Replace Kobe with AI

[hoosierdaddy34]

Settling a debate.

Could you replace Bryant on those Lakers Shaq teams with Iverson and get essentially the same results?

Sent from my SM-G965U using RealGM mobile app

No. Not close

[Bertrob]

You could replace Kobe with thousands of players but Iverson isn't one of them

[Up-And-Coming]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You have to look back and remember the latter part of his career. Allen Iverson didn't just play w/ Mutombo, Snow, McKie, Ratliff

Allen Iverson also played w/ prime Carmelo, Kenyon Martin, Marcus Camby, Nene, and J.R. Smith and got swept in the first round by the 2007/08 Lakers who started Vladimir Radmanovic.

I understand he had a great playoff run in 2001, but that wasn't the story for the rest of his career. Iverson was an exciting player to watch, and a deserved All-Star in his prime, but I strongly believe he would not get past the Spurs or Nuggets (w/ Kobe, Melo, Kenyon, Nene, J.R., Birdman, etc.)

Melo and AI were a bad fit, both ball dominant driving scorers. That is not on him but on the Nuggets putting together ill fitting pieces. Also that was a mere 1 series. Sorry but one series means little. Iverson never got a real chance to take over a team with better team mates than the anemic offensive players he had in Philly. Iverson did indeed not just play with Mutombo. He had a mere 2 seasons with him. People act like Mutombo was a long standing companion with AI. Hint, he wasn't.

Exactly. Was it even 2 seasons. They had to trade Ratliff and Kukoc for him after the all star break.

And I agree. That Denver team was not a good fit and were acting like AI had years playing in Denver. He played less than 3 years in Denver before being moved to Detroit.

Prime AI never had really great scorers on his team. And when he did go to Denver they won the 2nd most games in their franchise NBA history up to that point and AI played the role of 2nd option to Melo.

AI got swept in 07/08 with the pretty talented Nuggets and you state he was a bad fit/not in his prime; and I agree with you. However, we are talking about that year and the following seasons specifically (the Gasol Laker championship years; 2008-2010). Also, one season later, AI got traded for Billups and then the Nuggets instantly improved and were 2 wins away from making it to the Finals and contrarily, the Pistons got so much worse (59 wins to 39 wins). This is not a hate attack on AI, but I think it's clear that during that time period he was a much inferior player to Kobe.

In 2008/09, Iverson had one of the worst seasons of his career and Kobe had one of the best. There was no comparison between the two at that time. Lastly, in 2010, the Lakers barely edged out the Celtics in game 7 of the Finals. The gap between Kobe and AI was not marginal, and the difference would have been evident in that series. I'm just defending my original post and still think it's a valid/rational opinion to believe that the Lakers would not win in 09 & 10 if you replaced Kobe w/ AI.

Also, as I mentioned previously, I still think the 2000-2002 Laker's would win 2 chips w/ AI. I'm not disrespecting him

[Pg81]

You could replace Kobe with thousands of players but Iverson isn't one of them

There are not even a hundred players who were better than AI.

[Picasso]

Melo and AI were a bad fit, both ball dominant driving scorers. That is not on him but on the Nuggets putting together ill fitting pieces. Also that was a mere 1 series. Sorry but one series means little. Iverson never got a real chance to take over a team with better team mates than the anemic offensive players he had in Philly. Iverson did indeed not just play with Mutombo. He had a mere 2 seasons with him. People act like Mutombo was a long standing companion with AI. Hint, he wasn't.

Exactly. Was it even 2 seasons. They had to trade Ratliff and Kukoc for him after the all star break.

And I agree. That Denver team was not a good fit and were acting like AI had years playing in Denver. He played less than 3 years in Denver before being moved to Detroit.

Prime AI never had really great scorers on his team. And when he did go to Denver they won the 2nd most games in their franchise NBA history up to that point and AI played the role of 2nd option to Melo.

AI got swept in 07/08 with the pretty talented Nuggets and you state he was a bad fit/not in his prime; and I agree with you. However, we are talking about that year and the following seasons specifically (the Gasol Laker championship years; 2008-2010). Also, one season later, AI got traded for Billups and then the Nuggets instantly improved and were 2 wins away from making it to the Finals and contrarily, the Pistons got so much worse (59 wins to 39 wins). This is not a hate attack on AI, but I think it's clear that during that time period he was a much inferior player to Kobe.

In 2008/09, Iverson had one of the worst seasons of his career and Kobe had one of the best. There was no comparison between the two at that time. Lastly, in 2010, the Lakers barely edged out the Celtics in game 7 of the Finals. The gap between Kobe and AI was not marginal, and the difference would have been evident in that series. I'm just defending my original post and still think it's a valid/rational opinion to believe that the Lakers would not win in 09 & 10 if you replaced Kobe w/ AI.

Also, as I mentioned previously, I still think the 2000-2002 Laker's would win 2 chips w/ AI. I'm not disrespecting him

I actually will agree with that. I was thinking a prime AI. However you are correct, at that point AI was in his decline, and probably would not have a title. I think the Lakers teammates are a better fit, but if were talking moist philly AI you are correct.

[Sixerscan]

Iverson was nowhere near Kobe's level, so my answer is no.

Kobe could of never led tbat Sixers team to the finals

This makes no sense, you realize the competition they had on their way there? A one man show Raptors that they barely scrapped by. A no defense Bucks that they barely scrapped by. There's absolutely no logical reason Kobe can't lead that team to the finals against the same competition unless one thinks that Vince or Ray Allen are just simply better than Kobe and his flawed, but elite defensive team couldn't beat their flawed teams.

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

[RSP83]

AI and Shaq seems like a good match. Personality wise, they are more alike, very laid back. On paper, Shaq, AI, Phil I think would work as well as Shaq, Kobe, Phil. But, my only concern is whether AI is willing to sacrifice his game and run the triangle. And Shaq was also insecure with his position as the no. 1 guy, this was well documented. He got jealous of Kobe. I don't see why it couldn't happen between him and AI as well. But I think Shaq, AI, Phil would've won at least 1 championship.

[Sixerscan]

an exact swap Kobe for AI they maybe get 1 but probably 0. but if they can rebuild the team and go out and get a long defender to replace Kobe and not need Fisher they can probably pull out 3.

Exactly.

On paper the gap doesn't seem much, with AI being an MVP and a scoring champ...

In reality, you're losing a ton swapping a 6'6 All-Defensive SG that basically have the same offensive weapons for a 6'1 SG that gambles a lot on defense for steals.

It really f*s your game plan when you lose a player that can guard 1-3 and then having one that most of the time will be left to guard the weaker backcourt player of the opposing team.

Look at the Blazers, Pacers of 2000. Depending on the matchup, Kobe can guard Mark Jackson/Travis Best, Reggie and Jalen Rose. AI will always be put on Mark Jackson/Travis Best. Kobe can guard Stoudemire, Steve Smith, even Bonzi and Pip. With AI, he'll only be allowed to guard Stoudemire/Greg Anthony.

You're losing a lot of variations and versatility. The swap might work if you're very dominant like in 2001 but any other year, the Lakers will are losing a lot by swapping AI and Kobe.

I like AI but the Lakers will be better off with a bigger SG like Vince or Ray even if they're not MVP caliber players like AI.

This is all fair, but on the other end those teams don't have obvious guys to cover Iverson and his quickness. Like I can only imagine how many points Iverson could score isolating on Stoudemire/Greg Anthony all series and everyone else worrying about Shaq.

Also we're just assuming the Lakers would have made identical roster choices when they probably wouldn't have. Like maybe they keep Eddie Jones and trade Van Exel for shooting.

Plus there's the variable that Iverson was much better than Kobe in '98 and '99 and maybe they break through one of those years.

[hardenASG13]

an exact swap Kobe for AI they maybe get 1 but probably 0. but if they can rebuild the team and go out and get a long defender to replace Kobe and not need Fisher they can probably pull out 3.

Exactly.

On paper the gap doesn't seem much, with AI being an MVP and a scoring champ...

In reality, you're losing a ton swapping a 6'6 All-Defensive SG that basically have the same offensive weapons for a 6'1 SG that gambles a lot on defense for steals.

It really f*s your game plan when you lose a player that can guard 1-3 and then having one that most of the time will be left to guard the weaker backcourt player of the opposing team.

Look at the Blazers, Pacers of 2000. Depending on the matchup, Kobe can guard Mark Jackson/Travis Best, Reggie and Jalen Rose. AI will always be put on Mark Jackson/Travis Best. Kobe can guard Stoudemire, Steve Smith, even Bonzi and Pip. With AI, he'll only be allowed to guard Stoudemire/Greg Anthony.

