Reply With Quote
Shaq and Kobe were equal parts to the team. The best 1-2 combo the NBA has ever seen.
I think the point being made here is that Shaq was the dominant force on those earlier teams and not Kobe. Those were primarily Shaq's teams and not Kobe's though he played a significant role on them. Kobe was the #2 option then and Shaq was numero uno. And this in no way takes anything away from Kobe - he is a great player but the facts back then say he played second fiddle. Take Shaq out of the equation and the results most likely change. Shaq at that time was the most dominant man in the NBA. He changed the entire game and whatever TD did against him was mainly a wash due to what Shaq put up. Put an average to even above average center in place of Shaq and I believe that the Spurs beat the Lakers most if not all of the time. Shaq was just that great of a player. They didn't call him the Big Diesel/Superman for nothing.
Shaq and Kobe were equal parts to the team. The best 1-2 combo the NBA has ever seen.
I'll go with that. But it was still Kobe Breaking our hearts in the 4th quarter of all those games.
Kobe is a great, great player but the fact is the Spurs have shut him down at times and recall Bowen outscored him in a game and Manu has outplayed him several times.
I doubt you're part of the Team. Try hiding in the closet.
Shaq was a beast in that Lakers 3-peat.
Look at these numbers before you come to your senses.
2000 Finals: he averaged 38 & 17
2001 Finals: he averaged 33 & 16
2002 Finals: he averaged 37 & 12
"I want to be like Mike" - Kobe
BTW Kobe looks gay in the picture.
Shaq >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kobe
99% of the Spurs focus was trying to find a way to keep Shaq from dominating. Kobe was the sidekick who the Spurs put Bowen on and didn't worry as much about.
Nope. Shaq and Kobe were equal parts to the team in terms of importance.
Shaq could never close games out with his poor F/T shooting making him a liability, and without Kobe to do that the Lakers don't win 3 championships.
And comparing Final's statistics between Kobe and Shaq is meaningless since the played the ing Nets, 76ers, and Pacers. All worthless teams. The real Finals were the WCF, and everyone knows that. Compare the statistics in those series.
Shaq >>>>>>>>> Kobe
C'mon man, you should come to your senses (the earlier the better).
It's like asking a father to pick which one of his sons he loves more. Both Shaq and Kobe gave the Lakers something that the other couldn't provide. Without either of them the Lakers simply don't win a single championship.
Here's the deal: the Spurs teams that lost to the Lakers were very deficient in their swingman rotation. Shaq was way better than Kobe (in fact prime Shaq's impact is in the company of prime Jordan, prime Wilt, prime Hakeem), but Shaq had either Tim or (aging, but still effective) David on him all the time, and he needed to guard one of them, he needed to rebound against them.
Kobe OTOH, used to embarrass the likes of Antonio Daniels, washed-up Terry Porter, and the corpse of Steve Smith. The only player worth mentioning was Derek Anderson and he got injured for the WCF where we got swept. The Spurs between 2000-02 had the worst guard rotation of all contending teams till we put together the 2003 le team with SJax, Parker, Manu and Bruce. It speaks volumes of Tim that we were a 56-win team that contended every year with putrid crap in the backcourt.
People have short memories. The Portland team in 2000 that choked had a backcourt of Pippen, Bonzi Wells and Steve Smith. They flat-out neutralized and got the better of Kobe. Shaq over Sabonis was the huge mismatch that the Lakers rode to beat them. Shaq was scoring 26 PPG at 54%, Kobe scored 21 PPG at 44%. Kobe was the very definition of role-player in that series. Cut to 2002, Shaq over Vlade Divac was the huge mismatch. Shaq scores 30 ppg at 53% shooting, Kobe scores 27 PPG at 42% shooting. Lakers win.
Cut to 2003. Key turning point: Shaq becomes lazier/less motivated/less dominant, and Kobe starts taking over the scoring load more. What happens to them vs the Spurs, who now have a decent guard rotation to put up against Kobe? Kobe scores his 32.3 PPG but at 43% shooting, Shaq puts up 25.3 PPG at 56%. You can bet Pop was happy that the reins of the Laker offense were in Kobe's hands, since the Spurs went on to win the le.
2004, Kobe is now the unquestioned scoring leader and Shaq is the # 2 option. Finals vs Detroit. Shaq scores at an ungodly 63% FGP to rack up 26.6 PPG at just 17 FGA per game. Kobe gets his ass shut down by Detroit, shoots 38% while scoring 22.6 PPG on 22.6 FGA per game. Larry Brown knew all he needed to do was let Kobe shoot his team out of a le.
Bottomline, with Shaq as the focal point of the offense and Kobe as a role player, the Lakers were champions. When Kobe took over the reins, he was the biggest reason they lost to teams who were smart enough to let Kobe shoot.
Kobe hasn't won a le as a leader yet. So no, he isn't what Tim means to the Spurs.
That's true, but Shaq was still the dominant force. 2002 was the only year when i though that maybe they don't have to feed the ball to Shaq all the time. The other two years, not a chance would they have won a playoff series without Shaq.
Dirk = Spurs Killer
Kobe is just Kobe. He's hit that level of Greatness as far as NBA skills go imfo.
and steve kerr owns the mavs.IMO what tmac rather than kobe is to the spurs is just what tim to the suns. Tim busted the suns with a unbelievable 3 but tmac had busted the spurs with 13/35 which is even more unbelievable.
Spurs used to be busted by knee-mac
No they weren't.
Sincerely,
The best 1-2 combo the NBA has ever seen
and the 2004 west semis
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
