Reply With Quote
You'll be like the old Kings:::spend the entire ramp up wringing your hands, ing about the refs & talking under your breath about Kobe.
Kinda like here.
We're not looking to avoid anybody.
You'll be like the old Kings:::spend the entire ramp up wringing your hands, ing about the refs & talking under your breath about Kobe.
Kinda like here.
i think mavs are more of a threat then the spurs.
Lakers are quite possibly the luckiest team in the league. The very few teams capable of beating them suffered some key injuries. Portland lost Roy and Oden. Houston lost Tmac and Yao in 2008. Boston missed Perkins' presence in Game 7 and Jameer Nelson who historically owns the Lakers in 2008 dislocated his shoulder.
If that is not luck I dont know what is.
Don't see any of the aforementioned injuries really derailing the Lakers except, maybe, the Perkins injury. Don't know what quantifies 'luck' in your book, but every single champion in sports has to have some degree of luck on their side.
Luck (good & bad) is a major sector to (winning & losing) an NBA Championship. No doubt about it.
Perkins not only missed Game 7 last June, he missed 3/4's of Game 6. When that injury occurred we went from ruminating & searching for a way not to lose to having a relieved high probability of winning. It was a cathartic moment in the championship quest. Jackson, Bryant and Fish recognized it immediately. They had not only lost Perkins, but, Wallace was compromised as well by the Perkin's injury. We could mentally handle Wallace then with Perkins completely out of the picture. It was an incredible & fortunate turn of events there.
Those are the main reasons I'm confident the Bulls could give LA a good series and beat them...if they made it to the Finals.
The fact that Bynum was injured and hardly played game 7 negates the Perkins injury excuse. The Celts had a 13 point lead and Sheed stepped up. Yeah they got killed on the boards, but they had a 13 point lead in the 3rd quarter. They were in great position to win that game still.
Noah would be the one the Bulls could count on giving the Lakers trouble. Boozer, on the other hand, is perennially L.A.'s cabana boy.
I also for some reason see the blazers throwing a wrench in the lakers plan.
True, I'm just saying that among some of the most revered Back to Back NBA champions in history (Rockets, Bulls, Celtics & Showtime Lakers) I think the Kobe led Lakers had the easiest path because of some really unusual injuries from teams who weere legitimately a threat to them.
The Bulls had to face a complete Knicks, Jazz, Suns, Blazers, Heat & Sonics team. The Rockets dismantled a perfectly healthy New York and Olrando team. The 80's Celtics/Lakers team were beating the out of each other with most of its key players intact.
I mean come on. The Blazers own the Lakers @ the Garden. They were young, athletic and pretty deep. But injuries to Oden & Roy recently have pretty much sealed their fate. They were that one team IMO that can beat the Lakers before OKC came. Jameer has owned the Lakers PG's in the past. In those two big wins in 2008 against the Lakers, Nelson was the constant threat. Houston was on their way to upset the Lakers in the second round when Yao went down in Game 2 or 3. And of course, who couldve dismmised the absence of Perkins? The Celtics were outrebounded in that series with Kobe grabbing 15 of them. Just tells you how much the Celtics missed a huge body like Perkins down low.
That was because Boozer was all by himself on those Jazz teams. He was supposed to be Utah's "big man" which is laughable against the likes of Odom, Gasol, and Bynum. Boozer can't play that role. He's too soft. Same goes for Amare when he was with Phoenix. The Lakers feasted on the boards against those cupcake frontlines. With the Bulls Boozer has legit help in the paint with Noah, Taj Gibson, Asik, and Kurt Thomas who are all more physical and capable defenders. Boozer is mainly there for rebounding and to give Rose a 2nd or 3rd option on offense.
Roy and Oden...
Tmac and Yao...
Jameer Nelson...
Come on…You can’t be serious…That is like saying Ferrari is lucky that Kia did not show up for the race….
Yeah the Blazers own the Lakers up in the Rose Garden, but the same could be said that the Lakeshow own the Blazers @ Staples. The HCA would've been in the Lakers' favor and if you want to go that route, then sure you can make an argument. With Houston, you had a team that played with nothing to lose it might've been different if he didn't get injured. Orlando? Yeah, Jameer gave them fits, but even if he was %100, it wouldn't have changed the fact that everyone outside of him and Dwight choked for the most part. Rashard Lewis showed up for like, what? One game? Courtney Lee misses a point blank lay-up and even Howard was pretty much neutralized at times by the less-than-dominant-defensively Gasol and a gimpy Bynum. I have no argument that the Celtics' series could've gone Boston's way, that's why I think if you're going to use the 'luck' factor that one is luckiest of them all.
I doubt it. Lakers would probably be favored and go down in flames 2004-style with Kobe throwing up his annual 40% chucking on the big stage. The Lakers always survive Kobe's low percentage bricklaying by dominating teams on the offensive boards and getting 2nd shots. The Bulls are the best defensive team in the league for a reason. They know how to take care of the boards so teams are "one and done" against them. No second shots.
Didnt you say that the Cavs were gonna win it all last year. What was thier key injury?
Don't know if the Bulls have that veteran knowledge that the Pistons had in '04. They're still a young and inexperienced team that would probably give the Lakers fits, but still not have the ability when it got tight in a playoff atmosphere. Also, the lack of stellar SG play and Rose not necessarily a consistent deep threat (yet) would put them at a slight disadvantage. Would be, though, a great series--I'm just not ready to say that the Bulls are 'all the way there.'
lol thinking the Bulls would beat LA. Phil Jackson makes a living on destroying PG oriented teams, he would do the same with Chicago. 5 game series max.
Spurs/Mavs have about 10% chance of beating LA
Rest of West 3%
LA would beat Chicago in 6 imo, no team starting Keith Bogans will beat the Lakers.
As for the thread...Dallas is the only team that has the frontcourt to matchup with them. Problem is they don't have any consistent weapons outside of Dirk in a half court set. That series would be 4-2 Lakers. Other than the Mavs, no one else is really a threat. Spurs could win a game or 2, but they just don't have the frontcourt/defense to matchup with the Lakers.
Lakers will beat the Spurs in 6 max. Spurs are bound to go ape from 3 in one game but LA would ultimately win.
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I highly doubt it.
Bynum's knee / Kobe's knee.
Nothing else.
Hmmm, 5 months later huh?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
