<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Sep 14 2006, 01:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so if you're coaching the showtime lakers, how would you play the suns ???</div>Exactly how the Spurs played them. Play hard nosed defense on them, don't turnover the ball so they get easy shots, limit role players, if you let Nash penetrate don't collapse as he will pass out to an open 3, etc... And offensively take what they give you, if you got an open fastbreak take advantage, if not then don't force, don't jack up unnecassary 3 pointers, don't shoot with 20 seconds left on shot clock unless its a wide open shot within 10ft, pound ball inside because that is their blinding weakness, etc...
I don't see why you think this is a tough argument. You are comparing the greatest running team in basketball history to the Suns. It isn't close. Different eras doesn't hold much water in this argument, as only 20 years seperate the teams. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>The Showtime Lakers would run with the Suns, and IMO if they did this they'd lose.</div>No disrespect but, that is a very stupid thing to say. You obviously have never seen those Laker teams. The Suns are nowhere close to the Level of Showtime. Those Laker teams averaged more than 30 assists per game and shot better than 50% from the field EVERY YEAR. You are talking about the greatest and most effecient offense ever assembled in basketball history, maybe even all of sports. The Suns are way overmatched here. The Lakers second string would win a 7 game series against the Suns. That's how talented they were. Nash wouldn't be the first guy to try a bunch of pull up jumpers against the Lakers. Ever heard of Andrew Tony?The Suns gave up 132 points to the Bucks...hmmm...let's see...if the Bucks can manhandle Phoenix's D like that, then what do you think the greatest offense ever would do? It would be over in the first quarter.If the Lakers slowed down and played half court against the Suns, they'd win, if they decided to run, guess what? they'd win. Mentioning the 2005-2006 Phoenix Suns in the same sentence as the Showtime Lakers is the greatest insult one can give to those legendary Laker teams. These Suns aren't good enough to mop the floor that Showtime played on.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 14 2006, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I don't see why you think this is a tough argument. You are comparing the greatest running team in basketball history to the Suns. It isn't close. Different eras doesn't hold much water in this argument, as only 20 years seperate the teams. No disrespect but, that is a very stupid thing to say. You obviously have never seen those Laker teams. The Suns are nowhere close to the Level of Showtime. Those Laker teams averaged more than 30 assists per game and shot better than 50% from the field EVERY YEAR. You are talking about the greatest and most effecient offense ever assembled basketball history, maybe even all of sports. The Suns are way overmatched here. The Lakers second string would win a 7 game series against the Suns. That's how talented they were. Nash wouldn't be the first guy to try a bunch of pull up jumpers against the Lakers. Ever heard of Andrew Tony?The Suns gave up 132 points to the Bucks...hmmm...let's see...if the Bucks can manhandle Phoenix's D like that, then what do you think Showtime would do? It would be over in the first quarter.If the Lakers slowed down and played half court against the Suns, they'd win, if they decided to run, guess what? they'd win. Mentioning the 2005-2006 Phoenix Suns in the same sentence as the Showtime Lakers is the greatest insult one can give to those legendary Laker teams. These Suns aren't good enough to mop the floor that Showtime played on.</div>See, now this is just overrating the Lakers teams. The NBA was faster paced in the '80's, this is FACT. In the past 10-15 years teams have proven that you can outrun a team all you want, the fact of the matter is teams like these can be beaten by slowing down the tempo, yet taking the fast break when oppertunity prevents itself. It is a formula that can work for any team that has the control to not try and outrun these teams. That is why in the past few seasons the Lakers/Spurs/Pistons have beaten more dynamic, fastbreaking teams like the Mavs, Suns and others. Granted, the lakers of the '80's were much better all around than those teams, but against these specific Suns teams I don't think they could win by outrunning them.My whole arguement is more around the 2004-2005 Suns team, as without Amare the Lakers would sweep the series easily. With Amare, things change. You eliminate a lot of the easy shots down low, you get much more production in halfcourt set and more on the break. This could be seen with the series vs Mavs this year and last year. Last year Amare had 29/12, and left a lot more shots and scoring oppertunities for other players (Nash had 30/12, Marion had 23/12, team averaged 118PPG). This year they averaged 101PPG, and Nash was only player who really showed up. You could clearly see how missed Amare was.The Suns last year averaged 110PPG in a much slower paced, halfcourt style game. 04-05 Suns were up there with lakers as most dynamic team for scoring in the past 25 years or so. Because the game is quite different now (much more emphasis on 3pt shooting, more athletic of a game, different defenses, etc..), and because the Suns are the best fastbreaking and 3pt shooting team in the league, they would cause the Lakers a lot of problems. It is definately possible the Lakers could outrun them, but the smarter way to beat the Suns is do what elite teams do to beat them...slow game down, take them out of their rythym, and take what defense gives you. Lakers would beat them easily in a series if that were the case, but I believe that if the Lakers tried to outrun them it'd be a much tighter series. I really do think you underrate just how good today's NBA is, and how much the game has evolved from decade to decade.
I'm not overrating the 80's Lakers, they were that badass, no joke. And I'm not underrating today's game. Trust me, the NBA was at its best during the 1980's, it has since not reached that level again.Also, most of the teams in the 80's did try to slow the game down. They were just more talented than todays teams and averaged more points. Like I keep telling you, the 2005 Suns can't touch Showtime. We shouldn't even be arguing this. It's dumb and is making us both dumber with each post.You are saying that possibly the greatest NBA team ever would have trouble against a team that can't even reach the finals in an era that is slower, less talented and with 70% of the teams in the league being mediocre. Pure bullsh**. You'll have a better chance convincing me that Malcom X was white.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 14 2006, 04:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not overrating the 80's Lakers, they were that badass, no joke. And I'm not underrating today's game. Trust me, the NBA was at its best during the 1980's, it has since not reached that level again.Also, most of the teams in the 80's did try to slow the game down. They were just more talented than todays teams and averaged more points. Like I keep telling you, the 2005 Suns can't touch Showtime. We shouldn't even be arguing this. It's dumb and is making us both dumber with each post.You are saying that possibly the greatest NBA team ever would have trouble against a team that can't even reach the finals in an era that is slower, less talented and with 70% of the teams in the league being mediocre. Pure bullsh**. You'll have a better chance convincing me that Malcom X was white.</div>greatest NBA team = bulls in the 90's .. particularly the 96 bullsI think the bulls would be pretty well matched up against the showtime lakers
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Michael Bryant @ Sep 14 2006, 05:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not overrating the 80's Lakers, they were that badass, no joke. And I'm not underrating today's game. Trust me, the NBA was at its best during the 1980's, it has since not reached that level again.Also, most of the teams in the 80's did try to slow the game down. They were just more talented than todays teams and averaged more points. Like I keep telling you, the 2005 Suns can't touch Showtime. We shouldn't even be arguing this. It's dumb and is making us both dumber with each post.You are saying that possibly the greatest NBA team ever would have trouble against a team that can't even reach the finals in an era that is slower, less talented and with 70% of the teams in the league being mediocre. Pure bullsh**. You'll have a better chance convincing me that Malcom X was white.</div>It was the most fun to watch, and teams were most evenly stacked in the '80's. There were probably the greatest influx of HoF's in that generation. But since, the NBA has gone through so many new and different changes. Teams like the Pistons and Spurs with fantastic defenses and styles of play that can run and slow down/stop other teams like no other. Coaching has changed as for the first time since basketball started they have found out how to beat superior athletic, fastbreaking teams. Team defense has gotten much better.No, they definately weren't more talented. The players of today are more talented shooter, dribllers, athletes, etc... It's just the game has evolved and has shown that if you are a fastbreaking team you likely can be put down, no matter the talent level. The one thing that the teams of the '80's had on teams of today were they were generally smarter of how to play the game, but actual talent goes to today's players.That's just ignorant of you, as you are not looking at the facts, just a bias towards who you believe was the greatest team of all time. Weren't you the guy who said Wilt would average like 20RPG in today's NBA? Right. Bottom line is the Lakers would have a tough time with the 3pt line, would have a tough time matching up with the athletes of the Suns, and would have trouble with Amare especially. Again, you are being ignorant and quick to dismiss anyone who says anything could challenge those Laker teams. Bottom line is their biggest advantage, athleticism, wouldn't be much of an advantage anymore. With athletes like Amare, Marion, Diaw, and others, they just wouldn't outgun them like they could against teams in the '80's. They wouldn't have a great 3pt game, while Suns have the most dangerous 3pt game in the league (which is one of the biggest attributes to an NBA team today). They never faced anything like the Suns back in the '80's in terms of offense. And lastly their PG would have some fierce head to head competition with Steve Nash, who is one of the few in the past few decades that puts up APG numbers similar to Magic and can actually shoot the ball well. There is no doubt it'd be a tough matchup for the Lakers, mostly because of their athleticism, 3pt shooting, huge mismatch with Amare, and I feel the Lakers would have an extremely tough time facing a style that they never faced in the '80's. Could they beat them? Sure, all I am saying is that outrunning them wouldn't be the smart way of doing it as it could mean a loss.
