Lifestyle > Sports & Entertainment
KYRIE IRVING REQUESTED A TRADE BECAUSE LEBRON JAMES HINDERS TEAMMATES
M Dogg™:
--- Quote from: Sccit on August 18, 2017, 07:59:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg™ on August 18, 2017, 02:04:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on August 18, 2017, 08:44:04 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg™ on August 18, 2017, 08:34:10 AM ---I never knew a starting lineup of Fisher, Fox and Horry were a super team. I guess you can argue the 2000 team was a super-team, maybe, when you add a washed up Harper, Green and Glen Rice. I mean at least Rice, Harper and Green made at least 1 all star game apiece. Fisher, Fox and Horry at best won all-rookie second team (Fox and Horry). But none of them were all-stars, none of them on any all-NBA team, and none of them won any accolades outside of winning titles. They were solid role players, which every team has.
I do disagree that without Kobe the Lakers are first round exits. Shaq was in his most dominate in 2000. If you replace Kobe with say, Eddie Jones, the Lakers win 1 title and that's ini 2000. 2001 and 20002 though, they don't make it out the second round. 2001 was that one year, ONE YEAR, which both Kobe and Shaq were in their prime together, and they DOMINATED the west. But without Kobe hitting his prime, and say JR Rider is the starting SG, the Lakers get bounced in the 2nd round by the Spurs. In 2002, well, see 2002 Sac. Kings. So without Kobe, Shaq wins 1 title in LA. But that's also assuming he has Rice, Harper and Green with him, who all were former all-stars but past their prime. But you can argue Kobe saved Shaq in 2000 in the conference finals against the Blazers. I still think LA pulls it off, even if you had an Eddie Jones (who wouldn't be traded because they had Kobe).
--- End quote ---
at this point, cham just throwin shit at the wall to see what sticks
and no, shaq is not winning ANY titles wit eddie jones lmfao .. it took some down to the wire game 7s wit kobe closing to even reach the finals. lmao@thinking portland comeback in game 7 happens wit eddie jones instead of kobe. lakers got nowhere with eddie jones/before kobe developed into a superstar. i know u tryna throw cham a crutch here, but cmon now.
--- End quote ---
It's more riding for Shaq, you know I was on Shaq's side during that whole mess. I think he gets one title. And 2000 was just so good.
--- End quote ---
naah .. if he ain't gettin one wit penny, he ain't gettin one wit eddie .... portland was too close to taking us out in 2000. kobe was the difference.
--- End quote ---
Eddie Jones>>Penny Hardaway.
Eddie had a much better non-Shaq career than Penny did. Also, the Lakers still had Rice. The last sentence I did you can argue exactly what you argued. I'd still say that in 2000, the Lakers had something, and especially Shaq, that I think they win the title.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: M Dogg™ on August 21, 2017, 09:01:44 AM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on August 18, 2017, 07:59:38 PM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg™ on August 18, 2017, 02:04:46 PM ---
--- Quote from: Sccit on August 18, 2017, 08:44:04 AM ---
--- Quote from: M Dogg™ on August 18, 2017, 08:34:10 AM ---I never knew a starting lineup of Fisher, Fox and Horry were a super team. I guess you can argue the 2000 team was a super-team, maybe, when you add a washed up Harper, Green and Glen Rice. I mean at least Rice, Harper and Green made at least 1 all star game apiece. Fisher, Fox and Horry at best won all-rookie second team (Fox and Horry). But none of them were all-stars, none of them on any all-NBA team, and none of them won any accolades outside of winning titles. They were solid role players, which every team has.
