Interesting comments about the Detroit series from Kobe. They both feel they should have won that, even with the injuries. I was always disappointed they didn’t bring the series back to LA.
I felt like the only reason why they lost that series was because Karl got hurt..
It was more than that. Even with a healthy Malone they lose that series.
The Pistons wanted it more and the locker room issues on that Laker team was just terrible.
Would have to disagree boss.. Karl goin down really changed the complexion of that series. And in spite of the locker room issues Lakers (bleep) on everyone in the playoffs to get to the finals..
Have to disagree right back...that Pistons team clicked exceptionally on all cylinders and the Lakers hated each other. Basketball is a game of trust, it goes a long way.
Not to mention the Lakers had no help and no depth in that series. 2 guys couldn’t beat 5 and 3 couldn’t either.
One reason the Pistons clicked is the Lakers had nobody to match up with Rasheed Wallace (because of the Malone injury). Detroit didn’t have a great offense, and if you could defend them you could beat them.
The Lakers had a lot of the same issues when they beat a better Spurs team after being down 2-0, and beat Minnesota who was the #1 seed in the West, had just beat the Kings and had KG. Biggest difference was a healthy Malone in those series. Do you think the Lakers beat the Spurs that year with Slava playing a bunch of minutes against Tim Duncan? Me neither.
From that interview I thought it was clear that both of them still didn’t think much of Detroit.
I remember young me during 2004 finals saying why do the Pistons get to play 3 times in a row at home, before knowing about the 2-3-2 finals format. Part of me also just wondered if the Lakers played game 5 at home and see if they could get some type of momentum to win game 5, and put the pressure on the Pistons to win it all in game 6 at home.
I remember young me during 2004 finals saying why do the Pistons get to play 3 times in a row at home, before knowing about the 2-3-2 finals format. Part of me also just wondered if the Lakers played game 5 at home and see if they could get some type of momentum to win game 5, and put the pressure on the Pistons to win it all in game 6 at home.
Yes, I hated that 2-3-2 format....it only worked if the team with home court defended home court. If they lost any of the first two games they were basically screwed. And thats pretty much what happened with the Lakers....they barely pulled out game 2 and lost the other 3 games on the road.
I remember young me during 2004 finals saying why do the Pistons get to play 3 times in a row at home, before knowing about the 2-3-2 finals format. Part of me also just wondered if the Lakers played game 5 at home and see if they could get some type of momentum to win game 5, and put the pressure on the Pistons to win it all in game 6 at home.
Yes, I hated that 2-3-2 format....it only worked if the team with home court defended home court. If they lost any of the first two games they were basically screwed. And thats pretty much what happened with the Lakers....they barely pulled out game 2 and lost the other 3 games on the road.
Also, feel like that's how the Thunder lost the series to the Heat in the 2012 finals due to that 2-3-2 format. Makes blowing that huge lead and losing game 4 in the 08 finals worse, but winning game 3 on the road against the Celtics in the 2010 finals better due to that format. I still feel like the Lakers beat a tougher and better team in the Spurs in the 2nd round, being down 2-0 and coming back to backdoor sweeping them in the same playoffs. lol don't think I will ever get over that 2004 finals result, a team with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, & Payton should be remembered as the best team ever assembled, but now remembered for its failure.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:36 pm Post subject:
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
Joined: 15 Jul 2002 Posts: 6938 Location: searching for the mojo of Dr. Buss
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 7:25 pm Post subject:
slavavov wrote:
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
You must be joking. _________________ "He may say it's not you, it's him.... but it's really you."
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
You must be joking.
Shaq was fading quickly around that time and wasn’t going to work hard enough to remain the dominant player that he was. A Shaq with the Lakers in 2005 and 2006 would have been vastly inferior to the version we saw in 2003. And getting out of the West would mean getting past the Spurs, Suns and Mavs. They were done. They picked up Malone and Payton to make one last run at it after the Spurs clearly became the top team in the West in 2003.
Shaq after the Lakers without Kobe was like Pippen after the Bulls without MJ. He could still help a team a lot, but was not the same player, was older and was affected by injuries.
I remember young me during 2004 finals saying why do the Pistons get to play 3 times in a row at home, before knowing about the 2-3-2 finals format. Part of me also just wondered if the Lakers played game 5 at home and see if they could get some type of momentum to win game 5, and put the pressure on the Pistons to win it all in game 6 at home.
Yes, I hated that 2-3-2 format....it only worked if the team with home court defended home court. If they lost any of the first two games they were basically screwed. And thats pretty much what happened with the Lakers....they barely pulled out game 2 and lost the other 3 games on the road.
Also, feel like that's how the Thunder lost the series to the Heat in the 2012 finals due to that 2-3-2 format. Makes blowing that huge lead and losing game 4 in the 08 finals worse, but winning game 3 on the road against the Celtics in the 2010 finals better due to that format. I still feel like the Lakers beat a tougher and better team in the Spurs in the 2nd round, being down 2-0 and coming back to backdoor sweeping them in the same playoffs. lol don't think I will ever get over that 2004 finals result, a team with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, & Payton should be remembered as the best team ever assembled, but now remembered for its failure.
