Reply With Quote
Shaq cost the Spurs a chance at les in 2000, 2001, and 2002. In 04' Fisher cost the Spurs. Kobe AND Gasol cost the Spurs in 2008, so the answer to your question is one le.
Kobe is more responsible for the Spurs' demise than Shaq. Kobe owns Spur real estate.
Shaq cost the Spurs a chance at les in 2000, 2001, and 2002. In 04' Fisher cost the Spurs. Kobe AND Gasol cost the Spurs in 2008, so the answer to your question is one le.
Exhibit A:::Kobe is more responsible for the Spurs' demise than Shaq. Kobe owns Spur real estate.
Kobe: 5
tired old bag Merlin: 4
Unlikely to win in 08 so it doesn't count.
Re ed post.Kobe's done way more damage to the Spurs than Shaq has. Including the last L the Lakers dropped on your guys in the playoffs.
Kobe has done so much damage to the Spurs that you guys went out and got Bruce Lee Bowen to slow him down.
You were saying?
excellent post....Kobe's done way more damage to the Spurs than Shaq has. Including the last L the Lakers dropped on your guys in the playoffs.
Kobe has done so much damage to the Spurs that you guys went out and got Bruce Lee Bowen to slow him down.
You were saying?
Kobe is more responsible for the Spurs' demise than Shaq. Kobe owns Spur real estate.
you on point my
Lol. Of course they did, especially when the likes of Terry Porter, Danny Ferry, an ancient Steve Smith and an ancient Sean Elliott are your primary perimeter defenders.
And they only had to deal with Shaq for one year after Robinson retired. I'm sure if Shaq would've stayed, the Spurs would've tried their damndest to acquire another low-post defender. Besides, 7 footers who can defend the post don't grow on trees.
And I concede Kobe did more damage to the Spurs than Shaq, because by having both Duncan and Robinson, the Spurs matched up decently with him, negating the extreme advantage Shaq had inside over pretty much every team in the league. Meanwhile, on the perimeter, Kobe got to feast on Terry Porter and the like. When Bowen arrived, he kept Kobe below or at his season averages in '02, '03 (Kobe was awful against the Spurs in '03), and '04 (Kobe did go off in '08, however). Just because Shaq didn't do as much damage doesn't mean he was the inferior player, just that Spurs could counter his presence more effectively.
2001, 2002, 2008
3
anything can happen in a playoff series
so it does count
In game 1 of the 2008 WCF, the Spurs were up by 20 points in the 3rd quarter. looked liked the better team, then you know what happened next, kobe time, burned the spurs again like he did earlier in the decade
Last edited by Deuce Bigalow; 09-07-2011 at 08:49 PM.
I correct my previous post, I guess only 2. Looking back, no one would've beaten Boston in 2008.
Cleveland would have had LeBron not his pants in Game One.
Kobe is 24-20 against TD. Shaq is 18-14.
Source
That mean Kobe handed out more ass kickings than Shaq did. I mean, they both kicked TD's ass, Kobe just did it more and for a longer period of time.
/Thread
excellent post....
you on point my
Lol at anyone saying '01. The Spurs lost every game by an average of around 20 points. And no, not because "Kobe was teh awZsome," more because Derek Fisher missed like one 3 over the series, averaging 15 points per game on something like 75% shooting. His shooting was unreal in that series. Kobe played great (any top tier guard would against Terry Porter and Danny Ferry) but he wasn't the primary reason the Spurs got their ass handed to them. It was a combination of Shaq's inside presence, Derek Fisher going unconscious, and Kobe Bryant being able to feast on a woefully ineffective perimeter defense.
Kobe homers would have a point if every game was close and the Lakers needing each and every one of Kobe's points to win, but that wasn't the case. In the closest game, which was decided by 7 points, Kobe scored 28 points on 46% shooting, about his season average. Just because he stat padded in the blowout games (lol at playing 40 minutes in a game decided by 39 points), doesn't mean Kobe was the reason the Spurs lost the series. Exchange him for any top 3 perimeter player from that time, and the results would be the same. Lakers win, Spurs lose.
Kobe averaged 33.3 ppg,7 rpg,7 apg on 51% shooting in the 2001 WCF
just saying....
Lebron James has a 10-5 advantage over Kobe in head to head matchups, not to mention much better stats.Kobe is 24-20 against TD. Shaq is 18-14.
Source
That mean Kobe handed out more ass kickings than Shaq did. I mean, they both kicked TD's ass, Kobe just did it more and for a longer period of time.
/Thread
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=bryanko01
If you weren't re ed, you'd understand how ridiculous it is to give a single player credit when their team beats another team.
Oh, and Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki have scoreboard on your hero in the playoffs. I know, I know, "B-B-But Kobe was playing with Smush and Kwame." I can just as easily say that Duncan and Robinson were playing with Danny Ferry and Terry Porter.
When the day finally comes that you wipe Kobe's off your face (odds are that day will never come, since you enjoy Kobe's discarded DNA crawling around on your face too much, but I can hope), you'll realize that evaluating players based head to head records doesn't make the least bit of sense.
And he stat padded in every game but one in that series. Lol at playing 40 min so that he can in and fill up the stat sheet in a 39 point blowout.
If you actually watched that game, you'd know Kobe shouldn't have even played the 4th quarter. But he probably begged Phil to go in so could "dominate" Danny Ferry.
you mad?
LeBron also leads the Bronze Medal count 1-0. What's your point? Kobe beat the team that ousted LeHype (Boston) en route to numero cinco.
Not so re ed as Kobe getting the blame when the Lakers lose. I mean, they got swept by the Mavs. Was it Kobe's fault? I mean this is a team game...
They won a few battles against Kobe. But it is still Kobe: 5, Nash/Dirk: 1.
Kobe Bean is a MAJOR reason why he has an overall winning percentage against TD. That's why you will continually see me give him his props. And no, I don't do on my face. Only people with tongue rings enjoy that kind of stuff.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
