Professional and College Basketball Forums banner

Glad for the Lakers...

772 views 28 replies 10 participants last post by  Cap 
#1 ·
I may hate the Lakers, and i do with a passion... but i thank them for giving me a reason, to watch basketball, i watch every Laker game in hopes that they lose, and every King gamein hopes that they go a game above the Lakers... i dunno about you guys, but i feel that every Kings vs Lakers game is worth watching every second and theres no other matchup that i look more foreward too... We play the Spurs, and i dont really care, but the Lakers... the hated Lakers... i would pay 20$ just to watch it on TV, thats how much i love watching Lakers Kings games, because its more than just a game up on the standings, or just a normal game, its a rivalry, and its the reason i watch basketball, every year in the playoffs, i hope that the Lakers take on the Kings, for a repeat of that 2000-2001 series...
 
#4 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
i would pay 20$ just to watch it on TV, thats how much i love watching Lakers Kings games, because its more than just a game up on the standings, or just a normal game, its a rivalry, and its the reason i watch basketball, every year in the playoffs, i hope that the Lakers take on the Kings, for a repeat of that 2000-2001 series...
The Kings got SWEPT in that series in 2000-2001. You want a repeat of that?? And they lost in '99-'00, and lost again in '01-'02. As entertaining as it may be when the Lakers and Kings play it ain't a rivalry. L.A. = THREE titles in the last 4 years. Sacto = ZERO titles (unless you count the precious Pacific division titles :rolleyes: ) Lakers Spurs, now that's a rivalry, albeit not as fun to watch. Lakers vs. Kings is just a repeated Sacramento burial.
 
#5 ·
Re: Re: Glad for the Lakers...

Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!


The Kings got SWEPT in that series in 2000-2001. You want a repeat of that?? And they lost in '99-'00, and lost again in '01-'02. As entertaining as it may be when the Lakers and Kings play it ain't a rivalry. L.A. = THREE titles in the last 4 years. Sacto = ZERO titles (unless you count the precious Pacific division titles :rolleyes: ) Lakers Spurs, now that's a rivalry, albeit not as fun to watch. Lakers vs. Kings is just a repeated Sacramento burial.
By your reasoning, why even bother watching the games??
 
#7 ·
Re: Re: Re: Glad for the Lakers...

Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!


By your reasoning, why even bother watching the games??
All I'm saying is that based on the past playoff series we don't really have much of a "rivalry" since the Kings have lost to the Lakers everytime they've met. The first and third meetings were very competitive and anyone who considers themself an NBA fan should've been glued to a TV for every one of those games.
 
#8 ·
With the Lakers dominance over the Kings, I'm sure they are much hated in Sacramento
And (some) Laker fans hate the Kings, and dont act like you dont...

All I'm saying is that based on the past playoff series we don't really have much of a "rivalry" since the Kings have lost to the Lakers everytime they've met. The first and third meetings were very competitive and anyone who considers themself an NBA fan should've been glued to a TV for every one of those games.
It is a rivalry... every Laker and King player will tell you that... this isnt just a media made up rivalry, the players really dont like eachother... like Rick Fox who got his *** kicked by Doug Chrisite, im sure hes pissed about that... and a Kings employee said he wont quit his job until the Kings beat the Lakers in the playoffs... looks like hell be leaving this year :yes:
 
#9 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
It is a rivalry... every Laker and King player will tell you that... this isnt just a media made up rivalry, the players really dont like eachother... like Rick Fox who got his *** kicked by Doug Chrisite, im sure hes pissed about that... and a Kings employee said he wont quit his job until the Kings beat the Lakers in the playoffs... looks like hell be leaving this year :yes:
Can it be called a "rivalry" when one team ALWAYS defeats the other? :whoknows:
 
#11 ·
Can it be called a "rivalry" when one team ALWAYS defeats the other?
Name a better one? Please i beg you, name one thats better... and the Lakers only beat the Kings once in a true serious contention, once we got Bibby we took you to 7, and then the Lakers lost to the Spurs... so its not like its been a history of dominance or something, like its been the Lakers beating the Kings every single time...
 
#12 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!


Name a better one? Please i beg you, name one thats better... and the Lakers only beat the Kings once in a true serious contention, once we got Bibby we took you to 7, and then the Lakers lost to the Spurs... so its not like its been a history of dominance or something, like its been the Lakers beating the Kings every single time...
How long are you guys gonna hold onto that series like it was a championship victory? Let it go, I'm sure there will be another chance for the Kings to "Beat L.A."
 
#13 ·
How long are you guys gonna hold onto that series like it was a championship victory? Let it go, I'm sure there will be another chance for the Kings to "Beat L.A."
And thats why it is a rivalry...
 
#14 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!


And thats why it is a rivalry...
It's like the Yankees-Red Sox "rivalry". The Yankees always win the meaningful games and the Red Sox always lose the meaningful games. That's called a hype rivalry, and it's exactly the same as the Kings-Lakers "rivalry".

Spurs-Lakers, now that's a REAL rivalry (albeit not as exciting as the Lakers-Kings). The Spurs have actually proven themselves able to beat the Lakers by staying healthy and smart, the Kings haven't been able to do any such thing.
 
#15 ·
Spurs-Lakers, now that's a REAL rivalry (albeit not as exciting as the Lakers-Kings). The Spurs have actually proven themselves able to beat the Lakers by staying healthy and smart, the Kings haven't been able to do any such thing.
Who the hell cares about the Spurs Lakers? I sure dont, and i know if you guys had a choice of a game on TV, youd take the Kings too...and just because the Kings have lost a whole time of ONCE to the Lakers makes it that the Lakers dominate the Kings?
 
#16 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!
Who the hell cares about the Spurs Lakers? I sure dont, and i know if you guys had a choice of a game on TV, youd take the Kings too...and just because the Kings have lost a whole time of ONCE to the Lakers makes it that the Lakers dominate the Kings?
Look, SacKings384, i kind of dig the way you come around the Lakers Forum and stir things up, but lay off a minute, all right?

The team to beat this year are the Spurs.
LA has to go through them to the title.

Sure Sacramento (and Dallas, and Minnesotta) are more fun to watch than the Spurs, but so what?

Lakers and Spurs have devided the last FIVE NBA Championships.
They have played eachother in the playoffs numerous times.
Champ vs. Former Champ.
Duncan vs. Shaq for the MDP.

What more can a guy want?

Sure, i´d love to see the Lakers mop the floor with the Kings... but i´d prefer a gruesome, clinching game-7 win in the WCF against the Champs.

So, in my book, not much of a beef with the Kings...
 
#17 ·
Originally posted by <b>PauloCatarino</b>!


Look, SacKings384, i kind of dig the way you come around the Lakers Forum and stir things up, but lay off a minute, all right?

The team to beat this year are the Spurs.
LA has to go through them to the title.

Sure Sacramento (and Dallas, and Minnesotta) are more fun to watch than the Spurs, but so what?

Lakers and Spurs have devided the last FIVE NBA Championships.
They have played eachother in the playoffs numerous times.
Champ vs. Former Champ.
Duncan vs. Shaq for the MDP.

What more can a guy want?

Sure, i´d love to see the Lakers mop the floor with the Kings... but i´d prefer a gruesome, clinching game-7 win in the WCF against the Champs.

So, in my book, not much of a beef with the Kings...
:clap:
bravo
 
#18 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!


Who the hell cares about the Spurs Lakers? I sure dont, and i know if you guys had a choice of a game on TV, youd take the Kings too...and just because the Kings have lost a whole time of ONCE to the Lakers makes it that the Lakers dominate the Kings?
Take reading comprehension classes, please.
 
#19 ·
Take reading comprehension classes, please.
Im not following...

Sure, i´d love to see the Lakers mop the floor with the Kings... but i´d prefer a gruesome, clinching game-7 win in the WCF against the Champs.
Sort of like the 2000-2001 series? Because the series between the Spurs and Lakers last year, wasnt even an exciting series, other than that Robert Horry shot, the Spurs mopped the floor with the Lakers...
 
#20 ·
Re: Re: Re: Re: Glad for the Lakers...

Originally posted by <b>Locke</b>!


All I'm saying is that based on the past playoff series we don't really have much of a "rivalry" since the Kings have lost to the Lakers everytime they've met. The first and third meetings were very competitive and anyone who considers themself an NBA fan should've been glued to a TV for every one of those games.

Similar to what I've been saying all along. The Lakers is more of an "Obstacle" than a "Rival." This is closer to the Kings-Jazz a few years back than a Giants-Dodgers.

Don't ask me why you guys call it a rivalry. Most of the rivalry hype is coming from the Lakerland anyway, especially the LA media. I mean, we are the best team in the league and you guys are about to sink to 5th. The legit teams we have to watch out for are the Wolves and the Spurs, both are right on our tail. You guys have a long way to go to catch up, mate. Maybe the Lakers will get close, but it's pure speculation at this point.
 
