People quit embarassing the board by thinking you know what Webber's going to do more than Kingsfan. It's all speculation. And he's right, the Kings DO have a good cast of players. How else do you think they won 55 games in an incredibly tough conference? You say it was all because of Webber. Yet when WEBBER's Kings get swept aside, it's suddenly everyone else's fault. If Webber's all they've got, then it's all HIS fault when they don't succeed. Quit trying to have it both ways.
TheFreak, I think it was mostly Webber that got them as far as they went, and it was their total dependece on Webber that got them swept out of the playoffs. He is not enough by himself to get past the Lakers, but I feel that the other 11 players for the Rockets are better than the Kings. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
Hydra -- so Webber's enough "by himself", as you put it, to win them 55 games (to LA's 56), but he's not enough to beat them in a series? Can you please explain that? Basically you're saying that Webber's only good during the regular season.
Webber alone is not enough to beat the Los Angeles Lakers, especially at the level of play the the Lakers were playing at. The Kings needed contributions from their role players if they wished to defeat the Lakers, those role-players did not contribute, and the Kings lost. ------------------ Charles Barkely on the Raptors defeating the Knicks in Round 1 :"I think it was the Lord. The Lord was with the Raptors. You know the Knicks like to talk so much about religion, but I think the Lord was a Raptor fan."
So, AGAIN, you're saying that Webber alone was enough to play LA neck and neck during the regular season, but Webber alone was not enough in the playoffs? Why is that? It seems to me that the answer is that LA raised their play in the playoffs, but Webber did not. What's your explanation?
Because Los Angeles did not play as well as they could have this year. But they began playing up to the level they were playing at last year towards the end of the season. When the Lakers are playing at that level the only team right now that could probably beat them in a 7-gm series is the San Antonio Spurs. If the Kings had any chance of upsetting the Lakers, they needed to get significant contributions from their complimentary players, because the Lakers were getting those contributions from their players. They did not get those significant contributions. Thus they lost. ------------------ Charles Barkely on the Raptors defeating the Knicks in Round 1 :"I think it was the Lord. The Lord was with the Raptors. You know the Knicks like to talk so much about religion, but I think the Lord was a Raptor fan."
You're still saying that LA raised their level of play, and Webber did not. Sacramento still managed to take 2 from them in the first round last year, and Phoenix even took a game. Neither of these teams won 55 games during the regular season. Either way you look at it, Webber (and he's all the Kings have, according to you) disappeared in the playoffs this year. If you look at the rest of his career, this is not out of the ordinary.
Los Angeles did raise the level of their play, in fact probably beyond their play of last year, they've managed to close out two series on the road thus far, something they could not accomplish last year in any of their series. When every team you play manages to stave off elimination be beating you pretty bad in at least one game, perhaps it is not the other team, but you. Last year, Sacramento took two games from Los Angeles because not only did Webber have good games, but they got contributions from their other players. It didn't hurt that Webber was playing against AC Green, and not Horace Grant, who is better than Green on both ends of the floor. Then they went back to LA and got crushed. This year, that supporting cast might as well not even dressed for the game. It was easier for O'Neal and Bryant to step up because they had contributions from their supporting cast to keep the defense from completely collapsing on them. Webber didn't even have the benifit of a guy who played as good as Derek Fisher, much less a star like Kobe Bryant playing alongside him. I don't care how much you step up your game, if you don't get solid contributions from your teammates, you will not win a series versus a team like the Lakers, especially playing at the level they are playing now. Sacramento is not nearly as talented as the Lakers, if they wanted to beat the Lakers, their role-players had to play above their heads and play like stars, if only for a quarter or two. They did not. That is why the Kings lost. ------------------ Charles Barkely on the Raptors defeating the Knicks in Round 1 :"I think it was the Lord. The Lord was with the Raptors. You know the Knicks like to talk so much about religion, but I think the Lord was a Raptor fan."
LOL! But then, why wouldn't Sac just say,,,"OK, on second thought, you think New York would give us Kurt Thomas and draft picks."
Freak, I said it was mostly Webber, when you have a superstar on your team that the offense runs through nearly every time down the floor, surrounded by a bunch of spot up shooters, then I would say the teams success can be measured by how far that superstar takes you. As Olajuwon was the Rockets in '94, so is Webber the Kings now. Sure there are other players on the court, Peja had a breakout year and Christie was 4th in defensive player of the year voting, but without Webber that team went nowhere, think the Bucks minus Ray Allen and interior defense. ------------------ You can't stick a porcupine in a barn, light it on fire, and expect to get licorice.
