Reply With Quote
Hope the Lakers get to meet the Hornets this year, and NO takes it to 7 like they did against the Spurs.
Which Team Is the Biggest Threat to the Lakers?
By Brett Pollakoff
Getty Images
The Lakers aren't scared of Tim Duncan and his banners.
The Lakers have been the favorites to return to the Finals since the season began, and as they sit atop the Western Conference standings with a record of 32-8, not much has changed. With L.A. firmly in the conference's driver's seat, speculation has begun as to which team might be able to give them them the toughest time on their journey through the playoffs.
ESPN analyst David Thorpe, speaking yesterday on Forum Blue & Gold, believes that the Spurs will create the most problems for the Lakers.
Mentioning L.A.'s "softness" kind of makes the argument lose a little credibility, but let's indulge it for a second anyway.I still think San Antonio is the most dangerous threat to LA. First of all, they beat the Spurs 3 times in the playoffs last year by 4, 2, and 8 points. In those games, a severely disabled Manu scored 10, 7, and 9 points. ... So a team like San Antonio, with 3 stars (when healthy), really puts a lot of pressure on that defense to move as a unit. Also, the Spurs are gritty tough (like Boston), forcing all of LA’s softness to the forefront.
The Spurs may not have had a healthy Manu Ginobili last season, but the Lakers were completely without Andrew Bynum. With Ginobili going bonkers for 27 points against the Lakers last week, the Spurs needed a freakish shot from Roger Mason -- and a foul from Derek Fisher -- to escape with a one point victory, at home no less.
San Antonio's a concern, but they're not the concern. The New Orleans Hornets look to be every bit as challenging for the Lakers to match up with as the Spurs.
When the Hornets beat the Lakers recently, they did so convincingly, and shredded L.A.'s defense in the process. As you may recall, David West went for a career high 40 points, and Chris Paul finished with 32 points and 15 assists, while being able to weave his way through the Lakers' defense to get wherever he wanted to go on the floor, all night long. He also drew his fair share of fouls, getting into the paint and bouncing off of defenders at will, which caused the referees to blow a lot of whistles in the Hornets' favor.
The Spurs are a tough team, but they've been there before. The Hornets are up and coming and have the youth and hunger that the Spurs no longer do. The playoffs are a long way away, but at this point, the Lakers would probably rather see the Spurs than they would the Hornets in a seven game series.
Of course, this is all nothing more than wild speculation: the Lakers would probably beat either team in five.
Hope the Lakers get to meet the Hornets this year, and NO takes it to 7 like they did against the Spurs.
Sounds like a Spur hater. Apart from that one game where CP3 and West had career type games, The Lakers have owned the Hornets. Still, the most recent result always means the most, unless its the playoffs.
It may be a strange choice but i think a healthy Suns team could give the Lakers alot of problems. Other than them, i think the Spurs have the best shot of doing it. I dont see any other team that has what it takes to beat LA.
The Hornets are a y team to deal with espescially when David West has confidence he can score on anybody that guards him. I watched that game where he went off and the lakers had the same problems the spurs have had with him. They had nobody who had the mobility to keep up with him. He would start from the 3 point line and then drive to the basket against whoever was guarding him whether it was Gasol or Bynum it didn't matter. The Lakers will have the same problems the spurs ahve had with this guy. If they meet up with the Hornets its going to go to 7 games. They have equal amount difficulty of matching up with Paul and West. One the games the Hornets lost this year to them they shoudl have won. It will be very close and I'm hoping the brackets stay the way they are this year with the Hornets at 4th and Lakers at 1, spurs at 2 and nuggets at 3. That setup ensures a matchup for t he Lakers in round 2 in which they will be beaten up and bruised even after they win.
Truthfully. Let them talk all they want now....I'm okay with it.
Let's crown them as the best team ever.
Remember what happened to the last California team who did that?
I do.... UT > USC
Gasol was shooting the lights off in the first quarter. Everyone in the Lakers was playing well. The Lakers were as lucky as us.
DaSlicer is right on it.
