I am not trolling. I am a man of logic and I can't believe you could type the above without thinking how that sounds. You mean to tell me that just because Blake/Farmar are "point guards" that they can win a lot more without Kobe than Kobe can without them. Stop. Pause. Think about what you are saying. You, in either defense of or denial of Kobe, essentially just blamed the reason the team was performing significantly worse on the great loss of Blake and Farmar.
There is a reason why they were winning at a higher clip with Blake/Farmar and no Kobe. There is a reason why the defense plummeted with the return of Kobe. You really need to consider the logic of the argument you just used. If the Lakers with Blake/Farmar are better equipped to win with no Kobe (and when I say win, I don't mean make the playoffs, I simply mean win at a certain level), than they are with Kobe and no Blake/Farmar, that tells you everything you need to know.