What does Kobe think about his 3 Championships?

[Miami's Finest]

Oh and calling Kobe the '2nd' option in 01 and 02 is kinda funny. 2nd options historically are not the closers in 4th when the game is on the line. Simple as that.

Kobe called himself the No. 2 of those teams, watch the ESPN interview of him. Shaq was clearly their No. 1 and Kobe no. 2, why is that so hard for you kobe homers? He will get his chance to win a title as the main guy in a few days but he was the No. 2 of the 3-peat Laker titles.

[rewill17]

Gasol will win Finals MVP. Kobe will keep crying like a baby.

[Santana Moss]

Kobe said himself he was the Number 2 on those teams. I don't know why there's such a debate. Anyway, in the same interview, he said he does value his three rings even though he was the second option, so I guess that answers my original question.

[Bgil]

Shaq was certainly the team's leader, no doubt. He was also the centerpiece to the defense. Kobe was the guy taking the most shots, settting up the offense, locking down the perimeter, and carrying the team in the fourth though.

[XxIronChainzxX]

Yes they are, Duncan has never been the closer, but that doesn't make anyone else on the team the first option.

Oh, it was definetly SHAQ and Kobe, not the other way around, and without a doubt the team was structured around Shaq in that he was the focal point of the gameplan and the opposition.

I just don't like talking about who was an option on offence; to me, it's all about who the coaches focus on; Phil put Shaq first, and the other teams tried to slow Shaq down, for the most part. That's why it was his team, just like it was MJ's team way back. But it's unfair to Kobe to say he rode Shaq's coatails to the title.

[Big Bird]

I think he looks fondly on those years and remembers the great games they've been in and the hardfought battles they've overcome. I believe that he cherishes the fact that he already has three rings and was a big contributor to those championship teams. He is probably also rather pleased that he had a chance to play on such a great team from virtually the start of his career and had long postseason runs almost every year of his career. I suspect he'd also like another ring or even more maybe; and I don't think he wants this because after he does it, people at RealGm, ESPN boards and other internet forums will stop saying that "He can't win without Shaq.", "He's a loser." and "A choker as the #1 option.". I just think he enjoys winning more than anything and will do everything in his power to make it happen... if not this year, the Lakers still have all the pieces to be the top contendes for years to come. I think he also cherishes the latter.

Oh, but I guess this is beside the stuff you guys were talking about... sorry for my OT response.

cheers

[Frosty]

Kobe said himself he was the Number 2 on those teams. I don't know why there's such a debate. Anyway, in the same interview, he said he does value his three rings even though he was the second option, so I guess that answers my original question.

He also said he took his role as #2 extremely seriously and we all know that wasn't the case.

[MagicalMan]

-= original quote snipped =-



Classless at its finest.................

I bet you nobody hugged you when you were a little kid, specially before you got on the short yellow bus. Did they ?

guess i shoudve used the green font for sarcasm, since its not apparent to geniuses such as yourself.

[Cracked Fingers]

-= original quote snipped =-



He also said he took his role as #2 extremely seriously and we all know that wasn't the case.

Get real. If he didn't take it seriously there wouldn't have been any 3 peat. Kobe had more responsibilities than any other player on the team.

[SA37]

I think Kobe is truly grateful for having won those championships and feels they are incredible accomplishment. He was incredibly important to the Lakers' titles and dynasty and he had some incredible games for the Lakers that allowed them to win titles.

Still, Kobe will always be Shaq's sidekick on those title teams, just like Pippen will always be MJ's sidekick on those championship teams. In terms of legacy, Kobe needs championships as the lead/main guy to be in the conversation as the best 2 guard of all-time.

MJ was the man on all of his teams and he was able to not just win championships, but to create a dynasty that was only derailed by his disinterest in the league. (Or you could go with the conspiracy theorists and say he was serving a suspension for gambling.) Most people agree that it is very possible that Jordan could have won 8 straight titles had he not taken a break from basketball. The fact most people would consider this highly possibly/likely is saying something.

So the question becomes, is it possible for Kobe to be able to create a legacy that can compete with this?

[guy1]

-= original quote snipped =-



Ok, but it was still Shaq...

one point I wanted to bring up, let's just say that Kobe and Shaq were 1a and 1b, is that nearly as impressive as winning where you are the clear number 1 guy on the team, without a teammate of equal caliber?

Exactly. Lets not just look at where he ranked on the team, lets look at who his teammates were. I mean even if someone wants to ridiculously argue that Kobe was the 1st option and Shaq was the 2nd option, is it still as impressive as winning the title with someone like Pippen as the 2nd option?

[guy1]

-= original quote snipped =-



Really? Tell me who else in the league at that time could've done what Kobe did those years both offensively and defensively. Convince me the players you are about to mention could've brought the same killer instinct, offensive ability, clutch shot making ability, lock down defense,etc. List the players you want me to laugh at, I'll be waiting.

The Lakers might've not been as good, but I think with AI, T-Mac, Vince, Pierce, Payton or Kidd they still win 2-3 titles Another thing is that with any of those players instead of Kobe, they probably keep Eddie Jones, who was an all-star SG and great defensive player at the time, instead of trading him for Glen Rice, meaning they could've actually had a more well-rounded lineup. With that in mind, you could've also replaced Kobe with a PF like KG, Malone, Webber, or Duncan. The combination of whatever player replaces Kobe and Eddie Jones could have made up for Kobe's offensive and defensive output. I have a better question. Like I said they might've not been as good, but what team do you think would've beaten those Laker teams with one of those players in Kobe's place, and possibly still having Eddie Jones? And to consider what Kobe would be doing, lets just assume he would've been in that other player's place. The only team I can think of are possibly the Kings in 2002, depending on the player, and thats a maybe.

The only player I think you could've switched places with Shaq and still win 2-3 titles would've been Duncan. And I'll be honest that team might've actually won more considering Duncan's ego is the exact opposite of Shaq's, and Duncan has played much better then Shaq since 2002.

[Frosty]

-= original quote snipped =-



Get real. If he didn't take it seriously there wouldn't have been any 3 peat. Kobe had more responsibilities than any other player on the team.

He stopped buying into the second man role after the first title. Right around the time he said :

"Turn my game down? I need to turn it up. I've improved. How are you going to bottle me up? I'd be better off playing someplace else."

"If Shaq were a 70% free throw shooter, it would make things so much easier," Kobe says. "We have to know our strengths and weaknesses. I trust the team. I just trust myself more. Yeah, we won last year with the offense going through Shaq. But instead of winning series in five and seven games, this year we'll have sweeps."

[Big Bird]

^^It's not like Shaq was quiet during those years. The both of them had tremendous egos and that 04 Finals was something inevitable.

[XxIronChainzxX]

One thing people just don't give enough credit to in this situation, and blame instead on some fatal flaw in Kobe, it's that he absolutely did not know how to lose prior to '04. Yeah, there were lots of playoff disappointments prior to Phil Jackson with the Lakers, but Kobe was never the focal point of a team going absolutely nowhere. Quite a lot of players, say, Garnett for example, gain an appreciation of what it means to work for a title by going through that little slum.

Kobe, though, he just started on top of the world. The Lakers rolled over their competition, and when it came time for Kobe to step up, he just absolutely destroyed teams.

[HarlemHeat37]

while Kobe was a huge contributor on those titles, I'd say he was the clear #2 option..probably became 1a in 2003 and an equal contributor in 2004..

the thing that so many people ALWAYS ignore when they list Kobe's stats vs. the Spurs and Kings is that Shaq was clearly getting the attention..I would know, my team was involved and I watched most of those games..Shaq was getting double-teamed and even triple-teamed at times, and there's no way you could ignore the most dominant player in the NBA..Kobe got to play 1 on 1 most of the time, and all those stats prove, is that Kobe was a top 3-5 player during that span..the double/triple teams and attention shouldn't be ignore like it always did..you have to put the stats into context..

[kingmalaki]

while Kobe was a huge contributor on those titles, I'd say he was the clear #2 option..probably became 1a in 2003 and an equal contributor in 2004..

the thing that so many people ALWAYS ignore when they list Kobe's stats vs. the Spurs and Kings is that Shaq was clearly getting the attention..I would know, my team was involved and I watched most of those games..Shaq was getting double-teamed and even triple-teamed at times, and there's no way you could ignore the most dominant player in the NBA..Kobe got to play 1 on 1 most of the time, and all those stats prove, is that Kobe was a top 3-5 player during that span..the double/triple teams and attention shouldn't be ignore like it always did..you have to put the stats into context..

They choose not do do this. It just makes too much sense. Yeah, Kobe got off. Yeah, he got to go 1-1 and not receive the constant attention that a dominant player would normally get due to Shaq.

Was Kobe anymore important than McHale to the 80's Celtics, Worthy to the 80's Lakers after Kareem started to age (and Worthy does have a Finals MVP), Pippen to the 90's Bulls, Drexler to the 95 Rockets or Robinson to the 99 Spurs? The answer is no. And no one ever tries to say those 2nd stars were as important as Bird, Magic, MJ, Hakeem and Duncan for those title teams.

The #2 option is very important, and you won't win without him. But it's still #2...and Kobe says he was fine being the #2 option....so end of discussion.

[ubernathan]

I would say Kobe values his 3 rings very highly, but looks foward to the day that he wins one as the undisputed best player on his team.

[ninetyone4ever]

It's as epic for Kobe to be chasing #4 as Nash, etc. going for #1 because it's pretty much a brand new team other than Bryant and bringing back Fisher. This hasn't really happened before, as most superstars who played together in the past were roughly the same age and would end their careers at roughly the same time... or by the time they broke up one of the superstars was reduced more to a solid starter/role player (Pippen) Now we have Bryant who has gone on to lead two different teams to the finals... yes, they're still the Lakers, but about the only thing that's the same from the last title is the uniforms, the coach, Bryant, Fisher and Jack Nicholson.

This will happen again within the next few years with Dwayne Wade I predict.

And there is something to be said about Kobe winning his first title as "the man" as I certainly don't think any of the early 00's Lakers teams get thru the Western Conference, not to mention the finals (especially in '00 against Indiana) without Shaq. Added pressure came when Shaq won a fourth ring.

[eatyourchildren]

Shaq indeed was the primary option for the 3peat Lakers.

But Kobe and his fans want to vindicate is best posed by this question:

If Shaq or a replacement center were slightly less dominant, thus forcing Kobe to be the primary option from 99 to 03, would the Lakers have been less successful?