Greatest Laker

[HammerTime]

Not to get too far off subject, but Ray Allen is an interesting case. He has never been an all pro type player, just very good for 10+ years now. One of the best shooters in league history. Not sure he is Hall worthy though. Would not be in my book. Rondo has a long way to go. K.G. no doubt. Pierce more than likely.

 

Your right Allen is a very interesting case and yes I agree Rondo is a long way away but it is possible.

[CatsCatsCats]

Ray Allen- 9x All-Star, 1x Champion, 20.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 3.7 APG. 45% FG, 39.6% 3PT.

 

Reggie Miller- 5x All-Star, 18.2 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 3.0 APG. 47.1% FG, 39.5% 3PT.

[PurplePride92]

I would put KG, Pierce, Rondo, Allen, and even Wallace in the same class as Bird, McHale, Parish and Dennis Johnson in terms of All-Pro/HOF worthy laden teams. I like the combo of Pierce and KG as much as I like the combo of Bird and McHale. Not saying which one is better, but I like them both as the leaders of their respective teams in the different eras. Tall task to defeat either combo even when they are/were aging.

[PurplePride92]

Ray Allen- 9x All-Star, 1x Champion, 20.5 PPG, 4.3 RPG, 3.7 APG. 45% FG, 39.6% 3PT.

 

Reggie Miller- 5x All-Star, 18.2 PPG, 3.0 RPG, 3.0 APG. 47.1% FG, 39.5% 3PT.

 

I see a strong case for Allen, will the HOF voters see this the same way? I think they will.

[5wide]

Reggie was the lead player on his Pacers teams, and he had the memorable feud with the Knicks which got him a lot of exposure. He also had the comeback moment when he scored 8 points in like 11 seconds. I think he got overrated just a bit because of all that. That said, however, from watching them both play, if I had to pick a SG from those two, I'd take Reggie. They're obviously comparable.

[HammerTime]

If Reggie is a HOFer then so is Allen.

[EZ Living]

Wow! tough poll. I went with Wilt just because he was so dominate at the time he played the game. He was not as great of a basketball player as some of the others but was a man among boys.

 

Especially with the ladies.

[Sandman]

It's Kobe and it's not close.

[Hatz]

For me, I'm torn.

 

Magic or Kobe, Magic or Kobe, Magic or Kobe.

 

While championships are not a singular focus for me, they definitely factor into the equation. Jerry West only having 1 championship tells me he isn't in the conversation with Magic and Kobe. If he had at least 2, preferably 3 or 4, there would definitely be a legitimate claim for The Logo, but only 1? Sorry, Jerry.

 

Kareem is easily one of the greatest players ever but when you factor in that he said, "I'm just here to make some money by hitting a few hook shots" BEFORE Magic Johnson came to LA and got Kareem to refocus his eyes on the prize then you know he can't be a greater Laker than Magic.

 

I'll make this short and sweet.....a week ago I picked Magic over Kobe. Today, I am torn. Magic had a better surrounding cast than Kobe ever had. However, Magic needed that surrounding cast to defeat other HOF laden teams to win championships. For now, I'll take Magic. This could change in a year or two.

 

I hear that a log but I'm not sure it was true early in his career.

 

When Magic won his first two NBA titles he had Jabaar, but he also had Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis, Mark Landsberger, Jim Chones, Jammal Wilkes, Spencer Haywood & Mitch Kupchak. Some of those aren't exactly Hall of Fame players. Yet Magic blended them all to beat out the Sixers with Dr. J and company.

 

I also think the "rings" discussion is lost somewhat on who the Lakers had to beat with West and Baylor. Boston and later the NY Knicks were formidable foes and I think the Lakers lost about 3 or more series that went 7 games. They were snake bit until '72. And if you want to talk about supporting casts, West and Baylor did not have Chamberlin until very late in their careers. They had terrible team mates but still were competitive vs. the Celtics. :thumb: