Official NBA 2012-2013 Season Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
ColdCity said:
DubA169 said:
Chi leads the league I'm attendance without their superstar stepping foot on the court. Pretty impressive
Click to expand...

thats what we do ...... we dont start showing up in the middle of the 2nd just to say we were there we have real fans
Click to expand...

We sold out when we started Eddie Robinson. Of course we're going to sell out now, we're always tops in attendance... Which is why Jerry & co are in no hurry to make any drastic moves.
 
I think the Rockets other than Harden are better than people are giving them credit for. Lin, after a slow start, has been solid. Asik is space eater and a good defensive center. Parsons is much improved, etc. They do have some talent on that team. If it was just Harden and a bunch of bums, they wouldn't be seventh in the West. Plus, from what I've seen, the Rockets have been pretty competitive in the games Harden hasn't played. They killed the Clippers without him once. I'm not saying Harden doesn't deserve MVP consideration, I'm just saying that I don't think the Rockets would be awful without him. They wouldn't be a playoff team in the West though, that's for sure.
 
Antidope said:
They need to just start giving out the award the right way once it stops belonging to LeBron and actually give it to the most valuable player. You guys remeber the year when D Wade basically was the Heat(think it was 09-10 season) and he got hurt and they became the worst team in the league? He should have won MVP this year. This award really needs to start going to the actual most valuable player on a team. If James Harden wasnt there, that team wouldnt even be sniffing the playoffs, he deserves second place. He is willing that team to the playoffs single handely. If I could pick MVP it would go

1.LeBron
2.Harden
3.Parker
4.Gasol
5.Curry
6.Durant
7.Westbrook
8.Paul
9.Duncan
10.Anthony

I couldnt care less about concept of being the best player on the best team, MVP should go to the guy who if he was not there the team would fall apart along with whos individual contribution adds the most value to their team. Just an observation, but if I misunderstood anything you said please correct me fam.
Click to expand...
But by this standard the Knicks would still be a playoff team and Melo leading the league in scoring really means nothing. Because without Melo, the Knicks wouldn't make the playoffs, possibly get a low seed in the East at best only because they only have two go to scorers as it is.
 
Last edited:
ColdCity said:
srs?

:lol:

plz explain
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that difficult to understand, if the award was always given to the best player in the league then Derrick Rose would not have an MVP. There's no way you can say he was the best player in 2010-2011 or any year for that matter.
 
Antidope said:
ohmygosher said:
AG 47 said:
"I honestly think the Lakers would do fine without Kobe."


Define fine.
Click to expand...


This.
Click to expand...
Theyd have a better record than what they currently have, dead serious( I like Kobe and have 0 issues with him whatsoever)
Click to expand...

Damn bro, I honestly valued your opinions.
I still do but its hard to take much serious if you honestly believe the Lakers would have a better record right now without Kobe.

Seems like a Skip Bayless typa thing to say...basic shock value.

Didn't take you as that typa poster.
But aight man, if thats really your opinion then so be it.
 
^Yeah cause their almost a lottery team with him. If you take this same season injures included without Kobe. :x they might get 30 wins.
 
Last edited:
It isnt a knock on Kobe by any means. If we're talking about the Lakers with Mike D'Antoni as the coach, I think them minus Kobe would be better if not at least comparable. He would be able to impliment his offense to a higher degree without Kobe there because he demands a large amount touches and shots. Obviously Kobe has won them games alone this season and should get credit for it, but I think that with Kobe gone, they'd get to feed Howard more, and open up more opportunities for shooters amongst a few other things.

Maybe better record was a reach, in fact I wanna withdraw that. Big Js right, you cant base an argument on hypotheticals it leads to nothing. Delete all my recent Posts SKA/Animalthug/Meth
 
Last edited:
lawdog1 said:
I think the Rockets other than Harden are better than people are giving them credit for. Lin, after a slow start, has been solid. Asik is space eater and a good defensive center. Parsons is much improved, etc. They do have some talent on that team. If it was just Harden and a bunch of bums, they wouldn't be seventh in the West. Plus, from what I've seen, the Rockets have been pretty competitive in the games Harden hasn't played. They killed the Clippers without him once. I'm not saying Harden doesn't deserve MVP consideration, I'm just saying that I don't think the Rockets would be awful without him. They wouldn't be a playoff team in the West though, that's for sure.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You also have to look at their offensive system. With or without Harden, they play at a breakneck pace that a lot of teams wouldn't be able to keep up with.
 
