The Lakers Are Clearly The Best Team In The West

Wow, surprised by all the pessimism in this thread from some of the posters I have a lot of respect for. I knew this would be a process, but I feel like the jury is very much out on Brown & the Princeton Offense as well as our bench. Our ceiling is so high that I'm still quite optimistic. Should be a fun season.

I didn't read the what's going on in this thread, but I'd guess that some people are just mad that he used the word "clearly". If he titled this, "Why I think the Lakers are the best team in the west" or something along those lines, the responses probably would have been much more favorable.

How can we clearly be the best team when we have the same record as everyone else?

Finwë wrote:

432J wrote:did you seriously just say that sacre is an nba level player and a capable bench contributor?

im sorry sir but i laughed at that part and you lost me there.

No problem, sir, laugh all you'd like. But if you think otherwise you haven't watched the pre-season at all. The man filled in quite ably for Dwight Howard for the 60th pick in the draft. He's a legit 7 footer, he has a fairly consistent short range jump shot. He's not very athletic, but he challenges shots. And he works hard out there on the glass and defensively. Offensively he's very cerebral, often finding the right spot on the floor which is rare for a rookie.

If you DON'T see that, the jokes on you. The man is a keeper. There's a reason the team waived Douglas-Roberts and Goudelock before they waived him.

432J wrote:hill, meeks, and jamison upgraded the bench but beyond that there is no one that can keep the lead while the starters rest. ebanks still needs to prove tons and the rest of the bench is a joke. and this is assuming that jamison steps up his game because if the preseason gave us a glimpse of how he's gonna perform this year, it's not looking too good

1. Do you realize how rare it is for a team to be legitimately 10 deep and be a Championship caliber team. Please name me the Championship caliber team that has a starting five that is competitive with ours and bench deeper. I'd love to hear it.
2. Ebanks has plenty to prove, but he's averaged more than 7 points through this pre-season and shown great strides in his game. He is able to read a defense better, his jump shot has shown extension, and he's making better decisions with the ball.
3. Who's bench in this league AFTER their 8-9 player ISN'T A JOKE? You expect this team to pay Kobe Bryant 30 million, Pau 20, Howard 20, Nash 10, and Artest 7 and still have money to have a great 10th man? That's ludicrous.

Our bench doesn't have to be great, they have to be good. They have to be able to hold a lead and there's no significant reason to think that once our team has chemistry and the offense down that the bench isn't capable of doing that.

432J wrote:i always see the comparison between spoelstra and brown, the point is that neither are great coaches but unless brown can get his rotations straight and play guys at the positions where they can actually make a difference, he's just about as useful as a cardboard cutout of himself. i expect the starters to get used to the offense and gel after about 20 games or so, and obviously this team is a contender but we're just gonna have to see some results

If Spoelstra can win a Championship riding the coattails of a well built team, there's absolutely zero reason to think that Brown cannot do the same with a more soundly constructed team, a more soundly constructed coaching staff, and a more soundly constructed front office.

We have not played a SINGLE game with this team. What results would you like to see between now and Tuesday? Did you watch the pre-season? Did you not see how painfully obvious it was that the team was more concerned with practicing than it was with wins? Nash hardly played, Kobe missed two games, Dwight missed 6, and Pau was playing himself into game shape. Along with a new offense and a total of 4 new rotation players. Should they have won a game? Sure, but there was a ton of reasons to lose in the pre-season. Is that any indication of how they'll play in the regular season? No. Not even close.

Lakerman JSJ wrote:Wow, surprised by all the pessimism in this thread from some of the posters I have a lot of respect for. I knew this would be a process, but I feel like the jury is very much out on Brown & the Princeton Offense as well as our bench. Our ceiling is so high that I'm still quite optimistic. Should be a fun season.

I expected as much. With the amount of talent the Lakers added, people now have huge expectations for this team (as they should) but think the league is going to roll over and hand us games. Even so 0-8 in the preseason is not a valid reason to start mashing the panic button. And people have been calling for Mike Browns head since last season, so it's no surprise they still dislike him.

Here we go again with the race card being brought to the table again...

Ridiculous.

Just because his name is Brown doesn't make it racial. If his name was White would we say the same? Jack Black approves this post. So does Pink.

If it's yellow , let it mellow
If it's (Mike) brown , flush it down

No it has nothing to do with race

Texas laker Fan - I like your spirit but in an earlier post you mention chemistry wasn't going to be an issue because they all like each other? than at the same time question others basketball knowledge? lol. Chemistry basketball wise isn't about "liking" each other, it's about being able to read what your teammates will do under certain conditions and scenarios. It's about where guys like to get the ball in flow with their offense, it's about how a guy helps on defense and who needs help from what part of the floor... the little things..... it's a feel that is generated amongst the 5 on the floor for one another...... there is no insta chemistry tricks, this is not 2K? .......... this will take some time to develop no matter the talent you put out there.

