What does Kobe think about his 3 Championships?

[NO-KG-AI]

Kobe just said he took his job as the number 2 seriously. And said stop comparing him to the greatest of all time, cuz this is Michael we are talking bout.

[Miami's Finest]

Kobe himself said he was the No. 2 guy on those teams, it's not that hard to understand homers. Shaq was option 1, Kobe was the 2nd option. Jordan won all his titles as the No. 1 guy, Kobe won as the sidekick.

[XxIronChainzxX]

But this number 1 number/2 stuff is stupid - it doesn't even begin to encompass just how players contributed to each team. The year AI lead his team to the finals, was there even a point in talking about the #2 option on the team? Yes, the Laker teams looked at Shaq first down the floor, because of his offensive talent, and quite obviously, Shaq was the focal point of the team's attention and it's official 'lead man," but that has very little to do with how much Kobe contributed.

Both Shaq and Kobe had tremendous contributions in big moments when it was needed for them to win those three rings. Being the first option on offence has nothing to do with it; look at Bill Russels - he wasn't a good offensive player at all, and certainly wasn't the first option on the team, but he definitely was the team, so to speak.

It's the same issue here - it's not merely a question fo who contributes and who gets the ball, but who the coaches focus on, who the opposing team focuses on, etc.

[garcia3]

But this number 1 number/2 stuff is stupid - it doesn't even begin to encompass just how players contributed to each team. The year AI lead his team to the finals, was there even a point in talking about the #2 option on the team? Yes, the Laker teams looked at Shaq first down the floor, because of his offensive talent, and quite obviously, Shaq was the focal point of the team's attention and it's official 'lead man," but that has very little to do with how much Kobe contributed.

Both Shaq and Kobe had tremendous contributions in big moments when it was needed for them to win those three rings. Being the first option on offence has nothing to do with it; look at Bill Russels - he wasn't a good offensive player at all, and certainly wasn't the first option on the team, but he definitely was the team, so to speak.

It's the same issue here - it's not merely a question fo who contributes and who gets the ball, but who the coaches focus on, who the opposing team focuses on, etc.

[/thread]

[NO-KG-AI]

But this number 1 number/2 stuff is stupid - it doesn't even begin to encompass just how players contributed to each team. The year AI lead his team to the finals, was there even a point in talking about the #2 option on the team? Yes, the Laker teams looked at Shaq first down the floor, because of his offensive talent, and quite obviously, Shaq was the focal point of the team's attention and it's official 'lead man," but that has very little to do with how much Kobe contributed.

Both Shaq and Kobe had tremendous contributions in big moments when it was needed for them to win those three rings. Being the first option on offence has nothing to do with it; look at Bill Russels - he wasn't a good offensive player at all, and certainly wasn't the first option on the team, but he definitely was the team, so to speak.

It's the same issue here - it's not merely a question fo who contributes and who gets the ball, but who the coaches focus on, who the opposing team focuses on, etc.

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?

[Vincent 666]

All this lame talk of whos rings mean more because of teammates is brought up by the myopic Kobe haters who try to diminish Kobe's 3 rings with Shaq.

Its a ridiculous argument that I only see brought up against Kobe.

I dont hear anyone saying Hakeems 94 title means more than any of Jordans because he didnt have anyone as good as Pippen.

Same thing goes for Duncan.

Kobe won 3 rings AS THE FIRST OPTION IN THE 4TH QUARTER. That alone should dispel the ridiculous notion that it was soley "Shaq's team" or the notion of a 1 or 2 option.

And even if you believe Kobe was the 2nd option, he was still playing the defense, making the shots, facilitating and doing everything else he did for those 3 STRAIGHT CHAMPIONSHIP TEAMS.

And with all that, Kobe still had a reputation for many years with many that he couldnt be part of a championship or even a winnning team which is just weird.

[JordansBulls]

Kobe just said he took his job as the number 2 seriously. And said stop comparing him to the greatest of all time, cuz this is Michael we are talking bout.

Heard that too.

[KobeFarmarEra]

that isn't the point though..he's the clear #1 option..

Shaq was never the clear the closer in the 4th quarter. And you can't say that about Jordan, Magic or Bird.

[Bgil]

LOL at the idea of Kobe being the second option when he took the most shots and dominated the late game/4th quarter offense. I don't ever remember Phil subbing Kobe out of the game with 2 minutes left in the fourth.

[Bgil]

Even all those crappy WS, OWS, WSAA etc. stats support the 1 and 1a notion more than the "second option" theory.

[Original Baller]

Kobe just said he took his job as the number 2 seriously. And said stop comparing him to the greatest of all time, cuz this is Michael we are talking bout.

