Celtics are much too physical. Something Lakers haven't faced this playoffs. I hate Celtics but they will win it easily.. in 5
Celtics dominated Lakers in regular season. But in the playoffs I wouldn't be so sure. I voted Celtics in 7. It is gonna be a long, tough series. We have two different teams. Celtics who have been struggling offensivly but have been great defensivly, and Lakers who can play killer offense. Can Celtics 'd' stop Kobe? But the most important thing, can Lakers role players play that great as they have been doing since the beggining of the playoffs. The Lakers are the best team in this year's playoffs. But I just don't see them winning. But I am notsaying Lakers have no chances, though
i rather have the lakers win it. F Boston. F the East coast. F lEastern conference ball. I don't like that punk ass Paul "gonna get" Pierced.
There are some misconceptions in this thread: 1. The Celtics just proved they can win on the road, ergo they should be able to beat the Lakers. The Lakers are perfect at home during the playoffs. Their average margin of victory at home is +12.5 points . Take away that 30 point Game 2 blowout handed to SA, their margin of victory is still +10 points. The Lakers have also responded on the road as well, with a 4-3 record in the playoffs, easily the best out of all the playoff teams this year with 2 out of 4 wins being elimination games. So to say that since the Celtics finally won 2 on the road--and didn't win ANY road games in the first 2 rounds, mind you--and are fine, they're going up against an undefeated team at home and a team that has a winning road record in the playoffs...both are things they haven't faced yet in the playoffs. 2. The physical play of the Celtics are going to grind the Lakers to the ground Someone brought up an excellent point that the Lakers defeated a tough physical Jazz team in 6 games. IIRC, no team in the NBA committed more fouls in the regular season than the Jazz. Of course, the defense efficiency between Utah and Boston is very large, but saying that the Celtics "physical play" is an advantage is misleading. More than anything, it's their ability to play team defense that will give them the advantage. 3. The Big 3 of Boston will play better than the Lakers Big 2.5 I honestly think that the trio of KG/Pierce/Allen will, ultimately in the end, cancel out Kobe/Gasol/Odom. Allen, until proven otherwise, isn't a consistent threat that he's made out to be and this, of course, has been seen time and time again in the playoffs. Odom's and Gasol's production are also inconsistent and I think that both are going have trouble producing like they did against San Antonio. That leaves KG/Pierce and Kobe. Quite honestly, I fully believe that Kobe can score enough to cancel out whatever KG and Pierce can dole out. Sounds outlandish? Bryant, in this year's playoffs, has averaged almost 32 points per game on 51% shooting while the combination of KG/Pierce gets 40 a night for an 8 point differential...which isn't that big considering it's one guy against two. If Kobe can somehow manage to bump up his production to 34-35 points a game while KG/Pierce posts the same numbers (which isn't far fetched considering they averaged about the same in all 3 rounds so far), the gap considerably shrinks. 4. Boston's defense is something that the Lakers haven't faced yet in the playoffs Boston's defense is, of course, tops in the league during the regular season. But the Lakers aren't THAT bad. Boston's opp FG% for the playoffs is 42%, tops in the league. Lakers, on the other hand, is at 43.3% so it's not that far off. Opponent 3pt% isn't that much different either with Boston at 32.1% and the Lakers at 32.2%. Some might argue that the Lakers have faced a bunch of chuckers in Denver and some non-shooters in San Antonio but Boston played against teams that were are hardly efficient on offense either (with a slight exception to Detroit). The Lakers might surrender more points than Boston but their scoring has been so efficient that making solid stops during the game can eek them by. This isn't even considering the other intangibles: 1. Coaching Doc Rivers has been coasting by because his players are getting him by. And it's not like he's had some geniuses coaching against him in Woodson, Brown, and Saunders either. Saunders did a great job making adjustments (hence the Game 2 victory) and could probably have pulled it out if his players played up to their potential. So if Rivers had to put his team through 20 games out of a possible 21 games to get into the Finals against inferior teams, what chances does he have against Phil Jackson? 2. Bench and role players Boston has a good group of guys. Perkins does what he's needed to do and Rondo isn't an afterthought. IMO, this is the most important factor in the Finals. If Rivers can get the same production he got out of his players other than the Big 3 like he did in the Finals, it'll be a quick victory for Boston. I'm not THAT enamored with the Lakers bench. Farmar STILL hasn't showed up and I don't see him doing so anytime soon. Vujacic is that scrappy player where inconsistency can hit him at any time. This also goes for Walton and Turiaf. In other words: If Rivers goes back to his tried and true rotation pre-Cassell and PJ, they have a much better chance of winning. I also think that Ray Allen needs to come off the bench and Posey should start. I felt that way going into the BOS-DET series and it was further solidified during that run the Celtics went on in Game 6 against the Pistons without Allen on the floor. Having Posey on the floor guarding Bryant allelivates Pierce from expending so much energy on defense and can let him sag off of Radmonavic. This also might get better production out of Allen because he'll most likely go against the Laker bench. If he can't score on the likes of Farmar or Sasha, then you can officially plan Mr. Shuttlesworth's retirement party.
