Jeremy Lin isn't that good. Houston is a better team without him. There's a reason for that. A) Lin plays little D. B) Lin only thrives with the ball.
Kobe Bryant isn't the reason Lin sucks in some games. Lin sucks because he sucks (at least on D).
Lin's always been a guy who had 2 good games and then 2 sucky one's. Other than 3-4 weeks in NY, he's had career backup journey man written all over him. He has no business being a starter on a good basketball team.
At least Fisher brought leadership, toughness and shooting. I've never understood the fascination with talent like Nick Young or Lin. These guys are good backups. Not core pieces.
lol
haters gonna hate. _________________ "Now, if life is coffee, then the jobs, money & position in society are the cups. They are just tools to hold & contain life, but the quality of life doesn't change. Sometimes, by concentrating only on the cup, we fail to enjoy the coffee in it."
Kobe has elevated just about every player he has ever played with - only Kobe could make smush Parker a PG on a playoff team. Dumb question
Really? Is he elevating Lin? Was Smush "elevated" enough to earn respect from the Laker fans, and earn a long term contract? How about Farmar? Sessions? Chucky Atkins? Anyone?
Of all of these PG's that couldn't play with Kobe, what one left the Lakers and played much better than he did in his time here? None..
This the real question. And we'll be waiting forever before someone answers it
You've already answered your own contention. The Lakers could never secure a decent PG because none would play with Kobe, or none could develop into quality players with Kobe screwing up the flow of the offense. Remember, and I keep saying this, Phil Jackson said that Kobe was uncoachable. Shaq despised playing with Kobe. No free agent came our way last off season, probably because of Kobe, and now Lin and Boozer are echoing what past Laker players are saying...it can't be one person hogging the ball and messing up the rhythm of the offense.
Perhaps you should stop hating on me and start hearing what actual players, analysis, and fans have been saying for years. And even Kobe himself said it...HE'S DIFFICULT TO PLAY WITH. His words, not mine.
Let me ask the question a different way: How many PGs have ever played that well (from a traditional PG perspective) with a ball-dominant SG? All of the guys I can think of were either defensive players or spot-up shooters. Isn't this why the triangle was the ideal system for both MJ and Kobe?
When you have a player like Kobe, a traditional PG works against your strength.
But in today's league, the PG is the dominant position. So, we can then conclude that the presence of Kobe is one of the reason's why the Lakers are struggling.
No one has ever played a true point guard role with Kobe so this cant be answered. Kobe has always been the primary ballhandler and playmaker. Nash is probably the closest we have seen but his pg performance usually came when Kobe was resting.
Let me ask the question a different way: How many PGs have ever played that well (from a traditional PG perspective) with a ball-dominant SG? All of the guys I can think of were either defensive players or spot-up shooters. Isn't this why the triangle was the ideal system for both MJ and Kobe?
When you have a player like Kobe, a traditional PG works against your strength.
But in today's league, the PG is the dominant position. So, we can then conclude that the presence of Kobe is one of the reason's why the Lakers are struggling.
PG is the dominant position? Really? I guess someone needs to tell Lebron, Durant, Love, Wade, Griffin, Harden, Howard, Gasol (both), and all the others that they're being dominated.
Yes, we live in an era that has a lot of ball-dominant PGs who score a lot. To date, none of those guys have won anything. Westbrook has come the closest. Maybe a team dominated by one of those guys will win something one of these days.
Meanwhile, in our PG-deprived condition we went to the Finals seven times with Kobe, and won five rings. I can deal with that kind of struggling. I'd love some more.
If you and Henry (who you seem to be paraphrasing in some of your posts) want to blame everything on Kobe, knock yourselves out. There is some truth in it. With a guy like Kobe, you get both good and bad. I've been satisfied with the arrangement. Haven't you?
Kobe has elevated just about every player he has ever played with - only Kobe could make smush Parker a PG on a playoff team. Dumb question
Really? Is he elevating Lin? Was Smush "elevated" enough to earn respect from the Laker fans, and earn a long term contract? How about Farmar? Sessions? Chucky Atkins? Anyone?
Of all of these PG's that couldn't play with Kobe, what one left the Lakers and played much better than he did in his time here? None..
This the real question. And we'll be waiting forever before someone answers it
You've already answered your own contention. The Lakers could never secure a decent PG because none would play with Kobe, or none could develop into quality players with Kobe screwing up the flow of the offense. Remember, and I keep saying this, Phil Jackson said that Kobe was uncoachable. Shaq despised playing with Kobe. No free agent came our way last off season, probably because of Kobe, and now Lin and Boozer are echoing what past Laker players are saying...it can't be one person hogging the ball and messing up the rhythm of the offense.
