Reply With Quote
Didn't read it. But I'm absolutely shocked that Phil Jackson's pet writer would pick the Lakers over the Spurs. I'm sure he's unbiased.
Spurs stopping the Lakers in '09? Unlikely
by Charley Rosen
Game time: Lakers 99, Spurs 85
Previous to the game it certainly looked like San Antonio was the only team that could prevent the Lakers from returning to the Finals. By early in the third quarter, however, this possibility was revealed as a pipe dream.
Here's how and why the Lakers so easily dismantled the Spurs:
Defense
L.A. was so quick into literally every passing lane that the Spurs needed to execute near-perfect passes to keep the ball moving. Any pass that was even slightly off the mark gave the Lakers defenders time enough to harass the eventual shooters — which is one reason why the visitors shot only 37.7 per cent, including a woeful 5-23 from beyond the arc.
While Tony Parker got into the middle quite frequently in early-offense and fast-break situations, the Lakers were able to swarm his attempts to penetrate in half-court sets. Forced to take more jumpers than he liked, Parker hit only 3 of 10 of these — including a 17-foot air-ball.
Nor were Tim Duncan's jumpers (1-4) on target.
It's always been extremely critical for the Spurs to shoot well from the perimeter. When they misfire from beyond or near the 3-point line, they always have trouble scoring sufficient points to beat good teams.
Kobe Bryant played suffocating defense on Manu Ginobili — 4-11 for nine points. When Ginobili was able to catch the ball in an attack zone, Kobe simply pushed him right and into help.
Particularly when Lamar Odom was involved, the Lakers simply switched high screen/rolls. Odom is long and quick enough to prevent Parker from carrying the ball into the paint — and also to pressure TP's jumpers.
Since Roger Mason has trouble passing on the move, the Lakers forced him into boxes when he played the point position. The result was Mason's registering one assist and three turnovers.
Andrew Bynum blocked four shots, intimidated four others, and allowed TD to convert only one of three shots from the low post.
All told, the Lakers defense made the Spurs look old and slow.
Offense
Duncan has always been an excellent help-defender, but only a slightly above average man-to-man defender. Accordingly, both Bynum and Pau Gasol were able to create extremely makeable shots whenever they took TD into the pivot.
Bynum bricked a jumper, but demonstrated several excellent moves in the pivot. He's always had great hands, and it's evident that his footwork is rapidly catching up.
If Bynum had difficulty making accurate interior passes when he was doubled, Gasol picked out open cutters and unguarded shooters with ease.
The few times that L.A. employed a double-pivot alignment (with Bynum and Gasol), they totally discombobulated San Antonio's defense.
Michael Finley did tally eight points (3-8), but the Lakers picked on his over-the-hill defense — taking full advantage when he turned his head (against Luke Walton), successfully isoing Trevor Ariza, and exposing Finley's inability to make secondary rotations when Gasol was doubled in the low post.
Bruce Bowen had extensive minutes in defense of Kobe, limiting him to two points in head-to-head confrontations — foul shots in an open-court situation. But Kobe manhandled Mason for seven points, and Ginobili for 13. Even more significantly, only one of Kobe's 17 shots was forced.
Ariza and the newly activated Jordan Farmer were buzzsaws, ripping through the Spurs' once-proud defense and shooting over it for a combined 31 points (10-15) in only 43 minutes.
The Lakers are deeper, quicker, and slicker than the Spurs.
Is it at all possible, then, for San Antonio to best the Lakers should they meet in the playoffs?
Absolutely.
But only if they go to Duncan more in the low post. Give Bowen more time in defense of Kobe. Make their open jumpers. Avoid showing double-teams too early. Sign or trade for another wing-scorer to take some pressure off of Ginobili. Somehow gain the home-court advantage.
If all these eventualities are possible, they're also highly improbable. The X-factors, however, are the Spurs' resourcefulness, ability to elevate their collective performance in the clutch, and most importantly their championship experience.
Didn't read it. But I'm absolutely shocked that Phil Jackson's pet writer would pick the Lakers over the Spurs. I'm sure he's unbiased.
Charley Rosen is accurate with pretty much everything he says in the article. I've noticed as well how Mason gets out of control when he's passing on the move or penetrating. It's usually two the other way.
Good analysis. It seems silly not to read something just because one's fragile ego can't handle the truth. So who's biased again?
