Reply With Quote
I suppose so.
http://hangtime.blogs.nba.com/2010/1...izzling-spurs/
I know they are the champions but honestly when you look at the team this year ... Am I the only one who doesn't fear them ?
I mean Kobe is 32 he's got awful FG percentage more than usual, Lamar is not a superstar and he is old too...they have a dinausor if not a fossile at PG spot, a very sexy bench with blake,walton, ratliff and vuja ... The only guy I respect in this team is Gasol.
I know they're 13-2 or something but I think it's because everyone in this league and the other teams respect them too much.
Besides I'm tired of this entire media bull ers and the league always sucking them balls.
Honestly I fear more Dallas or Boston than these fakers.
I suppose so.
If they don't crash and burn this year, they will when Phil retires afterwards. He's Merlin to Kobe's Arthur. I'm really glad we extended our core players.
I don't think this Lakers team is legendary in the sense of the showtime lakers or even the earlier decade laker le teams. I would even say that they no longer have the youth advantage over the spurs since now all their core players are all in their 30's and above except for Bynum. The problem is their damn frontline in the sense that they have a huge advantage on the boards that allows them to get too many second chance points. Very few teams have a frontline to stop theres from getting too many second chance points. Last year Boston had the frontline to do it and was clearly frustrating the Lakers with their size but then Perkins got hurt and again the Lakers were able to use their advantage which was clear in game 7 when they got I think around 20 plus offensive rebounds. Their frontline when it comes to rebounding is the edge they have on the spurs.
The Lakers have a coach that will capitalize on his team's size. The Spurs will play Splitter and Duncan separately and counter size with three guard lineups and lots of three point shooting.
They perhaps can defend the perimeter better. Their 3 bigs are better then the Spurs best 3 bigs. Kobe can log more minutes than Manu and could be said is better. Barnes has more length than Neal / Anderson.
The Spurs have much better PG's, much more versatile bigs (3 skilled near 7 footers, 3P shooter PF, strong energy guy), Jefferson is better than Artest.
If you think they are winning because teams respect them too much...I have really bad news for you all.
There is no denying Pop turns into a complete mental midget when facing Phil bag Jackson. Fact.
The Lakers main advantage over the rest of the NBA is their size, obviously..
If Bynum isn't playing, the Lakers aren't nearly as scary, from an overall standpoint..they're currently 23rd in the NBA in points allowed in the paint, compared to #10 last year..their defensive rebounding also goes down by a significant margin when Bynum is out..
They're longer and bigger than any other team, Portland and maybe Boston are the only teams that can match their size up front..their frontcourt is also versatile, with Gasol and Odom being able to work in various ways on the floor..
Obviously they're a great overall team..Kobe is clearly on the decline, but he's still a top 5-10 player and he has killed the Spurs in the past..Artest is still a great defender, Fisher is Fisher, they have a good bench now(particularly due to the emergence of Shannon Brown)..they have one of the best coaches ever, if not the best..
While they have all that, Gasol/Odom/Bynum are the main reason they are a tier above any other team in the West..if Bynum is out, they're even with every other team, so we'll have to hope that gets hurt, like he usually does, since Pop seems focused on keeping Bonner as a main contributor..
It also doesn't help that Pop neuters himself when he goes up against Jackson, like BlairForceDejuan said..
- In 2000 the Lakers would have swept the Spurs without Duncan.
- In 2001 the Spurs didn't have the mandatory defensive stopper every contender had. Also, Derek Anderson our #2 option went down and an undersized combo guard had to guard Kobe.
- In 2002 the Lakers won but it was contested, the Spurs had too old vets and a rookie running the point.
- In 2003 the Lakers had superior talent, no one gave the Spurs chances. It ended in tears for the Lakers.
- In 2004 the Lakers had very clear superiority in talent, the Spurs pushed the Lakers to the pivotal game 5. Phil needed an 0.4 s shot to save the series.
- In 2006 and 2007 the Lakers, Phil would got swept or defeated convincingly from the Spurs. The Spurs don't have a 2005-2006-2007 three-peat mostly because of Crawford (who who knows got paid by Cuban or instructed by Stern to take the Spurs out).
- In 2008 the Lakers have built a team to matchup well with the Spurs and had comparable talent. Pop was to win Phil anyway, but the Lakers got the upper hand in talent with the Gasol "trade". Still the Spurs were a no-call from sending to OT to tie 2:2 the series.
- In 2009 the Lakers would have swept the Spurs without Manu.
- In 2010 watching the regular season games it was clear the series would have been contested.
In 2005 the Spurs with less talent than the Lakers in 2004 won the Pistons team that almost swept the Lakers in the finals.
I wouldn't call Pop a mental midget against Phil. He always worked with less talent.
Merlin to kobes Arthur??oohhhhhohhohohoK!
They don't have Bonner playing center.
It's obvious what the Lakers have over the Spurs and the rest of the league for that matter, when healthy.
But I tend to agree with the sentiment. Every time they're on top, they're the greatest thing ever. Every time the Spurs are on top, they're vulnerable.
