View Full Version : 2001 Lakers vs 2008 Celtics
sportjames23
08-12-2015, 03:36 AM
Who you got?
SouBeachTalents
08-12-2015, 03:37 AM
'08 Celtics got taken to 7 games by the Hawks, then nearly lost to the Cavs with LeBron stinking up the joint most of the series. '01 Lakers
Heavincent
08-12-2015, 04:05 AM
01 Lakers clearly have the two best players in the series.
KembaWalker
08-12-2015, 04:08 AM
Dem Lakers
Smoke117
08-12-2015, 04:16 AM
Celtics would destroy the 2001 Lakers. That team is so overrated...the competition was pathetic with the Blazers meltdown after the 2000 season. They skated through the weakest league ever and everyone sucks their dick. It's farking pathetic.
JonatanRey
08-12-2015, 05:38 AM
2001 Lakers have been the best team of this century.
Prime_Shaq
08-12-2015, 05:45 AM
Lakers are more top heavy but Celtics had the more complete team. Arguments can be made but Im going with Shaq + Kobe here.
Harison
08-12-2015, 05:56 AM
'08 Celtics are better version of '04 Pistons, who wiped the floor with prime Shaq and Kobe. Lakers '04 werent as good as in '01, but '08 Celtics are also better than '04 Pistons.
Close series, but I would take one of the best defenses of All-time with balanced scoring over the team who is only top heavy.
StephHamann
08-12-2015, 05:57 AM
4-0 Lakers :biggums:
Dragonyeuw
08-12-2015, 06:51 AM
'08 Celtics are better version of '04 Pistons, who wiped the floor with prime Shaq and Kobe. Lakers '04 werent as good as in '01, but '08 Celtics are also better than '04 Pistons.
Neither Shaq or Kobe were playing at their 01 level against the Pistons, either individually or as a tandem. 01 Shaq and Kobe was an example of each player playing perfectly off each other, and 'getting their own' without compromising the team. The role players were also playing to perfection, it was like a lightning in a bottle moment. I think they take the 08 Celtics in 6.
Derka
08-12-2015, 09:13 AM
01 Lakers have the two best players in the series. I'm not convinced Perk could have stopped that version of Shaq. On the other hand, I think Doc would have made 01 Kobe's life a living hell.
08 Celtics by far have the better bench and the better defense.
08 Celtics would also have home court for this series if we're looking at their regular season records.
I take the Celtics in 7.
You can tell who are the Celtics fans in this thread.
:oldlol: @ dude saying Lakers' competition was weak. 2008 Celtics barely made it pass the Hawks and Cavs. Took on an oldass Pistons to make to the Finals.
'08 Celtics are better version of '04 Pistons, who wiped the floor with prime Shaq and Kobe. Lakers '04 werent as good as in '01, but '08 Celtics are also better than '04 Pistons.
Close series, but I would take one of the best defenses of All-time with balanced scoring over the team who is only top heavy.
Everybody knew the Lakers weren't the same after the Colorado incident and news of a Shaq vs. Kobe beef got out. Plus, Malone and Payton both had drama too. Payton public said he hated the triangle. Malone got into it with Kobe too.
That entire Lakers lockerroom was cancerous.
ArbitraryWater
08-12-2015, 09:25 AM
Even though 2001 NBA may be the weakest ever, Lakers in 5-6.
Wally450
08-12-2015, 09:35 AM
Lakers in 6-7. The Celtics coasted against the Hawks and Cavs because they knew they had homecourt. Look what happened when they lost at home to Detroit in game 2, they went to Detroit and smashed on them in game 3.
Really depends who gets homecourt. I think Shaq is way too much for Perkins. Would be interesting to see Ray and Pierce defending 01 Kobe.
NBAplayoffs2001
08-12-2015, 09:39 AM
Even though 2001 NBA may be the weakest ever, Lakers in 5-6.
One of the weakest 2001 eastern conferences for sure. Western conferences? I don't think so.
NBAplayoffs2001
08-12-2015, 09:41 AM
2008 Celtics in 7. I still don't get how Kobe/Shaq pulled off 11 straight wins with that type of bench/role players. Shaq was arguably playing better than the 2000 postseason and on par with the 2000 regular season post 2001 all star break. I think Derek Anderson being out for the Spurs definitely took away a few games.