-------------------------------

I think this team will seriously get it together within the second half of the year but it might not be early enough to win that chip this year...... they might be a year away, Laker fans should brace for that possibility and not go all postal if they don;t win the championship this year.

therealdeal wrote:1. Do you realize how rare it is for a team to be legitimately 10 deep and be a Championship caliber team.

3. Who's bench in this league AFTER their 8-9 player ISN'T A JOKE?

On point. Contraction. Back to 24 asap.
Expansion did this and that's on you lame duck Saperstern.

Phil XI wrote:

therealdeal wrote:1. Do you realize how rare it is for a team to be legitimately 10 deep and be a Championship caliber team.

3. Who's bench in this league AFTER their 8-9 player ISN'T A JOKE?

On point. Contraction. Back to 24 asap.
Expansion did this and that's on you lame duck Saperstern.

I honestly don't mind having teams that aren't 10 deep. It forces teams to try harder. I don't want 30 though. That's too many. That's why Charlotte is awful and will always be awful. And Canada is beautiful, but the Raptors aren't.

3LawsOfRobotics(MC) wrote:Texas laker Fan - I like your spirit but in an earlier post you mention chemistry wasn't going to be an issue because they all like each other? than at the same time question others basketball knowledge? lol. Chemistry basketball wise isn't about "liking" each other, it's about being able to read what your teammates will do under certain conditions and scenarios. It's about where guys like to get the ball in flow with their offense, it's about how a guy helps on defense and who needs help from what part of the floor... the little things..... it's a feel that is generated amongst the 5 on the floor for one another...... there is no insta chemistry tricks, this is not 2K? .......... this will take some time to develop no matter the talent you put out there.

-------------------------------

I think this team will seriously get it together within the second half of the year but it might not be early enough to win that chip this year...... they might be a year away, Laker fans should brace for that possibility and not go all postal if they don;t win the championship this year.

Chemistry is a combination of things. One of them is getting along. These guys all get along very well are essentially like brothers. That's great cohesion to have. The other thing about chemistry is how the players fit together and they all fit so well. Nash fits perfectly with the big guys in Howard and Gasol because both those guys are terrific pick and roll bigs. Nash excels with those type of bigs. Look at what he did in Phoenix with Amare Stoudamire. Now he's playing with two superior bigs. Nash and Kobe also fit well because now Kobe can play off the ball more and let Nash dictate the offense. Nash will make life so much easier for Kobe.

Doc Brown wrote:

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:Of the coaches you named only one has a championship. Gregg Popvich because he coached championship caliber talent. Every coach that wins a championship needs championship caliber talent to do so. You need superstars. Phil had several star players like Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time, another all time great in Scottie Pippen, Kobe and Shaq arguably the two best players of the post Jordan era, and Pau Gasol someone who in his prime was a perennial All Star.

Pop as I mentioned had terrific talent had Tim Duncan the greatest power forward ever, David Robinson one of the best big men ever, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobli two All Stars a potential future Hall of Famers. Along with those great players Pop's teams always had terrific role players like Malik Rose, Stephen Jackson, Bruce Bowen, Avery Johnson, etc. who all knew their roles and backed up the stars.

Those are just two examples of coaches needing great talent to win. Mike Brown just hasn't had enough talent to win a championship. Is he perfect? No not by a long shot and I'm in no way saying he's in the class of all time great head coaches like Phil and Pop, but I do believe he's a good enough coach for this team to win a championship. Besides Kobe and Nash will basically be head coaches on the floor so it ain't like Brown is gonna have to do it by himself.

My whole post was about how those coaches are looked at as great coaches not because of how many championships they won, but what they get out of their players, how they micromanage the game, how they handle egos, etc.....

You keep talking about championship caliber talent, you're missing the point, those coaches don't need "championship caliber talent" to be considered a great coach. Take Phil and Pop out and where does that leave your post? There's still Karl/Thibs/Vogel/Adelman/Collins. According to you Mike Brown does. You can say that about any coach that has ever coached, but you can't say the same for the guys I mentioned and the intangibles they bring to the table, that Brown lacks to be a "championship level coach".

Ok well answer this question what exactly have guys like Karl, Vogel, Adelman, and Colljns done that Mike Brown hasn't? Nothing. You can say whatever you want to about him coaching a team that played in a weak Eastern Conference, but the bottom line is he coached a team that had no business being in the Finals and yet they made it and also coached a team to the best record in basketball back to back seasons in 2009 and 2010. Hell you can even look at last season. He was given a Lakers team that was actually worse than the one that had gotten swept the year before by Dallas and yet they actually did better. Brown didn't have alot to work with. He had three terrific players obviously in Kobe, Bynum, and Gasol however the rest of the team wasn't very good at all especially the second unit. The worst bench statistically in Lakers history. All I'm saying is give this guy a legit chance to be successful and you'll just how good of a coach he is.

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:Ok well answer this question what exactly have guys like Karl, Vogel, Adelman, and Colljns done that Mike Brown hasn't? Nothing.

