Jump to content


Photo

Fire Luke Walton: An in depth analysis of our fatal deficiencies this season


  • Please log in to reply
220 replies to this topic

#61 b.diddy2417

b.diddy2417

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 761 posts
  • Name:Brian
  • Fan Since:since i was 5
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 12:01 AM

any time Byron is mentioned as good coach or better coach
Don’t expect sunshine and flowers

In my own words hiring Byron Scott again would be like a dog going back to his own vomit 🤢

#62 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 12:27 PM

any time Byron is mentioned as good coach or better coach
Don’t expect sunshine and flowers

In my own words hiring Byron Scott again would be like a dog going back to his own vomit

 

 I have yet to hear 1 better suggestion on this thread



#63 last stand 2.0

last stand 2.0

    Legend

  • Member
  • 23,730 posts
  • Location:LA

Posted October 22, 2017 - 12:42 PM

There's no need to suggest something better than Byron Scott that's what you're missing. Just by saying "hiring Scott is ridiculous" you're suggesting a better option than Byron Scott

You haven't provided any suggestion worth actually arguing against so why should anyone provide better solutions

Your options aren't solutions they're a farce, they're literally worse situations than the lakers are in now

You can type all of the words you'd like, and tell people they aren't doing this or aren't doing that but the truth is this entire thread, the whole point of it, is suggesting that that the lakers search the sewage for the cleanest turd before we've even digested the food on our plate

How about YOU come up with an thread rooted in some logic and reality and maybe THEN people will provide an opposition
  • UKUGA likes this
Posted Image

#64 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 01:03 PM

There's no need to suggest something better than Byron Scott that's what you're missing. Just by saying "hiring Scott is ridiculous" you're suggesting a better option than Byron Scott

You haven't provided any suggestion worth actually arguing against so why should anyone provide better solutions

Your options aren't solutions they're a farce, they're literally worse situations than the lakers are in now

You can type all of the words you'd like, and tell people they aren't doing this or aren't doing that but the truth is this entire thread, the whole point of it, is suggesting that that the lakers search the sewage for the cleanest turd before we've even digested the food on our plate

How about YOU come up with an thread rooted in some logic and reality and maybe THEN people will provide an opposition

 

Sounds like you didn't read the OP. What did I say that is a "farce" 

 

1) Luke hired bad assistants

2) Luke's rotations suck

3) Luke's defensive schemes are nonexistant

4) We don't have an offense beyond PnR and Iso

 

None of this is based on just the last 2 games. I've taken the preseason and last season into account as well. I also provided you with a post that analyzed our offense early into the season and correctly predicted the problems that would arise as a result, and it was 100% correct. In basketball you don't need a lot of games as a sample size if you analyze them deeply enough, which I have done. 

 

That is all indisputable logic. My biggest gripe, #4, is one that is solvable by bringing in a coach with an offensive system. Such as Scott with the Princeton or Fisher with the Triangle. Both of those systems utilize our skill set better because we have several good passers on this team, while we don't have many guys who can reliably create their own shot (terrible for an iso).

 

Tell me what exactly I'm saying is wrong rather than flaming me for making a good suggestion. I have provided the logic, you have not. 


Edited by bfc1125roy, October 22, 2017 - 01:06 PM.


#65 last stand 2.0

last stand 2.0

    Legend

  • Member
  • 23,730 posts
  • Location:LA

Posted October 22, 2017 - 01:20 PM

Believe me, unfortunately l did read the OP. And the truth is you're stomping your feet demanding logical debate over an illogical premise

That's not how it works. Just because you say something is logical and you type out a bunch of words and parade them as facts doesn't make them logical nor does it make them facts

Truth is the thread is inane

Your whole premise is that luke sucks (debatable not fact) and that there's better options out there and that the 3 you listed are a part of those better options (they aren) and then you force people to provide better options to dispute you when the options you provided are asinine

Do you know that when you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. And you've given none but conjecture and bad conjecture at that "we don't run an offense" oh oh oh "Byron Scott runs an offense"

