Reply With Quote
How about you first show you can even get past the hornets?
didnt we beat them in 7???
The Celtics are simply a better team than the Magic. Every team would prefer to play the Celtics than the Magic.
How about you first show you can even get past the hornets?
didnt we beat them in 7???
Game 1 89-85 Lakers
Game 2 101-71 Lakers
Game 3 103-84 Spurs
Game 4 93-91 Lakers
Game 5 100-92 Lakers
The games from last year's WCF. The Lakers didn't steamrolled the Spurs. Three close games and a blowout from each team...sorry that argument doesn't work.
And, Manu was injured in that series, I will give the Lakers credit...because they won the series fair and square. But to post that the Spurs were steamrolled is a big overstatement.
And the Spurs will be the main compe ion for the Lakers along with Rockets for the WC.
They will be ready by the end of the season. The Spurs do have production off the bench with Mason, Bonner, and Hill and the Phoenix game showed if you double one of big 3...they have someone else who can hit shots!
Hah he exposed himself.
didnt we beat them in 7???
The poor fool started watching Bball this season.
I think it's more about matchups rather than the better team. The C's I think are a little better than the Magic but the Magic match up better with the Lakers.
That's kind of like how the Lakers always struggle with the Kings, Grizzlies and Thundah. Not great teams but they match up really well with the Lakers.
But with the Magic, the Lakers have to deal with a scoring point guard in Jameer Nelson which is always a Laker Weakness. Then on top of that, you have Dwight Howard who provides real size for them and he has a decent backup in Gortat. Magic are a very long team, they pretty much match the Lakers size.
It's 2009, pops. If we go by what happened in 08, you will get owned by the lakers again.
didnt we beat them in 7???
I can live with that
I agree that "steamroll" is not the proper term here. The Lakers only steamrolled them in game 2 but the other 3 losses were down to the wire and extremely compe ive.Game 1 89-85 Lakers
Game 2 101-71 Lakers
Game 3 103-84 Spurs
Game 4 93-91 Lakers
Game 5 100-92 Lakers
The games from last year's WCF. The Lakers didn't steamrolled the Spurs. Three close games and a blowout from each team...sorry that argument doesn't work.
And, Manu was injured in that series, I will give the Lakers credit...because they won the series fair and square. But to post that the Spurs were steamrolled is a big overstatement.
And the Spurs will be the main compe ion for the Lakers along with Rockets for the WC.
They will be ready by the end of the season. The Spurs do have production off the bench with Mason, Bonner, and Hill and the Phoenix game showed if you double one of big 3...they have someone else who can hit shots!
Sometimes a 4-3 series like Boston-Atlanta can be more lopsided than a 4-1 series, like San Antonio-LA.
The Jazz series last year every game between the teams was compe ive as well.
IMHO the Spurs are not the biggest threat to the Lakers in the WC. We've seen all there is to see from that team barring a trade, they are not a threat. Too much reliance on 3pt shooting and a weak bench. Manu/Parker/Duncan aren't as good as they used to be. Phil Jackson knows Pop inside and out.
It's the Rockets that worry me a little because if they can stay healthy and gain chemistry with one another (while adding Mutombo) they will have the size and depth to compete with the Lakers.
All these December predictions don't take into account midseason trades, FA signings, injuries, peaking at the right time, experience, playoff matchups etc.
Just to give an example: Last season the Lakers got there only because of the Gasol trade (a midseason change). Also, last season the Lakers had the easiest path to the playoffs with Denver and Utah (neither has swingmen capable of guarding Kobe). The Spurs drew the Suns and the Hornets (both bad matchups). The Spurs got into the WCF game 1 after a bruising 7-gamer and were stuck in an airplane all night before they got into LA. That played a big part in running out of gas and blowing a 20 point lead in game 1 - and the series was never the same again. Add to this the fact that Manu was not healthy.
At that point LA looked like a favorite, since Boston had taken 7 games apiece to dispose of the Hawks and the Cavs (both bad matchups). But when it came down to it, the Celtics looked far and away the better team. Again, the matchups played a big role.
Who knows what will happen this season? What if the Spurs add a couple of key pieces? What if the Spurs avoid both the Suns and Hornets before meeting the Lakers? Certainly Bynum and Ariza haven't changed the game, since Walton is getting meaningful minutes and Bynum is riding the bench in the 4th. What if Manu is as good as he was in the 2005 playoffs?
