Shaq was pissed but Chuck was right.

[DorianRo]

Kobe/Shaq should have won many more 'ships than just 3. Inexcusable to only win 3'ships with Shaq at his peak/Prime and Kobe entering his and Phil as head coach and a team of great role players.


Things got kinda personal between Shaq and Charles Barkley on Thursday night

 

[msgkings322]

Kobe/Shaq should have won many more 'ships than just 3. Inexcusable to only win 3'ships with Shaq at his peak/Prime and Kobe entering his and Phil as head coach and a team of great role players.


Things got kinda personal between Shaq and Charles Barkley on Thursday night

Chuck shoulda won just one before talking shit.

 

[DorianRo]

Chuck shoulda won just one before talking shit.

Chuck had to deal with the GOAT at his peak in 1993 and played on crap teams or older past prime teams his whole career. He didn't play with a peak Shaq or Kobe etc.

 

[Black Adam]

Chuck shoulda won just one before talking shit.

he is right imo that they probably should've won more...

 

[msgkings322]

he is right imo that they probably should've won more...

I guess. But it's easy to play the coulda shoulda game. Shaq was who he was. If he was someone else then maybe. If Jordan didn't have a gambling problem maybe he wins 8. Then again that competitive mania is what made him so good. Etc.

 

[DorianRo]

What does that mean Shaq was who he was? Shaq had one of his best seasons in 2005 after leaving the Lakers and should have won MVP over Nash.

And it was Kobe who iced Shaq out of the offense in the 2004 Finals with his selfish chucking

 

[wildturkey]

Kobe/Shaq should have won many more 'ships than just 3. Inexcusable to only win 3'ships with Shaq at his peak/Prime and Kobe entering his and Phil as head coach and a team of great role players.


Things got kinda personal between Shaq and Charles Barkley on Thursday night

Just Thursday night? This happens literally every show. If not every show, its definitely 9 out of 10.

 

[msgkings322]

What does that mean Shaq was who he was? Shaq had one of his best seasons in 2005 after leaving the Lakers and should have won MVP over Nash.

And it was Kobe who iced Shaq out of the offense in the 2004 Finals with his selfish chucking

Maybe Kobe wasn't so great then, if he did that instead of winning what would have been his 6th title and tying the only player he cared about beating.

I mean that Shaq was a giant, dominant force but didn't have the killer mentality needed to win more rings. The mentality that would have made him take better care of himself and learn to shoot free throws, etc. 4 rings for him is about right.

 

[The Derski]

Just Thursday night? This happens literally every show. If not every show, its definitely 9 out of 10.

It does happen to some degree every show but this one was easily the most tense I’ve ever seen them on air.

 

[The Derski]

Ernie being in between them honestly looked scared to death.

 

[Hornsstampede2.0]

Why should they have won more than 3?

The first couple of years, Kobe was still a teenager who was coming off the bench.
They were not good enough to win titles in the first few Del Harris years, so it really comes down to 1999-2004.

The 1999 and 2003 Spurs teams were #1 seeds who rolled everyone. The Spurs won 4 titles in 8 years and beat them fair and square at their peak. That 1999 team is criminally under-rated.

IF Kobe and Shaq were lifelong best friends and best men at each others weddings, they would not have beaten the 1999 or 2003 Spurs. Any so-called beef was not the reason for losing to GREAT Spurs teams.

The only year that is debatable is 2004, but the Lakers did lose a few key players during the playoffs.

By 2005, Shaq was probably too old to handle the younger emerging Western powers in Dallas/PHX and the peak prime age Spurs of 05-07. There is literally no guarantee they win anything had he stayed in LA after 2004.

MAybe, they could have had 4.....that is about it.

Fuck Barkley. 3 titles is an amazing accomplishment. They did not underachieve at all.

 

[Heatles84]

Shaq also had to deal with Popovich along with Duncan and Robinson out in the West. Along with the Kings when they had Webber, Williams, etc.. and don't forget Portland either while he was with the Lakers.

I still don't understand the criticism. Shaq 3-peated with the Lakers. The Spurs won the title the year after and that's when they brought on a young Manu and Tony Parker. Sure, you could say that the 2004 season was a wash, but after that, Shaq was traded away by Jerry Buss.

The earlier years, the Lakers had a really young immature team that kept getting knocked out by the Jazz.

I fail to see (or rather, the dipshits point out) where Shaq should've won more titles with the Lakers.

