wow dude you are one of the worst I have seen on this board. They could always go to Bynum thats what you meant when you said "Kwame was never the top center in LA it was mostly Bynum even in his rookie year." Those are even close to the same statements. Stop trying to save face you're only looking worse. Bynum was a straight from high school kid his rookie year and averaged 1.6 pts in 7.4 minutes. That equates to about 6 pts in 30 minutes so no they couldn't just go to Bynum in his rookie year. And Smush is the example of Kobe making a player better than he was. Smush averaged over 11 pts in both LA seasons (also the two season Kobe was at his best). Other than those two years he has never averaged better than 6 pts and has been cut by numerous teams. Bynum didn't really show great potential until that first game his second year when he went toe to toe with Shaq.
The title of this thread is so dumb I figured it had to be rocketslover who started it, guess I was wrong.
i think it's more the triangle offense that allows others to be better (b/c of the constant movement) and the fact the phil trusts his players. look at farmar sucking the entire jazz series, still got consistent minutes, now playing well. vujacic sucked badly in his first 2 years as a laker and now suddenly is one of the top scorers off the bench. smush benefited b/c phil allowed him to have his freedom (pat riley isn't like that)--i remember phil let smushed play nash in the playoffs although he sucked like crazy (ala farmar this yr v. deron). it's more to phil's coaching and triangle offense moreso than kobe making them better. you can't explain vujacic suddenly becoming such a tremendous player right? and bynum showing star growth?
1) He was playing in the triangle offense, which promotes the PG being a good shooter/scorer. Everywhere else Smush has been to he has had to play in normal offenses, where he has had to be the primary ballhandler/playmaker. Being that he is a horrible decision maker and his only real skills as an offensive player is scoring, the Lakers were a good fit for him. 2) Any time a player gets that many minutes per game and is allowed 11+ shots per 36min he is going to get his points. Hell, even Chuck Hayes scored only 2PPG less per 36min in his first season as a Rocket than Smush, and only 3PPG less in his second year. Your point is moot. If he didn't show potential, he wouldn't have been chosen 7th in the 2005 draft, and the Lakers wouldn't have refused to trade him for Kidd in 2006-2007.
Why are you trying to make it sound like Kobe did SO MUCH with so little? No one is buying what you are saying, I'm making myself look really stupid? Smush WASNT close to as bad as you are portraying him, he was actually a decent PG and was a good fit for the triangle offense. Kobe didn't involve any one it was just chuck 30-40 shots a game. I have changed my opinion about him this year, he has learned to trust and let the game come to him, also hinting to the lakers success.
Switch Kobe with McGrady, and the Lakers would have won at least 4 championships from 97-03. McGrady is a better all around player, and understands it takes 5. He would have deferred to Shaq, and there would have been no reason to trade one of them. In 2003, a prime T-Mac/Shaq would beat the Spurs. They would have ran through Detroit in 2004. T-Mac and Shaq were still playing stellar basketball in 04-05. I even like their chances this season. Tracy could easily have 5 or so rings. The question would be, is T-Mac better than Jordan. That's why you have to ignore team success when comparing individual players.
thank you for making my points, Kobe was playing w a pg that was incapable of being the primary ballhandler/playmaker. your claim should be re-prased to read "everywhere else where Smush has been there was no Kobe to bail him out. " actually no, Smush was a liability, Kobe can bail him only for so long. that's why the Lakers drafted Farmar in the 1st round; Phillip usually hates rookie, but he gave Famar a lot PT cos he had to.
Kobe is better than TMAC now. Is Kobe better than MJ..Haha, are you serious? It doesn't require any effort to come up with that answer.
umm yes I think i made the point Smush was an ok player in LA. He has sucked everywhere else thus hinting that a big reason for his success in LA was the attention given to Kobe.
all around, ROFLMAO. both are great offensive players, Kobe has proven to be more clutch. Kobe has been selected to the all-defensive team 8 times; zero for TMAC. next. TMAC, even teamed w a all-star C, has never been able to advance passt the first round. teaming with another all-star C will yield the same result. W TMAC instead of Kobe, LAL would have never won a ring. TMAC's defensive liability will be greatly exposed. a defenseless TMAC and Shaq (who have always been too lazy to defend the PNR) spell defensive disaster. no defensive-deficient team has ever reach the finals, much less winning the ring. can u say Phenoix Sun !
i'm not going to argue b/t kobe and tmac, but shaq wasn't just any all-star C. he put up 30 and 15 during those championship years on 57% shooting. yao has not even sniffed that level. you give tmac a guy who can put up 30, 15, on 57% shooting, i'm sure he'll advance pretty easily don't you think?
one team can only withstand one player too lazy to defend. when u have 2 (TMAC and Shaq), you will never reach the Finals, just ask the Phoenix Sun. the most overlook aspect of Kobe's game has been his top-notch defensive play. the most covered-up aspect of TMAC's game has been his no-D defense win championships
Do you know how great Shaq was back then he could have won atlease one ring with any good sg in the league.
that just a stupid baseless claim. Shaq was team with all-NBA sg Penny Hardaway for several year; they never won a ring. one of the reason is that Penny was a no-D, to a lesser extent so was Shaq. think b4 u post
Kobe would not have gotten past the 1st round with any of T-Mac's teams. I doubt he would have gone 5 games against Detroit in 2003. I don't think he would even have half as many playoff appearances as T-Mac. The all NBA teams are a joke.
Shaq and kobe didn't win a ring till there 4th year together, so I'm pretty sure if Penny and Shaq would have stay together longer they won have one atlease one ring soon or later. They made it to the finals and Shaq wasn't even in his prime.
so what is your point. i m sure ur just blowing smoke. is it that difficult 4u to understand. defense wins champsionships Penny is a no-D; Shaq is a borderline no-D on the flip side , Kobe has been selected on the all-defensive team 8 times. next
um they went to the finals twice. shaq wasn't as smart back then, relying primarily on his physical skills. and he still got to the finals IN HIS FREAKIN' 2ND YEAR. shaq and kobe were repeatedly bounced and swept out in the plyaoffs until phil jackson came. you can argue with high certainty that tmac in his orlando prime would have easily won a few rings with shaq under phil jackson.
