"BOTTOM LINE The Lakers will win the NBA title. O’Neal is unstoppable, and no matter how much you complain about how often he should be whistled for offensive fouls in the paint, or the three-second calls that could be lodged against him, the fact is he is 7-1, 330 and plays with skill and grace. He may be the best player ever. And O'Neal has the league’s No. 2 player, Bryant, as a teammate."
Whoa nellie. I do not deny O'Neals dominance, but Kobe Bryant is NOT the number two player in the league.
Yeah, we could quibble about that. Suffice to say that Oneal has one of the best players he could have at his side...at his side. But you west fans don't give him enough credit though. He IS a great player... I don't think a Shaq-KG lineup would be as dominant (crazy scary matchup problems though) nor a Shaq-Duncan combo...
i never even penciled mccoy in on the first place...mccoy is yet another player heading to la for a ring...
My hatred for them has blinded me to the truth, the Lakers are too good. They will have a decent west leading regular season, and another brilliant playoffs. They will defeat the Kings in six games in the Western Conference Finals, and beat whatever team they play in the finals. I'll say, Lakers over Raptors in six. This team has stunned me with it's ability to keep adding good players. I really hate to say it, but this team is bloody good. The only three teams I believe could beat the Lakers, are the Blazers, Kings, and Bucks.
The Lakers are overrated. There is a reason no one wanted Walker and McCoy, two youthful players at the power positions - because their potential had been wasted and none existed. If you can't prove yourself in several situations when given the chance, you aren't worth the flyer. Richmond showed that he is old and washed up, even older and with less game than Horace Grant. His loss will be sorely missed. Now, no one will take Derek Fisher for granted. He's not that good and was benefitted by coming back 5 months fresher than everyone else. He's injured again and is probably out until close to 2002. Hunter is an improvement in shooting - to a degree, he was horrible when it mattered - but beyond him, they have nothing at the point for now. Lue is gone - and he will be missed as well - and Ron Harper is about 80 by now. If anyone on that team went down due to injury, they would be riding a one man pony and be seriously vulnerable. Even as it is, they may have the best 1-2 punch in the league, but any team with a Kobe stopper can beat the Lakers. For instance, if it comes down to a Magic-Lakers finals, I will take the Magic anyday. Why? McGrady has proven he is the better player than Kobe head-to-head, the Magic have more depth, and Ewing can at least come close to containing Shaq. The Lakers would get trampled, especially with the zone defenses and their relative inability to shoot the ball (granted, some of their players can make the tre, but are very streaky). It will take the right team to beat the Lakers - and there are about three I can see in Orlando, Sacramento, and Dallas - but it can and will be done. They aren't a dynasty in the making, for sure.
nobody wanted ac Green, ron harper and brian shaw either when they signed with the lakers. They all played major minutes and the lakers won a championship, the lakers dont depend on their power forward to win, there is no way in the world samaki walker could be worse than ac green. denver, cleveland amongst other teams put in good offers for samaki walker but he chose the lakers deal, i dont know about mccoy, but he is a decent pickup nonetheless, no one wants jim jackson, but he can contribute to a team. samaki walker when given playing time in dallas was regularly putting up 15 point 8 rebound games, he was playing in front of kurt thomas, given mccoy has not proved a lot but hes going to play the greg foster/john salley/travis knight role this season, my sister could play that role and the lakers would still be the champs. mitch richmond will play 20 minutes off the beach, given he averaged 16 points for the wizards last season a bench role hitting some open shots is one he can easily excel at. no one totally washed up can average 16 points in the nba. horace grant sorely missed? how biased can you get, he did do a competent job defending some power forwards but his season was plagued by inconsistency, by halfway through the kings series he was so done he couldnt buy an open layup, his jumper went and his rebounding was non existant. he blew more layups and putbacks than anyone in nba history last season. he barely played at all versus san antonio, it was robert horry who neutralized tim duncan, when horace guarded him duncan had a 30 point half. id take samaki, who at least can finish around the basket with a powerful dunk, not horaces soft bricked layups. mourning was 5 months fresher than everyone too, how did he do, fisher contributed through his shooting(which isnt affected with wearing down) and hustle(he is simply an energy player who never stops hustling, no matter how many games hes played). nothing for now? firstly the regular season doesn't matter. secondly hunter has proven he is able to play 35 minutes a game in detroit. hunter, shaw and kobe can put together 48 minutes at the point without a problem. at the start of last season the lakers went in with a 38 year old harper, shaw and penberthy, they survived. hunter will be more than sufficient until fisher is back. lue? please, the guy got no minutes before the finals, he was the teams 14th man, hes a good player but the lakers didnt depend on him one bit problem is no one can stop kobe, when he does have a bad shooting night it doesnt matter as long as he contributes in