Perhaps you should stop hating on me and start hearing what actual players, analysis, and fans have been saying for years. And even Kobe himself said it...HE'S DIFFICULT TO PLAY WITH. His words, not mine.
Wrong. They never had money to spend at the PG spot. They acquired CAN but it wasn't allowed.
Let me ask the question a different way: How many PGs have ever played that well (from a traditional PG perspective) with a ball-dominant SG? All of the guys I can think of were either defensive players or spot-up shooters. Isn't this why the triangle was the ideal system for both MJ and Kobe?
When you have a player like Kobe, a traditional PG works against your strength.
But in today's league, the PG is the dominant position. So, we can then conclude that the presence of Kobe is one of the reason's why the Lakers are struggling.
PG is the dominant position? Really? I guess someone needs to tell Lebron, Durant, Love, Wade, Griffin, Harden, Howard, Gasol (both), and all the others that they're being dominated.
Yes, we live in an era that has a lot of ball-dominant PGs who score a lot. To date, none of those guys have won anything. Westbrook has come the closest. Maybe a team dominated by one of those guys will win something one of these days.
Meanwhile, in our PG-deprived condition we went to the Finals seven times with Kobe, and won five rings. I can deal with that kind of struggling. I'd love some more.
If you and Henry (who you seem to be paraphrasing in some of your posts) want to blame everything on Kobe, knock yourselves out. There is some truth in it. With a guy like Kobe, you get both good and bad. I've been satisfied with the arrangement. Haven't you?
Parker has, but he's part of a big 3. I agree, a lot of the most dominant and championship players are at other spots. Center, 2-guard, 3 or 4s, maybe in that order.
Why would a GM try to pay for a ball dominant PG when he already has a perimeter wing player capable of creating offense on his own?
Jordan, Kobe, Wade, LeBron, Harden, Carmelo Anthony - can anyone name the best PG any of these guys has played with (When being featured as the go to guy - no Westbrook)? Mo Williams, who was turned into a spot up 3 point specialists with LeBron? Old Jason Williams / Gary Payton?
If I'm a GM and I have a guy like Harden, or young Wade, young Kobe, even prime AI, the last thing I'm going to pay for is a ball dominant PG. Why would I spend $15M overpaying for a Goran Dragic or Steve Nash when I can spend $3M on a Pat Beverly clone and $12M on someone like a Tyson Chandler, DeAndre Jordan, Omer Asik, etc...
Kobe is more than happy to play his role and stay in his lane when that's all the team needs him to do. How much iso did you see in Beijing in 2008 when they had Chris Paul running point?
If I had young Kobe, I would spend everything on a center, power foward, small foward, and then PG in that order. And in 19 years, I'd only bother spending anything more than the MLE on a PG if I have all-stars filled from 2-5.
Also look at the PG's who played with Jordan: BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Bill Paxson. None of those guys initiated the offense. So if you think about it, the PG position when playing along guys like Bryant and Jordan consists of handing ball off to super star guard, and then camping in a spot to hit a 3.
This is true, yet we traded 2 #1 picks for a pick n roll PG, Nash. Then when that went (bleep) up, we traded for another pick n roll PG, Lin _________________ Championships since NBA/ABA merger in '76: Lakers 10 - Celtics 5 - Clippers 0 --- Phil Jackson 10 - Doc Rivers 1
Also look at the PG's who played with Jordan: BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Bill Paxson. None of those guys initiated the offense. So if you think about it, the PG position when playing along guys like Bryant and Jordan consists of handing ball off to super star guard, and then camping in a spot to hit a 3.
This is true, yet we traded 2 #1 picks for a pick n roll PG, Nash. Then when that went (bleep) up, we traded for another pick n roll PG, Lin
even nate robinson or andre miller has better handles than lin
Also look at the PG's who played with Jordan: BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Bill Paxson. None of those guys initiated the offense. So if you think about it, the PG position when playing along guys like Bryant and Jordan consists of handing ball off to super star guard, and then camping in a spot to hit a 3.
This is true, yet we traded 2 #1 picks for a pick n roll PG, Nash. Then when that went (bleep) up, we traded for another pick n roll PG, Lin
We traded for 1 year of a big salary and a 1st round pick. His salary is a place holder.
