I can't tell if Laker fans are serious when they say.. [Archive]

View Full Version : I can't tell if Laker fans are serious when they say..

TheSpursFNRule

08-01-2010, 11:11 PM

The 2009 and the 2010 Lakers are the best Championship Squads ever assembled...if anything I would say they are one of the weaker ones.
:toast

2009- Lakers entered a cakewalk finals in the west. Manu was injured, Yao and the Rockets would've won but Yao got injured. Ariza picking off in bound passes won the Nuggets series and KG was injured so no Boston repeat. and LOL MAGIC in the Finals.

2010-Struggling against the fucking Suns for real? Relying on the refs to bail you out of a 7 game series against a bunch of old angry dudes? Seriously some weak shit Laker fans.

2005 Spurs would curb stomp both those teams, probably make them cry on national television AGAIN.

kamikazi_player

08-01-2010, 11:18 PM

They aren't the strongest squad. The Lakers from 00-01 were very tough and could easily beat these two teams.

Halberto

08-01-2010, 11:19 PM

They're a good team, possibly cracking into the top ten. No way are they even top 5, the 1999 Spurs would have beaten this laker squad.

I don't understand how someone can be that blinded by homerism. Did they forget that the Celtics beat essentially the same team 2 years ago and took them to 7 this year?

This Lakers team is overrated... they are entirely beatable, nonetheless they are very tough

Venti Quattro

08-01-2010, 11:21 PM

Removing Phil, Kobe and Fisher from both teams (they're disqualified), the then three-peat champ Lakers would defeat the now back to back champ Lakers. Easily.

DazedAndConfused

08-01-2010, 11:40 PM

What Laker fan has ever said the '09+'10 teams were the best ever? Are you mistaking real Laker fans for Mav fan trolls again? You do realize Bump has about 5 of them and he spawns ridiculous pro Laker troll posts at least once a day.

The '01 Lakers would murder the current back to back champion Lakers.

Venti Quattro

08-01-2010, 11:48 PM

lol lefty

SomeCallMeTim

08-01-2010, 11:54 PM

speaking as a Lakerfan... nope, this ain't one of the best-ever teams.

I've seen some advanced stat guys make arguments that last year's team actually stacked up pretty well historically (haven't seen anything about this year's team because it's too recent).

But that doesn't "feel" right to me. I'd say off the top of my head the 00-01 Lakers, 04 Pistons, 05 Spurs, and 08 Celtics were better teams and would likely have beaten this 09-10 team in a 7-game matchup. And that's just teams over the last decade, let alone the 96 Bulls, or 87 Lakers, or 86 Celtics for starters.

eisfeld

08-01-2010, 11:55 PM

Venti Quattro

08-02-2010, 12:00 AM

21_Dickings is a bitch ass punk

TDMVPDPOY

08-02-2010, 12:18 AM

fail when u mention the rockets

Giuseppe

08-02-2010, 04:56 AM

21_Dickings is a bitch ass punk

That's you, shaving.

TheManFromAcme

08-02-2010, 08:11 AM

Venti Quattro

08-02-2010, 08:23 AM

Shame on me. I nearly forgot about the stiff competition your team posed for Phoenix. :rolleyes

lol goran dragic 23 points... IN THE FOURTH QUARTER :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 08:25 AM

The current repeat champion Lakers would skull fuck the shit out of any Spur one and done championship team. It's not even close either.

Two lock down wing defenders. Ridiculous length inside. No way the Spurs could match the Lakers versatile offense while the Lakers could easily match their defensive intensity.

TheManFromAcme

08-02-2010, 08:25 AM

lol goran dragic 23 points... IN THE FOURTH QUARTER :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

:tu

Killakobe81

08-02-2010, 09:33 AM

Not sure if OP is trolling or just basketball dense ...

But the Lakers squad is nowhere near the strongest or weakest ...

and the irony is based on the same criteria used, cases could be made that 2 of the 4 spur teams are among the weakest ...(if we play the oh so and so was injured or the strength of competition card) ...

I never thought this recent Lakers squad were as good as the 2000 team (overal) or the playoff version of 2001

To even compare them to the 80's Lakers or the best of the 90's Bulls squads is even more ridiculous ...

They are definitely in line with most of the average Finals teams maybe not as good as the best of the Lakers, spurs squads of recent years but i would put them above the one and done Heat or Celts

ANd on par with the the "weaker" (relative) Spurs title teams or the Pistons, and rockets when they won ...

For the record ...I'm not saying all ofthe spurs finals team were weak ..

to me the only "weak" teams of the past 30 years of watching ball was the First Rockets title, the first one duncan won with a young Manu/Parker and the Heat one.

Much props to duncan, hakeem and Wade for carrying those squads to a title ...

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 10:07 AM

Killakobe81

08-02-2010, 10:16 AM

It's also pretty laughable anyone would mention the 2008 Celtics as greatest anything. Fucking fluke title team that lucked out when the Lakers had TWO starters injured.

How many teams have been to three straight NBA finals? Exactly. And this Lakers core is about to make it 4 straight in a conference where just about every playoff team has been putting up 50 wins. Compare that to the Bulls dynasty that was playing in one of the weakest conferences and eras of all of time.

Yeah these Lakers sure are average. :rolleyes :bking

You make a GREAT point ...3 straight finals (you cant count this upcoming year) is DAMN impressive.

BUT we only won two. And I think (or hope) that everyone is looking at the team on a year to year basis. With the injuries to bynum (and to a leser extent Ariza) ...the Lakers are not as strong a Finals team when you look at the "talent on the floor" ...for those two titles and the Finals loss.

If we can get healthy and STAY healthy this upcmoming season's Lakers maybe the best (of the Finals teams) and we may not win a title ... nothing is promised.

But if you go by results of course this recent lakers team (3 straight finals) is on a historic run ...

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 10:25 AM

You make a GREAT point ...3 straight finals (you cant count this upcoming year) is DAMN impressive.

BUT we only won two. And I think (or hope) that everyone is looking at the team on a year to year basis. With the injuries to bynum (and to a leser extent Ariza) ...the Lakers are not as strong a Finals team when you look at the "talent on the floor" ...for those two titles and the Finals loss.

2010 Lakers would compete with the 2000 Lakers while losing to 2001 and would most likely beat the 2002 squad. And they would utterly demolish every other champion/finals team of this last decade. It's not close. They would dismantle the shit out of the Pistons for example.

Killakobe81

08-02-2010, 10:36 AM

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 10:43 AM

But i disagree on they would compete with 2000 ...

Well that's dumb, no offense. The Blazers should have beat that team and if wasn't for Kobe's miraculous game 4 the Pacers would have took them to 7. And the Pacers were nowhere near as good as Boston was.

The 2000 Lakers squad was the only one that had a motivated, healthy and in shape Shaq. It was his last "great" year IMHO (he had some great Finals runs after but 2000 was the year he put it ALL together) and I dont think this team as good as it was the past 2 years would be able to deal with that Shaq...true kobe didnt really blossom until 2001 ...but 2000 shaq was THAT dominant ...

2000 Shaq was so dominant that Kobe was forced to become the first option in the last few minutes. Even then you could still exploit Shaq's effortless pick and roll D. Which is exactly what the Lakers would do to them, especially with Pau's jumper keeping him honest.

But I stll think the 2000 and 2001 Lakers (Playoffs only) are better ...

Old man Kobe would have given his young self more fits. Especially on the block.

AC Green is my boy but he's going to struggle when it comes to keeping Odom off the glass.

TheMACHINE

08-02-2010, 11:20 AM

so this is how trolls do it these days. Make up some bullshit saying that "Lakers fans" think this and that when NO lakers fan even thinks this or that. lol

elbamba

08-02-2010, 11:34 AM

With exception to the 2008 Celtics team. I think that any of the championship teams between 2000-2005 could stomp any of the championship teams between 2006-2010.

IronMexican

08-02-2010, 11:38 AM

With exception to the 2008 Celtics team. I think that any of the championship teams between 2000-2005 could stomp any of the championship teams between 2006-2010.

Agreed

John HollinPER

08-02-2010, 12:12 PM

According to my boolean simulation quant analysis, when you calculate the Lakers performance in 2009 and 2010 playoffs, its clear as day that the Utah Jazz and San Antonio Spurs from 2007-2010 were amongst the highest ranked teams in the history of the nba and would have swept this Laker team with an average scoring margin above +10.0. You cannot deny what the math is saying here folks.

Indazone

08-02-2010, 01:00 PM

Rockets took the Lakeshow to 7 games without Yao. Yeah woulda taken them out.

IronMexican

08-02-2010, 01:10 PM

which game would the Rockets have won that LA didn't win? The only semi-close game was game 2.

Indazone

08-02-2010, 01:15 PM

Yeah Lakeshow can gloat all they want but without Yao we are a team that doesn't even make the playoffs but still takes you whiny pansies to 7 games.

IronMexican

08-02-2010, 01:19 PM

which game would the Rockets have won that LA didn't win? The only semi-close game was game 2.

Yeah Lakeshow can gloat all they want but without Yao we are a team that doesn't even make the playoffs but still takes you whiny pansies to 7 games.

Answer me.

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 01:25 PM

The Lakers basically went into January regular season mode after Yao went down. They were never in any danger of blowing that series to Houston.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 01:50 PM

2010 Lakers would compete with the 2000 Lakers while losing to 2001 and would most likely beat the 2002 squad. And they would utterly demolish every other champion/finals team of this last decade. It's not close. They would dismantle the shit out of the Pistons for example.

I'll challenge that contention.

I wont speak to how they would destroy Psitons etc. Because im not in the mood to battle the other team's fans today ...

Why not? That would actually be an interesting discussion.

I think that would be a pretty good series actually. I wouldn't claim that the Pistons would definitely win, but I think it would be a competitive series either way. I certainly don't think either team would "dismantle the shit out of" either team.

Rasheed and Ben contained Duncan in his prime. Duncan still played well but they also forced him into 40% shooting by largely playing him straight up man-to-man with no double teams. I think they'd have similar success with Gasol.

Billups would have still had his way against the Lakers of the past two seasons, especially against Fisher. And the Lakers wouldn't be able to hide Fisher on Rip or Prince. While that Pistons team wasn't an offensive juggernaut by any means, one thing they were very good at was exploiting an offensive mismatch. They were more than willing to ride whoever had the match-up advantage. Put Fisher on Rip or Prince, either would attack Fisher in the post. The best thing the past two championship Lakers teams could have done defensively would be to play Shannon Brown more to defend either Billups or Rip, but then they'd have to live with Shannon's dipshit decision making on offense.

And, in 2004, Rasheed actually nutted up a couple times and went into the post to attack Medvedenko. While Odom is obviously a much better player than Medvedenko, Odom (or Gasol or Bynum, for that matter) would have his struggles against Rasheed when Rasheed pulled his head out of his ass long enough to get in the low post against any of those guys.

Again, that's not to say the Pistons win the series, but that Pistons team still would be very competitive matched up against either the 2009 or 2010 Lakers.

That 2004 Lakers team had a much, much better chance beating that 2004 Pistons team than the 2009 or 2010 Lakers because of Shaq. The Pistons winning is squarely on Kobe and his ego. And that's why that 2004 title was so sweet. The 2004 Pistons should not have beat the 2004 Lakers. That Lakers team should have dismantled that 2004 Pistons team. That Lakers squad should have been the 2004 NBA champions. Winning was so sweet because the Pistons really shouldn't have won. And they not only won, they were the ones who dismantled that internally fractured Lakers squad.

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 02:02 PM

"Attack Medvedenko". :lmao

Yes Slava Medvedenko the same guy that started in game 5 of that series. The same guy that couldn't stay in the league. Don't forget rookie Luke Walton, Brian Cook and Kareem Rush getting important minutes!

Shaq was a complete liability on the defensive end of that series.

No the Lakers really shouldn't have won that series. But the 2010 Lakers are far and away a better team which is pretty obvious to anyone that actually understands basketball. 3, 4 straight final appearances speak for itself.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 02:07 PM

So a Lakers squad that struggled offensively against the Oklahoma City Thunder would easily dismantle arguably the greatest defense in the history of the league?

Yeah ok.

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 02:07 PM

Missed the joke part of your post where you said the Pistons were going to ride Rip in the post. :lmao :lmao

That kind of fantasy retardation doesn't even deserve a reply to be honest. But I'll oblige.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 02:09 PM

35-36 year old, 6'1 Derek Fisher...

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 02:13 PM

Rip Hamilton in the post. The key to beating the 2008-2010 Lakers.

There you have it, folks.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 02:20 PM

So no response to anything else?

Rip Hamilton is 6'7 and back then was capable of exploiting smaller guards in the post. Doesn't even have to get deep in the post. It was only a matter of getting in the midpost, turning around and shooting over Fisher. Old man Fisher hits big shots. Old man Fisher is a liability defensively, even against skinny ass Rip.

I know it's your m.o., much like other Laker fans, to not even get into a real basketball discussion and just end up trolling. You can avoid a debate that way. If you want to show how the past two Lakers championship teams would have "dismantled the shit out of" the 2004 Pistons, by all means, explain.

I'll reiterate that I'm not arguing that the 2004 Pistons definitely beat the last two Laker teams. But the past two Laker teams don't "dismantle the shit out of" them either. It would be a competitive series. You can argue who would win. But neither team is crushing the other. Certainly not a Lakers team that struggled against teams like the Rockets, Thunder, and Suns the last two post seasons.

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 02:34 PM

Your post was a joke though and wasn't a serious basketball discussion. Unless you seriously compared Medvedenko to a Gasol/Odom rotation.

In your fantasy land where Rip is going to get consistently deep post position, isolated on Derek Fisher is about the dumbest thing I have ever read in the zone era to be honest. Any post up would be miles away from the basket and the Lakers would live with that. Or they just stick him on Chauncey.

The 2010 Lakers easily had the best p/r defense in the playoffs and defend it head and shoulders better than the 04 Lakers ever could. Shaq refused or was too fat to show 99% of the time.

Btw, 2004 Lakers 3rd best player, 2nd best rebounder and most consistent interior defender was hurt.Let's give Malone's meniscus back and take Sheed's away and see how that series turns out tbh

Certainly not a Lakers team that struggled against teams like the Rockets, Thunder, and Suns the last two post seasons.

Suns/Thunder/Rockets weren't a struggle, at all really.

But a Pistons team that struggled with the New Jersey Nets certainly isn't winning a series or getting past a game 6 against the current back to back NBA champions.

Killakobe81

08-02-2010, 02:40 PM

I'll challenge that contention.

Why not? That would actually be an interesting discussion.

I think that would be a pretty good series actually. I wouldn't claim that the Pistons would definitely win, but I think it would be a competitive series either way. I certainly don't think either team would "dismantle the shit out of" either team.

Rasheed and Ben contained Duncan in his prime. Duncan still played well but they also forced him into 40% shooting by largely playing him straight up man-to-man with no double teams. I think they'd have similar success with Gasol.

Billups would have still had his way against the Lakers of the past two seasons, especially against Fisher. And the Lakers wouldn't be able to hide Fisher on Rip or Prince. While that Pistons team wasn't an offensive juggernaut by any means, one thing they were very good at was exploiting an offensive mismatch. They were more than willing to ride whoever had the match-up advantage. Put Fisher on Rip or Prince, either would attack Fisher in the post. The best thing the past two championship Lakers teams could have done defensively would be to play Shannon Brown more to defend either Billups or Rip, but then they'd have to live with Shannon's dipshit decision making on offense.

And, in 2004, Rasheed actually nutted up a couple times and went into the post to attack Medvedenko. While Odom is obviously a much better player than Medvedenko, Odom (or Gasol or Bynum, for that matter) would have his struggles against Rasheed when Rasheed pulled his head out of his ass long enough to get in the low post against any of those guys.

Again, that's not to say the Pistons win the series, but that Pistons team still would be very competitive matched up against either the 2009 or 2010 Lakers.

That 2004 Lakers team had a much, much better chance beating that 2004 Pistons team than the 2009 or 2010 Lakers because of Shaq. The Pistons winning is squarely on Kobe and his ego. And that's why that 2004 title was so sweet. The 2004 Pistons should not have beat the 2004 Lakers. That Lakers team should have dismantled that 2004 Pistons team. That Lakers squad should have been the 2004 NBA champions. Winning was so sweet because the Pistons really shouldn't have won. And they not only won, they were the ones who dismantled that internally fractured Lakers squad.

Well I know Pistons fans (for the most part) will get in intelligent basketball debates ...

But the troll and hangers on I did not have the time or energy for earlier because I had 3 conference cals but your post has definitely got my attention and I agree i think it would be very competetive and the thought of ron chasing Rip around screens is intriguing ...

Killakobe81

08-02-2010, 02:50 PM

I'll challenge that contention.

Why not? That would actually be an interesting discussion.

I think that would be a pretty good series actually. I wouldn't claim that the Pistons would definitely win, but I think it would be a competitive series either way. I certainly don't think either team would "dismantle the shit out of" either team.

Rasheed and Ben contained Duncan in his prime. Duncan still played well but they also forced him into 40% shooting by largely playing him straight up man-to-man with no double teams. I think they'd have similar success with Gasol.

Billups would have still had his way against the Lakers of the past two seasons, especially against Fisher. And the Lakers wouldn't be able to hide Fisher on Rip or Prince. While that Pistons team wasn't an offensive juggernaut by any means, one thing they were very good at was exploiting an offensive mismatch. They were more than willing to ride whoever had the match-up advantage. Put Fisher on Rip or Prince, either would attack Fisher in the post. The best thing the past two championship Lakers teams could have done defensively would be to play Shannon Brown more to defend either Billups or Rip, but then they'd have to live with Shannon's dipshit decision making on offense.

And, in 2004, Rasheed actually nutted up a couple times and went into the post to attack Medvedenko. While Odom is obviously a much better player than Medvedenko, Odom (or Gasol or Bynum, for that matter) would have his struggles against Rasheed when Rasheed pulled his head out of his ass long enough to get in the low post against any of those guys.

Again, that's not to say the Pistons win the series, but that Pistons team still would be very competitive matched up against either the 2009 or 2010 Lakers.

That 2004 Lakers team had a much, much better chance beating that 2004 Pistons team than the 2009 or 2010 Lakers because of Shaq. The Pistons winning is squarely on Kobe and his ego. And that's why that 2004 title was so sweet. The 2004 Pistons should not have beat the 2004 Lakers. That Lakers team should have dismantled that 2004 Pistons team. That Lakers squad should have been the 2004 NBA champions. Winning was so sweet because the Pistons really shouldn't have won. And they not only won, they were the ones who dismantled that internally fractured Lakers squad.

this ...i respectfully disagree. kobe's ego was DEFINITELY a huge factor ...but you could also blame Shaq's, Phil's and to a lesser extent GP's and Malone's

That team ended up being way dysfunctional. It started with Kobe and the girl in colorado ...followed Shaq's comments in training camp ...followed by GP and Phil arguing about the triangle ...Malone's injury followed by running in to a pistons buzzsaw that was hitting on all cylinders (pun intended).

