Originally Posted by KG215
This...this statement right here. Why do Kobe stans latch onto it like it actually proves something? Why? They put nothing into context, blatantly ignore every single circumstance Shaq was in from his rookie season through the 1998-1999 season, and think that him not winning a championship until Kobe became a starter and/or emerged proves something about Kobe's greatness.
I can live with all the other stuff but, this argument or whatever, no, just....no.
You can have a seat with the other haters too sir. I've read plenty of you're posts and it's clear that you are one of them kobe haters that this thread is about.
It does prove something. Fact of the matter is, if shaq was so dominant, if shaq was most dominant ever, if he basically 3 peated by himself, then why couldn't he do it until kobe came along? Better yet, why did he need Kobe to be a starter to win something? Since mr dominant, was so dominant lol, why didn't he win an MVP until Kobe was a starter? You haters like to blatantly ignore everything Kobe did during the 3 peat, so why should we blatantly ignore that Shaq didn't win a Finals game or MVP until Kobe became a starter?
Go head hater, respond. In the meantime have a seat with the rest of them.