ernierocker Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 *Goes and dusts off his Wayne's World 2 VHS tape. *Then remembers he hasn't had a working VCR in two years. Doh! The Nuggets-Lakers series seems much more attractive to me than the Magic-Cavs. Unfortunately, living in the Eastern Time Zone will make it nearly impossible for me to watch much of the western finals. Games starting at 10:30 at night is just a little too late for me.
themeparkman25 Posted May 18, 2009 Posted May 18, 2009 I think Wes and I just became mortal enemies for a few weeks.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 ^Wouldn't be so bad if you jump ship before the Nuggets boat sinks. Lakers in 7.
themeparkman25 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 ^No deal. I have been following them since the start of the season. Really since Mr Big Shot came to town. And I don't know if I can say Lakers in 7, they could hardly close against the Houston Yao's and this is no Nuggets team of the past. You can't deny those two facts.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 ^I don't know about "denying" those facts, but I could give exellent counterpoints to them. 1. Without Houston running their offense through a 7-foot-6 spot shooter in the low post, that allows players loike Carl Landry, Aaron Brooks, and Von Wafer to play to a much faster tempo. Seeing as how the Lakers run their defense through Pau Gasol and Andrew Bynum, any lineup that had a run-and-gun offense was going to be problematic for LA... in short, Houston was a much dangerous team without Yao for anyone, and end the end they didn't show the will or desire to close out L.A....which brings me to my next point. 2. Though Denver is playing phenomenal basketball right now, they face the same problem that Cleveland has so far in these playoffs, giving credit before real accomplishments have been acheived. Sure the Nuggets are playing great, and pretty much dominated both of their series so far, but as the number 2 seed, that's expected of them. All in all, the Lakers still edged them in the regular season 3-1. Though the season and playoffs are two completely different levels of play, I find it hard to believe only one team would "show up to play.... in short, You can't say Denver's going to come hard without ackwoledging L.A. will to, and since the Lakers won 11 more games than Denver, you could expect them to rebound from a hard fought series.
themeparkman25 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 ^1-Isn't aaron brooks sub 6 feet? He should have been easy to cover, but the guy is super fast. Yes they may run their offense and get their boards from one guy, but Gasol does most of the boards for LA and Bryant most of the points. I'll give credit where its due, the Lakers definitely deserved it more than Houston did, but to use your case against you, LA is the number 1 seed and Houston was the 5th, it shouldn't have been the difficult to blow them out. And to reinforce that, if you played like you did in game 6, the series would have been over in 4 maybe 5. Lakers have the power to do what they want to, but they played inconsistent and underranked their opposing team. 2-I don't want to be saying Denver is the best team and will slaughter the Lakers. The best team is out east and Denver and LA are going head to head for what looks like is going to be a great series. Both teams are playing great, but neither team has faced a true challenge until now. Utah is good...at Utah. And Houston is good when they have a guy who can do a dunk without leaving the ground. Nalins was carried by CP3 and normally with the help of others but injury sidelined them from the start. And you have to give the Dallas Dirk's credit, in spite of the injuries they still were a pretty good team. The upcoming series will truly tell if either team can beat the Cavs. Sure LA may be up 11-1 in playoffs, but as I said before this is no Nuggets team of the past.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 ^For the record, I'm not one of those people who thinks the Cavs are "superior for sweeping the Pistons and Hawks. Who wouldn't have? And the fact they went 0-2 vs L.A, 2-2 vs Boston and 2-1 vs Orlando. To think Cleveland is the best team playing right now is absurd. They're good, but I would say Denver is the best team RIGHT NOW, so I'll give you that. But I digress. As a Laker fan, I'm well aware of their tendency to play down to their competition. That's nothing new. At the same time, I look for L.A. to jump out on Denver early and take a 2-0 lead. This L.A. team has recently come too close to perfection to hang it up in the conference finals. Denver on the other hand is playing extremely well, but playing this system by ear with Billups running this team in its first year, I look for Denver to be in this position for years to come. However, I'd say the Lakers edge them in 7. Also, If Cleveland actually won at least one game in their 2007 finals appearence, or beat a team that was a fair matchup, I'd have a different disposition. But as long as they keep "sweeping" teams like the Pistons, "struggling" agianst teams like the Celts and getting "swept by teams like the Spurs, how can you really say they're that good?
Hercules Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I hate the "play down to competition" remark. Maybe they just aren't as good as you think they are.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 ^Perhaps not, but winning 65 games this season and going either 2-2 or better in every season series against western conference playoff team would suggest that they can at least play to a superior level. Whether they do it consistantly is another topic, as is whether or not they choose what games to "show up" to. I don't use the term to discredit the Lakers; opponents, if that's what you're implying. I mean that in all the years I've been a Lakers fan, and since they've been under the direction of Phil Jackson, I've seen them "struggle" in games that would produce a better result against another team. Now maybe these teams that ultimately beat the Lakers are perhaps better teams than they. Perhaps they're are two or three teams right now that are playing better than L.A. However, I would think it nothing short of naive to think that L.A. is going to go quietly into the night because they "struggled" with Houston. Houston would have given anyteam a seven game series. Both teams played hard.
