Reply With Quote
On the other hand, since 2009, the lakers have always won at least 1 road game in every playoff series.
Suck on that, GNSF.
The Lakers have not won a series on the road since Shaq left L.A.
Barring injuries, I think Spurs can handle business and get to the Finals.
I think the Celtics-Lakers Finals last year showed us how important Homecourt is for Kobe's Lakers and how a touch of luck with Perk's injuries helped them too.
Yes,.. I know there's always a first for everything but that was just my Fact of the Day. take it with a grain of salt if you may....
On the other hand, since 2009, the lakers have always won at least 1 road game in every playoff series.
Suck on that, GNSF.
Winning one road game is slightly different than winning a SERIES without the HCA....
but whatever makes you sleep easier..
Argue about that all you want but one great thing we can all come together and agree on is: The Lakers Suck!
How is our record of the last years with HCA??
Do you smell foot rot up in here?
The only way we beat the Lakers in the WCF, even assuming we make it to the WCF, is if the Spurs shoot lights out in 4 games out of 7. Phil will definately take his chances having guys like Novak, Bonner and Neal beating his team rather than Duncan, Parker and Ginobili.
They will pack the paint and will stick with it, daring our shooters to take shots. They will pack the paint and wont deviate from it at all unless we manage to jump out on a 2 game lead on them, and even then Phil still might dare our shooters to continue shooting outside.
Lakers advantage is size and Phil knows it. He will not give up that advantage easily.
The first 2 games IMHO will be crucial for any matchup we have in the playoffs. If our gunners can show they will hit outside for the first 2 wins in each series (and win), it may compel the other team to open up the paint, allowing Tim Tony and Manu to work inside.
Make no mistake, Spurs are not a run-and-gun team like the Suns where.... Sure, Spurs try to push it down the court fast when they can, but their offense is not predicated on the fast breaks like the Suns where. We can still go deep in the clock and play half-court offense very effectively, the problem I see is that our Spurs never have tried to go for offensive boards and prefer to get in a defensive set after a quality look.
Going hard on offense like we have, coupled with not going for offensive boards against teams that pack the paint could be trouble for us if a few shooters have an off series.... Not to pick on him, but case in point, Bonner.
Bottom line, if Spurs can find someone to hit shots consistently from outside, we have a shot.... If we cant hit long range shots, we are screwed.
Yeah, but the Lakers weakness is their bench-- which sucks. It's gonna be exposed in a 7 game series, esp if they don't have HCA. But by the time we see the Lakers, their bench will be exposed by two teams already. Almost every other team in the West is deeper than the Lakers. .
Lakers have had a bench the last 2 years and its worked out fine for them.
Spurs only chance to beat the Lakers is to rebound/defend at a level they havent showed this season.
you don't beat the lakers with offense. they're too good defensively to consistently put up points against them.
you have to limit their shots and hope that our guys are more clutch in the end. pretty much our only chance.
Pretty much what I was try to say, but with less words and more to the point.
I think the Spurs are good enough defensively to limit shots by the Lakers, and it may sound crazy, but to me it seems we will have more trouble on the offensive end if we cant make our shots.
We've settled for ALOT of 3's so far this season and the games we have lost are mostly because we didnt make those shots.
You can have the best defensive lineup in the NBA, but you still need points to win, and like it or not, we are an outside shooting team now.
Having said that, with as many gunners as the Spurs have, I like our chances.... I dont even think the Suns from a few years ago had the pure shooting talent we have, nor the inside presence of Duncan and Parker. It's really up to Pop to recognize that one of our shooters just isnt going to get it done that night and make a decision to play someone else.
He has the weapons available to him, but will he be too stubborn to choose a different one when we are losing, or will he stick with the same dull blade that particular night?
Last edited by phyzik; 03-21-2011 at 11:02 PM.
I wouldn't say their bench sucks. Lamar is still their sixth man and he's still better than anyone on the Spurs' bench. Barnes is pretty capable at times too. And it's the playoffs, you don't need a bench more than three players deep.
I have to ask - what in the world makes you think that? SA plays at a fast tempo so they don't limit possessions, they don't have anyone who can guard Kobe, and they are too small or slow to guard Pau, Bynum or LO.
SA is built for the regular season. Their best chance against LA is winning an offensive shootout. That won't work but its still their best chance with their personnel.
I'd give the Spurs 30/70 odds vs LA with homecourt, and even that seems to be a bit generous. Duncan and McDyess are going to need to rebound and play decent D and two of Neal, Bonner, and Jefferson will need to be killing from the three-point line. Parker's going to have to murder Fisher and one of Ginobili and Hill has to have a big series too. The Spurs have a razor-thin margin of error vs a team with the size, defensive ability, and coaching of the Lakers. Of course, this is assuming health; if Bynum goes down again it would hurt the Lakers in that matchup more than an injury to anyone but Parker or Duncan would do to the Spurs.
I love how a couple good games have turned bynum into ing kareem. Why don't all you doom and gloom Spurs fans just off already, theres plenty of laker forums you can join, you like them so much, cheer for them!
Lol gnsf
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
