Do we finally have enough size to contend with the Lakers?
Splitter - 6'11"
Duncan - 6'11"
McDyess - 6'9"
Bonner - 6'9"
Blair/RJ - 6'7"
Bynum - 7'0"
Gasol - 7'0"
Ratliff - 6'10"
Odom - 6'10"
Artest/Barnes - 6'7"
Printable View
Do we finally have enough size to contend with the Lakers?
Splitter - 6'11"
Duncan - 6'11"
McDyess - 6'9"
Bonner - 6'9"
Blair/RJ - 6'7"
Bynum - 7'0"
Gasol - 7'0"
Ratliff - 6'10"
Odom - 6'10"
Artest/Barnes - 6'7"
depends if splitter is not a foul machine
booner size makes no differnce he does not rebound only misses threes against lakers
Sometimes Bynum and Gasol seem like they are more around 7'1" then 7'0". I wish we would pickup Rasho again.
Bonner is 6'10 but he doesn't play like a 6'10 guy. Neither does Odom though, just doesn't have that style. The size you worry about with LA is Bynum and Gasol and Splitter/Duncan can counter that.
Not enough.
The size will be fine if Bynum is injured..there's a better than 50/50 chance that he's hurt, so the Spurs will need that..
Spurs need a lot of IFs to happen for them to meet the Lakers in the WCFs though..
The best way to overcome a size disadvantage is for Pop's magic formula to go into effect: "Ball go in hoop"
I've noticed that Tim can't get any hook shots or jumpers on Gasol. He has to use his power to back Gasol's ass down.
He had no problems against LA in 3 of the 4 games last year, he'll be fine..Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites
It's the other big man that will be the concern..
Did we have enough size last year? All we did was add Splitter. A resounding NO. Stupid questions deserve stupid answers but its not worth it.
He can in November and December. Tim peters out by April and May.Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites
Yeah like IF Bonner rides the pine, they have a better chance.Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
The Thunder were not a tall team and they had plenty of success against them. I dont believe they have anyone over 6'11". The Spurs are fine on the frontcourt with Duncan, Splitter, Dice and to some extent Blair.Quote:
Originally Posted by SenorSpur
This Spurs squad offers height, athleticism and depth. Plus we have a huge advantage with Ginobili, Parker and Hill.
You don't think Kobe is an advantage? Dice and Duncan are shells of their former selves, blair is raw, and Splitter hasn't played a minute in the NBA. The only true advantage is a healthy Parker, and that hasn't been enough in previous seasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan
Kobe is the best guard out of both teams but other than that they have Fisher, Blake, Sasha and Brown. While the Spurs offer 2 All-Stars, Hill (who is quickly becoming a star) and of course Anderson (a highly touted pick). That is why I think we have advantage in the backcourt. Parker had one off year due to injuries and has had plenty of time off during summer to heal.Quote:
Originally Posted by murpjf88
Duncan is still a 20 - 10 guy if need be. Fortunately on this team he does not have to. Dice is getting up their in age but he performed admirably against the Mavs. Splitter hasnt played a minute in the NBA but he was the best big man in the second best league in the world. As far as Blair well we've seen what he has the potential to do when given minutes.
The Thunder team is extremely athletic, quick and young. The Spurs will not play the same type of up-tempo game against LAL. It would be a slow, grind it out, half-court game, and LA will win because of the size advantage. Hoping for Bynum to be injured is fool's gold. He'll only get better as he gains more experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan
The only advantage Spurs have is Parker and it's not a huge advantage anymore as they have Blake and not just Fisher.
Splitter < Bynum (if Bynum can stay health)Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites
Duncan = Gasol (at this point in their careers)
Dyess > Ratliff
Bonner < Odom
Blair/RJ = Artest Barnes (hard to choose...offense vs defense, maybe the edge to LA)
defensively I think they'll fair well against LA. it's on the offensive end that Duncan isn't as good as he was in say 2003 when you knew he'd put up a ridiculous 30-20 game with 5 dimes. he's not as quick and doesn't get as much lift as before and that limits him against Bynum and Gasol.
I don't think we do. We still have no answer for Odom in the wing, and Splitter has yet to play a minute in the NBA, so barring a miracle, I don't think he'll be as effective at least in his rookie season against top teams.
On top of that, they have a solid perimeter defender in Artest, while we don't really have such a thing to try to slow down Kobe when he catches fire.
A lot of this stuff will clear up midway through the season. We'll have more IFs answered from the new guys and a clearer picture of where we stand.
Getting beat by an inch per position isn't the issue, I don't think.
