kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Shaq was certainly the big dog during the three peat. But for the 2nd and 3rd rings I'd consider them more of a 1A and 1B, ala Kareem and Magic
You can't denigrate what LeBron did without acknowledging he did stuff Kobe never did.
Fill us in on how Kobe carried any team near the Finals - let alone into the Finals - without a fellow All Star, the way LeBron did in '07 at age 22 ? When Kobe had guys that bad around him, the Lakers went pfffft.
How about those MVPs (4:1) ? And those assist, rebounding, and shot conversion rates ?
I'm convinced Kobe was great and that LeBron is great, but I'm not ranting. Just looking at it clear-eyed. Just sayin'.
he carried them through the jv league east..... just like now, what competition has lebron faced at all. same thing last year.....no competition at all. he just gets to the finals to easy. i could get through the east. I also noted that lebron always loses games to get to the easiest path....every year.
kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Disagree, Kobe had a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders back then, I'll never forget how amazing Kobe was when Shaq fouled out against the Pacers, Kobe was spectacular even then.
You can't denigrate what LeBron did without acknowledging he did stuff Kobe never did.
Fill us in on how Kobe carried any team near the Finals - let alone into the Finals - without a fellow All Star, the way LeBron did in '07 at age 22 ? When Kobe had guys that bad around him, the Lakers went pfffft.
How about those MVPs (4:1) ? And those assist, rebounding, and shot conversion rates ?
I'm convinced Kobe was great and that LeBron is great, but I'm not ranting. Just looking at it clear-eyed. Just sayin'.
he carried them through the jv league east..... just like now, what competition has lebron faced at all. same thing last year.....no competition at all. he just gets to the finals to easy. i could get through the east. I also noted that lebron always loses games to get to the easiest path....every year.
I also noted that lebron always loses games to get to the easiest path....every year.
I'm not sure that that's true, but if it is that's actually brilliant. If you could purposefully lose games and as a result give your team an easier path and a greater chance for success, why wouldn't you?
kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Disagree, Kobe had a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders back then, I'll never forget how amazing Kobe was when Shaq fouled out against the Pacers, Kobe was spectacular even then.
Do not feed the Kobe troll.
Kobe closed every 4th for the Lakers during the 3peat. Your bias is so ridiculous VLF.
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144473 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 9:08 am Post subject:
kobeandgary wrote:
venturalakersfan wrote:
activeverb wrote:
splashmtn wrote:
kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Disagree, Kobe had a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders back then, I'll never forget how amazing Kobe was when Shaq fouled out against the Pacers, Kobe was spectacular even then.
Sure Kobe had responsibilities but West teams were loading up on big men to combat Shaq. You can disagree but you can't rewrite history. What happened isn't the narrative you made up in your mind. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
I also noted that lebron always loses games to get to the easiest path....every year.
I'm not sure that that's true, but if it is that's actually brilliant. If you could purposefully lose games and as a result give your team an easier path and a greater chance for success, why wouldn't you?
you asked and I'll answer.
The same reason some greats of yesteryear would have never left their team in their prime when they almost beat an opponent to end up on said opponents team(durant). Which is why some greats of yesteryear in their prime would have never joined forces with multiple superstars of other teams to win a ring. Some people, not all. But some Thrive on competition. Some people just want to win. And if winning to them means they need to have all of the stars on their team and do what they can to avoid certain teams when the playoffs roles around. you know the teams that give them the most trouble. Then thats what they will do. because to them. Its not about competing as much as its about winning.
Guys like kobe wanted the to beat the highest level of competition.
Me personally, If someone showed me my future and they said you have two choices play the best and lose without any rings or play 8th graders and win multiple rings. I would choose to take those L's. Why? because I believe iron sharpens iron. the better the comp, the better i play. some legends lived by the same philosophy. They really wanted to know for themselves and show the world how good they were. Others would have rather played 8th graders as long as they get that ring they could care less about the comp.
