PDA

View Full Version : Which 'ship was harder: Shaq's Lakers in 00-01, or Durants Dubs in 16-17?



lol, please
01-26-2018, 12:46 AM
Which ring was harder to achieve? Or we can flip if the other way around - which was easier? And why?

To be more clear, which playoff run was more difficult?

GREATNESS ONE
01-26-2018, 12:52 AM
Lolz Shaq would destroy the Warriors....

lol, please
01-26-2018, 12:53 AM
Lolz Shaq would destroy the Warriors....

I agree but that's not the question lol

:confused:

Laker Legend42
01-26-2018, 02:08 AM
That’s easy. Shaq’s Was harder. At least back then it was a bit more competitive. With this golden state team no one has a chance. This year will be the most competition they’ve faced.

Lakers + Giants
01-26-2018, 02:28 AM
Blazers? LUL

Jazz That sweep gets some props.

Spurs: Zaza on Kawhi?

CLE is impressive

Cmon now.

Lakers faced legit teams, granted they were past their primes but their whole teams, not injury depleted ones.

Blazers, Kings, Spurs.

The finals was probably their easiest opponent, and they lost that first game that cost them the undefeated run. :(

More-Than-Most
01-26-2018, 03:07 AM
Id say SHAQ road because in my opinion their team isnt as good or as deep as this warriors team with durant.... That being said I dont think the warriors would lose to a Pistons type team so there is that.

GREATNESS ONE
01-26-2018, 03:09 AM
Id say SHAQ road because in my opinion their team isnt as good or as deep as this warriors team with durant.... That being said I dont think the warriors would lose to a Pistons type team so there is that.

that was more the Lakers losing than the Pistons winning. The bad blood was just too much and a feud leading to the breakup happened...

GREATNESS ONE
01-26-2018, 03:14 AM
Everyone loves to bring up the abundance of talent or that this team is better but fact is, salary cap $ works, theses guys are getting paid much more... add another star to Shaq/Kobe and you have a much more realistic match-up, comparing teams with 100m in cap space to a team with half.. is...

Chronz
01-26-2018, 03:19 AM
Definitely Shaqs, he got the brunt of the defensive attention. He's just a much better player and competitor that kd could only dream of.

Shaq made mince meat of teams, kd would join that team and ride the wave to faux glory.

LOb0
01-26-2018, 03:23 AM
The Lakers actually still had to put in effort. Shaq had to be great to win. The Warriors are just an all star team that basically costed with ease.

Saddletramp
01-26-2018, 03:44 AM
Everyone loves to bring up the abundance of talent or that this team is better but fact is, salary cap $ works, theses guys are getting paid much more... add another star to Shaq/Kobe and you have a much more realistic match-up, comparing teams with 100m in cap space to a team with half.. is...

Yeah, but they were also making less money overall. Shaq was at about $20 million and Kobe was around $10 million. But I get what you're saying.

Now, the salary cap was about $35 million in 2000 so if you added an extra slot of $12 million (the salary cap went from $70 million to $94ish million the offseason that KD joined----math works out) that coulda netted you Grant Hill or McGrady or even Tim Duncan that year. No idea what woulda happened back then; that salary bump idiocy only ruined the league once.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2018, 04:09 AM
that was more the Lakers losing than the Pistons winning. The bad blood was just too much and a feud leading to the breakup happened...

oh no i def agree... I think prime shaq obliterates the warriors and goes for like 40/20 and lose but i think this warriors team is a top 2 team ever thus their road actually being easier when you factor in their own strength... Lakers were clearly the better team to me over the pistons but the falling out of him and kobe helped drive that meltdown... outside of draymond you have a bunch of betas on the warriors thus there is no meltdown in coming to them.. Kobe and Shaq would rather lose than to run to a durant like player and beg for help or leave a team and join one of the best teams ever in free agency.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2018, 04:12 AM
Everyone loves to bring up the abundance of talent or that this team is better but fact is, salary cap $ works, theses guys are getting paid much more... add another star to Shaq/Kobe and you have a much more realistic match-up, comparing teams with 100m in cap space to a team with half.. is...

oh no doubt as well... If you add another top player on that lakers team I think lakers in 7 but back then I highly doubt you would have gotten a top 2 player to stick his tail between his legs and run to your team. Could you ever honestly see Kobe doing what Durant did? Who was a top 2 player at that point in time after Shaq? No chance they would have done what durant did.

More-Than-Most
01-26-2018, 04:14 AM
Definitely Shaqs, he got the brunt of the defensive attention. He's just a much better player and competitor that kd could only dream of.

Shaq made mince meat of teams, kd would join that team and ride the wave to faux glory.

this but I honestly dont blame durant... It was smart... all he needed to do was win and let time do the rest... When the warriors win the next 2 the majority wont care what Durant did and the only thing mentioned will be 3 rings and 3 and 1 in the finals... Its sad but its true.

goingfor28
01-26-2018, 11:50 AM
Warriors had a cake walk to the finals last year.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

nastynice
01-26-2018, 12:26 PM
.. Kobe and Shaq would rather lose than to run to a durant like player and beg for help or leave a team and join one of the best teams ever in free agency.

Haha, actually kobe put lots of pressure on his fo for that exact reason, they got gasol and had 3 bigs that dictated the game

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 03:02 PM
Warriors had a cakewalk EVERY year. Their only true test was vs the OKC two years ago. You can't make a case that the Warriors have faced significantly better teams than the Cavs because it isn't true.

lol, please
01-26-2018, 03:09 PM
Warriors had a cakewalk EVERY year. Their only true test was vs the OKC two years ago. You can't make a case that the Warriors have faced significantly better teams than the Cavs because it isn't true.The east has been weak for years, no finals representative out of the East has had a tougher road than any finals representative in the West in a long time.

You can say the Warriors playoffs run was easier than the Cavaliers but that's because of how much better they are then everyone else, the West is still a much deeper and tougher conference to come out of.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 03:14 PM
The east has been weak for years, no finals representative out of the East has had a tougher road than any finals representative in the West in a long time.

You can say the Warriors playoffs run was easier than the Cavaliers but that's because of how much better they are then everyone else, the West is still a much deeper and tougher conference to come out of.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Name the teams, bud. It's hilarious that one of the teams you mentioned were the Spurs that was without Kawhi last season. Seriously, go name the teams. Even with how stacked your team is, the competition wasn't that much better. You guys escaped the Memphis being down 2-1 because Allen/Conley were also injured.

valade16
01-26-2018, 03:18 PM
Taking the question seriously for the moment, here was the SRS and record of each opponent:

2017 Warriors
Blazers -.23 SRS (16th) | 41-41
Jazz 4.0 SRS (5th) | 51-31
Spurs 7.13 SRS (2nd) | 61-21
Cavs 2.87 SRS (7th) | 51-31

01 Lakers
Blazers 4.52 SRS (5th) | 50-32
Kings 6.07 SRS (2nd) | 55-27
Spurs 7.92 SRS (1st) | 58-24
76ers 3.63 SRS (7th) | 56-26


Now adding context to this: the Cavs were obviously better than their SRS indicated and they became a wholly different team in the playoffs. Conversely, the Spurs best player (Kawhi) missed the majority of that series meaning SA was not nearly the same caliber of team that their SRS suggests. For reference, this season without Kawhi the Spurs SRS is 3.11.

I'd say in terms of quality of opponents the Cavs, 01 Spurs and Kings were top tier teams, the 01 Blazers and the Jazz were next tier, and the 76ers and 17 Spurs were the next tier down as well. Obviously the 17 Blazers were by far the worst team.

So based on the quality of the opposition, the Warriors had the easier Finals run. Then when you want to talk specifically about KD or Shaq, the disparity becomes even more glaring. Shaq had Kobe, but KD had Curry, and many feel Curry was the flat out better player. But the real difference is that the 01 Lakers had no one else in the same stratosphere as Klay Thompson or Draymond Green.

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 03:22 PM
Taking the question seriously for the moment, here was the SRS and record of each opponent:

2017 Warriors
Blazers -.23 SRS (16th) | 41-41
Jazz 4.0 SRS (5th) | 51-31
Spurs 7.13 SRS (2nd) | 61-21
Cavs 2.87 SRS (7th) | 51-31

01 Lakers
Blazers 4.52 SRS (5th) | 50-32
Kings 6.07 SRS (2nd) | 55-27
Spurs 7.92 SRS (1st) | 58-24
76ers 3.63 SRS (7th) | 56-26


Now adding context to this: the Cavs were obviously better than their SRS indicated and they became a wholly different team in the playoffs. Conversely, the Spurs best player (Kawhi) missed the majority of that series meaning SA was not nearly the same caliber of team that their SRS suggests. For reference, this season without Kawhi the Spurs SRS is 3.11.

I'd say in terms of quality of opponents the Cavs, 01 Spurs and Kings were top tier teams, the 01 Blazers and the Jazz were next tier, and the 76ers and 17 Spurs were the next tier down as well. Obviously the 17 Blazers were by far the worst team.

So based on the quality of the opposition, the Warriors had the easier Finals run. Then when you want to talk specifically about KD or Shaq, the disparity becomes even more glaring. Shaq had Kobe, but KD had Curry, and many feel Curry was the flat out better player. But the real difference is that the 01 Lakers had no one else in the same stratosphere as Klay Thompson or Draymond Green.

Not a fan of SRS at all and don't think it's required here at all. The Warriors are way too stacked that any championship they win will always, in many eyes, be a cakewalk. If we are going to say they played the tougher teams, even if it isn't true, we have to compare who they have on their team as well.

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 03:23 PM
I voted incorrectly. Meant to select Shaq/Kobe.

lol, please
01-26-2018, 04:13 PM
Name the teams, bud. It's hilarious that one of the teams you mentioned were the Spurs that was without Kawhi last season. Seriously, go name the teams. Even with how stacked your team is, the competition wasn't that much better. You guys escaped the Memphis being down 2-1 because Allen/Conley were also injured.Wasn't much is subjective. Better is better.

The Spurs are a weaker team without Kawhi, that's obvious, but that doesn't necessarily drop them below 8 eastern conference teams all of the sudden. That Pop led spurs team deserves way more respect than that.

Didn't I already list those teams in this thread once?

Spurs
Rockets
Jazz
Nuggets
Clippers
Portland

Are all better teams than eastern contenders to me last season.

I'm sure you'll moan about me listing teams the Warriors didn't actually play, but I feel it's relevant because we are talking about how deep a conference is, a team may end up playing the weaker or more injured teams in the list, but teams don't get to choose who they play do they, they play who's in front of them, so when assessing the conference, I'm going to factor in all 8 playoff teams, regardless of who actually played against the Warriors.

If we want to isolate the Warriors run, that's different. Sure, they caught breaks here or there, but those Jazz, Spurs, Rockets squads I would absolutely put my money on against any team in the East if the Warriors lost to any 3 of them and didn't make the finals.

Looking back I realize I thought I was posting in a different thread, this is about comparing two specific runs so I stand corrected. (Can't see the title of the thread when replying on Tapatalk).

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

nastynice
01-26-2018, 04:22 PM
Even FlashBolt voted gs. That's how obvious the answer is

/thread

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 06:07 PM
Wasn't much is subjective. Better is better.

The Spurs are a weaker team without Kawhi, that's obvious, but that doesn't necessarily drop them below 8 eastern conference teams all of the sudden. That Pop led spurs team deserves way more respect than that.

Didn't I already list those teams in this thread once?

Spurs
Rockets
Jazz
Nuggets
Clippers
Portland

Are all better teams than eastern contenders to me last season.

I'm sure you'll moan about me listing teams the Warriors didn't actually play, but I feel it's relevant because we are talking about how deep a conference is, a team may end up playing the weaker or more injured teams in the list, but teams don't get to choose who they play do they, they play who's in front of them, so when assessing the conference, I'm going to factor in all 8 playoff teams, regardless of who actually played against the Warriors.

If we want to isolate the Warriors run, that's different. Sure, they caught breaks here or there, but those Jazz, Spurs, Rockets squads I would absolutely put my money on against any team in the East if the Warriors lost to any 3 of them and didn't make the finals.

Looking back I realize I thought I was posting in a different thread, this is about comparing two specific runs so I stand corrected. (Can't see the title of the thread when replying on Tapatalk).

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Lol. Outside of the Spurs and Rockets, the other teams weren't that much better because they were dealing with injuries. Just stop, dude. You constantly embarrass yourself here and I don't know why you think you're actually making a point when it just proves you are just terrible at making them.

Chronz
01-26-2018, 07:35 PM
this but I honestly dont blame durant... It was smart... all he needed to do was win and let time do the rest... When the warriors win the next 2 the majority wont care what Durant did and the only thing mentioned will be 3 rings and 3 and 1 in the finals... Its sad but its true.

Doubtful. He'll go the way of Bill Russell where his titles lose significance only worse since he displayed such cowardice. I've asked before but when you say time, just how long are you talking? 2000 years into the future when the great digital archive burning of 4010?

Chronz
01-26-2018, 07:37 PM
Not a fan of SRS at all and don't think it's required here at all. The Warriors are way too stacked that any championship they win will always, in many eyes, be a cakewalk. If we are going to say they played the tougher teams, even if it isn't true, we have to compare who they have on their team as well.
Disagree. It's more relevant than a teams record

lol, please
01-26-2018, 07:50 PM
Lol. Outside of the Spurs and Rockets, the other teams weren't that much better because they were dealing with injuries. Just stop, dude. You constantly embarrass yourself here and I don't know why you think you're actually making a point when it just proves you are just terrible at making them.So, let's get this straight once and for all:

Are you just going to quote my posts, to ignore my argument and just loosely bash me for the same tired stuff you've been regurgitating for years?

If so I could sure save the time invested in a actually thinking you're going to respond in similar manner.

You don't rustle me in the slightest, ever, so I hope you don't expect to pull knee jerk reactions from me, like I told saddletramp yesterday.

We all get it, you hate me and don't find my content constructive. Woopty doo, no one cares lol. I'll still be here til I decide otherwise aand there's nothing you can do about it because I follow the rules, and have an exceptional sense of self control.

:laugh2: the fact I have to break this down for you, for like the 20th time, is telling. Don't worry though, I can ignore your posts too like you tried to do with me, before you realized you couldn't get enough of me and realized you love me.

Lol, P comes, discusses what he pleases in the NBA forum and leaves, with zero regard for what you plebs plot against me, I've always held my ground even if it's 100:1, but you keep trying to rustle the champ. They say attempting the same thing and expecting different results is called insanity.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

lol, please
01-26-2018, 07:51 PM
Disagree. It's more relevant than a teams recordWell said.

And a major part of my pro Jazz argument in the other thread.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 11:44 PM
Disagree. It's more relevant than a teams record
When did I ever mention record? Some things don't require SRS or a team record. Cavs were not that bad of a team last year based off SRS and they are not the fourth best team on the East. A guy from 20 years in the future wouldn't know that just by looking at SRS and a team's record.

So, let's get this straight once and for all:

Are you just going to quote my posts, to ignore my argument and just loosely bash me for the same tired stuff you've been regurgitating for years?

If so I could sure save the time invested in a actually thinking you're going to respond in similar manner.

You don't rustle me in the slightest, ever, so I hope you don't expect to pull knee jerk reactions from me, like I told saddletramp yesterday.

We all get it, you hate me and don't find my content constructive. Woopty doo, no one cares lol. I'll still be here til I decide otherwise aand there's nothing you can do about it because I follow the rules, and have an exceptional sense of self control.

:laugh2: the fact I have to break this down for you, for like the 20th time, is telling. Don't worry though, I can ignore your posts too like you tried to do with me, before you realized you couldn't get enough of me and realized you love me.

Lol, P comes, discusses what he pleases in the NBA forum and leaves, with zero regard for what you plebs plot against me, I've always held my ground even if it's 100:1, but you keep trying to rustle the champ. They say attempting the same thing and expecting different results is called insanity.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

You don't have any context to debate anything about. Your post comes off like a total troll. This is the most emotional response I've seen from you, yet. I'd assume that you had enough of us bashing you. So be it. Quit making stupid thread and posts and you won't be seeing anyone treat you like the troll you presumably are. Has it ever, seriously, occurred to you that nearly EVERYONE here finds you to be a troll? I mean, of course some Warriors fans enjoy you because you act as a cheerleader for them but really, you're like a troll to the rest of us. You haven't given any reason otherwise for us to not proclaim you the troll. You, my friend, are PSD's King of the Trolls.

