|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Rank the Lakers Top 5 Worst Decisions Since 2010 |
| Nash/Howard Fiasco |
|
17% |
[ 17 ] |
| Picking Mike D’Antoni Over Phil Jackson |
|
38% |
[ 38 ] |
| Letting Gasol walk for nothing in return |
|
15% |
[ 15 ] |
| Completely Breaking up the team in 2011 |
|
6% |
[ 6 ] |
| Not Firing Jim Buss |
|
5% |
[ 5 ] |
| Other |
|
19% |
[ 19 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 100 |
|
| Author |
Message |
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | tox wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | dcarter4kobe wrote: | I agree the Lakers have done a great job building a young solid foundation
1. ????
2. DLO
3. Ingram
4. Randle
5. Zubac
6. JC
7. Nance
8. Black
9. Brown
We just have to find a way to get that superstar. |
I think the team will keep a max spot for 2017, but who is really a #1 option in that class? Blake Griffin?
I'm actually not opposed to punting that cap space to 2018 when PG13 is available. But until then, I think our #1 guy is going to be DLO. |
Gotta wonder if PG13 is going to do the same contract restructuring that Westbrook and Harden did. In real terms it adds one more year (and he gains an option on the year after but that'll almost certainly be exercised). If that's the case, George won't be a UFA until 2019. Though slotting in a max would still be possible in 2019. It's 2020 that I think that dream is dead. |
Beyond the contractual considerations, I also don't see Paul George as the #1 guy on a championship team anyway. In head-to-head match-ups, I wouldn't have any confidence that he might consistently outplay the other top guys at the SF position in the NBA. The fact is, I just don't think he has the ability to compete with LeBron, Durant or Kawhi. And if your best player cannot compete (much less outplay) the top player on the team across the court from him, what are the chances a ring is actually within reach?
I wouldn't bank on George with the idea that he settles the roster for a title run ... |
That's a fair assessment, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Most recently, the 2014 & 2015 Finals show having the best player means nothing if his cast is inferior (even though those are probably extreme cases, especially 2015). The hope would be that George (who perhaps isn't at that upper echelon of LeBron, Durant, and Kawhi) can at least attempt to check them, much like '14 Kawhi or Iguodala could hope to check a much better player.
If George can do what he did in the 2012-2014 playoffs against LeBron (which was pretty well, even if he was ultimately outplayed by LeBron), then we would hope that Russell, Ingram, Clarkson, etc. would get us over the hump --- the same way Duncan, Diaw, Parker, Ginobili, etc. got the '14 Spurs over the hump.
Also, I would add that LeBron is in a different tier than Durant and Kawhi, and in the hypothetical of George coming, LeBron will be old. So asking George to get to 90% of Kawhi, Durant, or old LeBron is actually reasonable, I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | the association wrote: | | tox wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | dcarter4kobe wrote: | I agree the Lakers have done a great job building a young solid foundation
1. ????
2. DLO
3. Ingram
4. Randle
5. Zubac
6. JC
7. Nance
8. Black
9. Brown
We just have to find a way to get that superstar. |
I think the team will keep a max spot for 2017, but who is really a #1 option in that class? Blake Griffin?
I'm actually not opposed to punting that cap space to 2018 when PG13 is available. But until then, I think our #1 guy is going to be DLO. |
Gotta wonder if PG13 is going to do the same contract restructuring that Westbrook and Harden did. In real terms it adds one more year (and he gains an option on the year after but that'll almost certainly be exercised). If that's the case, George won't be a UFA until 2019. Though slotting in a max would still be possible in 2019. It's 2020 that I think that dream is dead. |
Beyond the contractual considerations, I also don't see Paul George as the #1 guy on a championship team anyway. In head-to-head match-ups, I wouldn't have any confidence that he might consistently outplay the other top guys at the SF position in the NBA. The fact is, I just don't think he has the ability to compete with LeBron, Durant or Kawhi. And if your best player cannot compete (much less outplay) the top player on the team across the court from him, what are the chances a ring is actually within reach?
