Reply With QuoteNice...that's a good reference...glad to see you picked up on that.....
The Lakers will be OK...I predict NBA Champions 2006
Slava will have to use a gun like the 80's TV series Equalizer did to bring the Lakers any hope.
Useruser666 :eyebrow
Nice...that's a good reference...glad to see you picked up on that.....
The Lakers will be OK...I predict NBA Champions 2006
You can pay a guy 25 mill or pay 15 guys 2 mill apiece but it won't add up. Let me know when Grant gets to play in 96 minute games and shaq only 48, K? You ever play one of the older NBA videogames and trade a bunch of mediorce guys for a Duncan, Shaq, KG?? thats what that is. There is only 5 guys playing at a time. Shaq should get paid whatever the he wants since even if there is a few guys that may be able to produce nearly what he can do, TD, Yao, ummmm that's it, none are nor likely will EVER be available to the Lakers. Everyone else has ed about KG's contract but you know what, take away his contract and fill the roster and you just have another Clippers. Talented team but will never go anywhere.
Kaster, I could not agree with you more.Don't confuse Laker Lanny with most Laker fans. Lanny is an idiot, pure and simple. Sort of a local village idiot.
Shaq is beggining to brake down even if he is in shape, no center can play much longer than he has
you wouldn't even come close to saying that if you fully understood the financial situation it would have put LA in, and just how detrimental it would have been to the future of the franchiseShaq should get paid whatever the he wants since even if there is a few guys that may be able to produce nearly what he can do, TD, Yao, ummmm that's it, none are nor likely will EVER be available to the Lakers.
KG took a paycut to help his team get players he needed, Shaq was unwilling to do that. See any difference?Everyone else has ed about KG's contract but you know what, take away his contract and fill the roster and you just have another Clippers. Talented team but will never go anywhere.
The lakers had the players needed. That's the difference. As much as 3 rings are impressive that's underachieving. Bryant is a , plain and simple. Shaq is physically unstoppable. The best center in the game by FAR teamed up with the best guard in the last 20 years not named jordan? Kobe showed how much of a he was in that game where he refused to shoot. You cannot dispute that while with the lakers when shaq was out, kobe didn't carry near as well as shaq when kobe was out. And how the you don't give the guy who's right at the top of the FG % leaders 30 plus shots is beyond me.
This is the oldest argument in the book... That team did well with Shaq because they were put there BECAUSE of Shaq. Spot up shooters, and players that worked well with dominant big man. Had Kobe had a teammates that complimented HIS game and not Shaq's, you might have seen a totally different story.You cannot dispute that while with the lakers when shaq was out, kobe didn't carry near as well as shaq when kobe was out. And how the you don't give the guy who's right at the top of the FG % leaders 30 plus shots is beyond me.
Every year except for last year and his rookie year Shaq averaged 18 or more shot attempts per game, and 10 ft's per game. He likely had 30+ shots per game, or have you forgotten how terrible a free throw shooter he is???
Every year except for last year and his rookie year Shaq averaged 18 or more shot attempts per game, and 10 ft's per game. He likely had 30+ shots per game, or have you forgotten how terrible a free throw shooter he is???
Duncan's a terrible FT shooter too but if you don't give him the ball down low your just stupid. Its not like even if he misses all of them the other team is homefree. Guys foul out and put the team over the limit to allow others to shoot FT when a non-shooting foul is called
BUT, you still want to play the FT card? Ok, i'll play with you. Shaq shot 49% FT last year, below his average and below his last few years. He had 10.1 attempts/game and made 4.9. Now if he shot at Kobe's percantage he would have made 8.6 fts per game. A difference of 3.7 pts per game. But now we'll take Kobe's 18.1 FGA per game and apply shaq's FG %. 10.6 FG's/game versus 7.9 FG's/game A difference of 2.7. Even if they were all 2pters with no FT's thats a bare minimum of 5.4 ppg. But Kobe should get more shots because he's a better FT shooter right? How riduculous is that? There's lots of great HOF players with a horrible FT shooting but you have to be effiecent to be great and even with your skewed logic you can go back and look at the stats and admit that shaq is more effiecent than kobe.
I'll go back to this as I had no initial responseComments?Quote: Shaq was shut down as well. He never faced a double team yet he only had one big game scoring.
Perhaps that is because Shaq was taking three shots for every four Kobe was taking.
When you see that Shaq was shooting .631 and Kobe .381, and that Shaq got to the line more than twice as much as Kobe while shooting less, how do you come to the conclusion that Shaq was shut down and that the Lakers did everything right?
Detroit's strategy was brilliant alright -- when you shut down Kobe, he still shoots the ball at the same clip. It hardly matters what Shaq does because he'll never see the ball enough to make up the difference.
Play this card.
Spurs 2 rings.
Wolves 0.
Blow me.
I should have figured that numbers with decimal points would have made your mind boggle Sequ. But on the bright side i saw some flash cards than can make you familiar with our decimal friend.
SickDSM,
Only one stat counts................
Eat beyitch.
Shaq>Kobe! Begin!
Useruser666 :eyebrow
Mihm > Rasho. I can write that in crayon if you'd like.
Sorry, I couldn't help but chime in on this one. It's funny how you can be blinded by the severely limited talent that is Mihm.
Fact: Mihm is a career backup big man in the NBA. He couldn't hold down a starting job with any of the crappy teams he's been on. On a team featuring Mark Blount as a number one post option, Mihm couldn't even get regular minutes and he couldn't even play well enough to start. He sucks, plain and simple. He has done nothing on the court to show that he's anything more than a bench player.
Rasho has disappointed, but there is a reason he's making pretty good $$$. Even with his penchant for disappearing, he's still in the top half of the league at his position. He's held down starting jobs for two contending teams in the tougher conference, and he was a coveted free agent. He's a better defender than Mihm, he's got more offensive tools, and he might even be a better rebounder.
Mihm is one of the stiffest seven footers in the game. When he can even hold down a starting job, get back to me.
What's this BS about "starting positions"? Rasho didn't start in the NBA until 2002, and was so impressive after two seasons that he got traded from the Twolves, who were LOOKING to make a le run. Instead, Rasho is picked up by Spurs and has been nothing more than an adequate part time center. Who cares if the guy starts, he has averaged 24.9 mpg in his career.Sorry, I couldn't help but chime in on this one. It's funny how you can be blinded by the severely limited talent that is Mihm.
Fact: Mihm is a career backup big man in the NBA. He couldn't hold down a starting job with any of the crappy teams he's been on. On a team featuring Mark Blount as a number one post option, Mihm couldn't even get regular minutes and he couldn't even play well enough to start. He sucks, plain and simple. He has done nothing on the court to show that he's anything more than a bench player.
Rasho has disappointed, but there is a reason he's making pretty good $$$. Even with his penchant for disappearing, he's still in the top half of the league at his position. He's held down starting jobs for two contending teams in the tougher conference, and he was a coveted free agent. He's a better defender than Mihm, he's got more offensive tools, and he might even be a better rebounder.
Mihm is one of the stiffest seven footers in the game. When he can even hold down a starting job, get back to me.
Mihm has averaged 19.0 mpg in his career. His starts aren’t relevant in this discussion when he was at least playing behind a real center in Blout, while Rasho had who as the 2nd option at center in Minny? And besides, Rasho is 3 years younger and has played five seasons in the NBA to Mihm's four seasons. Through Rasho's first 4 years, his stats and mpg were identical to Mihm's first 4 seasons.
And Mihm still had better per 48 stats last season, which should never happen if Rasho were actually that much better than Mihm.
:brotha
UMMM...kEVIN, Are you trying to emulate Laker Lanny by not knowing WHAT THE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT?
First let me say this...WHAT THE **** HAS CHRIS MIHM EVER ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NBA? Answer JACK - Try as anyone might to put down the Slovene, the team D was #1 with him in the paintWhat's this BS about "starting positions"? Rasho didn't start in the NBA until 2002, and was so impressive after two seasons that he got traded from the Twolves, who were LOOKING to make a le run.
:A
As for you Kevin- It worked out like so:
espn.go.com/nba/news/2003...80271.html
He signed for 6 years 42 Million. In short, Rasho took less to play with a better TEAM.Nesterovic already has a seven-year offer on the table worth more than $50 million from the Wolves, who desperately want to keep Nesterovic alongside Kevin Garnett on their front line.
No, the team D was #1 with Duncan in the paint. I could play center and the Spurs would still be #1 in FG% against. Talk about not knowing what the you're talking about.First let me say this...WHAT THE **** HAS CHRIS MIHM EVER ACCOMPLISHED IN THE NBA? Answer JACK - Try as anyone might to put down the Slovene, the team D was #1 with him in the paint.
And yet the Twolves got deeper into the playoffs than the Spurs did last season. Looks like Rasho was on the wrong team. That said, I believe the Spurs are better, but you don't really know if Rasho went to the Spurs because he thought they were the better team. And he still ended up getting a worse contract with the Spurs compared to what he could have gotten with the Twolves.He signed for 6 years 42 Million. In short, Rasho took less to play with a better TEAM.
That said, I'll admit I was mistaken about the Twolves not wanting him, I don't remember Minny being that desperate.
I wasn't saying that because Shaq had a poor ft % that he shouldn't get the ball, I was saying that he DID get the ball, and took well over 18 shots per game most of the time. Shot attempts that result in a foul don't count in your totals. Therefore, if he's averaging 18 shot attempts per game with 10 ft attempts, you COULD say that he's averaging 23 shots per game if each of those ft's were the result of a foul on a shot and not an "and 1" foul or a hack a shaq foul. Since they don't keep stats on that we'll never know for sure.Duncan's a terrible FT shooter too but if you don't give him the ball down low your just stupid. Its not like even if he misses all of them the other team is homefree. Guys foul out and put the team over the limit to allow others to shoot FT when a non-shooting foul is called
Well Tawnia i pointed out that even if shaq was shooting 85 % it still results in less points for the lakers than if shaq was getting the amount of touches that Kobe has been. And i tell you what, the only thing stopping that from happaning is kobe's ego. FTA were figured in.
More touches for Shaq = more points for the lakers than if kobe was shooting them.
You can't deny this.
For the record you guys aren't forgetting the tax issue in Texas are you? A comparable contract in MN really results in more money in texas although i'm unsure how much.
Kobe shoots a lot, I'm not denying that... but the difference in your scenario is small, within 1 or 2 points. So if you want to argue that they'd get less points and base it on a 1-2 point difference, go for it. But let's not ever kid ourselves into believing that Shaq could ever shoot 85% ft's.
Explain why there wasn't a dropoff considering that Duncan only played in 69 games?No, the team D was #1 with Duncan in the paint. I could play center and the Spurs would still be #1 in FG% against. Talk about not knowing what the you're talking about
Rasho followed the D sets the way Pop outlined and that is why plus Tim, that opponents shot like against San Antonio.
i think the lakers will be better with the roster they have now then last (considering malone resigns)
Um, there WAS a dropoff. Do you know what the Spurs' record was when Duncan didn't play? Do you know what their FG% against went up considerably when he wasn't in the lineup, on order of about 3%? The Spurs don't suck defensively when Duncan's gone, but they are certainly no where near elite. They're closer to good, or solid maybe.Explain why there wasn't a dropoff considering that Duncan only played in 69 games?
Like I said, it's easy to play defense when you have Tim Duncan helping you out. No one talks about the greatness of the centers that were starting with KG last season when the Twolves finished 4th in FG% against. Unless Ervin Johnson, Oliver Miller, Michael Olowokandi or Mark Madsen suddenly became above average centers? No, those are pretty much some of the worst centers in the league. And yet, Twolves finish 4th in FG% against. Amazing!!!!Rasho followed the D sets the way Pop outlined and that is why plus Tim, that opponents shot like against San Antonio.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