362085
 
Antidope said:
It isnt a knock on Kobe by any means. If we're talking about the Lakers with Mike D'Antoni as the coach, I think them minus Kobe would be better if not at least comparable. He would be able to impliment his offense to a higher degree without Kobe there because he demands a large amount touches and shots. Obviously Kobe has won them games alone this season and should get credit for it, but I think that with Kobe gone, they'd get to feed Howard more, and open up more opportunities for shooters amongst a few other things.



Maybe better record was a reach, in fact I wanna withdraw that. Big Js right, you cant base an argument on hypotheticals it leads to nothing. Delete all my recent Posts SKA/Animalthug/Meth
Click to expand...

I know youre an objective guy.
I know you post genuine beliefs.

But i just dont think you're dissecting that situation enough and really thinking about what the team would be like without Kobe.
I dont wanna make TOO long of a post about it, but i'll post a few bullet points of things to consider when claiming their record would be better without Kobe:

-Dwight would get the load of touches, but without the proper facilitating he isn't capable of constantly creating his own shots throughout a game.
-Dwight cant make free throws, he's not your go-to guy in the 4th quarter...unless you wanna see a bunch of bricked FT's which will ruin the flow of their game.
-Nash was injured for pretty much half the season, and the other half hes been the same shooter hes always been...but even SLOWER than usual on defense especially transition D.
-Pau was pretty much injured half the season.
-Jordan Hill is out
-Steve Blake was out for 25 games or so.

So for a majority of the season your starting line-up would be:

PG- STEVE BLAKE/DARIUS MORRIS
SG- JODIE MEEKS
SF- METTA WORLD PEACE
PF- EARL CLARK
C - DWIGHT HOWARD.

Now just take a long, hard look at that....82 games, of THAT.
You think MDA's system will flourish better with just THEM and not with Kobe?

You think that after 82 games, with a MAJORITY of them having that starting line-up...the Los Angeles Lakers would have more than 42 wins? You think they would have 50 wins with Jodie Meeks as the go-to guard?

I just want you to let that sink in a little, sleep on it, then come back later and let me know if you still stand by your comment.
If you do, alright...we'll drop it and move on.
But think about it man, you really think Dwight with a bad back half the season and a lack of post-moves to begin with, plus bad free throw shooting, was going to carry that squad to 45-50 wins?

That's all im sayin.
 
Last edited:
This is the NBA Thread, there is a thread dedicated to discrediting Kobe its called the Kobe Overrated Thread, please use it!
 
you really think the lakers would have a better record WITHOUT kobe?

dantoni could implement a better offense without kobe? he would be able to do this without an offseason and training camp?

not playing with kobe wont improve dwights willingness and ability to play the pick and roll with nash

not playing with kobe wont keep pau gasol, steve nash, steve blake, and jordan hill off the injury list for long periods of time.

you're gonna have jodie meeks out there as your starting SG? or are you going to run a steve nash and steve blake backcourt with duhon/morris and meeks backing them up?

and thats just the offensive side of things.

not playing with kobe wont improve the team's defense either, which is the biggest fault of this team.

kobe has his faults, but to say the lakers would have a better record without kobe? no. i don't think so.

edit: LTB beat me to it :lol:
 
Last edited:
That's ridiculous. And it's not because it's Kobe Bryant. It's because the rest of the team has been lackadasical, disinterested, or injured at one point or another.

Take Kobe off the team - the one guy who has played at a high level through it all - and then you've got a team where Dwight Howard was injured and/or not eem caring for a good stretch, Pau Gasol camped out at the three + injured + BENCHED, Steve Nash injured on and off, D'Antoni shuffling everyone's roles to the point where they don't know what to do. That team would still be under .500 at least.

The Lakers season has been a mess and Kobe's play is a huge reason why they might almost survive it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom