Thank God Peyton Hillis beat that bitch Vick.....

mark aguire,bill lambeir , maurice cheeks , tom chambers , connie hawkins , adrian dantley , bob lanier , sydney moncrief , lenny wilkins , artis gilmore , bernard king ( one of the greatest scrorers of all time) , earl the pearl monroe , nate archibald , rodman , kevin johnson , bill walton , kevin mchale , dominique , goerge gervin , ewing , willis reed , drexler , isiah, barkley , bird , bill russell , wilt , kareem , the big o , hakeem the dream ,, point is ppl forget how good alot of guys were back then ,, guys as a whole were more skilled back then ,, todays game is more athletic , not necessarily more fundamentally skilled , you watch the nba today ,, they all run the same sets ( except la ) defense is more of a point today ,. the game when i was growing up was more wide open ,, guys could shoot from all over , the mid range game is lost for the most part in the modern game, coaches are alot more anal about calling plays today, back then it was a more free wheeling game,, but to say that guys from different eras couldnt play in todays game is nuts .. bird would still be bird , ppl forget what afreak of nature barkley was, bernard king ,, if u never actually saw him play, ,he had an incredible knack for "scoring " ,,sure he wasnt great physically , but he could get his shot off from anywhere, having said that ,, the real good players in todays game could absolutely play in earlier days ,, chris paul , ray allen , kobe of course , carmelo , steve nash to name a few,, great players could play in any era and be effective if not dominant,, period...

Slick it's obvious you didn't read the previous posts bro. This is about Kobe being 2nd best all-time not including big men. Also, a lot of the guys you named played in the late 70's, 80's, and
Mid to early 90's. Athleticism was also a lot better in those periods than 50's 60's and early to mid 70's. ALSO no one said those great guys back then couldn't play now. I assumed by "thrive" you meant they'd be able to compete and do well. That's a given bro. There's no way they'd all dominate though.

As for the state of the game. It is not more defense oriented (til the playoffs)...changes to the rules make it much harder to play D (no hand checking). I'll give u it's
More wide open since now big men play with more range...but the focus now isnt really on playcalling at all. Sure the teams have sets the run that are basic, but most of the time it breaks down to an iso for a star. I can't compare the mid range game, bc idk what it was like back then. But id say there are some great mid range players today. Danny granger has a great mid game. As does b ror, ray Allen, Kobe, wade, and a lot of big men like dirk, aldridge, kaman, bargnani, bosh, Timmy, zbo...the list goes on

the game as a whole is less skilled today from a team perspective , today its all about what u can do off the bounce, in iso situations , passing and pure shooting is not what it was, u can watch a game today and see a 80-74 game,,its not unusual,, back then most teams scored over 100 every night almost,, so u combine todays crap shooting with the emphisis on defense u get boring games , boring one on one crap,, as far as putting kobe #2.. idk.. to me ,, u can take the top 20 or so ,, throw their names in a hat pull one out and u could make an argument for whoever u pull out to be the #2 guy behind jordan,, because its splitting hairs, in my opinion,,

slickmonkeyz,

with all due respect...I stopped reading your list after the first line...

Aquirre, Dantley, Laimbeer...(as a Pistons fan) - Not a single one of them could post #'s anywhere NEAR what they did...in today's game....Of the 3...Dantley was the most athletic...and that's not saying MUCH.

Dantley and Aquirre would struggle to score...against today's more athletic small forwards. I think Laimbeer could still rebound and score at his same level...because A- he fought for rebounds, he wasnt athletic....what he got...was purely on WANT...ALONE. Nothing to do with athletic ability or the game's flow/play. B- Laimbeer scored alot from the outside...those shots are still open for 6'11 big men.

I think what cheddah and I...are trying to get at...is that the game is different....

You cannot take a majority of classic players and translate there games to the current level of play in the NBA...

