NBA Finals: Lakers vs. Nets

He doesn\'t deserve 100 million, yet. This is only gonna be his 3rd or 4th year...me forgets. The Suns have talent, or washed up talent. Penny, Gugliata was good for the T-Wolves, Marbury, Marion, they did have Delk and Rodgers. If everyone turned out like they were supposed to they would be pretty good imo.

Shaq is the best player in the NBA right now. Not Kobe, Shaq.

Let me put it to you in respectable terms.

Kobe = Best all around game in the league today

Shaq = most dominant

There are somethings both of those players can and cannot do. I never seen Shaq win a slam dunk contest nor did I see Kobe do at least 12 dunks in a game.

It\'s kinda wrong comparing a 2G with a 5, needless to say.

Shaq is far from the best.  They let him get away with fouls just because its him.  Hes just big, thats all.  There are many players that are far more skilled than him.

Well, here\'s how I judge the best player in the NBA.  If I were in the NBA finals, and could choose one star I wanted leading my team, who would it be?  For me, it\'s Shaq, hands down.  No one can dominate the way he can, and that makes him the best player IMO.  He also steps up in big situations.  He scores more per game, he gets more rebounds, and he is more of a presence defensively than Kobe.

Originally posted by Bozco
Shaq is far from the best.  They let him get away with fouls just because its him.  Hes just big, thats all.  There are many players that are far more skilled than him.

He\'s got a nice jump hook and he knows how to use the glass. Hes not just a big oaf that drops the ball in the hoop, and add that his FT shooting is getting better...  you got yourself a Hall of Fame bound center.

More D than Kobe???? LOL

That\'s a huge understatement. Kobe made All-Defensive man team twice I think. Shaq doesn\'t guard "guards" during the game. Sure, Kobe might not average the 3+ blocked shots per game, but he\'s a tight, smart defender.

Shaq even said it himself, he will never be known for his defense. I think Kobe is better at defense than Shaq is, because Kobe is constantly chasing people, Shaq just protects the basket.

In what I\'ve seen from the Lakers, Shaq has a bigger effect on the game from the defensive end.  He changes the opposing team\'s game by largely keeping them out of the lane.  Kobe can\'t do that.  The other team\'s game doesn\'t change when he leaves as much as it does when Shaq leaves.  You could clearly see that in last night\'s game for example.  Shaq is a presence on the defensive end that Kobe simply isn\'t.

Kobe doesn\'t mean as much to the Lakers as Shaq does. While they both mean alot, Shaq is more valuble. There isn\'t another center in the league that is as dominating as Shaq. While there are a number of SG\'s as good as Kobe. Shaq stops all drives to the basket, he blocks shots, and even if he doesn\'t block he makes the offensive player change their shot. Kobe might get a few steals, maybe a block or two, but sometimes he lets the offensive player beat him. Shaq is the core of the Lakers team, if you took Kobe over him you\'d be a fool.

However if the Lakers didn\'t have Kobe, they wouldn\'t have made it past the Spurs.

They\'re a team.  Without either of them, they wouldn\'t be as successful as they have been.  LA is just lucky it ended up with both.

Well, lets put this in comparing terms.

I look at the Shaq Kobe Duo as the Jordan Pippen duo back when they were winnin\' titles. Granted, Shaq and Jordan are completely different, but stay with me. The Lakers loose Shaq, they will be good, but they will NOT be a Championship calliber team. The Bulls lost Jordan for a bit, but had the same supporting cast. The Bulls were good, but they were not a championship calliber team anymore.

You have to look at the supporting cast in that argument, too. Kukoc, Rodman, Bucheler, Harper, Kerr, Longley. That was a great supporting cast, and Harper even went on to win more titles with the Lakers. Fox, Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Walker, George. It\'s a good supporting cast, but In my humble opinion, it isn\'t as good as the Bulls supporting cast.

So, if you take one of the superstars out of the equation, you have a good team, but you don\'t have a title team. Also, both teams had the same coach, so yeah. No argument there.  The point to comparing the two? To see the effects if you take one of the superstars out. If you take Shaq out, you have Horry, Fox, Kobe, Fisher, Shaw. They\'d probably have to make another move somewhere, like putting George at Center, which would not prove to their liking, and probably **** up their team royally. Take out Jordan, and you have Longely, Rodman, Kukoc, Pippen, Kerr/Harper. Now these guys, back in their prime (when they were winnin\' titles), could have made a run.

Woo, that was fun. See Yuz.

Originally posted by ROL Jamas
Well, lets put this in comparing terms.

I look at the Shaq Kobe Duo as the Jordan Pippen duo back when they were winnin\' titles. Granted, Shaq and Jordan are completely different, but stay with me. The Lakers loose Shaq, they will be good, but they will NOT be a Championship calliber team. The Bulls lost Jordan for a bit, but had the same supporting cast. The Bulls were good, but they were not a championship calliber team anymore.

You have to look at the supporting cast in that argument, too. Kukoc, Rodman, Bucheler, Harper, Kerr, Longley. That was a great supporting cast, and Harper even went on to win more titles with the Lakers. Fox, Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Walker, George. It\'s a good supporting cast, but In my humble opinion, it isn\'t as good as the Bulls supporting cast.

So, if you take one of the superstars out of the equation, you have a good team, but you don\'t have a title team. Also, both teams had the same coach, so yeah. No argument there.  The point to comparing the two? To see the effects if you take one of the superstars out. If you take Shaq out, you have Horry, Fox, Kobe, Fisher, Shaw. They\'d probably have to make another move somewhere, like putting George at Center, which would not prove to their liking, and probably **** up their team royally. Take out Jordan, and you have Longely, Rodman, Kukoc, Pippen, Kerr/Harper. Now these guys, back in their prime (when they were winnin\' titles), could have made a run.

Woo, that was fun. See Yuz.

Well said, this post has owned you all, discussion over!

Well if the Lakers lost Shaq, I\'m sure they would acquire someone that would fill his shoes much better than Devan George.

I personally think

Kobe, Fisher, George, Fox, Horry

could take

Pippen, Harper, Longley, Kukoc, Rodman

-------------------------------------------------------

I said those backups in their prime. Pippen in his prime wasn\'t a whiner, so that makes a huge difference.

Even so...

Kobe vs. Pippen = Dead even. They both create and make plays happen, solid defenders, great shooters.

Fisher vs. Harper = Fisher. Fisher is younger and has the faster legs.

Longley vs. George = Longley. George isn\'t even a center really.

Fox vs. Kukoc = Tie. Both like to shoot the 3 ball, also like to slide in for a sneaky layup. Have the capability of alternating the momentum of a game.

Horry vs. Rodman = Horry. Rodman would get his share of boards, but he would offer few points and would probably pick up a technical. Horry always brings his A game in the fourth quarter and his a sufficient height advantage over Rodman.


Just my opinion really. Its tough to compare teams from different years, but thats just my useful/less two cents.