no reason for utah to trade millsap for pau
Never said it would happen...just what would make us better.
Posted December 23, 2012 - 10:48 AM
no reason for utah to trade millsap for pau

I'm BAAACCCKKKKK!!!
Posted December 23, 2012 - 10:52 AM
Posted December 26, 2012 - 08:03 PM

Posted December 27, 2012 - 03:26 AM
Posted December 27, 2012 - 03:32 AM
Posted December 27, 2012 - 08:35 AM
What are [expletive] are you talking about? Nash has been terrific since his return. Watch the damn games.I hope it's rust I'm seeing on Nash but he is really looking his age on the court. Maybe it's the haircut.
Posted December 27, 2012 - 09:36 AM

Posted December 27, 2012 - 12:15 PM
Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:13 PM
Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:17 PM
After tonights game, heres the next 5: LAC, DEN, HOU, SAS and OKC. 108-49 combined record of those teams.
If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game.
Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:32 PM
After tonights game, heres the next 5: LAC, DEN, HOU, SAS and OKC. 108-49 combined record of those teams.
Edited by Japago, January 01, 2013 - 03:36 PM.

Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:43 PM
Yikes at having to play LAC, SAS, and OKC. There are upsets all the time during the regular season, so hopefully the Lakers can get lucky. I just don't see the Lakers beating any of those 3 if they are on point. The other 2 games are probably 50/50 games at this point. But LAC, SAS, and OKC are just clearly better than the Lakers, probably 2 levels above them.
It's about to get a whole lot tougher. The Lakers are going to be kicking themselves for not taking care of their easier early season schedule.

Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:45 PM
Yikes at having to play LAC, SAS, and OKC. There are upsets all the time during the regular season, so hopefully the Lakers can get lucky. I just don't see the Lakers beating any of those 3 if they are on point. The other 2 games are probably 50/50 games at this point. But LAC, SAS, and OKC are just clearly better than the Lakers, probably 2 levels above them.
It's about to get a whole lot tougher. The Lakers are going to be kicking themselves for not taking care of their easier early season schedule.
If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game.
Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:49 PM
Didn't you also say we had no chance against New York?

Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:52 PM
They've lost in just about every other game against an elite team. I'm sure I called those.
People are right or wrong all the time. Don't know why you're calling me out for it.
But hey, Mike Brown didn't get fired and the Lakers were smart not to trade Andrew Bynum for Dwight Howard.
Edited by Majesty, January 01, 2013 - 03:56 PM.
If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game.
Posted January 01, 2013 - 03:57 PM
yeah but they lost to elite teams without a full lineup, full chemistry or the main guy running the show and each game was still close.
Our assists have risen to the top of the league from 20 to 28 and Kobe is shooting 56% in Steve Nash's return(higher than Kevin Durant)
isn't it apparent by now to you that if they were the same team they were that lost earlier in the season that perhaps they wouldn't have beaten Golden State or New York? Especially in the fashions they did?
Maybe actually having a full lineup can be the difference and you can stop using that excuse only when you want to defend the Heat while you discard it as it pertains to the Lakers for whatever reason and you realize that perhaps just perhaps it applies to the Lakers as well.
Just maybe
Edited by Japago, January 01, 2013 - 04:12 PM.

Posted January 01, 2013 - 04:19 PM
The Lakers beat Golden State earlier in the year, so they just have their number.
I've never really had a problem with the Lakers offensively. The only thing I'll say on that front is that I hope they can find a way to keep Nash's minutes down.
I just won't believe in the Lakers until they can play defense on a consistent basis. They're starting to get better. Their games against New York and Portland were good. But, they also gave up 126 points to Denver recently.
The Lakers' defensive problems have been around for a long time now. I thought they got worse as last season progressed, and they were 13th last postseason in defensive efficiency out of 16 teams.
If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game.
Posted January 01, 2013 - 04:26 PM
Yeah we play 6 good defensive games and you pick out one where we didn't and you use it to say we're terrible defensively
So if we win our next 4 games and the stretch is extended to 10-1 are you still gonna say "yeah but in that ONE loss our defense sucked!"
You're the guy that's always defending the Heat even if they lose 2 straight against sub part teams because their defense fails yet you won't call out them for being a bad defensive team and expect them to repeat. You'll also never give credit to another team for beating them while also loving to cite if they had a full lineup or not as a reason for their losses.
yet the Lakers have a stretch of 7 games, 6 where their defense is what won them the game and you pick out the one game they lose to say they aren't a good defensive team.
I see a pattern here.
Edited by Japago, January 01, 2013 - 04:27 PM.

Posted January 01, 2013 - 04:32 PM
Not all of the Lakers' wins were good defensive games. Washington, Philadelphia, Charlotte, and Golden State were bad defensive performances. They all got above their season averages by a decent amount. Golden State is a good offensive team and that game went into overtime, but the others are just bad.
The Heat are different for 2 reasons.
1. They have one of the best records in the NBA. The Lakers are a .500 team.
2. Their problems aren't as longstanding as the Lakers. They were an elite defensive team last postseason. The Lakers have looked bad defensively since the end of last regular season.
Edited by Majesty, January 01, 2013 - 04:39 PM.
If we somehow land Dwight Howard AND Nash (which is one of the biggest reaches I've posted, don't think that will happen), then yeah...I have no problem with it, because Howard won't allow anyone to take Nash off the dribble 30+ minutes a game.
Posted January 01, 2013 - 04:36 PM
Held Washington to 96(under 100)
We held Philly to 98 points(under 100)
Golden State a high scoring team needed overtime to get 115
We held New York a high scoring team to 96(under 100)
We held Portland to 87(under 100)
And against the Bobcats they scored 100 and we PLAYED defense in order to go on that run, what was it 30-6? Our DEFENSE is the very reason we won that game.
So holding 4 teams in regulation under 100 and one team at 100 is "terrible" defense to you?

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users