I think to put the winning or losing of that season "squarely on Kobe" overstates his blame when there was PLENTY of fingers to point (though I WOULD give Kobe the middle finger for that season ...shaq on the two seasons prior) and undercuts the Pistons as well. The Pistons were damn good.

I know it's revisionist history ...but if Rasheed rotates over to Horry the pistons (very likely) have their 2nd set of back2back titles.

The pistons though lacking the SUPERDUPERtsar they played great team ball and earned my respect EVEN more that the Badboys because they did it with less and reminded me how dysfunctional the lakers were in comparison.

2004 and 2002 are the two seaons I hated the MOST!!!!

JamStone

08-02-2010, 04:05 PM

Your post was a joke though and wasn't a serious basketball discussion. Unless you seriously compared Medvedenko to a Gasol/Odom rotation.

Better get better reading comprehension. I didn't compare Medvedenko to Gasol/Odom as far as being comparable players. I even specifically stated that Odom is a much better player. My point was that Rasheed making a concerted effort getting into the post on offense would have also been a problem for either. If you want to refute that, go ahead and exalt Odom's post defense, which would be foolish, or Gasol's ability to stop a good scoring big, when a broke down KG even had a couple of very good offensive games against him. Odom is a much better player than Medvedenko. My point was Rasheed back in 2004 would still have success against the Lakers front court of the last two seasons.

In your fantasy land where Rip is going to get consistently deep post position, isolated on Derek Fisher is about the dumbest thing I have ever read in the zone era to be honest. Any post up would be miles away from the basket and the Lakers would live with that. Or they just stick him on Chauncey.

Perhaps you don't read enough of your own posts to think that was the dumbest thing you've read in the zone era... Perhaps you didn't actually pay attention to the mid 2000s Pistons team very much, which is likely. Because Billups was so good in the post against most point guards, many teams starting switching their shooting guards onto Chauncey and have their PGs running around trying to guard Rip. That actually often resulted in Rip starting to post many of those smaller point guards, and successfully so. Rip, even with his skinny ass, was actually pretty good in the post when he had a 5-6 inch height advantage of those small guards. It wasn't at all about getting deep post position. All Rip would do is get in the mid post and back them up enough where all he had to do was turn around and shoot over those smaller guards for a 12-15 foot midrange jumper. And Rip being one of the better midrange jumpshooters in the league at the time was very good at exploiting that advantage. But, I'll even give further explanation. Let's suppose Rip couldn't get in the post on Fisher, which he could. Even if that were the case, the Pistons could run 35-36 year old Fisher ragged through screens while chasing Rip, who was obviously very adept at doing that and exploit him that way. Either way, the Derek Fisher of the last two seasons would be a heavily exploitable defensive mismatch.

Fisher on Billups would be finished. That's precisely why I made the point about his problems if he had to switch off Billups.

The 2010 Lakers easily had the best p/r defense in the playoffs and defend it head and shoulders better than the 04 Lakers ever could. Shaq refused or was too fat to show 99% of the time.

Which is relevant how? Obviously you didn't pay much attention to those Pistons teams because the pick-and-roll was rarely used, especially with Ben Wallace, who Shaq was defending back in the 2004 Finals. Shaq's pick-and-roll defense wasn't exploited back then. And that wasn't even a major offensive weapon of those Pistons team. So why would the Lakers defense being good at defending the pick-and-roll make much of a difference?

The Pistons offense was more predicated on working through Rip and his off the ball movement, running around screens, using curls, to get him open midrange looks and forcing the defense to collapse. The other major offensive set they would use would be exploiting a defensive mismatch in the post, which goes back to what I was talking about Fisher on either Rip or Tayshaun. Because all three of their perimeter players could score in the post and rarely were there teams that had solid defenders at all three perimeter positions, the Pistons regularly exploited the weakest perimeter defender.

So again, what's your point about the Lakers pick-and-roll defense?

Btw, 2004 Lakers 3rd best player, 2nd best rebounder and most consistent interior defender was hurt.Let's give Malone's meniscus back and take Sheed's away and see how that series turns out tbh

Often a contention Laker fanboys love to argue.

You won't get much of an argument from me that that wasn't a factor. Not the deciding factor, but of course it was a factor.

Malone still played in I believe all but the last game, and he injured it mid way through the Minnesota series and that didn't stop the Lakers from winning that series. But, sure, that was a factor. The Pistons still stomped the Lakers in the Finals. I don't think a healthy Karl Malone changes the outcome of the series, but he would have helped the Lakers if healthy.

Suns/Thunder/Rockets weren't a struggle, at all really.

Any playoff series that goes 7 games is a struggle for the team that comes out on top. Moreover, specifically with that Rockets series, that Lakers team got blown out twice after the Rockets best player and only real match-up advantage in Yao Ming was lost for the series. That's an indictment on that Laker team not being able to finish the series more quickly without the opposing team's best player and starting center, especially for how highly you regard the Lakers front court.

But a Pistons team that struggled with the New Jersey Nets certainly isn't winning a series or getting past a game 6 against the current back to back NBA champions.

That Nets team was a SOB for the Pistons. Part of it was the Nets were in the Pistons' collective head. Part of it was that they matched up well at every position against the Pistons. But it's true that the Pistons struggled to beat that Nets team in 2004. Apparently a much tougher opponent than the 2004 Lakers. Go figure. I'm not one claiming the 2004 Pistons would have "dismantled the shit out of" the Lakers of the past two seasons. I only claim that it would be a competitive series. The Lakers struggling against the teams I mentioned is more of an indictment on your claim than the Pistons struggling against the Nets is one of my claim that it would be competitive.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 04:07 PM

this ...i respectfully disagree. kobe's ego was DEFINITELY a huge factor ...but you could also blame Shaq's, Phil's and to a lesser extent GP's and Malone's

That team ended up being way dysfunctional. It started with Kobe and the girl in colorado ...followed Shaq's comments in training camp ...followed by GP and Phil arguing about the triangle ...Malone's injury followed by running in to a pistons buzzsaw that was hitting on all cylinders (pun intended).

