The "Kobe was a sidekick" argument needs to stop
- Thread starter KingMalik
- Start date
So Kobe couldnt get it done is what your saying?
GreatestLaker
#FirePelinka
No Bynum was a bum in the playoffs. He couldn't guard anyone and had trouble scoring in 09. He did have a few good games in 10 before his knee gave out. A healthy Drew was easily a top 15 player in the NBA, but he wasn't ever healthy.
I don't need to.
I'm seeing a lot of kobe highlights against the spurs from the 00-01 and 01-02 seasons. Im responding to that.
Lefty Gunz
Superstar
ok KG then too. Again you failed to mention a single competent SG Kobe matched up with in the west.
Oh and shaq didn't guard Duncan, Horace grant did.
AGAIN BYNUM AVERAGED LIKE 8 POINTS AND 20 MINUTES IN THE FINALS.....ODOM WAS A 12 AND 8 GUY. FAR FROM BUMS, BUT TO PAINT IT OUT TO BE SOME ALL-STAR FRONT COURT TO DOWNPLAY KOBE'S EXCELLENCE IS LAUGHABLE.
You ignored my point about The Lakers being built around Shaq, Shaw being the first option, and Shaq being the main focus of the opposing team because they override your childish cheerleading. Stop takin the shyt personal like a gotdamn little kid.Teams were not doubling Kobe wirh prime Shaq on the floor.at how quick some of you Kobe fanboys will outright lie.
LMAO TEAMS WERENT DOUBLING KOBE IN 2001?
GO TO SLEEP IDIOT
Shaq been jealous of KObe since day 1 lmao
lmao, be a grown multi millionair NBA superstar jealous of a 18 year old kid brehs
if you watched that documentary on Shaq and his college coach thats been runnin on the SEC Network, you would know Shaq always had insecurity issues. thats why he always surrounded himself with dudes who would worship him like Damon Jones. LeBron's similar in that regard.
Shaq wanted Kobe to come in and look up to him as a rookie. Instead Kobe came in like I'm better than you and watch me do this work. Shaq didn't like that. And its the main reason they fueded.
I can see your tennis skirt and pom poms from here. Nothing objective about you.
You didn't address anything, you just deflected. Nobody denies that Kobe was a dominant perimeter player and great scorer. Nobody denies that it takes a great player to take advantage of the situations that he was in. Those comments are deflections to what I said because they don't deal with what I said. Kobe being a great scorer and all that doesn't change the fact that the Lakers were built around Shaq, Shaq was the 1st option, and the main focus of the opposing team. Kobe's great skill doesn't change the fact that those Spurs team were more focused on controlling Shaq than him. Nothing you've said refutes the fact that Shaq was the main man of the those Lakers team.
Kobe not being the 1st option means that he wasn't the 1st option. 1b=2. They can dress it up as pretty as you want but he wasn't the 1st option and that's the point. The team was built around Shaq.
Wipe the crusty shyt off your chin bruh. That one series against the Spurs post Shaq doesn't have anything to do with what happened during the Shaq-Kobe years. This is just another deflection. Regardless of what he did in that series, he was the sidekick during the Lakers 3peat. I don't know why that bothers Kobe and his fanboys so much.