However you can take an average NBA player whos VERY ATHLETIC (Ex. Serge Ibaka) and he would translate into the non-athletic NBA version in the old days. Yes, I used Serge Ibaka because at 7ft tall...you will NOT...and I WILL REPEAT...WILL NOT...find anyone near Serge Ibaka's ability at that height. You can laugh all you want...but obviously you know nothing about Serge Ibaka.

Ibaka averaged about 9pts 8 rebounds....on a team that has Westbrook/Durant eating up all the rebounds/points...

He' averaging a double double in his 5 playoff games...

Take Ibaka...and put him into the 80s...and he's the most athletic BIG MAN in the WHOLE NBA...PERIOD, POINT, BLANK.

That kind of athleticism...translate to any kind of NBA style...whether it was 1950's or 2011....

But, fact remains...the old versions of the NBA....pre. year 2000+....

you will not find a whole lot of athleticism in the NBA...like you do now.

Yes, they had some skilled big men back in the day (Lanier, Wilt, Russell, Walton) but, they were very limited...move wise. They were soo much better than the rest...that a simple drop step and hook shot....was basically all they needed. That doesn't float anymore. Even the most average 7ft...(Ex. Pryzbilla) will send those basic moves...packing into the front row.

The game will never be how it was...back in the older eras. We cannot change that...or act like those players would accel in today's game. Most of them wont.

Alot of us...are in LOVE with the old eras...the games seemed to mean more...they were more exciting...etc.

But, the players are in no way shape or form...BETTER....they are WORSE.

Some of the best basketball I ever watched was from 1985 till about 1992, the Bad Boys made you pay for any and everything at/near the basket. Magic and Bird matched each other shot for shot. You had the Run N Gunners in Golden State....You had KJ and the Suns with Tom Chambers and Dan Majerle. I love those days. I'll never truly believe I'll enjoy basketball as much as during those times.

That being said....those players couldnt hold a candle to today's players....

Thats what...to me...

Makes Kobe Bryant...better than some of the other all-time greats...


PS: Kevin Love...reminds me alot of Bill Laimbeer and not because hes WHITE....

wouldn't you know who's assistant coaching in Minnesota?

Bill Laimbeer

slickmonkyz wrote:the game as a whole is less skilled today from a team perspective , today its all about what u can do off the bounce, in iso situations , passing and pure shooting is not what it was, u can watch a game today and see a 80-74 game,,its not unusual,, back then most teams scored over 100 every night almost,, so u combine todays crap shooting with the emphisis on defense u get boring games , boring one on one crap,, as far as putting kobe #2.. idk.. to me ,, u can take the top 20 or so ,, throw their names in a hat pull one out and u could make an argument for whoever u pull out to be the #2 guy behind jordan,, because its splitting hairs, in my opinion,,

I semi-agree with that...you can take alot of the top 20...and you are splitting hairs...

But, most of the top 20...cannot translate their games...into today's game...

Jordan is one of the exceptions...

You dont believe for a single moment that putting Kobe Bryant into the 1950's or 1960s....that he wouldnt average 50+ points a game?

He'd average 30+ on pure dribble penetration alone....which isnt Kobe's strong point. Kobe will kill you all day with the pull-up jumper...and he wouldnt even need to use that...in his arsenol in the olden days.

PS: Im no Kobe Bryant mark. If it ain't the Pistons, I dont give a !@#$#

the game may seem more athletic now but human evolution doesnt happen that quick lol.. fact is most guys today would rather make a great move as opposed to just making the fucking play ie.. showboating,, all show n no go , playground shit ,, and thats fine, just for my perspective makes for crappier game. the very 1st game i ever saw was the kentucky colonels in 1974, so im biased cuz im an old fuck..lol..

slickmonkyz wrote:the game may seem more athletic now but human evolution doesnt happen that quick lol.. fact is most guys today would rather make a great move as opposed to just making the fucking play ie.. showboating,, all show n no go , playground shit ,, and thats fine, just for my perspective makes for crappier game. the very 1st game i ever saw was the kentucky colonels in 1974, so im biased cuz im an old fuck..lol..

