<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (arya202 @ Jun 17 2006, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Which would you rather have. In their heyday?</div>Id atke MJ and Pip. They gave the Bulls a 72 win season and they got 6 rings together. Plus they actually got along well unlike Shaq and Kobe.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (iversonfan268 @ Jun 18 2006, 10:15 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Id atke MJ and Pip. They gave the Bulls a 72 win season and they got 4 rings together. Plus they actually got along well unlike Shaq and Kobe.</div>http://pweb.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/duhbulls.htm
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo_061 @ Jun 17 2006, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>http://pweb.netcom.com/~bjalas/basketball/bulls/duhbulls.htm</div>Things like this will only come from a hardcore Laker fan. But I would take MJ and Pippen. They dominated,broke records and brought the title home.
There not dissing the bulls, there saying that the 1992 team was better. And i didn't write that.And one more thing, seeing as how kobe/shaq didnt like eachother would that not make them even greater? They won 3 rings in a row and 15-1 in one run and in the midst of that disliked eachother.
You guys are forgetting Shaq back during the 3 peat. HE SCORED WHEN HE WANTED. He got triple teams, no one drove on him he was just and all around monster. Then figure in Kobe for lockdown defense and clutchness.I think Shaq being a center gives the Lakers the edge.
Well, if i saw the two teams play during their highest point, i would go with the Lakers easily. Both teams didnt have amazing supporting casts but big men dominate so Shaq/Kobe in my mind. And who cares if they didnt like each other; They got the job done.
I would take Scottie and MJ. This fact alone is good enough for me:Every time MJ and Scottie went to the finals, they won it. That was 6 times.Kobe and Shaq did not win every time they went to the finals together. Sure they won 3 in a row, that is no where close to 6. But they also lost that last one to the underdog Pistons.
I'll take Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen every single time I'm posed with this question. Yes, Shaq and Kobe were great, but Jordan and Pippen were even greater.I've heard the argument that Shaq isn't as great because he played against "weak competition." So, if that truly is the case, how can you support Shaq and Kobe in this one when MJ and Pippen won six rings against better competition?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigMo763 @ Jun 18 2006, 03:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'll take Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen every single time I'm posed with this question. Yes, Shaq and Kobe were great, but Jordan and Pippen were even greater.I've heard the argument that Shaq isn't as great because he played against "weak competition." So, if that truly is the case, how can you support Shaq and Kobe in this one when MJ and Pippen won six rings against better competition?</div>I never said in this thread i picked Kobe/Shaq. I actually didn't vote. But i did say that 95-96 team was not the greatest team ever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Melo_061 @ Jun 18 2006, 01:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I never said in this thread i picked Kobe/Shaq. I actually didn't vote. But i did say that 95-96 team was not the greatest team ever.</div>I know... but there are other people on this board who agreed that Shaq isn't as dominant/great because he won his three rings against weak competition, and I just threw that comment out there so they should come up with a better reason if they pick Shaq/Kobe.
This is unfair as Pip and MJ were with each other for MANY years and were both in primes when getting rings. By the time Kobe started to reach his potential in 2002-2003, Shaq started to decline and injuries and court cases plagued their last year together. If you paired Kobe 2005-2006 with Shaq circa 2000-2001, you would have by far the best tandem in the history of the NBA.I feel that Kobe and Shaq was the better tandem, soley because you had the premier SG with a HoF center in his prime, and for the 3 peat they worked fantastically together. They blended perfectly and were a constant low post and permieter threat, while MJ/Pip was perimeter only. If you had great perimeter defense, chances are you could slow down the tandem and win the game, while you needed a double, and sometimes triple team just to contain Shaq, which left Kobe guarded one on one, and vice versa. They were just unstoppable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Jun 19 2006, 06:19 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This is unfair as Pip and MJ were with each other for MANY years and were both in primes when getting rings. By the time Kobe started to reach his potential in 2002-2003, Shaq started to decline and injuries and court cases plagued their last year together. If you paired Kobe 2005-2006 with Shaq circa 2000-2001, you would have by far the best tandem in the history of the NBA.I feel that Kobe and Shaq was the better tandem, soley because you had the premier SG with a HoF center in his prime, and for the 3 peat they worked fantastically together. They blended perfectly and were a constant low post and permieter threat, while MJ/Pip was perimeter only. If you had great perimeter defense, chances are you could slow down the tandem and win the game, while you needed a double, and sometimes triple team just to contain Shaq, which left Kobe guarded one on one, and vice versa. They were just unstoppable.</div>I would've said Shaq's prime was in 2000, i think that was the only year he made an all defensive team And welcome back.