I see you in this thread. Everytime someone says your idea is ridiculous you come back with "how about you provide some better options" you haven't even provided options

Maybe I'll make a thread

Luke sucks we should hire southern Alabama head coach Matthew graves

And when people say this thread is stupid or illogical I'll just respond with

"Make a better suggestion" "uh Matthew graves runs an actuall offense" "I can see you didn't read the OP"

Maybe the OP didn't have any merit to it? Maybe it's premise is ridiculous? Or maybe the thread illogcal and not worthy of debate in the first place because the premise itself is nonsensical
  • Xinxin likes this
Posted Image

#66 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,307 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 22, 2017 - 01:34 PM

ITT: People who didn't read my analysis. What good offense have we run that makes you excited for this season's start? Or was it Deng in the starting lineup that makes you believe 30+ wins and the playoffs is a possibility. 

 

Read Real Deal's post where he articulates the problems with our offense very early into the 2011-12 season, and he was spot on about all of it. It IS possible to analyze a team very early into the season, based on the schemes they run. 

 

At least in that season we ran an offense, I don't see us running much of anything at this point. 

 

 

 

That was an offense that we knew, players that we knew and a coach that we knew.

 

Too many unknowns now.  Not the same situation.  Give it 20 games, my friend.  If what you say still holds true, I will support your claims, at least as having merit.


Edited by GCMD, October 22, 2017 - 01:36 PM.

  • bfc1125roy likes this

tenor.gif


#67 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,307 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 22, 2017 - 01:41 PM

Believe me, unfortunately l did read the OP. And the truth is you're stomping your feet demanding logical debate over an illogical premise

That's not how it works. Just because you say something is logical and you type out a bunch of words and parade them as facts doesn't make them logical nor does it make them facts

Truth is the thread is inane

Your whole premise is that luke sucks (debatable not fact) and that there's better options out there and that the 3 you listed are a part of those better options (they aren) and then you force people to provide better options to dispute you when the options you provided are asinine

Do you know that when you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. And you've given none but conjecture and bad conjecture at that "we don't run an offense" oh oh oh "Byron Scott runs an offense"

I see you in this thread. Everytime someone says your idea is ridiculous you come back with "how about you provide some better options" you haven't even provided options

Maybe I'll make a thread

Luke sucks we should hire southern Alabama head coach Matthew graves

And when people say this thread is stupid or illogical I'll just respond with

"Make a better suggestion" "uh Matthew graves runs an actuall offense" "I can see you didn't read the OP"

Maybe the OP didn't have any merit to it? Maybe it's premise is ridiculous? Or maybe the thread illogcal and not worthy of debate in the first place because the premise itself is nonsensical

 

 

 

The only part that I think is non-sensical is his suggestions for replacements.

 

The rest was just his opinion masquerading as fact.  He has the right to his opinion though I (and most people) vehemently disagree.  The arguments he made had evidence and basis but they were not relevant at this point in the season.

 

It's like deciding that you know what a movie is about by the first 2 minutes...even if it's based on what you saw, doesn't mean that's enough to make a valid conclusion.


tenor.gif


#68 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 02:14 PM

Believe me, unfortunately l did read the OP. And the truth is you're stomping your feet demanding logical debate over an illogical premise

That's not how it works. Just because you say something is logical and you type out a bunch of words and parade them as facts doesn't make them logical nor does it make them facts

Truth is the thread is inane

Your whole premise is that luke sucks (debatable not fact) and that there's better options out there and that the 3 you listed are a part of those better options (they aren) and then you force people to provide better options to dispute you when the options you provided are asinine

Do you know that when you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. And you've given none but conjecture and bad conjecture at that "we don't run an offense" oh oh oh "Byron Scott runs an offense"

I see you in this thread. Everytime someone says your idea is ridiculous you come back with "how about you provide some better options" you haven't even provided options

Maybe I'll make a thread

Luke sucks we should hire southern Alabama head coach Matthew graves

And when people say this thread is stupid or illogical I'll just respond with

"Make a better suggestion" "uh Matthew graves runs an actuall offense" "I can see you didn't read the OP"

Maybe the OP didn't have any merit to it? Maybe it's premise is ridiculous? Or maybe the thread illogcal and not worthy of debate in the first place because the premise itself is nonsensical

 

Why do you think Luke Walton deserves to stay on? What has he shown you in coaching ability that makes you consider that? Why are his assistants good, his offense/defense schemes fit for our roster, etc? You don't answer any of these and instead try to ridicule me.

