I think the Mavs really earned it, 2-0, as of today May 5. Dirk is hard to stop. Plus Only three NBA teams have come back to win a best-of-seven series after losing the first two at home. They are in the same situation with the Celtics.
This is an interesting read http://www.wmctv.com/story/14576076/dir … o-2-0-lead
Could very well be Maita.But I still have faith they will pull it out. They seem to get tougher with their backs against the wall.
Stick a fork in em ! The thing is the Lakers are not playing bad . They are shooting 50% and usually have been outrebounding them too. Those threes are just killin them though. Dallas is just playing great basketball right now.
Those guys are totally done! Dallas is not going on a 4 game losing streak in that series. This is not the Maverick team of years past. Dirk is ticked off and Kidd manages the game much better than Derek Fisher. Ron Artest shoots himself in the foot by getting a suspension, and Jason Terry is the most underated player on the block!
Sorry, Laker fans. Your run is officially over. All good things must come to an end, though.
okay, i was with you up until you said the lakers run is over which i seriously doubt. even if they lose this series, they still have a fairly good combination of young and veteran player nucleus to stay competitive for at least five or 10 more years. I doubt this will be the last we'll be hearing of the Lakers being in contention of winning a title with kobe and gasol.
Besides, rumor has it that the Lakers will try to actively pursue Derron Williams and Chris Paul when they become free agents. If they manage to get one of those guys, then you know they're a shoe in to win it all if you add one of those guys into the current roster they havee.
Now, before any of you smart alex says, "Phil doesn't like using true point guards." Well Phil is retiring after this year, so that pretty much is a non factor if anything
Give credit to the Mavs so far. They're playing at a very high level of team basketball and the Lakers are playing like they are taking winning for granted. It doesn't seem right to criticize someone with 11 championships, but in this case Phil Jackson has made some huge errors in this series.
With all of that said, it doesn't look good at this point and I know that only either 2 or 3 teams have come back from losing their first two games at home, but I think that if any team can comeback from such a deficit it would be the Lakers. I think last night's game was the first "must win" game they have lost in the last two years. This team plays better when their back is against the wall. They were going to slip up at some point because you can't always just turn on the switch whenever you want. Now they just have a deeper hole to get out of than they have had the last two years. Some might say however that this team doesn't play well until their back is against the wall.
I agree with that.
Well the problem with Phil Jackson, and you can go all the way back to when he coached Chicago, is that he has a tendency to let whatever problems happen amongst the players sort itself out. Which means once he teaches his players the fundamentals of what they need to know to execute his game plan, then he just expects them to do it, as he's never been too much of a hands on type of coach. That's always been his problem. Sure, his methods work with most veteran teams, but this is probably why you'll never see him coaching teams that are rebuilding. Plus, it seems like Phil Jackson might be losing control of his team again, as that's never a good sign. As I seem to remember him saying earlier during the Hornet/Lakers series, that supposedly he never knows which Lakers team is ever going to show up every night. Whether it be the motivated Lakers or the unmotivated Lakers. Unfortunately, the last time i heard him say that about the Lakers, I seem to remember the Detroit Pistons eliminating them in the finals in like 5 games. I'm just saying it's not a good sign...
I have to respectfully disagree with you that the Lakers play better with their backs against the wall, as I can't even think of one Kobe Bryant led series where his team was down 2-0, then came back to win it. If the Lakers do that, THEN you can say that. However, the Lakers have always won off their talent and/or intimidation factor. If a team is scared of them to some degree, then the Lakers always win. Or, if the Lakers are just simply more talented, then they always win. However, whenever they play against a team with nothing to lose, and doesn't show any fear against them, the Lakers in the Kobe era always choke. I'm not making that up either, as that's a fact.
Charles Barkley even said it best. The Lakers win off their talent and intimidation. When they face a team that's equally as talented as they are, and isn't scared of them, then they always lose. The Lakers aren't the type of team that plays better with their backs against the wall. No, they're more like the bully team that chokes when they meet someone that can actually beat them. And before anyone says, "What about the Celtics last year?" Well, Kendrick Perkins was injured in game 7 of the NBA finals, and they didn't have anyone to matchup against Bynum. Therefore, that doesn't count in my book. Now if the Lakers would've beaten the Celtics in Game 7 with Perkins playing, then I would give them more credit. However, since that's not the case, I won't.
