You have no idea what you're talking about once again.
The Blazers went into a slump after that late February game while LA went on a 19 game winning streak. But many did have the Blazers winning a title earlier in the season and they were widely considered the deepest and most talented team in the NBA. If you really want to argue that fact I can humiliate you very easily. It wouldn't have been a surprise if the Blazers had won the 2000 championship. That's for damn sure.
As far as the come back? Yeah, the role players did make some big plays, but Shaq and Kobe were the 2 biggest reasons for the comeback.
It's sad how a punk like you even tries arguing with me.
Rick Fox wasn't much of a factor on the 2000 team. He did play well on the 2001 and 2002 teams, and I've given him credit for that.
Brian Shaw? Pretty good defender and would occasionally throw those lobs to Shaq. Hit some big shots in that game 7, but on a game to game basis? He was not an impact player, and every team has a handful of players who are better than him."
Horry? A role player and a good team defender, solid passer, pretty good rebounder and a decent shooting threat(even though he didn't shoot particularly well that season, at least on 3s). I like Horry as a role player, but he's not a guy who you can really use to prop up a cast.
I give Ron Harper credit. He was arguably their 3rd most important player, particularly in the playoffs. But that tells you how unimpressive that team was outside Shaq and Kobe. Harper was a good role player, but shouldn't be your 3rd most important player. He was a good defender, made smart passes and knew the offense, but he wasn't a good shooter or offensive threat.
Glen Rice? Do I really need to pull up all of those quotes from Phil about Glen that season?
Where should I start regarding Rice in his 30's post-elbow surgery on the Lakers?
Hmmm, got benched late in some games for being a defensive liability, was a poor fit in the offense and was also benched at times for standing around when he didn't have the ball and completely disappeared for almost the entire playoffs.
He was the one 3 point shooter on that team that you had to respect, but even he only made one three per game. And the Lakers were one of the worst 3 point shooting teams in the league.
Glen was so important that the Lakers didn't even make him an offer after the season.
Oh, and they missed him so much that they won 2 more titles without him.
The guy had declined A TON and was rapidly declining. Yet a clown like you is really going to claim he was as good as Steve Smith in 2000?
Get over it, the Lakers weren't that good outside of their duo. Do I need to show you the analysts praising Portland's depth and calling LA a 2 man team again?
Yes, they had a few solid role players, but 2 consistent scoring options. I might be able to call Rice one if not for the playoffs and his fast decline/poor fit in the offense.
I got news for you, role players like that aren't hard to find. Portland had a ton of different scoring options and almost always had a guy capable of exploiting a different mismatch.
Rice was an averaging starting small forward by 2000, nothing more. An average player who was a bad fit in the offense, and whose primary value to that particular team(being a capable 3 point shooter), is something every team has. How can you really hype that?