How many titles do the Shaq Lakers win with Ray Allen instead of Kobe?

[ScalabrineStan]

Assume its a direct swap, how many do u think they win?

[Beatlezz]

zero

[longtime lurker]

Zero next question.

[DirtySanchez]

Wow what an original thread topic!!!!

[StateOfMind12]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

[Pushxx]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

This exactly. Repped.

[eliteballer]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

LOL.........................it was ALWAYS noted when LA went up against Portland, Spurs, Kings that the Lakers had two stars and the other teams had all the talent. The Lakers had good roleplayers but Fox, Fisher, Brian Shaw ancient Harper and Ho Grant....those dudes weren't overwhelming anybody.

Check Game 7 vs Portland in 2000 and show me Ray do what Kobe did.

[chazzy]

They dont get past the 02 Kings or 00 Blazers

[PJR]

One in 2000.

[outbreak]

Still would have got at least 1 maybe 2. Ray's a great player and prime ray with a good distributor and shaq would win alot of rings, but one those teams Kobe could create his own shot well.

[macpierce]

yeah id like to see ray allen drop 48 and 16 on the kings like kobe did....

[MiamiThrice]

4-6.

He compliments Shaq better offensively, and the Lakers most likely keep Eddie Jones who was a defensive stalwart in his own right. Shaq-Ray Allen-Eddie Jones would be one of the best trios ever and they may even win some rings in the late 90s when Kobe was still developing and had an awful outside shot. Ray is the best shooter in NBA History.

Then in 2004 they would win the ring as well since Kobe cost the Lakers the series with his shot jacking and desire for Finals MVP over another Ring.

They win all of the 00-02 rings with Peak Shaq too, the best player to ever play the game. I'll give them 00-02, 2004, possibly 2005 since Shaq was still the games best player and Ray Allen had probably his best individual year. Possibly even a 90s title too since those late 90s Lakers were VERY talented, but always underperformed. Ray would probably help that team get to the next level.

[longtime lurker]

4-6.

He compliments Shaq better offensively, and the Lakers most likely keep Eddie Jones who was a defensive stalwart in his own right. Shaq-Ray Allen-Eddie Jones would be one of the best trios ever and they may even win some rings in the late 90s when Kobe was still developing and had an awful outside shot. Ray is the best shooter in NBA History.

Then in 2004 they would win the ring as well since Kobe cost the Lakers the series with his shot jacking and desire for Finals MVP over another Ring.

They win all of the 00-02 rings with Peak Shaq too, the best player to ever play the game. I'll give them 00-02, 2004, possibly 2005 since Shaq was still the games best player and Ray Allen had probably his best individual year. Possibly even a 90s title too since those late 90s Lakers were VERY talented, but always underperformed. Ray would probably help that team get to the next level.

Just do us all a favour and stop posting :facepalm

[tpols]

Maybe 1 or 2 in 01 and 04.

But overall 01-04 Kobe is one of the most underrated players of all time. Moreso than 91-97 Pippen.

[inclinerator]

2 maybe more depending on how long they stay together

[9erempiree]

It's not that amazing that Ray could win rings with Shaq....

I think what's amazing is putting Kobe on those Bull's teams and he wins 8 in a row because Kobe doesn't like baseball.

[BlackVVaves]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

How much other talent did the Lakers have in 2001, 2002, and 2003?

Lakers had more talent over everyone else because and only because of Shaq and Kobe. Suggesting those teams were anything comparable to "deep" or talented outside of those two is revisionist behavior.

[KOBE143]

The real question is.. Can Ray Allen carry Shaq? I doubt it..

[KyrieTheFuture]

Don't forget they never break up due to chemistry issues cause its pretty obvious who's boss

[stickfigure87]

they don't win in 00 or 02. they win 04.

so 2?

[EnoughSaid]

People are underrating Ray. Dude was a monster in his prime. A scoring machine. :bowdown:

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

One..MAYBE two. I'd say the first two years of the 3-peat, Ray would have his best shot.

[Killbot]

At least 2.

[Boston C's]

People are underrating Ray. Dude was a monster in his prime. A scoring machine. :bowdown:

yea ppl seem to forget that a lot

with that being said I'll say about 2-4...ray probably gets 2 during the 3 peat yrs and one in 04 since I don't think their egos would clash and in 05 is a possibility as well... that was rays best yr as an all around performer (If you watched the sonics in 05 you would know what I mean) theres no doubt that kobe is the best 2 guard of this era...but shaq was so dominant if you put any of the elite 2 guards with him during his prime they would have at least won a chip

[LakersReign]

4-6.

He compliments Shaq better offensively, and the Lakers most likely keep Eddie Jones who was a defensive stalwart in his own right. Shaq-Ray Allen-Eddie Jones would be one of the best trios ever and they may even win some rings in the late 90s when Kobe was still developing and had an awful outside shot. Ray is the best shooter in NBA History.

Then in 2004 they would win the ring as well since Kobe cost the Lakers the series with his shot jacking and desire for Finals MVP over another Ring.

They win all of the 00-02 rings with Peak Shaq too, the best player to ever play the game. I'll give them 00-02, 2004, possibly 2005 since Shaq was still the games best player and Ray Allen had probably his best individual year. Possibly even a 90s title too since those late 90s Lakers were VERY talented, but always underperformed. Ray would probably help that team get to the next level.

One of the dumbest posts by a bandwagon Lebron fan I've ever read on here, next to 32dayz and that's game claiming fans know more about basketball than players and coaches. Or pauk blaming Wade for the Heat's 2011 Finals loss. The flat out idiocy in the quote above, proves that the whole "slap ANYBODY in Kobe's spot on the Lakers with Shaq and they STILL win theory," is, has been, and always will be just that....a pathetic hater theory. Eddies Jones is a "defensive stalwart"....huh?

http://i54.tinypic.com/2ex6kx4.jpg

[KG215]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

Yeah, ummm after Shaq and Kobe, the 3-peat Lakers weren't nearly as deep and talented as the other contenders. Similar to 2009 and 2010 when the Kobe/Gasol Lakers won back-to-back. They had the best 1-2 combo by a pretty sizable margin, but their 3-8/9 wasn't as good as the other contenders.

Not saying the other guys on the 3-peat Lakers weren't good, but they really weren't that "stacked" after Shaq and Kobe.

[StateOfMind12]

Yeah, ummm after Shaq and Kobe, the 3-peat Lakers weren't nearly as deep and talented as the other contenders. Similar to 2009 and 2010 when the Kobe/Gasol Lakers won back-to-back. They had the best 1-2 combo by a pretty sizable margin, but their 3-8/9 wasn't as good as the other contenders.

Not saying the other guys on the 3-peat Lakers weren't good, but they really weren't that "stacked" after Shaq and Kobe.
They have very good role players and they were key to the success.

The only team that was more deep/stacked than them was the Kings and they were the biggest chokers ever.

Spurs were never as good as the Lakers until like 2004 when the Lakers actually won. People seem to forget that Duncan's supporting cast from 2000-2004 was pretty weak, 2000-2002 especially.

[chazzy]

They have very good role players and they were key to the success.

The only team that was more deep/stacked than them was the Kings and they were the biggest chokers ever.

Spurs were never as good as the Lakers until like 2004 when the Lakers actually won. People seem to forget that Duncan's supporting cast from 2000-2004 was pretty weak, 2000-2002 especially.
00 Blazers were deeper

[IGOTGAME]

Maybe 1 based on Shaqs dominance.

BTW...triangle wouldn't work if you switch ray and kobe.

[KG215]

They have very good role players and they were key to the success.

The only team that was more deep/stacked than them was the Kings and they were the biggest chokers ever.

Spurs were never as good as the Lakers until like 2004 when the Lakers actually won. People seem to forget that Duncan's supporting cast from 2000-2004 was pretty weak, 2000-2002 especially.

And the same could be said about Duncan's supporting cast/role players or any group of role players on any championship team. Miami's supporting cast was pretty much garbage through the ECF, then they get to the Finals, turn it on, and guys like Battier, Miller, Chalmers, and Haslem play better as a group then they did in any other round.

Take Kobe off the 2000-2002 Lakers and look at their roster. Some solid, slightly past their prime role players, and some pretty "meh" type players. Players who, when you see the name, you think "nice player" but, when you look at where they were in their respective careers...not so much.

The Blazers are another team that had more depth. And I agree with you about Duncan's Spurs even through the 2003 championship. Parker was 20 years old and in his second season, Manu was a rookie (albeit 25) and not quite 6th Man Extraordinaire Man yet, and Robinson was 37.

[G-Funk]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_NYaJQllvyA0/S5E_YE7aB0I/AAAAAAAAAtk/iC-ruFKkiA4/s320/zero.jpg

[chazzy]

00 Blazers were deeper

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izs53PMDE8s#t=2m24s

[ripthekik]

0, possibly 1, 2 max.

[G-Funk]

People are underrating Ray. Dude was a monster in his prime. A scoring machine. :bowdown:
:bowdown:
Ray Allen
99-00: 22/4/4/2/.1
00-01: 22/5/4/1/.2
01-02: 21/4/3/1/.3
02-03: 22/5/4/1/.2
1-3 Defensive teams 0X

Kobe Bryant
99-00: 23/6/5/2/1
00-01: 29/6/5/2/1
01-02: 25/6/6/2/.4
02-03: 30/7/6/2/1
1-3 Defensive teams 4X

2001 Western Conference SemiFinals vs. Kings:35/9/4
2001 Western Conference Finals vs. Spurs:33/7/7

[StateOfMind12]

00 Blazers were deeper
2011 Bulls were deeper than the 2011 Heat, we found out who the better team was, sadly.

Ray is not some scrub, he was a borderline top 10 player for most of his prime. Replacing Ray over Kobe is not some massive downgrade. It's not like we're replacing Kobe with Tony Allen or anything, we're replacing a top 5-10 player with a top 10-15 player, not a big deal. Egos won't clash either and we all know that was a bit of a problem.

[ihoopallday]

Shaq would probably retire a Laker. Kobe would be in the East playing for the Sixers. Kobe wins 2-3 rings.

[BlackVVaves]

They have very good role players and they were key to the success.

The only team that was more deep/stacked than them was the Kings and they were the biggest chokers ever.

Spurs were never as good as the Lakers until like 2004 when the Lakers actually won. People seem to forget that Duncan's supporting cast from 2000-2004 was pretty weak, 2000-2002 especially.

Either you're attempting to discredit the actual value of Shaq and Kobe to those Lakers teams, or you truly didn't watch the NBA very closely back then. Maybe you should take a look at the 2001 season where Kobe and Shaq had to score 30 a game each to keep the wins rolling throughout the season. Similiar in the 2002 season. How about 2003 when an out of shape and injured Shaq almost cost the Lakers their season? If not for Kobe dropping 40 a game for the month of February the Lakers literally miss the playoffs. Where was this great talent outside of Shaq and Kobe then?

Not sure what you're talking about. A washed up Richmond, Fisher, Grant, Fox, Lue, George, Horry...that's great talent? Only the Kings were deeper? How about the 01 Blazers? The 02 Nets? The 03 Spurs?

Great talent. Not sure if serious....

[ILLsmak]

I think it'd be about the same. Then LA fans would be talking about Ray Ray and not Kobe.

I hate how people have to underrate Shaq in order to prop up Kobe. The truth is, Shaq was playing on GOAT level those years. Ray would work fine in the triangle. There's nothing lost on offense, real talk.

