It's the WCF. It's extremely rare that one of the two best teams in the WC just blows the other one out of the water, though the Lakers actually did that to the Spurs in '01. So when the Lakers win 4-1, it's a pretty solid victory. The Spur's problems were deeper than just Manu Ginobili last season...no one said we got cheated. everyone is asking Laker fans to quit acting like they destroyed the Spurs.
No one said it wasn't a solid victory. Any win against the Spurs in the playoffs is solid. I still do not believe that the Lakers were the better team if all players that played a minute in that series were fully healthy. That is all. No big deal, we are over it, but as I outlined in another thread, the no Bynum+Ariza argument is not a good one either.
A healthy Manu does not close the gap this season. Not by a long shot. Pop himself admits that the Spurs are not on the Lakers level. He might know a thing or two about basketball.
The Lakers are 27-5 right now. Off to one of their best starts in Laker history. 3 out of their 5 losses have come down to the wire. They beat BOS X-mas day playing grind it out basketball. They have thus far destroyed every top team in the WC.
If you don't think Bynum and Ariza are a huge reason why you are a ing idiot. Their impact on the Lakers defensively is huge.
You must be new here.
First of all, I said the Lakers were better than the Spurs, so open your eyes and shut your mouth.
Secondly, I am one of the biggest Bynum supporters on the board (ask your fellow Laker fans). So once again, STFU.
Lastly, you fail to see beyond your own shadow of arrogance. So go on thinking the Lakers have no weaknesses and no room for improvement, the playoffs will tell the real story.
4-1, biatches.
We gonna make you cry on the 14'th. Bring Vaseline,
YOU GONNA GET RAPED.
Yes the playoffs will likely tell the same story that Laker fans already know.
Phil Jackson owns Greg Popovich. 4-1 record speaks for itself. When the talent level between both teams is level, I'm putting my money on Phil.
Apparently all the GM's disagree with you, but hey, I guess you know more than them.
Apparently history and reality disagree with you. you are one delusional fan.
And no, no GM in the league believes the Spurs are good enough to beat the Lakers this season in a 7 game series.
You said that you put your money on Phil, I said the GM's disagree. You are so caught up in Laker butt sex you cannot even argue the correct point:
http://www.nba.com/2008/tipoff/10/21...hes/index.html
Again..Laker fans have their revisionist history glasses on.
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
Three close games and a blowout on the either side from last year WCF. This was a close, compe ive series and the Lakers did win it fair and square. Just because it was a 5 game series...doesn't mean it wasn't close.
Also, Manu's injury was the difference for the Spurs. It showed in Game 3....when he's on the Spurs are almost unbeatable. Manu is the X-Factor for the Spurs and he's plays well......it opens everything else but you are going to consistency from Duncan and Parker.
Moreover, outside of Barry in gms 3 & 4....the Spurs had no else who could put the ball in the basket.
The Lakers are the favorite in the West and they should be...but to automatically think that the Lakers are just going to walk away with the conference...is premature in the least and arrogant at best.
Like I said when you win 4-1, regardless of how the victories come, it's a solid victory. Playoff games are often decided by 1-2 plays down the stretch and it all comes down to which team can execute when it matters most. The Lakers did and the Spurs didn't. You don't get bonus points for almost winning a game. Do you realize how pathetic you sound trying to rationalize the fact that the Spurs lost fair and square?Again..Laker fans have their revisionist history glasses on.
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
Three close games and a blowout on the either side from last year WCF. This was a close, compe ive series and the Lakers did win it fair and square. Just because it was a 5 game series...doesn't mean it wasn't close.
Also, Manu's injury was the difference for the Spurs. It showed in Game 3....when he's on the Spurs are almost unbeatable. Manu is the X-Factor for the Spurs and he's plays well......it opens everything else but you are going to consistency from Duncan and Parker.
Moreover, outside of Barry in gms 3 & 4....the Spurs had no else who could put the ball in the basket.
The Lakers are the favorite in the West and they should be...but to automatically think that the Lakers are just going to walk away with the conference...is premature in the least and arrogant at best.
History shows (last 6 seasons sample):
Last NBA Championships coming from the Western Conference team: Spurs/Spurs/Spurs
Last choked NBA Championships coming from the Western Conference team: Lakers/Mavs/Lakers
You want respect? Earn it by winning it all. Nobody remembers who finished second or third or fourth...
Enjoy the 'first half of the regular season trophy' since that's all you're getting this year. It's an odd year... You know what that means: We're taking this one.
You say Spurs fans are shouting about how they were beating fair and square. Well all you Laker fans are shouting only about beating the Spurs. You do not get a trophy by beating the Spurs.
