Reply With Quote
I had a feeling I would regret this, because it was my post that started the Kobe chat again haha
BTW way to turn a good thread in to another Kobe session.
Aguirre and King two great scorers from the 80's ... glad i got to see both play as a youngster. Would of loved to have seen Aguirre in college i heard he was a beast at Depaul.
I had a feeling I would regret this, because it was my post that started the Kobe chat again haha
I think I agree with you to an extent. I would say that if Kobe didn't go all me me me mode in 2004, the Lakers have a chance of coming out on top, and it will be a very compe ive series. Afterall, the Lakers have one weapon the Pistons cannot stop - Shaq. Shaq, despite all the talk about the Wallace brothers "shutting him down" back in the day, was shooting 60% from the field. The only thing that really stopped him was Kobe jacking up these idiotic shots for no reason. If Kobe shot his normal 45/46%, and transfer more shots to Shaq for his 60% shooting, the Lakers may have won. I am not sure if they will, but they have a decent chance.
As for Fisher's shot, even if he missed that one, the Spurs will lose anyways. The Spurs lost in 6 games, not 7 games, and even after that shot, the Spurs still had a chance to tie up the series. The key was that KFC figured out a way to stop the Spurs, and that is pack the lane and make it impossible for Duncan to score and Parker to penetrate, the Spurs had no answers for that, and promptly lost the series.
But back to topic, I really think there isn't much comparison between King and Aguirre in terms of scoring ability. King was miles ahead, and you are talking about a guy who cannot be stopped, who was pretty much Jordan before Jordan in terms of pure scoring abilities. Aguirre was never in the same level. Like I said, King was like melo on roids, Aguirre was like Artest (offensively, and I am using Artest because I can't find another guy similar off the top of my head) on roids. The difference is about that wide.
Amb,
Winning in 6 games is decisive. But winning on Tim Duncan's shot, very well could of changed that series. Like I said the team was already fracturing. GP came out publicly and criticized Shaq's pnr defense (which was still an issue in the finals since Chauncey was on fire and why i think they don't win). And KFc began to rely on fisher more. He does that and they lose ...more friction. But it is all hypothetical. Also remember, as banged up as the Lakers were another game does not help. Like i said before that "team" was FARRR from great. The minny team we played was KG, Cassell and spare parts. So of course we were favorites by the media going in to the finals ...we are THE LAKERS. But if you watched closely us winning in 6 vs. a Spurs team you are conceding was inferior to a flawed Lakers team should of been a huge warning sign.
Anyway. Aguirre is hard to describe he wasnt quite like Dantley (who he was traded for) but they had similar impacts on offense. no modern day player plays like that. Dantley had the better more unrothodox post move si think Mark was a more fluid athlete. the Sf position really has changed. in the 80's it was those two Dantley, Nique English and only wilkins was anything like the modern-day hybrid.
Last edited by Killakobe81; 10-16-2013 at 10:11 AM.
The team definitely had too many egos, and I am surprised that Malone was pretty much the only one who understood he was coattailing. I mean, Shaq was the man, and it's obvious to all, I am not even sure what GP was thinking. Did he expect the team to change the entire offense because of him? Didn't he know that the triangle was the Lakers bread-and-butter? I mean, even I knew. And Shaq was bad in pnr defense is as widely known as the earth is roundish, I mean, the Lakers helped some marginal PG talent get huge contracts and undeserved reputations (Bibby), and he was arguing over that?
Sota could have won that year if the entire team was healthy, but it wasn't meant to be. Cassell and Sprewell were the closers and creator, and Garnett was at the top of his game, missing Cassell really hurt that team, pretty much the entire engine that drove that train. As for the Spurs, that was a deeply flawed team, literally all defense, no offense. The perimeter offense on that team was sickeningly bad. If Turko could have nailed wide open shots that year, the Spurs would have been great, but he didn't, and when your top 3 points markman in the playoffs is Tony Parker, your team is done.
Well, Dantley was the best low post perimeter scorer (if there is such a thing) in NBA history. The guy was efficient as Cassell is ugly. Dantley was like a 6'5" version of McHale, almost. He had that inside game down pat and can draw fouls like Durant. English was all mid-range jumpers, kind of like Kiki Vandeweghe, but better, or like a Durant with less range. Wilkins was insane, like a large AI who would just attack the rim like Blair after burgers, I honestly can't think of a modern day SF like him though. I mean, Lebron attacks the rim like that, but Lebron is obviously much better in many other aspects of the game. Aguirre, really, can't think of anyone, nobody has that huge butt of his that will just push people out of his way, and that's why I came up with Artest. Artest had a much stronger upper body to get post position, but Aguirre was basically a master of using his butt.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