-Smak

[KG215]

2011 Bulls were deeper than the 2011 Heat, we found out who the better team was, sadly.

Ray is not some scrub, he was a borderline top 10 player for most of his prime. Replacing Ray over Kobe is not some massive downgrade. It's not like we're replacing Kobe with Tony Allen or anything, we're replacing a top 5-10 player with a top 10-15 player, not a big deal. Egos won't clash either and we all know that was a bit of a problem.

In 2001 and 2002 there was a pretty good sized gap between Kobe and Ray. Kobe wasn't a top 5-10 player anymore. He was firmly cemented in the top 5. 2000 is the only year he was a borderline top 10 player.

With how dominant Shaq was at the time, I could see the Lakers getting one ring with Ray Allen instead of Kobe, but they don't 3-peat.

[LakersReign]

I think it'd be about the same. Then LA fans would be talking about Ray Ray and not Kobe.

I hate how people have to underrate Shaq in order to prop up Kobe. The truth is, Shaq was playing on GOAT level those years. Ray would work fine in the triangle. There's nothing lost on offense, real talk.

-Smak

It works both ways. Kobe haters underrate the hell out of him to prop up Shaq. Why is it that you don't see threads talking about pairing Kobe with TD/KG/Robinson etc instead of Shaq? That's cuz most people posting threads like this have an aganda against Kobe.

[StateOfMind12]

Only the Kings were deeper? How about the 01 Blazers? The 02 Nets? The 03 Spurs?
:roll: I'm not even going to take you seriously after this part.


In 2001 and 2002 there was a decent size gap between Kobe and Ray. Kobe wasn't a top 5-10 player anymore. He was firmly cemented in the top 5. 2000 is the only year he was a borderline top 10 player.

With how dominant Shaq was at the time, I could see the Lakers getting one ring with Ray Allen instead of Kobe, but they don't 3-peat.
The Lakers don't cake walk as easily to the title in 2001 but they still win it. I think they would win 2-3 as I said but I would say 1 is pretty much a guarantee barring injuries.

[BlackVVaves]

2011 Bulls were deeper than the 2011 Heat, we found out who the better team was, sadly.

Ray is not some scrub, he was a borderline top 10 player for most of his prime. Replacing Ray over Kobe is not some massive downgrade. It's not like we're replacing Kobe with Tony Allen or anything, we're replacing a top 5-10 player with a top 10-15 player, not a big deal. Egos won't clash either and we all know that was a bit of a problem.

Pretty much just contradicted yourself. Why were the Heat better? Because of Lebron and Wade.

Okay. So, you can admit that, right? But can't admit the same was true for Shaq and Kobe? Who were an even more dominant duo, who played with a significantly worse supporting cast?

Interesting.

[DatAsh]

2011 Bulls were deeper than the 2011 Heat, we found out who the better team was, sadly.

Ray is not some scrub, he was a borderline top 10 player for most of his prime. Replacing Ray over Kobe is not some massive downgrade. It's not like we're replacing Kobe with Tony Allen or anything, we're replacing a top 5-10 player with a top 10-15 player, not a big deal. Egos won't clash either and we all know that was a bit of a problem.

I think you're understating the gap between Kobe and Allen. Paralleling the comparison with that other thread, the difference between Kobe and Allen is greater than the difference between Jordan and Kobe, and I've seen quite a few people on this site state that as a sizable gap.

[BlackVVaves]

:roll: I'm not even going to take you seriously after this part.


The Lakers don't cake walk as easily to the title in 2001 but they still win it. I think they would win 2-3 as I said but I would say 1 is pretty much a guarantee barring injuries.

I meant 03 Nets. But hey, let's avoid explaining where the great talent outside of Kobe and Shaq was displayed, and instead grasp onto a technicality.

Brilliant.

[chazzy]

2011 Bulls were deeper than the 2011 Heat, we found out who the better team was, sadly.

The Heat were better because of their better star talent, just like the Lakers were. The Bulls weren't nearly as balanced as the 00 Blazers though, who had a great defense to go along with their balanced offensive attack. You said the only team deeper than LA was the Kings so I was pointing out the other obvious team.

[StateOfMind12]

I think you're understating the gap between Kobe and Allen. Paralleling the comparison with that other thread, the difference between Kobe and Allen is greater than the difference between Jordan and Kobe, and I've seen quite a few people on this site state that as a sizable gap.
Ray is a better fit/2nd option for Shaq and the Lakers than Kobe was though. So even though Kobe was a top 5 player from 2001-2004, Ray was a top 10-15 player from 2001-2004, which isn't that big of a downgrade.

We still have to factor in how Ray is the better fit, has less of an ego, etc. It's not always about pure talent.


I meant 03 Nets. But hey, let's avoid explaining where the great talent outside of Kobe and Shaq was displayed, and instead grasp onto a technicality.

Brilliant.
:roll: Cause that's better.

[BlackVVaves]

The Heat were better because of their better star talent, just like the Lakers were. The Bulls weren't nearly as balanced as the 00 Blazers though, who had a great defense to go along with their balanced offensive attack. You said the only team deeper than LA was the Kings so I was pointing out the other obvious team.

Haven't you heard? Fisher, Horry, Grant, Fox > Steve Smith, Rasheed Wallace, Bonzi Wells :roll:

[chazzy]

Ray is a better fit/2nd option for Shaq and the Lakers than Kobe was though.
Based on what? His advantages are his superior off ball play and better spacing but he doesn't run an offense the way Kobe did and wasn't the lockdown defender he was either. Kobe's superior playmaking and ball handling were key for those teams, along with his superior shot creation down the stretch of close games. Not that prime Ray couldn't do those things, but his off ball play doesn't trump Kobe's advantages in those other areas.

