[BG7]

The Bulls main problem is Ben Wallace right now. Gordon is playing pretty well so far...having to take too many bad shots in the 4th, beacuse no one else will do anything, and he is getting tripled, dropping his percentages...Deng/Hinrich are garbage right now, but Wallace is the only thing keeping this team back.

He's averaging 3.6 minutes a game. Once SKiles stops giving Wallace entitlement minutes, and starts Gray, the Bulls will pick it up, because they won't have a sack of crap on the court. Wallace doesn't even jump anymore for rebounds. He makes Eddy Curry look like Bill Russell.

In addition, Luol Deng has to stop being such a baby. So what if you didn't get your contract extended and got named in the Kobe talks. Take it like a man, like Gordon, and go out and play basketball instead of sulking all the time.

[O2K]

bulls are always slow starters, lakers are usually fast starters....

simple as that. this is an early season thread. Bulls have more talent than the lakers do. THey may not have a marquee player but they are a deep team.

[23isback]

Originally Posted by Bartholomew Hunt

How about the near win over Houston without the Lakers clear cut second best player?

That's because Kobe dropped 45.

Lakers against Suns was more the Suns playing poorly on top of the jet lag than the Lakers superiority.

[Ballscientist]

I have to say something.

Assume that all players are healthy, Lakers are a better team.

Bulls would have been swept by the West in the first round if they had played in the west.

[unluckyseventeen]

You know what, I do not find the Lakers a bad team at all. NOT at all.

If you look at the supporting cast of Walton, Odom, Fisher, Bynum, etc, and if you actually watch their role players play without Kobe on the floor, they move the basketball very well and are quite effective at scoring, and defending.

I remember last year when Kobe was out, and the Lakers were playing decent basketball. 4-0 to start the season if I remember correctly, and there was quite a debate over whether Kobe was helping or hurting. A lot of counter-arguments were "No, it'd be stupid to say that Kobe is hurting the team more than he is helping! It's Kobe Bryant, people!", and relating it to a small sample size. I think that statement is somewhat wrong, and quite evident if you watch the other guys play while Kobe isn't in there. They're an average team without Kobe, so he does help the overall cause by just taking games over, but I think with a different player in Kobe's place, they are a better team.

The entire reason the Lakers almost beat the Suns in 2006 was because Kobe was playing like he should. He was passing the ball, defending, playing smart and not chucking up shots. I really, honestly believe that if you took McGrady's playing style (similar to Kobe, but McGrady is a superior passer), and injected that into Kobe, the Lakers would be a team on the same level as a Utah or Denver. Not quite a top-tier team, but definitely better than they are represented to be, now.

Anybody else agree?

[IceMan23and3]

Originally Posted by unluckyseventeen

You know what, I do not find the Lakers a bad team at all. NOT at all.

If you look at the supporting cast of Walton, Odom, Fisher, Bynum, etc, and if you actually watch their role players play without Kobe on the floor, they move the basketball very well and are quite effective at scoring, and defending.

I remember last year when Kobe was out, and the Lakers were playing decent basketball. 4-0 to start the season if I remember correctly, and there was quite a debate over whether Kobe was helping or hurting. A lot of counter-arguments were "No, it'd be stupid to say that Kobe is hurting the team more than he is helping! It's Kobe Bryant, people!", and relating it to a small sample size. I think that statement is somewhat wrong, and quite evident if you watch the other guys play while Kobe isn't in there. They're an average team without Kobe, so he does help the overall cause by just taking games over, but I think with a different player in Kobe's place, they are a better team.

The entire reason the Lakers almost beat the Suns in 2006 was because Kobe was playing like he should. He was passing the ball, defending, playing smart and not chucking up shots. I really, honestly believe that if you took McGrady's playing style (similar to Kobe, but McGrady is a superior passer), and injected that into Kobe, the Lakers would be a team on the same level as a Utah or Denver. Not quite a top-tier team, but definitely better than they are represented to be, now.

Anybody else agree?

The number one reason why the Lakers should trade Kobe!

[aznzen]

Originally Posted by IceMan23and3

The number one reason why the Lakers should trade Kobe!

[aznzen]

you guys are jumping way too early into conclusions.


lakers are not a better team than the bulls. kobe is the only player that makes a huge difference, but compare that with chicago's balanced and deep roster settings and they are by far the better team than the lakers.

lakers also cannot play defense which is vital in success. they dont have cohesiveness and chemistyr in comparison to chicago.


the bulls are having a rough start sure, but i also think its too early to crown the los angeles lakers a better team with two games and a 500 record early in the season.

[EHL]

Originally Posted by unluckyseventeen

You know what, I do not find the Lakers a bad team at all. NOT at all.

If you look at the supporting cast of Walton, Odom, Fisher, Bynum, etc, and if you actually watch their role players play without Kobe on the floor, they move the basketball very well and are quite effective at scoring, and defending.

I remember last year when Kobe was out, and the Lakers were playing decent basketball. 4-0 to start the season if I remember correctly, and there was quite a debate over whether Kobe was helping or hurting. A lot of counter-arguments were "No, it'd be stupid to say that Kobe is hurting the team more than he is helping! It's Kobe Bryant, people!", and relating it to a small sample size. I think that statement is somewhat wrong, and quite evident if you watch the other guys play while Kobe isn't in there. They're an average team without Kobe, so he does help the overall cause by just taking games over, but I think with a different player in Kobe's place, they are a better team.

The entire reason the Lakers almost beat the Suns in 2006 was because Kobe was playing like he should. He was passing the ball, defending, playing smart and not chucking up shots. I really, honestly believe that if you took McGrady's playing style (similar to Kobe, but McGrady is a superior passer), and injected that into Kobe, the Lakers would be a team on the same level as a Utah or Denver. Not quite a top-tier team, but definitely better than they are represented to be, now.

Anybody else agree?

More pertinent question you should ask yourself is what have the players you listed, namely Odom, Walton, Bynum, Fisher, etc. proven outside of the Lakers? You're not going to find anything more impressive than what they'd done with the Lakers. Fish was on the Jazz as a solid vet presence and they did well for themselves last year going to the 2nd round. Odom once went to the 2nd round in the East with Wade. Bynum and Walton? Nothing obviously. See what I mean; how can a team of unprovens be taken all that far? If they improve from within this year, as they become internally better, that'll have nothing to do with Kobe.

[MemphisX]

Kobe is such a run stopper. You simplify things but over 82 games the supporting cast would not cut it. They seemingly play better because the opposition does not take them seriously SMS know they can 12-2 or 10-0 them at will. It is an entirely different animal with Kobe involved.