Gasol vs. Duncan one-on-one has historically gone to Duncan, but Tim is getting older, so it's a wild-card. Especially with the unknown of Splitter's help defense.
Bynum vs Splitter is, again, an unknown, but I tend towards thinking Splitter will not only be more skilled defensively, but also more durable. Bynum is a better scorer, but Splitter is a better defender/passer and seemingly passable offensively.
Dice vs Ratliff seems to go towards Dice since he's more offensively gifted and almost equal defensively, and Dice will play more minutes. If Theo plays heavy minutes due to an injury to Gasol or Bynum, he is a weak link.
Odom is still the Lakers' edge against us as we (and practically nobody) has someone with his mobility, offensive prowess, and occasional defensive ability -- Bonner can play his role as a positional counter, but he's nowhere near the threat on both ends Odom is. At the same time, if Blair learns not to foul and begins shooting midrange, he has the potential to be as disruptive as Odom, I think -- just getting O rebounds makes him useful, but 8-12 pts a game would more or less nullify the best of Odom. Bonner is in a position to potentially score more as a straight shooter than Odom is as a slasher and mid-range shooter, but he's never going to be a real all-court threat.
As to the Artest/Barnes combo... both are very good defenders, but there are only two of them and neither is dependable offensively, so both would have to play simultaneously to make a real impact. I think that Kobe is unquestionable the best back-court guy on either team, but we have much more depth offensively, and the point differential should ultimately reflect this if we play team basketball. All to say that I don't see us having any sort of clear advantage over the champs, but that I think we can compete with them better than we were able to last season.
If it's Gasol, Odom, Artest, Barnes and Kobe vs. Splitter, Duncan, Jefferson, Manu, and Parker, it definitely edges to the Lakers, but our bench is much stronger, meaning that they have less room for injuries while we have much more, not to mention more room for tinkering with our line-ups. I also think that having a much higher proportion of slashers than before behooves us going up against them since they're so thin up front -- their lack of depth could be exploited by slashing with the intention of getting them in foul trouble.
I'm not delusional into thinking the Spurs would currently have a chance against LA, but Bynum being injured is very likely, and Steve Blake is one of the worst defensive PGs in the NBA, so he doesn't make a difference defensively..Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarlemHeat37
Doesn't matter. Even with Bynum/Kobe injured and Fisher/Farmar rotating at PG the Lakers still had the best defense in the playoffs.
They'll be better next season with Barnes taking Luke/Sasha minutes.
Don't forget they have Barnes now too.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
I must add that the Celtics competed well and virtually dominated ALL the games they won because of their superior rebounding and defense. They did so, not just by matching size, but they literally imposed their defensive will and made efforts to outrebound the Fakers in the games they won.
During the 4-game sweep versus the Suns, the Spurs were often left playing 3-on-5 on the offensive end. On the defensive end, they were carved up like a turkey by a vastly superior offensive team. The Spurs lack of perimeter and post defense was very apparent. They even got beaten on the boards by a smaller, quicker team.
The Spurs, conversely, have morphed into a team that CAN score a lot of points, but still struggles in the rebounding and defensive areas - against vastly superior offensive teams - of which the Fakers certainly are.
For the Spurs, the key concerns now become how much better is the supporting cast around the Big Three? Can Splitter provide the additional rebounding and post defense the Spurs have lacked? Can Anderson, Hairston and even Gee, provide enough consistent outside shooting, scoring and perimeter defense to complement the slashing, playmaking skills of Parker and Ginobili?
SA isn't any closer to beating LA now than they were 3 seasons ago in the WCF. If anything, they are much farther away because the team just doesn't have anything left in the tank by that time of the year.
SenorSpur is correct in that Boston was only able to give LA a battle because of surpassing LA in doing the dirty work - defense, rebounding, physical play, loose balls. When SA went away from that approach - they lost any realistic hope of beating the Lakers.
No team is going to beat LA on the offensive end. Even when LA isn't efficient - they still have Kobe and the edge inside, not to mention an offense that will get enough when it counts. Whether its a slugfest or shootout, LA is still going to score.
Any team who beats LA has to bring the physical play to LA, dominate the glass, not give up easy points inside to Pau and Bynum, AND make it tough for Kobe on the perimeter. Not many teams have been built to do that in recent years. Houston got close. Boston did once and was right there the 2nd time. Every other team they played - once LA figured them out it was over.
