56 replies to this topic

[Majesty]

People are happy with close losses against good teams. It sounds like fans of bad teams to a tee.

The Lakers did some good things in the 2nd half against OKC, but the entire 2nd half was basically garbage time for OKC. I think this game is pretty much the same as a lot of the others. The Lakers showed off some good things, but weren't able to put them together for an entire game.

Guess what? Lots of bad teams do that too.

And someone refusing to give credit to another team would sooner say they "stepped off the gas"

Do you honestly THINK that OKC's coach would tell them "Ok we're leading at halftime let's cruise in the 2nd half"

Anything to stop giving credit to our defense?

We came out focused in the 2nd half and played well shutting down Westbrook and playing with defensive intensity. OKC didn't take their "gas off the pedal" we found ways to stop them.

They got a lot of shots in the 2nd quarter off of missed layups by us or plays where we'd get hit and fall out of bounds and they took advantage with their fast break points.


But I love how you give the team no credit whatsoever for not letting Westbrook scorch them past the 2nd quarter. Westbrook only had 2 points in the entire second half and was 1-8 or 1-9.

OKC didn't put their gas on the pedal, we responded to their play with playing defense and we won every quarter but the 2nd.

Our team did some really good things and we played with intensity which is what we consistently want to see.

"Bad teams fans" are looking at a team that already has chemistry wanting to see them perform above themselves and uncover their untapped potential.

WE are watching our team for chemistry and wanting us to put together that same intensity for 4 quarters. This has ALWAYS been the case with the Lakers. So when we see our team start clicking, the chemistry coming together, and guys playing with intensity we know we're about to go on a tear.

A "bad team" doesn't have that benefit. When the Wizards beat the Heat their fans don't say "Alright we're ready for the playoffs."

If we beat the Heat and show the chemistry and consistency our fans say "Looks like we're ready to go on a tear." Because that's the difference, our issue is our lack of chemistry and consistency. A bad team's problems are their players or not having any player(s) good/great enough to get them over the hump regardless of how "well" they play together. Big difference. As we have those players, it's all about them learning to play together and our role players stepping up.

Your comparison is wrong from the get go.

Edited by Majesty, December 09, 2012 - 12:13 AM.

[AnnoyingCustomer]

1/4th of the season is now in the books.

Shut up & win some games Lakers...

[Hollywood]

1/4th of the season is now in the books.

Shut up & win some games Lakers...

Too many fans in denial. Not sure how much better this team can get defensively with Nash coming back. First people wanted Pau gone scraming to sit him down. Now he dosent play they are saying we would have won if Pau and Nash were playing when just a coulple game befroe they were trading him for claderon and other bad players.

[Majesty]

Too many fans in denial. Not sure how much better this team can get defensively with Nash coming back. First people wanted Pau gone scraming to sit him down. Now he dosent play they are saying we would have won if Pau and Nash were playing when just a coulple game befroe they were trading him for claderon and other bad players.

Nash helps us defensively because he lowers our turnovers which means less points off turnovers from our opponents who get the bulk of their points from them.

[Japago]

And someone refusing to give credit to another team would sooner say they "stepped off the gas"

Do you honestly THINK that OKC's coach would tell them "Ok we're leading at halftime let's cruise in the 2nd half"

Anything to stop giving credit to our defense?

We came out focused in the 2nd half and played well shutting down Westbrook and playing with defensive intensity. OKC didn't take their "gas off the pedal" we found ways to stop them.

They got a lot of shots in the 2nd quarter off of missed layups by us or plays where we'd get hit and fall out of bounds and they took advantage with their fast break points.


But I love how you give the team no credit whatsoever for not letting Westbrook scorch them past the 2nd quarter. Westbrook only had 2 points in the entire second half and was 1-8 or 1-9.

OKC didn't put their gas on the pedal, we responded to their play with playing defense and we won every quarter but the 2nd.

Our team did some really good things and we played with intensity which is what we consistently want to see.

"Bad teams fans" are looking at a team that already has chemistry wanting to see them perform above themselves and uncover their untapped potential.

WE are watching our team for chemistry and wanting us to put together that same intensity for 4 quarters. This has ALWAYS been the case with the Lakers. So when we see our team start clicking, the chemistry coming together, and guys playing with intensity we know we're about to go on a tear.

A "bad team" doesn't have that benefit. When the Wizards beat the Heat their fans don't say "Alright we're ready for the playoffs."

If we beat the Heat and show the chemistry and consistency our fans say "Looks like we're ready to go on a tear." Because that's the difference, our issue is our lack of chemistry and consistency. A bad team's problems are their players or not having any player(s) good/great enough to get them over the hump regardless of how "well" they play together. Big difference. As we have those players, it's all about them learning to play together and our role players stepping up.

Your comparison is wrong from the get go.

Of course the coach isn't going to tell them to coast. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Like I said, I liked some of the things the Lakers did. But, that game was never really in question despite the final score.

I watch bad teams like the Clippers before last season and the Kings. They show flashes of really good play in losing efforts. That's basically the same thing the Lakers have done so far. I think the Lakers are going to be a lot better than awful teams like those. I'm just saying you're putting too much stock into how well they played during a stretch of the game. Bad teams can do that too.

What separates good teams from bad teams is the ability to put together complete games. Until that happens, I don't think people should be too impressed when the Lakers play well for 12, 24, or even 36 minutes.

[Majesty]

Of course the coach isn't going to tell them to coast. It doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Like I said, I liked some of the things the Lakers did. But, that game was never really in question despite the final score.

I watch bad teams like the Clippers before last season and the Kings. They show flashes of really good play in losing efforts. That's basically the same thing the Lakers have done so far. I think the Lakers are going to be a lot better than awful teams like those. I'm just saying you're putting too much stock into how well they played during a stretch of the game. Bad teams can do that too.

What separates good teams from bad teams is the ability to put together complete games. Until that happens, I don't think people should be too impressed when the Lakers play well for 12, 24, or even 36 minutes.

And they won't be satisfied till they do it too. But the most important thing is seeing improvements in the progress and the process of the team. Watching their chemistry improve and role players play hard and not sleep walking through games is the kind of thing we look for.

And what we saw was an intensity.

NOW the most important thing is that the Utah Jazz may not play Favors or Williams in the Jazz game.

So that is the perfect foil for the Lakers to come in like it's going to be an easy win and let down.

But if they come in, step on the Jazz's neck and blow them out of there never letting up then we'll get a LOT happier. Because that is what we see.

[Japago]

And they won't be satisfied till they do it too. But the most important thing is seeing improvements in the progress and the process of the team. Watching their chemistry improve and role players play hard and not sleep walking through games is the kind of thing we look for.

And what we saw was an intensity.

NOW the most important thing is that the Utah Jazz may not play Favors or Williams in the Jazz game.

So that is the perfect foil for the Lakers to come in like it's going to be an easy win and let down.

But if they come in, step on the Jazz's neck and blow them out of there never letting up then we'll get a LOT happier. Because that is what we see.

I guess. That's the main thing. They need to finally be able to put together complete games.

I think they can improve by at least taking care of teams they should be beating. Then, I'll feel a lot better about them.

[Saber]

We need to win some games .. period ..

[GCMD]

Nash will do something most people don't really understand.

He will remove a lot of the mental, emotional and psychological hard work from this team.


That's when the ball really will be able to find "energy". Until then, they are running a flimsy, overtly flawed version of the Mike D'Antoni offense. I'm not worried because without Nash, this team and offense has no chance to succeed.

The real season starts when Nash returns. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand this offense or the direction the team is meant to go in.

[211275]

Nash will do something most people don't really understand.

He will remove a lot of the mental, emotional and psychological hard work from this team.


That's when the ball really will be able to find "energy". Until then, they are running a flimsy, overtly flawed version of the Mike D'Antoni offense. I'm not worried because without Nash, this team and offense has no chance to succeed.

The real season starts when Nash returns. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand this offense or the direction the team is meant to go in.

Yea, sorry but you are wrong. A team with 2 of the 5 top players in the NBA and all stars multiple times over shouldnt be losing to garbage teams and teams with 3-9 road records at home. This team is pathetic.

[Nak]

Can we get back our draft picks? It might be lottery picks...

[Windu]

The real season starts when Nash returns. Anyone who thinks otherwise does not understand this offense or the direction the team is meant to go in.

Nash won't solve all of our problems.

Obviously, things will improve offensively but scoring points is not an issue so much as stopping other teams from scoring points.

[Majesty]

Nash won't solve all of our problems.

Obviously, things will improve offensively but scoring points is not an issue so much as stopping other teams from scoring points.