Actually, if you play the percentages, it's unlikely for a Pop/Duncan team to win against PJ's Lakers at anytime. They own us, sad to say. I wish it wasn't so, but our record against them precludes any other conclusion.
Neither team has done nothing but win at home, until someone wins at the others house then, then.....
I love my Spurs and I agree. This Spurs team isnt going to beat LA in the playoffs. We need another big to help with Bynum.
True, but LA was IN the game in Saytown with players missing.......LA kicked our butts out there with both teams at almost 100%.
Spurs need a better big next to Tiim.
It seems the Spurs are scared of the Lakers when they play in LA. Blowing 20 point leads, getting blown out.... I mean its like they bend over for LA.
At least RMJ gave them a meat sandwich in S.A
Spurs lost this game cause Bonner and Mason couldn't hit from the outside. When those guys are on, this opens things up for the team. When they're not, they're not as good. But they have good percentages, so the odd bad game doesn't worry me too much.
For 2 quarters the Spurs where compe ive despite those guys not being able to hit from the outside. By the fourth Pop decided the game was lost and Duncan and Parker sat.
On to the next game. We'll see if Farmar has that good of a game in the playoffs. Or in the next game. LOL.
The Spurs have ZERO CHANCE of beating the Lakers in the playoffs. They are just too small. The only teams in the West that can conceivably derail the Lakers are the Blazers or a healthy Rockets team.
lol, Blazers play no defense.
how did i know you were going to say the blazers have a chance of beating the lakers?
how can you say that with a straight face? when was the last time the blazers have been
1999-2000 was the last season your team made it out of the first round.
settle down, win a playoff series, a few championships, and perhaps then you can claim your beloved team a dynasty. perhaps.
Agree. Besides, the Spurs' salary is currently about 11m behind Lakers. Buford needs to pay more money and get better players.
Damon Stoudamire was wondering where his weed went - Please give it back and quit smoking it.
Except it's not Buford's choice. He has been told to stay below the lux tax by ownership, so that's what he has to do.
all of this is true.
that's depending. The spurs will have a GREAT chance to wipe lakers out if they suck and spurs play good, and also the lakers for that matter. lakers 51% is 2points higher than spurs 49% winning possibility, however, does it make any difference between those two?
you have to get to the playoffs. kenny smith doesn't think your team will make it.
One thing brought up by Rosen, maybe accidentally in the point breakdown of who covers Kobe, is something rarely talked about and that's Ginobili's defense.
All people are focusing on this season is whether his offense is back, how he shoots, if he's stiff, how he drives, his turnovers, etc. But I've noticed his defense this year has to be the worst of his career. He used to be a great guy to just stick on good offensive players when Bowen was out, he sure doesn't look like that anymore. He just doesn't move on defense as well as he used to so far this season.
I thought the reason we shot 37% was because we missed wide open shots, on the third quarter most notably. Heck, even Phil Jackson said their defense was so so then. I must have seen a different game than Rosen...
The Spurs always miss wide open shots when it comes to the big game. Their offense is really overrated, and while I don't doubt they can have a good shooting game or two against the Lakers, to do so in a 7 game series just isn't gonna happen.
The way the current roster is made up, there is no way the Spurs are gonna beat LA 4 times out of 7 unless one of their starters get injured.
I'm not sure if you're trolling like you normally do or you really believe that the Blazers could beat the Lakers in a 7 game series. But either way you're wrong.
Originally Posted by tlongII
"The Spurs have ZERO CHANCE of beating the Lakers in the playoffs. They are just too small. The only teams in the West that can conceivably derail the Lakers are the Blazers or a healthy Rockets team."
Uhhhh, OK. However, let me say this about that...
The Lakers have ZERO CHANCE of beating the Celtics or Magic in the Finals. They are both sooooooooo much better than the Lakers. The only team in the West that can conceivably derail the Celtics in the Finals are the SPURS. You seem to forget that the Spurs season doesn't begin until the Rodeo comes to town. We just experiment during the first half of the season. Pop, unlike any other coach uses the first 40-45 games to work out his battle plan heading into the playoffs. After all Pop is a Military man! This season will be 5 NBA les out of the last 10 years. Better than any other franchise in the 4 major professional sports leagues. Go back and look at the last 9 years records at this time of the season and you'll see that this is our usual spot...yet 4 of those 9 years we went on to win the NBA Championship. This year will be no different.
Last edited by SouthTexasRancher; 01-25-2009 at 11:19 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
