It's May 04, 2024, 09:23:41 AM
This nigga just referenced Aaron Brooks scoring 20 ppg on a team where T-Mac played less than 10 games to defend the Western conference strength for Kobe. Then goes on to change the subject as always about the East...when we're not talking about the East...we're talking how the Lakers had no real obstacles in the West. Mind-boggling stupidity.I wish this section had more legitimacy. All we got is a guy who knows one sport, but his biased judgment only makes him valid to talk about like the Timberwolves or the Bucks. Until Jabari or Wiggins start scoring 25+ and win games. Then some dumbass on this forum will make the mistake of mentioning Kobe in the same sentence and there goes those teams.
Nigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.
Quote from: Chamillitary Click on April 22, 2015, 10:51:24 AMNigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.I think you mistake how I debate these things to how Sccit does. I don't give a FUCK about making Kobe look good. I don't really care who the Lakers had on the roster than wins, as long as they win. Bottom line. I don't give a fuck who LeBron has or doesn't have. He didn't have shit, but he was playing against shit. And if you are the leader of shit, against shit, you should win if you are a superstar. I give LeBron a pass in this way, he was 22. At 22, it's hard to beat a team like the Pistons, even though Detroit wasn't as good. They still had 3 core players from the 2004 team and they were still the best in the east. So for that, I give LeBron props. But pass that, he always played in a weak eastern conference. Even with stacked teams, he barely beat San Antonio and lost to them the next year. The Lakers went through great teams in the playoffs. Kobe led the way. He had help, but you need help to beat those San Antonio teams. When LeBron got help, he was able to move on. But with the whole thing on his shoulder, he barely was able to break through.So here is my ranking of players since 2000:1. Kobe2. Duncan3. LeBron4. Wade5. ShaqAnd I'm being generous to LeBron putting him over Wade and Shaq. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his playoff failures. But for sure, he's not better than Kobe or Duncan. That has been establish. And unless he has a huge run of MJ levels in his 30's, and his game isn't exactly an old man's game, I don't see him moving.
I mean, talking like that is foolish. Because I know you'll hit me back with some lame, non-provable intangible about Kobe & how no player other than MJ in history would have won, but in reality, you could've put T-Mac, Melo or Allen Iverson on the first threepeat Lakers & they would still have been the threepeat Lakers.You could've put Kobe on T-Mac's Magic or Melo's Nuggets by himself & he would of had the same outcome. Teams win. Always will be that way. Even though the incredible LeBron James & Allen Iverson came close by themselves, they still couldn't do it when they ran into a true team, fully contributing against them & some role players forced to be starters.
"Kobe was closing out those games" LMAO. So Melo, T-Mac & Iverson were incapable of scoring late in games? They just never did it on that stage because they weren't privileged enough to play with Shaq, the Laker cast & have Phil coach.
not just shaq but PRIME Shaq.you know, the guy NIK was on here calling "the best center of all time" in 2002
Quote from: M Dogg™ on April 22, 2015, 11:32:37 AMQuote from: Chamillitary Click on April 22, 2015, 10:51:24 AMNigga, you're bugging. It's very simple to understand. Just follow.LA was the UK of the West for those three years. Yeah, the SEC this year had Arkansas, quality squad. LSU put together a nice team this year. So did Utah in 2008 & sure, even the Nuggets with two of the most ball dominate players on the same floor.It's not was the East better than the West. It's you said "Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007" & I'm saying "If Cleveland didn't go through anything in 2007 with Daniel Gibson & Big Z as co-stars & you're diminishing that, then the same can be said that the Lakers run for the three years after wasn't all that impressive either since they had by far the best team in the West".YES the Lakers did play better teams the following three years, but compared to the talent & coaching the Lakers had to the rest of the West it was like Kentucky playing #17 ranked Arkansas. You can have NIK type up the rosters, it doesn't change the fact that the Lakers & Celtics were like 100/100 squads & the next best teams were like 89/100 & 90/100. To put it in perspective, Cleveland was like an 80/100 team in 2007, but they had to play teams that were closer to 80/100 & even a Pistons team they beat that was better than them.Here's a final example because it's incredible how it's not understood...It would be like having a two different free throw contests with 5 people in each. The first one has a guy who shoots 95% from the line & four guys that shooter 80% from the line. The second contest, has all guys that shoot between 60% & 65% from the line. Sure, the first contest has better shooters, but the champion was already decided before they started shooting. The second contest champion had to go through teams similar to their skill & still won.I think you mistake how I debate these things to how Sccit does. I don't give a FUCK about making Kobe look good. I don't really care who the Lakers had on the roster than wins, as long as they win. Bottom line. I don't give a fuck who LeBron has or doesn't have. He didn't have shit, but he was playing against shit. And if you are the leader of shit, against shit, you should win if you are a superstar. I give LeBron a pass in this way, he was 22. At 22, it's hard to beat a team like the Pistons, even though Detroit wasn't as good. They still had 3 core players from the 2004 team and they were still the best in the east. So for that, I give LeBron props. But pass that, he always played in a weak eastern conference. Even with stacked teams, he barely beat San Antonio and lost to them the next year. The Lakers went through great teams in the playoffs. Kobe led the way. He had help, but you need help to beat those San Antonio teams. When LeBron got help, he was able to move on. But with the whole thing on his shoulder, he barely was able to break through.So here is my ranking of players since 2000:1. Kobe2. Duncan3. LeBron4. Wade5. ShaqAnd I'm being generous to LeBron putting him over Wade and Shaq. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt in terms of his playoff failures. But for sure, he's not better than Kobe or Duncan. That has been establish. And unless he has a huge run of MJ levels in his 30's, and his game isn't exactly an old man's game, I don't see him moving.u lost this debate the moment you started trying to prove yourself.....cham is better at debating than you are, give it up LOLbut yea, he's wrong either way.....like u said, the 8th seed was a 50 win team. thats insane depth. the lakers were superior to the rest of the teams in the west soley due to kobe. you put kobe on the nuggets and melo on the lakers, and nuggets end up with that back-to-back. thats all it comes down to.
if Iverson played with Shaq they'd probably have won 5 titles straight
To be fair, you hate LeBron. Not on a NIK level, but definitely some bias. You tend to get caught up in your firm belief that he has been on PEDs his entire career.I understand though. I think our government was responsible for 9/11 so it's hard to ever give them the benefit of the doubt for me lol.
Quote from: Hack Brodenheimer on April 22, 2015, 04:50:15 PMnot just shaq but PRIME Shaq.you know, the guy NIK was on here calling "the best center of all time" in 2002 and he was definitely on pace to bein that in 2002.....poor work ethic hindered his career, bottom line