# without Shaq the lakers aren't very good are they?



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

I dont mean to be offensive this is just my opinion but it should be noted that the lakers are below .500 in games this season without Shaq 

the same is true of the lakers last year 

as well as the year before that 

plus for everyday Shaq is out he is probably gaining just a little more weight making the Shaq you will see (whenever that is ) him be less effective plus the more weight he has on his feet the more likely he is to get hurt again and he is injury prone to begin with (he has only played 70 games in a season 2 times i believe in 10 seasons) 


add to that the Kings are most likely a better team anyway and if I were a laker fan i would probably be pretty worried if I had title aspirations for them

and oh yeah kareem rush isn't very good the player kupchek traded him for C jefferies is much better 

peace


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

"I dont mean to be offensive this is just my opinion but it should be noted that the lakers are below .500 in games this season without Shaq 

the same is true of the lakers last year 

as well as the year before that"

Yes, but with Shaq, the Lakers are the best team in the league and one of the top 5 teams of the past 25 years, so what difference does it make.

"and oh yeah kareem rush isn't very good the player kupchek traded him for C jefferies is much better"

Agreed about Kareem Rush not likely being a valuable contributor to this team, but Jefferies wouldn't have done anything either. The whole point of that trade was not Rush but Murray. His height and shooting range will be deadly when Shaq returns.

"add to that the Kings are most likely a better team anyway and if I were a laker fan i would probably be pretty worried if I had title aspirations for them"

It's too early to tell. The big question is this: Are the Kings and Lakers the Bulls and Pistons of 1990-91, with Chicago finally overwhelming a battle-hardened Detroit team with superior athleticism, or are they the Atlanta Hawks and Boston Celtics of the mid-late 1980's, with a deeper (on paper) Atlanta team never being able to overcome the Boston's combination of elite stars and cagey role players?


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

how do you figure Murray does anything?

in the playoffs kobe will getting his minutes as will fox and george at the 2/3and murray isn't better than any of them the only thing murray will be doing is warming the bench right next to richmond(another kupchek addition brought in to add shooting come playoff time ) 


its one thing to get through a playoff schedule grossly overweight to be a profesional b-ball player but it is quite another to get through the regular season that way Shaq manged to get his 382 lbs(according to the sporting news last april) body to play every 2-4 days but he wont be able to do it in the reg. season where sometimes teams play 4 games in 5 nights 

he wont even make the all-star game before he comes down to serious injury 


so to me it doesn't even matter whether we are even watching bulls-pistons of the 90s or celts hawks of the 80s because i believe the team you will actually be watching is the orlando magic circa last year 

1 really good guard and a bunch of supporting players because the other main star is gone due to injury

1st round k.o.


----------



## hOnDo (Jun 26, 2002)

> 1st round k.o.




 

you mean for the bulls???:yes:


----------



## k^2 (Jun 11, 2002)

Ladies and Gentleman....I give you Captain Obvious. Of course the Lakers aren't very good without Shaq. The magic aren't good without Tmac, the Hornets aren't good without Davis, the 6ers aren't good without AI. But with Shaq the Lakers are the champions (well until the end of this year) and will be favored to win it all this year. So I ask you...was there a point to your post or were you just being random. *note I'm not sticking up for the lakers, I'm just a fan of increasing the amount of quality posts on this site, and decreasing the non-quality posts*


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I dont mean to be offensive this is just my opinion but it should be noted that the lakers are below .500 in games this season without Shaq
> 
> the same is true of the lakers last year
> ...



Well Shaq is a big part of the Lakers team and yes without the big fella, it can be difficult. Nice to know he'll be back soon and from there on, they can get back to their game and focus on their goal.

As far as your comments on Shaq's weight?? He's actually been having anywhere from light to moderate workout's. He's been just fine and just about ready to go. No reports of Shaq having weight problems and no reports of his toe having any sort of negative status...so that answers your questions.

The Kings are the better team?? I haven't seen it, nor has it been proven when it's all said and done. The Better teams always prevail and finish don't they?. It's been this way for the past 3 years, haven't you noticed that by now???

The Kings have really stepped up and they will be more than ever ready to take the champs all the way through the WCF again. You gotta give credit to the Kings management/owners

About comparisons on KRush and C.Jefferies?
It was Jax who pushed for that trade and Kup know's what he's doing. Krush is ready made, he just needs to improve and grow within the system, he'll do just fine.


