Comments on: Thoughts From Two Losses

By: Luis Alis

Luis Alis — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 04:15:22 +0000

I thought Sasha had a terrific year last season. My initial impression after seeing him struggle this year is that he is playing less minutes. Somewhere on his mind, he is probably wondering how come he plays less after having a great year, and probably that affected his confidence.

By: The Sasha Abides

The Sasha Abides — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 23:41:49 +0000

There are some good points here, bottom line is Lakers should be motivated again now, so lack of motivation shouldnt be an excuse.

By: Anand

Anand — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:19:06 +0000

Umm,not to be a prick about it, but GEORGE Mason’s a university which went on a Cinderella NCAA run coupla years back.ROGER Mason’s the former Wizard whose really,really impressed me this year and he’s also hit a couple of cold-blooded game winning triples this year.He’s basically been what Brent Barry was supposed to be last year.George HILL’s a scrappy,defensive point guard whose athleticism has Spurs fans giddy.Kurt, why don’t you ask Tim over at 48MOH about the relative merits and demerits of their role players versus ours.

By: E-ROC

E-ROC — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:01:32 +0000

Chris – Chris, stop it. Great players make their teammates better which has happened to George Mason, Matt Bonner, and George Hill. George Mason is player who was helped greatly with the experience of playing overseas. He came to the Wizards and continued his improvement. Trust me, Mason was a major coup by the Spurs. Check Matt Bonner’s numbers. He can flat ball as a role player. Go ask the Celtics how good Bonner. As for George Hill, can rookie get some love? He’s played well this season. As with most rookies, there is inconsistency. Most of his inconsistency lies with his offense. Defensively, he’s excellent. Role players will perform based upon the great players that they play with. Great players make their role players better. That’s just fact and there is nothing wrong with that. It helps that role players make the right decisions with and without the basketball.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:59:53 +0000

Chris, I agree about the Lakers efforts and struggles in this regard.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:52:28 +0000

84. Kurt

I think the Lakers are pretty serious about finding players that fit their system – but the recent incarnation of the team runs into some issues because they’ve found YOUNG players who don’t always play to their strengths/use the system the way it’s supposed to be used.

Those Shaq/Kobe three-peat teams were a better example of surrounding superstars with quality role-players who fit the system and bought into it. Horry, Rick Fox, Derek Fisher, Ron Harper, and Horace Grant were all guys that fit the system and knew how to make the most of their talents in the system.

One big issue the Lakers are currently facing (and will face over the summer and next year) is Jordan Farmar is not a good fit for the triangle – and I don’t think he ever will be. That’s not to say I don’t think he’s a good player – he is. He’s just not a triangle point guard.

The Lakers will have to figure that out over the summer, because Farmar isn’t the future at point guard.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:41:04 +0000

Griz preview up.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:40:20 +0000

Re: The Spurs system: I was at the game with a number of Pomona College alums (including my wife). The reason is that Pop started as a head coach there, and his top assistant Mike Budenholzer was recruited by Pop and played at Pomona. Mike spoke to the group after the game (with a cameo from the big guy).

Someone asked about finding the role players they do and he talked not much about basketball skills and at length about finding guys with the right character and personalities, about fit and the kind of people they want. It was interesting in that, while talent mattered, for your stars it is about willingness to play the role and buy in, and looking for that before you trade/draft a guy. I know every NBA team does interviews and what have you, but how many are as serious as the Spurs about it?

By: Darius

Darius — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:37:45 +0000

For further clarification, I agree with Kurt that, in a seven game series, the Lakers would beat the Spurs. A major reason would be our main players (even without Bynum) match up quite nicely with theirs and our best player is the best player from both teams. But I would also say that our secondary players are more talented than theirs and (building on my previous point) have more strengths to play to. Despite the bashing given from several posters, Sasha is a good player for us that contributes in several ways. Add to him Farmar, Ariza, and Walton and you’ve got players who bring more to the table than the more specialized players of the Spurs. In the end, I think that even if the talent level was a wash (which I don’t think it is; I think we have more) I would point out that we have *more* capable players and we also have more high level contributors. To me, we just have a better team.

By: exhelodrvr

exhelodrvr — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 19:21:45 +0000

76) Kurt,
” My Dad and his two hand set shot could have scored 8″

Just curious; does he have any experience in the triangle offense?