I forget how this one even started, but its kind of a moot point because I doubt Gasol will be guarding Duncan this year should the two teams match up again. And Bynum still has to prove that he's savvy enough and good enough at defense to put a dent in Duncan. No one stops Kobe, they contain him. You can't stop a guy who puts in 18 points and people call it a bad night. I granted that the pick and roll will be trouble. You wrote 6 lines for nothing. You'd be surprised, if anyone can its the Spurs (except for the Rockets or Celtics). So you're talking about 'positional rebounds' or something? Why does the 7% difference between Gasol and Bynum matter? Its Odom versus Bynum we're concerned about, at least as far as rebounds go. Odom grabbed 10 rebounds out of the forward spot, is Gasol going to get that many of the forward spot? If not, I don't see the major upgrade. Well, I doubt Garnett would have been the starting center last year, and he certainly wouldn't be this year should Perk goes down. Last year (depending on the timing) P.J. Brown would have gotten the call, this year it'll be PO'B. Doesn't really matter though. The point I think you're trying to make about Gasol is 'his mid-range offense will be used to its full capacity'... well, how can you be so sure? Andrew Bynum's going to need hits in the low post to do his thing, I don't think Kobe will readily surrender the ball (regardless of what he publicly says) to Gasol on a regular basis, and you can't make this a three man game on offense. The point is, you only play with one basketball. The Spurs have an efficient offensive gameplan (not explosive, not notable, its just efficient and gets the job done), and they can manuever around young Andrew Bynum. In response to the inexperience argument earlier, Bynum has zero playoff experience. That could be a minor issue for a team relying on him so heavily to get back to where they were in an even more powerful West. Anyway, yes having a center helps the defense, but if you think that makes you a defensive juggernaut, you may be in for a nasty surprise. The truth will be told. I can't sit here and say that Ariza definitely will become a threat from three, and you can't sit there and say he definitely will. In a playoff series, defense and outside shooting are more important elements than athleticism, slashing, and creating a shot. Vaughn is a stopgap until George Hill is fully ready. Hill's defense is good to go, its his offensive game that has some issues right now. I expect Hill to get more and more playing time as things progress. Matt Bonner isn't a spectacular player, but he's a quality role player. That's all you can realistically expect out of your bench, players that know their role. That's great that the Lakers can go 12 deep, but will they actually use 12 guys in a non-blowout game? I doubt it. The Suns and Mavs aren't even in the best teams discussion. Denver even flew by them today. Oberto isn't a great player I grant you, but next to Duncan you just need someone who won't interfere. Thomas can still provide effective defense and rebounding, which once again goes back to how the Spurs players don't knock your head off, but as a unit they know their roles and produce. Produce as in, they've won 4 rings with that philosophy. The sum is greater than the parts. Finley's a placeholder for Ginobili. Obviously Ginobili's the far better player, but him coming off the bench gives the Spurs added energy and firepower a little ways into the game. Its an old strategy that Red and the Celtics used to some considerable success from the 50s to the 80s. Except stretch the floor. Because maybe teams will start to identify him as a legit three point shooter in their gameplans. They haven't yet done that, because in his first few years in the league he couldn't hit an elephant in the ass. You don't have to think twice about driving if Gasol's down there. And Bynum still needs to prove that he's a defensive stopper. He's showed potential and flashes, I don't argue that, but again this isn't Shaq. Bynum's not there yet. He will be, but isn't right now.
I believe it started when I called Gasol a sissy because he cannot rebound and block shots, yet he did a great job defending Duncan because of his length and his foot speed. You pretty much called that whole statement bull, because it is "far easier to disrupt a wing player with length than a 7 foot post player with multiple MVPs." Then tell me how Gasol managed to limit Duncan in the postseason, if it wasn't for his length? Of course, which is why him, and all the rest of the young, but experienced talent we have on our roster will be able to beat out the Spurs in a seven game series. I didn't waist 6 lines for nothing. I wrote 6 lines to tell you how dangerous the pick and roll game will be, and how difficult it will be for any team to stop us, including the Spurs. In a seven game series, their defense will frustrate us, and they will get stops here and there, but they aren't good enough to stop us completely, and ultimately beat us in a seven game series. They're not going to defeat us four times before we defeat them four times, at OUR home, because more than likely, Lakers will end up with home court advantage. And you haven't backed it up with anything. Neither Bowen, Ginobli, or anyone else on the Spurs roster have had any success defending Kobe in the past couple of seasons, and won't in a seven game series. Once again, Gasol moving back to his natural position will be a big plus (which I will address later because your response was absurd), and Bynum gives us legit big in the paint, something we never had last season. And there's no way in hell their second unit is going to out produce ours. We'll run them off the court like we did last year. TRB% measures rebounds with pace. Thus, given the amount of minutes Lamar played as opposed to Bynum, he is not a more efficient rebounder by any means, since Lamar averaged nearly 10 more mpg last year than Bynum. Not to mention, at that pace, had Bynum stayed healthy, he could've ended up being a top three rebounder in the entire league. Plus, Bynum and Lamar play two different positions, so I don't know what you're trying to prove. "Its Odom versus Bynum we're concerned about, at least as far as rebounds go." lol um, no it's not as simple as that. First of all, Bynum does not "replace" Odom. How you think replacing one 10 rpg player with another 10 rpg automatically cancels each other out is hilarious to me. Especially since, once again, technically Bynum is NOT replacing Odom, he is replacing Gasol in the paint. There's a big difference when you can roam around the basket, rather than being situated in the paint all game long like Gasol was at center. I'm kind of surprised you didn't know this already. And, as the statistics, and game film will show, Gasol was not an effective rebounder at center. Plugging in Bynum is a big improvement because he's actually able to hold his own in the paint and not get out-muscled out of position like Gasol did at center. "is Gasol going to get that many of the forward spot? If not, I don't see the major upgrade." Well first of all, taking Gasol's responsibilities from rebounding in the paint is a major plus to his game. As to my previous post(s) when I mentioned Gasol as a horrible rebounder, I was mistaken. Pau Gasol is overmatched on the boards as a center (as it showed last season), but as a power forward, he does a much better job rebounding the basketball. He's even reached 16.3 TRB% in 06-07 (surpassing Odom's totals last year); whereas he was at a single season low of 12.8% for the Lakers last year, when he was primarily used as a center. Once again, Gasol's rebounding deficiencies was highlighted even more when he moved to center. Him playing power forward, as the numbers indicate, he is much successful at rebounding because he is not constantly being pushed out of position. I never said he would have, or wouldn't have. Just merely giving out an example. If your body was not meant to play center, if your offensive game was not built for the center position, yet you are forced to play center for half the season plus playoffs, nearly every minute you step onto the court, then it's going to hinder your game. As it did with Gasol last year. Okay no offense, but this statement is flat out ridiculous on so many levels... First of all, Andrew Bynum is not, and will not be the main focal point of the offense this year. He wasn't even the main focus on offense for most of last year, regardless of the numbers he put up before his injury. The majority of Bynum's points comes from lob passes, alleyoops, and put back dunks. So in other words, the Lakers use him sort of like how the Hornets use Tyson Chandler. Bynum isn't in the game for his offense, he is in there for his defense, rebounding, and shot blocking. Offensively, his job is the clean up the boards and give us more second chance opportunities. If either Kobe or Gasol gets doubled, and leaves Bynum free, he'll get an opportunity to throw down the dunk. Beyond that, his importance to our offense is nill. And if you think that's going to create problems, then you're mistaken. Bynum is not the type of player to complain, he's humble, and soft spoken. The only way I see his touches being a problem was because he's playing for his new contract. Which obviously isn't a problem anymore because he already received his big, guaranteed deal a couple of days ago. "I don't think Kobe will readily surrender the ball (regardless of what he publicly says) to Gasol on a regular basis" So now we're blaming Kobe. Kobe won't do this, Kobe won't do that. Sorry to