KG - surrounded by 4 shooters hhmmmm. .. dominant big man surrounded by shooters???? WHERE THE H*LL DID I SEE THAT BEFORE *cough* Rockets 93-95 *cough* Doc Rivers went back and pulled out a Golden Oldie Doc knows. . that Rudy T's Simple Offense CRUSHES the Triangle Strong D . . .Simple Offense The Rudy's Rockets Always matched up favorable against Big Chief Triangle [something like 5-1 during the Bull's 1st three peat] Congrats to Doc for knowing his History and reaching back . .. .That is Coaching . . . PROPS TO DOC Rocket River
Funny thing is is that Jackson had a dominant big man and 4 shooters for all the Laker's wins, too; that is, anytime he wanted to put Horry at PF. He needed cheating refs to get past Portland and Sacramento for two of those wins. Using the Triangle was not a good as using the simple offense of spreading the floor with Kobe, Glenn Rice, Fisher, Horry, Fox, etc, but he got all that praise for choosing a lessor offense for the talent he had. That said, the Triangle for Jordan was a good choice. But picking the Triangle for a big man like Shaq is silly. It just clogs the middle.
Why are you trying to insult all the bulls fans and jordan only fans here? or the fake Rocket fans who discredit all the championships?
Isn't the "former Rockets on championship teams" phenomenon just part of the modern musical chairs of the NBA? I mean, you could run the stats, but it seems like 30-50% of most rosters change every year.
just goes to show how much of an overreaction there was to the trade. the best thing for the lakers is he's perfect for the triangle.
There has been no overreaction to the "trade" (giveaway). It put the Lakers in the Finals when they might have missed the playoffs.
I'm willing to bet you can find several teams with former players on 9 of last 10 championship, like the Rockets. I guess you have to eliminate teams who actually won, though, which eliminates all the Horry teams, except Phoenix.
Nothing ridiculous about it. If you honestly believe the Lakers would have made the Finals with Kwame Brown instead of Pau, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. If they had even made the playoffs, the Lakers would have been 1st round roadkill as the 8th seed. Pau fits their offense to a "T", but he's wilted under pressure the last couple of rounds. When Bynum went down, the Lakers' season was pretty much over until they got Pau.
Oh, I know- I was only half-serious. And I hope I didn't offend anyone by trying to imply a "Doc Rivers doesn't get credit because of his race...." thing. I just think that the whole "coaching by Xs and Os is the sign of coaching excellence" is only half-true. Think of it this way- how many plays in the NBA wind up being broken due to the other team's defensive reaction/adjustment? 50%? So 50% is about running the correct plays and 50% is about motivating your team to be passionate, to not panic, etc. From listening to Doc, he seems to do fine in the motivational part, perhaps even better than PJ at this point in PJ's career. So he's on an even playing field with Phil. Not to discredit Phil, though- I think coaching overall in the NBA is a very difficult (albeit well-paying) job. You've got players who make way more than you, that can pretty much get you fired if they really want to, many of whom are primarily concerned about their stats because it will mean more money for them- and in the brief career that is sports, money is important- so you have a lot of negatives working against you. And I just don't like to put down coaches (or when coaches are ridiculed like Doc and Mike Brown) because I think most of them do a very good job. I guess that's against the opinion of most fans who want to fire the coach after every "bad" decision, but oh well.
I have to admit something: After reading some of the threads on the Lakers forum, I kinda feel sorry for their diehard fans. Those guys are suffering. If this collapse had happened to the Rockets in the Finals, well...I don't even want to think about it.
um we still haven't gotten out of the first round. you've seen some of the worst threads after first round losses. i'm sure we'll be fine if we lose in the finals.
How hard will it really be for the Lakers to win the next 3? I mean, let's put aside the fact that they are 1-5 vs. the Celtics this year, and no other team came back from a 1-3 deficit. But is it really that impossible for them to win the next 3 games?
I have your same opinion about coaches, I'm one of those crazy fans who is the kind to say give coach good 3 to 5 years, before you can put him on the firing squad. Because, alot of the times, I don't think the coaches are to blame for what goes on the field or court. If it is not the lack of talent, it is the lack of mature leadership, or it is boneheaded plays, or it is the players aren't executing, well. Another thing is you have to be able to get the players on the same page, which also takes a while to. It is not easy putting a winning, or even capable team together. This doesn't include injuries, player temper tantrums (for more money, playing time, new contract, or offer to be shipped out of town). Generally, I think most people identify with coaches more so than players as strange as that sounds. I even remember reading an old ESPN article about it when it was talking about football coaches. In a way, coaches in way are more mortal and they are in a position of authority, even though alot of them are former players, they are seen as a bit more mature and even intelligent. When things go right they can be held as geniuses or masterful coaches, if they go wrong the media and fans want to hand them pink slip very quickly. Strangely, the most successful ones weren't superstars, franchise players, and in some cases never professional players and even started as assistants overseas, in junior colleges, or high schools. I guess that says something else. Compare a bad team who gets good coach to a great team who gets bad coach....you start to see polar opposites pull closer together. Imagine, if Popovich went to a team, like the Knicks or Bulls wouldn't they infinitely be better. Or say, if Belichick went to the Cardinals wouldn't they finally be able to make the playoffs annually with right coach in place. For the most part, I think the NBA has alot of good to great coaches in them, he!! most of them are not even on an active roster. Also, I think alot of people think the championship is also the big deal breaker. Most people say a player or coach is a choker, if he can't or doesn't win championship. But that's kind ridiculous, because every has to be just right to win a championship. And only so many teams are going to win it anyway. Especially in a sport, like the NBA, if talent is not there, if owner is being a penny pincher, and if players are not quite right....what do you expect? It is almost proven that you can't win with an elite player on your roster, just look who has won all the championships. Have you ever seen a 40 win team win a title with no elite player? It's kind beside the point, I think the coach has the most responsiblity of anyone, even more than say the star player, because a star player is only responsible for himself and his role. The coach is responsible for the players, the plays being called and strategies being developed. If a team fails, a good bit of time, he is going to take the blame. Other times, when team wins, it was the players....it's a double edge razor to be a coach.
Pau is neither. He is more like Mr. Sandman, because his gift brought the Lakers to the finals. But thenlike Mr. Sandman, he faded away.
First place in the WC was only 9 games ahead of ninth place, remember? It was one of the closest WC playoff races in history. I doubt they make it without Pau.