LOL

imagine if he said he was the reason Shaq won those titles and said he was better than Mike or liked being compared to him

the media would rip him apart

he's playing the media game well right now

be humble off the court

be a killer on it

and people will soon recognize your greatness w/o all that "I don't like the guy but he's good" BS

[Original Baller]

Kobe himself said he was the No. 2 guy on those teams, it's not that hard to understand homers. Shaq was option 1, Kobe was the 2nd option. Jordan won all his titles as the No. 1 guy, Kobe won as the sidekick.

Shaq also said Kobe was the best player in the league in '01 after he dropped 45 and 10 on the Spurs.

I don't think anyone denies Shaq was the #1 option but that doesn't mean Kobe wasn't an equal contributor to winning (at least in 01 and 02). Phil Jackson himself said MJ would be the #2 option if he played with Shaq in his prime. Thats because a dominant big like Shaq has to be fed first before the dynamic wing takes over. That doesn't mean Shaq is better than Mike or that Mike wouldn't have been an equal partner in the championships.

This is straight outta Phil Jackson's mouth.

[NO-KG-AI]

I personally love the guy, I love his personality, I love his game, and I wanted LA representing the west if the Hornets went down, but I just don't see any legit argument as to why he is better than Mike, or even his equal.

Another thing, the 1a, 1b thing might hold a bit more weight to me if Kobe had a finals MVP.

Edit: He also fully deserved his MVP as much as I wanted Chris Paul to win it. And to Original Baller, is this the same Phil that called Kobe uncoachable?? take Phil's word with a pile of salt.

[Buckeye-NBAFan]

If you think Shaq would've won those rings without Kobe, you have no clue.

Wouldn't have won 3 without Robert Horry either. Doesn't mean we dole out the credit equally among the players on the team.

[Original Baller]

LOL at the idea of Kobe being the second option when he took the most shots and dominated the late game/4th quarter offense. I don't ever remember Phil subbing Kobe out of the game with 2 minutes left in the fourth.

Thats why the notion that Kobe rode Shaq's coattails for a title are preposterous. He may have been the #2 option for 3 qtrs but best believe he was taking all the big shots in the fouth and shutting down the other teams best player. This was an equal relationship in their contributions to the team.

In 2000, it was mainly Shaq. But Kobe's contributions in the WCF in 01 and 02 show he was just as responsible for those titles as Shaq.

PS the Finals were never the real finals during those title runs. Every year the WCF was the "real finals."

[KobeFarmarEra]

The fact is, downplaying Kobe's rings because he came into the league on a team with the most dominate center in his prime is utterly stupid logic. Simple as that.

If the Lakers weren't good and Shaq wasn't there, Kobe would have been putting up close to 30 a game early in his career with ease.

Even then, by the 01 playoffs Kobe was arguably better than Shaq but Phil still favored the big man and big mismatch in finals was at center so the finals MVP defaulted to Shaq. But that Western conference had 7 teams above 50 wins and Kobe was without a doubt the playoff MVP en route to the Laker sweeping the West that year.

[Original Baller]

I personally love the guy, I love his personality, I love his game, and I wanted LA representing the west if the Hornets went down, but I just don't see any legit argument as to why he is better than Mike, or even his equal.

Another thing, the 1a, 1b thing might hold a bit more weight to me if Kobe had a finals MVP.

Edit: He also fully deserved his MVP as much as I wanted Chris Paul to win it. And to Original Baller, is this the same Phil that called Kobe uncoachable?? take Phil's word with a pile of salt.

To me that rationale is sooo stupid. We all now that those years the east champion was extremely weak compared to the opponents in the WCF and naturally because of size advatanges Shaq could exploit those teams EASILY so we really didn't need Kobe's exploits that much.

Look back at Kobe and Shaq's stats in those WCF during those 3 title runs. Especially the last two in which I truly believe it was a 1a and 1b type of relationship while 2000, Shaq was definately the #1 option.

I don't think dropping 33ppg, 7rpg, and 7apg in the WCF is a sign of a guy that is a sidekick riding Shaq's coattails. Remember there were few teams in the league at that time like the Spurs that could matchup one on one against Shaq (with Duncan and Robinson). That allowed Kobe to shine because the Lakers couldn't just depend on Shaq. In the finals we were able to just coast riding the big fella. But when Shaq had to deal with another HOF big man, we needed Kobe to deliver the death blow. And he did.

[NO-KG-AI]

To be fair, of all the 1-2 combos, I think Shaq and Kobe were the closest to being a 1a and 1b, but I still think it was Shaq and Kobe, and not Kobe and Shaq.

[KobeFarmarEra]

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.

[NO-KG-AI]

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