I think to put the winning or losing of that season "squarely on Kobe" overstates his blame when there was PLENTY of fingers to point (though I WOULD give Kobe the middle finger for that season ...shaq on the two seasons prior) and undercuts the Pistons as well. The Pistons were damn good.

I know it's revisionist history ...but if Rasheed rotates over to Horry the pistons (very likely) have their 2nd set of back2back titles.

The pistons though lacking the SUPERDUPERtsar they played great team ball and earned my respect EVEN more that the Badboys because they did it with less and reminded me how dysfunctional the lakers were in comparison.

2004 and 2002 are the two seaons I hated the MOST!!!!

I'll revise my statement slightly. Kobe wasn't the only reason the Lakers lost to the Pistons in 2004. But, I believe he's the biggest reason. The other things you mentioned definitely factored in. But, I'll put it this way. If Kobe doesn't go "Kobe" in that NBA Finals, even with all the other problems and the inner turmoil and Karl Malone's injury, even with all of that, if Kobe doesn't go "Kobe," the Lakers still beat the Pistons.

djohn2oo8

08-02-2010, 05:11 PM

Rockets took the Lakeshow to 7 games without Yao. Yeah woulda taken them out.

Coldplay strikes again, you're so effin dumb. The only reason the rockets went 7 games is because Yao got hurt mid series, and switched the gameplan on the Lakers

djohn2oo8

08-02-2010, 05:12 PM

Yeah Lakeshow can gloat all they want but without Yao we are a team that doesn't even make the playoffs but still takes you whiny pansies to 7 games.

Shut the fuck up, Coldplay

picc84

08-02-2010, 05:21 PM

When people want to discredit Kobe:

"Kobe has one of the most stacked teams in NBA history, of course he won the title"

When people want to discredit the Lakers:

"The Lakers are one of the weakest title teams in NBA history, the [insert year/team from past decade] would destroy them."

Kobe leads both the most stacked team in NBA history and also the worst title team in NBA history, at once....depending on what the person's agenda is at the time. :lol

21_Blessings

08-02-2010, 05:28 PM

My point was Rasheed back in 2004 would still have success against the Lakers front court of the last two seasons.

Medvedenko had no business being in the NBA and he was starting in the NBA finals. Even mentioning him at all is hilarious and was basically rambling. Had no relavance whatsoever to the infinitely superior Gasol/Odom rotation that still hasn't lost a playoff series when Bynum starts next to them.

Either way, the Derek Fisher of the last two seasons would be a heavily exploitable defensive mismatch.

Yet much, much, much better offensive teams and supeiorr point guards have yet to exploit that mismatch to the point where it was the difference in a playoff series. PG is the least important defensive position on the floor and Fisher can be hidden when you have the defensive length the Lakers do.

Fisher on Billups would be finished.

Yeah just like Billups finished Fisher in 2009. The same season where he put up better O stats than 03/04. The Lakers don't mind letting opponent PGs beat them either. As long as they're containing the rest. Deron, Nash, Parker, blah blah. Chauncey would be a jump shooter - nothing the Lakers can't handle.

Pistons teams because the pick-and-roll was rarely used, especially with Ben Wallace, who Shaq was defending back in the 2004 Finals.

Well that just makes you look retarded. When it was used heavily in the 2004 finals. Shaq was also forced to switch on Rasheed at times as he was torching the shit out players that had no business being in the NBA; like Cook and Medved.

The other major offensive set they would use would be exploiting a defensive mismatch in the post,

Something the 2010 Lakers are worlds better at than the 2004 Pistons ever were. :lol Rip in the post.

I don't think a healthy Karl Malone changes the outcome of the series, but he would have helped the Lakers if healthy.

Of course you do. Often the delusion Piston fanboys love to believe.

The Lakers struggling against the teams I mentioned is more of an indictment on your claim than the Pistons struggling against the Nets is one of my claim that it would be competitive.

Except the Lakers didn't struggle against those teams if you actually watched the games. While the Pistons were on the brink of elimination against a team featuring Dick as their 1st option. :lol

I like how Jammy feigns innonence and pretends to bring a serious take to the table when in reality it boiled down to, " Nah uh, Rip in the post. Kobe's ego."

Pretty much a blatant troll if I ever saw one. Nice try though. :lol

picc84

08-02-2010, 05:51 PM

Koolaid_Man

08-02-2010, 07:02 PM

Well that's dumb, no offense. The Blazers should have beat that team and if wasn't for Kobe's miraculous game 4 the Pacers would have took them to 7. And the Pacers were nowhere near as good as Boston was.

2000 Shaq was so dominant that Kobe was forced to become the first option in the last few minutes. Even then you could still exploit Shaq's effortless pick and roll D. Which is exactly what the Lakers would do to them, especially with Pau's jumper keeping him honest.

Old man Kobe would have given his young self more fits. Especially on the block.

AC Green is my boy but he's going to struggle when it comes to keeping Odom off the glass.

great analysis all the way around the real 21....:toast

The Batman

08-02-2010, 07:50 PM

great analysis all the way around the real 21....:toast

Why don't you start a thread showing your gay buttlove for him

JamStone

08-02-2010, 11:37 PM

Medvedenko had no business being in the NBA and he was starting in the NBA finals. Even mentioning him at all is hilarious and was basically rambling. Had no relavance whatsoever to the infinitely superior Gasol/Odom rotation that still hasn't lost a playoff series when Bynum starts next to them.

Medvedenko started 1 game of the 2004 NBA Finals. And that was when the series was all but decided. The mighty Lakers got handled well before Medvedenko was playing important minutes in games 4 and 5.

And you seriously have to have a learning disability to press this notion that I compared him to Gasol or Odom. I never compared him to Gasol. And I specifically stated Odom is a much better player. Point was and still is that Rasheed would have been successful against Odom in the post. Since when has Odom ever been known as a good low post defender? Never. Thank you. Rasheed back in 2004 would have outclassed and outquicked Andrew Bynum so let's not even bring his name into the discussion.

Yet much, much, much better offensive teams and supeiorr point guards have yet to exploit that mismatch to the point where it was the difference in a playoff series. PG is the least important defensive position on the floor and Fisher can be hidden when you have the defensive length the Lakers do.

Defensive length helps very little against a team like the 2004 Pistons who relied heavily on jump shots for their offense. The top two scorers on that Pistons team were Billups and Hamilton, both jump shooters. The front court length of the Lakers is most advantageous against a team full of slashers or against primarily post-up bigs. Rasheed stretches out those bigs with his three point ability, bringing out bigs out by the three point line to allow for better spacing and for the perimeter guys to post up smaller guards when there are opportunities. The offense still ran through Hamilton and Billups to get open looks from the perimeter. Neither used drives and slashes too much for their offense. You can't hide a Fisher.

And at any rate, you forget that it wasn't about the Pistons offense that made the 2004 Pistons so good. They weren't a great offensive team. They were a lock down defensive team. They could pretty much play straight up at every position with very little double teaming if any. It wasn't not about the Pistons outscoring their opponents. It was about the fact they weren't going to let the other team score.

Yeah just like Billups finished Fisher in 2009. The same season where he put up better O stats than 03/04. The Lakers don't mind letting opponent PGs beat them either. As long as they're containing the rest. Deron, Nash, Parker, blah blah. Chauncey would be a jump shooter - nothing the Lakers can't handle.

Billups didn't put up great offensive numbers in 2003-04, in the regular season or for most of the playoffs except for the NBA Finals. Billups hasn't really been an efficient offensive player. Denver's more open style of basketball compared to Larry Brown's possession basketball most certainly helped his stats in Denver. But that 2009 Denver team was nothing like the 2004 Pistons team. Can't really compare. Billups in the 2004 NBA Finals was just a different player. He was on one of the stretches few players get to experience. No way a 35-36 year old Fisher contains 2004 Billups. Billups was in the moment for that series.

Well that just makes you look retarded. When it was used heavily in the 2004 finals. Shaq was also forced to switch on Rasheed at times as he was torching the shit out players that had no business being in the NBA; like Cook and Medved.

Good to know that you didn't watch the 2004 NBA Finals. The Pistons primary offense under Larry Brown was dumping the ball down in the post to the exploitable match-up, swinging the ball side to side, and having Rip create off the ball movement through a series of cuts, curls through screens. The high pick-and-roll with Chauncey and Rasheed was used sometimes, mostly in the second half, but not all that often. That's how Rasheed would get some three point looks at the top of the key. Lol at Shaq being forced to switch on Rasheed maybe a handful of times in the series as your example of Shaq being put in the pick-in-roll. Rarely in that series. Very rarely. Rasheed had two good offensive games in the 2004 NBA Finals and a pretty good game 5 when the game got out of hand and he didn't need to try anymore. Rasheed's offense came either on jumpshots or in the post. They didn't come off of pick-and-roll plays with Shaq defending him. I plead with you to go back and watch the tapes of the 2004 NBA Finals. You are flat out lying about that.

Something the 2010 Lakers are worlds better at than the 2004 Pistons ever were. :lol Rip in the post.

Ummmm the current Lakers squad have no extremely advantageous exploitable match-up against the 2004 Pistons. Rasheed was a premier low post defender back in 2004 as was Ben Wallace. Each individually defended Shaq in 2004, 2005, and 2006 with very little double team help and each did the same with Tim Duncan in 2005 and held Duncan to abnormally poor offensive shooting numbers. Back then Rasheed was actually still pretty quick too. Defending Gasol would not be a problem. Ben Wallace would have very little problem containing Bynum as well. Not to say they'd hold them scoreless. But neither guy would be putting up Shaq like numbers against that tandem. Prince back in 2004 was actually a solid defender for Kobe, and that was a younger, more athletic, and less banged up Kobe. In fact the best match-up the Lakers had to exploit offensively would be Ron Artest on Rip Hamilton. And 2010 Ron Artest offensively isn't someone the Lakers were going to try to milk.

Of course you do. Often the delusion Piston fanboys love to believe.

Delusional to think the current Lakers squad who had struggles against the Oklahoma City Thunder and got blown out by Houston minus Yao Ming twice would easily dismantle the shit out of arguably the greatest defensive team in the history of the league?

Delusion. I do not think you know what that word means.

Except the Lakers didn't struggle against those teams if you actually watched the games. While the Pistons were on the brink of elimination against a team featuring Dick as their 1st option. :lol

Better to let undersized, non athletic forwards like Carl Landry and Luis Scola undress such a "great" Laker front court? If Richard Jefferson could play well against that 2004 Detroit Pistons team, what does that say about Kobe Bryant who got bent over by that same team?

I like how Jammy feigns innonence and pretends to bring a serious take to the table when in reality it boiled down to, " Nah uh, Rip in the post. Kobe's ego."

Pretty much a blatant troll if I ever saw one. Nice try though. :lol

You like to troll. I get it. You like to go to extremes to rile other posters. You think it's cute or funny or whatever. That's fine. I'm not really into exchanging insults. If that's your thing, fine. I can take insults, name-calling, being called any name you want. It's not that deep. But back up your comments. And don't fabricate the truth. And bring at least a tiny bit of objectivity every once in a while. I don't think you're actually stupid when it comes to basketball knowledge. I think you choose to be because you're like a lot of douchebag Laker fans. It's unnecessary. You can have your flame war with other posters. I won't get into your little internet piss contests. But I think you actually might be able to have some decent NBA discussion if you weren't such a jackass to people and just stuck to the actual basketball talk.

That's the thing with some of you Laker fans. There are several of you who actually have the capability of having a decent basketball debate with but are too pompous and obnoxious and clouded with some need to have some feeling of messageboard superiority that it's pretty much lost on you to have quality discussion.

Why not just have a decent basketball discussion? I don't see why it's so hard? There are a couple Laker fans that have no problem doing it.

JamStone

08-02-2010, 11:53 PM

Jam,

Kobe played badly in the 04 series but he's far from the sole reason that series went the way it did. People always talk about how he needed to take less shots, but the game that he took the least shot attempts (13 in game 3, 45 mins played) was the worst loss for the Lakers. They ended up getting smashed that game, and Kobe's lack of shooting assertiveness only highlighted the other huge problems with the team.

The truth is, there weren't any good offensive options besides Shaq and Kobe's one on one forays. The Pistons D was rotating too fast to get the "shooters" open looks. The best option on offense was Shaq, and everyone always blames Kobe for not getting him the ball enough. And while he could have done a better job, every other guard on the team seemed to ignore Shaq too. Fisher, Payton, Rush, they all looked Shaq off and either called their own number or swung the ball around the perimeter.

The Lakers just didn't have the personnel to win that series with the frontcourt in the shape that it was. Kobe shooting less maybe extends that series a game. It doesn't win it.