Homeboy23 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 If they play the way they can, then yes. But, the way Denver has played it will more than likely go 6 or 7 games. Although, I expect Denver to come out with less than half their efforts they put forth in the first two rounds.
Crazy4Coasters! Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 For some reason I just have a gut feeling after seeing their erratic play versus the Rockets. I think the Rockets were the "hump" for the Lakers this post season and I'm hoping they buckle down now that they are at the doorsteps of another NBA Finals.
Hercules Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 ^Perhaps not, but winning 65 games this season and going either 2-2 or better in every season series against western conference playoff team would suggest that they can at least play to a superior level. Whether they do it consistantly is another topic, as is whether or not they choose what games to "show up" to. I don't use the term to discredit the Lakers; opponents, if that's what you're implying. I mean that in all the years I've been a Lakers fan, and since they've been under the direction of Phil Jackson, I've seen them "struggle" in games that would produce a better result against another team. Now maybe these teams that ultimately beat the Lakers are perhaps better teams than they. Perhaps they're are two or three teams right now that are playing better than L.A. However, I would think it nothing short of naive to think that L.A. is going to go quietly into the night because they "struggled" with Houston. Houston would have given anyteam a seven game series. Both teams played hard. That is very fair. I like that explanation a lot better. Thank you. I just think that once you get into the second round of the playoffs, all of the teams are good. So just because you win 65 games during the course of the regular season, there really isn't that much seperating your team from a team that won, say, 53 games like Houston did. Sure, 12 games over a 82 game schedule is a lot in comparison to 12 games over the course of a 162 game long MLB season. However, round 2 is a lot more evenly matched than round 1, and the west finals is a very well matched series. If Denver wins, it wasn't a matter of the Lakers playing down to their opponent - it will be a fact that the Nuggets were just plain a better team.
themeparkman25 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 ^Time will tell at this point. I'm psyched though, and I will be going to game 4 assuming that the WWE and NBA aren't cage fighting that night.
Hercules Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 I wouldn't mind seeing Birdman taking on The Boogeyman, Carmelo Anthony and Kobe teaming up to face Ted D. and Cody Rhoades, Kenyon Martin against John Cena, and the main event with David Stern and Vinny Mac with an NBA referee officiating and "accidently" miss interference by Phil Jackson, ultimately leading to Stern and the NBA being triumphant.
themeparkman25 Posted May 19, 2009 Posted May 19, 2009 ^You just might get your wish. I just stumbled across this, WWE owner McMahon wants to cage fight Nuggets owner, as well as the Pepsi Center owner, Stan Kroenke. http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/9588574/WWE-boss-wants-steel-cage-match-vs.-Kroenke Who should get the arena, WWE or NBA? WWE seemed to have signed the arena a long long time ago but the NBA said the schedule cannot be changed. I would say the Nuggets get it but only because that fake wrestling stuff is my least favorite thing,
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 19, 2009 Author Posted May 19, 2009 ^^^^I agree that matchups are more even than in the opening round, and though I made the point that the Lakers have inconsistant play, most people use that as their excuse, which is why everyone thinks they weren't playing "hard". Houston just played better than any team that lost in the second round.
Mechanic Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 That was a pretty sloppy effort at times for the Lakers, but at least they pulled it together when it mattered. The last 5 minutes were great to watch.
themeparkman25 Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 It was a fun game! What was Anthony Carter thinking with that inbound though? Definitely a good game.
Mechanic Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 About 1/10 of a second after he threw it, he was thinking, "Doh!"
Wes Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Ariza's steal near the end was awesome. Great game, I have a feeling this series is gonna be an epic seven game battle.
Josh Linn Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 Denver totally crapped that game away. Waste of an awesome performance by Melo. Anthony Carter, what were you thinking on that inbounds play? What a lazy pass.
Jew Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 ^Two things: 1. I have to lob this pass a little more than I'd like to because I got Lamar Odom guarding the pass. 2. I didn't realize Ariza was so quick.
Homeboy23 Posted May 20, 2009 Posted May 20, 2009 The foul at the end of the game was smart and more teams should do it since its legal, but do I ever hate it. Just seems like a cheap way to win.
Bolliger&Mabillard Posted May 20, 2009 Author Posted May 20, 2009 ^But when you have to erase a 7 point deficit in the fourth quarter at home in game 1 of the conference finals, you do what you gotta do. Sucks that exact play didnt work for Dallas
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now