i'm really not. i always felt confident against the spurs b/c i always though i could count on the lakers to score (even if the lakers D was really a big part of them winning), which is what really makes them a confident team. the spurs, like the rockets, play a passive defense. a great defense, but passive. essentially, they're always in the right place, they try not to double so you can't get open 3's, and they guard the paint. they try to limit the number of easy shots you get, but don't necessarily swarm all over you and make it seem like you're suffocating under the pressure. the celtics have an actively great defense. they follow you dribbling it up, they're on you as you try to initiate, they're trapping PnR's, they reach and slap a lot, they get physical. they don't try to limit easy shots, they're try to increase very difficult shots. they try to frustrate you and throw you off your game in a way the spurs and rockets do not. and i think the lakers are much more suited to a great passive D than a great active D (notwithstanding boston just having a better D overall anyway). they're finesse game and passing game and cutting can handle the passive stuff. if you're not all over them, they're skills will shine through and allow them to score. the way boston plays, i see the role players not having much success, and think odom and gasol will be even more limited than against the spurs. and if the celtics can keep lebron james out of the paint, they can definitely keep kobe out guarding him with posey or pierce and with their amazing team defense. if kobe's jumper isn't completely money, i can't see the lakers scoring enough, b/c i think they'll give the celtics too many open shots. and the celtics won't be backing off kobe like the spurs for fear of fouling him. so his jumper will have to be on against even tighter D. like i said, if he can do it, more power to him, but i don't have that confident feeling like i had against everyone else. hell, utah and denver never even stood a chance as far as i was concerned, and the spurs could at least be beaten. the celtics i think should be decidedly favored. people put too much emphasis on their bad play and don't focus on the way they turn it up every time it really matters. they beat the hawks by a million in game 7 once they got serious, they beat cleveland even with lebron's monster performance in game 7, they easily came back on the pistons in game 6. i just don't like picking against teams i hate that seem to step up that often.
Utah just fouls a lot. They aren't a great defensive team. See how the Wizards tried to guard Lebron vs. the Celtics.
The one major advantage Lakers have is coaching. I fully expect Doc Rivers to make a coaching decision gaffe that will cost a game or 2, whereas PJ is 9-1 in finals.
Another misconception. People can argue who's the better player when it comes to LeBron and Kobe, but no one can argue who has a better shooting game. LeBron and his inept of a coach has an offense that pretty much magnifies LeBron's strengths as well as his weakness. The high iso dribble that Mike Brown deploys pretty much every possession gives LeBron room to penetrate and drive (his strength) but it also points out his weakness in his inability to shoot a jumpshot. Kobe's offense mostly starts with him in between the paint and the 3 point line. He doesn't have to have a running start (like James) and doesn't soley rely on bumrushing the defense. Kobe's shooting skills is vastly superior to LeBron that the Celtics can't leave Kobe open anywhere on the court unlike how the Celts just let LeBron jack up 3s all night. You keep Kobe out of the paint and I'm willing to bet he'll still get 30 a night. LeBron, on the other hand, would be hard pressed to. The Celtics ability to "turn it on" is fictional. They had plenty of chances to close out an inexperienced Atlanta team--matchups be damned. They had chances to take out the Cavs sooner than the 7 games it took. This will sound crazy but Boston is just a better version of a JVG-Rocket team: their great defense will keep them in pretty much every game, but their offense is so inefficient and stagnant that it's really hard to see them beating a vastly superior offensive team.
very insightful analysis, in particular your point that "I also think that Ray Allen needs to come off the bench and Posey should start. I felt that way going into the BOS-DET series and it was further solidified during that run the Celtics went on in Game 6 against the Pistons without Allen on the floor. Having Posey on the floor guarding Bryant allelivates Pierce from expending so much energy on defense and can let him sag off of Radmonavic. But Allen's ego won't let it happen; for that reason, Kobe will shine while Pearce will tire out
Props to steddinotayto. Very insightful indeed. And I agree this is an interesting point. You can't stop Kobe from scoring, but at least Posey is much better defender than Ray Allen. On the other hand, Ray Allen can take full advantage of playing against Lakers scrubs and regain his shooting touch. KG and Pierce could also focus more on the offensive end with Posey taking care of Kobe.
People, if Ray Allen shoots like a blind man and gets lit up by Kobe, then his playing time should be reduced and Posey's should increase. But, unlike Posey, Ray Allen can make Kobe work on defense by running off picks and being active. But the Lakers could respond by putting Fisher on Allen and letting Kobe rest by guarding Rondo. Also, it will take team defense from the Celts, especially from interior guys like KG and Perkins, to slow Kobe. While Posey plays hard, physical and (usually) smart, he isn't a lockdown defender by any means and Kobe can roast him like anyone else. Posey can't "take care of Kobe" and he will needs loads of help from other players. I'm sure Thibadeaux has some things in mind. If the Celtics get in a groove with Posey on the floor (like in the 4th quarter last night), he should stay in the game. Period! What Doc Rivers did late last night didn't make any sense at all. But their offense has gone stagnant so often in the playoffs that Ray Allen must be given every chance on the floor. Still, I'm all for giving Allen a quicker hook if his shot is off and he isn't doing anything else to contribute. I think Allen should definitely start and how well he plays should determine when he goes to the bench and how the minutes are divided up. Changing the starting lineup after 102 games is a terrible idea that would disrupt the entire Celtics team, not just Ray Allen's ego.
They won the world series. They almost went unbeaten in football. And now people are rooting for them to win the nba championship?? no thanks.. let's not stroke that ego anymore.
while i agree fisher should be on allen (someone else posted that as well) b/c he can afford to spend energy chasing allen around and allen shouldn't be able to use his height advantage that well, i'm not sure i want radmanovic on pierce. kobe on pierce is problematic from the perspective of wasting kobe's energy or getting him in foul trouble. i guess i could start with vladrad on pierce and see if his head is in the game and pierce is out of it enough (like he has been in many games in the playoffs) that it's not that bad. obviously kobe on rondo would be ideal.
