2001 LAKERS or this 2017 Warriors team? Who u got?

[MalikX]

same kobe stans who argued shaq wasn't the main reason they won 3 titles are the same people saying shaq is the biggest x-factor

It's called matchups dikkhead. Golden State has no big men, so Shaq Daddy would definitely exploit that

San Antonio and Sacramento had big men but, weak perimeter players. Kobe would murder them.

Also, Shaq exploiting weak centers doesn't work as well without Kobe there to make teams pay for putting him in single coverage.
But I know you wanna be a dumb muthafukka.....so I'll let you go back to that

 

[King Jove]

It's called matchups dikkhead

and shaq was the biggest matchup problem night in and night out for that team which is why he was the biggest factor in why they won championships.

thanks for proving my point.

 

[ghostwriterx]

43%

Thats above his career average

Read what I said again.

 

[MalikX]

The same Tobe stans saying the Lakers would win are the same people saying he played with scrubs outside of Shaq.

I know you were born in 1997 but, the 2001 Lakers, the 2006 Lakers and the 2010 Lakers were all very different teams with very different rosters...young man

And you got Lakers fans confused with Bron stans. Two days ago you whole squad was garbage and Bron needed more help only for Kyrie to go off for 40 points, Love for 23 and Thompson for 5 and 10 rebounds. Three days from now yall will be back to calling your squad trash again.

 

[FS4LFE]

I know you were born in 1997 but, the 2001 Lakers, the 2006 Lakers and the 2010 Lakers were all very different teams with very different rosters...young man

And you got Lakers fans confused with Bron stans. Two days ago you whole squad was garbage and Bron needed more help only for Kyrie to go off for 40 points, Love for 23 and Thompson for 5 and 10 rebounds. Three days from now yall will be back to calling your squad trash again.

"Kobe didn't need all stars, he played with scrubs"
"He would also beat this current Warrior team"

It's possible to have help and for said help to under perform.

 

[MalikX]

and shaq was the biggest matchup problem for that team which is why he was the biggest factor in why they won championships.

thanks for proving my point.

All you proved was that you're mildly autistic. You skipped the other half of my post.

The Shaq-Kobe dynamic doesn't work without Kobe. Point me to all the rings Shaq got before #8 came on board?

Without Kobe on the team, teams just double or triple Shaq and he has no elite guard to pass to, to hit shots or help close out games. That's what happened from 96 to 99....no? Shaq averaged 27 points and 11 rebounds from 96 to 99....how come he aint get no rings

Also, how does Shaq get past San Antonio, Portland and Sacramento without Kobe? Does he even win any of those Finals without Kobe?

Be a dumb nikka brehs. Your idiot zero-sum argument could be used to say Steph Curry adds no value to the Warriors

 

[MalikX]

"Kobe didn't need all stars, he played with scrubs"
"He would also beat this current Warrior team"

It's possible to have help and for said help to under perform.

Stop conflating the late 2000s Lakers with the early 2000s Lakers if you want people to take your argument seriously.

You're all over the place.

Compared with the Superteams of today, the late 2000s Lakers rosters does look rather ordinary.

The early 2000s Lakers however were highly dominant, went 15-1 though one of their playoffs and drew comparisons to the Bulls.

 

[ManBearPig]

The Kings had Chris Webber and Vlade Divac....cmon son.

Both of them are miles better than Pachulia.

GS has nobody for Shaq.

Webber wasn't a good defender tho.

Shaq gonna get his but he gotta play defense in those pick and roles which he is horrible for

 

[ManBearPig]

Read what I said again.

U said 39% which he didnt

 

[King Jove]

You skipped the other half of my post.

because the other half of your post doesn't matter because you already acknowledged that shaq was the biggest matchup problem for the lakers.

the double and triple team attention that shaq got opened the game up kobe and the rest of the lakers which is the biggest reason they won. not the only reason but the biggest.

any scenario where the 2001 lakers beat the 2017 warriors, it will be because shaq makes the biggest impact.

 

[ghostwriterx]

U said 39% which he didnt

try reading the whole post

 

[SlurRty]

who's d'ing KD? lol.. would a center like shaq dominate in today's NBA.. back to the basket big men are obsolete.. warriors have the greatest offensive talent ever.. 4 hall of famers to 2? shouldnt really be much of a debate..

 

[MalikX]

because the other half of your post doesn't matter because you already acknowledged that shaq was the biggest matchup problem for the lakers.

the double and triple team attention that shaq got opened the game up kobe and the rest of the lakers which is the biggest reason they won. not the only reason but the biggest.

It's a symbiotic relationship. Shaq's size and weight draws gravity his way but, you NEED an elite guard to exploit the lack of coverage coming his way.

This is not integral calculus. It's very easy to understand.

Your zero sum arguments are little more than trolling. That's like saying Steph Curry (or Russell Westbrook) is a non-factor because Durant is the dominant one.

 

[King Jove]

It's a symbiotic relationship. Shaq's size and weight draws gravity his way but, you NEED an elite guard to exploit the lack of coverage coming his way.

This is not integral calculus. It's very easy to understand.

Your zero sum arguments are little more than trolling. That's like saying Steph Curry is a non-factor because Durant is the dominant one.

i never said kobe was a non-factor. can you fukking read? you kobe stans love to argue narratives that nobody made.

kobe exploited the "gravity" that SHAQ created, you keep proving my point without even knowing it.

there is no "gravity" to exploit if shaq wasn't dominate enough to command double and triple teams..

 

[MalikX]

i never said kobe was a non-factor. can you fukking read? you kobe stans love to argue narratives that nobody made.

kobe exploited the "gravity" that SHAQ crated, you keep proving my point without even knowing it.

there is no "gravity" to exploit if shaq wasn't dominate enough to command double and triple teams..

Whatever bro....me and you both know you was trying to discredit Kobe.

And everytime you dummies try it, I'mma just point to Steph & Durant because that shows how dumb yall zero-sum arguments are.

And YOU keep missing the point. If you threw an average guard in that situation, it doesn't work. That's why Nick Van Exel & Eddie Jones didn't work.

The Lakers without Kobe means teams will just gameplan around Shaq and force the other Lakers to beat them. Good luck with that.

I have no problem acknowledging Shaq's dominance but, you losers have a hard-on for dismissing Kobe like he wasn't vital to the Lakers teams. The dominance of the Lakers comes from the fact that teams couldn't both defend Shaq and Kobe at the same time.