So you're telling me that Mike Brown is on the same level as George Karl, Rick Adelman, Doug Collins and Tom Thibodeau? All you are looking at is championships and games won without taking into consideration everything those coaches do on the micro level of basketball. Rotations, game planning, in game adjustments, defensive game plans, respect from the players, offensive sets and plays. All those guys do everything better than Brown and to compare Brown to those coaches when he literally does none of that is asinine.

You can say whatever you want to about him coaching a team that played in a weak Eastern Conference, but the bottom line is he coached a team that had no business being in the Finals and yet they made it and also coached a team to the best record in basketball back to back seasons in 2009 and 2010.

What team deserved to be in the Finals that year from the East? The number 1 seed that year would have been a 5th seed in the Western Conference that year. That whole conference was a joke.

Let me guess the team of...Lebron/Mo/Big Z/Varejao/Hickson/Delonte/Gibson/Wallace was mediocre? Brown took those mediocre scrubs to the Conference finals? That mediocre team won 66 games because of Mike Brown? I don't think so....

Then the next year a team of...Lebron/Shaq/Mo/Jamison/Varejao/Hickson/Big Z/Parker/Delonte/Gibson a legit 10 deep team got bounced in the 2nd round after winning 61 games. That team wasn't mediocre at all. If Brown is such a great coach why did Lebron quit on him? Why were assistant coaches drawing up plays for Brown when his a** was standing off to the side? He had a great team and lost them because he was holding pom pom and wanted to be everyones best friend.

Hell you can even look at last season. He was given a Lakers team that was actually worse than the one that had gotten swept the year before by Dallas and yet they actually did better. Brown didn't have alot to work with. He had three terrific players obviously in Kobe, Bynum, and Gasol however the rest of the team wasn't very good at all especially the second unit.

We got bounced from the 2nd round, same result. Save the well we coulda won this and we shoulda won that and the but we actually did win more games. No we lost in the second round. Same result.

All I'm saying is give this guy a legit chance to be successful and you'll just how good of a coach he is.

I've watched Mike Brown for going on 7 years now, I've seen everything that I need to see from him. I've seen the same crap, I've seen in Cleveland. If this team wins it all, it won't be because of Mike Brown it will be in spite of him.

I'm not saying Mike Brown is as good as those guys I'm simply saying that they haven't done anything that he hasn't done. Getting back to those Cleveland teams they were very deep, but they lacked a second star which you typically need to win a championship. How many teams in the past decade or so have won without a second star? Only one the Dallas Mavericks in 2011. You can have all the depth in the world, but you need a second star to take the pressure off your other star which in Brown's case was LeBron. No one else was able to really create for themselves or others besides James and when you face really good defenses in the playoffs that's a problem.

As I said Mike had one superstar LeBron, but in most cases you need more than one superstar to win a championship. Now he has multiple superstars and we'll see how he does. As for James I believe he would've quit regardless who the coach was. He wanted to get out of Cleveland because he knew he couldn't win there because again they lacked that second star and that's why he left to Miami to go play with two stars in Wade and Bosh.

As for the Lakers last season people were giving him alot of heat, but did anyone honestly expect that team to do any better when the talent was worse than last season? I don't understand why anyone expected us to win anything with the roster we had. We had some star power in Kobe, Pau, and Bynum, but we had zero depth and as a result the starts particularly Kobe was dead tired towards the end of games. Now we finally have some decent depth with guys like Jamison, Meeks, and Jordan Hill.

Texas Lakers Fan wrote:I'm not saying Mike Brown is as good as those guys I'm simply saying that they haven't done anything that he hasn't done.

This. I completely agree with you Texas Lakers Fan.

I wasn't blown away by the Brown hire, but I still don't fully understand the devotion to these guys. Or maybe its better to say that I don't understand the praise for these guys who have failed time and time again while completely crapping on what Mike Brown did in Cleveland.

They are retreads. Period. Good coaches? Yes, but retreads all the same.

Doug Collins - Jordan, Pippen, Grant Hill, etc - no rings.
George Karl - Kemp, Payton, Melo, etc - no rings (and if you are older you know that his Sonics teams were also the first team to get knocked out by an 8 seed and many people honestly felt that the Sonics team that went to the Finals were deeper and more talented than the Bulls that year.)
Rick Adelman - Lord, where to start. From Clyde Drexler to the Queens, he has had some talented rosters only to repeatedly be handed his lunch by the Zenmaster.

For all the praise for their supposed superior coaching ability they simply have not done anything that Brown didn't do with a less talented roster overall.

If Tom Thibodeau had been available then I could see that, but he still has a lot to prove as a head coach.

For all the attacks on Brown, he did a pretty good job with a team that had a sulking power forward in Pau, an out of shape Metta, an inconsistent Bynum, a shaky bench, a shaky point guard, etc. Not to mention the huge negative cloud over the team from the league shutting down the CP3 trade.

I won't give us the title yet, but I don't understand the pessimism either. There is plenty to be excited about this season. If we suck in January, then we can have this conversation. But for now, we have to be patient with this team and staff. They need time to mesh.