Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

JSM · by **JSM** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:26 pm

Chris Sheridan of Sheridan Hoops wrote:LOS ANGELES LAKERS – They are going to win the Western Conference and they are going to play the Miami Heat (or Indiana Pacers) for the NBA championship. And I think they can win 70, although only about 20 percent of voters in our Lakers’ Wins poll agree. In order to get to 70 they are going to have to play .800 ball against the likes of the Spurs, Thunder and Clippers in what will be a brutally tough conference, but they have the goods to do it – a Hall-of-Fame superstar in Kobe Bryant, a Hall-of-Fame center in Dwight Howard and a Hall-of-Fame point guard in Steve Nash, an all-world power forward in Pau Gasol and an all-Psychopath First-Teamer in Metta World Peace, who will get more help defensively now that Bryant will not be expending as much energy on offense. Heck, Steve Blake could lead the league in assists if he started for this team, which is a roundabout way of predicting that Nash will win his sixth assist title. This is the perfectly constructed team. Yes, others are deeper. Yes, others have more shooters. But these guys will have Jordan Hill and Antawn Jamison coming off their bench this year, along with Jodie Meeks, who will learn for the first time what a consistently open 3-point look will do to his game.
Grade: A+

Click on the link if you want to see what grades the other 29 teams received.

LakerFan1980 · by **LakerFan1980** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:39 pm

He knows what he's talking about.

kenzo · by **kenzo** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:47 pm

70 win talk... again :freak2:

I'll be happy if we win 65 games.

Vasashi17 · by **Vasashi17** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:50 pm

Where's the other + sign?

pound4pound1 · by **pound4pound1** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 12:52 pm

play the Pacers in the finals? interesting

im guessing its either the Heat or the turds

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:10 pm

He's got Memphis too high and New York too low.

Memphis gets a B for me. New York gets an A.

bystander · by **bystander** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:28 pm

– a Hall-of-Fame superstar in Kobe Bryant, a Hall-of-Fame center in Dwight Howard and a Hall-of-Fame point guard in Steve Nash, an all-world power forward in Pau Gasol and an all-Psychopath First-Teamer in Metta World Peace

SMH @ him all-world ? he's as hall-of-fame as the others.

Weezy · by **Weezy** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:39 pm

I agree with the A+, but not the 70 wins, he should realize guts like Kobe and Nash don't kill themselves for 70 regular season wins at their age. And Indiana in the Finals? :man3:

I'd put Boston, New York, Brooklyn, and Philly ahead of them at least, maybe more teams depending on Rose recovering from his injury.

Center Court · by **Center Court** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 1:59 pm

It's funny because it was an A+ offseason. No doubt about it.

But there was still one way that I feel like we could have really put the rest of the NBA in danger: Sessions. I think a bench of Sesh/Meeks/Ebanks/Jamison/Hill would take us to a whole new level of dominance.

And for those mad at Sesh or think it's his fault, Blake has the contract he wanted. Oh well, we're still insanely good and it's our title to lose.

therealdeal · by **therealdeal** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 2:15 pm

bystander wrote:
– a Hall-of-Fame superstar in Kobe Bryant, a Hall-of-Fame center in Dwight Howard and a Hall-of-Fame point guard in Steve Nash, an all-world power forward in Pau Gasol and an all-Psychopath First-Teamer in Metta World Peace

SMH @ him all-world ? he's as hall-of-fame as the others.

He is good enough to make the Hall of Fame, of course, but he's not playing like it right now. Two or three years ago they'd be saying 4 HoFers.

John3:16 · by **John3:16** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:39 pm

Gasol is a future Hall of Famer, but not based solely on his NBA career. I hope he can return to his All Star level. With Nash, I think he will.

bystander · by **bystander** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 6:26 pm

John3:16 wrote:Gasol is a future Hall of Famer, but not based solely on his NBA career. I hope he can return to his All Star level. With Nash, I think he will.

Still he's pretty close to be without the international career.

2 NBA Championships
4 ASG
ROY (first european to win it)
All-NBA Second Team
All-NBA Third Team x2
18.7-9.2-3.2-1.7 .520 career

@ BR he's 16th in HoF list in active players. Not a real ranking, but still

Code: Select all: Rank Player HoF Prob 1. Kobe Bryant 1.0000 2. Tim Duncan 0.9999 3. Kevin Garnett 0.9985 4. LeBron James 0.9976 5. Dwyane Wade 0.9967 6. Dirk Nowitzki 0.9882 7. Paul Pierce 0.9836 8. Jason Kidd 0.9613 9. Ray Allen 0.9382 10. Chris Paul 0.8408 11. Chris Bosh 0.8408 12. Vince Carter 0.8135 13. Dwight Howard 0.7209 14. Tony Parker 0.7121 15. Carmelo Anthony 0.6898 16. Pau Gasol 0.6356 17. Amare Stoudemire 0.6027 18. Tracy McGrady 0.5822 19. Steve Nash 0.5761 20. Grant Hill 0.4069 21. Shawn Marion 0.3368 22. Gilbert Arenas 0.2491 23. Deron Williams 0.2428 24. Chauncey Billups 0.2387 25. Joe Johnson 0.1883 26. Manu Ginobili 0.1451 27. Elton Brand 0.1141 28. Rajon Rondo 0.1128 29. Carlos Boozer 0.0830 30. Antawn Jamison 0.0784

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html

V.V.V.V.V. · by **V.V.V.V.V.** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:05 pm

I would think Timmy is a lock too, but I guess .9999 is pretty close to a lock.

