact beat the bulls in the year MJ came back with 15 games left. The Knicks were really their biggest eastern foe for the balance of that run, and we had a highly flawed team who had one great player and a bunch of role players. Our #2 option on offense was an average at best basketball player

Again. MJ is better than Kobe, but the competition argument doesn't really fly. The West this past decade dwarfs the 90s East. You have the 8 seed winning 50 games some years and minimum 47-48. Bulls faced sub 500 teams in round 1 a few times during their runs. Jordan had the tougher finals opponents but Kobe played in a much much better conference

Detroit Pistons...

The Piston team they finally did beat had become old, and at that point you can't compare them to the Spurs team of this decade. The prior series against the Pistons they ultimately lose (not any fault of Jordan). And Kobe has had to deal with the Spurs for most of this decade. Bulls-Pistons fizzled out after 91 because Detroit got old

I just find this competition argument very weak

Across the board you cannot compare the competition...Please tell top 50 players on teams such as Drexler and Portland, Utah and Mailman, Houston and Hakeem, Seattle and the Glove, Knick's Ewing...Who was Kobe facing year in and out besides Duncan that had to lead a legit team??

I find it curious why you think teams like the Knicks, who i lived and died with every day but were highly flawed, were any better than teams like the Kings, or the 00 Portland team the Lakers beat, let alone the Duncan Spurs they had to go through. Lets not flatter ourselves and make the Knicks better than they were. As far as top 50 players they faced? Thats going to open up a whole other can of worms comparing guys who would knock the old top 50 guys off the list. They've had to go through several HOFers though. In fact I think you could argue in every single round the Kobe Bryant Laker teams played in the playoffs, with the exception of round 2 last year against the rockets, they played a future HOFer in every single round they have ever played from 2000 on. You mention Seattle and the glove like that Seattle team was some all time great team. They've knocked Deron Williams out of the playoffs the last 3 years and hes playing on a higher level now than GP ever did and i loved GP. And I don't know why you would even mention Houston and Hakeem as the bulls only played them in 2 meaningless regular season games every year. Lets not boil it down to just great players faced, even then its close. The teams faced is also close. The competition argument is weak

GP led his team to the finals one year, maybe the best defensive point guard of all time...I don't understand why you can't name names to compare...

Why? Because i think its pretty even on both sides and doesn't prove much. Why just boil it down to individual players? The 2004 Pistons didn't have a Patrick Ewing but they were better than the Knicks. I'll tell you this, the wing players today are much deeper and better than the 90s. John Starks was good enough to make a token all star game in the 90s, hes a modern day Delonte West with more minutes.The next best wing to MJ in the 90s was on his own team

I think the Lakers have played a future hall of famer in every playoff series since 2000 with the exception of the houston series. Every single series.

So u think teams that the Fakers beat for rings like the Nets and Sixers are on par with the Utah, Lakers, Portland???

Ive already told you MJ played better competition in the finals. Lakers though played in the MUCH better conference. The NBA talent was more evenly split in the 90s between the 2 conferences, the talent of the past decade has been largely loaded in Kobe's West where 8 seeds are routinely winning close to 50 games, and he has another dynasty in his own conference to deal with for the entire decade. Lakers didn't have years where they opened round 1 against sub 500 teams like chicago did either. In the West over the past decade you have to be on point from round 1 forward. Look at this year drawing a 50 win Thunder team who has the scoring champion and plays great team defense

KnicksSince88 wrote:

kam77 wrote:The Chicago Bulls would've swept the Thunder. This is one of the weaker champions we've seen in recent times.

The chicago bulls never faced a team as good as the thunder in round 1 of the eastern conference playoffs once they began their title runs in 1991. Ever. And I saw some teams get a game against them who werent as good as this current Thunder team. Dont be so sure speaking in absolutes. The glen rice led hornets can get a game against the bulls, the steve smith hawks can get a game against the bulls, but the durant thunder can't. Whatever

Don't be so sure either. Consider that Lakers were so shaky that they made the Thunder look good. Normally, teams that make the playoffs for the first time, like the Thunder, don't take the eventual champs 2-2. It could be a sign that these Lakers were flawed that they coughed up two to such a green team. Or you could be right. Chicken or egg.

But here is my case in point... Boston swept MJ's Bulls 3-0 in his first two playoff series.

So for these Lakers to drop two in the first round to a team of rookie wage scale players... that's not a sign of greatness

BRIGGS wrote:He's got the same mentality he's just a great great player but I think MJ--atleast to me was the superior player and I'm not even counting that I still think Magic Johnson is the best player I ever watched

kobe is great, but I agre, no jordan for sure.. Magic johson for me was slightly behind jordan, and I do mean very slightly..

Rewatch the 93 playoffs and see how starks is hanging on MJ's arms every single minute.

If MJ had played today, he would've had wilt's kind of stats. Only brute force could stop him at that time, and only for a while.

We've seen so many ''new jordans'' that we're starting to forget how good he was.
Rewatch tapes, watch the D, imagine the poor little wade without free throws getting hammered by Oakley.

Now are very very different times.

SupremeCommander wrote:Kobe is a top ten player and may or may not be a better Laker than Magic (I say no, but it's close)... but he's no MJ. Kobe might be an assassin but MJ was a nuke. He was 6 for 6 in the Finals and didn't play poorly in very many Finals games. I know Kobe is great and all but Gasol was the series MVP (I don't care that the league marketers officially gave it to Kobe) and thought he forced some terrible, terrible shots in a Game 7. Everything MJ did on the court just seemed like the right play... I don't always get that feeling from Kobe.

To give it to Gasol would be just to reward the stats. The Celtics strategy was to shut down Kobe, not to shut down Pau. Kobe existence on the court made things possible for Gasol. Kobe is a worthy MVP selection.