[StateOfMind12]

Based on what? His advantages are his superior off ball play and better spacing but he doesn't run an offense the way Kobe did and wasn't the lockdown defender he was either. Kobe's superior playmaking and ball handling were key for those teams, along with his superior shot creation down the stretch of close games.
Ray has ran an offense before by playing PG with the Sonics. Boston C's has mentioned this many times. He may not be as good as Kobe at it, but it's not like he is horrible at it.

Also, Ray would be able to conserve more energy to play defense by playing alongside Shaq. As many have said, Kobe's defensive prime was during Shaq's years and it was during Shaq's years because he was given more energy to play defense on that end. Ray aside from his Boston years has never had the luxury to conserve energy to play defense and many Kobe/Lakers fans complain that Ray in Boston turns into Bruce Bowen when he guards Kobe.

Too many factors to consider.

[BlackVVaves]

Either you're attempting to discredit the actual value of Shaq and Kobe to those Lakers teams, or you truly didn't watch the NBA very closely back then. Maybe you should take a look at the 2001 season where Kobe and Shaq had to score 30 a game each to keep the wins rolling throughout the season. Similiar in the 2002 season. How about 2003 when an out of shape and injured Shaq almost cost the Lakers their season? If not for Kobe dropping 40 a game for the month of February the Lakers literally miss the playoffs. Where was this great talent outside of Shaq and Kobe then?

Not sure what you're talking about. A washed up Richmond, Fisher, Grant, Fox, Lue, George, Horry...that's great talent? Only the Kings were deeper? How about the 01 Blazers? The 03 Nets? The 03 Spurs?

Great talent. Not sure if serious....

No response RG?

[jjayfive]

maybe one.. they would have lost to the Kings 2002 (?) and they might not have made it past portland... the lakers were unstoppable when they went 15-1..

[chazzy]

Ray has ran an offense before by playing PG with the Sonics.
Ridnour? That's another thing.. I don't think Ray has had primary playmaking duties more than maybe once in his career.

[All Net]

Considering how great those kings, Spurs and blazers teams were? None... Kobe's play making ability was huge in those western conference series.

[DatAsh]

Ray is a better fit/2nd option for Shaq and the Lakers than Kobe was though. So even though Kobe was a top 5 player from 2001-2004, Ray was a top 10-15 player from 2001-2004, which isn't that big of a downgrade.

We still have to factor in how Ray is the better fit, has less of an ego, etc. It's not always about pure talent.


Kobe was much better defensively though, and that team relied alot on Kobe's ability to set-up the offense and make plays for his teammates. Allen is a better fit for Shaq, but I'd argue that Kobe was a better fit for that team.

[Remix]

I dont think Ray would be able to take over 4th quarters like Kobe did, as Shaq is a liability from the free throw line. The Lakers couldnt run the offense through him like they would through the first three quarters because of that.

[Whoah10115]

They certainly don't win in 02. I don't think they win in 01 because they don't get past the Blazers...I don't think. In 01 Kobe was beasting throughout the playoffs and was arguably the team's best player prior to the Finals. But that team was also beastly in the playoffs so I don't know. If they win 1 then that says a hell of a lot about Ray Allen. Tho I think the one thing wit Ray is that maybe the Lakers don't trade Jones for Rice and that Jones helps out Ray on the playmaking end and plays infinitely better defense than Glen Rice...tho I never thought Eddie Jones was a 3 but whatever.



BTW, Allen was hurt in 03/04, if I remember correctly. So if we're say the Lakers wouldn't have broken up, let's also remember Allen was hurt.

[BlackVVaves]

They certainly don't win in 02. I don't think they win in 01 because they don't get past the Blazers...I don't think. In 01 Kobe was beasting throughout the playoffs and was arguably the team's best player prior to the Finals. But that team was also beastly in the playoffs so I don't know. If they win 1 then that says a hell of a lot about Ray Allen.

They definitely win in 2000. They definitely don't win a championship in 2001. Kobe carried that team in the second and third round in a way Ray Allen has never exhibited his capable of doing, and certainly not in 2001. You see Ray Allen dropping 34 a game on nearly nearly 50% shooting against the Kings and Spurs?

Yea, okay.

And I doubt they win in 2002 either, Kings take that series. However, Lakers may win in 2004, if Malone doesn't get injured. Then again, Lakers may have also won if Malone doesn't get hurt. So not sure if feasible, but I think Ray's outside shooting could have been used to stretch that Detroit D. Still, with Ben Wallace able to defend Shaq 1 v 1, and the entire Pistons defense is to focus on stopping and disrupting Ray Allen like they did on Kobe, not sure how effective he would be.

Kobe from 2001-2004 had already displayed his incredible offensive prowess, his ability to completely take over a game, to dominate team's perimeter defense, to, again citing, average 40 points per game in a month, completely rescuing your team's chances of making the playoffs. Ray Allen never reached that level of dominance in his career, although he was very good and sometimes great. And, those Ray Allens were in 2005 and 2006, not in 2001, 2002.

[RazorBaLade]

So even though Kobe was a top 5 player from 2001-2004, Ray was a top 10-15 player from 2001-2004, which isn't that big of a downgrade.

thats like saying going from lebron to carmelo anthony isnt that big of a downgrade in 2010

[NumberSix]

3 or 4

[macpierce]

comparing kobe to allen is like comparing lebron to carmelo........

it cant be that big of a downgrade right?

:oldlol:

[ripthekik]

3 or 4
:oldlol: the hate is strong, bro

[Nash]

He'd win maybe two. Ray is fantastic and at his prime averaged around 25 and more as well.

[Dragonyeuw]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else.

Those early 2000 Blazers and Kings were generally considered more talented from top to bottom. Note I said more talented, that doesn't always equate to better( though the 2002 Kings would argue the wrong team won). The Lakers simply had the two best players with by far the most dominant, immovable force in Shaq, with a cast of solid role players. Who came after Shaq and Kobe? Derek Fisher? Aging Ron Harper/Horace Grant/AC Green? Samaki Walker? Kareem Rush? Rick Fox? Robert Horry? Deven George? Mark Madsen Those guys ain't scaring anybody.

