*'11-'12 LAKERS Thread; 41-25* 1st Rd: DEN (go to 1st Rd. Thread)

[CP1708]

Eh, I dunno about all that.  You couldn't simply trade Kob for AI and it be the opposite for both.  No way.  Size being the biggest thing right off the top.  Just speaking in terms of respective games, AI isn't doing anything in the post, which Kobe could.  AI isn't guarding the best perimeter guys in the league that Kobe did (not today, back then), Kobe could.  Added rebounds? 

And on top of that, AI is all heart on the court, how much heart he have in the offseason?  Or in practice?  Or the summer?  How many clubs/parties was he attending during the playoffs, vs how many Kobe has?  You can't put a number on that, but you can not tell me that it doesn't matter in some way shape or form. 

If you want to label them both chuckers, I'm good with that.  Call em both cancers, I can deal with that, but to say their impacts would be exactly the same, no freaking way.  NO. 

And I know you didn't just insult me by throwing out LO's and Bynum's name all of a sudden like they was big timers when things were goin well for us. 

  And Glen Rice and his one single season with us. 

  Stop that. 

Phil, Shaq, Pau.  Keep in that lane.  Oh and Horry, I'll let that one slide.  He's $$$. 

 

[darthska]

I'm not saying the IMPACT would be the exact same; I'm contending that the END RESULTS would be the same, or at the very least, very similar. And if the end result of having Iverson from 96 to present was different than what we've experienced with Kobe, it wouldn't be different by much.

And don't just look at the names, specifically, because my point on that one wasn't about the names, specifically; my point was about the history/experience. Give Iversen Kobe's NBA experience, and I'm contending we (Lakers) would've still been successful.

Yes, they bring different attributes to the table, and I think the personnel that Kobe has had around him could have worked around Allen just the same as they have done with Kobe.

On some Butterfly Effect steez.

 

[aztec06jr]

The Redeem team won gold in spite of Kobe too.

Come on Ska, you serious?

 

[kb8 3qwick]

I respect your opinion, but everytime AI left a team they got infinitely better. I don't think that's a coincidence. Philly did better with Andre Miller, the Nuggets actually got passed the first round after trading him, and the Grizzlies almost made the playoffs after losing like their first ten games when he was on the roster if I remember correctly.

 

[ag 47]

So now AI's career is equivalent to Kobe's?

Good to see the Laker season thread right on schedule.

 

[MVP]

The only thing that would have been similar is the amount of shots jacked up...Canswer

 

[xsalvioutlawx]

Lmao @ the Allen Iverson comparison, oh lord

 

[darthska]

The Redeem Team won 'with Kobe'. Not 'despite Kobe' (meaning that they had to overcome his cancerous ways); not 'because of Kobe' (meeting the team sucked, but thanks to him, we won gold).

And yes, I definitely know how he finished the game against Spain in the gold-medal game; I have it recorded and I watch it fairly often, because that was a game of beautiful basketball, in my opinion. 'With', though; The Redeem Team won with Kobe.

And yes I'm serious, about all this.

 

[kvsm23vs24]

Damn did I just read A.I is comparable to Kobe.
Kobe is 'cancerous'?
That Kobe is only more accomplished because he had better teammates and coach

 

[darthska]

Heeeeeeere they come

 

[CP1708]

Didn't mean to get you in hot water Ska. 

 

I'm not saying the IMPACT would be the exact same; I'm contending that the END RESULTS would be the same, or at the very least, very similar. And if the end result of having Iverson from 96 to present was different than what we've experienced with Kobe, it wouldn't be different by much.

And don't just look at the names, specifically, because my point on that one wasn't about the names, specifically; my point was about the history/experience. Give Iversen Kobe's NBA experience, and I'm contending we (Lakers) would've still been successful.

Yes, they bring different attributes to the table, and I think the personnel that Kobe has had around him could have worked around Allen just the same as they have done with Kobe.

On some Butterfly Effect steez.

Maybe.  I can live with this explanation though, West woulda done this diff, that diff, etc etc, but yeah I see what you're getting to with it.

