It's not disrespect. I'm just stating my opinion.
I don't think the Spurs made enough moves to be able to take down the Lakers in a 7 game series. They need another quality big alongside Duncan and a better bench to be able to truly compete.
For that game against Boston I was not really impressed with LA. Obviously a win over Boston is a good win. But the Lakers were at home and wanted that win much more than Boston. They fought on every lose ball... and the game was still close. I don't bash the Lakers. They play great bb... and with great heart for that game. But I have the feeling that a rematch of the finals against the C's would give the same result.
The Celtics grimaced and took it like the professionals they are, giving the Lakers credit.
Well, all but one Laker.
The exception was Andrew Bynum, who missed last spring's series, whose modest line -- nine points, seven rebounds, two blocks -- doesn't measure his impact.
Nor were the Celtics about to acknowledge it.
Does Bynum make a difference, Kevin Garnett was asked.
"No," Garnett said.
Compared with last season's team?
"No."
It's not a shock to run into another 7-footer?
"It's not a shock because our defensive assignments are made if it was Chris Mihm, if it was Andrew Bynum, if it was Pau at the five and Lamar at the four," Garnett said. "Our defensive assignments don't change no matter who's there. . . .
" , it could be Shaq. Our defensive assignments are what they are."
I guess all of the coaches and gm's and players are wrong and you are right about Phil, Bynum and the Lakers being the best team ever.
Boston didn't want that game badly? Look at how they've played since that game and it shows losing to LA put them in a funk.
KG said more by not acknowledging the difference than he could by doing so.
Best team ever? Hardly. All that matters is who proves to be the best team in June.
I know it is your opinion..just like I'm stating my opinion. My point to you is your saying that the Spurs don't have a chance to contend when all the evidence and history says otherwise. Well..if it isn't disrespect it sure reads like it.
The issue for the Spurs for last year was their offense outside the Big 3. Well, with signing Mason and drafting Hill and playing him has addressed that concern.
I believe that is the bigger issue (than the big besides Tim) and it has shown early in the season when this team have 4 or 5 players in double figures....it makes them a very dangerous ball club. Also, that Mason has hit two game winning shots this season already is huge. The Spurs know that they have other options besides the Big 3 down the stretch of a ballgame.
LOL, clearly you meant no disrespect. Hey, you are a doctor.
Once again, Laker fans thinking they know more than NBA players.
I think as it stands right now its obvious the Lakers are better, and we shall see how the new additions fare against the Lakers.
I think what will prove problematic for the Spurs is Ariza on Ginobili/Mason. If they can negate Ariza's defense things will not be too bad. I'm confident in Duncan's ability to guard Gasol, the difference will be in how Bonner/Thomas guard Andrew Bynum.
Also another big key I think is the defense from Bruce Bowen, Roger Mason on Kobe Bryant. The thing the Spurs lacked in that western conference finals was someone else that could give Bryant fits, and I think Mason has the potential to do that, but we shall see. Again, I don't know if the Spurs can win this game, games in the middle of January against big opponents usually ends up being a message board cherry bomb, in the Spurs come out, don't play that great, Pop makes a couple of questionable moves and the team loses by 12 resulting in a forum meltdown questioning the draf, FA signings and pretty much everyone in the organization. George Hill could be a pretty key part because the Lakers right now without Farmar don't have an athletic point guard, and I think Hill could cause them problems with his dribble penetration getting Fisher or whoever else in foul trouble.
Thats the big thing though the wing players have to be agressive and not settle for the outside shot because I think that benefits the Lakers who love to play man up and rarely go into doubles.
For real, last year in the WCF, that was the best I have ever seen Kobe play. No one could have stopped him. In the finals not only was he not as good as in the WCF, the Celts defense was very good.
Yeah Kobe turned it up a notch, but the series was still winnable had they had some people like a George Hill to help with the load.
As its been said a million times, defense didn't lose the series, the lack of scoring killed them and just put WAY too much pressure on the defense.
I agree. Our back court is going to be a problem for the Lakers (if Manu is Manu). Will that be enough? I do not know. But it is really the match ups we have to exploit with constant aggression and solid outside shooting.
The Spurs offense works and they usually get the same exact looks whether the win or lose; the only difference in winning is the shots falling.
How about this: if you add Mason Jr and George Hill to that team last season (with a full year of experience like they'll have this year), do the spurs beat LA in game 1? And if so, do we beat them in the series then now that we have homecourt and momentum?