Randombobman · by **Randombobman** on Sat Aug 25, 2012 11:24 pm

Why are vince carter and stoudamire so high on that list? :man10:

Murdock · by **Murdock** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:56 am

Vince I can somewhat understand but Amare? :D Are you kidding me?

Lakerjones · by **Lakerjones** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:59 am

I'll agree with Sheridan on this one. Not the 70 games though, just the A+.

KB24 · by **KB24** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:09 am

O RLY?

Juronimo · by **Juronimo** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 11:17 am

70 games?

Phil explained why that's next to impossible for a west coast team to pull off due to the greater traveling distances. Not only that we are the Lakers which means scrub teams will play over their heads every night.

We'll do well to get to 60 wins with everyone healthy for a playoff run, especially Kobe and Nash due to their miles and Dwight due to his surgery. That matters more than blowing your wad during the regular season and being beat up by the time the playoffs hit which is what happened to the evil empire during the '08-'09 season.

Finwë · by **Finwë** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:28 pm

bystander wrote:
John3:16 wrote:Gasol is a future Hall of Famer, but not based solely on his NBA career. I hope he can return to his All Star level. With Nash, I think he will.

@ BR he's 16th in HoF list in active players. Not a real ranking, but still

Code: Select all
Rank Player HoF Prob 1. Kobe Bryant 1.0000 2. Tim Duncan 0.9999 3. Kevin Garnett 0.9985 4. LeBron James 0.9976 5. Dwyane Wade 0.9967 6. Dirk Nowitzki 0.9882 7. Paul Pierce 0.9836 8. Jason Kidd 0.9613 9. Ray Allen 0.9382 10. Chris Paul 0.8408 11. Chris Bosh 0.8408 12. Vince Carter 0.8135 13. Dwight Howard 0.7209 14. Tony Parker 0.7121 15. Carmelo Anthony 0.6898 16. Pau Gasol 0.6356 17. Amare Stoudemire 0.6027 18. Tracy McGrady 0.5822 19. Steve Nash 0.5761 20. Grant Hill 0.4069 21. Shawn Marion 0.3368 22. Gilbert Arenas 0.2491 23. Deron Williams 0.2428 24. Chauncey Billups 0.2387 25. Joe Johnson 0.1883 26. Manu Ginobili 0.1451 27. Elton Brand 0.1141 28. Rajon Rondo 0.1128 29. Carlos Boozer 0.0830 30. Antawn Jamison 0.0784

http://www.basketball-reference.com/lea ... ctive.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/hof_prob.html

That list makes no sense.
Amare is higher on the list than Steve Nash, LOLWUT?
Pau's career >>>>>>>>> Melo's .
No way Vince Carter should be higher than Tony Parker, nor should CP3.
How is Gilbert Arenas higher on the list than Billups? Billups is a finals MVP....
Manu Ginobili should be MUCH higher on the list, he's under Joe Johnson? :man10:

IMO Ginobili should be in the top 10, seeing that Ray Allen is 9th. 3 time champ, big time euro player (champion in europe too), gold medalist, all-star, 6th man of the year, etc...

There are just waay too many things wrong with that list, what's the criteria?

OX1947 · by **OX1947** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:42 pm

Juronimo wrote:70 games?

Phil explained why that's next to impossible for a west coast team to pull off due to the greater traveling distances. Not only that we are the Lakers which means scrub teams will play over their heads every night.

We'll do well to get to 60 wins with everyone healthy for a playoff run, especially Kobe and Nash due to their miles and Dwight due to his surgery. That matters more than blowing your wad during the regular season and being beat up by the time the playoffs hit which is what happened to the evil empire during the '08-'09 season.

Lakers had a great shot at it in 2000. They had one bad stretch where they lost 6 of 8. They were 67-13 and then they laid eggs the last two games. I remember being a little irritated that they were 2 games from tying a franchise record and they laid down. I like to call it Lebroning. Kobe Lebroned this year with the scoring title. I am not a fan of laying down when you have unique professional accomplishment at your feet. Durant didn't lay down this year, it bothered me that Kobe did. To me, anyway, it just sets a loser mentality, even if it isn't. I also can not understand why it was ok, and why we publicize D-Rob's 71 to win the scoring title in 1995, yet, if we talk about doing it now, you are looked at as a stat rat and selfish. This is sports, they have these accomplishments as big stats for a reason. Why not go for it.

Weezy · by **Weezy** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:48 pm

Uh, yeah, I'll take that championship in 2000 over a meaningless regular season wins total. If you'd asked me off the top of my head what our win-loss record was in 2000 I couldn't have told you, but I could tell you round by round results of the playoffs, how many wins and losses we had each series, and that we won the championship, because that's what matters. If we took the last 2 games of the 2000 regular season off to rest or prepare for the playoffs, I'm good with it. Phil knew what he was doing, we had a very veteran heavy team, lot of old dudes who had been there before and knew the regular season is only about playoff seeding and preparing for the playoffs, nothing more.

