The Lakers size are overrated

[2short]

They are properly rated. They are big and active on both ends. 3 great rebounders.

That isnt what has my attention right now though.

The renewed intensity from Kobe and Artest lately has me once again thinking that LA is the team to beat out West.

agreed, davis does a great job on certain things but he can't rebound with those guys, if he boxed them out and forced them 15 feet from the basket (which he probably could do) it would be great

Please stop including Green in the list of capable 4's that can defend Gasol or Odom... Green is a 3. When Baby is healthy, Green will never see the 4 spot, barring very specific situational matchups... Green is a scorer and plays the 2 (with great size and post up ability) more than the 4.

last years playoffs, when okc almost surprised the lakers green actually guarded gasol and seemed to do a good job

[OsirusCeltics]

Please stop including Green in the list of capable 4's that can defend Gasol or Odom... Green is a 3. When Baby is healthy, Green will never see the 4 spot, barring very specific situational matchups... Green is a scorer and plays the 2 (with great size and post up ability) more than the 4.

Odom is not a traditional 4 either. He is a 3. Look how he plays. He has even less post moves then Green. He plays big because he is a great offensive rebounder

[KCattheStripe]

Please stop including Green in the list of capable 4's that can defend Gasol or Odom... Green is a 3. When Baby is healthy, Green will never see the 4 spot, barring very specific situational matchups... Green is a scorer and plays the 2 (with great size and post up ability) more than the 4.

Ummm, why would we stop when Doc himself has said that's one of the reasons he liked the trade and he played the 4 on a team that won 50 games last year?

[LilRip]

having 2 legit 7-footers who are very capable both on defense and offense is pretty good. plus, having Odom off the bench is huge for them because he's as skilled as they come. they're not overrated. they present matchup problems.

the Thunder gave them problems but do you know what play did the Thunder in? Yup, that crucial putback by Gasol. And we were close to winning the championship in game 7 but you know what was the ultimate difference? about a bajillion offensive rebounds. In that 7-game series, whoever won the game was the one who won the boards. their size poses a problem.

i'm sure it's always part of the gameplan to "limit the Lakers' offensive possessions" but that's a lot easier said than done. i'm sure in our case, other teams' gameplan is to "not turn the ball over" because Rondo plays a perfect transition game and our shooters get open a lot on delayed transition, but goshdarnit, doesn't Rondo just mess their gameplan up?

The size had nothing to do with that Gasol tip. Just a great heads up play. It was the Thunder's failure to execute offensively when it mattered. They were so close to win two times on the Lakers home court, but failed cause of inexperience

And for Game 7, it wasn't even about the rebounding. The score was like 83-79, so all of those offensive rebounds hardly  translated into points. It was the Celtics failure to execute on the offensive end. Which is why the Perk trade made us alot better. Up by 13 but couldn't hold the lead. Stagnation killed us, not rebounding

wait a minute. getting killed on the glass 53-40, while allowing them to get 23 offensive rebounds didn't make a difference??? The Celtics were playing as great D as you could ask them (plus Kobe throwing up inefficient hero shots) and we held them to a miserable 32.5% FG shooting. We should've won.

...but we didn't.

i never watched the game again, because i hate it, but i know Gasol got one of his huge offensive rebounds with the game hanging in the balance, under a minute to go. our defense can make teams do things they don't want, and force up shots they don't want to shoot, but what makes the Lakers formidable is that their bigs can help erase those mistakes when they crash the glass.

size is something LA has going for them. To quote you, "Obviously another big would've helped" and isn't that the whole point?? that LA has good bigs and no matter how many Shelden Williams you throw at them, it's not gonna work because you actually need quality bigs? Not injured ones (JO, Perk)? and not scrub ones (Shelden Williams)?

if they traded Gasol to get a guy like Rashard Lewis (y'know, a non-rebounding "big"), every other team would love that trade because it takes the size away from LA. Bynum is a huge luxury for them because it allows Odom to come off the bench. Let's face it, despite Odom's inconsistencies, he is a quality starting piece for 28 other teams (BOS and LA being the exception) playing either the 3 or 4.

hate the Lakers but u gotta call a spade, a spade. they're beatable, but size is something that is definitely an asset to them. It's not some sort of imaginary thing that ESPN, among others, hypes up for no good reason.

