Podcast: What Needs to Change?

Darius Soriano —  January 3, 2017 — 8 Comments

The Lakers are 2-15 in their last 17 games. They’ve fallen off defensively and, while they have recaptured some of their explosiveness on offense, they still cannot seem to put together a full 48 minutes to hold onto games in their grasp. The players are frustrated, Luke Walton is frustrated, and fans are starting to get downright despondent.

In the latest Laker Film Room Podcast, Pete and I discuss what’s been going wrong, what our expectations are moving forward, and what changes the team should be looking to make heading into the 2nd half of the season. Click through below to listen.


Darius Soriano

Posts Twitter Facebook

8 comments
david__h
david__h

darius:  starting someone at center other than mozgov is a slap in the face to the front office.  slap away.


Go lakers

mattal
mattal

37 games into the season and $134 mil later it should come as no surprise that Mozgov is really a backup.  And the best thing that can be said about Deng is that he contributes more than Mozgov.  I would try and trade Mozgov before any of the other teams heard the podcast. 

The path was clear soon after getting Walton and drafting Ingram: Play the kids and take your lumps.  When the kids are ready then you spend the money on free agents that can help you take the next step.  The FO put the cart before the horse.





LordMo
LordMo

@mattal


Told you Jimbo trying to save himself! The Lakers Owners need to give it up and hire capable management to run the team...period!


http://hoopshype.com/2012/03/01/setting-the-record-straight-on-chaz-the-scout/


http://www.inc.com/graham-winfrey/the-profit-grafton-furniture.html


What needs to change? Ownership! Second generation businesses have a 60 percent failure rate, while third generation businesses fail at a rate of 90 percent. Couple that stat with the Buss kids apparently clear lack of "Basketball Knowledge" and there you have it.

_  Robert  _
_ Robert _

So a large part of the end of this was talking about Lou and Nick and what we could get for them and whether they were good for the youngsters. I will certainly give Nick and Walton credit for his turnaround, but that does not change the basic answer to this question (as indicated in the Podcast). Neither he not Lou are ideal guys for veteran mentorship, and they both occupy the rock, and neither is strong on D  (though Nick is improved this year).   All of this was true last summer when some of us were beating the drum to get rid of these guys.   Perhaps we can get slightly more for them now, but as indicated in the Podcast, the market will be limited and even after their nice starts - we would not get too much for them.    I would still do it however.   Get what we can in the form of draft picks  (no unwanted contracts), and free up more time and shots for others.   Mosgov was also mentioned in terms of his contract.  As I have said since day 1 - he and Deng's contracts are bad news and they unbelievably have 3 more years each.   So I think that sums up the off season in a nut shell.   The 2 big signings were bad and the 2 guys we were supposed to get rid of are still on the roster (and in spite of good years by both - the situation is unchanged in terms of what they are worth and their value to us).

With regard to the earlier post about Defense:    Darius' analysis of what players need to do to improve is accurate.  The article however concludes that this is what is needed in order for our Defense to get better.   Well yea - I guess - but we all know that is not going to happen across the board with multiple players improving significantly.   The only way the Defense will get "significantly" better is with a roster improvement.   Luke is our 4th coach since Phil and the Defense has been bad during that entire run.   People blamed the last 3 coaches, but Luke is skating because he is still in his honeymoon period and he is a likable guy.   It is not his fault anymore than it was the other 3 coaches faults  (at least not the majority of it).  The issue is roster.   Supposedly players were languishing under Byron and all would be well if we had a new thinking type coach.   Well - evidently not.    Some of these guys are simply not going to be good at Defense and coaching is only going to change that so much.   Especially those who have been bad under the tough love of Byron and are still bad under the friendly bromance with Luke.   Changes need to be made and it is a little more than a desire to fight over a screen.



KevTheBold
KevTheBold

@_ Robert _

I concur to a degree regarding Lou and Nick not being the best for the long term development of our core.

With regards to defensive potential however, of our core, the first part of our season would defy your notion that they are incapable of defending.

We should resist the urge to forget the injuries, which have strongly contributed to our late fall.


new rr
new rr

@KevTheBold @_ Robert _


If you look at the teams that the Lakers beat early, and their ORTGs, it is pretty easy to see the role that schedule played in getting them to 10-10: 


ATL (2 wins) 23RD

NO 29TH

CHI 17TH

BKN 27TH

PHX 25TH

OKC 15TH (Lakers beat them 111-109)

SAC 18TH


There were the two most enjoyable wins in that stretch which do not fit this pattern: the opening night win over Houston, and the stunning blowout of Golden State. Here are the scores when those teams saw the Lakers again: 


GS 149, Lakers 106

GS 109 @Lakers 85

HOU 134, Lakers 95


Have injuries hurt a little? Sure. Nance Jr. is probably the best defensive player on the team, and they miss him. But the Lakers do not have any notably good defensive players, and while the young guys will probably improve some with experience (there is already some evidence of this in granular metrics) none of them with the possible exception of Ingram profiles as a long-term difference-maker on D. 





KevTheBold
KevTheBold

@new rr  

I would not consider, the Hawks, Chicago, nor OKC easy,..

The the win over GS was more than just enjoyable, but notable, no matter if GS or Houston got revenge.

You fail to mention the close fought games for example against the Spurs.

In addition, what about the gauntlet schedule which contributed to their loss record?

Thus I see no reason to discount their victories, nor the defensive intensity they demonstrated during those games which gave them the wins.



new rr
new rr

@KevTheBold @new rr


Not discounting it at all. Just pointing out that when the Lakers win, it is mostly against teams who have trouble scoring, and you can add Memphis, 22nd in ORTG, to the list.