 

Let's debate the pros/cons of PnR + Iso vs. Triangle offense as it pertains to our current roster. Or discuss what defense Luke is having us run (I don't see anything). I'm willing to provide video evidence, but I have yet to see much in the name of substantiate discussion.

 

I'm also picking certain offenses because they suit our talent better. We would thrive in something that has ball movement rather than a Iso type offense that demands people to be able to create for themselves. That is why I did not suggest David Blatt or Mike Brown, for example. 



#69 ChichoGarcy

ChichoGarcy

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Name:Chicho
  • Fan Since:1992
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 22, 2017 - 02:53 PM

Hey, Earl Watson is available now! Do it Mitch!
  • Saber likes this

#70 GCMD

GCMD

    Legend

  • Member
  • 13,307 posts
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 22, 2017 - 03:43 PM

Why do you think Luke Walton deserves to stay on? What has he shown you in coaching ability that makes you consider that? Why are his assistants good, his offense/defense schemes fit for our roster, etc? You don't answer any of these and instead try to ridicule me.

 

Let's debate the pros/cons of PnR + Iso vs. Triangle offense as it pertains to our current roster. Or discuss what defense Luke is having us run (I don't see anything). I'm willing to provide video evidence, but I have yet to see much in the name of substantiate discussion.

 

I'm also picking certain offenses because they suit our talent better. We would thrive in something that has ball movement rather than a Iso type offense that demands people to be able to create for themselves. That is why I did not suggest David Blatt or Mike Brown, for example. 

 

 

 

Do you think expectations should be higher for Luke this year than last year?

Do you think the Lakers didn't know Luke wasn't going to work miracles in his first 2-3 years?

Did you think Luke was going to take a very unbalanced, young and undisciplined roster and make them look like GSW in 1 full year?

 

It's ok to have a certain opinion of Luke but you have to be fair.  Count how many players we have returning, how many starters returning, how many players over the age of 25 starting, how many rookies and how many former G-League players Luke has to work with.

 

Let's start with an in-depth analysis of the roster before you throw the coach under the bus.  It's not fair to expect a coach to install an efficient offense without the players he needs and with so many new players.

 

 

I'm not saying you couldn't be correct in the future.  I'm saying your conclusion is not based on a fair assessment of the entire situation.  

 

Take a master Coach/Upholstery Builder for Bentley or Rolls Royce who has 40 years experience.  If you give him tools that barely work or not enough tools and a bunch of Wart Hog Hides to work with, you think he's going to be able to make seats/upholstery that is on par with what Bentley/Rolls Royce Customers expect?

 

 

Please temper your expectations, for now.  When we get good players and a balanced roster, if Luke is still not doing his job, I'll be front and center calling for his head.


  • bfc1125roy likes this

tenor.gif


#71 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 06:45 PM

Do you think expectations should be higher for Luke this year than last year?

Do you think the Lakers didn't know Luke wasn't going to work miracles in his first 2-3 years?

Did you think Luke was going to take a very unbalanced, young and undisciplined roster and make them look like GSW in 1 full year?

 

It's ok to have a certain opinion of Luke but you have to be fair.  Count how many players we have returning, how many starters returning, how many players over the age of 25 starting, how many rookies and how many former G-League players Luke has to work with.

 

Let's start with an in-depth analysis of the roster before you throw the coach under the bus.  It's not fair to expect a coach to install an efficient offense without the players he needs and with so many new players.

