L.A. Lakers NOT a top 5 team!!

[Donoghus]

Heat, Celtics, Thunder, possibly Spurs who else can better than the Lakers?  That being said, they are vastly overrated.  They are the slowest team.  They have awful perimeter defense. 
1 - Kobe and Artest are no longer elite defenders.  They have no athleticism outside of Dwight. 
2 - They have no legit 3 point shooting outside of Nash.  Meeks is too awful at everything else to earn time on the court.  Kobe is average.
3 - Dwight might average 5 blocks but he'll be in constant foul trouble dealing with Westbrook, Harden, Durant, Wade, Lebron, Rondo, Bradley, Green etc.  who will blow by the Lakers back court.
4 - They have no athleticism outside of Dwight.
5 - They are old.  Like the Celtics of the past few years, they may be extremely talented but old people miss games. 
6 - Dwight was traded there against his will.  The CBA ensures he won't sign an extension even if he wanted to sign there.  Welcome to Dwightmare.
7 - Antwaun Jamison shot 40 percent from the field last year.  Jordan Hill has legal and health issues.  The rest of their bench is too abysmal to even talk about. 
8 - Pau has been in steady decline as one would expect from a man of his age and limited athleticism. 
9 - It's Kobe's team.  Dwight wants it to be his team.  Kobe wants the ball.
10 - Kobe's going to take the ball away from Nash's hands and vice versa. 
11 - Mike Brown couldn't earn the respect of Lebron.  What's he going to do with Dwight and Kobe?
I probably missed a lot more.  Let's not even mention their enormous payroll and lack of draft picks or young talent outside of Dwight who is an UFA.

Thanks..glad someone agrees with me also. Everyone keeps on saying "on paper". Last I check, "on paper" doesnt win championships

Well, when they haven't played any meaningful games yet, it's hard to go by anything else.

[ScoobyDoo]

I think the best "team" in LA is the Los Angeles Clippers and they'll prove it this season - my opinion.

DeAndre Jordan 
Blake Griffin
Caron Butler
Jamaal Crawford
Chris Paul   

Bench: Turiaf, Odom, Grant Hill, Matt Barnes, Jamaal Crawford (once Chauncey comes back),Willie Green & Eric Bledsoe.

They have a good starting lineup and added some very good veteran depth. I like what they did.   

[KGs Knee]

 
6 - Dwight was traded there against his will.  The CBA ensures he won't sign an extension even if he wanted to sign there.  Welcome to Dwightmare.

There will be no "Dwightmare".

Howard may have been reticent to go to LA at one point, after Kobe had made some comment about it "will always be my team", or something to that affect, but it was surely fleeting.  It was always more about his overwhelming desire to go to Brooklyn, not his disdain for LA. Howard may have, or may not have, wanted to be traded to LA at one point, but I can gaurantee he is happy there at the moment. 

Mostly, Howard just didn't want to have the perception of following Shaq's career path.  The comparisons really irritate him, primarily because Shaq never accepted him.

[celtsfan84]

This post seems like VERY wishful thinking.  The Lakers were arguably a top 5 team last season (HEAT, Thunder, Celtics, Spurs ahead of them, maybe Pacers, Bulls if healthy).  It is hard to see how they are any worse than they were last year.  They had some of the same problems listed above.  The only difference is that now they have Dwight Howard to compensate for plenty of their problems.

No NBA team is perfect and immense talent at the top of a rotation can overcome plenty of flaws.  We could've come up with an 11 point list of weaknesses in the HEAT last year, some that the Pacers and Celtics exploited. And they still won the championship.  The Lakers are a flawed team, but to think they aren't a top 5 team is a reach.

[KGs Knee]

LA has to be a top 5 team, at the moment, just due to Howard/Kobe.

I could see them struggling with health or lack of bench production.

[MJohnnyboy]

They should be a top team but they are bound to have troubles this year. Their downfall could be their second unit. Their bench struggled during the pre-season, not to mention they only have one proven scorer in Jamison. Jamison however is one of the biggest scrubs I've ever seen on the defensive end. Hill's a fantastic rebounder but that's just about it from him. Meeks is a three point shooter but that's just about it. Blake hasn't been anything more than mediocre in his two years as a Laker. Outside of that, who do they have? Earl Clark? Chris Duhon? They were filler players in the Dwight deal.

They really dropped the ball when they got rid of Lamar Odom. He gave them a great edge as their sixth man.

Kobe, Nash, and Pau are all players who are getting up there in age, and while I'm sure they can create quite a lethal offense, their growing defensive inefficiencies, especially with Nash, who was never a good defensive player, could seriously kill them. Can Howard seriously cover for them. In Orlando, Dwight actually had some defensive talent. Peaches, Lee, Redick, Gortat all were passable to borderline elite defensive players. Howard was a centerpiece but those guys did help give Orlando a defensive edge. The Lakers do not have the same luxury as Orlando did.

They'll be amongst the elite, but until they find energy players that match up with OKC, they aren't getting past the Thunder.

[celtsfan84]

I'd say the importance of depth is greatly overrated on this forum.  Sure, it is nice to have, and nobody is hurt from having too many good players.  But here is an interesting fact:

Game 7, Heat vs. Celtics -
How many players scored at all for the Celtics? 6
How many players scored at all for the HEAT? 6

Once again, not saying depth isn't important, and obviously we would've preferred to have more healthy and good players for Game 7 last season.  But I'd be a little more concerned with the 40 minutes from Dwight, Kobe, and Pau than with the 8 minutes from Hill, Jamison, and Meeks.

How often has a depth build trumped a top heavy build in the NBA?

[Chelm]

They really dropped the ball when they got rid of Lamar Odom. He gave them a great edge as their sixth man.

You'd prefer Lamar Odom over Nash?

[Moranis]

I'd say the importance of depth is greatly overrated on this forum.  Sure, it is nice to have, and nobody is hurt from having too many good players.  But here is an interesting fact:

Game 7, Heat vs. Celtics -
How many players scored at all for the Celtics? 6
How many players scored at all for the HEAT? 6

Once again, not saying depth isn't important, and obviously we would've preferred to have more healthy and good players for Game 7 last season.  But I'd be a little more concerned with the 40 minutes from Dwight, Kobe, and Pau than with the 8 minutes from Hill, Jamison, and Meeks.

How often has a depth build trumped a top heavy build in the NBA?

exactly.  Top heavy teams win NBA championships, not deep ones.  Look no further than the Spurs over the last 15 years to see this borne out.  Spurs = winning titles when top heavy.  Spurs = winning a lot of regular season games and losing early in the playoffs when a deep team.  Now the all time great teams have both all time great players and a lot of depth, but you certainly don't need the depth to win the NBA title.

[SHAQATTACK]

Depth to me is most important concerning injury to a key player, as in who is gonna step up give a simular performance night after night.

FOr the Lakers to go ALL the WAY Kobe can't ever be sick or injuried more than a few games at a time. A breakdown at key game in the playoffs would be all she wrote.

He is gonna have to play alot of minutes, hard minutes for a guy his age , with no one who can even pull half his weight in point production. Nash is such a season injury just waiting to happen.

For many teams with older players , its more of a GAS MILEAGE race,  who can reach the end of seasons with the least wear and tear on their players and the most gas left in the tank.

IMO OKC and the HEAT have clear advantage .  OKC is all young and healthy and the Heat have the nuke powered James capable of running on 100% energy for 82 games non stop for the next 6 years.   ...and then go dancing after the game.

     

[MBunge]

How often has a depth build trumped a top heavy build in the NBA?

Well, I'd say it helped Boston against LA 5 years ago.  Look how important Posey and PJ Brown were.  Detroit clearly won with depth every time it's won the title.  Dallas certainly didn't have the top heavy team against Miami.  Houston was clearly a team that won with depth rather than being top heavy with great players.  Heck, even when you look at the Lakers you can make a good argument that what made them truly elite was having Odom to bring off the bench.  And look at Chicago's first three-peat team.  Horace Grant was no superstar and rest of the supporting cast played pretty important roles in winning.

Talent can overcome depth, but even Miami last year needed some big plays from guys outside Bron, Wade and Bosh.

Mike

[Yogi]

 
6 - Dwight was traded there against his will.  The CBA ensures he won't sign an extension even if he wanted to sign there.  Welcome to Dwightmare.

There will be no "Dwightmare".
Howard may have been reticent to go to LA at one point, after Kobe had made some comment about it "will always be my team", or something to that affect, but it was surely fleeting.  It was always more about his overwhelming desire to go to Brooklyn, not his disdain for LA. Howard may have, or may not have, wanted to be traded to LA at one point, but I can gaurantee he is happy there at the moment. 

Mostly, Howard just didn't want to have the perception of following Shaq's career path.  The comparisons really irritate him, primarily because Shaq never accepted him.

