antoine walker as a laker?

[moiso]

It won't happen.  But I could definitely see Stephon Marbury as a Laker.

PLEASE let that happen. A cancer like that is just what the Lakers need.

Exactly.  I'd love to see their chemistry drop a notch or two.

[fatherscott]

It won't happen.  But I could definitely see Stephon Marbury as a Laker.

PLEASE let that happen. A cancer like that is just what the Lakers need.

Exactly.  I'd love to see their chemistry drop a notch or two.

I don't see the Lakers making any move at all, really. What's the point? They're already ridiculously deep. If they did, it would be something Cassell-like -- just a leadership/extra coach kind of thing.

[Brickowski]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

[crownsy]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

[fatherscott]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

Agreed. Maybe "ridiculously" was hyperbolic, but, Fisher/Farmar is a very good PG combo for that team. The front court is ridiculous (comfortable saying it this time) and Bryant/Ariza/Radmanovic is a nice rotation at the 3. Walton has been serviceable in the past, too.

[Brickowski]

The Cavs are much less "LeBron centric" than they were last year, although it is a weakness, just as LA's overreliance on Kobe is a weakness.

[BballTim]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

[D Dub]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

[QuinielaBox]

Can't say I would see Antione as a Laker (nor Marbury). Phoenix is struggling a bit, maybe there are opportunities for those two in Phoenix.

[crownsy]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

If you say so, i think thats a bit tinted. I've caught 5 lakers games now on NBAtv thanks to thier habit of scheduling them every stinking day, and Farmer is a good defender. no rondo certainly, but he's fine, and he hits his shots of kobe's drive and can get his own offense off drives.

Also, fisher is still playing pretty good basketball. since Kobe brings the ball up ala' lebron, all his PG needs to do is be ready to take the ball up off a trap and hit open shots, both of which fisher and farmer are doing.

They may go after another PG late, but i fail to see why it would be a cancerous guy for no reason.

I mean, if we take the glasses off for a second, which im as guilty of wearing as anyone, we have a bigger problem at PG then they do. Id rather have farmer as my backup PG than house playing out of position or pruitt who hasen't proved anything yet, never mind that they have played kobe at one guard spot for 2-4 minute stretchs this year with sasha at the other to get sasha a few more minutes, and thats actually worked out great for them with ariza at the 3.

Pg is a weakness for the lakers in the same way that center is a weakness for us. Its thier on paper but doesn't seem to be hurting them. they might shore that up pre-playoffs, but it wont be a team killer like marbury.

[Brickowski]

Farmar is a good defender. It's his shot that is inconsistent.

[BballTim]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

I mean, if we take the glasses off for a second, which im as guilty of wearing as anyone, we have a bigger problem at PG then they do. Id rather have farmer as my backup PG than house playing out of position or pruitt who hasen't proved anything yet, never mind that they have played kobe at one guard spot for 2-4 minute stretchs this year with sasha at the other to get sasha a few more minutes, and thats actually worked out great for them with ariza at the 3.

  We only have a bigger problem at pg than them if you consider Fisher to be as good or better than Rondo.

[crownsy]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

I mean, if we take the glasses off for a second, which im as guilty of wearing as anyone, we have a bigger problem at PG then they do. Id rather have farmer as my backup PG than house playing out of position or pruitt who hasen't proved anything yet, never mind that they have played kobe at one guard spot for 2-4 minute stretchs this year with sasha at the other to get sasha a few more minutes, and thats actually worked out great for them with ariza at the 3.

  We only have a bigger problem at pg than them if you consider Fisher to be as good or better than Rondo.

no, not really, thats why i only mentioned the backups.

i said at backup PG, not starter. to me, purley as a PG, Farmer/kobe..well.... they use kobe as the PG with sasha in a alot now, but thats not fair for comparision, lets call it sasha/farmer , is better than house (who i lvoe but is a 2)/pruitt (who we have no idea what were going to get).

[D Dub]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

I mean, if we take the glasses off for a second, which im as guilty of wearing as anyone, we have a bigger problem at PG then they do. Id rather have farmer as my backup PG than house playing out of position or pruitt who hasen't proved anything yet, never mind that they have played kobe at one guard spot for 2-4 minute stretchs this year with sasha at the other to get sasha a few more minutes, and thats actually worked out great for them with ariza at the 3.

  We only have a bigger problem at pg than them if you consider Fisher to be as good or better than Rondo.

no, not really, thats why i only mentioned the backups.

i said at backup PG, not starter. to me, purley as a PG, Farmer/kobe..well.... they use kobe as the PG with sasha in a alot now, but thats not fair for comparision, lets call it sasha/farmer , is better than house (who i lvoe but is a 2)/pruitt (who we have no idea what were going to get).

Alright, I just took off my green clover goggles and I still see no way that Farmar is better than House.  There is just no way. 

House is a better shooter, and regularly hits his shot in the clutch.  He is a much better defender, its not even close really.  And whether he is out of position or not; he has claimed a championship ring playing backup pg.  If I remember correctly, Farmer played like a deer in the headlights in the Finals causing Phil to severely cut his minutes. 

Eddie takes a lot of heat for being a better shooter than dribbler, but we should all recognize that he is playing backup pg and he is doing a pretty good job there.

[Birdbrain]

I don't think the Lakers are "ridiculously deep."  IMHO they lack depth at the pg position and are too "Kobe centric" on offense.

The Lakers are good, but they've played 10 out of 15 games at home and their only impressive road win was against New Orleans, which was without Tyson Chandler.

you dont like farmer at the point witht he 10-12 backup minutes availble? They've got a good starter in fisher and a very good backup in farmer, what do they need starbury clamering about taking farmer's minutes for?

as to being to Kobe centric on offense, thats by design, so i doubt there going to aquire a PG with huge chemistry issues and then hand over some of the offense to him just to please us. I agree with you, but thats like saying the cavs are to lebron centric. Its true, but its by design of thier team.

  I don't think Fisher is a good starter at all, and he hasn't been for a while.

Add to that Farmar's inability to play any semblence of defense, and I think its fair to say that pg is the Laker's weakest position.

I mean, if we take the glasses off for a second, which im as guilty of wearing as anyone, we have a bigger problem at PG then they do. Id rather have farmer as my backup PG than house playing out of position or pruitt who hasen't proved anything yet, never mind that they have played kobe at one guard spot for 2-4 minute stretchs this year with sasha at the other to get sasha a few more minutes, and thats actually worked out great for them with ariza at the 3.

  We only have a bigger problem at pg than them if you consider Fisher to be as good or better than Rondo.

no, not really, thats why i only mentioned the backups.

i said at backup PG, not starter. to me, purley as a PG, Farmer/kobe..well.... they use kobe as the PG with sasha in a alot now, but thats not fair for comparision, lets call it sasha/farmer , is better than house (who i lvoe but is a 2)/pruitt (who we have no idea what were going to get).

And the Lakers have a major hole at their staring PG which sort of balances it out in my mind.  Unless you don't think Rondo will blow by Fisher like he's standing still?