You're losing a lot of variations and versatility. The swap might work if you're very dominant like in 2001 but any other year, the Lakers will are losing a lot by swapping AI and Kobe.

I like AI but the Lakers will be better off with a bigger SG like Vince or Ray even if they're not MVP caliber players like AI.

This is all fair, but on the other end those teams don't have obvious guys to cover Iverson and his quickness. Like I can only imagine how many points Iverson could score isolating on Stoudemire/Greg Anthony all series and everyone else worrying about Shaq.

Also we're just assuming the Lakers would have made identical roster choices when they probably wouldn't have. Like maybe they keep Eddie Jones and trade Van Exel for shooting.

Plus there's the variable that Iverson was much better than Kobe in '98 and '99 and maybe they break through one of those years.

Yeah, i agree I think especially in 99 they would’ve won w AI, he was better than Kobe at the time.

People forget that with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, that offense went through shaq. Defenses gameplanned to slow him, not Kobe Bryant. Shaq demanded a double on the catch in the post or he was getting to the rim or foul line. He was also a great passer out of the double team, leaving the perimeter guys free to swing the ball and get great looks or attack on his kickouts. Shaq has tons of hockey assists, completely controlled the game. This was a luxury that only Kobe had among star guards, in that defenses never gameplanned to stop him as priority number 1 while he was playing with Shaq.

Iverson never had anything close to that. Mutumbo certainly didn’t command a double on the block. He literally only could go to a middle hook shot or dunk it. Defenses were completely geared to stopping AI. Defenses were never worried about Kobe, Shaq was and had to be focal point, he was that dominant. AI and any other superstar guard talent also would’ve won a bunch of titles with Shaq. I’m talking first stint philly Iverson. He was still very good on his arrival in Denver, but he was over 30 and had already lost half a step.

[og15]

Kobe could of never led tbat Sixers team to the finals

This makes no sense, you realize the competition they had on their way there? A one man show Raptors that they barely scrapped by. A no defense Bucks that they barely scrapped by. There's absolutely no logical reason Kobe can't lead that team to the finals against the same competition unless one thinks that Vince or Ray Allen are just simply better than Kobe and his flawed, but elite defensive team couldn't beat their flawed teams.

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

[og15]

Exactly.

On paper the gap doesn't seem much, with AI being an MVP and a scoring champ...

In reality, you're losing a ton swapping a 6'6 All-Defensive SG that basically have the same offensive weapons for a 6'1 SG that gambles a lot on defense for steals.

It really f*s your game plan when you lose a player that can guard 1-3 and then having one that most of the time will be left to guard the weaker backcourt player of the opposing team.

Look at the Blazers, Pacers of 2000. Depending on the matchup, Kobe can guard Mark Jackson/Travis Best, Reggie and Jalen Rose. AI will always be put on Mark Jackson/Travis Best. Kobe can guard Stoudemire, Steve Smith, even Bonzi and Pip. With AI, he'll only be allowed to guard Stoudemire/Greg Anthony.

You're losing a lot of variations and versatility. The swap might work if you're very dominant like in 2001 but any other year, the Lakers will are losing a lot by swapping AI and Kobe.

I like AI but the Lakers will be better off with a bigger SG like Vince or Ray even if they're not MVP caliber players like AI.

This is all fair, but on the other end those teams don't have obvious guys to cover Iverson and his quickness. Like I can only imagine how many points Iverson could score isolating on Stoudemire/Greg Anthony all series and everyone else worrying about Shaq.

Also we're just assuming the Lakers would have made identical roster choices when they probably wouldn't have. Like maybe they keep Eddie Jones and trade Van Exel for shooting.

Plus there's the variable that Iverson was much better than Kobe in '98 and '99 and maybe they break through one of those years.

Yeah, i agree I think especially in 99 they would’ve won w AI, he was better than Kobe at the time.

People forget that with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers, that offense went through shaq. Defenses gameplanned to slow him, not Kobe Bryant. Shaq demanded a double on the catch in the post or he was getting to the rim or foul line. He was also a great passer out of the double team, leaving the perimeter guys free to swing the ball and get great looks or attack on his kickouts. Shaq has tons of hockey assists, completely controlled the game. This was a luxury that only Kobe had among star guards, in that defenses never gameplanned to stop him as priority number 1 while he was playing with Shaq.