He's a troll in pretty much every since of the word, other than the fact he's truly a Lakerfan. He clearly wants to provoke spurs fans. I think hes much less confident in his team than he let's on, that's why he won't accept any argument for the spurs and creates whole threads just to say LA has no WC challengers (and apparently, no one in the East challenges them either).
Not if Manu is still that hurt. I think that we will need everyone to beat the Lakers.
Do you see the point I'm getting at though? We added two good backcourt players (AKA LA's biggest weakness) to the fray, probably with LA and those scoring droughts in mind. If we hold leads in that series, we win or lose in 7, because you can't lose when up 3-2.
Besides, all we're gonna do is give the ball to Tim and the Lakers are going to double and triple mercilessly. If everyone hits open shots and makes the right plays, it won't be nearly as difficult as last season when Tim tripled meant Vaughn and Oberto were going to have to beat them.
1) Bonner nailing shots means LA moving Pau to his natural position will be worse. If Pau tries to do those big man doubleteams, Bonner will burn him.
2) Tim Duncan. LA's main strategy is double him and make our other players beat you. Last season, it worked. This season, we specifically added players LA has trouble defending against, especially out of a double team situation.
3) Health. The main concern for me is health. The truth is, this Spurs team is when healthy is more than good enough to compete for another championship, and with any team. Last season if they were healthy, I think the outcome of that series is much more in the spurs favor.
Last edited by z0sa; 01-06-2009 at 12:27 PM.
I see what you are saying and I agree. The Spurs need a fully healthy and energized Manu than anything else. With that and the additions in the back court along with the encouraging signs from Bonner, Finley and Kurt, I like the Spurs chances more than anyones to beat the Lakers. Only time will tell if that proves to be true.
How is Roger Mason Jr. going to defend Kobe any better than Udoka did? The Spurs had a pretty decent set of players to throw at Kobe compared to other WC teams.
You need to stop looking at individual matchups, that will not decide the series IMHO. It's going to come down to depth.
The Lakers do not always double Tim. They usually let him go one-on-one for a while, then in the fourth quarter throw an array of double and triple teams. They do a better job than anyone a confusing Duncan. That is all Phil.
But I agree with your assessment. There are still plenty of question marks for the Spurs though. All of those things are exactly what the Spurs planned, but we have to see if it actually plays out that way.
Why do you keep failing to recognize that the Spurs do not care if Kobe scores 80??? As long as we are not fouling him that is fine. Spurs have to shut down LO, Pau, and your shooters which they can do if they stay at home and do not foul.
Spurs have lots of back court depth. Up front is thin, but we have the best PF to help make up for it.
The playoffs are all about matchups. Vujacic couldn't guard Manu's jock - and it was proven in Game 3 when an injured Manu still laid 30 down on him
But the reality is, Parker/Hill are your absolute biggest worries in the entire NBA. Parker is the achilles hill of a team like LA, with no lock down defender on the perimeter especially for someone so short, quick, and great at finishing/shooting, and no real interior D schematics. Hill is a mini-Parker who's probably already one of the best PG vs PG defenders in the NBA and has an even better jumpshot.
PJ always just packs the paint against Parker, it was easier last season than even 2004 with Parker tired and carrying the entire backcourt scoring on his shoulders. PJ's been doing this since the Stockton/Malone days in the Finals.
This season will be much different than last, as long as everyone (including your wretched Lakers) stay healthy. I predict another matchup a la Spurs/Mavs 06, all the way down to the wire.
Last edited by z0sa; 01-06-2009 at 01:03 PM.
Last season they were doubling and tripling constantly ... especially as the series wore on and the spurs were clearly tired. It has been this way every spurs vs lakers matchup in the Tim Duncan era:
PJ packs the paint and forces the spurs to hit jumpshots (we're the best 3pt shooting team in the League, Parker's/Tim's mid range jumpshots are money).
Tim starts going off and then the double's come, some early, some late. Tim starts thinking defer over score since he's not sure when the double's are going to be coming. Eventually the Spurs offense kicks into gear enough to beat the out of the Lakers at least 1-2 games, since LA hasn't had interior D since Shaq left.
Wow based on that expert analysis the Lakers might as well not even show up to play.
Please point out where anyone of us has said that the Spurs would beat the Lakers for sure. Please.
based on your expert analysis the Spurs shouldn't even show up to play
come back when the Lakers beat the spurs, otherwise stop your fingers from polluting the WWW.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