I agree the game play has gone down dramatically....but I think that the human evolution of athleticism and skill has increased majorly with the use of weights/off-season programs. I don't think anyone can deny that.

Skill? The players are more skilled today? HELL NO... Players can not shoot or pass or play fundamental basketball like they did in the 80s... To think guys like Larry Bird or Bernard King or Adrian Dantley or Alex English would not succeed in todays game is ridiculious. If Luis Scola can average 18 ppg in todays game, Larry Bird can easily score 25 ppg... The difference in the game today is rules... zone defenses and no hand checking has changed the game not athleticism.

Delmas, please tell me what Kobe has done better than Shaq... Do you remember what happen to the Lakers when Shaq left and BEFORE they traded for Gasol... 34-48, 45-37,42-40 Nice job Kobe leading them to being a medicore.... You should know Shaq was the dominating player when they Lakers won the title in 2000,2001, 2002... NOT KOBE... Shaq won the Finals MVP award ALL 3 years NOT KOBE.. Shaq averaged 38 ppg, 16.7 rpg and 2.67 bpg in 2000, then 33 ppg 15.6 rbg and 3.67 bpg in 2001, 36.3 ppg 12.3 rpg and 2.75 bpg.... NOT KOBE... I am sure you are all aware that just like you saying Shaq needed Kobe and Wade.. Kobe was 2nd fiddle to Shaq and needed Gasol to win a championship... Resumes are in Shaqs favore NOT Kobes... Shaq has lead 3 teams to the NBA finals and won with 2 different teams... Since basketball is your life, you should know all this already but your arguement of saying Kobe is 2nd best ever... As you say... CHILDPLEASE!!!!.. History, stats and knowledge show this... He is not even the greatest Laker ever! Yes, Dave Cowens was a top 15 center of all time and being an athlete does not mean you are going to be good in the nba.. again... You should know this since basketball is your life... Cedric Ceballos was a great athlete but was NEVER a dominate player in NBA

Cheddah... so if you are 5 inches taller, you should dominate.. So Yao Ming should officially be the best "big" player in the game.


No one said who is the most athletic player to ever player the game... HELL.. Lebron is MORE athletic than Kobe!!!!

bjcole26 wrote:Skill? The players are more skilled today? HELL NO... Players can not shoot or pass or play fundamental basketball like they did in the 80s... To think guys like Larry Bird or Bernard King or Adrian Dantley or Alex English would not succeed in todays game is ridiculious. If Luis Scola can average 18 ppg in todays game, Larry Bird can easily score 25 ppg... The difference in the game today is rules... zone defenses and no hand checking has changed the game not athleticism.

Delmas, please tell me what Kobe has done better than Shaq... Do you remember what happen to the Lakers when Shaq left and BEFORE they traded for Gasol... 34-48, 45-37,42-40 Nice job Kobe leading them to being a medicore.... You should know Shaq was the dominating player when they Lakers won the title in 2000,2001, 2002... NOT KOBE... Shaq won the Finals MVP award ALL 3 years NOT KOBE.. Shaq averaged 38 ppg, 16.7 rpg and 2.67 bpg in 2000, then 33 ppg 15.6 rbg and 3.67 bpg in 2001, 36.3 ppg 12.3 rpg and 2.75 bpg.... NOT KOBE... I am sure you are all aware that just like you saying Shaq needed Kobe and Wade.. Kobe was 2nd fiddle to Shaq and needed Gasol to win a championship... Resumes are in Shaqs favore NOT Kobes... Shaq has lead 3 teams to the NBA finals and won with 2 different teams... Since basketball is your life, you should know all this already but your arguement of saying Kobe is 2nd best ever... As you say... CHILDPLEASE!!!!.. History, stats and knowledge show this... He is not even the greatest Laker ever! Yes, Dave Cowens was a top 15 center of all time and being an athlete does not mean you are going to be good in the nba.. again... You should know this since basketball is your life... Cedric Ceballos was a great athlete but was NEVER a dominate player in NBA

Cheddah... so if you are 5 inches taller, you should dominate.. So Yao Ming should officially be the best "big" player in the game.


No one said who is the most athletic player to ever player the game... HELL.. Lebron is MORE athletic than Kobe!!!!

Ceballos was not a GREAT athlete....just because he won a dunk contest off a prop...

Also, even Iverson is a better athlete than Kobe... Look at his stats as one of the TOP qbs in high school before picking basketball.. I am sure i do not have to tell you with basketball being your life... Also, what exactly is your definition of being a great athlete? What makes Kobe so great?

I see no comment on who was the leader or dominating player on the Shaq and Kobe Laker teams.

bjcole26 wrote:Also, even Iverson is a better athlete than Kobe... Look at his stats as one of the TOP qbs in high school before picking basketball.. I am sure i do not have to tell you with basketball being your life... Also, what exactly is your definition of being a great athlete? What makes Kobe so great?

I see no comment on who was the leader or dominating player on the Shaq and Kobe Laker teams.

BJ you're not getting what I'm saying at all. And if you don't think height is something that creates an advantage, you don't know basketball at all. I'm saying, back then, the legends had MULTIPLE advantages over the competition. Height, size (weight) athleticism, AND skill (That is, the legends had ALL or MOST of those advantages over the majority of their competition. Today, the height discrepancy isn't there. Pretty much every NBA team has a guy to match up height-wise with anyone you can throw at them. The Size discrepancy isn't there as much. Pretty much every NBA team has multiple big bodies to match up. Athleticism isn't a big difference either. So today, skill is what sets guys apart. Back then, it was skill, height, size, and athleticism. So what I'm saying is, those guys back then had amazing skills, but I don't think their skill was so great that if they matched up against NBA competition today, they'd flat out dominate like they did back then. OBVIOUSLY they'd all be good NBA players today, some even great. BUT, you cannot make an argument that the athleticism back then is the same.

I didn't mean to imply that it was evolution, but it partly is. Back then, there weren't 7 footers in the league that could run and jump like Serge Ibaka. Just like back then in the NFL there weren't 6'3 248lbs linebackers running 4.4 40's. Part of it is just natural (evolution), part of it is the advances in training techniques from then til now, and part of it is that Ibaka's mom probably fucked a lion back in Africa and he was the result. Point is, there's no denying that guys in the league are bigger stronger and faster than they were back then, and that plays a HUGE part in how effective you can be now compared to then.

Therefore, my argument is that Kobe can dominate in today's game, and has done so for years. If you placed him back in the old days of the NBA, against slower, weaker, shorter competition he would shit all over them. But if you brought back a majority of the old guys, they wouldn't have that success.


Lastly, if you don't think height is a major factor in basketball you don't know hoops at all. 5" IS HUGE. That's why whenever you see a mismatch like a 6'1 pg caught on a 6'7/6'8 F they take them right to the block. That's why Gary, Mark Jackson, and J.Kidd used to back their men all the way down into the paint. That's why Yao did dominate (when he wasn't hurt, and after he adjusted to the speed of the NBA game)...also why the Rockets continue to hold out hope for him coming back. That's why Dirk is almost un-guardable from the mid-range unless he is having an off-night, because he needs almost no space to get his shot off being at 7'0. That's why there are no 6'0 centers. That's why the liklihood of a player under 6'0 making it in the NBA is EXTREMELY unlikely anymore. It's not called a height advantage for no reason...

bjcole26 wrote:Also, even Iverson is a better athlete than Kobe... Look at his stats as one of the TOP qbs in high school before picking basketball.. I am sure i do not have to tell you with basketball being your life... Also, what exactly is your definition of being a great athlete? What makes Kobe so great?

I see no comment on who was the leader or dominating player on the Shaq and Kobe Laker teams.