Iverson never had anything close to that. Mutumbo certainly didn’t command a double on the block. He literally only could go to a middle hook shot or dunk it. Defenses were completely geared to stopping AI. Defenses were never worried about Kobe, Shaq was and had to be focal point, he was that dominant. AI and any other superstar guard talent also would’ve won a bunch of titles with Shaq. I’m talking first stint philly Iverson. He was still very good on his arrival in Denver, but he was over 30 and had already lost half a step.

There's a difference between having a primary focus and simply not worrying about a player. Defenses were definitely worried about Kobe. The "advantage" for a defense playing against primarily two man offensive team where one is a big and one is a perimeter player vs two perimeter players is that you don't have to have as many solid perimeter defenders. You put your best defender on the perimeter guy, and you have the other players play off their opponents to try and contain the big, but you stick to the perimeter star.

For example if you were playing a team with Kobe and McGrady and you are the Kings, now you have to decide how to guard one of them, Christie guards on, but the other is going to be guarded by Peja.

So the one "advantage" is that while you might not necessarily game plan for Kobe, you're not having a defender play off him or leave him so that you can defend Shaq. Of course things will be more convenient for him having more opportunities for single coverage, though again, you're not neglecting help or loading up on his side, it's just that you can't overplay against him since Shaq is there.

You are correct though, AI was better than Kobe in 99-00, and he certainly never had any player close to the level of Shaq, never had much of a single great offensive counterpart, it was really a whole EC problem at that time too. How many teams had two good offensive players around that time? If you were in the West, you could have better teammates, but competition is also better, but in the East, too many teams were just not built well.

[Dnt hate]

Those lakers teams were perfect for Iverson, defense, shooting and prime shaq, I can make an arguement they win more then 3

[Danny1616]

I think with AI, that Lakers team maybe pulls out one championship in 2000, but no way do they win more than 1.

I just don't see them getting by the Spurs or Kings with AI instead of Kobe.

[Dnt hate]

This makes no sense, you realize the competition they had on their way there? A one man show Raptors that they barely scrapped by. A no defense Bucks that they barely scrapped by. There's absolutely no logical reason Kobe can't lead that team to the finals against the same competition unless one thinks that Vince or Ray Allen are just simply better than Kobe and his flawed, but elite defensive team couldn't beat their flawed teams.

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

Iverson averaged 33 in the entire 01 playoffs, kobe averaged 29 so you have a bad arguement, and Iverson's prime was 99 to like 05, I can make an arguement lakers win more then 3

[NO-KG-AI]

I think AI actually might be more receptive to passing to a better teammate than Kobe was. Kobe at that stage wasn't bad at passing or lacking vision, he was just kind of immature and feeling like he had something to prove.

Maybe Iverson feels and acts the same, but I get the feeling he was more hardheaded and thinking shooting a ton was the only way the Sixers could win, and he might not feel the same with Shaq. I kind of get the same vibe from Russell Westbrook. I don't think the PPG or being the top scorer on the team is a moniker he is THAT concerned with over winning titles.

[Sixerscan]

This makes no sense, you realize the competition they had on their way there? A one man show Raptors that they barely scrapped by. A no defense Bucks that they barely scrapped by. There's absolutely no logical reason Kobe can't lead that team to the finals against the same competition unless one thinks that Vince or Ray Allen are just simply better than Kobe and his flawed, but elite defensive team couldn't beat their flawed teams.

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

Well I'm certainly not supporting the idea that there's no way Kobe could have done it. Was trying to move the conversation towards something more interesting by pointing out that the reason why it was so close against said flawed teams was that the Sixers, including Iverson, weren't anywhere near 100% during those series. And Iverson was banged up because he had to carry the whole offense, so it's interesting to consider Kobe at that time under similar conditions.

It's not just "can a 22 year old Kobe be the top option on a team that beats that '01 Bucks team", it's "could he do it after throwing his body against Antonio Davis and Charles Oakley for two weeks." We're talking about a level of fortitude that goes beyond numbers to some extent, and I'm not sure if Kobe really showed that until after Shaq left. Maybe he would have showed it earlier on a different team.

[og15]

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

Iverson averaged 33 in the entire 01 playoffs, kobe averaged 29 so you have a bad arguement, and Iverson's prime was 99 to like 05, I can make an arguement lakers win more then 3

You just made your whole argument in your post based on simply ppg without any other context, without any concern for anything else that happens on the basketball court and you are telling me that my argument is bad? You literally just argued player A averaged more ppg than player B, the end, come on man...