OX1947 · by **OX1947** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 3:52 pm

Weezy wrote:Uh, yeah, I'll take that championship in 2000 over a meaningless regular season wins total. If you'd asked me off the top of my head what our win-loss record was in 2000 I couldn't have told you, but I could tell you round by round results of the playoffs, how many wins and losses we had each series, and that we won the championship, because that's what matters. If we took the last 2 games of the 2000 regular season off to rest or prepare for the playoffs, I'm good with it. Phil knew what he was doing, we had a very veteran heavy team, lot of old dudes who had been there before and knew the regular season is only about playoff seeding and preparing for the playoffs, nothing more.

What is the first thing you remember from the 1972 Lakers and 1996 Bulls teams? What is the first thing that pops in your head?

Weezy · by **Weezy** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:06 pm

OX1947 wrote:
Weezy wrote:Uh, yeah, I'll take that championship in 2000 over a meaningless regular season wins total. If you'd asked me off the top of my head what our win-loss record was in 2000 I couldn't have told you, but I could tell you round by round results of the playoffs, how many wins and losses we had each series, and that we won the championship, because that's what matters. If we took the last 2 games of the 2000 regular season off to rest or prepare for the playoffs, I'm good with it. Phil knew what he was doing, we had a very veteran heavy team, lot of old dudes who had been there before and knew the regular season is only about playoff seeding and preparing for the playoffs, nothing more.

What is the first thing you remember from the 1972 Lakers and 1996 Bulls teams? What is the first thing that pops in your head?

72 Lakers 33 game win streak and championship, 96 Bulls 72 wins and championship. I get your point, but those records don't mean quite as much without the championship. The 33 game win streak does, but if the Bulls don't win it all in 96 they probably would be criticized to this day for going for the wins record in the regular season and possibly costing themselves a title. I really doubt a lot of people would think more highly of the 2000 Lakers if they'd won 69 games instead of 67, it's 2 games, all that matters is the title. It's not like that 2000 Lakers team cruised to the championship either, they probably needed that rest, first round went the full 5 games, WCF went 7, Finals went 6, it was tough. If you value regular season win totals, that's fine, I'm just saying I don't, and I'd bet money that the majority of Laker fans don't either. They probably couldn't care less as long as we won it all, and hell if we went 82-0 Laker fans would still consider it a wasted season if we didn't win the championship.

OX1947 · by **OX1947** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:24 pm

Weezy wrote:
OX1947 wrote:
Weezy wrote:Uh, yeah, I'll take that championship in 2000 over a meaningless regular season wins total. If you'd asked me off the top of my head what our win-loss record was in 2000 I couldn't have told you, but I could tell you round by round results of the playoffs, how many wins and losses we had each series, and that we won the championship, because that's what matters. If we took the last 2 games of the 2000 regular season off to rest or prepare for the playoffs, I'm good with it. Phil knew what he was doing, we had a very veteran heavy team, lot of old dudes who had been there before and knew the regular season is only about playoff seeding and preparing for the playoffs, nothing more.

What is the first thing you remember from the 1972 Lakers and 1996 Bulls teams? What is the first thing that pops in your head?

72 Lakers 33 game win streak and championship, 96 Bulls 72 wins and championship. I get your point, but those records don't mean quite as much without the championship. The 33 game win streak does, but if the Bulls don't win it all in 96 they probably would be criticized to this day for going for the wins record in the regular season and possibly costing themselves a title. I really doubt a lot of people would think more highly of the 2000 Lakers if they'd won 69 games instead of 67, it's 2 games, all that matters is the title. It's not like that 2000 Lakers team cruised to the championship either, they probably needed that rest, first round went the full 5 games, WCF went 7, Finals went 6, it was tough. If you value regular season win totals, that's fine, I'm just saying I don't, and I'd bet money that the majority of Laker fans don't either. They probably couldn't care less as long as we won it all, and hell if we went 82-0 Laker fans would still consider it a wasted season if we didn't win the championship.

We all say the title is the most important part, but our actions do not. Posts about Finals MVPs and MVPs, and all these things that validate the player more. It's there. Now, the criteria is if you do not win the finals MVP while winning it all, you are a secondary player. I just think too many people talk out of both holes. Can not wish for Kobe to have to win the Finals MVP while winning it all and then say it doesnt matter that he should sit for a scoring title. If the title is the end all be all, then scoring title, finals mvp, mvp are all equal in that they are all individual awards.

Weezy · by **Weezy** on Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:31 pm

I think we're just getting wayyyy too off topic at this point, I was talking about regular season team accomplishments compared to playoff team accomplishments, now you're talking about individual awards. I'm just going to say we have to agree to disagree, I just don't see it that way when it comes to regular seasons stuff, obviously individual Finals MVPs and MVPs when talking about what separates the all-time greats is a different discussion.

Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Re: Sheridan hands out reports cards, Lakers get A+

Who is online