Problem with your game 3 example is that even though Kobe took his fewest shots, those extra shot opportunities weren't going to Shaq. Kobe took 13 FGA in game 3. Shaq took 14 and had only 2 FTA. It's not like Kobe taking fewer shots was an effort to work through Shaq. That game got out of hand pretty quickly. Game started out Pistons 10-2. For much of the second quarter, it was a 12-13 point lead. At half it was a 7 point difference, but the game felt like it was already over especially since the Lakers were struggling to score (32 points at halftime). The Lakers were never in that game 3, and Kobe knew it. His less than average amount of field goal attempts was more about how the game unfolded than him making a concerted effort to get Shaq the ball or to be unselfish with his teammates. Poor example and reference.

I'd agree that Shaq and Kobe were the best scorers, but Kobe didn't allow anyone else to get involved in scoring. Here are the breakdowns of field goal distribution for the Lakers in the 2004 NBA Finals:

Kobe: 113 FGA, 25 FTA in 231 minutes played (22.6 FGA/game)
Shaq: 84 FGA, 55 FTA in 213 minutes (16.8 FGA/gm)
Fisher: 36 FGA, 7 FTA in 101 minutes (7.2 FGA/gm)
Malone (4 games): 24 FGA, 6 FTA in 122 minutes (6.0 FGA/gm)
Payton: 28 FGA, 2 FTA in 168 minutes (5.6 FGA/gm)
George: 28 FGA, 4 FTA in 104 minutes (5.6 FGA/gm)

I mean really? Payton might not have been the same player he was a few years prior, but he might as well have been Smush Parker on offense. Payton averaged 12.5 FGA/gm and Malone averaged 9.5 FGA/gm in the regular season. And then they're supposed to still play well when not only that season but their whole careers they're used to getting consistent touches. Before the Finals, Malone averaged 11.4 FGA/gm and Payton averaged 9.3 FGA/gm in the playoffs. But all of a sudden they can't even touch the basketball. Heck guys like Medvedenko and Kareem Rush had almost as many FGA as Payton in less than half the minutes.

Kobe not going "Kobe" from jumpstreet in game 1 of the NBA Finals absolutely changed the outcome of that series.

Amuseddaysleeper

08-02-2010, 11:57 PM

Check PM's JameStone

ambchang

08-03-2010, 10:09 AM

The 09 and 10 Lakers are the best team ever assembled over the last two years.

Killakobe81

08-03-2010, 10:16 AM

I'll revise my statement slightly. Kobe wasn't the only reason the Lakers lost to the Pistons in 2004. But, I believe he's the biggest reason. (AGREE) The other things you mentioned definitely factored in. But, I'll put it this way. If Kobe doesn't go "Kobe" in that NBA Finals, even with all the other problems and the inner turmoil and Karl Malone's injury, even with all of that, if Kobe doesn't go "Kobe," the Lakers still beat the Pistons. (Not sure but you maybe right, but that is ASKING a lot from kobe and that team was EXTREMELY dysfunctional)

picc84

08-03-2010, 11:57 AM

Problem with your game 3 example is that even though Kobe took his fewest shots, those extra shot opportunities weren't going to Shaq. Kobe took 13 FGA in game 3. Shaq took 14 and had only 2 FTA. It's not like Kobe taking fewer shots was an effort to work through Shaq. That game got out of hand pretty quickly. Game started out Pistons 10-2. For much of the second quarter, it was a 12-13 point lead. At half it was a 7 point difference, but the game felt like it was already over especially since the Lakers were struggling to score (32 points at halftime). The Lakers were never in that game 3, and Kobe knew it. His less than average amount of field goal attempts was more about how the game unfolded than him making a concerted effort to get Shaq the ball or to be unselfish with his teammates. Poor example and reference.

What you say is true, but it doesn't disprove what I said. I agreed that Kobe didn't work to get the ball to Shaq. What I said is that none of the other players tried to either. All of the guards ignored Shaq for the most part, its just Bryant was the one who people noticed because he was the other go-to guy. They were looking Shaq off all series, and game 3 only served to illustrate that Kobe taking less shots didn't necessarily mean Shaq would get more....because no one was consistently looking for him. Nobody.

Kobe takes less shots in the other games, Fisher/Payton/George/Rush are still swinging the ball away from him. That was a problem all series that nobody acknowledged. Everyone was looking Shaq off.

I'd agree that Shaq and Kobe were the best scorers, but Kobe didn't allow anyone else to get involved in scoring. Here are the breakdowns of field goal distribution for the Lakers in the 2004 NBA Finals:

Kobe: 113 FGA, 25 FTA in 231 minutes played (22.6 FGA/game)
Shaq: 84 FGA, 55 FTA in 213 minutes (16.8 FGA/gm)
Fisher: 36 FGA, 7 FTA in 101 minutes (7.2 FGA/gm)
Malone (4 games): 24 FGA, 6 FTA in 122 minutes (6.0 FGA/gm)
Payton: 28 FGA, 2 FTA in 168 minutes (5.6 FGA/gm)
George: 28 FGA, 4 FTA in 104 minutes (5.6 FGA/gm)

First, lets be honest - 22.6 fga/game isn't that many. Kobe actually didn't take that many shots, it was just the nature of the shots that were costly and perturbed people. Bad, contested jumpers over 3 hands.

But lets not act like 23 shots per game for Kobe Bryant is a lot. He's had plenty of series with similar/higher shot attempts and others still got involved. Which brings me to the next point. How were the role players supposed to get involved with scoring when:

1. Most of them couldn't create their own shot, and were being denied clean looks off kickouts by the quickly rotating Pistons defense.

2. Malone's hampered mobility from his injury affected his own ability to create shots for himself, especially over the much taller Sheed, and relegated him mostly to a facilitator from the post when he was able to play.

3. Payton couldn't post up Billups, which was his preferred offense, and additionally had his minutes cut for Fisher because he was so ineffective.

And I think you'll see all of that reflected in their FG percentages. All of the guards outside of Kobe shot around 30% (30!) for the series, because they could neither create offense, shoot the ball with space, or make the few open attempts they did get. Devean George at 40%. Malone at 33%. Walton at 39%. These are the people you want to have a larger role against the Pistons defense? Doing what?

The only player to shoot a high% was Shaq, and that was by design. It wasn't Kobe who didn't "allow" anyone else to score, it was the defense. "Allow" makes it sound as if the other players were just waiting to go off, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Kobe could have cut way back on his shot attempts and not a thing would have changed - Shaq would have converted his 17 shots/game at a high % as all the other players continued to look him off, and everyone else still would have struggled to get any good shot attempt off, let alone a high % one, against the Piston defense.