I wouldn't bank on George with the idea that he settles the roster for a title run ... |
That's a fair assessment, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Most recently, the 2014 & 2015 Finals show having the best player means nothing if his cast is inferior (even though those are probably extreme cases, especially 2015). The hope would be that George (who perhaps isn't at that upper echelon of LeBron, Durant, and Kawhi) can at least attempt to check them, much like '14 Kawhi or Iguodala could hope to check a much better player.
If George can do what he did in the 2012-2014 playoffs against LeBron (which was pretty well, even if he was ultimately outplayed by LeBron), then we would hope that Russell, Ingram, Clarkson, etc. would get us over the hump --- the same way Duncan, Diaw, Parker, Ginobili, etc. got the '14 Spurs over the hump.
Also, I would add that LeBron is in a different tier than Durant and Kawhi, and in the hypothetical of George coming, LeBron will be old. So asking George to get to 90% of Kawhi, Durant, or old LeBron is actually reasonable, I think. |
I just commented elsewhere that I agree with your view, Tox. I guess the only question that persists for me re: this discussion is this: if that line of reasoning is sufficient for George's prospective role here on the Lakers, then isn't that really something short of #1 material? In other words, it's true that Kawhi was NBA Finals MVP in 2014, and Iguodala was NBA Finals MVP in 2015. But it's also true that neither of them was functioning like a true #1 on their team.
So if Paul George is set-up to handle a similar role down the road here in LA, we might be competitive enough to compete for a ring. But wouldn't someone else (Russell or Ingram) have to be the focal point and true #1? I know you didn't mean the exact same role that those two guys (Kawhi and Iguodala) held with their respective championship teams, but a role diminished to some point below superstar is the same in my book ... who's going to fill the #1 role? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | tox wrote: |
That's a fair assessment, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Most recently, the 2014 & 2015 Finals show having the best player means nothing if his cast is inferior (even though those are probably extreme cases, especially 2015). The hope would be that George (who perhaps isn't at that upper echelon of LeBron, Durant, and Kawhi) can at least attempt to check them, much like '14 Kawhi or Iguodala could hope to check a much better player.
If George can do what he did in the 2012-2014 playoffs against LeBron (which was pretty well, even if he was ultimately outplayed by LeBron), then we would hope that Russell, Ingram, Clarkson, etc. would get us over the hump --- the same way Duncan, Diaw, Parker, Ginobili, etc. got the '14 Spurs over the hump.
Also, I would add that LeBron is in a different tier than Durant and Kawhi, and in the hypothetical of George coming, LeBron will be old. So asking George to get to 90% of Kawhi, Durant, or old LeBron is actually reasonable, I think. |
I just commented elsewhere that I agree with your view, Tox. I guess the only question that persists for me re: this discussion is this: if that line of reasoning is sufficient for George's prospective role here on the Lakers, then isn't that really something short of #1 material? In other words, it's true that Kawhi was NBA Finals MVP in 2014, and Iguodala was NBA Finals MVP in 2015. But it's also true that neither of them was functioning like a true #1 on their team.
So if Paul George is set-up to handle a similar role down the road here in LA, we might be competitive enough to compete for a ring. But wouldn't someone else (Russell or Ingram) have to be the focal point and true #1? I know you didn't mean the exact same role that those two guys (Kawhi and Iguodala) held with their respective championship teams, but a role diminished to some point below superstar is the same in my book ... who's going to fill the #1 role? |
Well my immediate answer would be --- do we need someone to be that true #1 guy? The ideal would be to follow the 2014 Spurs, where there isn't exactly a LeBron, Curry, Durant etc. caliber #1 option. That's why even though I think George is a certain tier behind those 4 guys, I'd still love to have him aboard.
But to answer your question, I think there are two possibilities.
1) George himself. When he's at his best---and he has had fantastic extended runs (like the first half of '13-'14 when he was neck-and-neck with LeBron for best player in the EC)---he's definitely at that level. I think many of the advocates of George see him being or becoming that true #1.
Personally, I'm with you. I'm too skeptical of his inconsistency to see him in the vein of true #1 (like LeBron, Durant, Curry, Kawhi if you factor in both sides). But could he put it all together? I suppose. FWIW, George is a better postseason player as well, and arguably has gotten better each postseason he's played in.