[og15]

Well the Sixers barely scraped by in part because the team was super injured during those series. The full roster was an elite defensive team, I'm not sure if you could still say that after George Lynch broke his foot and he was replaced with Jumaine Jones, Geiger was basically unplayable with a bunch of knee stuff he would eventually retire from, and Snow had to come off the bench in limited minutes because he re-fractured his ankle. (McKie also broke his ankle during the finals but that's not relevant here)

Iverson also had a bunch of injuries as well, to the point that he had to miss Game 3 of the ECF. It was sort of inevitable with how hard he was going. Maybe the argument is Kobe is more durable due to his size and style of play? I'm just not sure that a 22 year old Kobe could have shouldered the load Iverson had during those playoffs. It just took a level of toughness and determination that I maybe Kobe didn't have until later on in his career. Not impossible though.

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

Well I'm certainly not supporting the idea that there's no way Kobe could have done it. Was trying to move the conversation towards something more interesting by pointing out that the reason why it was so close against said flawed teams was that the Sixers, including Iverson, weren't anywhere near 100% during those series. And Iverson was banged up because he had to carry the whole offense, so it's interesting to consider Kobe at that time under similar conditions.

It's not just "can a 22 year old Kobe be the top option on a team that beats that '01 Bucks team", it's "could he do it after throwing his body against Antonio Davis and Charles Oakley for two weeks." We're talking about a level of fortitude that goes beyond numbers to some extent, and I'm not sure if Kobe really showed that until after Shaq left. Maybe he would have showed it earlier on a different team.

On the first point, sure, Philly had some injuries hurt, and they were a flawed team themselves, they just had a stronger "strength" than the other flawed teams. The injuries certainly pushed them closer to those opponents talent wise, sure, no argument there, and like I said, relative to their own abilities, those were still tough matchups.

To the second point, that makes sense, we could certainly question whether he could do it, it's possible that he might not be able to, but I think he would be fine. Someone like Vince who was at times called passive or soft was able to get through a very tough Knicks who beat on him and still able to put up 30/6/6 and help his team push a better Philly team to 7 games and a shot away from winning. The Knicks were an elite defensive team unlike the Raptors average defense, but sure, the Raptors had a guy like Oak who like to hack, but like I've always said, fouling is bad defense.

[Dnt hate]

If the poster said, I don't think Kobe would have done it, fine, that's their opinion, maybe they have some support to make it a valid opinion, maybe not.

But when they suggest that Kobe who averaged 29/6/5 during the regular season playing 41 mpg and 29/7/6 during the playoffs playing 43 mpg would simply be incapable of leading that team to the finals, a team which won primarily on defense to, and whose road to the finals based on strength of opponent was nothing particularly difficult or insurmountable, that makes no sense. Of course relative to their own talent, their opponents were tough enough, but relative to competition they were still the most overall talented team (not ppg talent) in their conference.

If the Sixers had beat some juggernaut team on their way to the finals, and Iverson played in a fashion that it's just not conceivable to say any other player would just have done the same, then that's an acceptable statement. The Sixers beat a similar to them "one man offense" team Raptors who had a similar supporting cast around their star, but not as good defensively around their star, and a no defense Bucks team.

It's not like the other guys were old and/or had more NBA experience. 24 year old Vince Carter in his third season could have had his team in the finals if he made one shot, depending on how the Bucks series went. AI and Allen were 25, but in season 5 just like Kobe. Kobe was 22, but was in year 5 and had just been through a 22 game championship run playing 39 mpg and was better in 2001 than that previous season.

If we are talking about Kobe from 99-00, I totally agree, but 00-01 Kobe put up 35/9/4 vs Sacramento and 33/7/7 vs San Antonio, leading the team in scoring and assists (tied vs Sac) while being as or more efficient than Shaq. He was a beast.

Iverson averaged 33 in the entire 01 playoffs, kobe averaged 29 so you have a bad arguement, and Iverson's prime was 99 to like 05, I can make an arguement lakers win more then 3

You just made your whole argument in your post based on simply ppg without any other context, without any concern for anything else that happens on the basketball court and you are telling me that my argument is bad? You literally just argued player A averaged more ppg than player B, the end, come on man...

You named 2 series that lakers won easily with kobe having great stats, that was a great team replace kobe with any average sg and they probably win the ring 01