I also just realized there's no way you've read my posts lol. My argument was that there is parity in athleticism in the NBA today...which means pretty much most of the guys are just as athletic as all the other guys. There's definitely more guys athletic than Kobe (like Iggy). There's also parity in the height. Which is WHY Kobe's skill is so more obvious. Because all the other things that provide advantages are equal. Back in the old days, there was no parity with athleticism and with height...

Again... Kobes first 3 titles were on Shaq led Laker teams... No Kobe led... Never once did Kobe not have a wingman to carry him... My arguement is Kobe is NOT the 2nd best player ever... Nothing on his resume supports that comment.... Shaq has a better arguement than Kobe does.


Finally, i know nothing about basketball.. I never knew height played a difference in basketball... Shit i never knew Ron Harper was a point guard until 2 days ago.. Sorry for just now learning about basketball

bjcole26 wrote:Again... Kobes first 3 titles were on Shaq led Laker teams... No Kobe led... Never once did Kobe not have a wingman to carry him... My arguement is Kobe is NOT the 2nd best player ever... Nothing on his resume supports that comment.... Shaq has a better arguement than Kobe does.


Finally, i know nothing about basketball.. I never knew height played a difference in basketball... Shit i never knew Ron Harper was a point guard until 2 days ago.. Sorry for just now learning about basketball

Well when you make comments about height not being a significant factor in the success of big men, that's how it looks. It's not EVERYTHING, but it's a hell of a lot.

Nice try with the Harper comment, but did he not get starting minutes for the Bulls for multiple seasons in a lineup that featured him, MJ, Pippen, Rodman, and Longley? Considering MJ did the scoring (making him the shooting guard by definition), Rodman and Longley were the the frontcourt players, that'd leave either the 1 or 3 for Harper to play, I hope you're not suggesting Pippen was the point guard then...

Of course height matters, but Cheddah, you are using some odd examples to get there. Mark Jackson and Payton and Kidd are not that tall. 6'3" maybe? I don't even think Jackson was that big. Those guys posted up people despite their height. They posted them up because they had serious post skills and excelled at playing with their back to the basket.

And that is another point that everyone is missing. Some of you seem to think that dominant post players is all about size. That is NOT the case. Post moves are all about skill. Being tall or strong of course helps, but those low post moves are learned. That is why Hakeem was so sweet to watch and why he dominated....he had brilliant footwork.
Just because a player gets his work done in the paint should not exclude them from the "basketball skills" conversation.
Rebounding, shot blocking, outlet passing, help defense, posting up, all of these things are basketball skills and should be included in the conversation.

I think people are so infatuated with the skills it takes to play 2 guard that they ignore a bunch of other parts of the game.

Further proof that skill plays more a part than height: Charles Barkley

Charles Barkely was listed at 6'7" but in reality he was more like 6'5" and he was absolutely dominant. IN THE MODERN ERA!

mblammers wrote:Of course height matters, but Cheddah, you are using some odd examples to get there. Mark Jackson and Payton and Kidd are not that tall. 6'3" maybe? I don't even think Jackson was that big. Those guys posted up people despite their height. They posted them up because they had serious post skills and excelled at playing with their back to the basket.

And that is another point that everyone is missing. Some of you seem to think that dominant post players is all about size. That is NOT the case. Post moves are all about skill. Being tall or strong of course helps, but those low post moves are learned. That is why Hakeem was so sweet to watch and why he dominated....he had brilliant footwork.
Just because a player gets his work done in the paint should not exclude them from the "basketball skills" conversation.
Rebounding, shot blocking, outlet passing, help defense, posting up, all of these things are basketball skills and should be included in the conversation.

I think people are so infatuated with the skills it takes to play 2 guard that they ignore a bunch of other parts of the game.

Further proof that skill plays more a part than height: Charles Barkley

Charles Barkely was listed at 6'7" but in reality he was more like 6'5" and he was absolutely dominant. IN THE MODERN ERA!

