Reply With Quote
what a classic picture/gif but is that dog's face real or photoshoped?
...and finish with 60+ wins...because
- in 2009 playoffs they would have never beaten the rockets and nuggets without homecourt advantage.
- in 2010 they would have never beaten the celtics in the finals without homecourt advantage.
if the spurs clinch the 1st seed this year (i believe they will), i can't see the lakers beat them in a series without homecourt advantage. if the lakers clinch the first seed and the celtics win the east with a better record, they won't have a chance against them without homecourt advantage.
but who cares about the regular season, right laker fans?
it's real. this is how kobe will look like when the laker won't clinch the 1st seed...
The Lakers, Celtics and Spurs, are all good enough and experienced enough to win without home court advantage . . . to an extent.
If the Lakers finish third in the West (I don't think they will) and fourth or fifth overall, then they're probably not winning the championship. To have to go three rounds without home court to win it, is probably asking too much of any team. But 1-2 rounds, it's doable. So I think they have to move up, but they don't have to have the 1st seed.
Its a good point, but homecourt advantage will help out a lot. I'm still a little butthurt myself from the loss to the Mavs in 06. If you saw the Free throw disparity when it comes to homecourt adv. you'll see a trend in favor of the hometeam. Mavs/Spurs series could very well comedown to homecourt. Lakers/mavs/spurs are so close, they will be fighting for homecourt.The Lakers, Celtics and Spurs, are all good enough and experienced enough to win without home court advantage . . . to an extent.
If the Lakers finish third in the West (I don't think they will) and fourth or fifth overall, then they're probably not winning the championship. To have to go three rounds without home court to win it, is probably asking too much of any team. But 1-2 rounds, it's doable. So I think they have to move up, but they don't have to have the 1st seed.
Has a team ever even been to the Finals 4 consecutive times? It'd be remarkable if the Lakers could survive another marathon but tbh they've been playing way too much basketball so it seems more likely that they'll fall short instead. If there's a player in the league capable of leading his team towards that it'd be Kobe though.
HCA may not matter so much in the 2009-2010 weak Eastern playoffs but I don't think thats going to be true in the more compe ive 2010-2011 West. Celtics are lucky to be in the East where they basically haven't had any real challengers in the past three years except for health. HCA will help and might be necessary to win it all this year or to get out of the West but imo health is more of a concern with the high-mileage/injury-prone players found on the Mavs, Spurs, Lakers, and Celtics.
Pretty awful thread, bro. Beating Houston by 30, and winning twice in Denver.
Honestly, grey mavfan is worse than grey spurfan.
Riiight. The Celtics would have curbstomped anyone in the west not named the Lakers. West was just as weak if not weaker.
It's simple, really... the Lakers, Mavs and Spurs obviously look like the top 3 teams in the WC, and by all rights should lock down the top 3 seeds. So, whichever one gets the first seed will only have to play one of the other two, and will have HCA on top of that. It obviously won't be impossible to win without HCA (think about the Spurs/Mavs series last 2 years), but it would make it a of a lot easier.
2009 notable road wins:
Lakers broke the Nuggets heart in game 3 and DOMINATED them in game 6.
Lakers broke the Magic's heart in game 4, and DOMINATED them in game 5.
2010 notable road wins:
The Lakers closed out OKC in game 6.
The Lakers broke Utah's heart in game 3 and DOMINATED them in game 4.
The Lakers closed out Phoenix in game 6.
The Lakers are more than capable of winning on the road. before the 2010 finals, they had closed out 5 straight playoff series on the road!
Oh and Boston didn't lose to LA because of HCA. They lost because they got dominated on the boards and failed to extend a 13 point 3rd quarter lead.
Solid post. The Celtics still suck though.
Nuggets were talented, but their a bunch of jarheads. The magic were good, but Jameer Nelson was injured.2009 notable road wins:
Lakers broke the Nuggets heart in game 3 and DOMINATED them in game 6.
Lakers broke the Magic's heart in game 4, and DOMINATED them in game 5.
2010 notable road wins:
The Lakers closed out OKC in game 6.
The Lakers broke Utah's heart in game 3 and DOMINATED them in game 4.
The Lakers closed out Phoenix in game 6.
The Lakers are more than capable of winning on the road. before the 2010 finals, they had closed out 5 straight playoff series on the road!
Oh and Boston didn't lose to LA because of HCA. They lost because they got dominated on the boards and failed to extend a 13 point 3rd quarter lead.
OKC too young.
Utah too weak in the post.
Phoenix same thing.
None of those teams you mentioned really had a chance to challenge the lakers in hindsight. This years Mavs and Spurs look like much better teams than the ones mentioned above except your Celtics of course.
The Celtics still lost by around 5 pts in a game 7? You don't think that game in Boston would have been different?
Obviously, having home court advantage helps. But for teams like the three I mentioned, it's not imperative, in terms of having to have the 1st seed.
Does anyone really believe the Lakers couldn't win the championship if they're not the 1st seed?
The main reason I want the Spurs to get home court advantage isn't just to avoid having to play both the Lakers/Mavs. It's that, if they have a slip up at home, they'll only have to win one on the road to win the series. Think about it. Three teams of this caliber, a home loss is probably likely whether it's with or without the advantage. But if it's without, then you have to win two on the road to win the series and that's probably more unlikely than the one home loss is likely.
Yep there you go, I just want the spurs to win too.The main reason I want the Spurs to get home court advantage isn't just to avoid having to play both the Lakers/Mavs. It's that, if they have a slip up at home, they'll only have to win one on the road to win the series. Think about it. Three teams of this caliber, a home loss is probably likely whether it's with or without the advantage. But if it's without, then you have to win two on the road to win the series and that's probably more unlikely than the one home loss is likely.
I don't doubt the Celtics would've reached the WCF if they were here but tbh their playoffs opponents in the East have still been lesser by comparison. Imo the Western playoffs compe ion was not weaker last season or the past 3.
oh.ok.
It's time for Mavs/Lakers playoff series. Havent met since '88 WCF
having HCA would turn a disadvantage when/if encountering mavs though. Mavs play better on road than at AAC, so I'd say the 2nd seed would be a better take for Lakers. with Lakers being the 2nd seed and Mavs #1, the crucial 7th game of WCF will be played in AAC where the away team always has a bigger odd of winning.
Your a Golden State warrior fan too? These mavs fan's arethe crucial 7th game of WCF will be played in AAC where the away team always has a bigger odd of winning.
Nelson wouldn't have made any difference in that series. Orlando didn't match up with the Lakers well at all.
Celts lost by 4 but they had a 13 point lead and couldn't extend it. Losing on the boards isn't due to HCA either.
"don't worry guys, everything will be just fine with my Lakers and my ownership of the Hornets will be a wonderful distraction"
lol Stern. Can't he even get a mobile phone.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