[garz]

Right. The exact reason why LA won two straight championships is overrated...so does that mean championships are overrated? 

Yea, but even though that is one of the main reasons, their size is still overrated because the media's "experts" and people all over the place keep saying nobody can match up with them. They've hyped up the Gasol/Bynum combo so much that they look at another team with two skilled 7-footers and still say they can't match up.

[OsirusCeltics]

having 2 legit 7-footers who are very capable both on defense and offense is pretty good. plus, having Odom off the bench is huge for them because he's as skilled as they come. they're not overrated. they present matchup problems.

the Thunder gave them problems but do you know what play did the Thunder in? Yup, that crucial putback by Gasol. And we were close to winning the championship in game 7 but you know what was the ultimate difference? about a bajillion offensive rebounds. In that 7-game series, whoever won the game was the one who won the boards. their size poses a problem.

i'm sure it's always part of the gameplan to "limit the Lakers' offensive possessions" but that's a lot easier said than done. i'm sure in our case, other teams' gameplan is to "not turn the ball over" because Rondo plays a perfect transition game and our shooters get open a lot on delayed transition, but goshdarnit, doesn't Rondo just mess their gameplan up?

The size had nothing to do with that Gasol tip. Just a great heads up play. It was the Thunder's failure to execute offensively when it mattered. They were so close to win two times on the Lakers home court, but failed cause of inexperience

And for Game 7, it wasn't even about the rebounding. The score was like 83-79, so all of those offensive rebounds hardly  translated into points. It was the Celtics failure to execute on the offensive end. Which is why the Perk trade made us alot better. Up by 13 but couldn't hold the lead. Stagnation killed us, not rebounding

wait a minute. getting killed on the glass 53-40, while allowing them to get 23 offensive rebounds didn't make a difference??? The Celtics were playing as great D as you could ask them (plus Kobe throwing up inefficient hero shots) and we held them to a miserable 32.5% FG shooting. We should've won.

...but we didn't.

i never watched the game again, because i hate it, but i know Gasol got one of his huge offensive rebounds with the game hanging in the balance, under a minute to go. our defense can make teams do things they don't want, and force up shots they don't want to shoot, but what makes the Lakers formidable is that their bigs can help erase those mistakes when they crash the glass.

size is something LA has going for them. To quote you, "Obviously another big would've helped" and isn't that the whole point?? that LA has good bigs and no matter how many Shelden Williams you throw at them, it's not gonna work because you actually need quality bigs? Not injured ones (JO, Perk)? and not scrub ones (Shelden Williams)?

if they traded Gasol to get a guy like Rashard Lewis (y'know, a non-rebounding "big"), every other team would love that trade because it takes the size away from LA. Bynum is a huge luxury for them because it allows Odom to come off the bench. Let's face it, despite Odom's inconsistencies, he is a quality starting piece for 28 other teams (BOS and LA being the exception) playing either the 3 or 4.

hate the Lakers but u gotta call a spade, a spade. they're beatable, but size is something that is definitely an asset to them. It's not some sort of imaginary thing that ESPN, among others, hypes up for no good reason.

Wait, what are you talking about? OKC has ruined people's perception of Kristic. Being from the NYC-NJ area, I watched all of the Nets games when Kristic was there. He is a post player! Like gosh. He has an array of post moves and camps in the paint and is a banger. His mid range shooting is an addition to his game. Kristic said himself that OKC did not allow him to post up. He can do that now on the Celtics

And for game 7, Ray and Paul shot like 8/29 which was horrible. Lakers only won by 4 with all those offensive rebounds. You think if both of them made 5 more shots, we wouldn't have won the game??

