The Lakers are in last place of the Western Conference

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

JGC wrote:

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

I'm glad we don't have poo poo on the team, we have a 2 time MVP, a 5 time champion, a 3 time DPOY, & one of the most skilled big man in the game, who also happens to be a 2 time champion...

JGC wrote:

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

nono, mike brown is the poopoo. we are removing him.

GoldenKnight wrote:

JGC wrote:

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

I'm glad we don't have poo poo on the team, we have a 2 time MVP, a 5 time champion, a 3 time DPOY, & one of the most skilled big man in the game, who also happens to be a 2 time champion...

They sure don't play together very well. And that's even when they don't try to run the Princeton.

Listen, I know it sounds like I'm defending MB. I'm not. But he's had success. GOOD success even if it was just regular season. Other players have said they like Mike Brown. That doesn't make him a good coach by any means, and his substitutions and what he does to guys like Goudelock and Meeks is disgusting to me.

But these players never have moments where they look good. Even haven't even seen a glimpse yet. That goes beyond coaching. Especially when MB is allegedly a guy that doesn't really do anything (according to us).

The only agreement I have over personnel is maybe Pau. I was really hoping that he'd be traded for someone with competitiveness. It's not too late for that, but I suspect that the front office wants to see how he does with a new coach and with Nash.

MB has everyone confused and not caring. When he departs, We will see dramatic improvement from everyone.

JGC wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:

JGC wrote:

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

I'm glad we don't have poo poo on the team, we have a 2 time MVP, a 5 time champion, a 3 time DPOY, & one of the most skilled big man in the game, who also happens to be a 2 time champion...

They sure don't play together very well. And that's even when they don't try to run the Princeton.

Listen, I know it sounds like I'm defending MB. I'm not. But he's had success. GOOD success even if it was just regular season. Other players have said they like Mike Brown. That doesn't make him a good coach by any means, and his substitutions and what he does to guys like Goudelock and Meeks is disgusting to me.

But these players never have moments where they look good. Even haven't even seen a glimpse yet. That goes beyond coaching. Especially when MB is allegedly a guy that doesn't really do anything (according to us).

Brown didn't run a princeston or set offense in Clev and he's trying force an O thats not even his to begin with.

JGC wrote:

GoldenKnight wrote:

JGC wrote:

The Rock wrote:Uhhh no dead wrong. The team gets better with Mike Brown's departure. Period.

Poo poo smells better if you put perfume on it too. Doesn't mean it doesn't still stink.

I'm glad we don't have poo poo on the team, we have a 2 time MVP, a 5 time champion, a 3 time DPOY, & one of the most skilled big man in the game, who also happens to be a 2 time champion...

They sure don't play together very well. And that's even when they don't try to run the Princeton.

Listen, I know it sounds like I'm defending MB. I'm not. But he's had success. GOOD success even if it was just regular season. Other players have said they like Mike Brown. That doesn't make him a good coach by any means, and his substitutions and what he does to guys like Goudelock and Meeks is disgusting to me.

But these players never have moments where they look good. Even haven't even seen a glimpse yet. That goes beyond coaching. Especially when MB is allegedly a guy that doesn't really do anything (according to us).

Why do you keep saying this? It makes no sense. The first game the played together in the preseason against the kings, they played very well in the first half. Great passing, lobs, everything. The blazers as well, they played very well, scored at will, but turned over too many times. But they just lost to a hungrier team. And they just came off of a blowout win against detroit, even though its a bad team. They've had stretches, so dont act like they haven't. Mike Brown is a horrible coach. His bad rotations, and inability to use his assets isn't helping this team at all. Why would he put in howard, hill, ebanks, morris, and mwp in the same lineup??? Where in the world is the spacing going to come from. He's an idiot. Thats the problem.

