I was opposed to signing Kobe then because I felt he would never co-exist with Amare. Nothing has happened to change my mind.
Back to the subject...
Even if the Suns lost today, I'd still pick the Suns to win it. However, it would probably take seven games. IMHO, the game was close because Kobe went unconscious for a long period and the Suns shooting was just awful. Both teams are likely to show improvement in game two, but is it reasonable to assume the Lakers will have a huge improvement and the Suns will continue to play badly?
In statistics, there is a concept called "regression to the mean". What it means is that while individual events may be exceptionally high or exceptionally low, there is a tendency to return to the normal percentages. For example, if a 250 hitter gets hot for a couple of weeks and raises his average, you would predict he will follow it with a cold period unless there is some reason to believe he's made major changes in his swing.
Regession to the mean is why there are so few major upsets over seven game series in the NBA but lots of them in the NCAA tournament. Over seven games, the better team is extremely likely to win.
Are the Lakers the better team? Forget the woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff. Are they the better team? If they aren't, their chances of winning the series becomes even lower than the standard "78% of teams winning the first game go on to win the series" stuff.
It seems likely the Lakers will win a game, but nothing I've read ore seen convinces me they are the better team.