Also look at the PG's who played with Jordan: BJ Armstrong, Steve Kerr, Ron Harper, Bill Paxson. None of those guys initiated the offense. So if you think about it, the PG position when playing along guys like Bryant and Jordan consists of handing ball off to super star guard, and then camping in a spot to hit a 3.
This is true, yet we traded 2 #1 picks for a pick n roll PG, Nash. Then when that went (bleep) up, we traded for another pick n roll PG, Lin
We traded for 1 year of a big salary and a 1st round pick. His salary is a place holder.
Let me ask the question a different way: How many PGs have ever played that well (from a traditional PG perspective) with a ball-dominant SG? All of the guys I can think of were either defensive players or spot-up shooters. Isn't this why the triangle was the ideal system for both MJ and Kobe?
When you have a player like Kobe, a traditional PG works against your strength.
THIS.
ask another question, how many rings do we have for the traditional PG? and dont count magic at 6'9.
I.thomas got 2. anyone else in the modern era?
i mean even hakeem didnt have two so called TRADITIONAL pg's.
stockton 0 rings
GP-zero rings
nash-zero rings
cp3-so far..zero rings on his own along the perimeter
lbj,dwade non traditional PG's/facilitators. multiple rings.
kobe same story, multiple rings
jordan, multiple rings
How many traditional PGs has Phil Jackson used for all his rings? He didn't need them with the triangle's two guard front.
The Lakers were able to invest heavily in other positions and use cheaper combo guards at the PG spot. Huge success doing this. Huge. However, whenever Phil left and another coach comes in we pay the price for not having a great PG to run the new system (see guys like Chucky Atkins). They are hard to acquire when you're over the cap as we've been for most of Kobe's career. Steve Blake, Sessions, etc are all we could afford. And even though we wanted to bring Blake back this offseason we couldn't because of our cap plans.
We had Kobe and Nash together briefly twice...and we run Princeton in both training camps. Then injuries hit. One of the very few who even had a chance to play outside of a two-guard front offense was Steve Blake who looked good beside Kobe and was effective in a traditional system. But not a lot of opportunities over the years to run a traditional offense or have the opportunity to get a PG. (Basketball reasons.)
How many traditional PGs has Phil Jackson used for all his rings? He didn't need them with the triangle's two guard front.
The Lakers were able to invest heavily in other positions and use cheaper combo guards at the PG spot. Huge success doing this. Huge. However, whenever Phil left and another coach comes in we pay the price for not having a great PG to run the new system (see guys like Chucky Atkins). They are hard to acquire when you're over the cap as we've been for most of Kobe's career. Steve Blake, Sessions, etc are all we could afford. And even though we wanted to bring Blake back this offseason we couldn't because of our cap plans.
We had Kobe and Nash together briefly twice...and we run Princeton in both training camps. Then injuries hit. One of the very few who even had a chance to play outside of a two-guard front offense was Steve Blake who looked good beside Kobe and was effective in a traditional system. But not a lot of opportunities over the years to run a traditional offense or have the opportunity to get a PG. (Basketball reasons.)
Blake was good at the end of his contract but was terrible for the first two years. He looked scared of Kobe. _________________ Championships since NBA/ABA merger in '76: Lakers 10 - Celtics 5 - Clippers 0 --- Phil Jackson 10 - Doc Rivers 1
Parker has, but he's part of a big 3. I agree, a lot of the most dominant and championship players are at other spots. Center, 2-guard, 3 or 4s, maybe in that order.
Let me ask the question a different way: How many PGs have ever played that well (from a traditional PG perspective) with a ball-dominant SG? All of the guys I can think of were either defensive players or spot-up shooters. Isn't this why the triangle was the ideal system for both MJ and Kobe?
When you have a player like Kobe, a traditional PG works against your strength.
But in today's league, the PG is the dominant position. So, we can then conclude that the presence of Kobe is one of the reason's why the Lakers are struggling.
PG is the dominant position? Really? I guess someone needs to tell Lebron, Durant, Love, Wade, Griffin, Harden, Howard, Gasol (both), and all the others that they're being dominated.
Yes, we live in an era that has a lot of ball-dominant PGs who score a lot. To date, none of those guys have won anything. Westbrook has come the closest. Maybe a team dominated by one of those guys will win something one of these days.
Meanwhile, in our PG-deprived condition we went to the Finals seven times with Kobe, and won five rings. I can deal with that kind of struggling. I'd love some more.
If you and Henry (who you seem to be paraphrasing in some of your posts) want to blame everything on Kobe, knock yourselves out. There is some truth in it. With a guy like Kobe, you get both good and bad. I've been satisfied with the arrangement. Haven't you?
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