imo, they succeed at what the phoenix suns have been trying to do for years now. the main reason being that they have 5 PLAYMAKERS that can shoot, whereas phoenix has a playmaking pg & spot up shooters beyond that.
Allen is not necessarily saying they "just play" with no system; he is just saying no set plays, imo. Teams can run no set plays, yet have a controlled-motion philosophy...if you believe much of hockey, ultimate frisbee, and soccer are based on that...it is easy to see how bball is too. Oh well, I'm probably just being a thread killer with boring system analysis. Sorry, I'll stop. I do look forward to taping some Bucks games though. So verse, by your estimation, do the Rockets have 3 PLAYMAKERS, right now...SF, CM, MT?
i appreciate the system analysis, too. please fill me in after you've taped the next game. and, yes, i do we have 3 with motay or cwebb (whichever). imo, we need one at the 3 spot in the way of a jefferson/johnson/battier and one off the bench. i'd take forte GLADLY, but i'd rather that person were a 6'6 - 6'10" guard in the mold of a tim thomas. can't think of one off hand in the league or out. hmmm...is eddie johnson still available?
oh, and i didn't mean to imply they have chaos - as in no sets. i meant they have a very basic offensive set that doesn't rely on specific play calling.
BTW verse, in case you hadn't looked yet... I just checked and you'd get 8-1 odds right now on the Bucks winning the championship. ------------------ President of the Mo Taylor and Jason Collier fan club! Draftsource.net-- the premier source for draft info. Profiles, rankings, mock drafts, and more!
The Rockets didn't win the championship that year, the Celtics did -- and they had, guess what, the best player in the league on their team, Larry Bird. I didn't say the best player wins in every single game or series, just the championship. I'm not making this up, the facts support it.
I'm with the Bucks. Robinson will be the key. Can he get his shot over Robert Horry or can't he? That will be the question. If he can they have a shot. If he can't it's over. I think he'll be able to get his shot. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Okay, verse. Here we go. Does anyone in this forum really believe that you're seeing the same Lakers team in this playoffs that you saw lose to the Bucks in the regular season? I don't think so. I saw someone, verse or the cat, list the weaknesses of both The Bucks and The Lakers should they meet in the Finals. Let me make something clear.....right now, the Lakers have no weaknesses. If there is a chink in their purple and gold armor, it is overshadowed by the unbelievable basketball that they are playing night in and night out and therefor completely negligible. Let me make something else clear...... I hate the Lakers I would love nothing better, short of the Rox winning it all, to see the Bucks take it to LA and wipe the grin off those jackasses' big stupid faces. But it ain't gonna happen. The Lakers are playing flawless basketball. They've got a 350 pound gorrilla that makes you wonder if you should even bother trying to keep him out of the post. They've got a smug prick at the SG that has a turn-around jumper almost as good as Jordan's. They've got all the role players the Bucks have, with championship experience no less. The damned Lakers are going to make the finals a joke, whoever is unlucky enough to come out of the East. Man, verse, if only I had the money to take you up on that bet. Lakers in four, fellas. If you don't think so, you're only kidding yourselves. ------------------ Gascon
gascon, nice to see you chip in. even though you said the bucks would see no part of the nba finals re: lakers they do have faults. believe me, i know it's hard to see them, but they are there. 1) perimeter defense: san antonio has had COUNTLESS open looks from the 3 point line. they just can't connect. 2) transition defense: this has always been a laker weakness - if you can rebound with them. 3) streak shooting role players they are playing phenomenal right now. but don't let them lose a game to the spurs. their confidence will wither like a peter in the pool. fisher, horry, etc. are all in a groove right now. but don't mistake that groove for being good shooters. they aren't. the stats prove it, too. they are streak shooters that thrive when teams are stupid enough to double shaq with guards. ************************************************************ oh and thanks, The Cat. although i'm having difficulty navigating through the site to place that bet. can you help? where exactly do i go to find that line, and where to place that bet? thanks a million (or just $400) verse
so when the celtics won in the 80s bird was the best player. and when the lakers won in the 80s magic was the best player. uh-huh. riiiiight. had nothing to do with their teams and how they played as a team. riiiiiight.
Gascon, My interpretation of verse's exaggerations (no offense verse) is to make the point that a similar low post-first strategy is NOT beating the Lakers. He is saying what has been proven time and time again (last 2 yrs in the regular season, at least), that you must primarily score without relying on standard Post plays to beat the Lakers. He is saying that defense and low post scoring is not beating the Lakers. But I think mainly what he is saying is making a point about the Bucks offense style eliminating Shaq's/Laker interior D thus having a better approach than the sans-DA Spurs and stretching that into an I-told-you-so bet. I don't want to get in the middle of this to sound like I'm in favor of one thing over another, cause I still say the Spurs take the Bucks in 7 . Your point and TheFreak's and many others that this is a Laker team at its perfection must be understood by verse. But his point about the Bucks having the best offense to avoid Shaq is spot on too. What having the best offense to avoid Shaq does for you is a different question. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited May 25, 2001).]
verse, The only reason the Lakers perimiter defense looks weak is because this whole playoff run they've been matched up against teams with a low post presence. Place any team against the Spurs and their defense will look weak on the perimeter b/c they have Duncan and Robinson to deal with. Where's the Bucks inside presence? You don't win without an inside presence unless you have the greatest player in the league. ------------------ "Empire" had the better ending. I mean, Luke gets his hand cut off, finds out Vader's his father, Han gets frozen and taken away by Boba Fett. It ends on such a down note. I mean, that's what life is, a series of down endings. All "Jedi" had was a bunch of Muppets.