Compare that to the 2000 Blazers:

Rasheed Wallace
Scottie Pippen
Steve Smith
Brian Grant
Damon Stoudamire
Detlef Schrempt( spelling?)
Bonzai Wells
Ardvdas Sabonis

That team was ridiculously talented and deep. The Lakers were never the most talented overall team in any of their early 2000's runs.They were very top-heavy with Shaq and Kobe accounting for about half of the team's points. Shaq was at his absolute peak, and Kobe in the 2001 playoffs probably played as well as I've ever seen him, taking offense/defense/playmaking into account. You had the most dominant force in the league, and the best two-way shooting guard by far playing at an incredible level. You could have surrounded them with pretty much any set of competent role players with the system they were running, and get the same results.

[pegasus]

0. Maybe 1 if they get lucky like Lebron did last year with shortened season, injuries to other superstars, etc.

Ray has never been a superstar or a consistent shot creator for himself and others. Fisher and Ray guard duo would not work, not in triangle, not in rectangle.

[red1]

I agree with those who say they lose to the kings and blazers. While there will be a dropoff in talent level, this duo will probably have better chemistry, and prime ray absolutely could create his own shot. Assuming they play together for the same period of time - 1 or 2 rings.

[TheBigVeto]

7 rings

[RRR3]

0. Maybe 1 if they get lucky like Lebron did last year with shortened season, injuries to other superstars, etc.

Ray has never been a superstar or a consistent shot creator for himself and others. Fisher and Ray guard duo would not work, not in triangle, not in rectangle.
This gu is obsessed with LeBron. Sad. :violin:
Literally can't post w/o whining about LeBron:lol

[red1]

This gu is obsessed with LeBron. Sad. :violin:
Literally can't post w/o whining about LeBron:lol
He is one of the most consistently negative posters here, usually posts to insult or criticize players

[RRR3]

He is one of the most consistently negative posters here, usually posts to insult or criticize Heat players, namely LeBron
fixed. Guy is pathetic.

[Rowe]

0. Maybe 1 if they get lucky like Lebron did last year with shortened season, injuries to other superstars, etc.

Ray has never been a superstar or a consistent shot creator for himself and others. Fisher and Ray guard duo would not work, not in triangle, not in rectangle.
This is absolutely retarded.

Ray Allen during that period of time wasn't as talented as Kobe from an all around standpoint but he was a very good player. Kobe had more upside to evolve into an Elite player, but Ray for many years was more skilled on offense. You say Ray was a poor shot creator for teammates and that is another bold-faced lie. Ray at many times would initiate a Bucks offense in the halfcourt that was the most efficient offense in the NBA. The Bucks offense was more efficient than the Lakers, even when Phil introduced the Triangle.

Ray Allen would've received more credit & praise as a star player had he not been playing in Milwaukee back when the only place you could see Bucks games was on SportsCenter highlights. You can say the same for Glenn Robinson too. Ray Allen had already established himself among the top 5 mid-range & 3 point shooters in the NBA by 1999, which was 4 years into his career. Keep in mind this was back before the rule changes which made it extremely hard for shooters like him to get space and hit jumpshots. Thats why his numbers exploded after the league stopped hand-checking, if it was like that when he came into the league he would've averaged 20+ each season of his career.

I feel like its a shame that so many people on here don't know Ray Allen was a tremendous player & athlete because their only image of him is being an old spot shooter in Boston who was a weak link defensively.

[Rowe]

The Lakers would've won 5 Championships. 5 straight between 2000-2004.

Ray was a far better fit for the triangle offense than Kobe, mainly because he lacked the creativity or the mindset Kobe has to break free of the offense and attempt to take over a game by himself.

He would've been nearly unstoppable in an offense that involves movement and being able to hit shots from different spots on the floor revolving around the post. With the most dominant inside post player like Shaq, he would have averaged nearly 25 PPG just on that alone. We are not talking about the Ray Allen that arrived in Boston with 12 NBA seasons of wear & tear on his legs + 3 years of college basketball. We are talking about the agile, athletic, & smooth scorer he was in his early-mid 20's. When his jumpshot wasn't falling when he was younger he started attacking the basket and drawing fouls, unlike what happens now due to his old legs. A younger Ray Allen actually could slide & rotate when he was 25 years old compared to him being a defensive liability at 35 years old in Boston.

[pegasus]

This is absolutely retarded.

Ray Allen during that period of time wasn't as talented as Kobe from an all around standpoint but he was a very good player. Kobe had more upside to evolve into an Elite player, but Ray for many years was more skilled on offense. You say Ray was a poor shot creator for teammates and that is another bold-faced lie. Ray at many times would initiate a Bucks offense in the halfcourt that was the most efficient offense in the NBA. The Bucks offense was more efficient than the Lakers, even when Phil introduced the Triangle.

Ray Allen would've received more credit & praise as a star player had he not been playing in Milwaukee back when the only place you could see Bucks games was on SportsCenter highlights. You can say the same for Glenn Robinson too. Ray Allen had already established himself among the top 5 mid-range & 3 point shooters in the NBA by 1999, which was 4 years into his career. Keep in mind this was back before the rule changes which made it extremely hard for shooters like him to get space and hit jumpshots. Thats why his numbers exploded after the league stopped hand-checking, if it was like that when he came into the league he would've averaged 20+ each season of his career.

I feel like its a shame that so many people on here don't know Ray Allen was a tremendous player & athlete because their only image of him is being an old spot shooter in Boston who was a weak link defensively.

You're talking to the wrong person. I have watched Ray in his prime, and I do remember the big-3 in Milwaukee. Funny that you didn't even mention Cassell in your post. It's almost like your only image of him is being an old bench player in Boston.