2008 Celtics shouldn't have struggled as much as they did during the postseason so I'm a little skeptical. It could honestly be Lakers in 5-6 or Celtics in 7. I remember those Celtics teams of the 2008-2010 era often had trouble closing out teams in the playoffs. I'm surprised how they still stayed relevant by the 2012 playoffs though.
Lakers in 6-7. The Celtics coasted against the Hawks and Cavs because they knew they had homecourt. Look what happened when they lost at home to Detroit in game 2, they went to Detroit and smashed on them in game 3.
Really depends who gets homecourt. I think Shaq is way too much for Perkins. Would be interesting to see Ray and Pierce defending 01 Kobe.
Good lord, Boston fans are fcking retarded. I say this because you can separate the Lakers fans from the Kobe stans for most parts but Boston fans typically think like that.
Let me guess, they also coasted too in Game 6 of the 2010 Finals? As well as the second-half of Game 7 right? :roll:
They didn't coast, they underestimated the playoffs and didn't gel well enough. They absolutely looked shook in those early round series, even a year later when the new Bulls took them to 7. Don't act like they coasted or were super-confidence. They weren't!
ArbitraryWater
08-12-2015, 09:54 AM
One of the weakest 2001 eastern conferences for sure. Western conferences? I don't think so.
2001 Spurs prolly one of the weaker WCF Teams.. Blazers and Kings, again no Superstars.
2001 Spurs prolly one of the weaker WCF Teams.. Blazers and Kings, again no Superstars.
You can almost say that any team in the last 15 years that didnt have Shaq, Kobe, prime Duncan, LeBron or Dirk.
Really, you can.
2004-05 Pistons, no superstars.
2006 Heat, no superstar. Shaq was declining and Wade wasn't a proven player.
2008-10 Celtics, no superstars b/c Pierce, KG & Allen were pretty much on the tailend of their prime/out of it by 2010.
2013-14 Spurs
2013 Heat didn't beat a single team with a superstar in the playoffs. Go even further, in the last 5 years no Eastern teams have had a superstar besides the 2010-14 Heat and 2015 Cavs.
Even 2015 Warriors are questionable considering how many people don't consider Curry as a superstar.
KembaWalker
08-12-2015, 10:07 AM
2001 Spurs prolly one of the weaker WCF Teams.. Blazers and Kings, again no Superstars.
lmao dudes name is NBAplayoffs2001, it's like you're insulting his whole ISH existence :roll:
Papaya Petee
08-12-2015, 10:10 AM
You can almost say that any team in the last 15 years that didnt have Shaq, Kobe, prime Duncan, LeBron or Dirk.
Really, you can.
2004-05 Pistons, no superstars.
2006 Heat, no superstar. Shaq was declining and Wade wasn't a proven player.
2008-10 Celtics, no superstars b/c Pierce, KG & Allen were pretty much on the tailend of their prime/out of it by 2010.
2013-14 Spurs
2013 Heat didn't beat a single team with a superstar in the playoffs. Go even further, in the last 5 years no Eastern teams have had a superstar besides the 2010-14 Heat and 2015 Cavs.
Even 2015 Warriors are questionable considering how many people don't consider Curry as a superstar.
How the hell werent 06 Wade and 08 Garnett superstars?
Wade came off a 24/7/5/2/1 2nd year with a 28/6/5 playoffs where if not for a bad injury the Heat up 3-2 on Pistons would of made the finals. He followed that up with 27/7/6/2/1 in 06 regular season.
Garnett just the year before in 2007 averaged 22.5/13/4 on DPOY level defense and only reason his stats dipped is because he had to share with Allen Pierce and Rondo.
He still averaged 19/9/3 won DPOY and was 3rd in MVP voting.
How the hell werent 06 Wade and 08 Garnett superstars?
Wade came off a 24/7/5/2/1 2nd year with a 28/6/5 playoffs where if not for a bad injury the Heat up 3-2 on Pistons would of made the finals. He followed that up with 27/7/6/2/1 in 06 regular season.
Garnett just the year before in 2007 averaged 22.5/13/4 on DPOY level defense and only reason his stats dipped is because he had to share with Allen Pierce and Rondo.
He still averaged 19/9/3 won DPOY and was 3rd in MVP voting.
I only say that because AW didn't think Kings Webber was a superstar and tried to undervalue the Kings as well as the Blazers. If Kings Webber wasn't a superstar then a lot of dudes in the past 10 years weren't either.
And how isn't it true that Wade wasn't a proven player yet or that KG was in the twilight/tailend of his prime? Those are as fact as the numbers you posted!
Papaya Petee
08-12-2015, 10:18 AM
I only say that because AW didn't think Kings Webber was a superstar and tried to undervalue the Kings as well as the Blazers.
And how isn't it true that Wade wasn't a proven player yet or that KG was in the twilight/tailend of his prime? Those are as fact as the numbers you posted!
Wade proved himself in the 05,06 regular seasons and 05 playoffs. Everybody knew what he was capable of coming into 2006 playoffs and he backed it up.
Garnett wasn't 04 Garnett for sure, but in 2008 it was his last season where he was superstar level. It was the end of his prime, but still superstar level player that season! DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, leading his team to a 66-16 record, best defense in the NBA, winning a title, and should of been FMVP instead of Pierce. Those are superstar level credentials.
JohnnySic
08-12-2015, 10:22 AM
Shaq would dominate of course, but lets not pretend that the Celtics wouldn't have any matchup advantages. I'd love to see Rick Fox try to guard Paul Pierce, and the corpse of Horace Grant guard KG. LMAO. Celtics have the better bench too.
Wally450
08-12-2015, 10:23 AM
Good lord, Boston fans are fcking retarded. I say this because you can separate the Lakers fans from the Kobe stans for most parts but Boston fans typically think like that.
Let me guess, they also coasted too in Game 6 of the 2010 Finals? As well as the second-half of Game 7 right? :roll:
They didn't coast, they underestimated the playoffs and didn't gel well enough. They absolutely looked shook in those early round series, even a year later when the new Bulls took them to 7. Don't act like they coasted or were super-confidence. They weren't!
We're talking about 08 not 2010.
When they needed to win at home, they did. The time they lost, they answered with a blowout on the road.
Wade proved himself in the 05,06 regular seasons and 05 playoffs. Everybody knew what he was capable of coming into 2006 playoffs and he backed it up.
Garnett wasn't 04 Garnett for sure, but in 2008 it was his last season where he was superstar level. It was the end of his prime, but still superstar level player that season! DPOY, 3rd in MVP voting, leading his team to a 66-16 record, best defense in the NBA, winning a title, and should of been FMVP instead of Pierce. Those are superstar level credentials.
So everybody knew that in the middle of a coaching change, Wade was gonna lead the Heat to the championship? I must have been the only one under a rock that season then. I didn't doubt his numbers or his game but I didn't see him leading that team to a championship. Again, the league was also saturated with superstar wings at the time too, not just Kobe. Wade, T-Mac, Carter...even Kobe wasn't able to do it without Shaq until years later with Pau. I had my doubts.
Like I said about KG...he was on the tailend of his prime.
HighFlyer23
08-12-2015, 10:26 AM
Lakers sweep those *******s
The Sixers would put up a better fight than the Celtics
We're talking about 08 not 2010.
When they needed to win at home, they did. The time they lost, they answered with a blowout on the road.
So they coasted in 2008 but didn't in 2010?
I just can't make sense of that logic. :confusedshrug:
They underestimated the playoffs. They didn't gel well enough for a playoff series. They needed some hurdles to turn up the switch. Those I can accept.
Coasting???? Who coast to get a Game 7? :biggums:
kuniva_dAMiGhTy
08-12-2015, 10:29 AM
Nobody's stopping peak Shaq, and once you send the double and triple teams, Kobe is going to have a field day.
Then there's Fisher who was sizzling those playoffs hitting every 3PT shot imaginable... Lakers would take care of Boston in 6.
2001 Lakers.
It's too bad KG, Allen, and Pice weren't all drafted by the Celtics and came up together. They would've made the finals in the East for the majority of the decade and a rivalry with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers (and the Lakers in general minus Shaq plus Pau and Odom) may have been the greatest rivalry ever. On top of that they could've had a great rivalry with the Spurs.
JohnnySic
08-12-2015, 10:36 AM
2001 Lakers.
It's too bad KG, Allen, and Pice weren't all drafted by the Celtics and came up together. They would've made the finals in the East for the majority of the decade and a rivalry with the Shaq/Kobe Lakers (and the Lakers in general minus Shaq plus Pau and Odom) may have been the greatest rivalry ever. On top of that they could've had a great rivalry with the Spurs.
LOL, KG/PP/Allen drafted by the C's win at least 5 titles and make the finals every single year for 10 years.
Dragonyeuw
08-12-2015, 11:54 AM
Lakers are more top heavy but Celtics had the more complete team. Arguments can be made but Im going with Shaq + Kobe here.
Yeah, but you could make the argument that all the west teams they beat in 2001 were more complete/balanced teams. Shaq and Kobe were just far and away the two best players in the playoffs that year. Fisher was unconscious as well during that run, and the rest of the role players did enough to compliment the two superstars.
StephHamann
08-12-2015, 11:56 AM
Let Rondo wide open -> Lakers in 4
imdaman99
08-12-2015, 11:57 AM
It's too bad KG, Allen, and Pice weren't all drafted by the Celtics and came up together.
It's too bad? Why? How would those 3 drafted together and playing their whole careers together be fair to the rest of the league? They were all lottery picks and highly touted with Pierce somehow dropping. Not that they prevented the Knicks from winning anything :oldlol: but no, it's not too bad there wasn't another dynasty in Boston. Y'all got too many rings already :rant
Prime_Shaq
08-12-2015, 12:31 PM
Yeah, but you could make the argument that all the west teams they beat in 2001 were more complete/balanced teams. Shaq and Kobe were just far and away the two best players in the playoffs that year. Fisher was unconscious as well during that run, and the rest of the role players did enough to compliment the two superstars.
None of those teams can actually compare to the 08 Celtics though
It's too bad? Why? How would those 3 drafted together and playing their whole careers together be fair to the rest of the league? They were all lottery picks and highly touted with Pierce somehow dropping. Not that they prevented the Knicks from winning anything :oldlol: but no, it's not too bad there wasn't another dynasty in Boston. Y'all got too many rings already :rant
Not a Boston fan. But from an entertainment standpoint, it would've been awesome. Multiple finals between Shaq/Kobe and KG/Pierce/Ray and adding the Lakers/Celtics dynamic on top of that? And multiple finals between Duncan/Parker/Ginobili and KG/Pierce/Ray? Plus, the East was pretty boring between the end of the Bulls dynasty and the beginning of these Celtics. The Pistons and Heat added some challenge but for the most part, the Finals weren't that great or star studded during this period.
Only chance Celtics win is if Perkins/tailend prime KG/PJ Brown/Big Baby can slow down 3-peat Shaq.
I just don't see that happening.
3-peat Shaq is the GOAT peak(or co-GOAT peak w/ MJ's 91-93 run) for a reason. MDE!!!
Dragonyeuw
08-12-2015, 01:18 PM
None of those teams can actually compare to the 08 Celtics though
That goes both ways, none of the teams 08 Celts played compare to the 01 Lakers. Shaq was manhandling frontlines with Duncan/Robinson, Sabonis/Wallace, Divac/Webber, and he'd be the difference in this matchup.
Prime_Shaq
08-12-2015, 01:24 PM
That goes both ways, none of the teams 08 Celts played compare to the 01 Lakers. Shaq was manhandling frontlines with Duncan/Robinson, Sabonis/Wallace, Divac/Webber, and he'd be the difference in this matchup.
True that's why I'm leaning towards the Lakers but I could see Celtics winning as well
ClipperRevival
08-12-2015, 03:30 PM
Two of the best teams since the last 15 years. I would have to favor the Lakers. Shaq/Kobe is too much superstar power. But I don't see any kind of sweep. I think it goes 6 games.
AirFederer
08-12-2015, 03:38 PM
Lakers in 5 or 6.
Celtics take 1 or 2 because of big heart.
NBAplayoffs2001
08-12-2015, 03:43 PM
Only chance Celtics win is if Perkins/tailend prime KG/PJ Brown/Big Baby can slow down 3-peat Shaq.
I just don't see that happening.
3-peat Shaq is the GOAT peak(or co-GOAT peak w/ MJ's 91-93 run) for a reason. MDE!!!
For me, MJ slightly edges 3-peat Shaq as GOAT peak. MJ didn't have any glaring weaknesses in his game like Shaq.
ClipperRevival
08-12-2015, 03:54 PM
To me, MJ of 1991-1993 was the most impactful player EVER, regardless of position. The guy imposed his will on the game unlike any player I have ever seen, again, regardless of position. His scoring, his passing, his rebounding, his defense, clutch play, his iso scoring, his ability to get to the rack, hit FTs, hit 3 pointers, dominate in transition scoring and leadership. We might NEVER see another player like him. Maybe he will forever be the GOAT. It's going to take someone so special to surpass MJ.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.