I could of sworn I heard Laker fans shouting when Pierce was carried off and then came back.
I'm not trying to rationalize anything. And I'm giving not the Spurs bonus points for almost winning a series.
I gave the Lakers credit for winning the series. But to post that the Lakers blew out the Spurs is just wrong. You didn't watch that series closely.
I could post that Boston outclassed LA in the NBA finals. The Spurs didn't lose by 39 points in the clinching game of a series. Even though that series went one game longer than the Lakers/Spurs series....the WCF was a lot closer than the NBA Finals!
drhouse goddamn your name suits you well, you do a good job of bugging the out of me.
No, it really wasn't. It was clear in the WCF that the Spurs were out of gas because they were too old. The Lakers would have won more decisively had the series gone on to Game 6 and Game 7. I remember in Game 5 Kobe simply had his way down the stretch, neither Bowen nor Duncan could stop him from getting in the paint.
The bottom line is a healthy Manu Ginobili is not going to be enough to counter Bynum+Ariza. The Lakers have beaten BOS this season. They've soundly beaten every top WC team. They are 27-5 and off to one of the best starts in team history. Their defense is markedly improved in all categories and they are now a top 5-10 team in most statistics. Their offense is #1 in the league in terms of ppg and efficiency. They are easily the deepest team in the WC and can survive injuries to just about anyone not named Kobe. You have no idea what the Spurs are going up against when you spout your BS that Manu Ginobili > Bynum + Ariza.
Are you stupid? The Lakers have 14 championships. They don't need to prove anything to anybody.
The Spurs lost 4-1, but not fair and square. Fisher's foul at the end of Game 4 on Barry, a missed call (which the NBA acknowledged the next day) which could have tied the game at least, altered the entire series. That's not fair and square, that's a lucky missed call for LA.
January 14 is a meaningless game.
Both coaches will go CIA
Yes it was a close series.......the Spurs only got blown out one game in the series. And the Spurs returned the favor in the next game. You had 3 or 4 wins within 8 points or less...sorry that's a close series.
Sorry!!
In the clinching game of the series..it was a close game and yes Kobe went off great!! But it was only a 8 point win....that's a close game!!
I know you want to discard the Spurs like yesterday news...but the fact that Manu wasn't healthy does make a big difference. Even Kobe admitted after game 3 in that series....how great Manu was and how much he made a difference for the Spurs.
So.....if you want to stay with the revisionst history you can. But it was a closer series and also the fact the Spurs will have more offensive weapons with Mason and Hill will help the big three that much more.
I just want to both teams to be healthy for playoffs and hope they can play each other. So this debate can be settled!!
But...I'm going to challenge Lakers fans who keep putting their revisionist spin on last year's WCF.
DrHouse, why mention that 3 of the 5 Lakers losses came down to the wire, when a few posts later you argue "1 team just executes better than the other in the clutch" or w/e. Cant have it both ways. No argument why you lost 3 close games then...you got out executed.
PS. Spurs also lost 3 within 4 points.
But they also won 7 within 4 points.
Healthy Manu this year, added 2 good scorers to come off the bench, resurgence of Finley..yea, I think that the series will be close...
Also, I love how laker fans on realgm argue that they were "very close" to beating the Celtics, in games that coulda gone either way...
well, they tend to, uh, lets say "forget" how many games they won against the Spurs that were close...game 5 shoulda been a 5 pt. victory instead of 8, had it not been for a classless shot by Vujacic...
LOL, Ginobili is most definitely better than Bynum + Ariza when fully healthy. You seem to forget who Manu Ginobili is. When has Bynum + Ariza been a mainstay and clutch player on a championship team? How many rings do Bynum + Ariza have?
Keep in mind your best player (Kobe) wanted to "ship Bynum's ass out of there" just a little over a year ago. For Kidd.
So decades last nine years now. Or maybe you just didn't get what I was calling him a moron about.
Clearly Lacker fan knows nothing of Pop Psychology. What the lame pig-headed doc just described is, in Pop term is, playing with appropriate fear. In short, Pop says that to keep his team working. It's that type of family dynamic that leads to the strength this team has, as opposed to Colonel Phil Sanders Jackson. He would write tell-all books and his inability to control the best Center-SG Combo seen in the last 20 years and ultimate, their untimely divorce.Pop himself admits that the Spurs are not on the Lakers level. He might know a thing or two about basketball.
Last edited by Man In Black; 01-06-2009 at 01:32 AM.
Well, Spurs would rather face the Lakers than the Bucks....
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote