One Simple Request

[Blackjack]

They're excuses, man. Think about it: when you have talent, commitment and supposedly high IQ players (in most cases), there's no excuse to look this poor. I could see not necessarily being contenders, or underachieving to an extent, but this team should at minimum be firmly entrenched as a top four seed in the conference. Yeah, I am speaking in broader terms.

I know the individual state that each member of the big three entered the season in, but like I said, if shouldn't take over 50 games for this team to "come together". At this point, if they're to do that, it'll happen in the back third of the season. We should have seen more by now.

You'll get no argument for me that they've underachieved. The only thing I've alluded to were cir stances that only helped to exacerbate an already tough situation. There are reasons the team looks this poor, a chain of events and confluence of cir stance, that have lead to the product they've put out on the floor. And unless you feel that individual players are dogging it or the coach is utterly inept and/or tanking the season (I'm sure there's some that believe that), that's just the reality of it; I'm not excusing, more so diagnosing.

It's easy to say, after the fact (given the success of those two franchises) that those were all perfect fits. Not that anyone thought they were bad fits at the time, but the point is those two teams found a way to make it work and they did it quickly.

I honestly said and knew it then; they were just great, ideal fits.

Gasol is an absolutely ridiculous fit in the Triangle and he's a deferential star that would gladly play Robin to Kobe's Batman. I don't think they advance to the Finals in '08 without the benefit of a hobbled Manu, but, be that as it may ... he was, they did, and they've been reaping the rewards ever since. Had they lost to the Spurs, though ... maybe it's not viewed in quite the same, quick light (which might be a more proper perspective). In any event, there just weren't the hurdles to overcome incorporating a player like Gasol into that mix.

The thing I loved about Boston's trades (even if I can't stand whom they traded for) was that they fit together seamlessly; acquiring star players with already defined games allowed them to put their team together like a puzzle of skill set: KG plays a high-post game, Pierce works off the elbows, slashes and creates off the dribble, and Allen works off of screens, movement and lives for the three. All of this benefited a guy like Rondo by keeping the paint open, as he's similar to Parker, and it allowed the Perkins, Powe's and Davis' of the world to clean up as well. Defensively they had the length and versatility to lock people up and give people fits; KG, Perkins, Posey, Pierce and Rondo complimented each other equally well defensively. It was just a very well put together team that could only, feasibly, be put together the way it was; the Draft brings a lot of unknowns you do your best to build around and work with ... trades and free-agency allow you to really find the right, sometimes perfect, pieces.

So when you have the right pieces and you're able to start the season the way they were, naturally, things come together quicker; even with the right pieces though, there's no guarantee they win a championship if Pierce or KG's coming off of what Manu did (which I suppose, to a lesser degree, is my point: You need to go right when it's all said and done).

Even if you didn't think they were championship material, anything less than 3rd round (barring them being decimated by injury) had to have been considered a disappointment entering the season, right?

Before the season started, I expected a Lakers matchup in the WCF. So, yeah, anything less would have been a disappointment. If you were to ask me that question now, and were to give me the team I'd expect them to be if everything had gone right, I'd have them competing with Denver and Dallas for the right to play the Lakers (as I think it'd pretty much be a toss-up after the moves from Dallas and what I've witnessed from the Nuggets; I'd actually worry more about Dallas that Denver, though).

[mountainballer]

It's just been a frustrating year . . .

oh wait. the best has yet to come.

as discussed in the other thread, the rotations are becoming that mind boggling that I really really don't know what's to expect.
maybe Pop is one of this Haute Cuisine chefs, who suddenly lose their sense of taste. they still know how to cook and what to put into the mix, but they no longer can produce this special taste. then they start to try and try and the results become less and less satisfying. in the end they panic and trow into the pot whatever they find in the kitchen. I fear we are only at the beginning of the panic phase.

most frustrating: Tim has a great season (his last at this level?) and Manu looks as if he is becoming the special player we know. and we will still be far from contender level. what a waste.

[TD 21]

You'll get no argument for me that they've underachieved. The only thing I've alluded to were cir stances that only helped to exacerbate an already tough situation. There are reasons the team looks this poor, a chain of events and confluence of cir stance, that have lead to the product they've put out on the floor. And unless you feel that individual players are dogging it or the coach is utterly inept and/or tanking the season (I'm sure there's some that believe that), that's just the reality of it; I'm not excusing, more so diagnosing.



I honestly said and knew it then; they were just great, ideal fits.

Gasol is an absolutely ridiculous fit in the Triangle and he's a deferential star that would gladly play Robin to Kobe's Batman. I don't think they advance to the Finals in '08 without the benefit of a hobbled Manu, but, be that as it may ... he was, they did, and they've been reaping the rewards ever since. Had they lost to the Spurs, though ... maybe it's not viewed in quite the same, quick light (which might be a more proper perspective). In any event, there just weren't the hurdles to overcome incorporating a player like Gasol into that mix.

The thing I loved about Boston's trades (even if I can't stand whom they traded for) was that they fit together seamlessly; acquiring star players with already defined games allowed them to put their team together like a puzzle of skill set: KG plays a high-post game, Pierce works off the elbows, slashes and creates off the dribble, and Allen works off of screens, movement and lives for the three. All of this benefited a guy like Rondo by keeping the paint open, as he's similar to Parker, and it allowed the Perkins, Powe's and Davis' of the world to clean up as well. Defensively they had the length and versatility to lock people up and give people fits; KG, Perkins, Posey, Pierce and Rondo complimented each other equally well defensively. It was just a very well put together team that could only, feasibly, be put together the way it was; the Draft brings a lot of unknowns you do your best to build around and work with ... trades and free-agency allow you to really find the right, sometimes perfect, pieces.

So when you have the right pieces and you're able to start the season the way they were, naturally, things come together quicker; even with the right pieces though, there's no guarantee they win a championship if Pierce or KG's coming off of what Manu did (which I suppose, to a lesser degree, is my point: You need to go right when it's all said and done).




Before the season started, I expected a Lakers matchup in the WCF. So, yeah, anything less would have been a disappointment. If you were to ask me that question now, and were to give me the team I'd expect them to be if everything had gone right, I'd have them competing with Denver and Dallas for the right to play the Lakers (as I think it'd pretty much be a toss-up after the moves from Dallas and what I've witnessed from the Nuggets; I'd actually worry more about Dallas that Denver, though).

Based on the job he's done in the past, I hesitate to call Pop "utterly inept", but the job he's done this season and to a lesser extent last season, has been utterly inept. It's tough to put a number on it, but I honestly feel if he had just played more traditional, logical lineups, that this team would have at least a few more wins.

Where we differ is on the extent of the underachieving. My position is that despite all the "reasons" that you cite, that they should still be better than they are. Your position is that they're about where they should be given all the "reasons" that you cite, correct?

I knew Gasol would fit in well too, but I honestly didn't think to myself the day it happened that, "the Spurs are in trouble". I thought for at least that season and possibly one more, they could hold them off. But things changed drastically, instantly, with that trade and I'm not sure anyone could have foresaw the Lakers winning roughly 80% of their games with Gasol, never losing 3 games in a row with him and not only going to back to back Finlas (and winning one championship), but not ever really seriously being challenged in the past two Western Conference playoffs. I agree, the Spurs have more hurdles to overcome, but the Lakers, theoretically, should have had some (for perspective on this, Kerr once said it takes two full years to learn the triangle) hurdles to overcome.

Again, it's not that I necessarily disagree with your take (in fact, I agree with your take on the Celtics), but to act as if there should have been no issues whatsoever is ridiculous. The reality is their collective talent, commitment, hard work and overall IQ for the game won out, as it should be doing for the Spurs. Does that necessarily make them a contender? No, but what the are they doing in 7th, battling for their playoff lives? Here's what you fail to mention: the schedule early on was conducive to their situation. Plenty of home games, games spread out, weak compe ion and yet they didn't take advantage of any of it or look as if they had progressed as a team throughout it.

[Blackjack]

Where we differ is on the extent of the underachieving. My position is that despite all the "reasons" that you cite, that they should still be better than they are. Your position is that they're about where they should be given all the "reasons" that you cite, correct?

Incorrect. My position is that the perceived "excuses" (sorry, couldn't resist ) played a very large role in preventing the team from being who I viewed them to be going into the season: a Western Conference finalist (all things assumed equal and no upgrades to the roster). I don't have any disagreement that they should be better off than they are, but it's of no real consequence to me: the times have called for a championship-or-bust mental y and the difference between the 4th or 7th-seed and being first or second-round playoff fodder, seems irrelevant to someone whose pocketbook isn't affected by a couple of home playoff games.

Again, it's not an argument from me. It's a diagnostic. What's happened, as I alluded to in the OP, has been predictable to an extent; never did I mention that it was excusable or acceptable. They should be fighting for homecourt, regardless of what they've had to deal with, but it just doesn't elicit any great emotion on my behalf; fourth, seventh ... first-round, second ... it's just inconsequential . . .

I knew Gasol would fit in well too, but I honestly didn't think to myself the day it happened that, "the Spurs are in trouble".

Nor did I (the Lakers made it to the Finals a year ahead of schedule thanks to an ankle injury and a tarmac, as far as I'm concerned).

I agree, the Spurs have more hurdles to overcome, but the Lakers, theoretically, should have had some (for perspective on this, Kerr once said it takes two full years to learn the triangle) hurdles to overcome.

Again, it's not that I necessarily disagree with your take (in fact, I agree with your take on the Celtics), but to act as if there should have been no issues whatsoever is ridiculous. The reality is their collective talent, commitment, hard work and overall IQ for the game won out, as it should be doing for the Spurs. Does that necessarily make them a contender? No, but what the are they doing in 7th, battling for their playoff lives? Here's what you fail to mention: the schedule early on was conducive to their situation. Plenty of home games, games spread out, weak compe ion and yet they didn't take advantage of any of it or look as if they had progressed as a team throughout it.

It seems my only real contention with your view is the parallel you've drawn between the Spurs of this year and the Lakers and Celtics of '08; that's what it really seems to come down to. In one scenario you've got a team, Lakers, integrating a player that's pretty much exactly what the doctor ordered: a highly intelligent, and highly skilled frontcourt player whose game needed little-to-no adjustment upon arrival (the Triangle isn't nearly the chore for an intelligent big who's accustomed to facillitating offense as a go-to player). And in the next scenario you've got a team, Celtics, that was put together the right way (fundamentally sound) and that had their two best players primed, healthy and hungry from the jump (none of which you could say for the Spurs).

The Spurs weren't capable of locking people down and allowing their defense to sustain them as they built cohesion; their Big 3's skill sets weren't hand-picked to compliment each other; they didn't have the hunger of a Pierce, Garnett and Allen (perceived underachievers); and they didn't have the type of youth, athleticism and/or physical attributes they possessed in their supporting cast.

My argument was never that Boston didn't have hurdles to overcome or that it was a piece of cake. My argument is that, unlike the Spurs, they actually had the tools and cir stance to clear those hurdles.