Warning: If you don't like to hear praise for teams other than the hometown team, leave this thread immediately! Very simply put, here is a breakdown of the Lakers' strengths and weaknesses as I see it: Strengths: -rebounding -size/length -speed/athleticism -shooters (3-point, mid-range, free throw shooting) -slashers/inside scoring -Kobe Bryant -perimeter defense -interior defense (this may be a relative weakness but their size and rebounding more than compensate for it) -passers/passing game -veterans -young talent -bench depth -past success -coaching Weaknesses: ??? Am I overstating their strengths? Did I miss any weaknesses? I know it's early in the season and things can change dramatically over the next several months but if the Lakers stay healthy, can you honestly think of a team, other than maybe the Celtics, that would be able to beat them in a 7-game series? Make a list of the Rockets strengths/weaknesses and compare it to that of the Lakers. No matter how much of a homer you are, it's hard to see how we are even close on paper.
If you mean they are cocky and ahead of themselves, believing the hype, I thought about that several times this season, including during the game tonight and I do think that has some legitimacy. At the same time, I'd love that to be the Rockets' biggest weakness.
Fisher has tons of playoff experience and is a strong perimeter defender. He can knock down big shots. I'd be happy to have him in a Rockets uniform. I do think Radmanovic is somewhat of a scrub but I'm talking about the entire team. They have more than enough to compensate for him when he's sucking (Odom, Ariza, Walton). I honestly think one of the reasons Jackson is starting him early in the season is to try to light a fire under him.
Good points. As far as playing physical and frustrating them, that is why I think the Celtics are their biggest concern. The Rockets are a good defensive team but I don't think they are nearly as lockdown and able to get under a team's skin like the Celtics. Forcing Kobe to try to do too much is always good, as the Celtics have shown at times, but I think they are a lot deeper and more experienced this season with the return of Bynum, Farmar continuing to develop and Ariza becoming a solid two-way player. Most of the guys are back from last season and can build on last year's experience. Basically, I think it will be extremely difficult to force Kobe into that role any more. At times, their 2nd unit plays better than their first unit.
They're good, but they have weaknesses. Did you watch the Detroit game? - Rebounding against big physical teams, like Detroit, Boston, even Dallas, and similar style teams. - Aggressive offensive teams tend to well against them also. - Their perimeter defense is somewhat overrated, they leave teams open alot, watch the Detroit and Dallas games. They are going to get ate alive against a great jump shooting team, like Golden State or Phoenix. Also, watch the game against Houston, those outside shots were there all-day, we went cold in 2nd half, since we don't have alot of great outside shooters. - Gasol and Bynum aren't as great as some might think, they can be neutralized much easier than one may think (see Detroit and Dallas). Gasol is still soft, and Bynum is still overrated. - Their bench is overrated (name one player on their bench, besides Odom who could be full time starter on another team)...also compare their bench to the Jazz, Suns, and Celtics.
I used to think the same of Jackson but maybe the importance of an NBA coach is overstated. Check out the article Hayesfan found: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=157809 It basically concludes that the role of NBA coaches is relatively insignificant compared to other sports. Here is an interesting quote from that article: "Berri's contention is that an NBA coach's record is determined almost entirely by the quality of his players. The claim makes sense: In comparison with football and baseball, NBA statistics vary little from year to year. The job of an NBA coach, then, may be less about coaxing better performances out of athletes than about getting their skills and personalities to fit together. By the time a player has moved through the basketball machine to the NBA, he's a relatively finished product." I'm not saying Berri is right, just that it's an interesting perspective. Coaching may not matter as much as some would think. The players may really be 99% of what determines a team's success. There are a lot of examples of teams performing almost exactly the same in the seasons after a coaching change, including our 07/08 Rockets.
I don't really think so, I think having a really bad coach could hurt an average team more than having a really good one on a bad team. I think Phil is just overrated to begin with, he's always had dominate players on his rosters, he has never coached a team that was lacking in a dominate player or all-stars. It also doesn't hurt to have great assistants. If you want to see what good coaching can do for a team, see Larry Brown (at Indiana, Philadelphia, and Detroit), Chuck Daly (at Detroit and Orlando), and Popovich (at San Antonio). It makes more of difference when your coaches' strengths are Xs and Os. Without a good coach, then bad things to ensue more often, like turnovers, bad plays, out of position, players who aren't improving, defensive lapses, and chaos.
Not too bad an acquisition for Brian Cook and Maurice Evans. Evans is underrated but Ariza's way younger, longer, equally athletic & more versatile defender. Lakers may not be perfect all around but they have the least weaknesses of any team right now. Even the 72 win Chicago Bulls didnt have the most talent at every position, they just had the pieces that worked for what they were doing. I'll give Phil Jackson his credit for being a good coach. Or good manager of personalities, or whatever. Being considered good doesnt have to come about from X' & O's. A good coach might matter that much, but a bad coach can ruin things.
I watched parts of the Detroit game. I never said they were unbeatable. I would still pick a healthy Lakers team over the Pistons in a 7-game series every day of the week. Anything can happen in one game. Every team loses some games. Did you just call the Mavericks a big, physical team? I agree that playing aggressive on both ends against the Lakers is critical. On offense, getting into the paint and testing their bigs should be a focus of every opponent. I don't think their perimeter defense is overrated. Between Kobe and Ariza and Fisher, even Vujacic can be a pest, I think they have more than enough perimeter defense. I certainly wouldn't call it a weakness. So you are on the record saying that they will get eaten alive by jump shooting teams? A jump shooting team can beat them in a 7-game series? They destroyed Portland, a team notorious for settling for outside shots and they beat Dallas even if it was close. My guess is they will put a smackdown on the Mavericks at least once this season. Anything can happen in one game. Regarding Houston missing open shots, making shots is part of the game. The Lakers seem to make a lot of shots. Like you said, we don't have a lot of great outside shooters. The Lakers do and they take advantage of it. I think you are underrating Gasol. He is the perfect fit in that offense. Great passer, can play the high post, good shooter, runs well for a 7'er and can finish on the break, good bball IQ, etc... I am not on the Bynum bandwagon yet, either. He has started out the year slow but he's second in shotblocking while playing less than 30 mpg and I think he's only going to get better as the season progresses. He's improved every year and is only 21 years old. We both know what they have on their bench. If you don't already think that is one of the deepest benches in the league, along with the Blazers and maybe the Rockets at some point, I won't be able to convince you. I actually think the Suns bench is better than some people are saying but it is cited as a weakness by some analysts for some reason. Maybe, it's just because Barbosa hasn't gotten it going yet but I'd say Dragic, Barbosa, Hill, Diaw and Lopez is pretty solid. They still aren't deeper than the Lakers, in my opinion, and they certainly don't have the same chemistry. The Lakers 2nd unit has been putting the smackdown on several teams, including the Rockets. Kobe wasn't even in the game when it turned into a blowout.
I would question their poise whenever they face adversity. Aside from Kobe & Fisher that group is fairly untested. You saw how badly the wheels fell off the wagon once they faced a physical team like the Celtics. That series was nowhere near as close as it should have been. Plus, Kobe threw in the towel at halftime of Game 6. What are your teammates supposed to think whenever they see the face of the league and a champion acting like that? As for strategy: take away the inside game and as skyline accurately stated, force them to play "Kobe ball". You want Kobe firing away and not getting teammates involved. You want guys like Gasol, Bynum and Odom with that lackadaisical, confused "Okay, so I guess I just get out of his way?" look. Try to contain Kobe, let him have his jump shots. If he makes a 20 footer it won't kill you. What will kill you is him driving to the basket and [almost certaintly] getting at least 2 FT attempts. Plus, you risk your guys being in foul trouble. Play physical/box out Gasol/Bynum. The last thing you want to do is concentrate too much on Kobe and forget about two skilled 7-footers. The Lakers are probably the best rebounding team in the league due to these two guys alone. Gasol doesn't respond well to being tightly covered/bodied up. Bynum is still figuring out how to play. Play physical, box them out and do your absolute best to eliminate their inside game. Next? Don't let anybody else beat you. Odom is Odom -- he plays when he wants to. Sometimes you're in trouble if you catch him during a game where he actually cares. Deal with it. What you can't deal with or let happen is letting Fisher, Farmar, Vujacic or Radman beat you. Those guys are all beyond lethal so double teaming anybody will rarely be an option either. Overall, for the many reasons you stated this is a near flawless team. Near flawless but as you saw against the Celtics, still human...still beatable. It's ALWAYS going to start with smart, consistent defense and rebounding though. You can count on that.