Chronz
01-26-2018, 11:52 PM
When did I ever mention record? Some things don't require SRS or a team record. Cavs were not that bad of a team last year based off SRS and they are not the fourth best team on the East. A guy from 20 years in the future wouldn't know that just by looking at SRS and a team's record.


You don't have any context to debate anything about. Your post comes off like a total troll. This is the most emotional response I've seen from you, yet. I'd assume that you had enough of us bashing you. So be it. Quit making stupid thread and posts and you won't be seeing anyone treat you like the troll you presumably are. Has it ever, seriously, occurred to you that nearly EVERYONE here finds you to be a troll? I mean, of course some Warriors fans enjoy you because you act as a cheerleader for them but really, you're like a troll to the rest of us. You haven't given any reason otherwise for us to not proclaim you the troll. You, my friend, are PSD's King of the Trolls.

Lol so your take is to not use ANY barometer to quantify team worth? in that case I definitely disagree. 20 years from now, no one will care of one random persons opinion either so it's not that convincing. Rather have more information than conjecture

FlashBolt
01-26-2018, 11:58 PM
Lol so your take is to not use ANY barometer to quantify team worth? in that case I definitely disagree. 20 years from now, no one will care of one random persons opinion either so it's not that convincing. Rather have more information than conjecture

Never said it wasn't useful in debates. It's definitely a supporting argument to be had. But I don't agree with the usage of it here. Just like you don't need PER to see who is better between Draymond vs Kevin Love. It's a given.

mightybosstone
01-27-2018, 12:15 AM
Taking the question seriously for the moment, here was the SRS and record of each opponent:

2017 Warriors
Blazers -.23 SRS (16th) | 41-41
Jazz 4.0 SRS (5th) | 51-31
Spurs 7.13 SRS (2nd) | 61-21
Cavs 2.87 SRS (7th) | 51-31

01 Lakers
Blazers 4.52 SRS (5th) | 50-32
Kings 6.07 SRS (2nd) | 55-27
Spurs 7.92 SRS (1st) | 58-24
76ers 3.63 SRS (7th) | 56-26


Now adding context to this: the Cavs were obviously better than their SRS indicated and they became a wholly different team in the playoffs. Conversely, the Spurs best player (Kawhi) missed the majority of that series meaning SA was not nearly the same caliber of team that their SRS suggests. For reference, this season without Kawhi the Spurs SRS is 3.11.

I'd say in terms of quality of opponents the Cavs, 01 Spurs and Kings were top tier teams, the 01 Blazers and the Jazz were next tier, and the 76ers and 17 Spurs were the next tier down as well. Obviously the 17 Blazers were by far the worst team.

So based on the quality of the opposition, the Warriors had the easier Finals run. Then when you want to talk specifically about KD or Shaq, the disparity becomes even more glaring. Shaq had Kobe, but KD had Curry, and many feel Curry was the flat out better player. But the real difference is that the 01 Lakers had no one else in the same stratosphere as Klay Thompson or Draymond Green.

Yeah, by pretty much any barometer by which you judge teams, That Western Conference in 2001 was much more challenging than the one the Warriors faced last season. When you factor in the Warriors got to face the Blazers without Nurkic, the Jazz without Hill and the Spurs essentially without Kawhi, it just pushes that gap even further.

The only thing that makes this remotely close is that the Warriors' Finals opponent was a far superior team to the squad the Lakers faced. But even with the Lebron/Irving Cavs, it's really no contest. Chalk this up to another lol opinion that is in the vast, vast minority on PSD.

Hawkeye15
01-27-2018, 12:58 AM
Definitely Shaqs, he got the brunt of the defensive attention. He's just a much better player and competitor that kd could only dream of.

Shaq made mince meat of teams, kd would join that team and ride the wave to faux glory.

Haha

lol, please
01-27-2018, 01:11 AM
When did I ever mention record? Some things don't require SRS or a team record. Cavs were not that bad of a team last year based off SRS and they are not the fourth best team on the East. A guy from 20 years in the future wouldn't know that just by looking at SRS and a team's record.