No, I'm not ignorant, I'm not the one who thinks todays NBA is better, you've got to be a dumbass to make that assumption. The amount of talent today is nowhere near where it was in the 80's. LOOK IT UP. Honestly, you must be very close minded. To you the NBA didn't exist before 1984. To you Amare Stoudomire is the greatest bigman ever. To you, every player who played before 1980 was a talentless 6'6" white guy. To you, the NBA is at it's best right now. To you, the Suns are the most athletic team ever. Hmm...who's really the ignorant one here?I was around in the 80's, I've seen Showtime in it's entirety. I've seen all the teams since. No team has come close. Not the Celtics, not the Bady Boys, not the Bulls and for damn sure, not the Suns. This is not bias, it's fact. Ask anyone who A) Knows a thing or two about the NBA and Is older than 14 years old.Yes I was the dude who said Wilt would averag 20 rpg today, ya wanna know why I said that? Because he could. Name ONE player in todays league that would come close to challenging him. Don't try, you can't.Honestly, this isn't a good argument. If the 1980-1989 Lakers played the 2005 Suns in a best of 7 series, the Lakers would sweep. The Denver Nuggets in the 1980's were a much better offensive team than todays Suns could ever dream of, and they didn't beat the Lakers.The Showtime Lakers took on Darryl Dawkins, Charles Barkely, Ralph Sampson, Akeem Olajouan, Kevin McHale, Dan Issel, Artis Gilmore, Maurice Lucas, Caldwell Jones, Robert Parish, Moses Malone, Karl Malone and countless other great bigmen, do you seriously think, that f*cking Amare Stoudomire would hurt them? Don't give me that athleticism bullsh** either, all those guys were top notch and last I checked they could do more than just dunk.The Lakers can run against the Suns whenever they feel like it, because Phoenix's defense is way too sh*tty to slow them down.REMEMBER, those Laker teams had an outstanding defense and DPOY in Michael Cooper, as well as strong team rebounding. Steve Nash couldn't guard a locked door, Magic would tear him up.You are wrong. You have lost all perspective on the game. Showtime dominated the strongest decade in NBA history. The Suns can't even guard Kwame Brown.(I apologize if I offended you, I kinda went on a rant.)
I don't think the Suns would put up much of a fight against showtime, especially with Nash getting older. And you either have an Amare that can only dunk or one with more skills who's knee is I don't know. One thing I want to add is that the Suns couldn't stop Kwame Brown because both of their big men were out. If Kurt was playing Kwame wouldn't have been any trouble. He may have had 1 good game. I can't wait till the first game of the season when we actually have our big men so people can finally shut up about that.
[quote name='Michael Bryant' post='158484' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:20 PM']No, I'm not ignorant, I'm not the one who thinks todays NBA is better, you've got to be a dumbass to make that assumption. The amount of talent today is nowhere near where it was in the 80's. LOOK IT UP. Honestly, you must be very close minded. To you the NBA didn't exist before 1984. To you Amare Stoudomire is the greatest bigman ever. To you, every player who played before 1980 was a talentless 6'6" white guy. To you, the NBA is at it's best right now. To you, the Suns are the most athletic team ever. Hmm...who's really the ignorant one here?[/quote]Don't put words in my mouth, never said any of those things. But the talent pool is at an all time high....and that is to be expected! Hell, the talent pool is evenq uite larger than the '90's due to the world catching up the us, basketball becoming more and more popular with brand new leagues and AAU, etc... You can definately argue the Celtics, specifically '86, along with the Bulls. And yes, I do know a thing or 2 about the NBA, and am older than 14 years old. KG, Big Ben, Dwight, and others. Up until that point Wilt was the most ahtletic big man of all time, and was 7'2'' and had a much larger frame than any other player in the league. In today's NBA he'd still have a height advantage, but athletically he wouldn't be any better than average. And he wasn't as agressive to the ball as a Ben Wallace, the NBA of today allows for fewer rebound oppertunities, you have players of all positions grabbing 5-6RPG or more, so no I don't think he could grab nearly 20RPG. That is your opinion, and I feel if Lakers slowed game down they would easily win, but they would not if they tried to outgun them. As for the Nuggets of the '80's, no they weren't. The best Nuggets team of the '80's was 1987-1988, and while they had a great scorer in Alex English, but they didn't have a great PG like Steve Nash, they didn't have a great big man like Amare, and didn't have the 3pt shooting.They were also a worse defensive team, letting up 4 less PPG than they scored, while Suns let up 7 less. Suns