2004 lakers(payton,shaq,malone,kobe) or celtics(kg,pierce,allen)?
2007-08-01 16:28:04 · 8 answers · asked by Bomb Diggity 2 in Sports ➔ Basketball
Lakers was better in talent. Also that year was the biggest argument year about shaq and kobe.
In team work I say they both equal. Boston probably will have more energy since they got garnett and paul pierce that play like crazy. the only person that slow them down is actually ray allen thats getting pretty dang old.
Back to the question, Shaq was still on his prime year, kobe was at his prime year those 2 combos was good already adding malone and payton make them better although there is some pride inside each one of them that make it not work.
Since kg, pierce, allen dun have much pride they should be able to contribute each talent and come out with a great teamwork. I guess celtics should have a hard time on east final and if they succed final would be sooo much harder.
sorry for bad sentence structure. and grammar :P
2007-08-01 16:52:34 · answer #1 · answered by Chika_Bwhaha 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is an opinion, there isn't really a correct answer. My opinion is the Celtics. We know that the Lakers only gained so far this season especially with the new efforts from the Three B's (S.Brown, S.Blake, M.Barnes), but the real thing that let them beat the Celtics last year was the loss of big men for the green. I would say after gaining the O'Neals, along with Semih Erden. They also gained shooters by taking in Van Wafer and Delonte West. I really think with those 5 adding efforts, that the Celtics could easily top the Lakers any day now.
2016-05-20 22:21:10 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Brand new Celtics. Why? That Lakers team was dysfunctional, Malone and Payton was fast on the decline and the Kobe-Shaq feud was unbearable for the organization. These Celtics team, although newly formed would try to get on the chemistry. Why again? Because those three future Hall Of Famers wants the ring badly! And that's a fact.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Au3TjN59nBAEkChTQwjr80rsy6IX?qid=20070801015442AA7Eajs
2007-08-01 16:35:44 · answer #3 · answered by Darth Revan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We haven't even see how the Celtics perform. Don't be naive and ask questions prematurely. The Lakers were good, but when it counted, their chemistry failed. I suspect the same to happen with the Celts, but more like in the 2nd or 3rd round of the playoffs.
2007-08-01 16:34:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wait till at least training camp starts... The Celtics may have a problem with their depth; they just gave up half the team for one player... Just hope the big three stay healthy all season... all three have missed some time in recent seasons, and have a lot of miles on the legs. Lets just hope they stay healthy....
2007-08-01 16:44:43 · answer #5 · answered by Jujubear. 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would say lakers cuz they had kobe on it as well as shaq, mailman, and the glove
but this celtics team isnt too far behind, but i think the talent on the team will ultimately lead to its downfall
2007-08-01 16:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by omeed 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Boston is still nothing even they have K.G now....Lakers 2004 easily beat celtics now....there is no guarantee celtics can go to playoff next season......Celtics is really look like Retirement center....
2007-08-01 16:42:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your question comes too early. Wait and see how the Celtics perform before making any such comparisons.
2007-08-01 17:24:21 · answer #8 · answered by tit_mouse21 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