Yep, seems like the Pistons happen to capitalize on the Lakers injury woes in the Finals....Happened in 1989 and 2004 as well. I think it would've been a much more competitive (and watchable series) even if we had lost with Malone. I just hate how bad it ended and left a really sour taste at the end of the Shaq-Kobe era.
Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 65135 Location: Orange County, CA
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 8:37 pm Post subject:
slavavov wrote:
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
Agreed. Had multiple chances in the draft to build depth and help regulate Shaq and Bryant's minutes as well. Didn't happen. _________________ Resident Car Nut.
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
Agreed. Had multiple chances in the draft to build depth and help regulate Shaq and Bryant's minutes as well. Didn't happen.
Another reason why lottery picks matter even if they are low 1st round picks.
Interesting comments about the Detroit series from Kobe. They both feel they should have won that, even with the injuries. I was always disappointed they didn’t bring the series back to LA.
I felt like the only reason why they lost that series was because Karl got hurt..
It was more than that. Even with a healthy Malone they lose that series.
The Pistons wanted it more and the locker room issues on that Laker team was just terrible.
not true at all.
if malone wasnt hurt. That meant they had malone on both ends at full strength. malone was a great passer at pf. a great mid range shooter for that time, a great driver and a solid post up player. he was also a pretty good rebounder and super strong.
the wallace brothers couldnt build the wall to stop all kobe drives with malone spreading the floor. someone was going to have to guard the mailman or he would deliver. and no he was not washed up or a shell of his former self until he got hurt.
yes we still had issues with GP and phil not getting along and gp not understanding the triangle and phil trying to force the issue even though GP was not a spot up shooter like a paxson kerr or even what fisher became. gp had some left in the tank as well but a lot of that was nullified by him and phil not understanding one another. with that being said. a healthy karl means no one on that team could cheat to stop kobe. if they can't build that wall. then kobe scores more efficiently and more often. if that happens its a completely different series.
That was amazing to watch. Kobe admitting to it being his fault for 04 and Shaq admitting he (bleep) up and was an Ahole to Kobe. Eye opening. The best part was Kobe calling Sac the Queens still and then mooning them on the bus after winning the series
Joined: 12 Jan 2008 Posts: 3820 Location: Anaheim, CA
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2018 11:33 pm Post subject:
slavavov wrote:
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
I don't think Shaq had to be dominant for the Lakers to win. He just had to accept the fact that Kobe has to be the man then.2005 Shaq was comparable to 2008-2010 Gasol as far as impact on the team. Difference was, Gasol was willing to defer to Kobe, Shaq wasn't.
Joined: 03 Oct 2003 Posts: 8351 Location: Santa Monica
Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2018 12:11 am Post subject:
Lakers 4 eva wrote:
slavavov wrote:
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
I don't think Shaq had to be dominant for the Lakers to win. He just had to accept the fact that Kobe has to be the man then.2005 Shaq was comparable to 2008-2010 Gasol as far as impact on the team. Difference was, Gasol was willing to defer to Kobe, Shaq wasn't.
That wouldn't have been enough because we had no real role players anymore. Malone was 90 years old and coming off a sprained knee. Payton was also elderly and a shell of his old self. Rick Fox, Horry, Brian Shaw and Horace Grant were no more after 2004. Even as we went to the finals in 2004 it seemed like we got nothing from players other than Shaq and Kobe.
When we won titles in 09 and 10 we had key role players like Odom, Ariza, Artest, Bynum, Farmar and Shannon Brown. We had no one like them in 2004. _________________ Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers
If we kept Shaq and Kobe I don't think we would've won any more titles because we would've needed to get a 3rd star to make up for the fact that Shaq was not dominant anymore, and we had no cap space or assets to get a player like that. Also as mentioned earlier in this thread we already had almost no role players anymore as it was in 2003-04.
I don't think Shaq had to be dominant for the Lakers to win. He just had to accept the fact that Kobe has to be the man then.2005 Shaq was comparable to 2008-2010 Gasol as far as impact on the team. Difference was, Gasol was willing to defer to Kobe, Shaq wasn't.
That was one of the big issues though. Shaq was never going to be okay with Kobe being the man just like he was never going to show up ready for the season, and was never going to make his free throws. The team would have to deal with both his strengths and his weaknesses.
I sound like I’m hating on Shaq but the guy I’d really like to see apologize is Dwight Howard. At least Shaq won a ring before he became less serious. Howard had lower standards.
Pretty awesome segment. Favorite part was the analysis of the Detroit series. Even as a fan that still bothers me to this day that they lost. _________________ "We are the goodest." - Shaq ESPN interview
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
I remember young me during 2004 finals saying why do the Pistons get to play 3 times in a row at home, before knowing about the 2-3-2 finals format. Part of me also just wondered if the Lakers played game 5 at home and see if they could get some type of momentum to win game 5, and put the pressure on the Pistons to win it all in game 6 at home.