#21 ·
Don't ask me why you guys call it a rivalry. Most of the rivalry hype is coming from the Lakerland anyway, especially the LA media. I mean, we are the best team in the league and you guys are about to sink to 5th. The legit teams we have to watch out for are the Wolves and the Spurs, both are right on our tail. You guys have a long way to go to catch up, mate. Maybe the Lakers will get close, but it's pure speculation at this point.
How can you people say this isnt a rivalry? Jesus christ its the best rivalry in basketball, my god are you people blind?

http://espn.go.com/page2/s/neel/040115_2.html

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/columns/story?columnist=tolbert_tom&id=1709391
 
#22 ·
Don't ask me why you guys call it a rivalry. Most of the rivalry hype is coming from the Lakerland anyway, especially the LA media. I mean, we are the best team in the league and you guys are about to sink to 5th. The legit teams we have to watch out for are the Wolves and the Spurs, both are right on our tail. You guys have a long way to go to catch up, mate. Maybe the Lakers will get close, but it's pure speculation at this point.
You can't really be serious can you? You're making it sound as if the not being 1st seed is somehow going to keep the Lakers from winning a title. In case you're wondering, the Lakers won 2 of their last 3 titles without the best regular season record in the West, and still beat those teams (Spurs and Kings to be precise) when it mattered most, in the playoffs.

To not consider the Lakers the biggest threat for the title is ludicrous unless you're hoping that they stay injured or can't recover from those injuries in 3 months.
 
#23 ·
Originally posted by <b>EHL</b>!


You can't really be serious can you? You're making it sound as if the not being 1st seed is somehow going to keep the Lakers from winning a title. In case you're wondering, the Lakers won 2 of their last 3 titles without the best regular season record in the West, and still beat those teams (Spurs and Kings to be precise) when it mattered most, in the playoffs.

To not consider the Lakers the biggest threat for the title is ludicrous unless you're hoping that they stay injured or can't recover from those injuries in 3 months.
You are being very selective with the facts. Yes, the Lakers won 2 out of 3 without the best record, but they had the 2nd best conference records. In the post-MJ-Bulls era, EVERY single WCF teams had either the #1 or #2 best overall record in the conference.

If the Lakers can't get higher than #3, the playoffs is going to be too much for their old legs. All the games they're dropping now will come back and haunt them when home-court is rewarded. One thng you can bank on is that the two teams with the best WC records are going to be in the WCF... again.
 
#24 ·
Originally posted by <b>beb0p</b>!


You are being very selective with the facts. Yes, the Lakers won 2 out of 3 without the best record, but they had the 2nd best conference records.
Actually no, they had the 2nd best record outright in 2001 and tied for the 2nd best record in 2002, behind the Kings.

In the post-MJ-Bulls era, EVERY single WCF teams had either the #1 or #2 best overall record in the conference.
You mean #1 or at least tied for #2. And I still don't see how this matters at all considering that's exactly a 5 year period.

If the Lakers can't get higher than #3, the playoffs is going to be too much for their old legs.
If the Lakers stay healthy for the rest of the regular season and don't sustain or try to play through major injuries in the playoffs this April/May, seeding will mean absolutely nothing. Even the downright "awful" Lakers team from last season was able to win or at least heatedly compete on the road. All that is needed is a top 4 seeding and the Lakers will take it, barring injury. They could take it with a top 5 seeding as well. You'd think the Lakers record during the early season before all the latest injuries would have proved that they can play extremely well. I guess the Lakers will have to blow out the Kings after blowing out the Pacers and Spurs before you'll see that they are indeed the team to beat this season.

Though don't get the wrong idea about your Kings; they are indeed the 2nd team to beat this year along with the Spurs. Though, I have no doubt in my mind the Kings would beat the Spurs in 6 games or less this postseason if both teams were at 100%.

All the games they're dropping now will come back and haunt them when home-court is rewarded.
The Lakers proved in 2001 and 2002 (Spurs and Kings respectively) that home court advantage means squat if you're a championship team. This current Lakers squad is clearly considerably better than the 2002 team, and IMO better than the 2001 squad that went 15-1 in the postseason.

One thng you can bank on is that the two teams with the best WC records are going to be in the WCF... again.
I will bet you money that if the Lakers are healthy they will make it to the WCF with a #3 or #4 seeding if they're aren't #1 or #2 this season.
 
#25 ·
Originally posted by <b>SacKings384</b>!


Who the hell cares about the Spurs Lakers? I sure dont, and i know if you guys had a choice of a game on TV, youd take the Kings too...and just because the Kings have lost a whole time of ONCE to the Lakers makes it that the Lakers dominate the Kings?
ONCE?!?!?!!!!!:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

The Lakers knocked the Kings out of the Playoffs in 2000, 2001 and 2002. Until Sacramento wins something, the Lakers really do own the Kings.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top