Does anyone else cringe when you see Artest with the ball? I sure do. 90% of the time, something bad happens. I mean the guy is a solid defensive player but he is not the jaggernaut he used to be 5-7 years ago. His offense is just terrible. His primary job in this offense is to space the floor but we all know defenses don't respect his shot. And he regularly clogs up the paint when there are already bigs posting up, which is comical at times. He can't contribute anything athletically to an already old, starting unit. He limts our offense.

Ebanks fits better with the starting unit because he doesn't need the ball like Artest to contribute. With so many alpha males in the starting unit, that's what we need. A young, athletic and live body who can contribute in ways Artest can't. He's the type of guy who can just pick his spots ala Ariza/Barnes by playing good defense, running the floor, moving and cutting without the ball,etc. He isn't Artest defensively but he can defend well enough and his shot has improved.

Artest functions better with the ball in his hands. So i think him coming off the bench would be better because he would have more chances to dominate the ball and get into a groove.

This team still lacks overall team athleticism and i think switching the two would be very beneficial. And i'm not saying we banish Meta to bench status ala Blake and limit his minutes. If the need is there for him to defend someone, keep him in there. But going forward, Ebanks starting makes this team better.

Thoughts?

You forgot one "t" in Metta, so I corrected it.

Just think about the SF position in today's game. We are talking about some amazingly athletic players and that's what we should expect from the 3 in this day and age. Artest is without a doubt the most unathletic 3 in the game. I mean the guy just limits our offense and what it can do. If his D was lights out on a consistent basis, it might warrant him starting but it's not. And he really brings nothing else to the table except the potential to throw another elbow. It's time for a change. The 3 position requires athelticism in today's game.

Metta, he just needs to stop thinking he's the point guard and hand the ball to Steve Nash.

Too bad Kobe isn't in his physical prime and can't defend at a high level anymore .. we could have started Meeks at the 2 and Ko at SF ... floor spacing is horrible with Metta

I can't take Metta crap anymore ... he's flat out garbage

wcsoldier81 wrote:Too bad Kobe isn't in his physical prime and can't defend at a high level anymore .. we could have started Meeks at the 2 and Ko at SF ... floor spacing is horrible with Metta

I can't take Metta crap anymore ... he's flat out garbage

Nope, he can't. Kobe is 34 but his legs are really like a 38 year old given the mileage. Kobe's defense has been overrated for years. Most Laker fans know this. Him getting voted to All-Defense every year is a joke. Our starting unit seriously lacks athleticism and Metta just seals the deal. We thought our starting 5 was bad athletically with Fish and Metta at the 1 and 3 but it's about the same with Nash. Of course Nash is an ATG PG but it still doesn't change the fact that athletically, he is very limited. We need some a young, live body to complement our aging stars.

XXIV wrote:Metta, he just needs to stop thinking he's the point guard and hand the ball to Steve Nash.

He also thinks he's a center at times the way he tries to post up when there are already 2 bigs down in the paint.

Lets Go Lakers wrote:

wcsoldier81 wrote:Too bad Kobe isn't in his physical prime and can't defend at a high level anymore .. we could have started Meeks at the 2 and Ko at SF ... floor spacing is horrible with Metta

I can't take Metta crap anymore ... he's flat out garbage

Nope, he can't. Kobe is 34 but his legs are really like a 38 year old given the mileage. Kobe's defense has been overrated for years. Most Laker fans know this. Him getting voted to All-Defense every year is a joke. Our starting unit seriously lacks athleticism and Metta just seals the deal. We thought our starting 5 was bad athletically with Fish and Metta at the 1 and 3 but it's about the same with Nash. Of course Nash is an ATG PG but it still doesn't change the fact that athletically, he is very limited. We need some a young, live body to complement our aging stars.

Where did I say the contrary ?

wcsoldier81 wrote:

Lets Go Lakers wrote:

wcsoldier81 wrote:Too bad Kobe isn't in his physical prime and can't defend at a high level anymore .. we could have started Meeks at the 2 and Ko at SF ... floor spacing is horrible with Metta

I can't take Metta crap anymore ... he's flat out garbage

Nope, he can't. Kobe is 34 but his legs are really like a 38 year old given the mileage. Kobe's defense has been overrated for years. Most Laker fans know this. Him getting voted to All-Defense every year is a joke. Our starting unit seriously lacks athleticism and Metta just seals the deal. We thought our starting 5 was bad athletically with Fish and Metta at the 1 and 3 but it's about the same with Nash. Of course Nash is an ATG PG but it still doesn't change the fact that athletically, he is very limited. We need some a young, live body to complement our aging stars.

Where did I say the contrary ?

I was agreeing with your statement about Kobe not being able to defend like he used too. That's where, "Nope, he can't" came from.

