Official 2009-2010 WORLD CHAMPION LA Lakers Thread

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

Also, if your theory of the number of screens was the case, then one would think they would have made it so that Frye DID end up on Kobe but the Lakers' goal in that set was to get Nash on Kobe so Kobe can get up a shot without a tall guy to deal with.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

When you watch this play, who do you see guarding Kobe?

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

When you watch this play, who do you see guarding Kobe?

That debunks your theory on the big men needed to chase Kobe on the screens because Suns played sort of a zone with the inbound defender being the second guy. THAT defender should have been Frye, not Hill with Amare and Lopez defending the basket. Artest would have gotten his shot sent back.

Either way, the situation was a jumpshot with enough time for a possible put back and PHX had their shortest team in the game on that.

Length affects a jumpshot the most and Length secures the basket.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

When you watch this play, who do you see guarding Kobe?

That debunks your theory on the big men needed to chase Kobe on the screens because Suns played sort of a zone with the inbound defender being the second guy. THAT defender should have been Frye, not Hill with Amare and Lopez defending the basket. Artest would have gotten his shot sent back.

Jared Dudley was chasing Kobe around the initial screen, and then Grant Hill took him after he was beat. They dedicated two guys to Kobe. Both are perimeter players, and one of your hypothetical big men would have had to do their job.

And for chrissakes, JC, that isn't a Zone.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

When you watch this play, who do you see guarding Kobe?

That debunks your theory on the big men needed to chase Kobe on the screens because Suns played sort of a zone with the inbound defender being the second guy. THAT defender should have been Frye, not Hill with Amare and Lopez defending the basket. Artest would have gotten his shot sent back.

Jared Dudley was chasing Kobe around the initial screen, and then Grant Hill took him after he was beat. They dedicated two guys to Kobe. Both are perimeter players, and one of your hypothetical big men would have had to do their job.

And for chrissakes, JC, that isn't a Zone.

You're missing the point. It didn't matter who started out on Kobe. Grant is playing a zone depending on where Kobe ends up. What I'm trying to say is that Dudley lost Kobe no different than how you claim Frye would lose him. Grant Hill is what made that play a good defensive play which was why where Kobe ended up wouldn't have mattered no matter who starts out on him as long as you have Hill or another taller player helping out in that spot. Kobe gets doubled no matter what.

But, what they definitely would have had is better protection and height around the basket. They didn't and that why they lost.

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:

Originally posted by dobophile:

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by dobophile:
Some horrible decisions by Gentry and a dose of luck, and the Lakers barely pull it out at the end.

Suns will win game 6.

I wouldn't characterize it like that. The Lakers were in control for the vast majority of that game.

What do you disagree with?

I really think the Suns would have won if Gentry hadn't been so stupid about Nash and Dragic in the 4th quarter.

The dumbest move was to NOT have Lopez/Frye/Amare combo on that last play. Lopez would have boxed out Gasol in the middle with Amare and Frye having the length to protect the basket on just that exact thing. Artest would have gotten it sent back the other way. HUGE error. You ALWAYS want bigs in the game when two points can tie or take the lead away. 4 seconds is almost enough to run the court, so 3.5 is plenty of time for dribble penetration.

DUMB MOVE BY GENTRY.

Lopez/Frye/Amare combo = much better shot for Kobe. Good luck having one of them fight through the multiple screens that were set on that play.

Lopez instead of Frye? Okay. Three bigs? Terrible idea.

I wouldn't necessarily call Amare and Frye "bigs" in that sense of the word. They are athletic.

That's why Hill and Nash were the guys who ended up on Kobe. Either way, you switch and Amare/Frye are athletic enough to contest a Kobe jumper.

I'll take Frye or Amare on Kobe with 3.5 seconds on the clock every time.

Over Nash?



Nash has absolutely NO chance to do anything and it's not like they will need to guard him one on one...Kobe would be doubled either way, but it gives you a better chance to protect the rim.

When you watch this play, who do you see guarding Kobe?

That debunks your theory on the big men needed to chase Kobe on the screens because Suns played sort of a zone with the inbound defender being the second guy. THAT defender should have been Frye, not Hill with Amare and Lopez defending the basket. Artest would have gotten his shot sent back.

Jared Dudley was chasing Kobe around the initial screen, and then Grant Hill took him after he was beat. They dedicated two guys to Kobe. Both are perimeter players, and one of your hypothetical big men would have had to do their job.

And for chrissakes, JC, that isn't a Zone.