I'm so sick of the incessant slobbering over the Lakers. Clearly, they're the favorites. They deserve the respect that comes with being a two time defending champion. But let's not pretend this is some unbeatable juggernaut.
If healthy (and if Pop plays the rotation necessary to beat them), I expect the Spurs to, at minimum, give the Lakers their toughest test in the West since they "traded" for Gasol.
Yeah, good for Phil bag Jackson, Kobe Rapist, and the rest of the Lakers. They can suck it for all I care. The main thing is a size advantage for the Lakers, and always being healthy. But now that Bynum is out, Lakers have been looking a little weaker recently. I am much more afraid of Boston or Dallas like another user said.
If Love/Darko coached by Rambis did whatever they wanted against the Spurs' big men, I shudder to think what Gasol/Bynum/Odom coached by Phil Jackson will.
Popovich needs to play Splitter as much as possible and play him with Duncan so that they can try to counter the size and length of Gasol/Bynum. Phil Jackson will pack the lane to neutralize Parker and Manu and dare the 3 pt shooters to beat them.
Bonner will then shrivel up and RJ will start missing to bring his 3pt % back to his career avg. The jury is still out on Neal. No way are Bonner, RJ, and Neal the clutch shooters that Stephen Jackson, Horry and Barry were.
LA is younger, faster and stronger (in other words - better) at every position except PG. They are better coached and have better (total - outside the big 3) team chemistry.
They are good, do not get it twisted there. They can easily go through the West again, will they? I have no clue if they will win it again, but they will be a of an out.
The Lakers aren't younger or faster..they are actually pretty slow, unathletic and old..they are the 2nd oldest team in the NBA..Fisher, Kobe and Artest might be the slowest 1/2/3 in the NBA..
The Love/Darko example is poor..in case you didn't notice, Darko and Love ate up the Lakers too..these are meaningless games that the top teams don't really come out to play for..Darko and Love were making a lot of fluky shots, too..
I agree with the premise though..I'm confident Duncan can somewhat hold his own against Gasol, but I'm sure Bynum/Odom will eat up the secondary big, unless Splitter gets PT and becomes comfortable in the NBA(he did look good against Odom in the Summer, although that's obviously a different game), which I wouldn't count on for this year..
I highly doubt the Spurs can beat LA if Bynum is playing, unless Bonner has a Godly series, which I would bet my life against..
Anyways, it's all premature anyways..a lot can happen between now and then..maybe Duncan or Kobe have season-ending injuries..
Last edited by HarlemHeat37; 11-25-2010 at 09:46 PM.
Its pretty common knowledge that the Lakers have the best bigs in the league. Plus based on how they've both played this year, Gasol is significantly better than Duncan atm. Tim may get better as the season goes on though. Odom is also way better than the Spurs second best big. Plus even though the Spurs have more depth, that's better for the regular season, in the playoffs everyone shortens their rotations. That's how the Lakers have been able to make the Finals three years in a row with a ty bench besides Odom.
Well, they have an extra 25 millions well invested in payrolls.
People here seem to think that paying more doesn´t equal a better team, but just because you think of the Knicks or the Mavs, think about an Spur like organization having an extra 25 millions to spend in players who fit their style, and there you have a big difference.
Spurs Payroll is at near 70 millions, while Lakers´s is at over 95 millions.
Oh, and they are not the Knicks.
Artest is stronger and 7 months older than RJ. I'd call them about even with RJ better offensively and Artest better defensively. I thought that Artest was the player of game 7 (NBA Finals).
Manu is older and slower than Kobe. Parker is the only advantageous position for the Spurs.
Completely agree.
i don't fear the Lakers because i don't know what to expect. it's been a long, long time (regular season or playoff) since these two teams have played eachother healthy and at full force. either someone on LA is injured (Bynum usually) or SA (Manu or TP), so it's hard to gauge. there's not much recent history to go by. if and when LA beats the Spurs by a large margin, then i'll be able to judge.
i think the biggest keys for the Spurs against LA is that Duncan needs to match Gasol's output and Splitter needs to negate Odom. you could say that if that happens, it'd be a matter of who plays better b/w Kobe, Artest, Bynum and Manu, TP, RJ, which i think is a lot closer than a lot of people are willing to admit, esp. with the way those three guys on the Spurs are playing. those are the "big five" for both of the teams, and i would have to say that though LA has more talent, the Spurs have enough talent to beat them.
more bandwagoners
the lakers only have the best front court in the league by far AS WELL AS the best wing player in the world AND solid role players in every other key position, other than that....
The Lakers present a fundamental basketball attack. I admire them for that, last year it seemed they were the only team not playing some lame gimmick card (example:small ball). They can run, hit from outside, post up, take it too the rim, etc. In the course of a 7 game series, they have more options to beat you, and will inevitably figure out and counter whatever you throw at them.
Whatever weaknesses they have (Fisher, for example), Kobe and the bigs more than make up for it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