All those guards I listed were 6'4...only one was 6'3...and at PG, being 6'3-6'5 is a height advantage more often than not. Other than rebounding and shot blocking...none of those other post skills you listed are quantifiable...not that I'm all about what numbers show, but you can't deny that size, height, and strength play a huge part in positioning (posting up) and even a little in help defense.

Sir Charles was more effort than skill. He's always the first to admit that his game was based on WANT. He wanted it more than his oppenents, he wasn't just more skilled.

Your also no getting my argument/or not reading what I posted. I understand post moves take skill, but when you have a 5" advantage and are also more athletic (jump higher, more agile, quicker, faster, stronger) all you need a drop step and hook shot and you dominate. Which is why a lot of those guys dominated. They had a few post moves and when that's coupled with their athletic and height advantages they were unstoppbale. Nowadays, those simple post moves wouldn't allow them to dominate, because the other factors wouldn't be in their favor...or would actually be in favor of the defender. Again, those legends would still be very good players, but they wouldn't dominate.

Also, claiming that one player could or could not dominate in another era is dumb.

We have to judge players IN THE ERA THEY WERE PLAYING IN. It just isn't fair to say "well, so-and-so wouldn't be able to use a drop step and finger roll in today's game." as an argument against their greatness. What should that player have done, seen into the future and anticipated rule changes and playing styles and morphed his game even further?
In any human endeavor, people learn skills from those that have gone before them. That is how it works.
I think one of the factors that should be taken into account in determining greatness should be the impact on the game.
Wilt changed the game. Literally. They widened the lane as a direct result of his dominance.
When Kareem was in college, they outlawed dunking... as a direct result of his dominance. Then, he developed the sky-hook and dominated with that.
Dr J introduced a level of dynamic athleticism that hadn't been seen before.
Magic made it ok for taller guys to consider playing guard.
The list goes on.
Point being, just because the game evolved doesn't mean that earlier players weren't great.

mblammers wrote:Also, claiming that one player could or could not dominate in another era is dumb.

We have to judge players IN THE ERA THEY WERE PLAYING IN. It just isn't fair to say "well, so-and-so wouldn't be able to use a drop step and finger roll in today's game." as an argument against their greatness. What should that player have done, seen into the future and anticipated rule changes and playing styles and morphed his game even further?
In any human endeavor, people learn skills from those that have gone before them. That is how it works.
I think one of the factors that should be taken into account in determining greatness should be the impact on the game.
Wilt changed the game. Literally. They widened the lane as a direct result of his dominance.
When Kareem was in college, they outlawed dunking... as a direct result of his dominance. Then, he developed the sky-hook and dominated with that.
Dr J introduced a level of dynamic athleticism that hadn't been seen before.
Magic made it ok for taller guys to consider playing guard.
The list goes on.
Point being, just because the game evolved doesn't mean that earlier players weren't great.

No one said they weren't great. And you can say that their games wouldn't translate because they don't. That's what you can base it on. Would the post moves that they used allow them to dominate in today's game of basketball? No...they'd be good, but not dominant. Just like if Kobe played back then with his current arsenal of skills, he'd be untouchable. I'm not saying that they wouldn't have adapted and changed the way they played, because that much we don't know. But based on what they did, their styles would not be as effective now as back then. But we know for certain Kobe's would.

You know for CERTAIN? HOW? Again, what part of Kobes resume makes him the 2nd best basketball player of all time? How can you be certain he would be successful back then? He is not even the most dominate player in the game today. Who carried the Lakers to the first 3 championships that Kobe won?

Next what part of Larry Birds game does not translate into todays game? If Luis Scola can average 18 ppg in todays game, do you really think Larry Bird would not average that. Is it Andrea Bargnani athletic ability that allows him to dominate the NBA now to 21.2 ppg but would make Mark Aguirre be average? PLEASE....Study up on basketball and realize NBA superstars back then would still be NBA superstars now... unlike many of todays players, back then they could actually make a jump shot and not depend on fast breaks or dunks to score.

bjcole26 wrote:You know for CERTAIN? HOW? Again, what part of Kobes resume makes him the 2nd best basketball player of all time? How can you be certain he would be successful back then? He is not even the most dominate player in the game today. Who carried the Lakers to the first 3 championships that Kobe won?