I can't see the Spurs having a chance in the playoffs as long as Duncan and Manu play 60+ games. Even then, Duncan isn't as good as Pau is now and Many isn't Kobe. Yeah - the SA guys have glimpses but they can't do it every night like Pau and Kobe can. And Tony Parker isn't beating LA. No PG is beating LA. You can only beat LA inside-out. Tough to do when LA has the most talented trio of big men.Quote:
For the Spurs, the key concerns now become how much better is the supporting cast around the Big Three? Can Splitter provide the additional rebounding and post defense the Spurs have lacked? Can Anderson, Hairston and even Gee, provide enough consistent outside shooting, scoring and perimeter defense to complement the slashing, playmaking skills of Parker and Ginobili?
SA's Big Three isn't good enough to beat LA's best Three. When that's the case its all downhill from there.
So unless Splitter is Mose-Malone like, the Spurs won't be able to physically beat up on LA, and because of LA's length, they won't be able to control the glass either. And who is going to slow down Kobe ala Battier, Posey, Allen. LA was slick by grabbing Artest and Barnes - 2 of the better defenders on him.
The Western Conference will likely end just like it did the past 3 seasons. That's not me as a fan - just the evidence at hand.
Perfect answer. LA's only "weakness" has been addressed with the addition of Ratliff, Barnes and Blake to the bench. They can survive any injury except a season ending one to Kobe. Spurs, instead of addressing their need for defense, re-signed RJ and Bonner to long-term deals. I'd rather have Barnes and Ratliff who bring some toughness and attitude and shorter contracts than soft players like RJ and Bonner.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
Thanks. I'm not saying LA is invulnerable but a team has to have some serious advantages over LA to beat them and SA doesn't have one. Parker does well against him but its been a long time since a PG was the deciding figure in a Laker series.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
I'm impressed how LA addressed their weakness. Their starters are all tough players but their bench was flaky. That's all out the window now and their team consistency will improve. Individualism and Ego is the biggest threat to LA but the chemistry and coaching likely prevents that.
And even injury hasn't derailed them - considering Bynum and Bryant finished the playoffs both need surgeries and they still won it all. Despite going to 3 Finals in a row, LA may actually be healthier/well-rested this season because of Kobe and Pau not playing international ball this summer, Bynum only facing a minor off-season surgery, and a vastly improved bench.
yeah the Spurs have some serious disadvantages going up against LA, but i don't think anyone can count them completely out of the hunt unless they're crazy. at the end of the day, they'll give themselves a chance, even it's a small one. and i'm perfectly happy about that considering they're already basically on their last legs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21_Blessings
The Lakers gave up over 97 points a game in the playoffs. Barnes may be an upgrade on defense but he cannot score points. Other than Kobe and Gasol they have no true scorers on their team. Relying on Fisher and Artest to score heavy points is dangerous and Kobe is getting up their in age (32 this August).
97 ppg but that was skewed because of the Phoenix series and that uptempo play. Take that series out of the equation and LA only gave up 92.9 ppg vs OKC, Utah, and Boston. Pretty damn good.Quote:
Originally Posted by LongtimeSpursFan
Barnes fits because he moves well without the ball and cuts. The offense will find him points. In general - the execution of the tri will be much greater because it will be Blake instead of Farmar/Shannon running PG, Barnes moving off the ball instead of Sasha/Walton.
Also, Bynum - despite breaking down at the end of the Finals had some good offensive games to compliment Kobe and Pau
13 & 12, 13 & 10, 21 & 11 vs OKC - all before hurting his meniscus again. 17 & 14 vs Utah, 21 & 6 vs Boston.
If SA fans are assuming Duncan/Ginobili are healthy for the Finals, the flip side is you have to assume Bynum is healthy. Odds are about equal for both sides of those key players being ready to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 21_Blessings
:bang
come one man, the lakers only play good defense when the refs let them hack.
besides we have a secret weapon
Exactly. The Fakers DID NOT stand pat. They were astute enough to address their areas of weakness with the right players.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
It's actually quite shocking how, over the past few years, Pop and the Spurs' coaching staff has sold their defensive-minded souls, to the Devil of offense. Meanwhile the results have been all too apparent. The defensive dropoff was underscored during that epic 4-game playoff sweep to the Suns. A series where the Suns made the Spurs look as defensively helpless as the Golden State Warriors.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
As it stands, this team just does not have the same defensive mindset, or even the players required to forge the mindset that was evident in years past. The type of defensive mindset that the Celtics have employed for about 3 years now - even with a roster that is older than that of the Spurs. That ability and mindset left with with the retirement of Bowen and the diminishing skills of Duncan - and little has been done to mitigate the loss. Obviously, you have to score points to win, but you also have to stop people - especially in the playoffs. You do that with more skilled and willing defenders.
While the addition of Splitter and Anderson were sound moves that should really make the team better next season, it likely will not be enough. I would argue that bringing back both Bonner and RJ (though they had little choice on the latter), does nothing to make the team better. In fact, it will likely again become detrimental in the playoffs, as their production diminishes.
As the Spurs supporting cast has gotten older, it becomes much more imperative that the supporting cast be strong enough so that there is not a dependence on 3 players to carry the team against the grind of playoff competition. As far as the gap between the Spurs and Fakers, it's still there. Judging from the dramatic moves the Fakers employed to shore up some of their obvious weaknesses, that gap between them and the rest of the conference, may have just gotten wider.
I always lamented how LA had too many guys who cared about offense first, and only played defense if they are getting touches.
Now, LA is almost completely the other way. LA now has become the Spurs of the 90s/00s. A superior team that beats you mentally as well as physically. However they are more versatile than those SA teams and can win any style of fight.
Miami has the brightest future but I can't see anyone beating LA this year unless the injury bug bites harder than last season.
When it comes to winning versus the Lakers, it comes down to health and HCA; both of which I think the Lakers are going to lose out in this upcoming season:
- Probably the most tired and fatigued core in the league, 3 consecutive Finals runs does that
- Kobe's having a third surgery on the same knee and his athleticism has been declining
- Lamar Odom's playing for Team USA in the summer, even more miles for the player thats been one of the team's leaders in MPG
- Bynum's health seems to always be a question and he's having surgery this summer as well
- Lakers only finished 2 wins higher than the 2nd seed
- Imo you really don't want your core thats about to embark on its 4th trip to the Finals with the above concerns imo
If they are healthy and have HCA then the West will be their's to lose but I see this season possibly being the worst for the Gasol-era Lakers in those areas. If the Spurs, Blazers, Rockets, Mavs, Thunder, etc can stay healthy they all have a competitive shot at knocking out LA imo....and most of those team's cores haven't played anywhere near as much basketball in recent years FWIW.
LA cruised to end the season (4-6) record and sat Bynum and Kobe because they knew no one would catch them. There was no point in stressing across the finish line - after the Spurs game. Pointing to the 2 game end lead is foolish,
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=300324024Quote:
Kobe Bryant kept his shooting hand raised high, smiling while backpedaling to halfcourt after burying the San Antonio Spurs.
A seventh straight win for the Los Angeles Lakers looked that easy.
Bryant scored 24 points and hit a pair of backbreaking 3-pointers in the fourth quarter, helping the Lakers preserve their second-longest winning streak of the season with a 92-83 victory on Wednesday night.
"It was a playoff-type of atmosphere," Bryant said. "We were down in the first half. We had to battle back. It was a good win for us to start this road trip."
He means a five-game road trip, the longest left for the Lakers before the playoffs. With just 11 games remaining, the West-leading Lakers have a six-game cushion over Dallas.
Solid point although the rest still stand imo, and it also points that LA's Bynum and Bryant need rest as well.
Ratliff is finished. Won't be making any difference at all. If he was any good he would still be with the spurs.Quote:
Originally Posted by rmt
LA won the west easily. They coasted from start to finish.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
Yes they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cane
LA's deepest team in a long while, combined with the motivation of Phil's last year and the underdog role from so many crowning Miami will keep the engine going.
Eventually LA will fall apart but I don't see that this year. About 2 more seasons until that.
On the court I agree. I think Caracter plays better than what Ratliff does. Theo will help in the locker room and hopefully teach Bynum a thing or 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by rascal
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
Kobe played 41 min. in this game and Gasol played 43. What are you trying to prove?
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/boxscore?gameId=300404013
I'm not saying the Spurs can beat L.A. in a series, but I don't think the match-up is as disparate as some are making out to be.
Point was LA had the conference well in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
True enough, but I think the Spurs proved if the match-up is favorable, it doesn't matter who has HCA. They hit a bad match-up with Phoenix and had flamed out. I'm disappointed that we didn't get to see Spurs vs Lakers in the playoffs.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
i think LA fans are exaggerating their advantages though. we had a good record against LA last year. granted, both teams were injured. we also played Boston well. but LA is far from the powerhouse that some of their fans make them out to be. they almost lost to an old Boston team without their best interior defender. a young OKC team played them extremely well.
i'm personally much, much more afraid of Miami.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
Do not let the hatred towards the Lakers cloud the mind. Miami is going to be good but to say you are "much, much more afraid of Miami" is simply ignoring or downplaying the team to beat which is LA. I personally am still worried in these teams (in order)before Miami:
1. Boston
2. Portland/San Antonio (as long as Duncan is playing I will be worried)
3. OKC/Chicago
4. Dallas
5. Miami
Miami is simply an unknown right now. Futurewise they will be a worrisome team.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by mingus
spurs seem too worried about the size issue and dont realize they dont have a guy to guard kobe. ginobli got raped by kobe. jefferson isnt gonna get it done, and that leaves artest to bully ginobli in the post. sure you can use hill but then you either make him a 2 and force ginobli to become a 3 or you take parker out of the game. size for the lakers allows them to not double team which allowed the spurs to get hot from 3. while bynum plays solid defense duncan will get his but they cant isolate him anymore. its basically hope ginobli's pick and roll works. if at any time the spurs size does match up well the lakers can counter with odom's speed which the spurs (in the regular season games) had no answer for.