 

[Heatles84]

Why should they have won more than 3?

The first couple of years, Kobe was still a teenager who was coming off the bench.
They were not good enough to win titles in the first few Del Harris years, so it really comes down to 1999-2004.

The 1999 and 2003 Spurs teams were #1 seeds who rolled everyone. The Spurs won 4 titles in 8 years and beat them fair and square at their peak. That 1999 team is criminally under-rated.

IF Kobe and Shaq were lifelong best friends and best men at each others weddings, they would not have beaten the 1999 or 2003 Spurs. Any so-called beef was not the reason for losing to GREAT Spurs teams.

The only year that is debatable is 2004, but the Lakers did lose a few key players during the playoffs.

By 2005, Shaq was probably too old to handle the younger emerging Western powers in Dallas/PHX and the peak prime age Spurs of 05-07. There is literally no guarantee they win anything had he stayed in LA after 2004.

MAybe, they could have had 4.....that is about it.

Fuck Barkley. 3 titles is an amazing accomplishment. They did not underachieve at all.

Off your bolded part, they're also the only team to 3-peat this century. The only other team to do it recently were Jordan's Bulls and the Heat came close in 2014, but ran into a buzzsaw called the Spurs.

 

[msgkings322]

Off your bolded part, they're also the only team to 3-peat this century. The only other team to do it recently were Jordan's Bulls and the Heat came close in 2014, but ran into a buzzsaw called the Spurs.

Warriors got closer

 

[thunderc]

Barkley is allowed to say this because he said it as a commentator and no one has any reason to think he wouldn’t say it if it were true of himself.

 

[Heatles84]

Warriors got closer

Reason I didn't mention them is because they haven't even repeated. If the Warriors won in 2016, the entire NBA landscape could've looked different. But you're right, in terms of almost winning a title, the Warriors were just there in '16.

 

[msgkings322]

Reason I didn't mention them is because they haven't even repeated. If the Warriors won in 2016, the entire NBA landscape could've looked different. But you're right, in terms of almost winning a title, the Warriors were just there in '16.

But if they win in 2016, I doubt they bring in KD....lotta things hinge on small events like Kyrie making that shot...

 

[trojanfan12]

By 2005, Shaq was probably too old to handle the younger emerging Western powers in Dallas/PHX and the peak prime age Spurs of 05-07. There is literally no guarantee they win anything had he stayed in LA after 2004.

While I agree that there is no guarantee that the Lakers would have won more titles in the Kobe/Shaq era. If Shaq (as he himself has admitted) had listened to Kobe, he would have stayed in shape year round and his decline likely would have been much slower.

Shaq flat refused to work out in the off season and would come into every camp overweight and out of shape claiming that he would "play himself into shape". You can get away with that shit in your 20's, but not in your 30's.

In one of his last years with the Lakers, Shaq waited until the start of training camp to get a surgery that he could have taken care of in the off-season saying: "I got hurt on company time, I'm gonna heal on company time." So, that season, he couldn't even play himself into shape like he had in the past, he didn't even start getting into shape until the season had started.

I believe that was the last straw for Kobe who always took care of those things in the off-season so he could be as healthy as possible when training camp started.

So, while there is certainly no guarantee, the Lakers chances of getting another couple of rings would have been much greater had Shaq listened to Kobe.

As for them underachieving, I think they did. I wouldn't call it a huge underachievement. But I think they could have gotten at least 1 and maybe 2 more titles.

 

[trojanfan12]

I still don't understand the criticism. Shaq 3-peated with the Lakers. The Spurs won the title the year after and that's when they brought on a young Manu and Tony Parker. Sure, you could say that the 2004 season was a wash, but after that, Shaq was traded away by Jerry Buss.

A certain amount of criticism is fair because of Shaq not staying in shape. He could have slowed his decline significantly.

 

[trojanfan12]

Maybe Kobe wasn't so great then, if he did that instead of winning what would have been his 6th title and tying the only player he cared about beating.

No guarantee that he gets that 6th ring even if he and Shaq got 4 or 5 together. That would have meant Shaq being with the Lakers longer. Meaning they would not have been in position to draft Andrew Bynum. It was his emergence as a top big that helped turn post-Shaq Lakers into a contender and it was his injury that led to the trade for Pau.

So, if Shaq had stayed, maybe Kobe still ends up with only 5, but Shaq has 5 now as well?