The same reason some greats of yesteryear would have never left their team in their prime when they almost beat an opponent to end up on said opponents team(durant). Which is why some greats of yesteryear in their prime would have never joined forces with multiple superstars of other teams to win a ring. .
Forty years ago Moses Malone did the same thing Durant did: Malone was the reigning MVP, and he joined with the last MVP Dr. J on a 76ers team that had just gotten to the finals. And this superteam won a ring.
So, no, I don't think the guys today are different than in the past. I think guys today simply have greater ability to move around than guys did before. The notion that older plays stayed put because of some ethical/moral superiority to current players strikes me as ridiculous.
splashmtn wrote:
Some people, not all. But some Thrive on competition. Some people just want to win. And if winning to them means they need to have all of the stars on their team and do what they can to avoid certain teams when the playoffs roles around. you know the teams that give them the most trouble. Then thats what they will do. because to them. Its not about competing as much as its about winning.
Guys like kobe wanted the to beat the highest level of competition. .
I think every superstar in NBA history wanted to be surrounded by an overwhelming amount of talent that obliterated the competition. Bird and Magic were delighted to add former MVPs to already stacked teams (Walton and McAdoo). They all want every edge they can get. None of this guys ever said, "I want to do more with less just to make it more competitive."
splashmtn wrote:
Me personally, If someone showed me my future and they said you have two choices play the best and lose without any rings or play 8th graders and win multiple rings. I would choose to take those L's.
The analogy doesn't make sense. We're not talking about playing a great team vs. playing 8th graders. We're talking about professional NBA players against other professional NBA players with huge amounts of money ands recognition at stake.
Last edited by activeverb on Wed May 24, 2017 10:28 am; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 14 Apr 2001 Posts: 144473 Location: The Gold Coast
Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 10:20 am Post subject:
FanOfFour wrote:
Kobe killed the Spurs and Kings in the WCF. If there was such a thing as WCF MVP, he would've won it at least once during the threepeat run.
When both teams were double and triple teaming Shaq? Leaving Kobe one on one coverage. And no player could guard Kobe one on one. That is how teams win, not individual players. _________________ RIP mom. 11-21-1933 to 6-14-2023.
kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Disagree, Kobe had a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders back then, I'll never forget how amazing Kobe was when Shaq fouled out against the Pacers, Kobe was spectacular even then.
Sure Kobe had responsibilities but West teams were loading up on big men to combat Shaq. You can disagree but you can't rewrite history. What happened isn't the narrative you made up in your mind.
And the West teams were loading up to stop Kobe too. Spurs got Bruce Bowen specifically for that. Sonics got Ruben Patterson.
Kobe was more of a supporting player in 2000. Not a role player, but a superstar still. Shaq doesn't close out Portland and the Pacers without any player besides Kobe. I heard Vince Carter or T-Mac/Kidd arguments back in the day. Kobe was the close out guy. Vince was soft when he wasn't dunking and T-Mac/Kidd would get swallowed up by Pippen and Crew.
In 2001 and 2002, Kobe played a huge role. He helped close out the Kings and Spurs on the road. Kobe dominated on the road, and Shaq dominated at home. As dominant as Shaq was in 2000-2002, he struggled on the road against good teams. _________________ Dominating every day.
kobe had the big diesel and gasol. but never 2 superstars/or stars all at the same time. that was never the case. s.
True. But the counterargument is that during the threepeat Shaq was playing at such a GOAT-level that by himself he was worth more than Bosh/Wade or Irving/Love or Pippen/Rodman as a pair.
If you gave me a choice of Shaq during those years plus our next best guy, I'd take that over Bosh/Wade or Love/Irving is a snap.
Bottom line for me is none of these guys have much to complain about when it comes to teammates for their overall careers.
Shaq was the Laker superstar and Kobe was the supporting player.
Disagree, Kobe had a lot of responsibilities on his shoulders back then, I'll never forget how amazing Kobe was when Shaq fouled out against the Pacers, Kobe was spectacular even then.
Sure Kobe had responsibilities but West teams were loading up on big men to combat Shaq. You can disagree but you can't rewrite history. What happened isn't the narrative you made up in your mind.
