The Spurs were Tim Duncan and no one else. Stephen Jackson and Bruce Bowen? Come on. There's a reason Duncan was the clear choice for MVP. Hakeem's '94 supporting cast would absolutely waste those guys, and THEY are thought of as a weak champion. Point being again that if Phil's so great, he should have been able to handle that team with Shaq and Bryant at his disposal. Absolutely the champion Lakers were more talented. What matters is how good your best players are (the team who has the best player usually has the most talent). The champion Lakers had a Shaq in his prime, and a Bryant who wasn't a teenager. All players get better with experience and reach their prime at similar times, with or without Phil Jackson.
Freak, I hate the Spurs with a passion, but I can't with good conscience call Parker, Rose, Jackson, Bowen, Manu, and Robinson a collection of scrubs. The Lakers' next 6 guys after Shaq were Kobe, Fisher, George, Horry, Madsen, and Medvedenko (with a sprinkle of Pargo for good measure). Horry was busy shooting 32 % from the field and 5 % from the arc during the playoffs so that only compounded the Lakers' troubles. His backup at PF was a wonderful choice between Madsen, Slava, or Samaki. Fox was out for the whole series. Shaq and Kobe are good, but they -clearly- didn't have the team that SA did that particular year. I also can't agree that the 3Peat teams were more talented than the 1998 team. The 3Peat teams had a better coach who stressed defense, a passing offense, and savvier vets who weren't averse to playing supporting roles. I can only imagine how good Van Exel, Campbell, and Jones would've made the Lakers as Kobe blossomed instead of the remaining players they were traded for (Rice, Lue, Knight).
You truely are clueless, I refrain from arguing with you because you obviously have no clue. You are blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. What the hell does that mean In other words you are agreeing that Jax has never drafted anybody worth mentioning? Or is Medvenko worth mentioning. Now why would I even waste my time responding to some idiotic "Hunch" of yours? There is nothing to base an argument on. Hello..... 8 straight championships, Red Auerbach's Boston Celtics, the team he built from the ground up, and his molding of these players into a unit that was second to none. Hell, the offense Jax runs isn't even his, it's Tex Winters offense. Where would jax be without Tex?
I suppose it's either that or Phil was outcoached. You can list off all the Spur role players who came up big in the playoffs and during the year, but the fact is one Bryant is worth more than all of them. What is this CLEARLY didn't have the team that SA did rubbish? So when LA has 'less talent' and they win, then it's all Phyllis, but when they lose, it must be because they didn't have the talent? If Van Exel, Jones, and Campbell weren't savvy and didn't want to play a supporting role, isn't that 'bad talent' to have? You say the Lakers won b/c they had guys who fit in better with Shaq/Bryant, yet you contradict yourself by saying they were more talented before. Like I was saying, the only 'talent' that matters is your main guy(s). The rest is irrelevant. Btw...nice moniker.
Well, if Bryant is worth all of the Spurs role players, does that mean that Shaq and Kobe alone should be able to beat their whole team? When Yao develops into a great center, does it mean that the Rockets will be able to kick the Spurs' asses because it'll be Francis and Yao against only Duncan? After all, "The only thing that matters is your main guys. The rest is irrelevant." I said that the 3Peat Lakers won because they had a better coach (Jackson) who stressed defense, a passing offense, and savvier vets who weren't averse to playing supporting roles. I also said, I can only imagine how good Van Exel, Campbell, and Jones would've made the Lakers as Kobe blossomed instead of the remaining players they were traded for (Rice, Lue, Knight). If Buss had not have pressured West to trade Jones/Campbell for Rice and if Jackson wasn't Van Exel's coach instead of Harris, the Lakers would've had talent to go along with savvy vets not averse to playing roles and I highly doubt that the Spurs (with their no talent scrubs) would've beaten them this year. Nice moniker to you too.
Bob, I've been the irrational one because I keep arguing with an individual who cannot even grasp the extremely simple fact that Jackson is not a GM and may only give the GM a recommendation on who to draft. When he was in Chicago, Krause may not have been entertaining such recommendations from his "good buddy". When Phil got to LA, West (the great GM Jerry West) drafted John Celestand, Devean George, and Mark Madsen. West later intimated that Madsen was drafted as a favor to an associate who helped him previously. Kupchak took over in 2001/02. He drafted Walton and Cook this year - his first draft picks that will be kept (Kupchak drafted Chris Jefferies who was traded with Hunter to Toronto for Rush). Jackson has repeatedly said that Cook and Walton were two players that "we" were hoping would still be on the board when we selected. We shall see how they turn out, but it's highly unlikely that they'll be superstars. If you're waiting for the Lakers to draft a superstar, you'll be waiting until you're an old crotch. You conveniently ignored my question, "How many superstars have been drafted at where the Lakers have been picking?" The Lakers are too great, Bob. Too great. They've missed the playoffs 4 times since 1960 and have won 63.7% of their games over the last 43 years. They have been in the lottery 1 time since it's inception (Jones in 1994 with the 10th pick). They've only drafted 3 superstars in their LA history (West, Magic, Worthy). Magic and Worthy were taken with the 1st overall pick, West with the 2nd overall pick. They got the 1979 pick for Magic in compensation for Goodrich going to the Jazz as a free agent in 1976 and they got the 1982 pick for Worthy in an obscure trade with the Cavs in 1979. They got the 1960 pick for West by going 25-50. The Lakers then had to win coin tosses to be in the position to draft Magic and Worthy. Phil Jackson (thru Kupchak) does NOT have the opportunity to draft a superstar unless they luckily get a decent pick. PERIOD.
Ok, let me refrain my question. Where would Jax be without Tex Winters, Krause or West? The man has stepped into situations where he could not lose. I just think there is more to being a great coach than just walking into a situation where you have the major tools in place and all you have to do is fine tune the engine. Maybe it's just me, but I think Phil Jackson is very overated as a coach.
It means that when you have 2 of the top 5 players in the NBA on your team, you have the talent to beat anybody. You are never 'clearly' outmatched in that situation. Duncan being the best player in the league last year had about 90% to do with the Spurs winning the championship. He's the reason that guys like Parker, Rose, Ginobli, etc. look like above average players at times. If Yao ever gets to be as good or better than Duncan, then yes, the Rockets will have a shot against the Spurs. The 'talent' would have replaced the 'savvy vets' though. You can only play 5 at a time. Jones/Campbell for Rice wasn't a bad deal anyway. Jones is making like a billion dollars a year and sucking, and Campbell sucks too. Bryant is playing Jones' position and Rick Fox took over for Rice, and LA got a ring out of it anyway, so I don't see the downside anywhere. Phyllis likes his points to play D doesn't he? Not sure how Van Exel fits in with that. When you have a guy as good as Shaq, the 'talent' you want is guys that will play a role. Having guys like that isn't a negative like you're making it out to be. What were we arguing about again? Oh yeah I remember...that Phil sucks.