other areas. kobe didnt exactly go off vs philly, who won. kobe didnt exactly go off on the blazers, who won. if anyone on that team went down with an injury the lakers would be screwed? no only if shaq or kobe went down the lakers would be screwed. but thats the same for every team, how many games do you think the rocks would win without francis or the spurs without duncan. based on what, one game? kobe destroyed mcgrady every single time during his raptors days and apart from the 2 blocks burnt him in the all star game, 20 points to 2. ewing can contain shaq? thats the funniest thing ive ever read, yeah about as much as brian shaw can contain vince carter. lets see about the lakers "streaky" shooters, fox shot 40% 3p, hunter career 40% on 3p, richmond career 40% on 3p, fisher 51% in the playoffs on 3p. they can be as streaky as they like but if they hit above 40% from three, thats more than good enough. kobe, shaw, and horry would be considered streaky, but all have hit shots when it matters most. based on your biased opinion only, your post was the most biased post i have ever read. is the lakers organization not giving your dad his retirement pay or something, no sane person could put together such a biased post.
Ffsher is going to back november-early january, most likely during december, that is not a large part of the season, the lakers would have him for the bulk of the regular season and then the playoffs. shaq unlike last season has promised to come in at 300 pounds, Iim not going to believe everything shaq says but he isnt going to be in worse condition than he was last season where he was 350 coming in. he played his way into shape and was back to his old self by the second part of the season. horace grant did not come up huge in the playoffs, he played less minutes per game in the playoffs, averaged 6 and 6 and shot 35%. he played well in the blazer series and half the kings series then completely disappeared. he was an offensive liability and was outrebounded by kobe, he looked slow and lethargic out there, you cant count his missed and blocked layups using all your fingers and toes. he did an admirable job in the portland series, hitting shots and defending rasheed, but it was all downhill after that, his offense went down the tiolet in the sac series and despite chris webber looking bad, webber actually hurt the lakers much more than he hurt phoenix in their series, his injury affected him in the playoffs and he was tentative to play in the post, resorting to taking jumpers, grant had not a lot to do with it. in the spurs series he averaged 20 minutes a game and gave no offense at all, he was abused by duncan and horry was the one who came in and gave duncan fits. and you all saw what he did in the finals, nothing. horace was a good post defender but his rebounding and offense were both lacking, his offense a downright liability at times, unable to finish simple layups after a pass from shaq. after 2 years of ac green and horace im glad the lakers have a power forward who can run the floor and at least finisharound the basket with some authority. comparison with the 95 rockets is not correct, if i remember right that team won 45 games in the regular season and was the 6th seed. 45 wins is as many games as the francis rockets won last season, to win the championship from such a mediocre regular season could be considered a fluke and catching fire at the same time. the 2000 lakers for all their trouble, "struggled" their way to 56 wins and the second best record in the league trailing by only 2 wins. they did not live up to expectations and were playing like **** during the regular season, but they were still an elite team compared to the rest. the regular season showed that a lakers team embattled with inner turmoil and a huge injury toll could still be the second best team in the nba. once they were healthy and clicked, it was over.
shaq got doubled and trippled anyway, they were already playing zone on shaq and daring the officials to call it. zone defense was permitted on one side of the floor last season, it didnt affect shaq. if you let shaq go one on one all game with no help defense, hed average 50 points a game.
fox made 150 3's at 40% last season, thats an elite three point shooter fisher made 50% of his 3s in the playoffs, thats a sharpshooter hunter is a known outside threat, he shoots around 40% on 3s for his career and is often amongst the leaders of 3p made and percentage. he had an injury during last season, before the injury he was their best bench player and a dangerous weapon, pat riley called him the "pickup of the year". after he came back his pt and confidence went down and his shooting struggled as a result. richmond is a career 40% 3p shooter penberthy(expected to sign in a few days) is a three point expert horry has good range for a power forward shaw is streaky but hits them when it matters kobe needs to stay away from injury. he was shooting 40% for the first 2 months then got injured, came back and couldnt buy a 3 for his life. apparently hes working on his 3p this offseason and going by his past, i believe he'll come back with a greatly improved 3 shot. thats more than enough 3p shooters. thats almost too many, the lakers are now one of the nbas best three point shooting team-fox, fisher, hunter, pen and richmond are all top shooters another thing, harp isnt coming back. about the zone, the lakers are the only team in the nba that always run a motion offense. the triangle offense was invented for combating the zone in college basketball. the lakers voted in favor of the zone because it will help shaq on d, theyre confident their execution of the offense can negate any sort of defense.
