u think bryant could win a title with this group of teammates?

Question

jordan and the bulls have this line up (i add 2 reserves) during the 96-98 title run
C LONGLEY
F RODMAN
F PIPPEN
G JORDAN
G HARPER
RESERVES KUKOC AND KERR

but what if kobe got this teammates (players skills and abilities sumhow based on jordan teammates)
C NESTEROVIC
F CHANDLER (good rebounder)
F McGRADY (sum wud say his better but i said his game is the same or less with pippen)
G BRYANT (of course his the main man)
G LARRY HUGHES
RESERVES HEDO TURKOGLU and LUTHER HEAD

what u think?? enjoy..... :)

chandler vs. rodman
rodman is better defender but i could not find any player now who ave. 8defreb and 4offreb who is not actually the superstar to his team, so i included chandler in the line up
harper vs. hughes
yes hughes is more of a scorer but so as harper during his cleveland days, so i include hughes their because his more of a tall point guard HOPE that when he have kobe and tmac he will be a passer in the triangle offense :)
tmac vs. pippen
this one is the toughest for me.. no one in the nba right who plays exactly like pippen do... except grant hill but his aging, so i hev to include tmac and also HOPE that he accepts his role as a second man to bryant and let him worry about the defense to the best scorer in the opponent, just like what he always said in his toronto days when they are winning games

thanks guys for your answer :)

Answer 1

No and let me tell you why. I'll give you the Lakers 2004 lineup which is very similar to the Chicago lineup you're comparing to.

Point Guard
Ron Harper = Gary Payton
Payton may be past his prime but he certainly has enough in the tank to match Harper (who was in the same stages of his career) because the Glove had the better overall NBA career.

Shooting Guard
Michael Jordan > Kobe Bryant
No contest here. MJ is the greatest SG to ever live.

Small Forward
Devean George < Scottie Pippen
Pippen wins here. No contest.

Power Forward
Dennis Rodman < Karl Malone
The Mailman in his later years is still a better and more complete (offensively and defensively) player than Mr. Hot Rod was during any point of his career.

Center
Luc Longley < Shaquille O'Neal
No contest here either. Shaq is the man.


Reserves
Toni Kukoc > Rick Fox, Brian Cook
Kukoc is the better all-around player out of this bunch.

Steve Kerr < Derek Fisher
Fisher is a better defender and has better point guards skills and instincts than Kerr. Steve was just a spot up shooter who made his living off Jordan's passes.


The starting lineup is a wash with Chicago winning the SG / SF matchup while L.A. takes the PF / C match. The bench is also split with Kukoc and Fisher each gaining a point for their respective team. This Lakers lost in the finals because Kobe couldn't make use of his teammates or deliver in the final seconds when it counted like the way Jordan did. That L.A. team should of cruised all the way to the finals and won but they didn't. So if Kobe couldn't win a championship with that Dream Team lineup, I doubt he could do it with any other lineup.

Answer 2

I think this is more realistic:
C - Bynum
F - Odom
F - Artest (if the Lakers can get from the Kings for players such as Brown & Farmar)
G - Bryant
G - Walton (eventhough he is a forward, he can be an initiator for the Triangle offense).

This can be compared to the 96 - 98 Bulls, as they have a defense specialist in Artest (Rodman, in 96). Odom can still be like Pippen. And off the bench will be Radmanovic (Kukoc) and Fisher (Kerr).

Answer 3

It's really hard to say. McGrady is the biggest question mark. I don't think he can play well with Kobe because they are both scorers. Pippen was a way better defender than McGrady, and he didn't score as much. I would put either Tayshawn Prince or Bruce Bowen in there (although offensively they aren't as good as Pippen), and they would have a better chance of winning a title.

Answer 4

not a bad try, but remeber how defensive the bulls were. i mean rodman could take whomever he was guarding completely out of the game(malone and alonzo especially), chandler not even close defensively. hughes and mcgrady defenses are decent, but in no way the caliber of pippen and harper. the other positions are very good in comparison, but the lack in defense will not allow them to win in today's game. sure they will be able to put up points, but could they stop other teams from putting up more is the key.

Answer 5

McGrady is far more a score first player than Pippen ever was. Pippen was sort of the assist man- the second scoring option. I don't think McGrady could be that. Other than that the team could work..

Answer 6

Yes but only with 3 point shooters on the bench and I would put Ginobli on the bench too. The reason I think they would do well is 3 SG in the triangle at all times is very hard to deal with.

Answer 7

first off i believe that even though chandler is young, hes turning out quite well. forget nesterovic put greg oden in the lineup he'll crush all. switch mcgrady for kevin durant because he's a pure all around player. you could find someone better for larry hughes but hes okay.
My starting 5 for a team that is better than the bulls dynasty would be...
C Greg Oden (another solid 7-footer in paint)
PF Tyson Chandler (great performer at 7'+)
SF Kevin Durant (need points he'll deliver)
SG Lebron James(plays like jordan, could be him someday)
PG Steve Nash (Who wants assists?)
2 reserves would be DWade and Mike conley Jr

Answer 8

Yeah i think that would be possible. only change i would make would be at forward.. i would like to see maybe a ben wallace or simialar, a tough gritty player. i think chandler is too soft, and is no where near as physical as rodman. but that would be a good lineup, and possibly a championship team, if bryant could get along with them. Good question!!!

Answer 9

I think the second team, Kobe would have a good chance of making playoffs and even winning Title....

Answer 10

NO! Because there's nobody there with Shaq's abilities. Kobe only looked good when he was with Shaq. Without Shaq, he gets nothing but individual honors.