I will say this though. I'm not counting out the Lakers, as they're a very deep team. However, I will say the series will be decided in game 3. If the lakers win game 3, then I do think they have a shot to get back into this series. But if they lose game 3, then I don't think the Lakers are psychologically strong enough, and kobe isn't a strong enough leader to lead them, to overcome a 3-0 deficit, as the series will be over at that point. Sure, the Lakers may push it to five or six games, but the Mavericks will inevitably win the series if the Lakers lose game 3. Game 3 is a must win for the Lakers.
Here is what I am talking about in terms of the Lakers winning every theoretical must-win playoff game over the last three seasons until last night against the Mavs:
Rd 2 vs. Houston Rockets
- Lakers win game 2 to tie the series 1-1 to avoid losing the first two games at home.
-Lakers win game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead to avoid falling behind 3-2 in the series and getting eliminated at Houston in game 6
- Lakers win game 7 and and avoid elimination to win series 4-3
Conference Finals vs. Denver Nuggets
- Lakers win game 5 to take 3-2 series lead and avoid potentially going back to Denver in a game where they could have been eliminated in Denver in game 6.
Rd. 1 vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- Lakers win game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead avoid potentially going back to OKC in a game where they could have been eliminated in OKC in game 6.
Conference Finals vs. Phoenix Suns
- Lakers win game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead avoid potentially going back to Phoenix in a game where they could have been eliminated in Phoenix in game 6.
NBA Finals vs. Celtics
- Lakers win game 6 to tie the series at 3-3, avoid elimination, and force game 7
- Lakers win game 7 to win NBA title and avoid elimination
1st Rd vs. New Orleans Hornets
- Lakers win game 2 to tie the series 1-1 avoid losing the first two games at home
- Lakers win game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead and avoid heading back to New Orleans and potentially being eliminated in New Orleans in game 6
How can you say the Lakers have always lost and "choked" in the Kobe Bryant led era at times they have faced teams that are not scared of them and have equal talent when the Lakers have made the last 3 NBA Finals and won the last 2? The only loss was in the last 3 years was those 2008 NBA Finals to the highly experienced Celtics when the Lakers were a young team without Andrew Bynum and without home-court advantage. As you know, the Lakers avenged that loss by winning last year's finals. Sure, Kendrick Perkins was out for game 7 but he did not stop the Lakers from winning the other 3 games in the series and what difference would it have made? There is almost no way possible the Celtics could have played better defense than they did in that game. The Celtics defense forced the Lakers into 32.5% shooting in that game and only 83 points. You think Perkins was going to make that even worse? As for Bynum, the Celtics didn't need to have anyone to match up against him because he had torn meniscus in his left knee the whole series and would not have even been playing if it had not been the NBA Finals. He only averaged 7 pts, 5 rebs per game and was not much of a factor.
The Lakers are 7-0 in series the last 4 seasons when the series is tied 2-2. That's a lot of must-win type of games that have been won during that period of time. Many of those times, the Lakers own arrogance and taking their opponent for granted got them into series deficits or must win games, but they were always able to win the games they needed to win until game 2 against the Mavs. The arrogance of this team was going to catch up to them sooner or later. You can only temp fate so many times-- and you can only flip the switch at any time you want so many times before you get burned.
I was not going back that far. In my original post, I was talking about the Lakers success in winning must win games within the last two championships. The previous post branched that out to the year they lost to the Celtics. Now I understand where you were coming from though. I just wasn't going back that far because this current team is far different. Nor was I even going back to the first 3 years after ShaQ left because nothing was expected of the Lakers during their team was composed of Kobe and the likes of Smush Parker, Slava Medvedenko, Kwame Brown, Chris Mihm, Mo Evans, and Vladmir Radmanovic.
Well you do have a point. I guess maybe I am being too hard on the Lakers, as I know back when Shaq was on there, so much of the offense revolved around him. And, I know according to most sources, Shaq was never infamously known for a strong work ethic, as he relied on a lot of his physical attributes to play. Not that there's anything wrong with it, as he was the biggest and the strongest player in the NBA, but as you get older, you can only rely on pure physical toughness for so long. Plus, it didn't help that he would threaten not to rebound if he didn't get enough touches, and it does seem like the Lakers play a lot harder now that Kobe is the sole leader of the team. Therefore, I guess I can see you're point. I guess most of my skepticism about them comes from my perception of how they were back when Kobe first started versus how they actually are now.
ShaQ was as dominant of a force as there has ever been back in his prime, but all of the things you stated about him and his work-ethic are true as far as I know as well. I know Kobe had concerns about ShaQ's work-ethic going forward. Even though many claim Kobe forced ShaQ out, I think it was a move the Lakers had to make when they did to blow up that team and build around Kobe, who had already emerged as one of the best players in the league in the few seasons prior to that.
I do not believe the negative "ball hog" reputation Kobe attained from the first few years after ShaQ was necessarily fair either. To some, he has still not shed the negative reputation, but just take a look at the Lakers' rosters from those first 3 years after ShaQ and tell me who else coould contribute anything or is even worthy of being on an NBA roster outside of Lamar Odom. During those years, as a Laker fan, I didn't even care if the team won or lost because watching Kobe Bryant play was an event --whether it be scoring 50,60,80 points in a game, scoring 30 pts in a qtr, scoring 10 pts in a minute, hitting circus shots, or rocking the rim with explosive dunks. It was entertaining.
With all of that said, it's amazing how that team started entirely over, going from the top to the bottom and then being able to rebuild that team to a championship team around Kobe within a few years. I really didn't see that coming at all. Many people say it's all because of the Pau Gasol trade, and that was big, but what people forget is that during that 2007-2008 season the Lakers were in 1st place in the Western Conference at the time they traded for Gasol near the all-star break. Nobody expected that. Gasol just put them over the top. In basketball, once a team reaches the bottom, it takes a long long time to ever get back to being a viable team. I think Kobe deserves some credit for adapting his game and helping that team become a championship caliber team.
In regard to Phil Jackson, I agree with your points. The failure to call a timeout when the Mavs cut a 16 point lead down to 3 in in 4 minutes really hurt them in game 1. As did taking out Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol around the 2 minute mark of the 3rd Qtr and not bringing them back until there was 6 minutes left in the 4th. Kobe was on fire when he was taken out and they waited that long to bring him back when the Mavs had immediately made up a 7 point deficit starting the 4th? Then having Gasol cover Dirk instead of Odom was also a costly mistake with the game on the line. The announcers and everyone saw what was going to happen before it even happened. Then in game 2, I have no idea why Phil was so patient and insistent with letting Steve Blake continuing playing through his struggles. I almost felt bad for Blake out there because he was a total disaster and Phil played him for 20 minutes in that game, compare that to only 13 minutes for Shannon Brown and other key reserves.
The Lakers have not been good in the 4th Qtr this season and that is because they rest Kobe for the first half of the Qtr, the bench stinks, and Kobe comes back in out of any rhythm he had been in earlier.
I think the comparison of this team to the 2004 team that was shocked and dismantled by the Pistons in 2004 is brilliant. I had not thought of that, but it makes so much sense now that you mention it.
Looks like Ron Artest has returned to being Ron Artest. Not a good sign.
The Lakers are done, they are still winning 6 mins left into the game! I thought they are going to win tonight. Dirk is really insistent to win!
Here's what I find amusing about game 3 - Lakers and Mavs.
Points in the paint
Lakers - 56
Mavs - 20
- The Mavs shoot 29 3-point shots compared to 13 by the Lakers
Lakers - 14
Mavs - 29
These stats pretty much defy logic and prove what I was seeing in watching the game to be true.
Let's face it, the NBA gets the matchups they want in order to market the up and coming teams and players going deeper into the playoffs and on into the finals. The league did the same thing in the last Lakers 3-peat when they robbed the Sacramento Kings and gave the Lakers 30 FT attempts in a 4th quarter of a crucial playoff game.
I've been saying it, the NBA wants the Miami Heat and the OKC Thunder in the Finals. Durant v. LeBron. The Mavs are a great team and they are playing so well at just the right time, but they are merely a pawn.
oh please. i doubt that's what's happening here, as this is just a simple case of the mavericks outplaying the lakers. besides, if that was the case, then wouldn't stern have the games fixed to have kobe vs lebron first? you know have somewhat of a passing of that torch, by rigging the games to have lebron beat kobe in the finals. then have lebron have a ongoing finals rivalry with durant, by having them meet multiple times ala bird vs magic. not saying the games were fixed back then, as im sure they weren't. however, you really have no proof the games with the mavericks vs the lakers series is fixed. sure, we know the kings and lakers series was obviously fixed because of that whole referee scandal, but all you have is mere speculation and no concrete evidence to validate it. personally, i think if the games were fixed, then the league would've been smarter by allowing the thunder beat the lakers if that was the case. im just saying.
I'm not going to delve much more into that situation because it's merely speculation on my part. I do have a lot of thoughts and angles on the topic though, so maybe I'll write a hub about it.