----------



## HBM (Oct 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>k^2</b>!
> Ladies and Gentleman....I give you Captain Obvious.


Great line right there. I think that after a few years of Laker domination, some people (myself included) will take the opportunity to bask in the glow of a Laker form slump.

Stating the obvious... yes. But for some of us, sometimes it really, really needs to be said.

Cheers
Brett


----------



## Lizzy (May 28, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>k^2</b>!
> Ladies and Gentleman....I give you Captain Obvious. Of course the Lakers aren't very good without Shaq.


I don't mean to play devils advocate but I have talked to many Laker fans about the team and a lot of them think they're a play-off team without Shaq. People at this board are usually smart but not all basketball fans have the same insight. Some folks think Kobe would easily lead the team to a championship if they were in the east. 

It's very clear that w/o Shaq they are Kobe who is one of the best and a bunch of sub-par role players. (minus Horry in the post-season.) With Shaq out it really points out how bad the role players on the Lakers are. Their weaknesses are normally hidden by Shaq.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I dont mean to be offensive this is just my opinion but it should be noted that the lakers are below .500 in games this season without Shaq
> 
> the same is true of the lakers last year
> ...


Laker fans are not worried. Anytime you have 2 of the best players in the league on the same team and one of them is hurt, you would expect the team to faulter. As long as Shaq comes back and he and Kobe can stay healthy, they be back to winning NO DOUBT!


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Notice the poster in question is also praising 3-3 in Sacramento.

Some other threads by happygrinch-

"If he didn't eat so much, Shawn Kemp wouldn't be that fat."

"Rasheed Wallace get's a lot of technicals because he has a bad temper."

"Without Jordan, the Bulls aren't that good are they?"


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

well i'll answer a few things that have been said (I wont answer the personal attacks which i have noticed weren't censored by the way )

Shaq is overweight its simple and factual you look at him and tell he's more than a little chubby by his face alone

so its obvious all the LIGHT running in the world hasn't helped him much.

fact no player bigger than Kareem abdul-jabbar(height & weight wise) has had a significant career without having it end in serious injury that made it very painful for them to play at the end

and all of them followed the same trend the weight they were carrying put too much pressure on the joints in their legs by manifesting themselves in either their feet ankle or knees and in 2-3 years time their game jumped down several levels

some dropped more than others but all dropped from Eaton to sampson to mureasan to smits and a few others 

and yes this is the beginning of Shaq's time and you have to look no further than today's Boston Globe to hear it from shaq's own mouth

where he says thing like how his liver and kidneys are at 80% of where the are suppose to be because of all the inflammetory drugs he's taken and that he know he's not likely to get it backto his previous level of health.

things like " i dont bounce back like i use to bounce back"

and "the sun doesn't shine forever"

and i can already see he doesn't move nearly as well as he did 2 years ago because the decline is already starting now he may have been that far ahead of every center in the league but time catches everyone and its catching Shaq sooner than most .

its obvious the lakers aren't as good without shaq 

and it also obvious the lakers are going to be without Shaq pretty soon so I guess they better get use to it


----------



## JYD (Sep 3, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> I dont mean to be offensive this is just my opinion but it should be noted that the lakers are below .500 in games this season without Shaq
> 
> the same is true of the lakers last year
> ...


 The team is built around Shaq. When he's playing they shine, when he's not they slump. I expect the Lakers to win the next two, bothwithout Shaq and have Shaq come back to a winning team on a small streak. It's amazing with the type of players they have that they even do win games without Shaq. Shaq has said that he's coming back with a vengance like never before and I believe him. The Kings have better talent but are they really a better team? The Lakers play well as a team. Kareem Rush will be better than Chris Jefferies in acouple of years after he gets expierence with th triangle. Still how do you see Jefferies being that much better than Rush right now? Tracy Murray will do good when Shaq gets back and in the play-offs. Mitch Richmond was never re-signed. I'm not worried, I know Phil Jackson signed a five year contract to win five championships.


----------



## The OUTLAW (Jun 13, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> 
> 
> I don't mean to play devils advocate but I have talked to many Laker fans about the team and a lot of them think they're a play-off team without Shaq. People at this board are usually smart but not all basketball fans have the same insight. Some folks think Kobe would easily lead the team to a championship if they were in the east.
> ...