I mean really? Payton might not have been the same player he was a few years prior, but he might as well have been Smush Parker on offense. Payton averaged 12.5 FGA/gm and Malone averaged 9.5 FGA/gm in the regular season. And then they're supposed to still play well when not only that season but their whole careers they're used to getting consistent touches. Before the Finals, Malone averaged 11.4 FGA/gm and Payton averaged 9.3 FGA/gm in the playoffs. But all of a sudden they can't even touch the basketball. Heck guys like Medvedenko and Kareem Rush had almost as many FGA as Payton in less than half the minutes.

Explained above.

Kobe not going "Kobe" from jumpstreet in game 1 of the NBA Finals absolutely changed the outcome of that series.

Maybe from 4-2 to 4-1. Not from a championship. There's a reason that Pistons team is regarded as the best defense in NBA history, and they were holding teams to crazy shit like 70ppg or whatever for stretches. And its not because they "allowed" guys to get involved in scoring. Especially not offensively limited role players such as those playing with Shaq and Kobe.

Indazone

08-03-2010, 12:44 PM

Shut the fuck up, Coldplay

Good one D*****bag John, the gum on the bottom of my shoe is smarter than you.

duhoh

08-03-2010, 01:48 PM

You like to troll. I get it. You like to go to extremes to rile other posters. You think it's cute or funny or whatever. That's fine. I'm not really into exchanging insults. If that's your thing, fine. I can take insults, name-calling, being called any name you want. It's not that deep. But back up your comments. And don't fabricate the truth. And bring at least a tiny bit of objectivity every once in a while. I don't think you're actually stupid when it comes to basketball knowledge. I think you choose to be because you're like a lot of douchebag Laker fans. It's unnecessary. You can have your flame war with other posters. I won't get into your little internet piss contests. But I think you actually might be able to have some decent NBA discussion if you weren't such a jackass to people and just stuck to the actual basketball talk.

That's the thing with some of you Laker fans. There are several of you who actually have the capability of having a decent basketball debate with but are too pompous and obnoxious and clouded with some need to have some feeling of messageboard superiority that it's pretty much lost on you to have quality discussion.

Why not just have a decent basketball discussion? I don't see why it's so hard? There are a couple Laker fans that have no problem doing it.

:wow

:toast

JamStone just crapped a huge deuce on 21. :king

LA fans who can actually talk basketball usually have smart takes. I actually enjoy reading those takes, especially for long-time LA fans. Seriously, the Lakeshow grabs a 3-peat in their height, and then crashes to near-rock bottom, and their return to prominence is great for the fanbase.

It's not so different from SA's 97-98 season. Just sayin brah

Killakobe81

08-03-2010, 02:22 PM

What you say is true, but it doesn't disprove what I said. I agreed that Kobe didn't work to get the ball to Shaq. What I said is that none of the other players tried to either. All of the guards ignored Shaq for the most part, its just Bryant was the one who people noticed because he was the other go-to guy. They were looking Shaq off all series, and game 3 only served to illustrate that Kobe taking less shots didn't necessarily mean Shaq would get more....because no one was consistently looking for him. Nobody.

Kobe takes less shots in the other games, Fisher/Payton/George/Rush are still swinging the ball away from him. That was a problem all series that nobody acknowledged. Everyone was looking Shaq off.

First, lets be honest - 22.6 fga/game isn't that many. Kobe actually didn't take that many shots, it was just the nature of the shots that were costly and perturbed people. Bad, contested jumpers over 3 hands.

But lets not act like 23 shots per game for Kobe Bryant is a lot. He's had plenty of series with similar/higher shot attempts and others still got involved. Which brings me to the next point. How were the role players supposed to get involved with scoring when:

1. Most of them couldn't create their own shot, and were being denied clean looks off kickouts by the quickly rotating Pistons defense.

2. Malone's hampered mobility from his injury affected his own ability to create shots for himself, especially over the much taller Sheed, and relegated him mostly to a facilitator from the post when he was able to play.

3. Payton couldn't post up Billups, which was his preferred offense, and additionally had his minutes cut for Fisher because he was so ineffective.

And I think you'll see all of that reflected in their FG percentages. All of the guards outside of Kobe shot around 30% (30!) for the series, because they could neither create offense, shoot the ball with space, or make the few open attempts they did get. Devean George at 40%. Malone at 33%. Walton at 39%. These are the people you want to have a larger role against the Pistons defense? Doing what?

The only player to shoot a high% was Shaq, and that was by design. It wasn't Kobe who didn't "allow" anyone else to score, it was the defense. "Allow" makes it sound as if the other players were just waiting to go off, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

Kobe could have cut way back on his shot attempts and not a thing would have changed - Shaq would have converted his 17 shots/game at a high % as all the other players continued to look him off, and everyone else still would have struggled to get any good shot attempt off, let alone a high % one, against the Piston defense.

Explained above.

Maybe from 4-2 to 4-1. Not from a championship. There's a reason that Pistons team is regarded as the best defense in NBA history, and they were holding teams to crazy shit like 70ppg or whatever for stretches. And its not because they "allowed" guys to get involved in scoring. Especially not offensively limited role players such as those playing with Shaq and Kobe.

great post.

Like i said:

1. Pistons were a GREAT defensive team ...
2. That Laker team Was DYSFuNCTIONAL ...Kobe vs. Shaq, GP vs. Triangle, Malone vs. age,
3. Even if kobe feeds Shaq more i doubt we win that series ...

As picc said:
1. What we gonna feed Rush and Walton more?
2. Shaq was effective no doubt about it on offense ...and of course you want to have him get a more touches ...but you can not just compare FGA ESPECIALLY if there is FTA that are not factored in. Also what about passes in to the post that lead to kickouts?

Look im not absolving kobe by any stretch ...and i know (much like with miami this year) EVERYONE thought we were the favorites THAT year ...

BUT the Pistons were the BETTER TEAM, played better defense and were not really a two man team like the Lakers were by the finals, due to Payton's struggles and Malone's injury.

Kobe was an A$$ that season and his Colorado mess sure did not help matters ...

But let's credit the Pistons and share the blame on the Lakers ...i was in L.A. it was a soap opera every other day (and not all kobe) as any honest lakers fan will tell you.