You don't have any context to debate anything about. Your post comes off like a total troll. This is the most emotional response I've seen from you, yet. I'd assume that you had enough of us bashing you. So be it. Quit making stupid thread and posts and you won't be seeing anyone treat you like the troll you presumably are. Has it ever, seriously, occurred to you that nearly EVERYONE here finds you to be a troll? I mean, of course some Warriors fans enjoy you because you act as a cheerleader for them but really, you're like a troll to the rest of us. You haven't given any reason otherwise for us to not proclaim you the troll. You, my friend, are PSD's King of the Trolls.Actually as heartbreaking as it may be to you flashbolt no, I've never tripped on what posters think of me and my online shtick.

The only exception being the few posters I've met in real life and drank with :love:

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

lol, please
01-27-2018, 01:12 AM
HahaSo glad I see you in the main lol. How excited are you for this Twolves team?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

lol, please
01-27-2018, 01:14 AM
Doubtful. He'll go the way of Bill Russell where his titles lose significance only worse since he displayed such cowardice. I've asked before but when you say time, just how long are you talking? 2000 years into the future when the great digital archive burning of 4010?Serious question: do you honestly view Russell and Durants impact the same on their respective teams?

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

FlashBolt
01-27-2018, 01:16 AM
Actually as heartbreaking as it may be to you flashbolt no, I've never tripped on what posters think of me and my online shtick.

The only exception being the few posters I've met in real life and drank with :love:

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Okay, then don't get upset when people call you a troll when you act like one. Bottom line, you come off as a troll to nearly everyone here. You don't have to care but I really don't know why you continue being one. You could very well entertain discussions with actual evidence but you make blanket statements and then disappear when others ask you to explain it.

Saddletramp
01-27-2018, 06:19 AM
Admitting that you have an "online shtick" just further proves that it's an act. And if it's an act, it's straight trolling. And if it's trolling, it's a bannable offense. How in the goddamn blue **** haven't the mods banned this troll yet? HE'S ADMITTING TO TROLLING.

mightybosstone
01-27-2018, 11:29 AM
Another poll where lol is in the clear minority? Shocking. :eyebrow:

KingstonHawke
01-27-2018, 12:47 PM
Warriors faced better teams but also had the easier time. I was in love with those Lakers teams, but the reality is that they were largely a two man team. And while I think Kobe and Shaq (two of my top 10 all time) would destroy the Warriors, they Lakers would not. Fisher and Fox would get worked to death. And Klay would at least make Kobe work on both sides of the floor cutting into his minutes and exposing what was a thin Lakers bench that year.

Remember. The lost 26 regular season games that year. They were far from an unbeatable team.

nastynice
01-27-2018, 01:09 PM
Admitting that you have an "online shtick" just further proves that it's an act. And if it's an act, it's straight trolling. And if it's trolling, it's a bannable offense. How in the goddamn blue **** haven't the mods banned this troll yet? HE'S ADMITTING TO TROLLING.

Get off it bro, you're a way bigger troll

lol, please
01-27-2018, 02:25 PM
Another poll where lol is in the clear minority? Shocking. :eyebrow:Not shocking at all i dont shy away from an unpopular opinion to those who know me home skillets. Do it in the politics forum, and in real life.

Lol just realized I thought i was in a different thread, when i make a poll I usually choose an option off the bat so I can see the poll without clicking on the results and I went with the option i knew would be the underdog here for fun. Valade16 made a comment elsewhere about how he doesnt think any team has had it easier than that warriors squad and said off the top maybe the 01 Lakers would be comparable, so I thought it would be a fun discussion. I don't necessarily think the Lakers had it easier, I haven't thought it through and compared opponents and whatnot, I just knew they had similar playoff records and that was my starting point.
Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

lol, please
01-27-2018, 02:28 PM
Warriors faced better teams but also had the easier time. I was in love with those Lakers teams, but the reality is that they were largely a two man team. And while I think Kobe and Shaq (two of my top 10 all time) would destroy the Warriors, they Lakers would not. Fisher and Fox would get worked to death. And Klay would at least make Kobe work on both sides of the floor cutting into his minutes and exposing what was a thin Lakers bench that year.

Remember. The lost 26 regular season games that year. They were far from an unbeatable team.

Good post.

I do think you're underrating Fisher and the rest of that cast though.

Sent from my Note 8 using Tapatalk

Raps08-09 Champ
01-27-2018, 02:31 PM
Those are the 2 easiest titles ever.