also had better FG %. Considering Nuggets played in an era with defense coming 2nd, it is clear that they weren't a better offensive team than the Suns. Yes, I do. Amare could run the floor better than any of them, the pick and roll with him and Nash is something no team has shown they could stop, and he is more athletic than any of those players. And no, he is not just a dunker, dust off the black and white TV and watch some current NBA games before you make statements like that. You are right, they did have a very good defense, which is why it'd be stupid to try and gamble with the Suns on the fastbreak. But nobody would be able to guard Nash, nobody could do a great job on Marion, and Amare would be H-you-G-E for the Suns as the Lakers never faced anyone like him in the '80's. NOT saying he is better than HoF's from that era, but it'd be a totally different animal that the NBA hadn't really seen since mid '90's. They didn't dominate, the '80's were dominated by 3 teams- Celtics, Lakers and Pistons. I personally agree the Lakers were best of the 3, and could win a championship in today's NBA, but you have to realize the game has changed a ton since then. Players have gotten more athletic, quicker, the 3pt line is focused on a lot more, etc... As you acknloewdged, they had the much better defense and had Kareem inside whom nobody on the Suns would be able to guard. That is why it'd be stupid to try and outrun the Phoenix Suns, who at the very least match the Lakers athletically (big time down low), have superior 3 point shooting, and have big men who could also run floor and give Lakers frontline major problems on break. Suns also have big men like Tim Thomas who can shoot the 3 and would stretch defense, allowing Marion and Nash to drive and ge tinto paint at will. This is why it'd be smart for the Lakers to take advantage of their strengths, slow game down, pound it inside, and don't try and outgun the Suns. The Spurs did this in 2005 playoffs, and while there was still a ton of scoring, it slowed down Phoenix's game enough and didn't allow the easy baskets and 3ptr's that makes Phoenix so dangerous.And you're right the Suns couldn't guard kwame, but that was because they slowed game down and made it a half court game, taking advantage of Suns weaknesses. During season when they tried to outgun the Suns they got trampled.Listen, all I am trying to say is that Lakers vs Suns would be very interesting due to the Suns being the best offensive team since Lakers, both have HoF PG's, both play different variations of the fastbreak, and there would be a ton of mismatches for both teams.
Let's just drop this, we will never win an argument with this guy..............someone who hasn't seen the Showtime Lakers won't have any idea on what they are capable of, no disrespect but I think you're just being stubborn. 10 yrs from now nobody will be talking about how great your phoenix suns offense is and guess what they'll be talking about............that's right the Showtime Lakers and their extraordinary run and gun style.
Umm, I think he's stated quite a few times that he's watched the showtime Lakers. He is not a Suns fan either. Trust me, they will be talking about the Suns in the future. :rock:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Sep 15 2006, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Let's just drop this, we will never win an argument with this guy..............someone who hasn't seen the Showtime Lakers won't have any idea on what they are capable of, no disrespect but I think you're just being stubborn. 10 yrs from now nobody will be talking about how great your phoenix suns offense is and guess what they'll be talking about............that's right the Showtime Lakers and their extraordinary run and gun style.</div>Yeah, Suns run and gun style isn't impressive as well I have repeatedly said the Lakers were a much better team, ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT IF THE LAKERS TRIED TO RUN WITH THE SUNS IT WOULD BE A TIGHT SERIES!!!!! Jesus fu*king christ. I have watched numerous games of the Showtime Lakers, I know they were an extrordinary team. I acknowledged they were the best team of the '80's (although they certainly didn't dominate). But if they faced the Suns in today's NBA they'd have to face many things they never had to face in the '80's....a team who relies a ton on the 3, such athleticism in all 5 positions, among other things. That is my whole arguement, not that the Suns are a better team or that they will be the greatest team of all time.Lakers fans really are funny...
Honestly Nitro, you haven't watched enough games of the showtime lakers to know how they would match up against the suns. I suggest you go to Clublakers or lakersground and you have guys there who've been watching basketball since the 60's. They watched the showtime lakers day in, day out. I doubt you've watched more then 40 suns games this year (unless you have lp).