[Celtics4ever]

Bynum is injury prone sometimes and Gasol can be soft and disappearance at times but both have largely overcome those faults.  both are solid rebounders and at least average on defense.   Gasol is a good post player and Bynum is average  I would say.

I think the number one reason they are decent is they get lots of calls.   Bynum goes over the back a lot and rarely gets called.  I still think the 21 FTA in the 4th quarter did us in more than their players.  Whenever they missed they got sent to the line for some freebie points.   If you notice they don't brag much about the win because they didn't earn it as much as we lost it.

[jsingh1699]

i think having green vs LA will make things very interesting.

assume the lakers have kobe at the 2 and artest at the 3. when we want to rest ray, we can have pierce at the 2, and green at the 3. now that puts the lakers in a tough spot. kobe will have problems overpowering either pierce or green when he posts up (he'll work very hard to make those fadeaways and jumpshots) and then when hes on defense, if hes on green, green will post him every time, or if its pierce, well you know how pierce likes to use his size.

i also think we'll have bbd and green split the minutes on odom. i also think that if one of the oneals are injured, bbd may see more time on bynum and so green will get more minutes on odom.

but green will play a big role in the lineup mentioned above with him at the 3.

[LooseCannon]

KG needs to sweep the leg.

[OsirusCeltics]

[/b][/b][/b]

The Lakers are overrated? Yes, of course!

The laker big rotation is not overrated. They have two All Star bigs, Gasol and Odom, and a solid starter in Bynum.

Gasol is the most skilled big man in the league, and the best player on that team. MVP of the Finals, only second to Joey Crawford. Only KG and Krstic (and JO if he is healthy) can defend him, but only a 100% KG and a guy named Sheed can shut him down.

Odom is a versatile and uber-talented player, the good thing is that he's not consistent, so we'll be ok in the long run.

Bynum is overrated sometimes, he looks a lot better because he gets lots of easy baskets out of teams double-teaming Gasol. But he's a very good rebounder, and he can score at will over 6'10" players, so we need the O'Neals to match him.

The rest of the Laker team is way overrated, Kobe is a good player but he isn't clutch, he isn't Mike... and they can thank Artest and Fisher for being clutch last june, that was a factor in beating the Celtics. But their big man rotation is what makes the Lakers a solid team.

****oo too funny. But its the truth. The refs knew what they were doing and were more important to the Lakers than the actual player

[ballin]

Guys, I think we're in a troll thread. The original poster has claimed that:

1) Krstic is a better rebounder than Perk
2) Rebounding wasn't a major cause in our Game 7 loss

No, that's not hyperbole and no, I didn't misread his posts. He is literally arguing both of those points. That's crazy, for obvious reasons. I'm not posting or looking in this thread anymore.

[LilRip]

having 2 legit 7-footers who are very capable both on defense and offense is pretty good. plus, having Odom off the bench is huge for them because he's as skilled as they come. they're not overrated. they present matchup problems.

the Thunder gave them problems but do you know what play did the Thunder in? Yup, that crucial putback by Gasol. And we were close to winning the championship in game 7 but you know what was the ultimate difference? about a bajillion offensive rebounds. In that 7-game series, whoever won the game was the one who won the boards. their size poses a problem.

i'm sure it's always part of the gameplan to "limit the Lakers' offensive possessions" but that's a lot easier said than done. i'm sure in our case, other teams' gameplan is to "not turn the ball over" because Rondo plays a perfect transition game and our shooters get open a lot on delayed transition, but goshdarnit, doesn't Rondo just mess their gameplan up?