The Mavs have played an outstanding series to this point and I do not want to take a lot away from them. The Lakers have actually outplayed them during the first 3 quarters in about every game but the Mavs have killed them in the 4th Qtrs, especially in the final 5 minutes with their 3 point shooting.
With that said, the last minute of game 1 as well as game 2 and 3 have had some one-sided officiating that has controlled these games at key times and the numbers defy logic when it comes to basketball.
Maybe that changes in game 4 if the league wants to extend this series. Let me say this though: If the Lakers win game 4, I believe they will win this series and become the first team in the NBA to ever come back from an 0-3 hole.
I think I saw thor hammering spikes into there coffin, some reallllly skinny guys with a black robe was with him to!
The team is going to have to revamp again... After a mediocre season, and playoffs marred with game 1 losses at home (not to mention the current Dallas situation) it is clear to me that they need something new...
The past 3 games have been a travesty....
If the Lakers do end up losing, at least you can be sure that their proactive front-office will be making some moves. Their run was going to end either this year or next anyways. I've said it on another thread, but Dwight Howard has expressed interest in joining the Lakers and the Magic know they have very little chance at resigning him after next season.
Bynum could be traded, Odom could be traded (although I don't want to lose him), and Gasol will be public enemy number one and certainly tradeable if the Lakers lose (funny because he was untouchable until this offseason). Shannon Brown may also be an attractive commodity to some teams being that he is young, athletic, and has some potential.
If the Lakers lose, I'd expect something to happen quick because they want to milk what they can out of the Kobe Bryant era. I think he's signed on for another 3 years and it's hard to see him playing much or at a high level beyond that.
no its logical! It proves that the lakes are playing sloppy defence allowing the mavs to get open for 3's. Wich forces the lakers to foul late in the game giving the mavs easy points. The mavs are basicly making the lakers play how the mavs want to them play. or to quote get him to the greek, "getting there mind fk on"
I agree with you there. the problem that I tend to notice about the series is that Dirk doesn't play like a normal big man, as he can play like a freaking guard, so that's throwing off a lot of how the Lakers normally play defense. If you watch how the Lakers play, part of the reason why they're so dominant is because you have to worry about those two 7 foot tall guys in Gasol and Bynum crowding the paint or sometimes 3 if they start Odom. However, since Dirk can shoot from practically anywhere, it's forcing one or two of their big men to leave the paint to guard him, and that allows for Dallas' guard to drive more to the basket than any other team would against the lakers.
I think this works out well. Having a loss in an elimination game where the team shows no effort whatsoever. Now there's a clear need to disassemble this team and get some younger and hungrier players in there. They need a point guard to start ahead of Fisher and Gasol has to go. Artest has to go as well, but no team is going to pick him up with his contract. I said before the season they should have acquired Kyle Korver for some outside shooting and the failure to do so has cost them.
the lakers insulted there legacy this weekend by how they played and acted like poor sports!!!
Mavs played an outstanding game. The Lakers might as well give them credit.
the thunder and grizz showed the lakers how to play a playoff game since they forgot how to. hahaha
The Lakers have been a great team for a long time.I love Derek Fisher. He is a great player and a better human being but his age really showed in this series.And Gasol is just to inconsistent. Bynum could be one of the most dominant big men in the NBA but something is missing in his mental make up. And the bottom line is the Lakers age showed in this post season.
The Lakers are now officially an old team. But nothing last forever. Time to rebuild. Like the Spurs the Lakers are going to have to retool. And I believe it has to start by improving the bench. But the Bulls, the Heat and Oklahoma City and Memphis are the new Sheriffs in town now. All are young talented and hungry.
by Robin Edmondson 10 years ago
Will it be as good as the finals between them in the 80s?
by J@ps 8 years ago
Who's going to step up?Who wants it more?What are the matchups to watch out for?Who's going to win?
by aswinbahudana 7 years ago
There has been a passionate debate between NBA fans regarding the fact that is it Dwayne Wade or Kobe Bryant for the best.LA Lakers fans believe that Kobe is the best where as the many people in Miami Heat believe that Wade's the next gen.Regarding Kobe Bryant, NBA analysts have talked about his...
by ballfan92 7 years ago
Among the favorites are the Heat, Celtics, Lakers, Spurs, but who do you think will win it all this year?
by LakeShow T 7 years ago
With the long-awaited and highly anticipated NBA season getting underway tonight, what better time to share predictions for who will make the NBA Finals this season. For me, it will be Dejavu all over again with the Celtics and Lakers meeting in the finals once again. I think the Lakers will...
by Jason Zimmerman 8 years ago
The best player in the game today. LeBron or Kobe?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|