How many teams have a good chance to take out Heat in the playoffs?

[Hyperion]

And Jordan was the best player in the league from 1988-1998 (minus 94-95). So? Nash still deserved his MVPs. You can bitch that another player could have won it, but they didn't. It's not like Nash was a marginal player in those years and some white man's conspiracy gave him the MVPs. He was the best player on the best team and then when they lost their Amare and were given a Diaw for Joe Johnson, he STILL got them to kick ass. Hence deserved.

Also, Bynum has made great strides since last season. He's still a bonehead that's insanely injury prone.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Hyperion

And Jordan was the best player in the league from 1988-1998 (minus 94-95). So? Nash still deserved his MVPs. You can bitch that another player could have won it, but they didn't. It's not like Nash was a marginal player in those years and some white man's conspiracy gave him the MVPs. He was the best player on the best team and then when they lost their Amare and were given a Diaw for Joe Johnson, he STILL got them to kick ass. Hence deserved.

Also, Bynum has made great strides since last season. He's still a bonehead that's insanely injury prone.

And Jordan should have won MVPs for every year that he was the best player in the league. That's my point. Steve Nash was never the best player in the NBA and so he should never have one a MVP, let alone two.

I never said that Steve Nash was a marginal player, I said that he wasn't the best player. However, he was the best point guard during that stretch and deserved the All NBA first team nods that he recieved. Those were well deserved, the MVPs were not.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Sir Patchwork

You forgot that Mike Brown is a serious downgrade from Phil Jackson in terms of a playoff coach. Phil was great with series adjustments. Mike Brown is okay, but he isn't Phil.

not even in the slightest bit is this true and last year the team had clearly stopped listening to him

of course they may already have stopped listening to Mike Brown and I have no idea why they hired him and wish they'd gone with Adelman

and yes PJ is/was arguably the greatest coach of all time and leaps and bounds better than Brown but again they had clearly stopped listening to him last year and no his strengths were not in adjustments in game or in series - look at every Lakers series loss under him, and especially look at the way they lost the last games of those series (usually they got crushed and put up little to no fight)

[Luke]

Phil's greatest asset was that he was incredible at managing personalities. I mean the man coached arguably the three biggest primadonas (Shaq, Kobe, Jordan) in the history of superstars and left the game with 11 championships.

[e-monk]

Originally Posted by Luke

Phil's greatest asset was that he was incredible at managing personalities. I mean the man coached arguably the three biggest primadonas (Shaq, Kobe, Jordan) in the history of superstars and left the game with 11 championships.

yep but it sure wasnt in game management

[Luke]

I was agreeing with you.

[e-monk]

as was I with you

[Sir Patchwork]

Phil was great with in-series adjustments. Not so much in-game. He was a master motivator in game and out. Minor strategy adjustments and major psychological adjustments. That's not to say he never lost a series, but his track record speaks for itself.

Last year, it wasn't that they stopped listening, as much as it was just they were clearly inferior across the board. Dirk was easily the best player on the court all series (all playoffs really), Chandler owned the paint, Kidd managed the game and everyone else provided sparks. They played tough defense and smooth offense. Looking back on that series, it's hard to see how anyone thought the Lakers would win it (me included).

[Kneejoh]

Nobody here has a clue about who has a chance at winning the finals and who doesn't. Last year and everybody writing off Dallas is proof of that. Me included. Nobody predicted Dallas last year catching on fire and nobody knows if there's going to be a team that does the same this year. It's sports, all it takes is one defining game in the playoffs to make every player on a team believe that they can win and play like it. Any team that is top heavy in talent has a very good chance at winning, there's no way a team with 3 all stars and a very very solid pg can be written off from winning, especially when they've won 2 championships in the past 3 years.

[Pay Ton]

Of course we don't have a clue, but we can make general predictions based on what we've seen over the course of the season and based on the construct of a team and it's flaws.

Like I said before, the Mavericks argument doesn't compare to the current Laker argument. The Mavericks had depth. Even if nobody saw it coming, and I'm easily willing to admit that I certainly didn't, the Mavericks still had the TOOLS to win it all. I just didn't think they were good enough. But they had pieces at every position that could come in and contribute. I think the team that compares more to the Mavericks are the Spurs. They have the tools. They have players at every position and a good bench, but me and a lot of people just don't view them as good enough, so we don't think they'll win.

The Lakers are a good team. Of course they're a good team. Or else they wouldn't be the three seed in the West. Some of us just don't view them as being good enough to win it all, that's all.

Who's their best bench player? Matt Barnes? Steve Blake? Troy Murphy? I mean, whomever you list it's still sad.

And yeah, I know people here like to say that the bench play isn't as important in the playoffs, but it's still necessary to have AT LEAST an average bench to contribute in the playoffs. The Lakers don't have one.

I just don't see it, but like I said, yeah I guess they have a chance. A very very small chance, but a chance.

They do have a good shot at the Western Conference Finals though, if all things stay the same. They're the 3 seed, and they would possibly play the Spurs in the second round. The Lakers don't impress me, but the Spurs don't either. I could see them winning that series.

[Kneejoh]

It's very easy to look at the Mavs team from last year and after seeing what they did say they had a bench. But other than Terry nobody could have predicted that they would play that great of defence and shoot as well as they did throughout the playoffs. The Mavericks didn't have depth until they beat the Lakers and then guys like Barea, Stevenson, Peja, and Cardinal were noticed by everybody, but going into the playoffs nobody would have said the Mavs had a deep bench. The same argument about Dallas having the tools can be made for the top 6 teams or so, and they all have guys that are able to contribute, what will separate them will be whichever teams' players step up. If you look at the Lakers you have 4 guys that give you 80-85 points (Kobe, Bynum, Pau, Sessions), they have a defence that allows 95 ppg, ideally they need about 15-20 points from 6 other guys to win a game. It's not the most sound logic but the Lakers are so top heavy they need 1 or maybe 2 guys to step up and have somewhat decent games. Blake, Barnes, Murphy, McRoberts, and MWP are those tools and are the players that are able to contribute, whether it will happen or not is another issue. I guess we just disagree on how good of chances we're giving the Lakers.

[Pay Ton]

All I'm saying is that it's one thing to say bench play doesn't matter in the playoffs, but that's easy to say if your sixth man is Jason Terry or Lamar Odom (like it was for the Lakers last year). It's another thing to say you don't need bench play when your best bench player is Steve Blake/Troy Murphy/Matt Barnes/Take your pick.

The Lakers have a good enough starting five to where they can beat a team deeper than them in the first round (because whomever that team is, most likely won't be as talented with their starting five, even if they have a good bench), and maybe even beat a team like the Spurs in the second round who have a better bench but whose starting five is all older and not as talented. But when we're talking about a starting five like the Thunder have (along with their better bench), or like the Heat (if the Lakers reach the finals)? That's where the Lakers chances drop for me.

Obviously I don't think they're this horrible team compared to all these other teams in the playoffs. I think they can survive for a long time with just their starters, but when they reach those Thunder/Heat caliber teams? I don't see it ending well.

[Jamel Irief]

Yeah... You should look at the bench of say... The 2002 lakers. Lindsey hunter, samaki walker and devean George if you're too lazy.

[Pay Ton]

Originally Posted by Jamel Irief

Yeah... You should look at the bench of say... The 2002 lakers. Lindsey hunter, samaki walker and devean George if you're too lazy.

I agree that that Lakers team was a historically bad bench that won the title, but that Lakers team also had a prime Shaq and a not so prime Kobe (but a better Kobe than todays version). Obviously that team had the advantage of whenever they were out on the court, most of the time they had the best two players on the court of either team.

That's a great advantage, which they no longer have. Kobe is great, and Bynum is good, but when we're talking about equally talented starting fives like the Thunder and the Heat, not only do you not have a better bench, but you don't have the best player on the court anymore. And in the case of the Heat, you could argue that you don't have the second best player on the court either, depending on what Wade you're playing that day (the one that thinks he's a jump shooting specialist, or the one that drives it to the rim, because if it's a jump shooting Kobe versus a jump shooting Wade I'll take the jump shooting Kobe all day).

My point is that your starting five can no longer compensate for your lack of a bench, the way it could have in 2002.

[Dre]

Hmm...not sure I wanna go through all this but I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Lakers in the finals after picking up Sessions. The bench is weak but I feel like depth isn't a reason you lose if the players you do play cover all the bases. I wonder about 3 point shooting but other than that the Lakers are right there under the Thunder, and not that far under either.