Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 12:28 am Post subject: Our current roster but with Popovich as coach
So I was reading up on lakers news and analysis and kept coming across the logic: based on our roster on paper and being in the west, lakers will probably do poorly and likely not make the playoffs. Personally I can see several possible scenarios the lakers might be in by the end of the season, one of which in a best case scenario we might even be competitive for a championship, however naive that may be. I say this because I look at the roster and think to myself, its got potential, and if it were to be maxed out perfectly it doesn't lack the potential to win a chip.
Then I caught myself thinking, if Popovich had this exact team, could he win a chip? If not, how far could he take them?
I personally feel more than comfortable asserting that I think pop could take this team to the conference finals. Which has me wondering, then are we really judging the projected [failing] season of this current team based mainly on the current roster? Because if it were truly the rosters lack of ability, then even with pop as coach, theoretically it wouldn't make much of a difference.
This is not comparing pop to scott, but moreso trying to find a true understanding of what is it that constitutes the perception of our teams future season. Is it truly our roster? Or is it something else?
Joined: 12 Apr 2001 Posts: 2017 Location: North Dallas
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 4:33 am Post subject: Re: Our current roster but with Popovich as coach
Lakers_Jester wrote:
Then I caught myself thinking, if Popovich had this exact team, could he win a chip? If not, how far could he take them?
Trivia time - he well did Popovich do as a GM/coach before Tim Duncan was on his team? _________________ <-- My avatar is Margaret Nolan from one of the Carry On films. She was the girl who got painted gold in "Goldfinger". Thanks to CaliRyderX for identifying her.
The success of the Spurs and Popovich has been as much about the core group of elite players and the stability of the franchise as it is about the HC. Popovich is a great coach.
But it also helps that team leaders Duncan, Parker and Ginobli have been there for over a decade too. Spurs have been able to find the right players to fit the systems they have run. And to compliment their core group.
Have to give them credit for sustaining that stability in the franchise for so long. Having Pop and the leaders in place is huge. Then the FO can tweak the back end of the roster as they wish. They can draft and bring in FA's in a much different manner because of that stability.
Compare that to the recent Laker chaos of unstable ownership, revolving coaches and roster clusterf**ks. Hoping the Scott hire is the start of a long and stable relationship.
Joined: 05 Nov 2005 Posts: 10776 Location: Hoosier Nation
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:53 am Post subject:
The Spurs are an excellent argument for chemistry and stability, something the Lakers have lacked since 2010. Pop is a great coach, no doubt, and the Spurs scouts are the best in the business. But this team is practically starting from scratch...again. Let's hope they can build on whatever positives they can get out of this season and regain some consistency.
PS, I'm getting really sick of all the trash people are slinging our way. It's one thing to be realistic, it's another to talk shiz just for the hell of it. _________________ Not a legend
Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 2500 Location: Inland Empire
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 6:51 am Post subject:
I give credit where credit is due. A stable environment with quality players , a system in place, and people of good character.
When Timmy retires, that will test their franchise's true longevity.
Bye. _________________ "This trophy removes the most odious sentence in the English Language. It can never be said again that 'the Lakers have never beaten the Celtics.'" -Dr. Jerry Buss (1985) R.I.P., 33 x M.V.O.
He's coached the same 3 guys for 10+ years, and a significant number of the other guys for 3+ years. Can't simulate that continuity with as much roster turn over as we'd have. And no, we wouldn't win the chip, lol.
It's not going to happen. What's the point of this discussion? _________________ "We should have kept [Jeremy Lin]. Did not know he was this good," Morey wrote on his official Twitter account on Thursday. "Anyone who says they knew misleading U." - Morey (2012)
Sort of a bizarre post, considering its training camp and we have a new coach. Of course there are players/coaches we would prefer, but let's give our new crew a chance first. _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
we saw how Phil did with the 2006,2007 Lakers with the lineup that incluced Smush, Luke, Kwame, Cook. He barely had them at .500 and that was with Kobe in his prime basically being a super hero every night. Thinking Pop could get this team far into the playoffs is a bit of a stretch IMO. The coach is important, but he needs the roster and stars to carry the load night in and night out. With that said, I think Byron will do great and will shut up a lot of naysayers around here. Not saying you're one of them btw
I see where this is going...it's not the coach's fault already.
That's not even remotely close.
I stated the purpose of the post on the last paragraph.
As for the duncan, ginobili, parker trio. They're great players but is kobe not at least comparable to duncan, Nash comparable to ginobili?
It seems the major problem with this team is not just the roster but according to many it's continuity. A more than fair reason. I really have no qualms, I really just wanted to understand exactly what it was about our team that people were discounting. Was it mostly roster talent? I guess the popular answer seems to be continuity. Thanks.
Sort of a bizarre post, considering its training camp and we have a new coach. Of course there are players/coaches we would prefer, but let's give our new crew a chance first.
It was just a hypothetical question based on the media's judgements. I believe in our guys, and am behind byron 100%. If it were truly our crap roster as to why we are being talked about so negatively, then even pop would not have success with this team because the roster is too awful right? I don't think that's true.
Last edited by Lakers_Jester on Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Sort of a bizarre post, considering its training camp and we have a new coach. Of course there are players/coaches we would prefer, but let's give our new crew a chance first.
It was just a hypothetical question based on the media's judgements. I believe in our guys, and am behind byron 100%. If it were truly our crap roster as to why we are being talked about so negatively, then even pop would not have success with this team because the roster is too awful righg? I don't think that's true.
I can't remember who it was suggesting we offer $20m/year to Pop. Was it you? _________________ From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals
Sort of a bizarre post, considering its training camp and we have a new coach. Of course there are players/coaches we would prefer, but let's give our new crew a chance first.
It was just a hypothetical question based on the media's judgements. I believe in our guys, and am behind byron 100%. If it were truly our crap roster as to why we are being talked about so negatively, then even pop would not have success with this team because the roster is too awful righg? I don't think that's true.
I can't remember who it was suggesting we offer $20m/year to Pop. Was it you?
Lol no. I like pop but, no I've never stated that before. I'm very happy with byron as our coach. In fact, I thought if people claimed pop could change this team around I would of then proceeded to make an argument that scott could also have a great effect on this team given the fact that we have no longer accepted the roster Talent to be as big of a handicap as the media suggests.
we saw how Phil did with the 2006,2007 Lakers with the lineup that incluced Smush, Luke, Kwame, Cook. He barely had them at .500 and that was with Kobe in his prime basically being a super hero every night. Thinking Pop could get this team far into the playoffs is a bit of a stretch IMO. The coach is important, but he needs the roster and stars to carry the load night in and night out. With that said, I think Byron will do great and will shut up a lot of naysayers around here. Not saying you're one of them btw
The west wasn't as loaded in 2006 and 2007 as it is now. 2005-2006 Lakers got the 7th seed with 45 wins, 2006-2007 Lakers got the 7th seed with 42 wins.
Last edited by lakersken80 on Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:52 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 24 Dec 2007 Posts: 35855 Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:49 am Post subject:
I have a better hypothetical scenario. What about our current roster except with Patrick Ewing instead of Jordan Hill? _________________ Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:
Joined: 02 Apr 2004 Posts: 599 Location: SAN DOG...
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2014 11:08 am Post subject:
CandyCanes wrote:
I have a better hypothetical scenario. What about our current roster except with Patrick Ewing instead of Jordan Hill?
Sure, as long as he dunks instead of laying it up tryin' to be cute! (stillmadaboutthat ) _________________ Quote from 12/15/15 vs Bucks:
At least this is the last time we'll have to witness it. have at it Kobe.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
)
