Reply With Quote
2001 God would destroy this overrated team. He would make both Green and Kawhi cry like es even worse than what happened in 6.
Who wins?
2001 God would destroy this overrated team. He would make both Green and Kawhi cry like es even worse than what happened in 6.
Yeah, Shaq was the most dominant player I have ever seen but I think the Spurs would have a chance.
You guys are such idiots I swear on that. Shaq was God's sidekick in the '01 playoffs.
The Lakers would not have been able to contain the Spurs offense.
It would be a toss up. I give the edge to the greatest constructed team since the mid-80's Lakers and Celtics.
Spurs in 7.
1) Format of the series?
2) HCA?
If Shaq is allowed to camp inside, Lakers easily. If the three-second defensive rule is in place, the 2014 Spurs would rape the 2001 Lakers in 4. Shaq would have a heart attack just trying to guard the pick and roll while trying to carry Kirby on offense.
Only way those Lakers beat this Spurs is if Shaq goes ham, that's the only way they win. None of our bigs could stop that dude. The rest of the team can be replaced with a Brian Shaw
It really is a fruitless comparison considering the rule changes. The 2014 Spurs would run the 01 Lakers off the floor with these rules. But under '01 rules? Not so sure. Lakers probably take the series.
Considering Spurs beat them in 2003 I dont care two s nothing to prove there.
2014 Spurs lived and died by the three. Lakers have little hope of keeping up with their swing offense. The lakers always played big..Shaq would not be able to keep up with the pace on defense. Offense is another story..
No one was/or is stopping Shaq..but his 20 2pt fgs get beat by the spurs 15 3pt fgs they're bound to make.
Kobe wouldn't play any better than Lebron just did, especially on the boards and dimes.
Spurs take it. Good match up though.
The 2001 Lakers were beastly as , one of the best champ teams ever. Prime Shaq would destroy anyone on the Spurs roster
The early 2000s Lakers played in an antiquated era where teams didn't run systems, and their compe ion was awful, tbh..teams with no perimeter players..
They struggled immensely against an inferior version of the Spurs in the 2002 Kings, they were overwhelmed by a team that ran an actual system with ball movement(since it was extremely rare, at the time)..
2014 Spurs had better compe ion, but did we really have a mind-blowing and game-changing insight re: offensive systems from 2001? Stupid teams still don't win championships and the who have the brains to do it hoist the LOB in the end.
They struggled immensely against an inferior version of the Spurs in the 2002 Kings, they were overwhelmed by a team that ran an actual system with ball movement(since it was extremely rare, at the time)and they still swept the cowbells
Oh and 2001 Lakers in 6 whether the format is 2-3-2 or 2-2-1-1-1.
Under what rules?
The post-06 rule changes were implemented to discourage low post play, packing the paint, and open up the game. I don't know if Shaq would have the conditioning to be dominant against these Spurs under these rules. He might get his 30, but would be a huge liability defensively. His pick and roll defense was always weak and I have no idea how he'd keep up with this offense.
And '01 Kobe would play no better than Lebron did. As the Spurs proven, their defense can handle superstar perimeter players (Durant, Westbrook, Lebron).
And then there's the issue of the Lakers depth. The Lakers went only 7 deep, with Horry and Shaw off the bench.
Be an interesting series.
diaw will force shaq out or whoever to defend him
plus shaq never played anyone physical like baynes, and yes he has 6fouls to give away
The NBA was unGODLY weak in 2001... even then the Lakers only produced a 56 win regular season campaign.
the BUCKS were a game away from the Finals, many superstars had not yet entered the league and the West was not what it is today.
Shaq would get murdered on all the secondary, third and fourth motions generating pick and roll plays. He simply wouldn't be able to play in this pace...thus exhausting himself (as he was prone to at the time), limiting his production.
The Lakers weren't very deep. They wouldn't get enough bench play to match the Spurs.
Kobe would do okay but he's no Lebron. Kobe would be really bothered by Kawhi imo.
I say Spurs in 6.
LOL HACK A SHAQ
With 2001 rules: Lakers in 4 or 5.
With 2014 rules: Spurs in 4 or 5.
The early 2000s Lakers played in an antiquated era where teams didn't run systems, and their compe ion was awful, tbh..teams with no perimeter players..
They struggled immensely against an inferior version of the Spurs in the 2002 Kings, they were overwhelmed by a team that ran an actual system with ball movement(since it was extremely rare, at the time)
Also, Sacramento might've been inferior but it's all about matchups and Vlade Divac did as good a job on Shaq as anybody back then ever did 1 on 1. Against the Spurs, Shaq wouldn't have just gotten "his 30" if left 1 on 1 all game, he would get about 80. But Pop would eventually have to double, like every team back then did, and that's when their offense gets rolling. This isn't a knock on SA, since there is no reason to get a big, plodding center in today's NBA but the reality is that they just have nobody on their roster that would keep Shaq from dunking it 100 times a game
The only team that successfully would let Shaq/Kobe "go off" while shutting down everybody else, was Detroit but they actually had the personnel to do it.
Not a Spurs hater by any means, I think they're the 3rd best team since the Jordan Bulls (01 Lakers and 08 Celtics i put ahead)
01 was still in an era which I would like to call the "post-Jordan vacuum". Some future legends came to the league during 96-98 but they hadn't matured yet, so Shaq who was the most outstanding player of his generation easily dominated that era. 2001 Lakers would beat the 2014 Spurs in a 6 or 7 game series, but it ain't because of Kobe, it is shaq that gives them the edge imho.
As others have pointed out, it would largely depend on what rules they were playing by. In the current era rules, I'd take the 2014 Spurs. Kobe Bryant, who was very good but not in his prime at the time, would have to go through Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green. He would still score, but he would have to work for it. The Spurs would have no answer for Shaq, because such an answer still does not exist for prime Shaq. However, I believe SA would be content to let Shaq have his and limit everyone else. The Spurs offense would pick the Lakers defense apart. SA would annihilate Shaq in P/R all game long. The Spurs depth would also wear the Lakers down, just as it wore down the Miami Heat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