The article is just Laker fan bravado. It's the prototypical answer on the street in LA - "Oh, they'll beat 'em in five." Laker fans say they'll beat anybody in five because they don't understand basketball, much less the most important factor in a 7-game series - matchups. This is what DaSlicer was pointing out about the Lakers/Hornets game and their inability to contain either David West or Chris Paul.
But what should also be unnerving to the Lakers is that Manu (who still isn't 100% healthy) scored 27 points on them last week even though they now have the so-called Manu/LeBron stopper, Trevor Ariza.
Remember that in the 4th quarter, Ariza was actually guarding Parker, not Manu. Well, this is because Fisher has no prayer at this stage of his career of staying with Parker or Chris Paul, or really any good offensive PG. And it's only January, long before the playoffs roll around. So as Fisher's minutes keep piling up, he'll be trashed by the time the playoffs roll around.
Yes, the Lakers have a lot of weapons and a lot of size. But the flipside is that the Spurs have just as many weapons for the Lakers to worry about matching up with. Duncan, Parker, Manu, and now they know that they can't leave Mason alone - not even for a half second.
Yeah, Tim Duncan has no compe ive fire at all. And Manu Ginobili? That guy's so full of success that he just rolls over and refuses to compete when it matters most.
There are lots of reasons to think that the Spurs might not be the challenge to LA that they were last year; and there are lots of reasons to think that NO would be a tough out for the Lakers in a playoff series -- perhaps a tougher foe than the Spurs. But a lack of "hunger" among the Spurs has nothing to do with either of those assessments.
If anything, the Spurs have shown that their experience in big games is precisely why they can overcome deficits in talent/ability. Ask, for instance, the Hornets.
The Lakers simply aren't going to be challenged in the WC if they stay healthy.
Analysts have to include the Spurs out of reverence but they really aren't a threat unless they make personnel changes to bring in more frontcourt help.
hornets might be able to do it. and if a miracle happens and suddenly yao, artest, and mcgrady are all playing at full strength than the rockets can do it. rockets are really the one team i think can beat the lakers with the current personnel, if healthy of course. they can throw battier and artest on bryant which will harass him to no end. mcgrady might suddenly be motivated to defeat bryant and the lakers, especially if they meet in the first round. yao and scola can hold their own against bynum and gasol. the rockets' bench can hang with the lakers'. they also have mutombo back in case they need some frontcourt depth. barry seems to be rediscovering his shooting. so they might eventually get it together.
Agree 100%. The Spurs are full of compe ive fire, you know why? Because winning never gets old, especially when you truly know you have the ability, and the team, and the front office, to do it year in and year out.Yeah, Tim Duncan has no compe ive fire at all. And Manu Ginobili? That guy's so full of success that he just rolls over and refuses to compete when it matters most.
True that a lack of hunger has little to do with those assessments, and true that NO would be a tough out for the Lakers in a playoff series. They would be - and were - tough outs for the Spurs. If you think about it, NO taking us all the way to a tough game 7 at their gym is the main reason we were so tired for Game 1 against LA, plane delay or none. I hope if LA draws NO in the West, they'll get a real test of their mettle before they face us. All things considered, I think NO could take them 7 and potentially win, though its not likely.There are lots of reasons to think that the Spurs might not be the challenge to LA that they were last year; and there are lots of reasons to think that NO would be a tough out for the Lakers in a playoff series -- perhaps a tougher foe than the Spurs. But a lack of "hunger" among the Spurs has nothing to do with either of those assessments.
Again I agree, but the Hornets DID blow us out every single time they won. They are no pushover and the Spurs experience last season really paid off. This time around, the Spurs must be more compe ive on the opposing team's court during the postseason. I'm confident this next stretch of 19 of 22 on the road will definitely start building their momentum in that regard.If anything, the Spurs have shown that their experience in big games is precisely why they can overcome deficits in talent/ability. Ask, for instance, the Hornets.
Last edited by z0sa; 01-21-2009 at 09:33 PM. Reason: spelling
The rest of the Forum Blue & Gold piece that's referred to.