I do disagree that without Kobe the Lakers are first round exits. Shaq was in his most dominate in 2000. If you replace Kobe with say, Eddie Jones, the Lakers win 1 title and that's ini 2000. 2001 and 20002 though, they don't make it out the second round. 2001 was that one year, ONE YEAR, which both Kobe and Shaq were in their prime together, and they DOMINATED the west. But without Kobe hitting his prime, and say JR Rider is the starting SG, the Lakers get bounced in the 2nd round by the Spurs. In 2002, well, see 2002 Sac. Kings. So without Kobe, Shaq wins 1 title in LA. But that's also assuming he has Rice, Harper and Green with him, who all were former all-stars but past their prime. But you can argue Kobe saved Shaq in 2000 in the conference finals against the Blazers. I still think LA pulls it off, even if you had an Eddie Jones (who wouldn't be traded because they had Kobe).
--- End quote ---
at this point, cham just throwin shit at the wall to see what sticks
and no, shaq is not winning ANY titles wit eddie jones lmfao .. it took some down to the wire game 7s wit kobe closing to even reach the finals. lmao@thinking portland comeback in game 7 happens wit eddie jones instead of kobe. lakers got nowhere with eddie jones/before kobe developed into a superstar. i know u tryna throw cham a crutch here, but cmon now.
--- End quote ---
It's more riding for Shaq, you know I was on Shaq's side during that whole mess. I think he gets one title. And 2000 was just so good.
--- End quote ---
naah .. if he ain't gettin one wit penny, he ain't gettin one wit eddie .... portland was too close to taking us out in 2000. kobe was the difference.
--- End quote ---
Eddie Jones>>Penny Hardaway.
Eddie had a much better non-Shaq career than Penny did. Also, the Lakers still had Rice. The last sentence I did you can argue exactly what you argued. I'd still say that in 2000, the Lakers had something, and especially Shaq, that I think they win the title.
--- End quote ---
lol i love eddie jones but stop that .. prime for prime, eddie ain't touching penny. and rice was a role player on his last leg by that point. bottom line, 95 magic witout shaq > 2000 lakers witout shaq and kobe.
Chamillitary Click:
You're taking "superteam" out of context (naturally). You're comparing an era where the Warriors have 4 of the best 15 players in the entire league & trying to say "Kobe didn't need all that". I'm saying that Laker team compared to the rest of the league may as well of been a superteam just due to how much better they were than the rest of the league, minus the Kings. & yes Kobe had something to do with it. But Shaq is a potential top 5 player ever. Hands down for that stretch the most dominate center we've seen.
But it's pretty retarded to make that claim "because of Kobe" & not because of Shaq. You just called the rest of the Lakers "a bunch of role players". We saw what Kobe did with "a bunch of role players" when he didn't have the best roster in the NBA behind him. Ballhog, trash, 40 win seasons. Shaq goes to a team with a player who won't have the legacy a 3rd of what Kobe's is & wins a title right before the decline of his prime.
Sccit:
--- Quote from: Chamillitary Click on August 21, 2017, 04:29:36 PM ---You're taking "superteam" out of context (naturally). You're comparing an era where the Warriors have 4 of the best 15 players in the entire league & trying to say "Kobe didn't need all that". I'm saying that Laker team compared to the rest of the league may as well of been a superteam just due to how much better they were than the rest of the league, minus the Kings. & yes Kobe had something to do with it. But Shaq is a potential top 5 player ever. Hands down for that stretch the most dominate center we've seen.
But it's pretty retarded to make that claim "because of Kobe" & not because of Shaq. You just called the rest of the Lakers "a bunch of role players". We saw what Kobe did with "a bunch of role players" when he didn't have the best roster in the NBA behind him. Ballhog, trash, 40 win seasons. Shaq goes to a team with a player who won't have the legacy a 3rd of what Kobe's is & wins a title right before the decline of his prime.
--- End quote ---
wade carried shaq to that title .. shaq wit a buncha role players wouldn't do what kobe did in 06. the fact that he took phoenix to 7 wit that squad is incredible.
but realistically, it was shaq and kobe responsible for the threepeat..shaq+kobe wit a buncha role players. blazers, spurs, kings all had more allstar caliber players.
lebron always had 3 or 4 allstar caliber players on his team. minimum.
FACTS ON FACTS.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version