I didn't say Ray was a poor shot creator. I just said that he wasn't consistent, you know, at a superstar level, which would be a requirement for that version of Lakers to win a single title, let alone more. And one more thing... I don't think Ray was a weak link defensively in Boston. He guarded Kobe better than anyone (or at least as well as Tony Allen did) in the league in both finals match-ups, so maybe you need to reevaluate his image of him in your mind.

[lakers_forever]

This is absolutely retarded.




The Lakers would've won 5 Championships. 5 straight between 2000-2004.

Ray was a far better fit for the triangle offense than Kobe, mainly because he lacked the creativity or the mindset Kobe has to break free of the offense and attempt to take over a game by himself.

http://s8.postimage.org/kuwafa8b5/rsz_th_amareyuck.png

[pegasus]

fixed. Guy is pathetic.

Don't you have a picture of you somewhere on the internet that you could photoshop to look less creepy? Now go get busy with that and leave me alone, stalker.

[Mr. I'm So Rad]

2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

Uhh outside of 2001 when Fisher, Horry and Fox played some of their best ball the Lakers were pretty much a 2 man show. 2000 was a good defensive squad but by 2002 it was pretty much Kobe/Shaq and a bunch of trash.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

The Lakers would've won 5 Championships. 5 straight between 2000-2004.

Ray was a far better fit for the triangle offense than Kobe, mainly because he lacked the creativity or the mindset Kobe has to break free of the offense and attempt to take over a game by himself.

He would've been nearly unstoppable in an offense that involves movement and being able to hit shots from different spots on the floor revolving around the post. With the most dominant inside post player like Shaq, he would have averaged nearly 25 PPG just on that alone. We are not talking about the Ray Allen that arrived in Boston with 12 NBA seasons of wear & tear on his legs + 3 years of college basketball. We are talking about the agile, athletic, & smooth scorer he was in his early-mid 20's. When his jumpshot wasn't falling when he was younger he started attacking the basket and drawing fouls, unlike what happens now due to his old legs. A younger Ray Allen actually could slide & rotate when he was 25 years old compared to him being a defensive liability at 35 years old in Boston.

This goof calls someone "retarded" and then posts this. Kobe is getting severely underrated here :oldlol:

[Whoah10115]

The Lakers would've won 5 Championships. 5 straight between 2000-2004.

Ray was a far better fit for the triangle offense than Kobe, mainly because he lacked the creativity or the mindset Kobe has to break free of the offense and attempt to take over a game by himself.

He would've been nearly unstoppable in an offense that involves movement and being able to hit shots from different spots on the floor revolving around the post. With the most dominant inside post player like Shaq, he would have averaged nearly 25 PPG just on that alone. We are not talking about the Ray Allen that arrived in Boston with 12 NBA seasons of wear & tear on his legs + 3 years of college basketball. We are talking about the agile, athletic, & smooth scorer he was in his early-mid 20's. When his jumpshot wasn't falling when he was younger he started attacking the basket and drawing fouls, unlike what happens now due to his old legs. A younger Ray Allen actually could slide & rotate when he was 25 years old compared to him being a defensive liability at 35 years old in Boston.



This is not accurate. The part about Allen is, but you're ignoring the sizeable gap between Kobe and Ray. Ray is a hall-of-famer but Kobe is a top 10 player.


Ray is only a better fit if you have someone to run and initiate offense. You go thru Shaq for a bucket or to get a play, not to run offense or get carried. The only way that Ray would work is if the Lakers keep Jones instead of Rice (as Ray covers the shooting off-ball and spacing) and then both Jones and Ray cover the playmaking duties. And honestly, without a player as good as Kobe, I don't know what Shaq does. He's not a leader, never ever was. And he's never been one to truly take accountability.



They would have had 0 chance to beat the Kings in 02.

[Money 23]

Hmmm

I see that Laker team w/ Shuttlesworth instead of Kobe winning in 2000, for sure.

Kobe got hurt and the Lakers still won. Shaq was just the most motivated he had ever been in his entire career that season. That's really why the Lakers won. And Ray Allen v.s. Reggie Miller for an entire series would've basically canceled each other out.

I don't see them winning in 2001 and 2002. Kobe just provided too much on both ends of the court, that I don't see Ray Allen being able to duplicate.

[StateOfMind12]

I don't see them winning in 2001 and 2002. Kobe just provided too much on both ends of the court, that I don't see Ray Allen being able to duplicate.
Who would have beaten them in 2001? Spurs had nobody outside of Duncan and Derek Anderson was hurt.

Also, what about in 2003 and 2004? Those seasons need to be factored as well.

[Whoah10115]

They definitely win in 2000. They definitely don't win a championship in 2001. Kobe carried that team in the second and third round in a way Ray Allen has never exhibited his capable of doing, and certainly not in 2001. You see Ray Allen dropping 34 a game on nearly nearly 50% shooting against the Kings and Spurs?

Yea, okay.

And I doubt they win in 2002 either, Kings take that series. However, Lakers may win in 2004, if Malone doesn't get injured. Then again, Lakers may have also won if Malone doesn't get hurt. So not sure if feasible, but I think Ray's outside shooting could have been used to stretch that Detroit D. Still, with Ben Wallace able to defend Shaq 1 v 1, and the entire Pistons defense is to focus on stopping and disrupting Ray Allen like they did on Kobe, not sure how effective he would be.

Kobe from 2001-2004 had already displayed his incredible offensive prowess, his ability to completely take over a game, to dominate team's perimeter defense, to, again citing, average 40 points per game in a month, completely rescuing your team's chances of making the playoffs. Ray Allen never reached that level of dominance in his career, although he was very good and sometimes great. And, those Ray Allens were in 2005 and 2006, not in 2001, 2002.


