I'm rather surprised by the media actually picking the Lakers. Stein, a Laker hater even picked them in 5 which I agree.
Unlike the 2-2-1-1-1 format which favors the HCA team in 5, the away in 6.
The 2-3-2 format favors the AWAY team in 5 and then the HCA team after that: So in less than 6 games, it's better NOT to have HCA in the Finals.
Last edited by Allanon; 05-31-2008 at 03:31 AM.
See I think alot of these writers are impressed that they were able to dispose of us in 5 games. To be honest we probably wouldn't have got past NO's if Manu was playing like he was against LA. We were not that good without a healthy Manu, and I think alot of people are trying to compare Boston to us which is a mistake. They provide alot more matchup problems for LA than we did.
I still think Celts in 5
I'm picking Damn It To over ZOMG STORYLINE in 4.
As much as I hate both teams, I can easily say, Lakers will beat the out of the Celtics.
Lakers in 6.
See, the whole idea of talking sports on the net is to make a case for your team. Everyone has an opinion, but the players and coaches determine the outcome. I didn't expect an 8-0 edge for us at ESPN, but I do expect LA to win it all, in either 5 or 6.
There is a difference between who you want to win, and who can and will win. This is the western conference here. We western folk feel we have been the better conference since Jordan hung up his sneakers with the Bulls. Kind of shows in the results since then, eh?
Seriously, imagine this....Had the Spurs beaten the Lakers, they would have had every motivation in the world to beat Boston. Mainly, a Back-to-Back, undisputed dynasty status, and a place in history as one of the greatest units of all time. Chances are, the Spurs would have pulled it out. Your team is that good. Probably just as good a team as you've had this past decade. However, the Lakers proved to be the better team this time. So why shouldn't we be just as capable of beating Boston as you guys were, if not more so?
This isn't a time to be bitter against LA for Spurs fans. If we win it all, we strengthen the legitimacy of your fine team. If we don't, people will say: "Not even the Spurs would have beaten the Celtics". Is that what you really want? I don't think so.
Best case scenario for the Spurs: Lakers beat Boston this year. SA upsets LA next year and wins it all. Then, Shaq in his last year, takes the mid-level exception as a free agent and plays for his hometown of San Antonio. He figures if he can't beat Duncan, he'll join him for another le. Spurs finally get their back-to-back in 2010 and all other rewards justly due but not yet earned.
Comments on this?
I am surprised that not a single one of them picked the Celtics. Esp since their biggest gripe this postseason was their "inability to win on the road" and then they went ahead and won 2 HUGE games against a solid Pistons team on their homecourt.
This series is going to be close, but ultimately the difference is going to be Kobe Bryant and Phil Jackson out doing anything that Doc Rivers and the Celtics can bring to the table. Not to mention, no one on the Celtics team has Finals experience or even postseason experience of going this far (Posey doesn't count and Cassell hasn't really played).
You're logic is backwards and doesn't make sense. Just because Team A can beat Team B and Team C, doesn't mean Team B can beat Team C. This is about matchups. You think the Lakers could have gone through and beaten the Suns, then the Hornets, then the Spurs? Not only that, you don't think the Spurs had the motivation to beat the Lakers and get "a Back-to-Back, undisputed dynasty status, and a place in history as one of the greatest units of all time?" Just because you have motivation and heart, doesn't always mean you can beat another team. There's always extenuating cir stances in a close playoff series.
I'm not so sure the Spurs could have beaten the Celtics should they have met in the Finals. Celtics are a very, very good team. Just because they were taken to 7 games by the Hawks and Cavs, people think they aren't that good. Their defense is still one of the best ever, Paul Pierce has seemed to risen his level of play in the big games, Ray Allen is finally finding his missing shooting stroke, they have solid/energetic bench players.
Hey, thanks for the reply! Yeah, I know about the logic of A beats B and then beats C.
I'm not so sure the Spurs could have beaten the Celtics should they have met in the Finals. Celtics are a very, very good team. Just because they were taken to 7 games by the Hawks and Cavs, people think they aren't that good. Their defense is still one of the best ever, Paul Pierce has seemed to risen his level of play in the big games, Ray Allen is finally finding his missing shooting stroke, they have solid/energetic bench players.
To answer your questions, I think the Lakers could have beaten both Phoenix and New Orleans and had enough in the tank to advance. However, that didn't happen. Any possible matchup in the playoff brackets was possible this year, it was that close every day. The west had to go with what they earned.
However, what I am saying is, that your Spurs team of this year was just as good as any you have had, plus they were seasoned. Beating the Lakers and getting to the finals for the first time back-to-back, where you have never lost would make you the favorites, and you probably would have won. Yeah, your team is that good, you have proved it. Lakers of the 80's couldn't get their back-to-back until late in the decade. Same thing could have and still may happen with SA. Decade doesn't end until 2010.
Meanwhile, although my speculation about Shaq coming over in 2009 may be reaching a bit, but maybe not. Think about it, he is under contract for next year I believe, but eventually he won't be. You know Shaq wants another ring, why not try in his hometown. I am curious what Spurs fans think about this. Limited minutes for the big cactus, but a huge impact while he's out there.
First of all, I wouldn't be so sure the Lakers could have beaten the Hornets...again this comes to matchups.
Lakers have no one who could have defended Peja as well as Bowen. You saw what Peja did without Bowen on him in the first two games of that series. They also have no way of containing CP3 and David West/Chandler would have abused Gasol/Odom.
True, the Hornets have no one who could defend Kobe, but I think they had several other key mismatches in other places that would have helped them.
I think the Lakers would have matched up better against the Hornets than the Jazz because the Hornets are a finesse team like the Lakers.
There are 2 kinds of teams that can get wins against the Lakers, maybe not a series but for sure a game or two:
1) Physical grind out teams like the Spurs, Rockets, Cavaliers and Jazz
2) Crazy Athletic teams like the Blazers, Grizzlies, Bobcats, Hawks, Sonics
The Hornets also have a major, major flaw....their no-bench.
The Hornets have possibly the best starting 5 in the West, but their bench is trash except for Pargo. Backup Power Forward or Center? Nope, just NBDL trash. The Spurs bench is very deep compared to the Hornet bench.
Peja would have been guarded by mini-Peja (Sasha) or Radman who is practically Peja's size and speed.
Pau would have owned Chandler. If Chandler gets in foul trouble, you can forget about the Hornets, they have nobody to replace him but trash.
West would have beaten Odom but not by much. The problem with West on
Odom is that Odom is just as quick as he is and taller. Odom has problems against bigger power forwards or tiny quick ones. West is neither one.
CP3 would have burned Fisher but the Lakers would have let him score away.
And of course Kobe would have killed Mo Peterson. Mo Peterson is the same guy that gave Kobe 81 points.
I think the Lakers would have swept the Hornets.
Last edited by Allanon; 05-31-2008 at 11:37 AM.
Celtics are going to get creamed.
Kinda reminds me of how they all picked the Suns to beat the Spurs this year.
I think this will go 6 games with Lakers going home with the trophy. No one can close out games like Kobe.
I'm very surprised by those picks. I'll take Boston in 7. Not because I dislike the Lakers, I just think that Boston is finally rounding into form and they look better.
I'll take Boston. Garnett will win at least one. The Lakers year will be next year when they get Bynum back.
Lakers would have owned the Suns and the Hornets just like they did in the regular season whenever they had bynum or gasol.
yeah, cmon spurs fans. WE should have swept them, instead we basically gave NO three wins for the price of showing up.
LA is poised for the kill here, but Boston has homecourt. I think that plays a key role on all those young bench players for LA.
Celtics have shown a little playoff moxy in the Detroit series. Maybe they've grown a little bit as they go.
I still don't think they have enough vs. the Lakers. Kobe is just on an entirely different level right now. He's figured out when to get his teammates involved and when to take over.
I think the Lakers take the series in 6.
One thing I will give the Celtics credit for is they play very, very good defense. Possibly even better and more consistently than this year's Spurs. They have better defender's to match up and defend the Spurs athletic young bench and they have more scoring options than the Spurs did. What did the Spurs in wasn't neccessarily their inability to defend the Lakers, but their inability to score the basket at key stretches of the game. Celtics have proven to have more than "The Big 3" in that regard as guys like Eddie House, Posey, Cassell, Powe, Tony Allen and even occasionally Rondo have shown they can come in and score baskets.
However, like I said, I just think ultimately Kobe is going to be too much for Paul Pierce to handle and I think Phil Jackson is going outcoach Doc Rivers and that's ultimately going to be the series. And to add to that, the Lakers have proven to be a great road team, and if they happen to steal 1 of the first two games, they play 3 straight at home where they are undefeated dating back to March I believe.
I wish there were a way both teams could lose.
I'll go back in time 10 years for you. Since 1998, only three of the ten away teams to play have won. The '98 Bulls, the '04 Pistons and the '06 Heat. And the last time the Lakers were coming home for the 3 finals Games in the middle with a 1-1 split, the Bulls swept all 3 games.
Lakers fan shows his inep ude once again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