The Blueprint For Beating The Lakers
The Lakers come out of a brutal four game stretch 2-2, and it could be 3-1 without a couple lucky shots by the Spurs (and a rare mental mistake from Fish). Lakers fans are feeling pretty good about their team’s chances right now — and we all should be. This is a contender.
But the other thing that has emerged, both in the last four games and over the course of the season, is the blueprint for beating the Lakers. And I don’t mean just one game in the middle of January, I mean over a seven-game series.
And there are teams that can do it. David Thorpe, ESPN.com analyst and Executive Director of the Pro Training Center at IMG thinks that the Spurs may be that team:
I still think San Antonio is the most dangerous threat to LA. First of all, they beat the Spurs 3 times in the playoffs last year by 4, 2, and 8 points. In those games, a severely disabled Manu scored 10, 7, and 9 points. Bigger picture — LA has an excellent defensive team because of the way they work together, but they have only 1 or two very good individual defenders. So a team like San Antonio, with 3 stars (when healthy), really puts a lot of pressure on that defense to move as a unit. Also, the Spurs are gritty tough (like Boston), forcing all of LA’s softness to the forefront. If they play with force, LA can win that series. But can they play with force, assuming all 3 of the Spurs stars are healthy?
The Spurs do match up well with the things that a team needs to do to more than just chant Beat LA.
Play Defense. Simply put, the Laker offense is too good for a team to win a shootout with the Lakers for seven games. There are too many weapons, too many guys who can hit the shots. Darius said it well in a recent email:
If teams really think that they can milk our defensive deficiencies into victories, I don’t think it will work. If the Finals taught me anything it’s that if you play tough enough D our Offense can stall and you’ve got a chance. But if you can’t stop our Offense, you’re not going to have enough firepower to beat us. And that was without Bynum.
What the Celtics did in the Finals last year is really still the model for stopping the Lakers. They pressured the ball, but what they maybe did best was stop the ball rotation to the weakside, something the Lakers had done well in getting through the Western Conference.
Thorpe chimes in on that:
Yes-forcing the triangle to stay on one side of the floor is always a smart plan defensively. It helps define help positions while allowing those helpers to stay more stationary, as opposed to moving from help to strong side positions. In short-it allows players to know with more alacrity that they are the helpers on a particular possession. So it ends up bottling Kobe and Pau on slashes/cuts to the paint, as helpers are already there.
If there is one thing we all — from myself and commenters — have wanted to see more of in the triangle offense is the ball to work from the inside out. When that happens, the cuts and weakside plays that the Celtics took away, opens up. Reed expands upon that:
(Teams should) do everything possible to get the ball out of the hands of Gasol and Bynum. If the offense isn’t running through them, the team is likely to either revert to Kobe ball or jack up too many difficult perimeter shots, many of them from people like Ariza and Odom. If Gasol and Bynum get the ball early in the clock they either get a high percentage shot or force the defense to collapse, freeing up open shots for others. The more Kobe shoots, the better chance you have.
On that last note — the Magic had Kobe doing a lot of that at the end of the game the other night, and it worked. The Cavaliers let Kobe get 12 assists and so at the end of the game he did not need to be the gunner.
Let’s talk about the bigs. A couple days ago Nomuskles had a great post on what Bynum is doing now. Thorpe had some thoughts about Bynum as well:
The guy he reminds me of the most right now is actually Rik Smits. Bynum, like Smits, is a huge man with an excellent shooting touch. Not elite level athletes, but inside forces that can score. At 21, there is still a long way for Bynum to grow, but he isn’t forced to do that because he already plays for such a good team that does not need him (at present) to develop into a 26 point per game beast.
Don’t turn the ball over. This really obvious statement is key to beating any team. But it is especially important against the Lakers, particularly when their bench players are on the floor because they want to get out and run and turnovers fuel that. Taking care of the ball is one of the best ways to slow the Lakers bench.
Be efficient on offense. While you need to focus on defense, your team still needs to put up 90+, and the Lakers defense can make that hard some nights. That said, there are ways to attack the Lakers.