Well, I'm torn on both 00 and 01. I think they might have won 1 of those 2...but even if they did, I don't know which one.


If Ray is healthy in 04, then yea they likely win...Malone's impact becomes even greater, and Payton probably plays much better.



3 or 4


:oldlol:

[Owl]

This is not accurate. The part about Allen is, but you're ignoring the sizeable gap between Kobe and Ray. Ray is a hall-of-famer but Kobe is a top 10 player.


Ray is only a better fit if you have someone to run and initiate offense. You go thru Shaq for a bucket or to get a play, not to run offense or get carried. The only way that Ray would work is if the Lakers keep Jones instead of Rice (as Ray covers the shooting off-ball and spacing) and then both Jones and Ray cover the playmaking duties. And honestly, without a player as good as Kobe, I don't know what Shaq does. He's not a leader, never ever was. And he's never been one to truly take accountability.



They would have had 0 chance to beat the Kings in 02.
The last sentance (of bolded) is not untrue but how does how good Kobe is relate to Shaq's maturity? Is the implication that Kobe was a leader? That's clearly untrue. The rotation guys like Fox, Shaw, Harper and Horry were (plus other vets) were leaders. Kobe isolated himself from the team.

Roland Lazenby is sympathetic to Kobe but the guy he portrays in "The Show" is hardly a leader. Phil Jackson's characterisation of him in "The Last Season" suggests, if anything the antithesis of leadership.

If that isn't the implication what is the point?

[Money 23]

Who would have beaten them in 2001? Spurs had nobody outside of Duncan and Derek Anderson was hurt.
It still required some unbelievable performances from Kobe in those playoffs to get past them.


Also, what about in 2003 and 2004? Those seasons need to be factored as well.
I forgot to factor these in ... but allow me to retort.

2003? Hell no. That roster surrounding Shaq / Kobe was the worst of the entire bunch. It was difficult enough with Just Shaq and Kobe. Allen is less a utility guy than Kobe Bryant is ... so I imagine they would have had an even more difficult of time.

2004? Hmmm, I actually see them winning. Well balanced roster. Shaq as the alpha ego, the rest falling into place not challenging his alpha creating problems. No rape accusations and distractions from Colorado.

Even with Karl Malone's injury, I think that team could beat those Pistons. Ray Allen moving w/o needing the ball, while Shaq operates (he played well when he got the ball that series, offensively) and looking for the kick out.

I think the Lakers could've won. 2003 - 2006 was Ray Allen's peak, too.

So the Lakers w/ Allen instead of Kobe win in 2000 and 2004 in my book.

Shaq w/ Ray Allen: 2 rings
Shaq w/ Kobe Bryant: 3 rings

Afterall much of that Laker dominance from 2000 - 2004 was predicated on Shaquille O'Neal.

Laker / Kobe fans don't get mad. It's no knock on Kobe. I don't see Ray Allen being able to lead the 2008 - 2010 Lakers to the Finals and being able to win back to back chips, either.

[Whoah10115]

The last sentance (of bolded) is not untrue but how does how good Kobe is relate to Shaq's maturity? Is the implication that Kobe was a leader? That's clearly untrue. The rotation guys like Fox, Shaw, Harper and Horry were (plus other vets) were leaders. Kobe isolated himself from the team.

Roland Lazenby is sympathetic to Kobe but the guy he portrays in "The Show" is hardly a leader. Phil Jackson's characterisation of him in "The Last Season" suggests, if anything the antithesis of leadership.

If that isn't the implication what is the point?



The difference is that there was a 2headed alpha. Kobe was annoying, to be honest. Shaq is whinier than anyone who's ever lived. But the two of them together were too much, and it allowed the other guys to serve as leaders and for all to fall under Jackson, with ease.

[upside24]

Not as many. Ray was great but Kobe was at his best defensive/athletic point with variable scoring skills. The defensive distraction that was Shaq would allow Kobe to create better scoring opportunities than Ray.

Sure Ray will knockdown a ridiculous amount of open corner threes but Kobe's perimeter defense would be missed. Not saying Kobe is a lockdown guy or ever was, but he could cover a guy better than Ray.

Sometimes games can become such a mess that offensive sets are disrupted and you need a guy who can create points and that guy in this instance would be Kobe.

Of course this is a biased opinion because Kobe is my all time favorite player but my opinions are still valid points I think.

[Sakkreth]

One for sure in 2001.

[INDI]

Assume its a direct swap, how many do u think they win?

The same amount that they would win if you swapped Duncan for Shaq

[Money 23]

The same amount that they would win if you swapped Duncan for Shaq
Duncan / Kobe wins more than Shaq / Allen, IMO.

No ego, chemistry, alpha problems ... and the defense is even better.

[INDI]

Assume its a direct swap, how many do u think they win?

People forget that shaq has played with amazing guard talent his entire career. Penny was better than Allen at his prime and that didn't get it done,he's also played with Nash, Lebron, and ray Allen. The lone ring he got in 06 with wade was cool but it was also one of the weakest finals since I began watching basketball in the 90's. not taking anything from them because they did get it done but no one considered them to be a dynasty or anything.


Shaq has consistently had solid role players around him his entire career so the biggest difference in my eyes is Kobe. Take him away and I'm sure shaq still gets a ring but I'm also positive of the flip side that if you put another good big next to Kobe and he would still have had 2-4 rings in that time period

[INDI]

Duncan / Kobe wins more than Shaq / Allen, IMO.

No ego, chemistry, alpha problems ... and the defense is even better.
True

[The Iron Fist]

Ray a facilitator?:roll:

[Mach_3]

This entire topic is full of retards :roll:

Ray Allen with PRIME Shaq doesn't win one title? :lol :lol :lol

[ShaqAttack3234]

Nobody should confuse this with Ray being on par with Kobe. 2 things make this interesting, though. Ray's 3 point shooting in particular have made me think of him as an ideal fit with Shaq, especially since he was a real threat off the dribble back then as well. And Ray was a star himself, but I don't see there being any question about the pecking order.