The size had nothing to do with that Gasol tip. Just a great heads up play. It was the Thunder's failure to execute offensively when it mattered. They were so close to win two times on the Lakers home court, but failed cause of inexperience

And for Game 7, it wasn't even about the rebounding. The score was like 83-79, so all of those offensive rebounds hardly  translated into points. It was the Celtics failure to execute on the offensive end. Which is why the Perk trade made us alot better. Up by 13 but couldn't hold the lead. Stagnation killed us, not rebounding

wait a minute. getting killed on the glass 53-40, while allowing them to get 23 offensive rebounds didn't make a difference??? The Celtics were playing as great D as you could ask them (plus Kobe throwing up inefficient hero shots) and we held them to a miserable 32.5% FG shooting. We should've won.

...but we didn't.

i never watched the game again, because i hate it, but i know Gasol got one of his huge offensive rebounds with the game hanging in the balance, under a minute to go. our defense can make teams do things they don't want, and force up shots they don't want to shoot, but what makes the Lakers formidable is that their bigs can help erase those mistakes when they crash the glass.

size is something LA has going for them. To quote you, "Obviously another big would've helped" and isn't that the whole point?? that LA has good bigs and no matter how many Shelden Williams you throw at them, it's not gonna work because you actually need quality bigs? Not injured ones (JO, Perk)? and not scrub ones (Shelden Williams)?

if they traded Gasol to get a guy like Rashard Lewis (y'know, a non-rebounding "big"), every other team would love that trade because it takes the size away from LA. Bynum is a huge luxury for them because it allows Odom to come off the bench. Let's face it, despite Odom's inconsistencies, he is a quality starting piece for 28 other teams (BOS and LA being the exception) playing either the 3 or 4.

hate the Lakers but u gotta call a spade, a spade. they're beatable, but size is something that is definitely an asset to them. It's not some sort of imaginary thing that ESPN, among others, hypes up for no good reason.

Wait, what are you talking about? OKC has ruined people's perception of Kristic. Being from the NYC-NJ area, I watched all of the Nets games when Kristic was there. He is a post player! Like gosh. He has an array of post moves and camps in the paint and is a banger. His mid range shooting is an addition to his game. Kristic said himself that OKC did not allow him to post up. He can do that now on the Celtics

And for game 7, Ray and Paul shot like 8/29 which was horrible. Lakers only won by 4 with all those offensive rebounds. You think if both of them made 5 more shots, we wouldn't have won the game??

what are you talking about? I never mentioned Krstic in my posts.

and secondly, they won by 4 with all those offensive rebounds. You think if they made 10 less offensive rebounds, we could've survived our offensive drought (something our team was prone to do last year anyway)? and do you think it's regular for the Lakers to shoot 32%? It was a slugfest of a game and the rebounds mattered.

but anyway, my main point is i really can't see how anyone can disregard LA's size, because it's an absurd notion. In other discussions, like the Perk v Green trade or just how much BBD is worth, there are valid points coming from both sides, but this time, i can't see it. I can't see your point that LA's size doesn't matter or that it doesn't play a part... because well, it does. These guys aren't bums at the end of their careers (e.g. Miami Heat centers). LA have some very quality bigs who play both ends of the floor quite well. so in the end, their size matters and it plays a significant part in why they win. and i think it needs no reminder that they've won 2 rings in a row.

[OsirusCeltics]

having 2 legit 7-footers who are very capable both on defense and offense is pretty good. plus, having Odom off the bench is huge for them because he's as skilled as they come. they're not overrated. they present matchup problems.

the Thunder gave them problems but do you know what play did the Thunder in? Yup, that crucial putback by Gasol. And we were close to winning the championship in game 7 but you know what was the ultimate difference? about a bajillion offensive rebounds. In that 7-game series, whoever won the game was the one who won the boards. their size poses a problem.

i'm sure it's always part of the gameplan to "limit the Lakers' offensive possessions" but that's a lot easier said than done. i'm sure in our case, other teams' gameplan is to "not turn the ball over" because Rondo plays a perfect transition game and our shooters get open a lot on delayed transition, but goshdarnit, doesn't Rondo just mess their gameplan up?