 

 

I'm not saying you couldn't be correct in the future.  I'm saying your conclusion is not based on a fair assessment of the entire situation.  

 

Take a master Coach/Upholstery Builder for Bentley or Rolls Royce who has 40 years experience.  If you give him tools that barely work or not enough tools and a bunch of Wart Hog Hides to work with, you think he's going to be able to make seats/upholstery that is on par with what Bentley/Rolls Royce Customers expect?

 

 

Please temper your expectations, for now.  When we get good players and a balanced roster, if Luke is still not doing his job, I'll be front and center calling for his head.

 

I'd just like to see a blueprint for an offense or defense. Over a year into his coaching gig, we should have better assistants and at least a offense for the halfcourt when pushing the pace fails. That'll work against a dysfunctional team like Phoenix, who went under almost every single PnR, but not against even mediocre ones like the Clippers.

 

I'll give it some more time, but I want to see some structure to how we play on the court. We have some decent talent for once and we're not tanking, nows the time to build an identity. 



#72 ChichoGarcy

ChichoGarcy

    Off The Bench

  • Member
  • 1,465 posts
  • Location:Argentina
  • Name:Chicho
  • Fan Since:1992
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 22, 2017 - 08:42 PM

This team needs to put a lot of work on D, huge amount of work. Guys like Bogut and KCP are considered good defensive players, and with them on the floor we were giving open layups all night long. Layup after layup!!! It was pathetic to watch, I mean, there's no excuse for this. With that beeing said, please stop this [expletive] of firing Walton now for Byron, it's getting ridiculous.

#73 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 22, 2017 - 09:47 PM

I just don't see any organization or scheme here on any end other than iso and P&R. 

 

 

Luke seriously needs to fire his staff and get some real assistants.

 

I've never seen a group of guys so clueless as to what the opponent is going to do. How do you not help on Cousins' drive every single time? Why aren't you taking it in on Cousins and getting him in foul trouble? WHY are you posting up a guard and letting AD get away with resting on defense?

 

These are the most simple basketball tactics that most high schoolers understand. I have no clue why these guys are genuinely clueless as to what the opponent is going to do.

 

 

No...this isnt bad defense. This is on a whole new level of terrible. This is a coaching issue.

 

From the game thread tonight.

 

Hmm in which thread have I heard something similar?


Edited by bfc1125roy, October 22, 2017 - 09:48 PM.


#74 noknife

noknife

    Sixth Man

  • Member
  • 3,832 posts
  • Fan Since:1978
  • Fav. Laker:Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant

Posted October 23, 2017 - 08:00 AM

Walton is a young coach with young players and castoffs. Bad defensive players aren't going to suddenly become good defenders because their coach tells them to play defense. I have some news for you. Every coach tells their players to play defense, and that old cliche about defense being mostly effort is 100 percent BS. If that were true every team would be good at defense, they are all professional athletes and they are all trying their best. Defense is a talent, just like shooting. The teams in the NBA that are successful are super easy to predict as are the bad teams because the game is decided almost exclusively by talent. Talented teams win, teams that lack talent lose. The warriors have talent at the moment, the Lakers do not. You could have a staff of Wooden, Pop and Kerr and that wouldn't make Randle, Clarkson or anyone else on the team transform into great players, because they don't have the talent. Give the guy some time coaching, let the players we have mature and let the front office make some moves over the next couple seasons.
  • Rekal likes this

#75 bfc1125roy

bfc1125roy

    Superstar

  • Member
  • 4,605 posts
  • Fan Since:2004
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe Bryant

Posted October 23, 2017 - 08:54 AM

Walton is a young coach with young players and castoffs. Bad defensive players aren't going to suddenly become good defenders because their coach tells them to play defense. I have some news for you. Every coach tells their players to play defense, and that old cliche about defense being mostly effort is 100 percent BS. If that were true every team would be good at defense, they are all professional athletes and they are all trying their best. Defense is a talent, just like shooting. The teams in the NBA that are successful are super easy to predict as are the bad teams because the game is decided almost exclusively by talent. Talented teams win, teams that lack talent lose. The warriors have talent at the moment, the Lakers do not. You could have a staff of Wooden, Pop and Kerr and that wouldn't make Randle, Clarkson or anyone else on the team transform into great players, because they don't have the talent. Give the guy some time coaching, let the players we have mature and let the front office make some moves over the next couple seasons.