Stop acting like the regular season means anything to a team like the Lakers. Three straight finals appearances. They will coast through 82 because they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
:lol Their front line is a joke and it's not like San Antonio has any chance at facing them in the playoffs anyways.Quote:
Originally Posted by mingus
Yeah PPGs is a misnomer. The Lakers are capable of playing slow or high tempo depending on the opponent. It's easily the worst statistic to use when talking about defense if you're not considering the pace factor to go along with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
Bonner plays small so take him off the list of bigs.
Funny Laker fan assumes the Spurs won't have it in the tank after a full season but Andrew and Kobe who just both underwent sugery will be fine after a full season. Not to mention Kobe's broken finger. There's question marks on both ends. Homers :rolleyes
the fact of the matter is if it was as simple as LA being that much better than SA, scared Lakers' fans wouldn't be on on the Spurs part of the forum going "in depth" about how much of an advantage LA has. LA's good, but they're not a sure thing, that's for sure. if it was you wouldn't be on here arguing about it, because it wouldn't need any arguing.
The Lakers aren't going anywhere, mostly because Phil Jackson is still there. If you switch Pop and Phil, the Spurs probably make the Finals this coming year (and at the very least push Miami to seven).
I pointed out that same thing. Agreed both sides have same question marks.Quote:
Originally Posted by My Fault
However Kobe and Bynum have showed they can win while needing surgery. SA hasn't shown they can win when not healthy.
I don't see that the Lakers have a huge size advantage over the Spurs. Gasol is great, but Bynum hasn't been 100% since . . . pretty much ever. Lamar Odom is a tough match up for the Spurs at the SF, but with the acquisition of Barnes (who will likely back up Artest) and the loss of Powell, Odom is probably going to see more minutes at PF where he will provide an advantage to the Spurs. If Bynum is not healthy and the Lakers have to rely on Ratliff and Mbenga, they are in big trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ohmwrecker
So full of fail
- LO rarely played SF for LA the past few seasons.
- Not just height but length. Pau, Bynum, LO is as long as they come.
- Powell barely played. Caracter will take his role well.
- Mbenga isn't qith LA.
Now for Bynum. He showed he can suck it up and provide at least defense when needing surgery. He also played 65 games (same as Pau and about avg for NBA centers) so I believe he's turned the health corner but the jury is out,
I said he was a bad match up at SF, not that he spends most of his time there. My point was that he is not as big of a threat in the post. He plays that "point forward" role in the triangle which requires that he spends more time on the perimeter.Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Cleva
Yes. They are all tall and long . . . where did I say that they weren't?
Powell gave you guys some decent minutes. The jury is out on Caracter. I'll believe when I see it. I don't know what this "Mbenga isn't qith LA." means. Did he sign somewhere else? Is he definitely not coming back? Either way, the Lakers will probably have to get another "insurance" big.
Full of fail? You will have to do better than that.
I'm just amazed at how completely the LA philosophy has changed over the past few years from 2008, when they beat everyone with offense. The team has been rehauled with a full commitment to defense and its paid dividends.
Look at the Boston team, despite having 3, possibly 4 HOF's on their team, they can't score for shit, and haven't been able to since they were created in 2008. But they win with defense. Same for LA.
This pertains to the Spurs because the last time they had a team full of gritty defensive players instead of playing offensive gimmicks like Bonner, they got to the WCF, and only lost because Kobe went nuts. With Kurt Thomas, Bowen, no Bonner, they couldn't really score that well but they could lock down on defense. Thats how they got to the WCF.
Since then, they've replaced Thomas with Bonner's erratic 3-point shooting and replaced Bowen with RMJ and Dick, and their team doesn't look anything like it did a few years ago. Admittedly Duncan has declined sharply, especially on the defensive end, but the Spurs aren't defense first anymore, and you can tell the difference just by watching. And the bad thing is, even with the sacrifice for offense they are still a somewhat shitty offensive team.
When's the last time an offensive team went all the way? Even the 06 Heat turned into a defensive monster during the playoffs, Zo, Shaq, and Haslem were shutting down the paint.