Next what part of Larry Birds game does not translate into todays game? If Luis Scola can average 18 ppg in todays game, do you really think Larry Bird would not average that. Is it Andrea Bargnani athletic ability that allows him to dominate the NBA now to 21.2 ppg but would make Mark Aguirre be average? PLEASE....Study up on basketball and realize NBA superstars back then would still be NBA superstars now... unlike many of todays players, back then they could actually make a jump shot and not depend on fast breaks or dunks to score.

I know for certain because, the types of defenders and defensive scheme's he sees now, they did not have back then. At 6'7, he would have faced guards 5in shorter...and defensive schemes that worked in the NBA back then, but are now run by the teams he faced back in high school. On top of all that, in today's game, where on a nightly basis he faces a beastly defender night in and night out, he manages to create his own shot at will, get to the basket at will, and is a knock down shooter from any range, it would have been all the more easier back then.

Luis Scola also averages 18pg, on the Rockets...who else is on that team that's a scorer? Kevin Martin leads them, but then who? SOMEONE has to score. Same with Bargnani (21pg is not dominant by the way). He's on the Raptors with ZERO talent. What did he do while Chris Bosh was there? Nothing. Now they force feed him the ball, of course he's going to get buckets. On top of that, he's a 7'0 center who can shoot outside jumpers, which is a nightmare, just like Dirk. So what are you getting at?

Defenses with hand checking was different back then.... You act like 6'7 guards did not exist back in the 80s... Do you even know how tall Jordan and Magic are?

Next, 21.4 ppg is 15th in the league and less than 4 ppg behind Kobe who was 5th in the league. Your bring up the point about Scola being the 2nd option on the Rockets... Lets compare the Rockets top 3 scorers vs the LA Fakers.

1. Martin 23. 5 Kobe 25.3
2. Scola 18.3 Gasol 18.8
3. Lowrey 13.5 L.Odom 14.4

Again tell me the difference in scoring for Kobe... Someone has to score there... Finally for the 4th or 5th time asking.. What part of Kobes resumes is better than Shaq? Shaq won 3 MVP awards for finals when he led the Fakers to the titles while Kobe was 2nd fiddle.

From vick and hillis to basketball? And noone thought to make a new thread caus y'all way off topic

ok .. back on topic.. vick sux ass ,, hes a cowardly jerkoff,, and his true colors will b back sooner than later,,everything comes out in the wash ,, as they say,, he will once again b involved in some stupid shit , he was an idiot in college as well as the pros,, just a matter of time for a dumbass like him

slickmonkyz wrote:ok .. back on topic.. vick sux ass ,, hes a cowardly jerkoff,, and his true colors will b back sooner than later,,everything comes out in the wash ,, as they say,, he will once again b involved in some stupid shit , he was an idiot in college as well as the pros,, just a matter of time for a dumbass like him

cant agree with you moew slick - the issue with character - or more specifically his LACK OF CHARACTER - you are either a person 0f sound character or your not - he has shown consistantly and he consisistantly has show to bethe ormer of the 2; just because he has been on good before lately , doesnt mean he is a different person - he is just keeping a low profile - but there is no doubt he was one of the most excoiting plaers to watch in the NFL

Players are human beings. Not perfect by no means neither of us are. Good character or not everyone does something to piss someone else off. I for 1 don't look at athletes or actors or artists as role modles and noone else should either. I tell my brother to find a player he wants to PLAY like and not BE like. There is a difference. Ppl need to get of their high horse like they have never done anything wrong. If ur not the type of person who gives 2nd chances then please do nothing wrong ever lol. It does make me chuckle when ppl say this and that about a person who made a mistake or a bad choice. We are human and we all make bad decisions and mistakes is all I'm sayin.