You're missing the point. It didn't matter who started out on Kobe. Grant is playing a zone depending on where Kobe ends up. What I'm trying to say is that Dudley lost Kobe no different than how you claim Frye would lose him. Grant Hill is what made that play a good defensive play which was why where Kobe ended up wouldn't have mattered no matter who starts out on him as long as you have Hill or another taller player helping out in that spot. Kobe gets doubled no matter what.

But, what they definitely would have had is better protection and height around the basket. They didn't and that why they lost.

How exactly does having a big chasing Kobe around screens help you under the basket? Furthermore, if you have a big on Kobe instead, there's a very high likelihood that the screen isn't even used, because the big isn't going to be able to deny the ball the way a Dudley would. All Kobe'd have to do was beat Grant Hill.

Part of the reason that play ended on an offensive rebound was because Kobe drew the attention of 3 Suns. Their issue wasn't size, it was being out of position. Same thing happened in Game 6 of the 1st Round with the Gasol putback.

Originally posted by LA9erFan:

Originally posted by Joecool:


You're missing the point. It didn't matter who started out on Kobe. Grant is playing a zone depending on where Kobe ends up. What I'm trying to say is that Dudley lost Kobe no different than how you claim Frye would lose him. Grant Hill is what made that play a good defensive play which was why where Kobe ended up wouldn't have mattered no matter who starts out on him as long as you have Hill or another taller player helping out in that spot. Kobe gets doubled no matter what.

But, what they definitely would have had is better protection and height around the basket. They didn't and that why they lost.

How exactly does having a big chasing Kobe around screens help you under the basket? Furthermore, if you have a big on Kobe instead, there's a very high likelihood that the screen isn't even used, because the big isn't going to be able to deny the ball the way a Dudley would. All Kobe'd have to do was beat Grant Hill.

Part of the reason that play ended on an offensive rebound was because Kobe drew the attention of 3 Suns. Their issue wasn't size, it was being out of position. Same thing happened in Game 6 of the 1st Round with the Gasol putback.

Dudley was nowhere near Kobe when he got the ball. He was actually closer to the spot where Ron Artest caught the ball. Dudley got caught watching. My point is that with this combo:

JR on Fisher
Hill on Kobe initially to force the original screens that were set
Frye near the inbound to give more length on Kobe's shot attempt
Lopez on Pau
Amare on Artest

That would secure every aspect.

Frye being the floater who helps on Kobe
Hill forcing Kobe to run to THAT spot because of his Hill's mobility
JR on Fisher

So, you're telling me Lopez and Amare down low is not better than Frye and JR.

Either way, you could keep Dudley and Hill but switch out Frye, JR, and Nash for Lopez, Amare, JR. What Gentry did made no sense, especially when there's enough time to get a shot at the basket.

Originally posted by Joecool:
Dudley was nowhere near Kobe when he got the ball. He was actually closer to the spot where Ron Artest caught the ball. Dudley got caught watching. My point is that with this combo:

JR on Fisher
Hill on Kobe initially to force the original screens that were set
Frye near the inbound to give more length on Kobe's shot attempt
Lopez on Pau
Amare on Artest

That would secure every aspect.

Frye being the floater who helps on Kobe
Hill forcing Kobe to run to THAT spot because of his Hill's mobility
JR on Fisher

So, you're telling me Lopez and Amare down low is not better than Frye and JR.

Either way, you could keep Dudley and Hill but switch out Frye, JR, and Nash for Lopez, Amare, JR. What Gentry did made no sense, especially when there's enough time to get a shot at the basket.

All of that breaks down when Frye is the guy that's trying to help out on Kobe. Kobe put a couple of moves on Grant Hill when he came off of that screen, and Hill stuck with him. I seriously doubt that Frye would have. Guards always get bigs on their heels on the perimeter. Frye would have gone one way, and Kobe would have gone another.

You're asking a center to provide ball denial on Kobe. That's a bad idea.

I side with Pete on this one. Frye and Stoudemire aren't strong rebounders to begin with - ball denial and/or causing the offensive player to catch the ball at a spot they're uncomfortable with is much more important than having an extra big guy in the game. My only beef with the whole shindig was that Frye was the big man Gentry chose to go with, and not the much more lengthy, much more adept rebounder in Lopez.

Originally posted by TheSixthRing:
I side with Pete on this one. Frye and Stoudemire aren't strong rebounders to begin with - ball denial and/or causing the offensive player to catch the ball at a spot they're uncomfortable with is much more important than having an extra big guy in the game. My only beef with the whole shindig was that Frye was the big man Gentry chose to go with, and not the much more lengthy, much more adept rebounder in Lopez.

Yeah, I completely agree about Lopez. Even Amundson would have been better, because he's so see ball/get ball.