How about the question becomes, who should backup MWP at the SF? Jamison or Ebanks? I mean how can you be seriously advocating Ebanks starting when the coach did not even play him last night? Do you really think he's going to start him? He started him for a week or so last season and then he sat him on the bench for a couple months, never to play again. And you think he's going to make him a starter again?

Not going to happen. And I wouldn't even want it to happen. I would however like Brown to actually play Ebanks SOME time. He should be the backup SF. Develop him. Jamison hasn't played the position in ages and doesn't look too capable of it.

Lakerjones wrote:How about the question becomes, who should backup MWP at the SF? Jamison or Ebanks? I mean how can you be seriously advocating Ebanks starting when the coach did not even play him last night? Do you really think he's going to start him? He started him for a week or so last season and then he sat him on the bench for a couple months, never to play again. And you think he's going to make him a starter again?

Not going to happen. And I wouldn't even want it to happen. I would however like Brown to actually play Ebanks SOME time. He should be the backup SF. Develop him. Jamison hasn't played the position in ages and doesn't look too capable of it.

I could care less what Brown thinks. I have my own opinion on who i think is the best starting line up. And maybe it saids volumes about Brown because he DIDN'T play Ebanks yesterday? And not in a good way?

^ It's COULDN'T. If you COULD care less, it means you care a little bit. I can't stand when people say that...

Anway, it's Metta World Peace. Of course it is. He's the best starting SF we have on the team. Jamison should be backing up Gasol. Ebanks should be getting burn as the backup 3.

It's all very simple.

I wonder why Ebanks didn't play. Is he in the dog house again? We saw how much he improved--at least offensively. Please don't tell me MB still likes sitting players for several weeks in a row who deserve to play.

World Peace.

therealdeal wrote:^ It's COULDN'T. If you COULD care less, it means you care a little bit. I can't stand when people say that...

Anway, it's Metta World Peace. Of course it is. He's the best starting SF we have on the team. Jamison should be backing up Gasol. Ebanks should be getting burn as the backup 3.

It's all very simple.

Metta might be the better SF on a young team that needs a second fiddle type player to dominate the ball at times but on this unit and more importantly, with the starting unit that we have, i think Ebanks is a better fit. And he would make us a better team IMO.

I like Ron a lot, but he's hurting us more than he's helping us.

Lets Go Lakers wrote:Metta might be the better SF on a young team that needs a second fiddle type player to dominate the ball at times but on this unit and more importantly, with the starting unit that we have, i think Ebanks is a better fit. And he would make us a better team IMO.

I disagree. World Peace is better in pretty much every way and he needs to be in the starting lineup to defend opposing wings.

As time goes along and the offense improves, his issues will too. Right now, he's definitely the best fit. But he should definitely be backed up by Ebanks who gives a different kind of production.

If Ron continues to start, it's only to keep his ego in check, because he cannot handle being benched. There was no great SF to guard last night...and he was pretty bad all around.

therealdeal wrote:

Lets Go Lakers wrote:Metta might be the better SF on a young team that needs a second fiddle type player to dominate the ball at times but on this unit and more importantly, with the starting unit that we have, i think Ebanks is a better fit. And he would make us a better team IMO.

I disagree. World Peace is better in pretty much every way and he needs to be in the starting lineup to defend opposing wings.

As time goes along and the offense improves, his issues will too. Right now, he's definitely the best fit. But he should definitely be backed up by Ebanks who gives a different kind of production.

And i said in my OP that if the need arises, we can play Metta a lot of minutes for the purpose of playing D.

Metta is a better defender and probably slightly better shooter (although Ebanks is improving). He's better at creating his own shot but in this offense, it's really not needed and might actually hurt the offense.

Ebanks is much more athletic, can run the floor, is a better rebounder, and can move better without the ball. I like Ebank's traits better when considering our starting line up.

Screw it...just play Jamison at SF. Big drop in defense....big increase in offense. Hey that's the reason we got D12 anyways.....to be the anchor.

Well that's fine, I just totally disagree.

I think he fits better mentally and physically with the starting unit. Our second unit should be explosive and dynamic, two things Ebanks can be when he's out on the break. I think that unit would serve him much better.

Trevor Ariza

therealdeal wrote:Well that's fine, I just totally disagree.

I think he fits better mentally and physically with the starting unit. Our second unit should be explosive and dynamic, two things Ebanks can be when he's out on the break. I think that unit would serve him much better.

Yeah, but our starting unit lacks athleticism outside of Howard, and he's a center. Centers don't slash to the basket or make quick cuts. Well, Howard can to some extent but you want that element from your 3. We need to be able to manufacture easy baskets at times. Artest doesn't provide that element.

lakersfever wrote:Trevor Ariza

I miss Ariza and what he brought to our team. Perfect role player.