Is that enough to overcome the talent difference between Kobe and Ray? I have my doubts, especially since in 2001 and 2002, only prime Shaq and prime Duncan were better than Kobe which says a lot. The '01 Lakers have the best case for having had the 2 best players in the game aside from maybe the 2011 Heat and '69 Lakers. But more importantly, their games did fit. Kobe's incredible ability off the dribble was a great complement to Shaq's overpowering inside game.

I see the 2000 and 2001 Lakers having a very good chance. I don't see the historical dominance the '01 Lakers showed, but because they steamrolled the competition, you can have a significant dropoff and still win a title.


2, possibly 3.

It seems like people forgot how much flat out more talent those Lakers teams had over everyone else. It wasn't just the Kobe-Shaq show, it was the case in 2004, and they got killed by Detroit.

The '98 Lakers? Yes, but the 3peat team? No. They never had a 3rd guy near all-star level, and I don't remember them being called the most talented team any of the 3 years like they were back in '98. In 2000, Portland was called the most talented by everyone, and in '02, it was clearly Sacramento.

The 2000 Lakers in particular had a lot of flaws. They were called a 2 man team, and this is before Kobe jumped up a tier from a guy hovering around top 10 to a top 3, or at worst top 5 player as he'd become in 2001 and 2002. The 2000 Lakers were 5th worst in 3P%(and only 1 legit 3 point shooter), were very weak at PF, 3 players in their rotation shooting below 40%(including Fisher at less than 35%), and 5th worst in bench scoring. They had some nice defenders and veterans, but a lot of guys weren't offensive threats at all, either as shooters or scorers, including 2 starters. We saw Portland exploit this. Shaq and Kobe were a lethal duo, and both Harper and Horry were nice role players, but just look at how Portland defended Shaq, or how much they leaned on Shaq in the 2000 finals and you'll see this team didn't have much talent after their 2 stars. Shaq and Kobe were the only 2 guys teams really worried about, look at the massive drop off after those guys, especially in the playoffs.

They got a bit more well rounded in 2001 and 2002, but still had similar casts. What people forget when talking about how Shaq had Kobe, or Kobe got to play with Shaq is that in the '01 playoffs for example, Shaq averaged 30/15/3/2, 56% and Kobe averaged 29/7/6, 47%. The vast majority of first options on championship teams don't produce like either of those guys, and both were playing elite defense during that run. If these 2 guys had so much around them, would they have been carrying that kind of load?

As far as 2004, well, I don't see how having Ray solves their problem. Does Ray prevent Malone from getting injured? Malone being unable to contribute in the '04 finals is really what sealed their fate. Payton also never fit in and was rapidly declining. He got worse as the playoffs on to the point where he was almost worthless for the postseason and played like a complete scrub in the finals.

Yes, the Lakers looked the best on paper that year, but that goes out the window with Malone injured and seeing how Payton was in 2004(not assuming he'd be the player he was prior to that.)


They have very good role players and they
were key to the success.

Depends on the year, in 2000, it was Harper and Horry mainly. Rice was their 3rd most talented player, even then, but not very important, as evidenced by the fact that there were trade rumors all year, and they didn't offer him a contract after the season.

In 2001, they had more. Fisher, Fox, Grant and Horry.

In '02, it was Fox and Horry. Fisher in the regular season, but he was awful in the playoffs.

They good role players such as the players I mentioned in addition to Shaq to a lesser extent, but most contenders have a few good role players, and every team has multiple players better than the players I mentioned. Plus, everyone after the Lakers duo was a role player. Some teams literally have half a dozen scoring options and threats, the Lakers had 2, well, 3 in 2000 with Rice, but he was a 12/4/2, 41% guy in the playoffs who got benched for his defense and not moving without the ball late in games on a number of occasions in both the regular season and playoffs, including the famous incident in the finals.


The only team that was more deep/stacked than them was the Kings and they were the biggest chokers ever.

A lot of teams were deeper than the Lakers. Not many were more talented on the strength of their duo alone, but a few were with Portland and Sacramento being the obvious examples.


Spurs were never as good as the Lakers until like 2004 when the Lakers actually won. People seem to forget that Duncan's supporting cast from 2000-2004 was pretty weak, 2000-2002 especially.

2002 cast was pretty weak compared to contenders, especially once Robinson was injured. In 2000, Robinson was still capable of 20/10 and a top 5 defender, so really not much worse than Kobe at that time, but the Spurs weren't that deep either. But in 2001, while Robinson declined a bit, he was still a top 20 player and top 5 defender, while they added Anderson who was a threat to create off the dribble, shoot and make plays. He actually played at a borderline all-star level once he and the Spurs got going, and when he went down in the playoffs, Antonio Daniels who had averaged 12/6, 47 FG%, 44 3P% in the 23 games he started averaged 18/3/4, 51 FG% in the 6 games without him. And to complement the inside game, the Spurs led the league in 3P% at 41%. I can't call that weak, but the Lakers did expose a key weakness which the Spurs addressed by getting Bowen, and Anderson's injury hurt a lot as well.

2003 cast is notable for the lack of an all-star or 2 around Duncan for a championship team, but they were deep with a lot of guys who could contribute.

The early Spurs, before Robinson was a role player were somewhat similar to the Shaq/Kobe Lakers actually. Not the deepest team, but their duo gave them such an advantage and they had such a great coach.

In the Lakers case, it was the inside/outside duo, which has to be the best ever while in the Spurs case it was the two 7 foot defensive anchors which may be the best big man duo ever, at least for the first 3-4 years, and it's really unique and almost impossible to match up with.

[Dictator]

Zero or One.