Without Shaq the Lakers are probably a playoff team in either conference. In the west probably a 7-8th seed, in the east probably a 4-6 seed.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> well i'll answer a few things that have been said (I wont answer the personal attacks which i have noticed weren't censored by the way )


Thier are no personal attacks, the posts within this thread has been kept in a clean conversational manner


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Notice the poster in question is also praising 3-3 in Sacramento.
> 
> Some other threads by happygrinch-
> ...


:laugh:


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

Something thats been knida misrepresented also is the fact that they've missed Fox. I know Fox isn't a great player but he can generate some offense on his own and when he plays it allows Kobe to rest more making the Lakers a better team without Shaq of course they're not champs without Shaq thats a no brainer, but I remember last year without Shaq they went into San Antonio and beat the Spurs with Fox scoring like 20 along with Kobe, he can create his own offense alittle going in the post shootingn three's and his defense is overlooked some but he's a savy player . 

Tonight against the Wizards if he doesn't foul out he's in at the end of the game which matches Kobe up with Stack instead of MJ and puts Fox on MJ and Kobe's smart enough to not let Stack go back door. Instead Kobe figured he'd have the best chance guarding MJ if they went there which seemed obvious he could have possibly blocked MJ's shot like he did a second earlier, but George who lacks total court awareness lets Stack go back door when he should've forced a jumpshot instead of a dunk. 

I just read where Shaq said before the game that he's still a week or 2 from returning so the losses could really start stacking up if its 2 weeks, but I bet now that Fox is back the Lakers will get a couple W's to level things out some.


----------



## Petey (Aug 23, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>Jemel Irief</b>!
> Notice the poster in question is also praising 3-3 in Sacramento.
> 
> Some other threads by happygrinch-
> ...


I actually laughed out loud at the first 2.

-Petey


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*hating is one thing, but this is taking it entirely too far.*



> Originally posted by <b>Lizzy</b>!
> Kobe who is one of the best and a bunch of sub-par role players.


Kobe Bryant the guy they love to hate. 

someone please help me with this one. Who was the last sub-par role player to be an allstar MVP, all nba'er, all nba defensive teamer, perennial allstar, and basically average a triple double???


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>jazzy1</b>!
> Something thats been knida misrepresented also is the fact that they've missed Fox. I know Fox isn't a great player but he can generate some offense on his own and when he plays it allows Kobe to rest more making the Lakers a better team without Shaq of course they're not champs without Shaq thats a no brainer, but I remember last year without Shaq they went into San Antonio and beat the Spurs with Fox scoring like 20 along with Kobe, he can create his own offense alittle going in the post shootingn three's and his defense is overlooked some but he's a savy player .
> 
> Tonight against the Wizards if he doesn't foul out he's in at the end of the game which matches Kobe up with Stack instead of MJ and puts Fox on MJ and Kobe's smart enough to not let Stack go back door. Instead Kobe figured he'd have the best chance guarding MJ if they went there which seemed obvious he could have possibly blocked MJ's shot like he did a second earlier, but George who lacks total court awareness lets Stack go back door when he should've forced a jumpshot instead of a dunk.
> ...


This is true about Fox. Fox can have his ups & downs, but overall he is a very good player. Not many people know he had a triple double in game 7 of the Western Conference Finals last year.


----------



## jazzy1 (Jul 16, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> This is true about Fox. Fox can have his ups & downs, but overall he is a very good player. Not many people know he had a triple double in game 7 of the Western Conference Finals last year.



Good point I hadn't realized that either , he just has great court awareness, you know time and score understanding where the ball should go, George just hasn't grasped those principles yet.


----------



## trick (Aug 23, 2002)

you are indeed master of the obvious :bbanana:


----------



## Wiggum (Jul 29, 2002)

*Re: hating is one thing, but this is taking it entirely too far.*



> Originally posted by <b>IV</b>!
> 
> 
> Kobe Bryant the guy they love to hate.
> ...


She wasn't talking about Bryant...You really need to ease up on the "hater" rants...


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b><<<D>>></b>!
> 
> 
> Thier are no personal attacks, the posts within this thread has been kept in a clean conversational manner


so captain obvious was a compliment 

:|


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> so captain obvious was a compliment
> ...