actually, without rodman mj/pippen would at least two rings shorter than they are today and thats a fact jack. 97 and 98 jazz were WAY BETTER teams, it took rodman nuetralizing malone and some very clutch shots from, STEVE KERR, for the bulls to overcome those humps.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobeaki @ Jun 24 2006, 07:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>actually, without rodman mj/pippen would at least two rings shorter than they are today and thats a fact jack. 97 and 98 jazz were WAY BETTER teams, it took rodman nuetralizing malone and some very clutch shots from, STEVE KERR, for the bulls to overcome those humps.</div>That's true, but the same thing can be said about guys like Robert Horry and Derek Fisher.
Again, I have to side agaist the Bulls with this one. The Bulls won more but were together for over a decade also, not just 4 years. But i want you to remember, the entire bulls staff was at war in the later years of the dynasty, MJ wanted to retire,Pip wanted traded,Krause wanted everyone gone, and Phil was a part of that. So I'd say the later bulls team was in just as much panic as the lakers team if not more. But the reason i'd take the Lakers is very simple, a great big man and a great guard, is a much better way to build a team then a sg/sf. In the individual matchup I would take the Lakers if i could choose the 2 players in a combination. If the Lakers had been around for a decade, they probably would have similar achievements also.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kobeaki @ Jun 24 2006, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>actually, without rodman mj/pippen would at least two rings shorter than they are today and thats a fact jack. 97 and 98 jazz were WAY BETTER teams, it took rodman nuetralizing malone and some very clutch shots from, STEVE KERR, for the bulls to overcome those humps.</div>I want to mention one thing, in the 98' series Karl Malone dominated Dennis Rodman. The main game im refering to is the 98' finals game 6(Jordans last game as a bull) where Karl malone didnt miss even one shot til after halftime. It's not entirely relevent, but Rodman never owned Malone.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Jun 24 2006, 08:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, I have to side agaist the Bulls with this one. The Bulls won more but were together for over a decade also, not just 4 years. But i want you to remember, the entire bulls staff was at war in the later years of the dynasty, MJ wanted to retire,Pip wanted traded,Krause wanted everyone gone, and Phil was a part of that. So I'd say the later bulls team was in just as much panic as the lakers team if not more. But the reason i'd take the Lakers is very simple, a great big man and a great guard, is a much better way to build a team then a sg/sf. In the individual matchup I would take the Lakers if i could choose the 2 players in a combination. If the Lakers had been around for a decade, they probably would have similar achievements also.</div>I'm sorry but the Lakers team of 03-04 was probably the most dramatic of all time. Shaq and Kobe were jabbing at eachother from day 1, GP was never happy about anything and let everyone know about it, Kobe got his first taste of being the most hated player in the league, Karl Malone wasn't even playing most of the season, and in the finals they had the same problem just 10x worse.
It's hard to go against MJ, but Shaq the big guy was a dominant presence in side.So it's a hard choice for me, but I would go with Shaq, and Kobe.
This is an easy choice. Jordan/Pippen were a greater duo. As great as the Kobe/Shaq combo was the Jordan/Pippen was greater including the greatest team of all time that won 72 games and should've won 73. No Laker team could ever match that.