^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

we have Kobe Bryant and Dwight Howard!!!! I don't understand how we are losing except to blame mike brown. he's running this team extremely inefficiently. he's not utilizing the talent that we have. Dwight has good games for the physical condition he's in so it's not him. Kobe has been super efficient minus tonight so it's not him. but Pau has not be utilized right since mike got here. Nash has been completely negated thanks to mike and he did it to sessions whose doing great for the bobcats as a backup pg.

mike has got to let the ayers do what they've been doing before they met him and not change a thing. Jamison CANNOT have 2pt games EVERY game. that's ridiculous! and Meeks....ummm he's got to play that's just stupid not too. Our team needs a bench! not this "they're trying to find thei identity" bs...the offense for the bench needs to work around Jamison and Meeks skills as hill does his thing regardless and Ebanks will have to find his role as a rookie.

once Nash gets back I hope mike is gone by then and we can actual start watching real basketba bc this is boring slow losing basketball and it's not what we pay for. PICK AND ROLL...I know Nash is out but even before we didn't run it...you have Dwight Howard run pick and roll until its dead and guess what...if the d tries to stop pick and roll who do we go to after that...oh ya the #24 guy Kobe Bryant one of the GOAT.

it's so dumb...you're not Phil so you can't run anything close to the triangle...no one can and this 1-4 start with our amazing starting line up is why NO coach in the nba runs it as their main offense and only bits of it and mainly pick and roll.

Mike doesn't have the credentials to coach this starting lineup. And the fact that he didn't even play basketball means players give him no respect bc he hasn't won and didn't play.

he's not the right man for the job IMO. I don't think they'll fire him but I think their has to be some changes made to his mentality as coach. FO have yo come down and say "we paid for Meeks and Jamison...play them and make the offense work for them for our bench. We paid a lot for Nash & Howard & more to keep Pau...run pick and roll. have your fun with the Princeton, but run the pick and roll way more, it works so use it! or you're fired." something like that.

LOL.

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

Well I see what you're doing then. Take your eyes off the boxscore and you'll see that except this game, the lakers have been EXTREMELY well offensively. Scored almost at will, shooting nearly 50%, and around 100pts a game. They were horrible defensively, just couldn't get a stop down the stretch against portland, and with turnovers. That has to do with chemistry, and defensive principles (coaching). Boston was a top 3 defensive tam last year. Last I checked, pierce, kg, and allen, were all older than everyone on this team not named nash or jamison. I think our offense took a step back this game, but has been pretty good so far. So if we can agree that defense is the problem, then obviously the pieces can fit well. Even bad defenders have been fine on good defensive teams...

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

And to answer your question, lol how in the world would I know. I wasn't around to see every nba championship team, and how they started off. lol

gcclaker wrote:Brown had a young, athletic team in Cleveland that fits his ideas. Press...run...play in space. His ideas here whatever they are don't jive with a slower, methodical group. Bottom line is a savvy coach tailors a scheme to maximize the talent he has on hand. Is that happening so far? Training camp? Check! Available practice time? Check! Having Peace play 2? Bench players not allowed to play through and get a feel for the game? Starters having to play heavy minutes? Long, ardous practices for a older team? Reports of free agents spurning the opportunity to play here because of him? If those aren't red flags...then what can be considered red flags at this point?

Ding, ding, ding . . . and we have a winner^^!

Great post GCC.

King of Clutch wrote:

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

Well I see what you're doing then. Take your eyes off the boxscore and you'll see that except this game, the lakers have been EXTREMELY well offensively. Scored almost at will, shooting nearly 50%, and around 100pts a game. They were horrible defensively, just couldn't get a stop down the stretch against portland, and with turnovers. That has to do with chemistry, and defensive principles (coaching). Boston was a top 3 defensive tam last year. Last I checked, pierce, kg, and allen, were all older than everyone on this team not named nash or jamison. I think our offense took a step back this game, but has been pretty good so far. So if we can agree that defense is the problem, then obviously the pieces can fit well. Even bad defenders have been fine on good defensive teams...

It's funny that you would accuse me of looking at the box score (which I didn't) and then go on to say the Lakers have been playing extremely well offensively because they scored 100 PPG and 50% shooting. You can't even tell me what the Lakers do so well offensively to get those numbers.

It's like we're watching two different games here. I think the Lakers are putting up those numbers in SPITE of not playing well offensively overall. And you think they put those numbers up BECAUSE they played well offensively. Both of us cannot be right.

Let's put the numbers and everything else aside. What is it exactly, that you think the Lakers do so "EXTREMELY well" offensively?

King of Clutch wrote:

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

And to answer your question, lol how in the world would I know. I wasn't around to see every nba championship team, and how they started off. lol

Ok. Among all of the NBA championship teams you have seen in your lifetime, would you say then that if the Lakers were to turn this around and win this year, that they would have to be the WORST looking team out of the gate to ever win an NBA championship in your entire life that you can recall?