So you felt attacked by that comment??


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

yup


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

"fact no player bigger than Kareem abdul-jabbar(height & weight wise) has had a significant career without having it end in serious injury that made it very painful for them to play at the end

and all of them followed the same trend the weight they were carrying put too much pressure on the joints in their legs by manifesting themselves in either their feet ankle or knees and in 2-3 years time their game jumped down several levels"

This was a much more interesting post than your first one, Happy Grinch. 

You certainly have a point here. However, I think Shaq actually has a more solid, squattier build than the other centers you have mentioned. Eaton, Sampson, Smits, etc. all had very long, more slender builds. 

Nevertheless, Shaq's production has been declining over the past three seasons, and he certainly no longer has the quickness he had in the early part of his career. Age and injuries catch up with the best of them.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

mark eaton was no toothpick and neither was luc longley(whose build is as wide as o'neal's) who retired not too long ago 

logically the bigger you are in basketball the longer you should play because you cant teach size 

but the really big players all fall out early and it follows the same trend 

add to that he's not taking anti-inflammetory drugs anymore due to what happened to his own body and alonzo mourning and the writing is on the wall

he's already got the aches & pain and its not going away (although someone earlier said otherwise i suggest they read a couple news stories that came out uesterday saying he still has pain in his foot ) it only going to get worse and he is already putting out there his time is coming to an end.


----------



## QBF (Jul 22, 2002)

Mark Eaton was closer to 7-4, as was Smits. Muresan was 7-7. At those heights, I agree, a player's career will be prematurely ended by injuries.

Shaq is a tad under 7-1. His build makes the guys you've mentioned look like toothpicks. Players at that height and with that build manage to survive a lot longer than the 7-3+ guys.

My guess is that Shaq ends his career because he wants to, not because injuries force him to.


----------



## <<<D>>> (Jul 15, 2002)

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> he's already got the aches & pain and its not going away (although someone earlier said otherwise i suggest they read a couple news stories that came out uesterday saying he still has pain in his foot ) it only going to get worse and he is already putting out there his time is coming to an end.


Wether you like it or NOT, (wich is NOT) Shaq will be Back and he will continue to dominate. He feels 85%, but wants to return at 95%, why the rush?? 2-5.....nothing to worry about at all. You can continue to downplay the big fella all you want. He'll be ready to play, he was never close to 100% last season and he still took over!!


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

shaq was a shade under 7'1 when the measured him before the draft but shaq was 20 and still growing and is 7'2(in sneakers of course but thats how they have been doing heights since the 70s) today and has been for some time 

as i said earlier shaq's build is similar to luc longley who not to long ago was forced to retire due to injuries 

its not a matter of build its a matter of pounding put on your legs and no 7 footer within 100 pounds of shaq(when last checked it was in the 380s)has been playing on his 35th birthday with one exception Mark Eaton who when his rookie season was over was 26 years old and due to the fact he didn't play alot compared to most saved himself the wear and tear until a little later


----------



## c_dog (Sep 15, 2002)

I think Shaq still has a few good seasons in him. Obviously he isn't as dominant as he was 2 years ago, but he's still plenty for other teams to handle. I highly believe that he'll still dominate when he comes back. I don't think he's going to retire just yet. He's still in his late prime. If players like Mutumbo and Robinson can play at 50% of what they were, then Shaq can play at 85%, no problem.


----------



## Da Grinch (Aug 17, 2002)

c-dog i'm not disagreeing with you he could if reasonbly healthy play for a long time

but shaq would, he has said he wont play at too much off a diminished capcity in fact he wants to go out a dominant player not like patrick ewing (an example Shaq used a couple of days ago in the boston globe of how he didn't want go out) so he wont allow too much of a dropoff of what he was


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

*Re: Re: hating is one thing, but this is taking it entirely too far.*



> Originally posted by <b>Wiggum</b>!
> 
> 
> She wasn't talking about Bryant...You really need to ease up on the "hater" rants...


she wasn't talking about Kobe


> Kobe who is one of the best and a bunch of sub-par role players.


who was she talking about?


----------



## Mulk (Jun 25, 2002)

> who was she talking about?


The rest of the lakers mayb??:mrt:


----------