2) As you said, if you are optimistic enough in Russell or Ingram, one of them. In theory I can envision Russell getting there, but that is so incredibly optimistic that it's hard to say now. When signing George becomes an option closer to 2018 or 2019, we should have a sense of this.
But yeah, I would love to get George on the team, because the worst case scenario is that we try to compete as a 2014 Spurs type roster, with plenty of good-to-great players but no transcendent superstar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 8:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | the association wrote: | | tox wrote: |
That's a fair assessment, but I'm not sure I totally agree. Most recently, the 2014 & 2015 Finals show having the best player means nothing if his cast is inferior (even though those are probably extreme cases, especially 2015). The hope would be that George (who perhaps isn't at that upper echelon of LeBron, Durant, and Kawhi) can at least attempt to check them, much like '14 Kawhi or Iguodala could hope to check a much better player.
If George can do what he did in the 2012-2014 playoffs against LeBron (which was pretty well, even if he was ultimately outplayed by LeBron), then we would hope that Russell, Ingram, Clarkson, etc. would get us over the hump --- the same way Duncan, Diaw, Parker, Ginobili, etc. got the '14 Spurs over the hump.
Also, I would add that LeBron is in a different tier than Durant and Kawhi, and in the hypothetical of George coming, LeBron will be old. So asking George to get to 90% of Kawhi, Durant, or old LeBron is actually reasonable, I think. |
I just commented elsewhere that I agree with your view, Tox. I guess the only question that persists for me re: this discussion is this: if that line of reasoning is sufficient for George's prospective role here on the Lakers, then isn't that really something short of #1 material? In other words, it's true that Kawhi was NBA Finals MVP in 2014, and Iguodala was NBA Finals MVP in 2015. But it's also true that neither of them was functioning like a true #1 on their team.
So if Paul George is set-up to handle a similar role down the road here in LA, we might be competitive enough to compete for a ring. But wouldn't someone else (Russell or Ingram) have to be the focal point and true #1? I know you didn't mean the exact same role that those two guys (Kawhi and Iguodala) held with their respective championship teams, but a role diminished to some point below superstar is the same in my book ... who's going to fill the #1 role? |
Well my immediate answer would be --- do we need someone to be that true #1 guy? The ideal would be to follow the 2014 Spurs, where there isn't exactly a LeBron, Curry, Durant etc. caliber #1 option. That's why even though I think George is a certain tier behind those 4 guys, I'd still love to have him aboard.
But to answer your question, I think there are two possibilities.
1) George himself. When he's at his best---and he has had fantastic extended runs (like the first half of '13-'14 when he was neck-and-neck with LeBron for best player in the EC)---he's definitely at that level. I think many of the advocates of George see him being or becoming that true #1.
Personally, I'm with you. I'm too skeptical of his inconsistency to see him in the vein of true #1 (like LeBron, Durant, Curry, Kawhi if you factor in both sides). But could he put it all together? I suppose. FWIW, George is a better postseason player as well, and arguably has gotten better each postseason he's played in.
2) As you said, if you are optimistic enough in Russell or Ingram, one of them. In theory I can envision Russell getting there, but that is so incredibly optimistic that it's hard to say now. When signing George becomes an option closer to 2018 or 2019, we should have a sense of this.
But yeah, I would love to get George on the team, because the worst case scenario is that we try to compete as a 2014 Spurs type roster, with plenty of good-to-great players but no transcendent superstar. |
He's obviously a better player right now than anyone currently on our team (at least at this point in their development), but I tend to be really leery of any #1 option who struggles on the FG %age front as much as PG13 has over the years. If you exclude his first two seasons and his injury-shortened 2014/2015 season, he's a ~ 45.5% shooter inside the arc. That's just terrible. How's that even possible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goldenwest
Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2801
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: |
Of course you take the players every single time. Taking Phil ahead of MJ, Shaq, Kobe, etc. is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Those guys were almost there, in terms of winning titles, and Phil put them over the top...not the other way around. He's not winning (bleep) with Del Harris & Doug Collins equivalents as players.  |
Phil won nothing without two top 10 players |
Curious, how many rings did Kobe and MJ win without Phil? (Or even finals appearances?)
It's a two way street. |
I notice you excluded Shaq who made the Finals with a coach other than Phil. Kobe never had a coach other than Phil once he developed as a star until he was over the hill. |
Del, Rudy T, Mike Brown, MDA |
Still ignoring Shaq. |
Ok, your splitting hairs. How many did Scotty win? How many did Magic win without Riles? Shaq is the anomaly but he still only won under two of the greatest laker coaches in the last 40 years. I'm not putting the coaches ahead of the players btw. I'm saying they're equally important. |
Are Erik Spoelstra and Ty Lue equally as important as LeBron James? |
First of all, Riley has his fingerprints all over that Miami team so its really not just Spoelstra - Its Riley..with Spoelstra. And Cleveland was a unique situation, Blatt was the coach in Cleveland for most of the season. That team was already set by the playoffs, just needed someone to let it run itself. I guarantee you that team will not be able to run itself for a whole regular season. Lue is going to have to really coach.
There is always anomalies here and unique situations there but overall, history supports the theory that players need a good coach to succeed. They're interdependent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
of course they are interdependent!!
spoelstra...dont get me started on him. a very lucky man.
miami is all about riley. the way the bulls are all about mj, the same. riley, which a lot of lakers rightfully have a love/hate relationship with, is the man. i think he is one of the few figures in the current nba which someone like even PJ can look up to. and look at the resume he has trotted through his org...lebron, wade, bosh, shaq. previously, he headed the laker group of kareem, magic, worthy, scott, etc. look at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Goldenwest wrote: | | JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | Goldenwest wrote: | | venturalakersfan wrote: | | GoldenThroat wrote: |
Of course you take the players every single time. Taking Phil ahead of MJ, Shaq, Kobe, etc. is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. Those guys were almost there, in terms of winning titles, and Phil put them over the top...not the other way around. He's not winning (bleep) with Del Harris & Doug Collins equivalents as players. |
Phil won nothing without two top 10 players |
Curious, how many rings did Kobe and MJ win without Phil? (Or even finals appearances?)
It's a two way street. |
I notice you excluded Shaq who made the Finals with a coach other than Phil. Kobe never had a coach other than Phil once he developed as a star until he was over the hill. |
Del, Rudy T, Mike Brown, MDA |
Still ignoring Shaq. |
Ok, your splitting hairs. How many did Scotty win? How many did Magic win without Riles? Shaq is the anomaly but he still only won under two of the greatest laker coaches in the last 40 years. I'm not putting the coaches ahead of the players btw. I'm saying they're equally important. |
Are Erik Spoelstra and Ty Lue equally as important as LeBron James? |
First of all, Riley has his fingerprints all over that Miami team so its really not just Spoelstra - Its Riley..with Spoelstra. And Cleveland was a unique situation, Blatt was the coach in Cleveland for most of the season. That team was already set by the playoffs, just needed someone to let it run itself. I guarantee you that team will not be able to run itself for a whole regular season. Lue is going to have to really coach.
There is always anomalies here and unique situations there but overall, history supports the theory that players need a good coach to succeed. They're interdependent. |
So that's a vote for "LeBron is more important than his coaches", right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: |
He's obviously a better player right now than anyone currently on our team (at least at this point in their development), but I tend to be really leery of any #1 option who struggles on the FG %age front as much as PG13 has over the years. If you exclude his first two seasons and his injury-shortened 2014/2015 season, he's a ~ 45.5% shooter inside the arc. That's just terrible. How's that even possible? |
Totally on board with you there. It's why I've stressed the 2014 Spurs, because if George can be the best player (if not exactly a true superstar), I have faith that Russell, Ingram, & co. can do the work that the rest of the Spurs did. But I wouldn't rely on him to win us series in the vein of a LeBron.
BTW while he's always inconsistent in the regular season, his playoff stats have definitely gotten better as he's aged. For that reason, I also leave the possibility he might grow into being a true #1 guy.
Speaking of Russell & Ingram, I'm curious what you think about them (+ Randle, because why not). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JerryMagicKobe wrote: | | So that's a vote for "LeBron is more important than his coaches", right? |
In the NBA, players are almost always more important than the coaches. Can a player be so important that the coach is essentially irrelevant? Under the peculiar circumstances of the '15 and '16 Cavs, that's probably true. Offhand, I can't think of any other examples of this, at least in the modern history of the NBA. In a lot of ways, Lebron was the head coach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| tox wrote: | | the association wrote: |
He's obviously a better player right now than anyone currently on our team (at least at this point in their development), but I tend to be really leery of any #1 option who struggles on the FG %age front as much as PG13 has over the years. If you exclude his first two seasons and his injury-shortened 2014/2015 season, he's a ~ 45.5% shooter inside the arc. That's just terrible. How's that even possible? |
Totally on board with you there. It's why I've stressed the 2014 Spurs, because if George can be the best player (if not exactly a true superstar), I have faith that Russell, Ingram, & co. can do the work that the rest of the Spurs did. But I wouldn't rely on him to win us series in the vein of a LeBron.
BTW while he's always inconsistent in the regular season, his playoff stats have definitely gotten better as he's aged. For that reason, I also leave the possibility he might grow into being a true #1 guy.
Speaking of Russell & Ingram, I'm curious what you think about them (+ Randle, because why not). |
I've been cautiously sanguine re: the prospective contributions we might see down the road from Russell, and now from Ingram too. I'm a fan of Kawhi's, so I've focused more lately on the defensive side of the ball. Both Russell and Ingram have great length, and that's always a helpful attribute to bring to the table on defense. And I like how that physical quality promises to manifest in their style of play on the offensive side, too. If Russell ends up a 6'6" combo guard with a solid perimeter and post game to accompany his passing skills and improved defense built upon his lengthy frame, what's not to like? However, I think it's clear that each of those two will need to mature into a more sinewy musculature to reach their full potential. They have the frames to make it happen, so that's a great start. But Russell needs to become less "soft" physically, while Ingram really needs lean mass. I don't think they are in the "elite" athlete category, but I see an opportunity for them to physically dominate games with that length, coupled with stronger frames.
As for Randle, I'm just disappointed ... maybe I'm not giving him enough of a chance. I don't know. I just haven't seen enough body control to feel good about him turning the corner. He's productive, and he may end up having a very productive career. It's not the worst outcome if he doesn't live up to the unachievable dreams that some had for him. He wasn't a Top 5 pick like Russell and Ingram, where a failure to make an All Star game would be more noticeable, but I just don't feel good about his game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
The nice thing about a DLO/Ingram pairing is that they trend towards multi-positional, high skill, high shooting, defensive versatility, and great measureables.
they're sort of archetypes IMO to a new NBA at the guard/forward spot.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | The nice thing about a DLO/Ingram pairing is that they trend towards multi-positional, high skill, high shooting, defensive versatility, and great measureables.
they're sort of archetypes IMO to a new NBA at the guard/forward spot. |
Exactly my view, with the brevity I lack ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tox
Franchise Player
Joined: 16 Nov 2015
Posts: 17876
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | tox wrote: | | the association wrote: |
He's obviously a better player right now than anyone currently on our team (at least at this point in their development), but I tend to be really leery of any #1 option who struggles on the FG %age front as much as PG13 has over the years. If you exclude his first two seasons and his injury-shortened 2014/2015 season, he's a ~ 45.5% shooter inside the arc. That's just terrible. How's that even possible? |
Totally on board with you there. It's why I've stressed the 2014 Spurs, because if George can be the best player (if not exactly a true superstar), I have faith that Russell, Ingram, & co. can do the work that the rest of the Spurs did. But I wouldn't rely on him to win us series in the vein of a LeBron.
BTW while he's always inconsistent in the regular season, his playoff stats have definitely gotten better as he's aged. For that reason, I also leave the possibility he might grow into being a true #1 guy.
Speaking of Russell & Ingram, I'm curious what you think about them (+ Randle, because why not). |
I've been cautiously sanguine re: the prospective contributions we might see down the road from Russell, and now from Ingram too. I'm a fan of Kawhi's, so I've focused more lately on the defensive side of the ball. Both Russell and Ingram have great length, and that's always a helpful attribute to bring to the table on defense. And I like how that physical quality promises to manifest in their style of play on the offensive side, too. If Russell ends up a 6'6" combo guard with a solid perimeter and post game to accompany his passing skills and improved defense built upon his lengthy frame, what's not to like? However, I think it's clear that each of those two will need to mature into a more sinewy musculature to reach their full potential. They have the frames to make it happen, so that's a great start. But Russell needs to become less "soft" physically, while Ingram really needs lean mass. I don't think they are in the "elite" athlete category, but I see an opportunity for them to physically dominate games with that length, coupled with stronger frames.
As for Randle, I'm just disappointed ... maybe I'm not giving him enough of a chance. I don't know. I just haven't seen enough body control to feel good about him turning the corner. He's productive, and he may end up having a very productive career. It's not the worst outcome if he doesn't live up to the unachievable dreams that some had for him. He wasn't a Top 5 pick like Russell and Ingram, where a failure to make an All Star game would be more noticeable, but I just don't feel good about his game. |
Looks like we're on the same page here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | The nice thing about a DLO/Ingram pairing is that they trend towards multi-positional, high skill, high shooting, defensive versatility, and great measureables.
they're sort of archetypes IMO to a new NBA at the guard/forward spot. |
Exactly my view, with the brevity I lack ... |
I think your views on them were pretty good. It would be nice though for the Lakers to have that viscerally physical (and skill-wise talented) player who can assert themselves on the court. Randle is probably that guy though his skill level needs to be developed.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23899
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | The reality is this when people say "not hiring Phil".
Dwight Howard couldn't handle Kobe, and was mentally rocked so much by Shaq criticizing him as strictly a pick and roll center that he completely disregarded that part of his game to try to prove he was a post up big.
Baring that in mind...
HOW THE [expletive] was he supposed to handle Phil? In what world does a guy with that fragile of a mental frame in terms of it's toughness deal with a coach like Phil Jackson?
The combination of Phil and Kobe together would have had Dwight whinign in a fetal position by the 3rd week and the mindgames Phil sent through the media targeting him would have sent him packing to run away to McHale's system even faster. Except it would look even more legitimate cause the media would have spun US being lost in the past with the 'triangle' and Dwight going to the most current style that was going through the NBA.
THEN suddenly the Lakers would be getting trashed and Stephen A Smith would have turned it all around and went
"Phil Jackson, much respect to the guy, but his time has passed. YOU HAD MIKE D'ANTONI... now I have my feelings towards him but he's onyl been good with one player.. a player ya'll had.. Steve Nash. YOU HAD STEVE NASH... AND DWIGHT HOWARD... THE BEST PICK AND ROLL BIG AND THE BEST PICK AND ROLL POINT GUARD IN THE LEAGUE AND POTENTIALLY ALL TIME. AND YOU HAD MIKE D'ANTONI KNOCKING ON THE DOOR AND YOU DECIDE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT DWIGHT IN THE POST AND STAND NASH INTO A CORNER? SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE MANAGEMENT!!"
And the story would have been spun that way. |
Absolutely. So many people just seem blinded by the bling of Phil's rings that they overlook how he got them. MDA was a guy who wanted to coach and who had the blessings of the key Lakers. People now claim it was an out of left field hire even though all of the Lakers players were signing off on it.
If Phil takes the job ( I doubt he would have), they still don't win, Phil retires again, Dwight leaves because of the uncertainty, and they're back to square one again. Do people really think that the Phil who voluntarily retired 6 years ago would still be coaching a struggling team today? At some point, it's time to move on. They didn't spin their wheels for eternity when Pat Riley left, why do it now?
Last edited by Treble Clef on Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phil the Panacea still remains I see.
For Phil, I kind of like that his latter year legacy wouldn't have been tainted trying to hitch his horses on a mentally weak guy like Howard.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Treble Clef
Franchise Player
Joined: 20 Nov 2012
Posts: 23899
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I picked the refusal to break the team up after 2011. I thought after 2010, it was obvious they had to get younger. Pau could have fetched a lot back then but people were holding out for a trade that would make them better immediately. A good young PF and a #1 pick doesn't sound unreasonable.
And while trading for Dwight was a no brainer (we all knew Bynums health was a ticking time bomb and sure enough, he never really made an impact on the floor again after that trade) but there was no plan with him. If they werent willing to make him the #1, they should have traded him mid season. I know the Warriors were willing to trade a lot for him and didn't care about getting a promise he would extend. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is such a sad thread. I've been watching the Lakers 2009 and 2010 championship documentaries on Hulu. The swagger this proud franchise had at the time. Damn. We've fallen to such low depths since.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Logo
Star Player
Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 9577
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lamar breaking down along with Fisher's decline after the 2010 Finals was pretty much the start of it. Lamar was just a what the (bleep) moment, while Fisher was a bit more predictable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Anapolis
Star Player
Joined: 05 Jan 2015
Posts: 3331
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| venturalakersfan wrote: | | I don't understand why people waste time on that website, LG offers more in intelligent discussion. Did 2011 never happen? That being said, to answer the poll question, we should have traded Gasol when we traded for Howard. |
I agree on the trading of Pau. That said Mitch did forsee this in the Cp3 veto. Now that said "no excuses" should of still found a way to trade Pau for that pg and perhaps sf. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wilkes52
Star Player
Joined: 02 Jun 2009
Posts: 2415
Location: Far from home
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | The nice thing about a DLO/Ingram pairing is that they trend towards multi-positional, high skill, high shooting, defensive versatility, and great measureables.
they're sort of archetypes IMO to a new NBA at the guard/forward spot. |
Exactly my view, with the brevity I lack ... |
I'd say that despite the image that they have potential to be successful as occasional multi-position (~ in a positionless unit ?) players, each actually sets up far more clearly - to me - as completely natural one position players.
DLO is a Classic One and Ingram at The Three is ideal. DLO is built of the same stuff as the young Dennis Johnson, a great lead guard. Ingram sees in himself a remake of Tracy McGrady and there's nothing so far to suggest otherwise.
_________________
“These GOAT discussions are fun distractions while sitting around waiting for the pizza to be served.”
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pio2u
Retired Number
Joined: 26 Dec 2012
Posts: 54573
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2016 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wilkes52 wrote: | | the association wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | The nice thing about a DLO/Ingram pairing is that they trend towards multi-positional, high skill, high shooting, defensive versatility, and great measureables.
they're sort of archetypes IMO to a new NBA at the guard/forward spot. |
Exactly my view, with the brevity I lack ... |
I'd say that despite the image that they have potential to be successful as occasional multi-position (~ in a positionless unit ?) players, each actually sets up far more clearly - to me - as completely natural one position players.
DLO is a Classic One and Ingram at The Three is ideal. DLO is built of the same stuff as the young Dennis Johnson, a great lead guard. Ingram sees in himself a remake of Tracy McGrady and there's nothing so far to suggest otherwise. |
I would love for either of those guys to pan out like that. It could happen but for now I'm just going to enjoy the ride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Goldenwest
Star Player
Joined: 28 Nov 2009
Posts: 2801
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 20, 2016 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | Phil the Panacea still remains I see.
For Phil, I kind of like that his latter year legacy wouldn't have been tainted trying to hitch his horses on a mentally weak guy like Howard. |
People assume Phil wouldn't have made a difference but all they have is just that 'an assumption'. And Phil's track record with big men contradicts that assumption.
Howard hasn't exactly had a stellar list of coaches in his career so far. There are certain coaches that have been known to get the most out of players. Phil is one of those coaches that has a better track record than most. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Goldenwest wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | Phil the Panacea still remains I see.
For Phil, I kind of like that his latter year legacy wouldn't have been tainted trying to hitch his horses on a mentally weak guy like Howard. |
People assume Phil wouldn't have made a difference but all they have is just that 'an assumption'. And Phil's track record with big men contradicts that assumption.
Howard hasn't exactly had a stellar list of coaches in his career so far. There are certain coaches that have been known to get the most out of players. Phil is one of those coaches that has a better track record than most. |
So instead of seeing how coach after coach has failed to reach Howard (who is now 30), it's on the coaches. I think we have a nearly 11-12 year track record to show it's really Dwight.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakurluv
Star Player
Joined: 17 May 2010
Posts: 2529
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah Dantoni over Jax has got to be the most ridiculous decision out of the ones mentioned. That was obviously a pissing contest with Jim who was feeling some type of way with Phil and obviously he wanted to prove a point.
We probably could have achieved a whole lot better had we had better coaching, because it hasn't been the same since.
No pressure LUKE!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