Thanks, heypee... Good point, and one that I admittedly overlooked. Your right, verse, the Bucks do have a much better-suited offense to take on the Shaq's and Motombos of the league. But I wonder how that offense is going to stand up to the scrutiny of a team playing for the NBA championship....especially a team who knows what it takes to win it all. As much as I hate him, Jackson does have a little experience going up against the George Karl motion offense. And this time, he doesn't have to worry about the interior. Oh well, what do I know? I don't have the best history when it comes to making bold predictions.(see my earlier prediction that the Knicks were going back to the finals....oh, brother.... ) But I won't back down from this one. Lakers in a rout. ------------------ Gascon
Oh, yes...verse, I agree that confidence is a fragile thing, but I tend to think that that is doubly true of the Bucks. They had better keep hitting those shots, because they don't have an interior game to fall back on. I disagree, however, that dropping one to the Spurs is going to completely shatter their confidence. Remember, they've won it all. This isn't the same Shaq that was so shaken after game one of the 95 finals. Those guys are playing with fire, chemistry, and a commitment to winning. I hate them so very much. ------------------ Gascon
A Bucks-Lakers series (and we are getting WAY ahead of ourselves) reminds me alot of the Bulls-Sonics series back in 96 (also with Phil and George Karl coaching). Best player in the league with a good #2 option vs. a deep team that can score in a number of ways. I remember the Sonics giving them a good series, too. Of course Seattle's D was much better than Milwaukee's but then O'Neal is no Michael Jordan. Beating LA won't be easy, but it can be done. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
the bucks are going to beat the lakers in the finals. and im not going to blab on and on with any fundamental basketball proof only that their outside shooters are much more accurate than LA's. they have the Big Bodies to at least contain shaq to make the game close. they beat LA twice in the regular season right? they are going to be similiar to the 94 rockets, never on tv. no respect, and theyll win the title. you remember i said that. LA is not a sure thing. and i hope Phillip gets his big egotistical head hit with a glen robinson arrant pass in the finals, that knocks those stupid glasses off his Zen Phonie face. i hate the lakers go bucks. ------------------ make it stop.
Verse et al, Picking Bucks is attempting to stand historical precedent on its head. I like history and precedent, so it will be the Lakers....easy. Mango ------------------ Get it right or just don't do it! Resistance is futile....you will be assimilated. Start more Webber threads!
Actually Chicago won the first 3 games in that series. It almost appeared as if they slacked off in order to win it in front of their home crowd. Yep. It'll be the same thing this year between Duncan/Shaq. You can make an argument for either being the best, just like you could for Magic and Bird. The point is these two and those two are/were clearly the best players in the league, no one else being close. Before the playoffs started, Webber was the 3rd best player in the league (at least in my opinion). It's now clear that Shaq and Duncan are leaps and bounds better than even Webber. I totally agree the way to beat LA is to make them adjust to you, not try to matchup with their strengths. I've said that many many times. The only way it's going to happen though, is if they go up against a team that has a player that is comparable in ability to Shaq--whether he's a big man or perimeter player (Francis better improve). Milwaukee doesn't have anyone like that. In the last 22 years, as far as the formula for winning championships in the NBA, the Pistons were an aberration. The Bucks are not the Pistons. Last year's Pacers were a much better team than this years Bucks (I know Mil took them to 5 last year). They had all the elements needed to conceivably "matchup" with LA -- great perimeter play with Miller and Rose, a center that could pull Shaq away from the basket in Smits (Perkins and Croshere too). What happened? -- the best player in the league (Duncan was hurt) and another player who happened to be better than anyone the Pacers had just took over. The matchups were meaningless. Remember that Bryant got injured during that series, which is why it went 6 games. Please, quit talking about matchups in an NBA Finals. They have proven to be totally irrelevant.
It doesn't matter that the Lakers are the better team, because the Bucks cause so many matchup problems for them, that the Lakers advantage of having the best player in the league is weakened, which is why they can be beat. How else do you explain the Rockets killing the leastern conference? As much as some of us would like to believe, it wasn't necesarilly because the Rockets were the better team, as much as it was that our guards created such an overwhelming mismatch. The Bucks are deep, create more mismatches than we did, and can beat any team on any given night. ------------------
However, if the Lakers keep playing the way they have been, the Bucks won't be beating them on any of the first four nights they play eachother....should the Bucks make it to the Finals. And I'm still not sure they will. ------------------ Gascon
