Reply With Quote
Except it's been 5 years since the Spurs rung. The Lakers were defending champs.
Face it lakerfans. The Lakers are no more than 1 year behind the Spurs in the sad decline.
Let's see, in 2010 Spurs got swept by Suns in the 2nd round.
In 2011 Lakers gos swept by Mavs in the 2nd round.
in 2011 Spurs lost in 6 in the 1st round. That is the imminent fate of the Lakers. They will be gone in the 1st round of the playoffs. It's just the fate all old teams go through.
Except it's been 5 years since the Spurs rung. The Lakers were defending champs.
At least we stayed upright long enough for 5-4.
good point. the decline must be more steep than Spurs. It will be interesting to see these 2 old finished teams go head to head this season.
This ... you beat me 2 it ...
good point
& I do feel better now that Duncan is bone on bone just like Kobe.
fully agree with this tread
Cully I might consider giving you a chance at El Che in the next Spurs vs. Lakers game. I would not mind sending you to the tree of woe once again.
Sure. You got nothing to lose. You have 5 other monikers.
So should we expect an 8 this year from LA?
I think LA will be back to form this year after taking a break last season to let Pau's vagina heal.
But, we never actually found out what was making his vagina itch. He'd start telling it & denying it and then at the end he'd mumble something incoherent and walk away. Did Brown pollute his gf's snootch? Did Vanessa butt in?
It is what it is, but what it is should now be what it was.
I never really followed the saga of girlfriends and wives of the NBA. I just watch the games.
If the statement was directed only at Kobe, I'd be more inclined to agree. Kobe is on his decline, but he's still a pretty good player, and I think still a dangerous guy in crunchtime when he'll still try to enforce his will, win or lose. But I would think Gasol is still in his prime at 31. And Bynum is obviously still young. And it's the frontcourt size and depth that brought the Lakers back to a championship level. That is why I still think they have a decent size window if they make a few upgrades at PG and overall depth.
With the Spurs, Tim Duncan is their frontcourt. So with his decline goes the team's, regardless of how young and how many miles left Parker or even Ginobili have, though Ginobili has gotten older as well.
I think that's where the distinction lies, and why the assumption the Lakers are right there with the Spurs on the decline may be faulty logic.
possibly. But then your assumption is using faulty logic as well.
you are assuming Lakers will upgrade their PG and overall depth yet discounting the possibility the Spurs could upgrade their front court.
I am assuming neither which puts both teams at a same level of decline.
haters gonna hate...baby
The lakers have the front office and ability to make trades and sign free agent stars so they will rebound much faster than the Spurs who will ride the current team into the dust.
The lakers have the history of being able to rebound by adding star impact players through trades the Spurs don't.
i agree, spurs are in way worse position than lakers, who still have their elite frontline, which is what wins championships, bag kobe might be a bone on bone chucker on the decline, but that actually works better for the lakers, as has been montioned, only problem i see is kobe still thinkin he's a top 5 player and chucking the team out of games
Lakers always reload. That's what they do.
The decline of the Spurs is a parallel line to the decline of Duncan. Even when Kobe was in his prime and one of the best if not the best player in the league, he still only makes the Lakers a borderline playoff team. The Spurs can win 60 games in the regular season with Parker and Ginobili leading the way and Pop pushing the right buttons, but come playoff time, if Duncan ain't right, neither are the Spurs. Just like a team like the mid 2000s Phoenix Suns can win 60 games in the regular season and crash and burn in the playoffs.
With the Lakers, Kobe might be the closer, but they will have success in the playoffs when their frontcourt dominates to put Kobe in a position to close those games. If Gasol's vagina dries up again or if Bynum's knees fall apart again, the Lakers chances of playoff success drops significantly.
The decline of Kobe does not necessarily mean the decline of the Lakers as long as Kobe is only needed to close out the games, not carry the team to get there.
The distinction is pretty clear. And the analogy between the Spurs and Lakers seems superficial to me.
The Spurs success can be traced back to two 1st round picks. High end 1st overall picks like DRob and Tim attract other talent. San Antonio is the last place a lot of these recently rich brothers want to live, so they will look to LA or NY or even Miami first, but if they want to get seen, the Spurs were a good place for that to happen. It was also a good place to learn the game the right way.
When Tim goes, there's going to maybe be Manu, who has some respect as a player, and that's about it. I don't expect Tony to stick around, but even if he did, he's not going to attract players.
LA doesn't need the same things SA needs to remain attractive to free agents. SA's run is damn near over for a long time.
Lakers haven't won a le since the Magic their pants. Everyone knows and recognizes Game 7 of the 2010 Finals as a fraud. Which is why the Lakers went up in flames last season because they were the same BS team but refs couldn't bail them out
As of now, it's the same ty team but without Phil Jackson. Lakers would be the 5th seed in the Eastern Conference
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