Although I don't agree with the way shaqkobe went about saying it, I also doubt there's any team capable of beating the Lakers. The Cat, I respect everything you say, and I agree with you a lot of times, but I have to say that your points were the same points made before last season and the Lakers won. The two best players in the league, on the same team, with a coach that has 9(?) rings. If he wasn't a good coach already, I'd say he's become it. No one, barring Duncan, can slow down Shaq, and NO ONE can stop Kobe. Now here are the Lakers changes: Lost: Lue Grant Harper Fisher for a while Added: Richmond Walker Mccoy Hunter Fisher for the second half of the season I think they got considerably better, and if u know Phil jackson, you know chemistry hasn't been something he couldn't overcome very fast.
I don't see how Mitch Richmond helps the Lakers at all with Kobe at the 2 cause he will only demand touches and cause Kobe to have another cry about not being able to be as good as Carter and MacGrady. Sorry, I just don't like sooks, nuff sed! As for Phil Jackson..... he gets credit for making championship teams that have already been made.... if you believe he has done more work then Rudy you seriously smokin somethin wild!
Phil Jackson a great coach? That's a laugh. A chimpanzee could have won with what he has been given! It's funny how he just waltzes into these situations, yet he won't take on a real coaching challenge like coaching the Grizzle. He rather spend the whole season reflecting by using his Zen philosophies. What an egomaniac this guy is!
Maybe a chimpanzee could have won with them - but the two coaches before Phil couldn't. It shows just how good the lakers have been that people forget what they were before Phil came -- a team with two superstars who couldn't play together and couldn't win the big games. When was the last time the lakers lost a big game? It's a given that you have to have the talent to win in the NBA - but it is very difficult to coach the egos that come along with that talent.
But the spurs? They got worse. Much worse. I'd swap Derek Anderson, Avery Johnson, Samaki Walker, and Sean Elliott for Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Stpehen Jackson, Tony Parker, and Cherokee Parks in a heartbeat. The Spurs, like the Kings, will be better next season. The Cat, I respect everything you say, and I agree with you a lot of times, but I have to say that your points were the same points made before last season and the Lakers won. Of course I could be wrong-- I tried to make that clear. I'll apologize if I am, but I honestly don't see the Lakers winning the championship this year. I know I didn't last year either though. the regular season showed that a lakers team embattled with inner turmoil and a huge injury toll could still be the second best team in the nba. once they were healthy and clicked, it was over. They weren't near the second best team when in turmoil. The only reason they had that record was because of that tremendous streak they went on in April, when things had turned around. if i remember right that team won 45 games in the regular season and was the 6th seed. 45 wins is as many games as the francis rockets won last season, to win the championship from such a mediocre regular season could be considered a fluke and catching fire at the same time. 47. And is this a Laker fan calling our championship a possible fluke? I'd say considering the officials and Portland's complete meltdown, it's debatable if you completely earned your first championship as well. Exactly, he's number 1. I'd take 6-7 players in the NBA before I'd take Kobe... maybe even our own Steve Francis, and definitely Tim Duncan, Shaq, McGrady, Carter, Garnett, etc. Maybe a chimpanzee could have won with them - but the two coaches before Phil couldn't. Those two coaches before didn't have Kobe or Shaq as developed as they are now. You could've put me as coach of the Lakers in the playoffs last year, and they still would've won. He may be the best player ever. This might've been the funniest and saddest thing I've ever read on this BBS.