Taking away our turnovers which Nash will do, actually will stop a lot of other teams from scoring points the way they have against us.

[last stand 2.0]

Taking away our turnovers which Nash will do, actually will stop a lot of other teams from scoring points the way they have against us.

again nash isn't taking away any turnovers. he's averaged 4 a game the last 3 years. that's what kobe's averaging. the turnovers aren't stopping. the only difference with nash returning is less darius morris and better offensive execution.

but turnovers are more than likely here to stay

[Majesty]

again nash isn't taking away any turnovers. he's averaged 4 a game the last 3 years. that's what kobe's averaging. the turnovers aren't stopping. the only difference with nash returning is less darius morris and better offensive execution.

but turnovers are more than likely here to stay

he was also asked to be a major contributing offensive option the last 3 years and didn't have guys that really demanded enough attention to take any pressure off of him. It was Nash and everybody else so naturally he would turn over the ball more because he had so much attention. He didn't have a Kobe Bryant, or a Dwight Howard or even a Pau Gasol on his team that could demand extra attention.

He'll have the least amount of pressure on him in his offense. You see last night when Kobe had a wide open three and Stu said "How was Kobe the one left wide open?" That would happen a lot with Nash if they tried to put any extra pressure on him.

Nash wouldn't have that many turnovers here because there'd be less pressure on him from opposing defenses because of the weapons everywhere else. A guy like Duhon is able to get 11 and 10 assists without turning the ball over in this offense, and a lot of his turnovers are mental errors that Nash wouldn't make. And a majority of it has to do with the other options surrounding him and at times spoon feeding him the ball. Nash would benefit in the same ways HOWEVER would be the guy initiating the offense a majority of the time in the correct ways.

That means we don't have 4 separate guys bringing the ball up court at a time trying to find how to run the offense.

it would be Nash, with the least amount of defensive pressure he's ever felt in his career. Nash wouldn't average 4 turnovers a game surrounded by the players he'd be surrounded by now, to assume such is silly.

The turnovers do go away with Nash.

Edited by Majesty, December 10, 2012 - 03:25 PM.

[last stand 2.0]

um in PHX he was surrounded by shooters. they aren't the level of talent of the guys he has now but that doesn't change nash being someone who turns the ball over. even during his MVP years he's turned the ball over at a similar rate. expecting that to change is ridiculous. you have no proof it'll change.

and here the spacing is worse. noone is guarding artest. i wouldn't either. pau is going to cause his own fair share of spacing issues. there is no justification for the claim that nash is going to eliminate the turnover issue.

[Majesty]

um in PHX he was surrounded by shooters. they aren't the level of talent of the guys he has now but that doesn't change nash being someone who turns the ball over. even during his MVP years he's turned the ball over at a similar rate. expecting that to change is ridiculous. you have no proof it'll change.

and here the spacing is worse. noone is guarding artest. i wouldn't either. pau is going to cause his own fair share of spacing issues. there is no justification for the claim that nash is going to eliminate the turnover issue.

name someone on phoenix when Nash was there the last 3 years that demanded double teams and could create their own shot...

Edited by Majesty, December 10, 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[last stand 2.0]

name someone on phoenix when Nash was there the last 3 years that demanded double teams and could create their own shot...

irrelevant. he was averaging close to 4 turnovers a game when joe johnson, amare stoudemire, shawn marion and co were there as well. in fact he's averaged 4 TOs a game ever since he joined the D'antoni offense.

[Majesty]

irrelevant. he was averaging close to 4 turnovers a game when joe johnson, amare stoudemire, shawn marion and co were there as well. in fact he's averaged 4 TOs a game ever since he joined the D'antoni offense.

No, it isn't. Nice try though

I just told you why he was a main offensive option and why so much pressure was on him. And I said he'd have the least amount of pressure on him surrounded by the likes of Kobe, Dwight and even Gasol.

You tried to fight that argument. So I asked you point blank name someone on the phoenix team on the last 3 years that could create their own shot and demand double teams.

You can't find any so you say it's "irrelevant"

Actually it isn't. It proves my point. It's alright to admit that.

[Massacre]

Nash limits turnovers because he's the undisputed number 1 ball handler. He knows what to do, what not to do and when to do it. He's controlling the O. Less TOs.

It's terrible watching a different guy try to set up the offense every time down the court. Nash stops that.