>The Lakers are bad, because they don't have Shaq. You keep
>using that as an excuse for Kobe, and thats the very point.

true, but it's more so because we didn't get close to equal value for him when we traded him.

>
>
>Its IMPOSSIBLE for Shaq to be on a "bad" team.

lol not really, just cause it aint happened before doesn't mean it's impossible.

Shaq could
>very well win the title this year, without Kobe. Wade didn't
>look too bad last night, with 42 points and 13 rebounds. You
>keep talking about what Shaq hasn't done without Kobe...well
>we know he's been a helluva lot closer than Kobe ever WILL be
>without Shaq.

of course he's been closer, he's been on better teams! HEEEEELLLLLLOOOOOOOOOO. that's the reason.

and you dont know how close kobe will get without shaq. he aint been on a good team yet without the big fella homie. unless you tryna say he'll be stuck on a shitty team the rest of his career.

>
>
>And in what universe does losing in the first round equate to
>making it to the Finals? Are you guys watching basketball?
>You're seriously saying that Shaq, going to Miami and going to
>the ECF and then the NBA Finals in consecutive years "doesn't
>matter?" You don't think the Lakers would have rather done
>that?

lol nooooooooooo.....i said this statement:

"I'll say it again...a team with Shaq is automatically a contender, and you can't say the same about Kobe. Its the nature of basketball...a dominant big man is more of a sure bet than a great guard."

doesn't matter. once again, it might be true......but it doesn't matter. that's something you point out when arguing if the lakers shoulda kept shaq or kobe. not when arguing whether shaq needs kobe to win a ring or not.


• Okay Sports Rookie of the Year
___________________________________________
http://www.blacksportsonline.com/images/kobe80.jpg