Cabbage & Francis3... Not to diss you guys, since you are regular posters on the greatest BBS on the internet and die-hard Rockets fans like myself, but if you think the Lakers are going to win it all this year, you must be eating funky brownies for breakfast. #1, we have yet to witness the ever-so-predictable Laker meltdown that always occurs when behemoth egos like Shaq's & Kobe's clash when they attempt to divvy up the offensive load. Not even the Zenmeister can smooth that one over. It's coming, and when it does, the Lakers will take a nosedive. Shaq's FT shooting prowess will enhance the downfall. #2, the Spurs still have the best player in the NBA. The road to the title goes through San Antonio, and even though they are without Sean Elliott, they will repeat. Bring the flame!! ------------------ Just Win Baby! More Than Four Times!
Maybe another reason the Lakers aren't scoring as much is the fact that their missing their most dynamic scorer, and 20 pts 5 assists a night guy in Kobe Bryant, who just came back. Bottom line...look at the records. Unless your conceeding that the Rox don't have as good as personell as the Lakers, obviously one team is getting it done. Minus Kobe.
Rocketability, I agree w/ all your points, and add: 6) DEFENSE in the fourth hasn't shut too many teams down. If we have the lead in the third going into the fourth, we shouldn't ever lose the game because of defense. It is not so much how much we score (theWigman) but just so they don't score more than we do. Summary: Add them all together and you get 4-12.
Barzilla, I guess I need to repost this since you seem to have missed the point: Sorry if the title of my post misled you. I wasn't trying to compare the two offensive systems (as in which one is better). I was merely pointing out that the offensive systems are not responsible for their respective teams' failures or successes this season ... which is just another way of saying that neither is better than the other, and that there are some other factors involved in winning and losing that are more worthy of attention. (...other factors like defense, for example) And Dreamshake, Kobe is not the Lakers' most dynamic scorer.
Rudyball, that's exactly what I'm saying. Read the post again. Also, read my response to Mhan in this thread.
Wigman, Apparently you may have missed my point as well. The offensive system HAS A LOT to do with defense. It's really simple mathamatics. The more possessions a team gets the more points they are going to score. So, naturally, a team that plays a half court offense predominantly is going to give up less points on the average. That being said, there are a number of things about the Rudy offensive system that make it more difficult on the defense. The primary thing is that whenever your offense relies heavily on the three then the other team is going to get transition opportunities off of long rebounds. Also, the predictability of the Rockets offense (not to mention the young players) has caused us to lead the league in turnovers. Turnovers also lead to more fast break opportunities. These two factors alone can account for a pretty significant disparity in points allowed. That being said, I acknowledge your point and assure you I understood it all along. I'm simply pointing out that offense and defense don't exist in a vacuum. They rely on each other. Good sound defense creates easy baskets and a sound half court game makes it easier to play defense. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Lizard Lounger (aka Barzilla), I see where you're pointing at, but the only problem is it ain't leading us anywhere in this discussion. I agree that offense and defense are co-dependent and tied to each other to a certain extent. But, you must also be aware that if a good offense will make your defense look good, then it's also true that a good defense (forcing turnovers, rebounding, etc) will make your offense look good. For the purposes of this discussion (in which we're trying to determine the effectiveness of an offensive system), you have to make a distinction between offense and defense. You have to determine if the team is better offensively or is it better defensively ... what are the team's strengths and weaknesses? What was bothering me was the failure (of some posters) to see the big picture (that there's more to the game than just the offensive system .... you have to play defense, you have to hit crucial free throws, you have to protect the basketball). As for Rudyball being turnover-prone: that is a debatable assertion ... since there's no way to tell if the turnovers are inherent to Rudyball or if the players are simply making too many stupid passes. One thing's for sure it is possible to play Rudyball without giving it up 20 times a game: http://espn.go.com/nba/2000/991206/boxscore/vanhou.html -------------------------------- What is the only team to have a winning record against Michael Jordan and Phil Jackson's Triangle? Answer: Team Rudyball [This message has been edited by theWIGMAN (edited December 07, 1999).]
Wigwam...Then who would you say is more "Dynamic" Shaq with his collection of Dunks and nothing else??? No jumpers, no grace in the paint, no free throws, no jump hooks that hit with regularity. Maybe Glenn Rice? No dribble drive, no penetration, no assists, no creating of own shots. Kobe does all of it. Create, drive, post up, dish. Guess its all in your definition of Dynamic.
Wig, Okay Wig if the point of our discussion is to talk about the separation of offensive and defensive systems then I think we have put our finger on one of the Rockets problems. In fact if your assertion is that defense is more important than offense then we might be able to have a good discussion. I think Phil Jackson puts such a huge emphasis on defense partially because he believes anyone can play in his system once he's found his "apex of the Triangle". This means that he purposely looks for defensive players a la Dennis Rodman and Ron Harper. I think Rudyball started to go downhill whenever Rudy started looking for offensive players to fill his system. He looked for players who could fit a specific role in the offense instead of guys who could play sound defense. Charles Barkley really comes to mind here, but I could come up with others if I had more time. I think the Steve Francis trade and the acquisition of Shandon Anderson is a move in the right direction. Both of those players are good offensive players, but also bring a lot to the table on defense. I think if we can find someone in the draft who can replace Walt then we will be back to where we were in the title seasons. We will be a team that starts with defense and goes from there. ------------------ Rockets When? Rockets When?
Barzilla, Cool....Now we're getting somewhere. I've maintained all along that Phil Jackson's coaching strength is on the defensive side of the ball.
Dreamshake, This from Webster's Dictionary: dynamic: of or relating to physical force or energy. The root word comes from the Greek dynamikos (meaning powerful) By definition, Shaq is the most dynamic scorer/player on the Lakers. [This message has been edited by theWIGMAN (edited December 07, 1999).]
personally, i have to say that the rockets should not bank on the lakers self destructing this season. the only time they really self destructed was last year, and that was under a new coach kurt rambis along with a lot of turmoil. now, they have phil jackson who has enough prestige that he will not hesitate to bench players (even kobe rice and shaq) if they are disrupting the team. under jackson, the players have to put up or shut up, and it is reflected in their play so far. i have seen the lakers play, and they are a VERY dangerous team right now. their defense (especially shaq's) has been SUFFOCATING. we had better all pray that the lakers never land a pf (like pj or ratliff, who they are interested in if rumors are to be believed) who can help shaq to close out the lanes and block shots. if they ever do, god, you have san antonio's defense (maybe even better with shaq's dominance) along with the triangle offense, and that is freaky. saying that though, the path to the championship is not through the lakers this season, it is through portland and san antonio.
Physical force...Yes but it does also say or "energy" in that case its not Shaq. but again...its in your definition of dynamic