TIME wrote:

JGC wrote:
There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

Mike Brown is not the whole problem, but it's pretty obvious that he is the biggest problem.

Yeah, I agree with that. But I think it is short sighted for people to just say fire mike brown as if that's going to solve our problems.

It's not. We've been accusing Mike Brown for over a year now of just doing nothing. That's the running joke on coach Brown, isn't it? So either we've all been wrong for a year, or, we've been right and he just does nothing, he just takes up space. Then our talent alone should be enough to at least stay even or slightly ahead with some of these teams. I mean, shouldn't it?

I'm starting to wonder if the pieces, outside of Nash/D12/Kobe, are just BAD GOOD complimentary pieces. If that makes sense. Like Pau, he's a good player. So is Jamison. And MWP too. Even Blake. But maybe they just don't fit. With the Kobe/Shaq days, we had GOOD BAD complimentary pieces. Devean George (sucked but he had a role and filled it), Rick Fox (not very talented but had his role and filled it), even Samaki Walker. Horrible player but stayed out of the way and just did his thing. Fisher too. Crap player his whole career but knew how to "fit".

JGC wrote:

King of Clutch wrote:

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

Well I see what you're doing then. Take your eyes off the boxscore and you'll see that except this game, the lakers have been EXTREMELY well offensively. Scored almost at will, shooting nearly 50%, and around 100pts a game. They were horrible defensively, just couldn't get a stop down the stretch against portland, and with turnovers. That has to do with chemistry, and defensive principles (coaching). Boston was a top 3 defensive tam last year. Last I checked, pierce, kg, and allen, were all older than everyone on this team not named nash or jamison. I think our offense took a step back this game, but has been pretty good so far. So if we can agree that defense is the problem, then obviously the pieces can fit well. Even bad defenders have been fine on good defensive teams...

It's funny that you would accuse me of looking at the box score (which I didn't) and then go on to say the Lakers have been playing extremely well offensively because they scored 100 PPG and 50% shooting. You can't even tell me what the Lakers do so well offensively to get those numbers.

It's like we're watching two different games here. I think the Lakers are putting up those numbers in SPITE of not playing well offensively overall. And you think they put those numbers up BECAUSE they played well offensively. Both of us cannot be right.

Let's put the numbers and everything else aside. What is it exactly, that you think the Lakers do so "EXTREMELY well" offensively?

I watch the games and back them up with stats. You seem to just bring up random stats to support what you're trying to say. In the first 4 games, the lakers have been getting great looks from the princeton. Kobe has been working off ball much more, and has been getting much more shots at the rim, and drawing fouls. Alot of this is due to the motion and back cuts of the princeton. Dwight has also been able to still get his shots in the offense by working opponents in the post, and getting to the free throw line. But the princeton has also lowered their attempts, and pace. Which is why i've been saying that they should pick up the pace, and mix in pick and rolls, so they dont have to think as much. I honestly don't understand how you can say they are putting those numbers up "in spite" of not playing well offensively. Shooting 50% from the field, on around 100pts a game isn't something many teams can do if they tried, much less having something working against them as well. Let me ask you this, why specifically do you think they're "not playing well offensively overall"? Excluding, this game, which I acknowledged was a step back in the offense. Because the results have been good. They've been able to score easily and efficiently, but they just haven't been able to OUTSCORE their opponents. Which rests on their defense.

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

I agree with the bolded. Forgot to state this. Clearly he's not the only problem. I've said that gasol is a problem. Because he's a center playing the pf position, and thats the reason he keeps getting burned. Just older and slower. Defense, Nash can also be a problem on d, turnovers, and the bench obviously has problems. But CLEARLY Brown is the BIGGEST problem. Every team has deficiencies. Miami has no bigs, clippers lack frontcourt depth, okc lacks enough playmaking, etc. No team is perfect. It's how those coaches deal with minimizing those deficiencies that decides a teams greatness. To say that we can't find a way of minimizing these faults, and maximizing the advantages is just silly. That's what coaching is for...

The team is playing like they don't believe in Mike Brown's system and they don't respect his resume as a coach.

Jazzygirl205 wrote:Mike Brown is more suited for teams like OKC, one epic star player and the rest puzzle piece role players not of the same magnitude.I don't think teams like these are for his style of coaching.

he'd fail there too, they have another star in Westbrook who he'll probably turn into a corner 3pt shooter and let Durant ISO all day

King of Clutch wrote:

JGC wrote:

King of Clutch wrote:

JGC wrote:^ I keep saying it, because it's true.

