Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
How am I supposed to infer that? Prior to the playoffs starting, you never called this team a contender with or without LeBron. I grant that you said they were a playoff team, but I said much the same thing (6th-8th best team in the West with both playing).
All of this was reassessed during the Memphis series.
I have no obligation to state a position to your satisfaction as you've made quite clear that you're going to remain obstinate in defense of your hero regardless of what you're presented with.
I said they were a slightly above .500 team WITHOUT LeBron James. I said WITH Lebron James they can advance out of the 1st round. I made specific mention of the fact that they beat a healthy Warriors team without James.
I didn't give it to you in triplicate - so be it. But I'll leave it to you to determine how much value you place on the addition of James. I say it's about 8 games over an 82 game season - you'd no doubt say far more than that. So if I think a slightly above .500 team without James and you're unwilling to extrapolate 'contender' with the addition of James from that - well than that just speak to your never-ending equivocation and excuse making for James anyway?
Because if he is the superhero you hold him out to be, CLEARLY an above .500 basketball team that adds him is a contender coming out of a conference where nobody won 55 games...right?
You're deflecting again, as you do with all things James related. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
So does LA beat Denver?
Can Gordon defense James as well as Jackson/Wiggins did? And can Jokic play defense as well as Davis can play offense?
Because I think Davis/Jokic can largely hold each other at bay on the other side. Davis and Jokic have been easily the best defensive and offensive players in the west respectively this post-season. Ultimately offense beats defense in the NBA so Jokic will still present a slight edge on that side of the ball, but that's where the question arises - enough of an edge to where Davis O vs. Jokic D can't even it back out?
I think it's set up for a hell of a series. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Can Gordon defense James as well as Jackson/Wiggins did? And can Jokic play defense as well as Davis can play offense?
Because I think Davis/Jokic can largely hold each other at bay on the other side. Davis and Jokic have been easily the best defensive and offensive players in the west respectively this post-season. Ultimately offense beats defense in the NBA so Jokic will still present a slight edge on that side of the ball, but that's where the question arises - enough of an edge to where Davis O vs. Jokic D can't even it back out?
I think it's set up for a hell of a series.
a couple pages back I said I thought this would be a quick series for Denver, 5 games or maybe 6 mostly because they were the best team in the league all season long and showed that in the playoffs so far. They have probably the best player in the league and a big advantage playing in Pile High against an older Lebron. There is also the revenge factor.
But I wouldn't be surprised if they lost because I don't have a real good feel for this Lakers team. Game 1 will tell the story for me. [Reply]
You beat Denver by limiting what Jokic can do (either his scoring or his passing, you've got to do your best to eliminate one) and by exploiting his movement on defense through screens and PnRs.
With respect to the former, the Lakers are more capable of that than any team in the league due to AD. With respect to the latter, it probably depends on how much LeBron has left in the tank. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I have no obligation to state a position to your satisfaction as you've made quite clear that you're going to remain obstinate in defense of your hero regardless of what you're presented with.
Well that goes without saying.
Originally Posted by :
I said they were a slightly above .500 team WITHOUT LeBron James. I said WITH Lebron James they can advance out of the 1st round. I made specific mention of the fact that they beat a healthy Warriors team without James.
I didn't give it to you in triplicate - so be it. But I'll leave it to you to determine how much value you place on the addition of James. I say it's about 8 games over an 82 game season - you'd no doubt say far more than that. So if I think a slightly above .500 team without James and you're unwilling to extrapolate 'contender' with the addition of James from that - well than that just speak to your never-ending equivocation and excuse making for James anyway?
Because if he is the superhero you hold him out to be, CLEARLY an above .500 basketball team that adds him is a contender coming out of a conference where nobody won 55 games...right?
You're deflecting again, as you do with all things James related.
I can concede that you thought they'd be better than I did, but you still don't get to give me shit after they made the WCFs when you nor anybody else thought they were making the WCFs (Kendrick Perkins not included apparently). [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
a couple pages back I said I thought this would be a quick series for Denver, 5 games or maybe 6 mostly because they were the best team in the league all season long and showed that in the playoffs so far. They have probably the best player in the league and a big advantage playing in Pile High against an older Lebron.
But I wouldn't be surprised if they lost, Game 1 will tell the story for me.
I hadn't considered the altitude vs. James - that's a pretty good point.
Mostly I just think this is one of those years that 'best team in the conference' means about dick. Wasn't there a 50 win team out of the West several years ago that ended up an 8 seed? There just wasn't a truly great team out of the West this year so being the best of that lot doesn't mean a ton.
Now having the best PLAYER in the post-season probably does. On the flipside, having the one guy in the league who may be able to blunt that edge in Anthony Davis is a hell of an equalizer.
But yeah, the altitude thing is worrisome because my biggest issue is whether or not the Lakers have the legs for a prolonged series. And with that thrown into the equation, they flight might not... [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
What part was incorrect?
I mean, apart from every single declarative statement you made being inaccurate, I'd say you were just spot on...
Here's some more post trade analysis from kcc that he was apparently correct on.
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
They've been nearly the worst team in the league without LeBron on the floor this year as those stats showed. You really believe the additions of mediocre players like Russell, Vanderbilt, and Malik Beasley are going to alter that significantly and save them from missing the play-in without LeBron?
That roster is going to go under .500 without him and probably well below .500. They're done.
Originally Posted by tyecopeland:
Here's some more post trade analysis from kcc that he was apparently correct on.
Vanderbilt and Beasley have been effectively unplayable in the playoffs and Russell tried shooting them out of the Warriors series for most of it (I despise his game).
The stats still also showed at the time that the Lakers were nearly the worst team in the league without LeBron on the floor as well. It appears a lot of that unsurprisingly had to do with Russell Westbrook. [Reply]