Physical D rattles the Lakers, more than most teams. You can play zone defense on Kobe with Battier or Artest taking turns against him, and deny him possessions until the shot clock is winding down and rely on p***y Gasol, or erratic Odom to deliver.
Good analysis, baller. As you pointed out, that is a long list of things that we would need to do and probably not even complete. I'd love for the Rockets to take these guys in a 7-game series but as of now, that looks like a really daunting task. Of course, the Rockets have plenty of room to improve their play (and hopefully their health) as the season progresses. And like you said, we need to regain our status as a great rebounding team. For us to be successful, defense must come first. We simply won't be an elite offensive team so we can't afford to loosen up at the other end. As an arrogant fool recently said: "Anything is possible."
I said in my last post what you just said about bad coaching. A good coach might not put a team over the top, but a bad one can sink a team. Thats why they're on the bench - they're not quite good enough to start. And starting with the Rockets I know Farmar could start for a 1/4 of the teams right now. Luke Walton is their 12th guy now.
Jackson may be overrated but I think he's accomplished enough to be considered "not a bad coach." So, if you believe it's more important not to have a bad coach, I think the Lakers have that covered.
Did you just call the Mavericks a big, physical team? I agree that playing aggressive on both ends against the Lakers is critical. On offense, getting into the paint and testing their bigs should be a focus of every opponent.[/QUOTE] The Mavs aren't usually that physical or aggressive, but the manage to play the kind of style pretty well against the Lake show. It's only one game, but how they almost lost that game is how they lost the game on Friday night. The Lakers losing to Detroit is not necessarily because Detroit is a better team...the way Lakers lose is like how the Indianapolis Colts lose? It isn't necessarily who they lose to, but is how they lose to them? Indy for the last 8 years have had the most talented team in the league or one of them. They (did) and still can destroy most opponents or many teams, but when they are facing opponents who are very physical and good running the ball...then they usually come down to earth and are beaten soundly (sometimes even blownout). See Patriots, Jaguars, Titans, Chargers, and Steelers. Remember, when they lost to Detroit 4 years ago, they had the more talented team, then I still lost in the same manner. It's how they lost Detroit is the concern. Very similar to what Boston did. Most teams probably aren't going to be able to stop them, but the few who can are the biggest concern. Their problem Bynum is improving player, but I don't see how he is top 5 center. He's doesn't have the kind celing for his game that player, like Howard, Oden, and even Biedrins has. I don't see where the max salary money was coming from, he's decent, but definitely not all-star. Not yet, anyway. Not really, underrating Gasol, good above average power forward who can score, not a great one or a top 5 pf. He's not very good defender or shot blocker. While, his offense can nullified against great frontline or power forward. I think they are great together, but I don't think they are going to dominate another really good team or really defensive team (especially one with a halfway decent front line and size). So far, the Lakers bench has been pretty good with great chemistry. But, if team like the Suns or Nuggets get on role, I would easily take their bench over the Lakers. I guess I wouldn't pick the Lakers guys, because they are great system players while other benches are composed of great talent (who I think can play within a system and create individual offense). You can put tough defense on the Lakers' bench players and pretty much keep them out of the game, while the players on the Suns (like Hill, Diaw, and Barbosa) can find different ways to score against tough defenders.