Not sure how acknowledging a players skill as being the reason they dominated in a playoff series is an act of deflection. And if you're acknowledging that Kobe was a dominant perimeter player than why would you say that the reason he was able to have such success against the Spurs is because of how he was played rather than he's just flat out a dominant scorer who can succeed against any defense no matter how you play him. Thats what dominant scorers do in this game. A lot of the plays he made against SAS, notably the game winner in G4 of 2002, had nothing to do with how the Spurs played him and rather his determination/skill. I used the Spurs series post Shaq to provide another example of Kobe dominating SAS with the offense tailored around him in the event you werent aware. You said that the reason Kobe had so much success is because of the way the Spurs played him and the presence of Shaq giving not a shred of credit to his actual ability. Using the 2008 WCF is a pretty clear rebuttal
At no point have I said Shaq wasn't the best player during the bulk of the Lakers dynasty. But that calling Kobe a robin or a sidekick is disrespectful as his role was much greater than that would imply because not only was he a top 5 player in the entire association but he has outplayed Shaq in several games throughout their tenure. There have been instances where he's been the go to scorer in the 4th Q and lifted the Lakers to victory. If you think he wasn't doubled or frequently ran the LA offense you need to refresh your memory. In the grand scheme of things that doesn't matter since they play for the same team, but its indicative of their 1A/1B relationship where either could take over a game for the Lakers and put them over the top. The benefited from one another and both had carried an alpha approach to the game, unwilling to defer to anyone. I don't even think Westbrook is a robin to Durant, that Oscar was a Robin to Kareem or Erving to Moses. Thats very disrespectful to me and I consider these all to be great superstar tandems with no sidekick designations. This is not just a Kobe thing but in general I have an issue with the sidekick talk when it concerns to superstars. Not a superstar and a role player, not a superstar and a casual all star, but two dominant top five players in the game. We all are so quick to decide who the #2 option is for a team rather than looking at how both contribute to the larger success for a franchise. 1b does not mean 2. 1b means you can alternate between top offensive roles which is exactly what happened with the two particularly in the middle of the 2003 season during Kobe's historic month of February where he averaged 40 a night. Shaq took a backseat and Kobe during that period. That doesn't happen with a clearly defined #1
Nothing said in this thread really bothers me per say. Entire reason i made an account on this forum or any sports related site is to have discussions just like this. Seems like you're the one agitated by anything being said here, I'm honestly enjoying this.
^THIS GRAVITY GUY IS NOT EVEN WORTH RESPONDING TO..HE CLAIMS KOBE WASNT DOUBLE TEAMED DURING THAT ERA. THAT AUTOMATICALLY RENDERS HIS REPLIES WORTHLESS.
No matter how much times you say this doesn't make it true. Maybe on Earth-1602 but not this reality
I guess you like what? 9 years old back then...lol
Put Duncan in place of Shaq and they still win 3 'ships. They might win more
Nah...the Shaq team would of decimated Duncan as always
It's a deflection because you say that as if it refutes the facts that Shaq was the number one option who the opposing team tailored their defense around controlling. Look, our debate here is whether or not Kobe was the sidekick. We aren't debating how good Kobe was. Your opinion of how good you think Kobe was is irrelevant to the role that he played on the team. Shaq was the man on that Lakers team regardless of how good you want to say that Kobe was.
It's not a valid rebuttal because the 2008 wcf has nothing to do with the role that Kobe played during the first 3peat. I've illustrated how Shaq was the man of that team and you haven't refuted any of that. You ignore the facts regarding the roles that Shaq and Kobe played and deflect by trying to make this about selectively chosen performances. "oh what about this series, what about all the times Kobe outplayed Shaq?" None of that refutes my argument. Popped outplayed Mike sometimes, that didn't change the dynamic of their roles on the team. Regardless of what Kobe did against the Spurs. The Lakers were built around Shaq. Shaq was the 1st option. Shaq was the main concern and focus of the opposing team.
So basically you're just overly sensitive, complaining about terminology. Maybe some people use "sidekick" disrespectfully or demeaning, but however you slice it Shaq was the main man and Kobe was the number 2. If they're people tryna hate and belittle Kobe's contributions then you're on the other side because you're trying to pretty it up in Kobe's favor to the point you're being disingenuous.
Nothing said in this thread really bothers me per say. Entire reason i made an account on this forum or any sports related site is to have discussions just like this. Seems like you're the one agitated by anything being said here, I'm honestly enjoying this.[/QUOTE]Cool, that's what's up. I'm not trying to bother you. I talk shyt but I can take it just the same. Not agitated in the least. I have no problem schooling Kobe fans