One good way is to have bigs that can shoot from 17-feet or more out. The Lakers struggle with Sacramento because their bigs can do just that, pulling our zone apart and our shotblockers away from the basket. Cleveland could not do this last night without Big Z in the lineup and the Laker bigs at home slowed LeBron James, maybe the best dribble-penetration guy in the league.
One little thing a lot of teams have already started doing is to attack the Laker defense with penetration from the top of the key area (rather than the wings), taking away what the Lakers strong side zone. Notice this is something the Cavaliers did poorly with LeBron James (maybe the best dribble penetration guy in the game) — he started on the wings and the Lakers help was waiting for him.
Reed can take it from there:
The Lakers have several poor defenders in terms of knowing when and how to rotate, so getting into the lane from the top will almost always result in an open corner 3. Getting into the lane also will likely result in Bynum getting into foul trouble, and the more he sits the easier it is to get easy shots inside (see Boston in last year’s finals). Don’t be afraid to initiate your offense a little earlier in the shot clock than usual as LA’s length can make it difficult to score one on one when the clock is winding down.
Darius has a little something to add:
I’ve noticed that the Lakers really do a poor job of dealing with motion offenses. I noticed this against the Kings and the other night against the Pacers as well (I also remember Utah going to their Flex offense in the playoffs and it giving us problems). When there are back cuts that are built into the offense or when there are designed actions where the screener cuts hard after setting a pick off the ball, the Lakers really struggle with who they are covering and where they should go to compensate.
That’s the blueprint. The question is: What team could pull it off consistently in a seven-game series? What team has the matchups to do it? What about the mental toughness?
In the excuses for losing the game against the spurs, lakers fans sure come up with a lot of "what if's".
Brett Polakoff is a moron:
So he believes that the better team is the one with LESS big-game playoff experience... right. That is not to say that the Hornets aren't a dangerous team, of course they are, but in the playoffs the more experienced team wins 9/10 series as long as they don't have a severe talent shortage. Spurs v Hornets last year was a perfect example - they had us down 3-2 and should have closed it out but couldn't.The Spurs are a tough team, but they've been there before. The Hornets are up and coming and have the youth and hunger that the Spurs no longer do. The playoffs are a long way away, but at this point, the Lakers would probably rather see the Spurs than they would the Hornets in a seven game series.
Of course, this is all nothing more than wild speculation: the Lakers would probably beat either team in five.
And as for the "probably... in 5" bull ,
Well..well....I knew Drhouse was going to post that the Lakers won't be challenged in the Western Conference Playoffs this season.
What a surprise!!
We have debated this back and forth for the past few weeks....so I won't rehash those arguments again.
However, I think this article was a little premature as usual. And to base his analysis off of a mid-Jan game between the Spurs-Lakers was counting the chickens before they hatch too.
I've looking forward to the playoffs and the Spurs will be there once again and these threads from the season will be brought to light!!!
this doesn't really matter to me..
the Lakers and their fans are always insecure..whether or not we beat them will be interesting, but they're overrated, and they aren't winning a le this year..
Dr.House is a perfect example of insecure Laker fans..I've already proven his arguments to be wrong countless times, and he never has anything productive to say in reply..he's an idiot..
let them dismiss the spurs for now. ignorance is bliss.
Until NO proves they can get past the second round, they are no threat to LA.
I would go with the Spurs for now. The biggest problem I have with the Hornets is we're afraid to grind out games. We just don't do well when we need to fight through tough shooting nights. Our record is 16-1 when we score 100 points but 10-12 when we don't. We just need to play with more energy defensively even if we're not scoring well. That's why the Spurs won game 7. You guys took us out of our game and we didn't respond until Pargo caught on fire. Also, even with Manu and TP missing November, you guys are in first place. That's why the Spurs are still the biggest threat to the Lakers at this point.
What should worry the rest of the WC is that the Lakers have another gear they haven't really kicked into yet. If you look at how they have played against BOS and CLE so far it's a good indication of the type of defense they can play when they are giving maximum intensity.Well..well....I knew Drhouse was going to post that the Lakers won't be challenged in the Western Conference Playoffs this season.
