Reply With Quote
We've got a whole summer of this on spurstalk.
The Lakers have nothing to prove to anyone. They are the defending champs and were hands down the best team in the NBA last season. Everyone else is merely playing catchup.
They were not the team that lost to the _allas Mavericks in the 1st round despite having HCA. That team has much to prove before we can even put them in the same sentence as the Lakers.
We've got a whole summer of this on spurstalk.
That incredibly easy path to the 'ship they took proved absolutely nothing. Just because LA made it look way harder than it should have been doesn't change that fact.The Lakers have nothing to prove to anyone.
The same could be said about LA's path to the Finals last year before they met a healthy contender, who promptly curbstomped them.
The Lakers have nothing to prove to ANYONE. They are the defending champs and were the best team in the league last season.
65 wins
4-0 record against CLE/BOS
16-7 playoff record
It's not their fault the Western Conference can't match them.
The Lakers are the best, the champs, the gold standard. Everyone else is just playing catchup.
Oh, 15 rings got.
the lakers have nothing to prove to anyone. They are the defending champs and were the best team in the league last season.
65 wins
4-0 record against cle/bos
16-7 playoff record
it's not their fault the western conference can't match them.
The lakers are the best, the champs, the gold standard. Everyone else is just playing catchup.
Oh, 15 rings got.
qft
Spurs pick up a big in FA and they're as good as LA, easily, based on talent alone. pretty much anyone who's not a Laker fan is in agreement on this.
They still have alot to prove in my book. They had a hard time getting past the Rockets' injury riddled team. They lucked out this year. They need to prove themselves against a healthy team.
and LA hasn't even signed odom or Ariza. either one of them go and they may be second or third best in the west. if Odom goes they lose their freak athleticism and size in the frontcourt. i'd put them below Orlando, Boston, Clevelend, Denver, San Antonio if that happens. it's going to be an interesting off-season for LA. a lot of ?
Wtf are you smoking? You DO realize that there has never been an easier path to a le than 2007, right? The only tough series was marred by crooked officiating (Donaghy) and rule technicalities. Nuggets, suns, Jazz, and the LeBrons...OMG
I guess that means the 2007 le means jack , right? You might wanna think before you post next time, lest you look like a fool
and we will..if you honestly think we're going into the season with this squad, you aren't playing with a full deck. Pop and RC have already said they will use their exceptions to pick up some bigs...expect another big signing for SA before the season...at least one more big signing, and one minor.
See, its quite the opposite case here. The Spurs were the best and they knew it. They clearly backed it up with extremely solid play on both ends, and we're essentially unstoppable to any team that year, with or without injuries. Hence that 16-4 record and complete domination of the Finals. I won't mention the fact we played relatively healthy teams all the way through (larry Hughes was the only 'big name' player injury we played against, AFAIR)Wtf are you smoking? You DO realize that there has never been an easier path to a le than 2007, right? The only tough series was marred by crooked officiating (Donaghy) and rule technicalities. Nuggets, suns, Jazz, and the LeBrons...OMG
Now let's take a look at the lakers run. First off, it must be noted every contender other than LA had injury problems (LeBrons showed they were weak contenders at best).
Jazz (injuries, chemistry problems): the Spurs handily beat a younger, much more cohesive incarnation of this team in 07 with less talent. The Lakers put on the same type of show, except its 2 years later and the Jazz a lot tier because of injury/chemistry issues.
Houston (major injuries): By far the most incriminating evidence against this "playoff run" proving anything .Without their two highest paid superstars, a D-League team + Ron Artest, with a 6'6 guy at center, took that huge frontline of LA to work and pushed them to 7 games. This right here makes the Lakers' run unimpressive, and proves their armor is easily ed. I won't mention noname Brooks making your interior D look like playground ball at the elementary.
Denver (injuries): probably the best team they played, which is truly sad. Carmelo was injured the entire series and definitely showed it past game 1 or so. I upped my respect for him (not much) when he played through his injuries, but that team didn't belong - they're still only second tier and it showed when they lost by 20 at home with their backs against the wall.
Orlando (injuries, chemistry problems): with a healthy Jameer, they would definitely give LA a run for their money. Sad truth is, Jameer wasn't healthy for 4 months and by playing him for big minutes in big moments, SVG destroyed the fragile chemistry that had been created throughout the playoffs with Rafer. Even if he hadn't have played, SVG knew he needs Nelson to win against LA so it was lose-lose.
In reality, the Lakers' 16-7 record is a travesty. They shouldn't have lost more than twice considering their talent level and injury problems of every other contender.
16-4 >> 16-7, and Donaghy didn't do for the spurs and its been proven call by call countless times on this very forum. I won't dig it up for the post-February 1st, 2008 LAfan. You're honestly a to use this considering the evidence clearly shows different. The only conclusion is that you're an NBA newbie who didn't pour through call after call Donaghy made that game, because everyone else did and the results are in: Donaghy didn't do for the spurs.I guess that means the 2007 le means jack , right?
That incredibly easy path to the 'ship they took proved absolutely nothing. Just because LA made it look way harder than it should have been doesn't change that fact.You might wanna think before you post next time, lest you look like a fool
The same could be said about LA's path to the Finals last year before they met a healthy contender, who promptly curbstomped them.
Last edited by z0sa; 06-28-2009 at 04:37 PM.
, Spurs won in 07, Lakers won in 09. What the do the paths to the trophy mean? You can only beat the teams put infront of you.
i agree. Tell that to Lakerfan saying they don't got to prove just because their team won it all against subpar compe ion. A healthy team could destroy you a la Boston in 08, LA vs Spurs that same year, so don't act like its farfetched.
Last edited by z0sa; 06-28-2009 at 04:59 PM.
Once again, put down the crack pipe...you lucked out when Dallas got the worst playoff draw possible. Dallas owned your asses. Please just STFU with this nonsense. If you win the NBA Championship than--as a team-- you have nothing to prove. Do you know why? BECAUSE YOU JUST ING WON IT.
It's really quite simple.
like I said in my post, IF the Spurs pick up a Pachulia, Bird Man, Rasheed, McDyess, the Spurs' roster is as good as anybody else's. to say otherwise is to be in complete denial. that's give them a formidable frontline to go along with their talent-filled backcourt.
the Spurs are a FA big away from being as good as anyone else in this league, after analyst after analyst thought they were a franchise whose best years were past them. Lakers fans are struggling to process all of this, after they'd been told their team would win the next fifty championships with its current roster.
What double standard? We(Laker fans) aren't aloud to get excited about a 7'1 Center who has put up 42 points in a game before. But, they can get excited over a 6'7 PF who has no ACL. I see no double standard.
The Lakers are the 2009 NBA Champions.
The Spurs are an old over the hill team that lost in the 1st round to ing Dallas despite having HCA.
It's too early to be talking about next season. Way too early...
you are SO last year ...
You're an idiot...over the hill? You do know that our average age is only 2 years older than LA now, right? lol...we got a of a lot younger...and better. Don't hate. Yes..you won the le..but guess what House...the season's over...congrats on last season's championship.The Lakers are the 2009 NBA Champions.
The Spurs are an old over the hill team that lost in the 1st round to ing Dallas despite having HCA.
And guess what? The Lakers won it all.
And your team didn't. In fact your team got embarrassed by the _allas Mavericks.
Next.
An expert on men LMAOthat your lakers might see the spurs next year
you look like your a little nervos boy or girl or whatever the you are tranny i dunno posting in all these spurs threads recently
acl's lol? i think there a difference between a real man name dejaun blair who plays through them and a little overated name bynum that dosent
I can agree with this. The Lakers have a healthier core at this point so I'd give them the edge. But in terms of talent it will be close.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
