- 772
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2006
They both needed each other to win those 3 rings. What else is there to talk about?
All these hypotheticals mean nothing
All these hypotheticals mean nothing
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Current Kobe is clouding the vision of some of you who are trying hard to make it seem like #24 is the same as #8
100% Truth. Some of these dudes are trying to rewrite history in here and that's not acceptable.
They both needed each other to win those 3 rings
No sir, Shaq needed a 2nd scorer which he happened to get in Kobe........Kobe on the other hand needed Shaq to get where he is now. Shaq pretty much help carry Kobe at times early on in his career and this picture below is a perfect illustration of that........
Current Kobe is clouding the vision of some of you who are trying hard to make it seem like #24 is the same as #8
100% Truth. Some of these dudes are trying to rewrite history in here and that's not acceptable.
They both needed each other to win those 3 rings
No sir, Shaq needed a 2nd scorer which he happened to get in Kobe........Kobe on the other hand needed Shaq to get where he is now. Shaq pretty much help carry Kobe at times early on in his career and this picture below is a perfect illustration of that........
ThisOriginally Posted by washanobotit
They both needed each other to win those 3 rings. What else is there to talk about?
All these hypotheticals mean nothing
ThisOriginally Posted by washanobotit
They both needed each other to win those 3 rings. What else is there to talk about?
All these hypotheticals mean nothing
i brought up scottie. my point is the way shaq needed kobe is the same way mike needed scottie and vice versa. they needed each other to be successful.Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams
How did Scottie Pippen get into this? If you find another player that can produce what Pippen did in the 90's then yeah, of course you can replace him with Mike and they will still win at least one ring. The question is there another player like Pippen at that time.
Seriously, I'm not replacing Kobe with injured Allan Houston here. I said with "prime" T-Mac, they could probably beat those Nets in the Finals as well.
At the end of the day it's very debatable that Shaq could have won 3 titles with a 2nd scorer not named Kobe............Kobe on the other hand damn sure wouldn't have won anything without Shaq playing with him. For all you Kobe lovers out there, without Shaq on the Lakers do you really see that Lakers team beating either the Spurs on the Kings back then?? Not a chance.
ska put it best what about putting duncan in the place of shaq? i dont know about a 3peat but im sure theyll be successful
all in all what im saying shaq and kobe needed each other to be successful. kobe was the perfect compliment to shaq.
i brought up scottie. my point is the way shaq needed kobe is the same way mike needed scottie and vice versa. they needed each other to be successful.Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams
How did Scottie Pippen get into this? If you find another player that can produce what Pippen did in the 90's then yeah, of course you can replace him with Mike and they will still win at least one ring. The question is there another player like Pippen at that time.
Seriously, I'm not replacing Kobe with injured Allan Houston here. I said with "prime" T-Mac, they could probably beat those Nets in the Finals as well.
At the end of the day it's very debatable that Shaq could have won 3 titles with a 2nd scorer not named Kobe............Kobe on the other hand damn sure wouldn't have won anything without Shaq playing with him. For all you Kobe lovers out there, without Shaq on the Lakers do you really see that Lakers team beating either the Spurs on the Kings back then?? Not a chance.
ska put it best what about putting duncan in the place of shaq? i dont know about a 3peat but im sure theyll be successful
all in all what im saying shaq and kobe needed each other to be successful. kobe was the perfect compliment to shaq.
Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams
For 2002, the Lakers and Kings series to me was the NBA Finals since it was given that both teams could beat the Nets in the Finals. And yes, I honestly think T-Mac could have replaced Kobe and the Lakers would still have reached the Nets. As I mentioned already, Doug Christie was able to contain Kobe and T-Mac, but no one on the Kings could do anything against Shaq. LOL @ Scot Pollard getting offensive foul calls against Shaq and getting him in foul trouble. That was the only way to contain Shaq. Kobe was a major contributor during the whole playoff run, but Shaq was the main reason they were so successful. Now in regards to T-Mac, he is one of the few players in the NBA to actually have better numbers in the playoffs than his season average. A "prime" T-Mac is a reasonable replacement for Kobe.
Sidebar, no where did I say he was better than Kobe though. Don't want to offend Kobe fans or start another topic.
Originally Posted by nicedudewithnicedreams
For 2002, the Lakers and Kings series to me was the NBA Finals since it was given that both teams could beat the Nets in the Finals. And yes, I honestly think T-Mac could have replaced Kobe and the Lakers would still have reached the Nets. As I mentioned already, Doug Christie was able to contain Kobe and T-Mac, but no one on the Kings could do anything against Shaq. LOL @ Scot Pollard getting offensive foul calls against Shaq and getting him in foul trouble. That was the only way to contain Shaq. Kobe was a major contributor during the whole playoff run, but Shaq was the main reason they were so successful. Now in regards to T-Mac, he is one of the few players in the NBA to actually have better numbers in the playoffs than his season average. A "prime" T-Mac is a reasonable replacement for Kobe.
Sidebar, no where did I say he was better than Kobe though. Don't want to offend Kobe fans or start another topic.
Deuce King:
At the end of the day it's very debatable that Shaq could have won 3 titles with a 2nd scorer not named Kobe
Agreed.Deuce King:
Kobe on the other hand damn sure wouldn't have won anything without Shaq playing with him.
Hmmm... not sure about that. I already mentioned before that I think that if you replace Duncan w/ Shaq and everything else remains the same, the Lakers experience just as much success. Hell, maybe more than a 3-peat.Deuce King:
For all you Kobe lovers out there, without Shaq on the Lakers do you really see that Lakers team beating either the Spurs on the Kings back then?? Not a chance.
Swap Duncan and Shaq on the Lakers and Spurs.
Actually... I don't know. Hell, maybe the Spurs win back-2-back 1 time. D-Rob and Shaq in the post w/ Avery, Elliot, S-Jax, & Pop coaching? Yikes!