 

I know we will not be top 10 in the league at defense. But I would like to see some sort of a philosophy at least. There is no structure to the way this team is playing defense, or offense for that matter. This is the SECOND season, we aren't tanking, and we've had 2 training camps to figure this [expletive] out. It's unacceptable. 



#76 noknife

noknife

    Sixth Man

  • Member
  • 3,832 posts
  • Fan Since:1978
  • Fav. Laker:Shaquille Oneal/Kobe Bryant

Posted October 23, 2017 - 09:38 AM

I know we will not be top 10 in the league at defense. But I would like to see some sort of a philosophy at least. There is no structure to the way this team is playing defense, or offense for that matter. This is the SECOND season, we aren't tanking, and we've had 2 training camps to figure this [expletive] out. It's unacceptable.


They are not great players and they are young. They are trying, they are just playing against people who are more experienced and better. They practice plenty, it's just a little different in practice compared to when AD or cousins has the ball in a real life game situation. Give it time, when the team has more talent and experience you will change your tune.

#77 fido

fido

    Analyst, Moderator, Insomniac

  • Moderator
  • 15,062 posts
  • Location:Costa Mesa, CA
  • Name:Andy
  • Fan Since:1982
  • Fav. Laker:Magic Johnson

Posted October 23, 2017 - 10:25 AM

You can't create what everyone wants immediately when you don't have the tools in the toolbox to do so.

You can harp on coaching all you want, but in the end, talent is what matters.  Right now the Lakers are too young and not talented enough to compete no matter who you feel like throwing in a suit on the sidelines.  You can't keep switching coaches and expect stability and a system to develop and work - its nonsense.

 

If you think it's a rocky road now, try switching coaches yet again as these players are trying to learn how to be adults and professionals, it'll be worse.



#78 BORNINLA

BORNINLA

    Rookie

  • Member
  • 219 posts
  • Location:JAPAN
  • Fan Since:1986
  • Fav. Laker:Magic

Posted October 23, 2017 - 10:34 AM

Mark Jackson is the right coach for this team.



#79 last stand 2.0

last stand 2.0

    Legend

  • Member
  • 23,730 posts
  • Location:LA

Posted October 23, 2017 - 10:39 AM

I question if people realize that this is almost an entirely new roster. Especially the starting 5. 3 out of the 2 starters are brand new

If the Miami heat can go what 10-10 with lebron James, wade and bosh because of what? Chemistry and learning to play with one another then our band of misfits can struggle early on.
Posted Image

#80 Jody Smokes

Jody Smokes

    Legend

  • Member
  • 12,209 posts
  • Fan Since:2003
  • Fav. Laker:Kobe

Posted October 23, 2017 - 10:45 AM

Well trading your best prospect to clear space for 2018 is apart of that.  The main issue I'm starting to see with this plan is that they have a roster built for development while having plans to load up on stars.  Unless Ingram breaks out something crazy and they win 40 plus games how on earth do you sell the Lakers on Lebron?  Same thing can be said for trading for Paul George.  How on earth would they have been able to keep him? 

 

You can't create what everyone wants immediately when you don't have the tools in the toolbox to do so.

You can harp on coaching all you want, but in the end, talent is what matters.  Right now the Lakers are too young and not talented enough to compete no matter who you feel like throwing in a suit on the sidelines.  You can't keep switching coaches and expect stability and a system to develop and work - its nonsense.

 

If you think it's a rocky road now, try switching coaches yet again as these players are trying to learn how to be adults and professionals, it'll be worse.


"Blake and Parker are good at canceling each other out till our bench point guard comes in"  - Majesty aka Bird Ish (12/4/13)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users