The problem is your use of the term "supporting player." Assuming that everyone on the team was a "supporting player" to Shaq, that implies that Kobe was no more important than Rob Harper or Mark Madsen, which is of course silly.
You should have called Kobe a “second banana,” or something that more accurately denoted his contribution
Last edited by activeverb on Wed May 24, 2017 10:44 am; edited 1 time in total
Well yeah but are you going to trust multiple hall of famers (people with actual personal knowledge in the field) or some random posters on lakersground? _________________ Kobe
Yup, Scottie has talked Lebron down ever since he did that radio interview in 2011 and declared Lebron “may be the greatest player of all time.” Scottie got so much blowback from MJ fans he’s been backtracking ever since.
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 19482 Location: The X-Files
Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 12:45 pm Post subject:
Offensively Lebron will NEVER be better than prime Kobe, on that side of the ball you're asking the impossible when it comes to Kobe's offense as compared to Lebron!! _________________ Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ...
Joined: 23 Aug 2004 Posts: 19482 Location: The X-Files
Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 12:57 pm Post subject:
Shaq says Kobe still on top, that is at least until Lebron can win another title, well you can count Lebron out this year --- it's GSW all the way for a repeat!! _________________ Rule = win titles
Good judgment comes from experience and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. - Will Rogers ...
The same reason some greats of yesteryear would have never left their team in their prime when they almost beat an opponent to end up on said opponents team(durant). Which is why some greats of yesteryear in their prime would have never joined forces with multiple superstars of other teams to win a ring. .
Forty years ago Moses Malone did the same thing Durant did: Malone was the reigning MVP, and he joined with the last MVP Dr. J on a 76ers team that had just gotten to the finals. And this superteam won a ring.
So, no, I don't think the guys today are different than in the past. I think guys today simply have greater ability to move around than guys did before. The notion that older plays stayed put because of some ethical/moral superiority to current players strikes me as ridiculous.
splashmtn wrote:
Some people, not all. But some Thrive on competition. Some people just want to win. And if winning to them means they need to have all of the stars on their team and do what they can to avoid certain teams when the playoffs roles around. you know the teams that give them the most trouble. Then thats what they will do. because to them. Its not about competing as much as its about winning.
Guys like kobe wanted the to beat the highest level of competition. .
I think every superstar in NBA history wanted to be surrounded by an overwhelming amount of talent that obliterated the competition. Bird and Magic were delighted to add former MVPs to already stacked teams (Walton and McAdoo). They all want every edge they can get. None of this guys ever said, "I want to do more with less just to make it more competitive."
splashmtn wrote:
Me personally, If someone showed me my future and they said you have two choices play the best and lose without any rings or play 8th graders and win multiple rings. I would choose to take those L's.
The analogy doesn't make sense. We're not talking about playing a great team vs. playing 8th graders. We're talking about professional NBA players against other professional NBA players with huge amounts of money ands recognition at stake.
for the record i didnt say all the guys from the past were guys who wanted the highest level of comp i said some guys like that and others just want to win.
magic was on a team that drafted extremely well and cap was already here. Its a more organic setup. same with kobe. Guys sometimes would want to win with more of an organic setup. yes they hope that setup has more great players in it. But a lot of guys would not want to join forces with the teams they just lost to, or try to form super teams constantly so they can just run over the nba. some guys do like the challenge. we're not talking about guys past their primes in ring chasing mode.
i agree with scottie to a point. when he said kobe and jordan only thought about scoring etc etc. he must not remember how kobe had to be the facilitator like pippen was for the bulls while also being the wing scorer like jordan. how does everyone forget this?
Thats how good of a scorer kobe was he would make you think all he could do is score because he was so darn good at it. yet he was the facilitator when he crossed half court, not fisher. Kobe. What kobe use to do is make himself a crazy threat to score by scoring in bunches making the defense pay all the attention on him then dishes it off to a team thats wide open. scottie knows this or should since he was the one that got crossed out in portland and the lob toss over his bigs to shaq.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