What a surprise!!
We have debated this back and forth for the past few weeks....so I won't rehash those arguments again.
However, I think this article was a little premature as usual. And to base his analysis off of a mid-Jan game between the Spurs-Lakers was counting the chickens before they hatch too.
I've looking forward to the playoffs and the Spurs will be there once again and these threads from the season will be brought to light!!!
Can you blame them for not going all out every night? They don't need to. They are 32-8 with the best record in the NBA and a solid 5-6 game lead over any team in the West.
do i see room for number 5 in the rafters?Which Team Is the Biggest Threat to the Lakers?
By Brett Pollakoff
Getty Images
The Lakers aren't scared of Tim Duncan and his banners.
The Lakers have been the favorites to return to the Finals since the season began, and as they sit atop the Western Conference standings with a record of 32-8, not much has changed. With L.A. firmly in the conference's driver's seat, speculation has begun as to which team might be able to give them them the toughest time on their journey through the playoffs.
ESPN analyst David Thorpe, speaking yesterday on Forum Blue & Gold, believes that the Spurs will create the most problems for the Lakers.
Mentioning L.A.'s "softness" kind of makes the argument lose a little credibility, but let's indulge it for a second anyway.
The Spurs may not have had a healthy Manu Ginobili last season, but the Lakers were completely without Andrew Bynum. With Ginobili going bonkers for 27 points against the Lakers last week, the Spurs needed a freakish shot from Roger Mason -- and a foul from Derek Fisher -- to escape with a one point victory, at home no less.
San Antonio's a concern, but they're not the concern. The New Orleans Hornets look to be every bit as challenging for the Lakers to match up with as the Spurs.
When the Hornets beat the Lakers recently, they did so convincingly, and shredded L.A.'s defense in the process. As you may recall, David West went for a career high 40 points, and Chris Paul finished with 32 points and 15 assists, while being able to weave his way through the Lakers' defense to get wherever he wanted to go on the floor, all night long. He also drew his fair share of fouls, getting into the paint and bouncing off of defenders at will, which caused the referees to blow a lot of whistles in the Hornets' favor.
The Spurs are a tough team, but they've been there before. The Hornets are up and coming and have the youth and hunger that the Spurs no longer do. The playoffs are a long way away, but at this point, the Lakers would probably rather see the Spurs than they would the Hornets in a seven game series.
Of course, this is all nothing more than wild speculation: the Lakers would probably beat either team in five.
DrHouse,
Again...we can go back and forth with this. The Spurs haven't played their best ball yet either. Manu is starting to get healthy and play better. They've had to incorporate two new players (Mason and Hill) into the rotation and have dealt with injuries.
The Lakers will probably be the one seed in the playoffs...but the Spurs have shown the years they are the one team that can win someone's else gym in the playoffs. They have four players (Tim, Tony, Manu, and Bruce) who've played in tough road playoff games and it wont rattle them.
But...we will go back and forth with this!!
I'm looking forward to the playoffs....where this can all be settled!! Not in mid-Jan....we haven't even had the All-Star break yet!
I hope Phil continues to use Paul Gasshole against D-West. That should be alot of fun. Honestly, the game we just won in LA would have been worse if the Lakers weren't out of control from the 3-point line. They couldn't miss until the 4th quarter and that's when we finally controlled the game. We can beat you guys because unlike Boston and Cleveland, you can't stop our PG. He can do whatever he wants to against Fisher. We will let Kobe get his 40 just like last time, but shut down everyone else.
I see the Spurs and Phx as the biggest threats! Spurs still need a big but other than that I think we have a shot. Still think it will come down to homecourt advantage.
Phx...Shaq is playing well, and if he is healthy come playoff time he is way to strong for LA to handle and he will wanna prove something against ass licker KOBE! They also have bigs in Amere amd Lopez who can play Lamar and Gasol. Time is running out for Nash and Richardson will make Kobe work on both ends. Phx is my darkhorse.
not the way the got there ass handed too by boston
i think houston will be the dark horse some nights they suck some they look impressive
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