The size had nothing to do with that Gasol tip. Just a great heads up play. It was the Thunder's failure to execute offensively when it mattered. They were so close to win two times on the Lakers home court, but failed cause of inexperience

And for Game 7, it wasn't even about the rebounding. The score was like 83-79, so all of those offensive rebounds hardly  translated into points. It was the Celtics failure to execute on the offensive end. Which is why the Perk trade made us alot better. Up by 13 but couldn't hold the lead. Stagnation killed us, not rebounding

wait a minute. getting killed on the glass 53-40, while allowing them to get 23 offensive rebounds didn't make a difference??? The Celtics were playing as great D as you could ask them (plus Kobe throwing up inefficient hero shots) and we held them to a miserable 32.5% FG shooting. We should've won.

...but we didn't.

i never watched the game again, because i hate it, but i know Gasol got one of his huge offensive rebounds with the game hanging in the balance, under a minute to go. our defense can make teams do things they don't want, and force up shots they don't want to shoot, but what makes the Lakers formidable is that their bigs can help erase those mistakes when they crash the glass.

size is something LA has going for them. To quote you, "Obviously another big would've helped" and isn't that the whole point?? that LA has good bigs and no matter how many Shelden Williams you throw at them, it's not gonna work because you actually need quality bigs? Not injured ones (JO, Perk)? and not scrub ones (Shelden Williams)?

if they traded Gasol to get a guy like Rashard Lewis (y'know, a non-rebounding "big"), every other team would love that trade because it takes the size away from LA. Bynum is a huge luxury for them because it allows Odom to come off the bench. Let's face it, despite Odom's inconsistencies, he is a quality starting piece for 28 other teams (BOS and LA being the exception) playing either the 3 or 4.

hate the Lakers but u gotta call a spade, a spade. they're beatable, but size is something that is definitely an asset to them. It's not some sort of imaginary thing that ESPN, among others, hypes up for no good reason.

Wait, what are you talking about? OKC has ruined people's perception of Kristic. Being from the NYC-NJ area, I watched all of the Nets games when Kristic was there. He is a post player! Like gosh. He has an array of post moves and camps in the paint and is a banger. His mid range shooting is an addition to his game. Kristic said himself that OKC did not allow him to post up. He can do that now on the Celtics

And for game 7, Ray and Paul shot like 8/29 which was horrible. Lakers only won by 4 with all those offensive rebounds. You think if both of them made 5 more shots, we wouldn't have won the game??

what are you talking about? I never mentioned Krstic in my posts.

and secondly, they won by 4 with all those offensive rebounds. You think if they made 10 less offensive rebounds, we could've survived our offensive drought (something our team was prone to do last year anyway)? and do you think it's regular for the Lakers to shoot 32%? It was a slugfest of a game and the rebounds mattered.

but anyway, my main point is i really can't see how anyone can disregard LA's size, because it's an absurd notion. In other discussions, like the Perk v Green trade or just how much BBD is worth, there are valid points coming from both sides, but this time, i can't see it. I can't see your point that LA's size doesn't matter or that it doesn't play a part... because well, it does. These guys aren't bums at the end of their careers (e.g. Miami Heat centers). LA have some very quality bigs who play both ends of the floor quite well. so in the end, their size matters and it plays a significant part in why they win. and i think it needs no reminder that they've won 2 rings in a row.

I do think they have talented bigs, but I do not think that they are so vaunted as everyone says. They can be stopped and neutralized. And size doesn't win championships, the better team does

[nba is the worst]

Ref blaming is funny.  Celtics were benefitted by nocalls for 3 quarters of that game.

Lakers need their bigs to be healthy - and so do the Celtics...

[harrmonica]

Enormous tactical mistake by Danny trading a shot blocker for a non shot blocker.

i love comments like this. the guy has been in the nba since 1981, john wooden award winner, 2 time nba champion, an all-star, executive of the year. the guy has been successful at every level, yet this tactical detail eluded him? we didn't seem to have any problem beating them in L.A. in january w/o perk, and they had bynum, gasol and odom in the lineup.