There is no doubt that Mike Brown is A problem. Not THE problem.

It's funny, I don't think any of your examples are examples of how we played well as a team to be honest. Even the Portland game, we lost every single quarter. Except the 4th when the game was already in hand and it was garbage time.

I've seen plays where we looked good. I haven't seen quarters. Or halves. Or a full game yet. I mean if you're going to use one half of a preseason game and parts of one regular season game as evidence that we're making progress, you could be talking about the Wizards. This is a team that should be dominating coming out of the gate against bad to average teams, and occasionally struggling against the elite. And the development would result in us being able to eventually, regularly beat the elite.

Let's put it this way. If we turn around and win it all this year... would you say we would be the worst looking team out of the gate to then go on to win a championship in the history of the league?

Well I see what you're doing then. Take your eyes off the boxscore and you'll see that except this game, the lakers have been EXTREMELY well offensively. Scored almost at will, shooting nearly 50%, and around 100pts a game. They were horrible defensively, just couldn't get a stop down the stretch against portland, and with turnovers. That has to do with chemistry, and defensive principles (coaching). Boston was a top 3 defensive tam last year. Last I checked, pierce, kg, and allen, were all older than everyone on this team not named nash or jamison. I think our offense took a step back this game, but has been pretty good so far. So if we can agree that defense is the problem, then obviously the pieces can fit well. Even bad defenders have been fine on good defensive teams...

It's funny that you would accuse me of looking at the box score (which I didn't) and then go on to say the Lakers have been playing extremely well offensively because they scored 100 PPG and 50% shooting. You can't even tell me what the Lakers do so well offensively to get those numbers.

It's like we're watching two different games here. I think the Lakers are putting up those numbers in SPITE of not playing well offensively overall. And you think they put those numbers up BECAUSE they played well offensively. Both of us cannot be right.

Let's put the numbers and everything else aside. What is it exactly, that you think the Lakers do so "EXTREMELY well" offensively?

I watch the games and back them up with stats. You seem to just bring up random stats to support what you're trying to say. In the first 4 games, the lakers have been getting great looks from the princeton. Kobe has been working off ball much more, and has been getting much more shots at the rim, and drawing fouls. Alot of this is due to the motion and back cuts of the princeton. Dwight has also been able to still get his shots in the offense by working opponents in the post, and getting to the free throw line. But the princeton has also lowered their attempts, and pace. Which is why i've been saying that they should pick up the pace, and mix in pick and rolls, so they dont have to think as much. I honestly don't understand how you can say they are putting those numbers up "in spite" of not playing well offensively. Shooting 50% from the field, on around 100pts a game isn't something many teams can do if they tried, much less having something working against them as well. Let me ask you this, why specifically do you think they're "not playing well offensively overall"? Excluding, this game, which I acknowledged was a step back in the offense. Because the results have been good. They've been able to score easily and efficiently, but they just haven't been able to OUTSCORE their opponents. Which rests on their defense.

There are many reasons why I don't think the team has been playing well regardless of what your stats say.

I see guys physically bumping in to each other on offensive sets. Passing up open looks. Not making the extra play. Hesitating instead of shooting. Forcing the issue. Waiting far too long in the shot clock. There is no fluidity/flow/feel to the game whatsoever. Only 1 real regular season game but Nash is invisible. So what I mean when I say we are shooting 50% FG and 100PPG in SPITE of not playing well, I mean that how we're achieving those stats, is not sustainable over the long haul.

The stats that reflect these observations are as follows:
- Over 18 turnovers per game good for 2nd WORST in the NBA. And we're not even a run and gun team.
- Kobe averaging 3 assists per game.
- Nash averaging 4 assists per game.
- Kobe averaging more turnovers than assists per game.
- If Nash and Kobe combine for 7 assists and 5.5 TO per game all season, we're screwed.

The stats also include a high level of minutes for Kobe, Pau and Dwight. That is also not sustainable over the long haul. We have to execute better offensively so we can get more from the starters in LESS time.

If these first 5 games reflect a team playing EXTREMELY well offensively, then we are in big trouble. Honestly, I really don't know how anyone can watch this team and make the claim that they play EXTREMELY well offensively.