2000 Lakers roster:ShaqKobeGlen RiceRon HarperRick FoxDerek FisherRobert HorryAC GreenBrian ShawDevean GeorgeTravis KnightJohn SalleyTyronn Lue2006 Heat roster:ShaqWadeUdonis HaslemAntoine WalkerGary PaytonJason WilliamsDorrell WrightJames PoseyAlonzo MourningMichael DoleacKeyon DoolingWhich team was better?
2000 Lakers easily. Neither supporting casts were that great after the big two. The main difference is they had the dominant in his prime Shaq while we had the older less dominant Shaq.Edit: And Keyon Dooling wasn't with us last year.
2000 Lakers. Better supporting cast. More of a togetherness sort of team. Dominant Shaq. Many reasons.
pft no brainer. Lakers! I think the Heat was no where near as dominant! Shaq daddy was in his prime, grice was hitting from down town and Kobe was Kobe. Lakers in 4
Not sure if the list is in any specific order, but I love how Tyronn Lue is all the way down the list, when he was a major factor in their defensive presence. :biggrin:But Yeah, Lakers for sure.
Lakers of 2000 without even thinking about it. It's a no-brainer, IMO. The 2000 Lakers had Kobe (who is better than Wade) and a PRIME Shaq, who was arguably the most dominant center to ever play the game. They had some great role players as well, such as Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and I believe Horace Grant was on that team as well (or was that the year before?). Phil Jackson and Pat Riley are both great coaches, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson has won more. Shaq of 2000 would rip Shaq of 2006 apart, and Kobe/Wade would be a great matchup (but Kobe is still the better player). Then you say role players vs. role players... Lakers win again. This really shouldn't even be a discussion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Dec 23 2006, 10:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lakers of 2000 without even thinking about it. It's a no-brainer, IMO. The 2000 Lakers had Kobe (who is better than Wade) and a PRIME Shaq, who was arguably the most dominant center to ever play the game. They had some great role players as well, such as Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and I believe Horace Grant was on that team as well (or was that the year before?). Phil Jackson and Pat Riley are both great coaches, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson has won more.Shaq of 2000 would rip Shaq of 2006 apart, and Kobe/Wade would be a great matchup (but Kobe is still the better player). Then you say role players vs. role players... Lakers win again.This really shouldn't even be a discussion.</div>Can't add anything to that, I also don't really see how this is debatable. I don't see what advantages the '06 Heat had over the Lakers in any aspect.
Well by looking at the rosters it's a little deceiving, when you see Antoine Walker, Gary Payton, Jason Williams, Alonzo Mourning all on the same team, but it's not as if they were all in their prime when they won the championship. Had all the players been (including Shaq) then I would definitely say they're the better team, but obviously that's not the case.
Well, no contest here. 2ooo Lakers were better in every way. Shaq was healthy, Kobe was young and fresh, awesome role players, it was the perfect team.
2000 Lakers would win, like everyone says he was in his prime and would have distoried the 06 wanna be version of Shaq. 00 Shaqs D would have made the 06 Shaq look even worse than he did in the finals, because 00 Shaq is A LOT better defender than Diop and Dampier. Kobe would have provided more of a challenge for Wade as well, so I doubt Wade would have exploded like he did vs Dallas.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticBalla32 @ Dec 23 2006, 07:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Lakers of 2000 without even thinking about it. It's a no-brainer, IMO. The 2000 Lakers had Kobe (who is better than Wade) and a PRIME Shaq, who was arguably the most dominant center to ever play the game. They had some great role players as well, such as Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Robert Horry, and I believe Horace Grant was on that team as well (or was that the year before?). Phil Jackson and Pat Riley are both great coaches, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Jackson has won more.Shaq of 2000 would rip Shaq of 2006 apart, and Kobe/Wade would be a great matchup (but Kobe is still the better player). Then you say role players vs. role players... Lakers win again.This really shouldn't even be a discussion.</div>Exactly, there is no contest here. I agree with everything you said.
2000 Lakers. Shaq was uncomparably better than he was last year, Kobe and Wade were very close in terms of skill, and the Lakers had a better supporting cast.
A 67 win team with one of the most dominant players of all time at his peak, and Kobe at his best defensively vs. the Heat? This is a no brainer.
The 2000 Lakers. It's common sense: you have one team with two dominate stars on it (2000 Lakers; Kobe and prime Shaq); then you have a team with one main star attraction on it now'adays (2006 Miami Heat; Dwyane Wade) with the other attraction playing terribly.
Yeah, Shaq is the key. But Kobe was a much more focused defender in 2000 also, he would have kept Wade in check. Lakers in 4 easy games.
ARe you forgetting Shaq in his prime? Shaq will dominate any center in the league in his prime maybe any center all-time. Kobe and Wade would be the matchup. Kobe is more clutch the Wade.
