Who would win Shaq/Kobe Lakers or the Current Celtics?

cfan79 · Post #1 » by **cfan79** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:18 pm

I really hate to admit this, but I don't think the Celtics current team could beat the title team Lakers of the early 21st century. Shaq was just too dominating. Plus they had a lot of good roleplayers.

But I will say this, Detroit did beat a team with Shaq, Malone, Kobe and Gary Payton. So like KG says anything is possible. I still think our bench isn't good enough right now at Center and Small forward though.

Athanacropolis · Post #2 » by **Athanacropolis** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:50 pm

I'm a homer: Celtics.

But seriously: as dominant as Shaq was then, I feel the Celtics have enough offensive weapons--and play some of the best defense ever--to compensate for that.

Rocky5000 · Post #3 » by **Rocky5000** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:55 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkjYfetLLZQ
2 Lessons: Don't be Rapin' and Super Lakers can win without Kobe.

MyInsatiableOne · Post #4 » by **MyInsatiableOne** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:00 pm

Celtics...

EJay33 · Post #5 » by **EJay33** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:07 pm

Easily Celtics if they sign Horry to cancel out the Horry factor

Harison · Post #6 » by **Harison** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 5:23 pm

Current Shaq/Kobe = current Celtics win, but Shaq in his prime with Kobe as sidekick would be much, much more serious threat, and I would give them an edge.

Roscoe Sheed · Post #7 » by **Roscoe Sheed** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:45 pm

Shaq was dominant, but I also think those Lakers teams were only really good for one of those titles- 2001. Other than that, the Blazers handed them game 7 in 2000 and the refs handed them the WCF against the Kings in 02. Also, Shaq was allowed to offensive foul everybody in the league back then. Entirely disgraceful

Post #8 » by **semi-sentient** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:55 pm

^^^ Agreed. The 3-peat Lakers were incredibly overrated and this Celtics team (the greatest team ever assembled, in any sport!) would sweep them -- except for perhaps the 2001 team which could possibly take one game from the Celtics.

Allanon · Post #9 » by **Allanon** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:21 pm

Shaq would win.

With Shaq's dominance coupled with the Celtics lack of big men, Perkins would foul out pretty quick and then Shaq would feast on Leon Powe/Big Baby/Scalabrine/O'Bryant.

EJay33 · Post #10 » by **EJay33** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:15 am

Truthfully, this doesn't even deserve to be a topic until the Celtics win the championship IF they even do win the championship. Didn't anyone around here learn their lesson last year? The Celtics have a great record now, but if they fail to win it all then this start will be no different than 18-1. Comparing this team to one of the most dominant playoff runs in the history of NBA basketball is very premature.

Truthiracy · Post #11 » by **Truthiracy** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:20 am

Depends who the refs are, the 02 Kings beat the Lakers if the refs aren't corrupt, and so does this Boston team.

SuigintouEV · Post #12 » by **SuigintouEV** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:36 am

Since this is year 2 of dominance for the celtics, I wont compare with guys like Posey and Glen Rice, instead the 16-1 playoffs team that went 56-26

Rondo vs Fisher - see 08 finals, but fisher is better defensively/worse shooter
Rick Fox vs Paul Pierce - interesting matchup, how well can fox contain pierce?
Kobe vs Ray + Celtics D - see 08 finals, but kobe wasn't as good a shooter back
Ron Harper vs Tony Allen - Hmm?
KG vs Horace Grant - KG
Perkins vs Shaq - Shaq
KG vs Shaq - Shaq

The celtics' biggest disadvantage is bench bigs for when (not if) perk gets in foul trouble. That means a lot of KG vs Shaq moments which is okay defensively (not awesome) but kind of ehh offensively.

GreenGrizz · Post #13 » by **GreenGrizz** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:41 am

The Lakers always had trouble against KG and the 'Wolves. KG didn't even need Pierce and Ray.

3pt % · Post #14 » by **3pt %** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 6:56 am

I think it would come down to the man of the moment, Rondo.

The Pistons beat the wannabes by using the pick and roll, Shaq just doesn't defend it. He left Payton out to dry throughout the series by refusing/being unable to switch effectively.

If we could run that all day, then it would be even.

Otherwise, I'd say Shaq would carry them. If we keep playing like we are through the playoffs, and add a legit bench big.. then all bets are off.

rambo_ortega · Post #15 » by **rambo_ortega** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 7:27 am

We are a better version of the pistons team who beat the lakers because of our similarity on defense and our better offensive firepower. And if you remember, kg and sam's wolves almost beat them in the conference finals that year. That team of kg is way weaker than this year's celtics so i think we can gauge from there that we will definitely win against them.

Dubzfan8 · Post #16 » by **Dubzfan8** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:00 am

semi-sentient wrote:^^^ Agreed. The 3-peat Lakers were incredibly overrated and this Celtics team (the greatest team ever assembled, in any sport!) would sweep them -- except for perhaps the 2001 team which could possibly take one game from the Celtics.