break it down to you, but this isn't the immature brat we all witnessed four years ago. Kobe is 30 years old, he's grown up, he's matured, and he's taken the role as the veteran leader of this team. You don't think Kobe will surrender the ball to Gasol on regular basis? First of all, I hope Kobe never decides he has to "surrender" the ball to anyone on the team, because Kobe is the #1 option, not Gasol, not Bynum, Lamar, or anyone else. Also, you're making it seem like Kobe is going to get upset over the lack of touches, which I find absolutely hilarious. Ever since we acquired Gasol, Kobe has been deferring to his teammates. He has mainly played facilitator for the first three quarters, before turning it on in the fourth, assuming we even needed his production then. Gasol's first game as a Laker, he scored 24 points. Kobe only scored 6. Yet he as ecstatic after the game because he realized he finally has a team where he doesn't need to shoot the ball 50 times a game, and score 50 points a game in order to win. The less energy Kobe needs to exert, the happier he's going to be. Not to mention Gasol isn't a complainer either. He's also another soft spoken, humble guy who doesn't have a super ego who's going to complain about his lack of "touches." " you can't make this a three man game on offense. The point is, you only play with one basketball." Funny. How did Garnett/Pierce/Allen work out? How did Rondo/Powe/Posey/etc. work out? You're making it seem like we're in for big trouble in the locker room because of the "lack of touches," which is completely, and utterly ridiculous. When did I ever say we were going to be a defensive juggernaut? Don't put words in my mouth. And nasty surprise? I just had a nasty surprise when I saw some of your responses (don't take this seriously, just joking). Bynum improves our defense tremendously, because he is a much bigger, much more feared presence in the paint than Gasol. The Spurs have an efficient offensive gameplan, I'm sure they do. Unfortunately, they don't have enough "firepower" to out duel the Lakers, and their "efficient" triangle offense, with everyone back in their natural positions. "That could be a minor issue for a team relying on him so heavily to get back to where they were in an even more powerful West." How are we relying on Bynum so heavily? We don't need him to score 50, we don't need him to dominate. We won't even need to count on him much offensively. All we need him to do is play in the paint, rebound, block shots, and create second chance opportunities, all of which he is much better than Gasol at doing. Again, essentially, he is playing the Tyson Chandler role. How much playoff experience did Chandler have before last year? Ariza is now 5-6 from threes, proving Phil right when he commented on Ariza's much improved three point shooting. You can keep doubting him, but given the amount of time he spent working on his shot this offseason, coupled with Phil's praise and his shooting in preseason and so into the regular season, I have no option but to believe he will be able to knock down open shots when we need him to this season, until he proves me otherwise. And it's not like Udoka is a much better defender than Ariza. He also isn't a big three point threat either. These things might matter more if you're starting, but coming off of the bench? Leading the second unit? Yeah I'll take the better player ten times out of ten, especially since Udoka doesn't really beat out Ariza drastically on any parts of his game. Ariza is MUCH better at slashing, which helps the offense move, thus slashing is actually an important part of the offensive. He is MUCH better at driving to the hoop and drawing a foul, which, believe it or not, is an important part of basketball because a) fouls add up on opposing players b) puts teams into the penalty c) two free throws So yeah, I don't really understand what you're getting at. Ariza is the better player, he is the better weapon. Therefore, Ariza is the more dangerous player, and better option off the bench. That's laughable. First of all, you comment on how Ariza hasn't proven he can be reliable when left open, when everything, all the evidence, points the opposite direction. Then you're meaning to tell me George Hill, a late first round pick coming from, what, a Division 2 school is ready come in and contribute? Give me a break. Hill hasn't proven anything. He shot like shit in the summer league, and I'm sure he didn't do too hot in preseason as well. I sort of followed him because there were rumors before the draft that the Lakers were going to trade up to draft him, and I know he's looked like shit. I find it really funny how you think defense is good to go? Really? How so? When was the last time he defended an NBA quality player, in an NBA game? I'm talking about the NBA, not the Division 2 competition he faced in college btw, huge difference. He may turn out to be a good pick in the future, but how you expect him to contribute already this season amuses me. lol Bonner is not a quality role player. I hope the Spurs put in Bonner because he will get destroyed. He is a one dimensional player. All he can do is shoot the ball, when he's left open. He plays absolutely no defense to speak of. If the Spurs are counting on him to make contributions against us, then they're screwed. Brian Cook is actually an even better shooter than Bonner (OMG), yet he is buried in the Magic's depth chart. Why? Because shooting isn't the only thing that matters in basketball, especially if you cannot even create your own shot, which Bonner cannot do because he has no handles. And especially if you are a big man. You might as well put in Pat Garrity instead, since he shoots 40% three pointers. Unfortunately he is out of the league. I wonder why? Also, Vaughn and Bonner are two major liabilities for the Spurs off of the bench. Out of all the "contenders," the Spurs have the weakest bench. Still doesn't account for the fact that Oberto is not a starting center in the league, neither is Thomas, who looked like crap in the playoffs. I'm sure he's not gonna be any better this year with age. I keep hearing Thomas is a good defender, sure. In the past. Too bad we're talking about 2008/2009. "they've won 4 rings with that philosophy. The sum is greater than the parts" They can keep going with that philosophy all they want. Unfortunately, the team has aged and they aren't the same team that has won 4 championship rings. Unfortunately, other teams around them have been getting better each season, while the Spurs have not. They seem complacent with the roster they have, which reminds me of the 2002-2003 Lakers. After winning three championships in a row, the front office grew complacent. Instead of going out, finding better replacements, and upgrading the roster, they decided to stay pat. What happened? Other teams got better, and the Spurs ended up eliminating them in the playoffs. I know the Spurs have added new faces, but these new additions don't make up for the improvements other teams around them have made. And the natural aging process that has hit their players, most noticeably Bruce Bowen, whose defense has really fallen off in recent years. Actually, you are right. I am a firm believer in "it doesn't matter who starts games, it only matters who ends them." So yes, I apologize. The point I was getting to was, if the Spurs are going to rely on Finley to play 27 mpg next year, then they should get a replacement, because Finley is nowhere close to player he once was. And by the time postseason roles around, he will be too worn out to give them much production. Again, Pat Garrity and Brian Cook stretch the floor as well. You want them being one of the key players off the bench? I could care less how much "floor he stretches" (bad wording, I know) because it doesn't make up the rest of the deficiencies in his game. Does it matter? If teams identify him as a legit three point shooter doesn't he "stretch the floor?" Based off of what you were saying with Bonner. And again, Ariza's three pointers are irrelevant. I know he won't become a three point shooting threat, I don't expect him to be one. Just knock down shots when you're left open, and I'll be happy. If you're not open, slash to the basket, create shots, draw fouls, etc. So basically you are stating his rebounding and shotblocking, and his presence last year was all just a fluke? I'd agree with you, unfortunately I can't. Because when I watch games, and Bynum is playing at center, but then gets subbed out for Gasol, there is a noticeable drop off defensively. Once again, having a shot blocker, and someone who doesn't get out muscled in the paint for rebounds improves our defense tremendously. Bynum, along with Gasol moving back to his natural position to play to his strengths, along with our much deeper roster, along with the best player in the league, is why the Spurs will not beat us in the playoffs. Sure, they might take a game or two, but in the long run, a seven game series? Forget it. And unless they prove me otherwise, then they're the inferior team, since most of your arguments obviously don't step up. The Lakers don't have to prove anything since we beat them in 6 last year. The Spurs have to prove something to us by beating us in the playoffs, something they haven't done for years, and to this new look roster. Just like the Celtics don't need to prove anything to the Lakers. The Lakers have to prove to the Celtics that they can beat them. We can keep debating, honestly I don't mind. You're just pushing yourself into a smaller and smaller corner since you are obviously reaching on a lot of your arguments.