If you were to put a number on their rankings (I know this is dicey for some folks and some don't like doin it) where would you slot Kobe, and AI?  For instance I assume you would have MJ at #1 all time, Magic in the 2-3 range, Bird top 5-6, Luke Walton # 1,943, where do you put Kob, and where do you put AI?  Have you ever thought about your own list in that manner? 

Me, personally, I have Kobe top 7-8, ahead of Duncan and ahead of Shaq.  (overall I speak, Shaq had a better 7-10 year run, Kobe is on year 16, 14-15 of them solid years)
AI I have around 25-30 or so. 

Longevity is a big part of legacy, Duncan came in in 97, and look, he's been done for 3 years now.  He fell off QUICK.  Got maybe 10-11 years out of him, and he was tapped.  Kobe as I said, at 14-15, and could still give us this year and next, and then start to drop off.  Mailman and Kareem the only dudes I can think of that put in work for 15-17 years in the NBA.  AI burnt out after 10-11.  That type stuff holds weight with me, personally.  *shrugs* 

Ya'll fall back on jumpin at Ska, talk it out or debate with him, don't just start goin sideways about it.  This is why you get "both teams played hard" all the time.  I don't blame him, I need to learn how to do it too.  Maybe I did when I put that one chick on ignore.  

 

[kobe8is]

A.I. = Kobe

Nah

 

[ex carrabba fan]

Almost all of what ska said I agree with, but using AI as an example was awful. So for all the Kobe supporters, naturally of course they focus on the AI comment and choose to respond to anything else SKA brought up. Predictable. 

 

[MVP]

A.I. is the absolute worst person he could have used. I would have bought McLady even though he hasn't made it out of the 1st round. At least he was comparable talent wise and ability to do certain things although brittle as graham crackers. A.I. come on man.

So basically no team has won anything "because" of Kobe, everyone has had to overcome his sabotaging ability. Utterly ridiculous.

 

[licensed to ball]

Originally Posted by ex carrabba fan

Almost all of what ska said I agree with, but using AI as an example was awful. So for all the Kobe supporters, naturally of course they focus on the AI comment and choose to respond to anything else SKA brought up. Predictable. 

Same here. Ska,Like i said i respect your views on Kobe, yOu are absolutely right on many of them and you shouldn't regret voicing your views because I enjoy reading them...but IMO your comparison of Iverson to Kobe outside Of their selfishness and desires to shoot are very incorrect, the way CP responded to that comparison was spot on to me. Yes there's similarities and yes sometimes Kobes gIven too much credit but there is no way in hell he could of been replaced by Allen and had the same career...similar? Not close, maybe a couple of those chips but way too many people overlook the games Kobe took over and won for us in those 3peat playoff runs as shaq would sit out numerous games because of foul trouble. Good views, bad comparison IMO. Allen is one of my all time favorite scoters but he didnt do everything Kobe gave on and off the court for his teams, most but not all. And im just voicing my opinion too, doesn't necessarily mean my thoughts are 100 percent correct.

 

[CP1708]

Remember though, his point was the chucking, not the skillset.  Ska knows TMac, and even Vince Carter would be similar switches on position/body types, what his point was was the AI shot selections and Kobe shot selections.  I'm the one that brought up the position issue between the two. 

TMac and Vince aren't necessarily considered chuckers.  Soft, weak minded, soaked wet spots maybe, but not chuckers. 

 

That's why he went with AI. 



I was doin some homework after Christmas when I got another Laker book (I already had it, but this was an updated version) and I went back to 96 and saw that Jerry West at one point did not think he would land Shaq, so he had lined up Mutumbo and Dale Davis with that money.  So we could have gone Nick, Eddie, Kobe, Fox, Davis, Mutumbo, Elden Campbell, and then we would have seen Jerry try to build a team around Kobe, and not Shaq.  Sort of interesting how that all would have worked out.  Even more interesting to me that AI did in fact play with Mutumbo a few years later.  It wasnt until Stu Jackson of the Vancouver Grizzlies said ok to West and took Anthony Peeler and George Lynch off our hands, that West was able to increase his offer from 7 years 96 mil, to 7 years 121 mil to Shaq.  The rest as they say, was history.  Weird how it all works out. 

 

[noblekane]

Originally Posted by ex carrabba fan

Almost all of what ska said I agree with, but using AI as an example was awful. So for all the Kobe supporters, naturally of course they focus on the AI comment and choose to respond to anything else SKA brought up. Predictable. 

you may have sounded idiotic getting all mad when the rumors ran rampant about lakers getting paul and dwight but i agree with you on this.

 

[thejrob]

Time to FREAK OUT

chill fools

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Iverson was the man but I'd take Kobe over him 99.9% of the time. Kobe has exceptional work ethic which is something A.I never had. Despite the fact Kobe's attitude was never the greatest, it wasn't as bad as Iverson's. Plus, Iverson doesn't even practice. 

Speaking of Kobe though, he played like he had a hangover on New Year's. Maybe age is finally catching up to him. Dump that ball to Drew! Increase his trade value for D12. 

 

[essential1]

Saying "despite of" and "because of" are not separable terms in this case.. You can make all the arguments you want.. If we had player X.. We would have won anyway. But that is not the case... We won those finals WITH Kobe on the team.. And Kobe put up #2 numbers and MVP like numbers as well in the first 3 peat... Saying "despite" is hypothetical..

If LeBron had a supporting cast in Cleveland he would have won a championship is the thing that was said from 2006-2010... First year of the Heat we have proof to say it wouldn't have mattered.. Saying if you replace Kobe with so-and-so is pure conjecture.. Because we don't know... What we do know is Kobe was not a legitimate all-star until 1999-2000. 1998-1999 is a lockout season which leads to all kinds of foolishness with standings and who does what in the playoffs.. But when Kobe became a legitimate number 2 and all star (IMO he was not good enough statistically to be an All Star in 199 is when we began to win.. THAT IS FACT... It wasn't TMac, it wasn't VC, it wasn't AI... It was Kobe who made game winners, scored when Shaq fouled out, instrumental to big comebacks... That was Kobe out there... But to just say well if it was Joe Schmo All Star starting at the 2 the Lakers would win... But that just changes the because of.. Instead of because Shaq & Kobe.. It would be because Shaq & Joe Schmo All Star... There is no despite for guy scoring 20-29 points... If you said the Lakers won back-to-back titles despite Luke Walton then you have a point because he's playing 3-4 minutes and not contributing anything great..

Could Kobe be replaced? Of course... Everyone has a replacement on every championship team that helps them win... You could have replaced Shaq.. You could have replaced Jordan.. You only need the right player to be the replacement... Kobe was the guy.. He stepped up, and proved to be the right guy to help win.. There is always 1 guy in the NBA for a finals team that you could have had and still won the title.. But that doesn't matter because it would be a waste of time because you can argue every losing finals team had 1 guy instead of the other they would have won... But that's all shoulda woulda coulda..

Saying well we take away Pau & Bynum, Glenn Rice, and Shaq, and Big Shot Bob off the Lakers Kobe doesn't win... No #$%! though...

Then saying:
You take off Rodman, Pippen, and Phil the Bulls don't win..

You take off Tim Duncan... David Robinson doesn't win...

Take off Manu & Tony Parker then Tim Duncan doesn't win more than 1 title..

Take away Kobe... Take away DWade and Shaq doesn't win...


All of those could be argued as legit points... Everyone has a replacement, and hypothetical what ifs that if we took him away or put in another Swingman they'd win despite is not reality at all.. There is no way to even prove that.. It is just trying to sound like it is a legit point you are explaining that has no basis behind it.

You look at every finals team since the Bill Russell days (where my knowledge of teams starts.. Pre-Bill Russell I know very little): Each team has a legit guy who lead the team, legit guy to pick up the load for the #1 guy, and surprise players who step up and guide you to a title.

Despite Kobe we win..... You say that but it is not the truth... Kobe was on the team... The team won WITH Kobe... 21- 29-26 points through the playoffs are not random numbers..

We won WITH Kobe.. And that is something you can argue to the cows come home... But it is not what happened... What happened was Kobe was instrumental to the 3 titles in the Early 2000s. And instrumental in the late 2000s.

Does Kobe have a !!$$*@ attitude... All thing point to yes... He has the EXACT same attitude as Jordan did... But cancerous is something you cannot argue or say he really didn't matter or we could have done it with so-and-so when he carried a gigantic load of the pressure and work to lead to 5 titles..

 

[CP1708]

Well, in fairness to both sides, we started to win in 2000, also when Phil Jackson arrived, not JUST Kobe's "arrival"  if you know what I mean. 

And I could, could argue, that in the 2000 finals, the game Kobe missed in game 3, LA got murked out there.  He came back for game 4 gimpy, and we all know how that played out. 
That next game, game 5, he tried to do too much (title on the line and all) and they got murked again.  Does that speak to Kobe and what he gave?  Eh, I dunno. 

I know one thing, Shaq teams were swept everywhere weren't they?  Twice in Orld.  Twice in LA.  Once in Miami.  Seemed like teams he lead always seemed to get beat down like that, even when his teams were good. 

Kobe was swept last year, the 2 in LA, he was 18 and played 5 minutes a night, and the lockout year when we had Rodman quit and like 2-3 coaches, etc etc.  Even the overmatched Kwame/Walton/Smush starting series's vs the Suns we didn't get swept (though with bad losses) and if any team shoulda been swept, it's those. 

  Does that speak on Shaq's behalf at all?  Sorta random that he goes to 3 teams, and all 3 teams have big flameouts (mixed in with some good results of course. 

)  How do you quantify that?

Don't matter either way, I'm just pointing out factors on both sides.  Phil had as much to do with 2000 as Kobe did early on.  Once his game expanded and I mean, REALLY expanded, that's when he started to not need Phil as much.  But that was just him personally, not Phil leading others as well. 

Ska, how do you regard Phil?  Is he the greatest coach of all time, or just a guy that got by with MJ, Scottie, Shaq, and Kobe?  There a coach you think is better than Phil? 

 

[essential1]

Originally Posted by CP1708



Ska, how do you regard Phil?  Is he the greatest coach of all time, or just a guy that got by with MJ, Scottie, Shaq, and Kobe?  There a coach you think is better than Phil? 

I know you asked Ska but the answer is Mike Brown

I'm just Joshin


And you are right about Phil as well... Feel stupid for leaving him out.. He was a huge part as well... All Hail Zen God... Except for last year... He should have been an angry person

 

[darthska]

Some of y'all need to go back and reread what the hell I said.

"Wait, so Iverson's career is equal to Kobe's?"

Who the hell said that %*#*?

"Take away Big Shot Bob and Shaq, and Kobe doesn't win? That's like saying take away Manu and Tony Parker, and Duncan doesn't win, or take away Pippen and Rodman, and Jordan doesn't win."

Yeah, that's not what I said at all. Definitely go back and reread.

And yes, it's obviously conjecture for me to say "We would've still won if we had All-Star SG Joe Schmoe."

And you know what else is just as hypothetical? "No, we wouldn't have won if we had All-Star SG Joe Schmoe."

I'm just bringing a little bit of food to the table; now eat.

 

[CP1708]

I am eating, now gimme some dessert man.

Phil, discuss.

 

[westcoastsfinest]

Originally Posted by tupac003

Originally Posted by 23ska909red02

CP:

---

if Shaq can have 30 games off to rest his toe, or Pau can play girlie during a three peat and get passes, maybe the guy killin hisself can get a pass for shootin to much in game six........of the regular season. Seems fair, don't it?

I mean, well damn, when you put it like that…

But the way Shaq handled that toe injury just shows that he's nowhere near the competitor Kobe is, far less willing to do 'whatever it takes' to win.

Pau? Who the hell is he getting a pass from as far as being Gasoft?

as far as people making sure to rush in every time we lose: comes with the territory of being a fan of an elite team. I say things like this all the time: I can't even say it bothers me, because I do the same thing with the Yankees. When the Rangers lost their second consecutive World Series, I'm not even sure I commented in the Rangers thread. Had that been the Yankees, yeah, it would've been a different story. I don't give a damn about the Rangers, but Yuck the Fankees.

Same thing with our beloved purple and gold. It's just part of being a Lakers fan, (or Yankees, or Cowboys, or Duke).

This....
But it does kill me sometimes that Kobes gets the hate he gets. He wears my teams uniform and sometimes I feel like I have to defend him. 

QFT!
We're expected to win every year, which is why every fan panics when we don't and leads to haters coming out the wood works. These haters aren't used to us usually losing, so they come out hot and ready to burn all us with hate.