   Of course there will be one.  Dwight won't sign an extension and reporters will keep asking him. 
   Kobe when asked whose team it is said mine of course.  Nash said Kobe's.  Dwight said the "Lakers organization" and our team.
   The Shaq comparisons will keep growing and growing if he stays in LA.  I'm not sure he's looking forward to that.
   I can't wait for when the Lakers start struggling and the blame game begins. 

[celtsfan84]

How often has a depth build trumped a top heavy build in the NBA?

Well, I'd say it helped Boston against LA 5 years ago.  Look how important Posey and PJ Brown were.  Detroit clearly won with depth every time it's won the title.  Dallas certainly didn't have the top heavy team against Miami.  Houston was clearly a team that won with depth rather than being top heavy with great players.  Heck, even when you look at the Lakers you can make a good argument that what made them truly elite was having Odom to bring off the bench.  And look at Chicago's first three-peat team.  Horace Grant was no superstar and rest of the supporting cast played pretty important roles in winning.

Talent can overcome depth, but even Miami last year needed some big plays from guys outside Bron, Wade and Bosh.

Mike

Well, I guess it depends how far down the roster you would consider someone to be "depth".  Horace Grant wasn't a superstar, but he was the third best player on the team.  The Lakers have Pau Gasol as their third best player, so I guess you'd say that they have awesome depth?  When mentioning Miami, you only mention three guys.  Steve Nash is the fourth best Laker. 

I'd put Chicago and Miami on the top-heavy list and not on the depth list. If you count Miami as winning with depth because of contributions from more than three guys, and you count Chicago as winning with depth because of contributions from more than two guys, than the Lakers depth should be just fine.  They have four potential Hall of Fame players (some past their prime but still great). 

[RyNye]

Detroit clearly won with depth every time it's won the title.

The Bad Boy Pistons weren't a deep team. They had Isiah Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, all HOFers. Heck, Isiah-Dumars is arguably the best back-court in NBA history. Similarly, the 2004 team wasn't terribly deep ... Ben Wallace, Chauncey, Prince, and Rip were the driving forces there. All starters. Not that they didn't have a good bench, but their starters won that championship (Wallace is an EXTREMELY underrated player. He was a beast, he just didn't score a lot).

Houston was clearly a team that won with depth rather than being top heavy with great players.

Wrong. Ever heard of Hakeem Olajuwon? Top all-time player? Who else was on those teams of worth besides Horry and Cassell? Hakeem is why they won, they had one of the best players in the history of the sport.

And look at Chicago's first three-peat team.  Horace Grant was no superstar and rest of the supporting cast played pretty important roles in winning.

Uh ... Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan.

[celtsfan84]

Detroit clearly won with depth every time it's won the title.

The Bad Boy Pistons weren't a deep team. They had Isiah Thomas, Dumars, Rodman, all HOFers. Heck, Isiah-Dumars is arguably the best back-court in NBA history. Similarly, the 2004 team wasn't terribly deep ... Ben Wallace, Chauncey, Prince, and Rip were the driving forces there. All starters. Not that they didn't have a good bench, but their starters won that championship (Wallace is an EXTREMELY underrated player. He was a beast, he just didn't score a lot).

Houston was clearly a team that won with depth rather than being top heavy with great players.

Wrong. Ever heard of Hakeem Olajuwon? Top all-time player? Who else was on those teams of worth besides Horry and Cassell? Hakeem is why they won, they had one of the best players in the history of the sport.

And look at Chicago's first three-peat team.  Horace Grant was no superstar and rest of the supporting cast played pretty important roles in winning.

Uh ... Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan. Michael Jordan.

Yeah, it's really not a coincidence that Jordan won three titles, took two years off, came back and won three titles again (with an entirely different supporting cast other than Pippen).  All the depth Chicago needed was 3 (Michael, Scottie, and one All-Star caliber big man).  The other guys were proven to be interchangeable parts.

And when Hakeem won his titles, only one team in the NBA had multiple Hall of Famers (Utah had two).  Someone had to win the title that year.  I wouldn't count that as a triumph of depth over top-heavy.  I'd count it as there being no top-heavy teams.  Now, Los Angeles has potentially 4 Hall of Famers, Boston has potentially 4, San Antonio has potentially 3, Miami has potentially 3.

Dallas and Detroit, sure, but that's far more the exception than the rule.  And even those included one of the great individual playoff performances ever (Dirk's playoff run).