The Lakers are certainly the favorites. But I'll wait till the playoffs actually play out till announcing any team's coronation or demise.
Who do the Spurs have that they can trade to gain a major piece? That's right, nothing.
If anything the Lakers have one of the most valuable trading chips in Odom's expiring contract.
They don't need it to happen via a trade. What if (although improbable), Joe Smith and Mutombo both want to come to SA?
Also, nobody can predict how injuries will affect any contending team.
I have been through 4 Spur les, and you know what - they were probably the favorite to win only one of them (2005 - although a lot of people favored a Piston repeat, and several were drinking the Phoenix kool-aid). In 1999, the Jazz were the top dog; in 2003 it was the Lakers, in 2007 it was the Mavericks.
Conversely, in 2004 and 2006, the Spurs were favored to repeat but didn't get it done. So there's many a slip between the cup and the lip, and I'll wait it out.
To say the Spurs arent a legitmate threat to the Lakers just doesn't make any sense.
The Spurs are the same team who just played in the WC(it was compe ive series) last year and almost had a shot to go back-to-back.
Also, the Spurs had two of the big 3 out for the month of November and started 0-3 and now are 20-10. And, they have developed Mason, Hill, and Bonner to add depth from the bench.
And if everyone stays healthy...they will be right there.
You can debate they won't win the NBA le this year....that is fair. But to post they aren't a legitimate contender in Western Conference is flat out wrong.
Remember they are still the last Western Conference team to have a win a le (3 les) since 2003 and they have averaged 56 wins a season in that time.
The race for #2 is wide open
wow im surprised so many of the lakers fans put the Rockets as the only threat in the west.
although we still need mount mutombo to match with the lakers front court... can les stop being cheap and go over the luxury tax for once to put together a championship calinber team
2008 Playoffs.How about you first show you can even get past the hornets?
Well said. I for one would never count the Spurs out. Pop knows how to get a team ready at the right time. Injuries, trades, and matchups all play huge rolls. No doubt our Lakers are the team to beat... but we were also the team to beat in 2004 and the Pistons almost swept us. It's foolish to think any team is going to just waltz to the le. However, I like our chances in a 7 game series with our depth and versatility.
The Rockets will never be a threat to anyone until they learn how to stop choking in the 4th quarter.
Cobbler,
That's a fair analysis!
But to have some people post that the Spurs aren't a contender to the Lakers in the west....is just wrong!!!
I still like the Spurs chances this year to get back to the finals and the game against Phoenix showed they have someone else to get the ball to in crunch time if teams double Tony or Manu on the wing!!!
Lakers 4
Spurs 1?
I agree.
I have no doubts you we be in the hunt come playoff time... but i wouldn't use a victory over the Suns as any kind of reference. They are done... and you own them anyway.Cobbler,
That's a fair analysis!
But to have some people post that the Spurs aren't a contender to the Lakers in the west....is just wrong!!!
I still like the Spurs chances this year to get back to the finals and the game against Phoenix showed they have someone else to get the ball to in crunch time if teams double Tony or Manu on the wing!!!
plus its an odd year.Cobbler,
That's a fair analysis!
But to have some people post that the Spurs aren't a contender to the Lakers in the west....is just wrong!!!
I still like the Spurs chances this year to get back to the finals and the game against Phoenix showed they have someone else to get the ball to in crunch time if teams double Tony or Manu on the wing!!!
No..that's true about PHX.
But they are a good basketball team..not great.
Also, that game for me showed the big 3 can trust someone else to hit big shots in crunch time beside themselves.
And playoff games will be close and Spurs need more options beside the Big 3 against good teams!!
No, he's right. Using Phoenix as a measuring stick would be a mistake.
At this point, I wouldn't put money on the Spurs returning to the WCF, much less getting out of the West. Manu clearly is either hurting or rusty, and not back to 100%. We're asking too much out of Timmy and TP, when we should be looking to get Timmy as much rest as he can get. Our defense is not as good as it was last year; Bonner has been inconsistent, and our frontcourt outside of Timmy is still a big weakness.
We need another impact big. I am hoping Ian can finally make the leap this year, or we sign a veteran who still has something left in the tank.
If the playoffs started today:
Lakers win in 6
Too bad they dont start in December.
END THREAD.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