Understand that this is Boston fans mentality. They honestly think this current Celtics team is better than Jordan Bulls in the 90s. They still think the Patriots won the superbowl in 07 and was the best football team to grace mankind.

Tricky Ricky · Post #17 » by **Tricky Ricky** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 1:20 pm

Dubzfan8 wrote:
semi-sentient wrote:^^^ Agreed. The 3-peat Lakers were incredibly overrated and this Celtics team (the greatest team ever assembled, in any sport!) would sweep them -- except for perhaps the 2001 team which could possibly take one game from the Celtics.

Understand that this is Boston fans mentality. They honestly think this current Celtics team is better than Jordan Bulls in the 90s. They still think the Patriots won the superbowl in 07 and was the best football team to grace mankind.

That Patriots team was the best of all time. Without the drama Id take the Shaq/Kobe Lakers but if the drama was included of Shaq and Kobe clashing Im taking the C's

Athanacropolis · Post #18 » by **Athanacropolis** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 3:39 pm

Dubzfan8 wrote:
semi-sentient wrote:^^^ Agreed. The 3-peat Lakers were incredibly overrated and this Celtics team (the greatest team ever assembled, in any sport!) would sweep them -- except for perhaps the 2001 team which could possibly take one game from the Celtics.

Understand that this is Boston fans mentality. They honestly think this current Celtics team is better than Jordan Bulls in the 90s. They still think the Patriots won the superbowl in 07 and was the best football team to grace mankind.

Uh, NO ONE in New England thinks the Pats won the Superbowl. And I don't know anyone here in Boston or on the board that thinks this year's Cs are better than Jordan's Bulls. If you're going to make fun of us, do it intelligently, thanks.

cfan79 · Post #19 » by **cfan79** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:01 pm

Dubzfan8 wrote:
semi-sentient wrote:^^^ Agreed. The 3-peat Lakers were incredibly overrated and this Celtics team (the greatest team ever assembled, in any sport!) would sweep them -- except for perhaps the 2001 team which could possibly take one game from the Celtics.

Understand that this is Boston fans mentality. They honestly think this current Celtics team is better than Jordan Bulls in the 90s. They still think the Patriots won the superbowl in 07 and was the best football team to grace mankind.

Are you referring to the poll on this board where the bulls won 27 votes to 10. Maybe you should actually read threads rather then spout garbage. New England has possibly the most intelligent unbiased fanbases.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=860739

shobe_81 · Post #20 » by **shobe_81** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 8:38 pm

I'm laughing at the 17(+) votes for the Celtics :lol:

If we use one Lakers Year (lets use 00-01) Lakers went 15-1 in the Playoffs

Here's their competition they faced:

Round 1: Rasheed Wallace/Scottie Pippen Blazers
Round 2: Sacramento Kings (One of the best Offensive fire power during that time)
Round 3: Spurs that had Duncan and Robinson
Finals: Sixers that had Prime Iverson and a very good Mutombo

The Lakers Swept through 3 rounds and lost the 1st game of the finals in OT before sweeping the next four games.

Here are the reason why those Lakers would Kill the Celtics.

Offensively:

SHAQ: Ummm yea, he faced and dominated the Duncan/Robinson and Deke in the playoffs
Shaq was in his prime averaging 30 Pts, 15 Rebounds, and 3 Assists with 2 Blocks in the playoffs

Who's going to guard him? Perkins? :roll:

Perkins would have 2 Techs by the end of half time and 6 fouls. :lol:

Then you've got no one down low to put a body on Shaq, KG is way too thin to guard Shaq, Shaq would make Big Baby cry.

Kobe: Yes he wasn't as good of a shooter back then but he was much more athletic than the Kobe the Celtics faced in the Finals. He averaged 29 Pts, 7 Rebounds, and 6 Assists And we know the Celtics weakness is against Athletic Players.

Defensively:

Shaq would block everything in the paint besides KG's rainbow fade-aways. Perkins would be neutralized on the boards.

Rick Fox was a lock down defender MUCH MUCH MUCH better than Vladimir.

And some of you have said Shaq wouldn't be able to guard the Pick N Roll against Rondo, are you serious? Shaq would stay in the paint on those Pick and Rolls and let Rondo brick outside jumpers. Shaq only had a problem against PG's who could shoot from the outside (ex. Prime Mike Bibby).

And Fisher was much younger and quicker, he'd have an easier time guarding him then opposed to now.

Side Notes:

Besides the Lakers have Horry at PF to spread the floor against the Celtics zones, if you bring a double against Shaq, you get burned from 3's.

There's no chance for these Celtics to take those 15-1 Playoffs Lakers in a 7 game series, and mainly because of Shaq's dominant abilities.