Nobody is guaranteed the title. The Lakers may be the favorite, but saying they will automatically win the title is crazy. Injuries could happen, a team could get hot and upset the Lakers, maybe the Kings are better with a more solid PG. Then there are perimeter oriented teams who can run and give them trouble (like Milwaukee did), athletic teams, ANYTHING can happen. I like the moves the Lakers made, but it could also effect chemistry. Plus I think the Spurs are be greatly underrated. I know people are saying the Spurs were swept, well in 1996 the Rockets were swept and made it to the WCF the next year. The Lakers were beaten badly by the Spurs, the following year won the first of 2 championships. Anything could happen. One of the teams the Lakers swept could rise up and knock the out of the playoffs.
this should be in the NBA forum. anyway, no way the Lakers are that much weaker than last year. In fact, I think they are stronger. Grant didn't do anything that McCoy or even Walker can step in and do. And Horry is still there too. Someone in this thread said the Lakers wouldn't be able to defend Duncan, Sheed, KG, whatever. Horry did a great job against Webber and Duncan in the playoffs. Besides, those other teams don't have an answer for Shaq, do they? Richmond will be a big plus for them from the perimeter as a sf/sg. Fisher is gone for a few months(like last season, and he will be back for the playoffs) but they still have Lindsey Hunter , so its not that much of a drop off. Anyone who thinks the Lakers are not the favorite this year is deluding themselves.
I'd swap Derek Anderson, Avery Johnson, Samaki Walker, and Sean Elliott for Steve Smith, Bruce Bowen, Stpehen Jackson, Tony Parker, and Cherokee Parks in a heartbeat. The Spurs, like the Kings, will be better next season. normal unbiased people will take richmond, hunter, walker, and mccoy in front of horace grant, lue, foster and harper too. They weren't near the second best team when in turmoil. The only reason they had that record was because of that tremendous streak they went on in April, when things had turned around. ok now youre reaching, you want to break the regular season down as well? yeah the lakers are the volatile bunch who could start a feud at any moment that would sink their team to the low levels of the grizzlies, i mean theyve only only being 163-50(.765) for the last 2 seasons, but no thats not consistent play, i sure can see a lot of feuds and bad play in there . i mean when they win games its only because theyre on a hot streak and shaq and kobe are on temporary ceasefire. puuuhlease, now we're going to have a record for "regular season record when the lakers are in turmoil"? why dont you just go up all their wins and make up an excuse for why when they won that game they werent in turmoil and it isnt counted because they could start bickering at any given second. hell the 67 games they won the prior season doesnt count because they werent in turmoil and it could flare up any second, who cares if it was 2 years in the past, turmoil follows the lakers wherever they go, even back in time. 47. And is this a Laker fan calling our championship a possible fluke? I'd say considering the officials and Portland's complete meltdown, it's debatable if you completely earned your first championship as well. stand corrected on the win total. why was the championship a fluke, the lakers won 67 games and were up 3-1 in that series. youre starting to sound like a blazer fan, sorry to tell you but a game goes for 4 quarters, theres no prize for having "the lead at the end of the 3rd quarter" title. if im going by your excuse making standards i could just say its a "fluke" portland was in a game 7 in the first place because they were down 3-1 in that series, of course teams keep playing until they get to 4 wins in a series and to the end of the forth quarter of every game. the lakers and the jordan bulls went into a lot of games behind at the start of the forth quarter but then clicked into gear and took the game over when it mattered most. its not luck, its knowing and being able to execute when it matters most. Those two coaches before didn't have Kobe or Shaq as developed as they are now. You could've put me as coach of the Lakers in the playoffs last year, and they still would've won. del had 4 all stars on that 97 team and got swept. the lakers team of 98/99 had a near identical roster to the one in 99/00, one was a 5th seed and got swept in the second round, one had the 3rd best regular season record of all time and won the championship. there were the additions of ron harper and ac green for derek harper and jr reid, hardly upgrades, and there was the addition of phil jackson. you can say how it was because shaq took his game to a new level all you want, all i know is he never delivered until phil jackson got there. that excuse is weak, no team improves without its players improving, by what youre saying it means no coaches can help a team because when a team improves, its because "the players developed" He may be the best player ever. This might've been the funniest and saddest thing I've ever read on this BBS. funny larry brown said hes the best ever, do you know better than larry brown. your points are just filled with biased and ridiculous excuses, a typical hater. 99/00-67 wins(3rd most wins in a season in nba history), championship 00/01-58 wins(2nd most in the nba), 15-1 in the playoffs(best in nba history) that look like a fluke to you? the lakers for the last 2 seasons as a whole have being by far the best team in the nba. you got any more excuses? ill help you, how about "the lakers are only the champs because the sonics didnt make the playoffs", or "the lakers cant even be considered as the favorites because shaq is the biggest man in the nba and thus the most susceptible to being struck by lightening, and if he does, there goes the lakers season"