Actually I do have LP, but I doubt I watched as many as 40 games. I probably watched at least 25-30, though.I have seen enough of the Lakers to form my opinion of how they'd do against the Suns. I have seen the numbers, I have seen the competition both teams faced, and I have seen in as little as 10 years how much this game has evolved. there is no doubt the Lakers are/were a better team, but in a pure run out I feel Suns offer so much variety that it;d be a VERY tough series. Suns are just as athletic (much more athletic in frontline), they shoot the 3 much better and more often, and they have proven in a slowed down and more defensive minded-game that they can stills core 110PPG. That to me is extremely impressive and is what makes me feel that a Lakers-Suns 7 game series would be an awesome sight to see.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nitro1118 @ Sep 13 2006, 09:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And Lakers would have nobody to stop Nash, Marion or Stoudemire. They would just be too quick and athletic for Magic, Worthy and Kareem to guard. The one thing the Suns would have that the Lakers wouldn't is 3pt shooting. Lakers of '85 only took a total of 295 3pt FGA's to the Suns' 470 last year, and Phoenix shot it at 39% to Lakers' 31%. This would cause problems for the Lakers, no doubt. It'd be a very high scoring series, and it'd be fun as hell to watch. It'd be very interesting to see how similar teams from different generations matched up against each other.lakersfoelyfe- The game has slowed down quite a bit since the mid-'80's. Lakers wouldn't have such an edge in athleticism like they did then, and they would have some troubles. I still think they'd be a championship team, but Kareem would have more troubles, Magic would have some troubles, as would the other players adapting to the game today. But I truly believe they'd still be an elite, championship team.</div>When Melo said the series would be over in 4 games, why would you reply that way..........You said that the Lakers will have a hard time disposing the Suns, that is what you said in the beginning and somewhere along the line you start changing your argument.Check post # 7, what melo said and how you replied. I don't see you saying that they will have a hard time <you>IF THEY RUN WITH THE SUNS</you>. YOU TOLD US RIGHT AWAY THAT THEY WILL HAVE A HARD TIME BEATING THE SUNS COZ PLAYERS TODAY ARE MORE ATHLETIC.How are we suppose to think with what you said, I repeat you said that the suns will cause the showtime some problem, that's it. go look at your post and try to remember what you said.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lakersfoelyfe @ Sep 15 2006, 12:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>When Melo said the series would be over in 4 games, why would you reply that way..........You said that the Lakers will have a hard time disposing the Suns, that is what you said in the beginning and somewhere along the line you start changing your argument.Check post # 7, what melo said and how you replied. I don't see you saying that they will have a hard time IF THEY RUN WITH THE SUNS. YOU TOLD US RIGHT AWAY THAT THEY WILL HAVE A HARD TIME BEATING THE SUNS COZ PLAYERS TODAY ARE MORE ATHLETIC.How are we suppose to think with what you said, I repeat you said that the suns will cause the showtime some problem, that's it. go look at your post and try to remember what you said.</div>Because he said that the Suns would have nobody to stop Magic, Worthy and Kareem, and that it'd be over in 4. I countered his point with the fact that the Lakers would have nobody to stop Nash, Marion or Stoudemire.I do not know where you think I changed my arguement. I have said from beginning that Lakers are clearly a better team overall, but that the Suns with Amare would be a VERY tough series if they decided to run with them. I never said anything different from the beginning. My original statement was:It'd be a very high scoring series, and it'd be fun as hell to watch. It'd be very interesting to see how similar teams from different generations matched up against each other.I have not changed that point, but when I said this, people started trying to get into a debate, and this is where we are now.Post #7 is from Analyst. If you mean #8, I said they would cause them problems because of the same things I have re-iterated 423857237x.....Suns have better and more 3pt shooting, are just as/more athletic from top to bottom, and Lakers would have to adjust to the Suns style of play which they didn't see in the '80's.Again, I don't know what you are trying to say....
This your argument at the beginning, you said that the Showtime Lakers will have a problem disposing the Suns, right ??? You never said that they will have a hard time if they run with the suns...........no you did not, you just added that one.All I'm saying is that Showtime won't have any problem disposing the suns and for some reason you keep saying.......... if this, if that the lakers would run etc. If you said it yourself that the lakers can beat them in 5 games, then why all this IF's.EDIT: can't believe am still discussing this, you know what go tell that to someone who knows basketball and they'll laugh at you............again I respect your opinion but your just a stubborn person.
Here are 2 quotes from me on the 1st page:<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>If Lakers wanted to beat the Suns, it would have to be in a slower paced game so they could take advantage of Kareem and not get run out of the arena by the Suns.</div><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>They'd have a tough time outgunnign the Suns in the open, court, though. The biggest advantage the Lakers of the '80's had was speed and athleticism, and the Suns fo today are considerably faster and more athletic from top to bottom. Amare running the break would cause nightmares for Kareem. And yes, the Lakers were a team that relied more on layups rather than 3ptr's, and shot a better % (48% of Suns to 54% of Lakers), but it'd be much tougher to get a layup off a fastbreak nowadays. That is why the Suns shoot the 3 moreso than just do layup drills. And that is where they'd give Lakers trouble.</div>My original statement was that'd be a very high scoring, entertaining series and that Suns would give them trouble. people started to give reaosns why they wouldn't, and that is when I gave those reasons. I haven't changed those opinions.
