|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8323
Location: Santa Monica
|
 Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type. |
Those are usually late bloomer types.
Dennis Rodman was a janitor, got picked when he was 25. Growth spurt.
Scottie Pippen, was a team manager, before the growth spurt.
Scouting back then isn't what it is today. But those kinds of stories, usually prove successful.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
slavavov
Star Player
Joined: 03 Oct 2003
Posts: 8323
Location: Santa Monica
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type. |
Those are usually late bloomer types.
Dennis Rodman was a janitor, got picked when he was 25. Growth spurt.
Scottie Pippen, was a team manager, before the growth spurt.
Scouting back then isn't what it is today. But those kinds of stories, usually prove successful. |
Was there any indication that George was on his way to developing the refined skills and IQ you need to do well in the NBA? Those were the two things he really seemed to suck at.
_________________
Lakers 49ers Chargers Dodgers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type. |
Those are usually late bloomer types.
Dennis Rodman was a janitor, got picked when he was 25. Growth spurt.
Scottie Pippen, was a team manager, before the growth spurt.
Scouting back then isn't what it is today. But those kinds of stories, usually prove successful. |
Was there any indication that George was on his way to developing the refined skills and IQ you need to do well in the NBA? Those were the two things he really seemed to suck at. |
Dude was like a 6'3" guard before the major growth spurt. I said in the prior post, that taking a Div III player is risky.
Usually players bring those guard skills along with the height. Dude was setting DivIII records. It's not like there was YouTube at the time.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13215
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2020 11:05 pm Post subject: Re: Lack of depth and role player support on 2000-02 title teams |
|
|
| madsen35 wrote: | I was looking at the roster of the 2001 title team.
The depth of post players was super weak.
Shaq's backup was Greg Foster. Occasionally Horace Grant would slide to the 5. Mark Madsen and Slava Medvedenko played limited minutes that year as young players.
Horry was pretty good, but not great.
I'm honestly stunned by how thin the Lakers were. Obviously, Shaq played a lot of minutes, so his backup didn't really need to. But a serious injury to Shaq would have spelled disaster.
I feel like the laker dynasty could have been extended in the early 2000s if the bench had been filled out more.
And it wasn't just the post player depth.
In 2003, guys like Fox and Shaw were on their last legs. What did management do? They went out and got... TRACY MURRAY?
Lindsay Hunter was traded for Kareem Rush, which looked like it could be a smart move in order to bring in a young wing player, but it didn't pan out.
Samaki Walker was brought in but we know how that turned out.
I understand that Kobe and Shaq ate up most of the salary cap, and certain players weren't signed because of the belief that they wouldn't fit in the triangle offense. But yeesh, the bench wasn't very good...
I'm not a Mitch hater. He acquired Pau eventually. He got Ariza for pennies. Got Shannon Brown. He made some good moves. But I wonder how in the world he thought the benhh was acceptable from 2001-03. |
I thought it nearly cost us the Kings series in 2002. They had 7 double digit scorers compared to 3 on our team. But the team was strong enough to overcome that.
2003 was when it really hurt. The Spurs were just better that year.
I never thought Horry was great. He was clearly outmatched in the playoffs against guys like Rasheed Wallace, Webber, Malone and Duncan. Thankfully he could bail the team out with super huge shots.
This is why I don’t buy the claim that Shaq and Kobe would have won more rings together. They needed more help around them. And after he left LA Shaq never played at the same level he played at in the championship years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 6:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type. |
I'm not sure if I would call him a "good pick." But most 23rd picks don't play 11 years in the NBA, so I can't call him a bad pick at that position. About a third of the guys drafted in the first round that year didn't play more than 4 years/159 games in the NBA. Once you get past the first 7-10 guys, there are lots of busts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Omar Little
Moderator
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90304
Location: Formerly Known As 24
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
The lakers were heavily invested in Shaq and Kobe (and of course either going down would be a disaster, so would mj for the bulls, LeBron for the heat or cavs, curry or Durant for the warriors. Etc.). But they were also heavily invested in Phil and the triangle, and most of their picks and signings represent the type of players he wanted. Yes they could have done better drafting and signing. And maybe they win more, but the three peat was over for reasons more about Shaq and Kobe than anything else.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j-dawg
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 12177
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| j-dawg wrote: | | The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. |
I'm not sure about that. The deathknell to that team was the conflict between Shaq and Kobe. Don't see how snagging a surprising rookie in the second round changes that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j-dawg
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 12177
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | | The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. |
I'm not sure about that. The deathknell to that team was the conflict between Shaq and Kobe. Don't see how snagging a surprising rookie in the second round changes that. |
Whether extending the life of those championship teams actually turns into a championship in itself is still a question mark. I think the fall in 2003 had as much to do with burning out as it did with the internal conflicts in itself.
I certainly think a direct injection of, say, 2nd rounder 15ppg young player right into 2002/2003 would’ve helped with much needed depth. I do think the lack of depth is an understated symptom to the problem, and the long term effects of the problems was the eventual breakup of Shaq/Kobe.
But then again, I am of the opinion that even after all of the turmoil, a championship in 2004 would’ve at least extended the Shaq/Kobe Laker Tenure together. Even with Kobe’s dissatisfaction and impending free agency. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve007
Franchise Player
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 13215
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think Shaq was too satisfied after winning those titles. The media kept criticizing him when he hadn’t won yet, but after he won the first one a lot of that criticism stopped. Then he won two more. What else did he have to prove after he already won 3 times?
It was one of the things that Kobe complained about. Kobe said Shaq would be the greatest of all time if he had the same work ethic as Kobe had. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j-dawg wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | | The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. |
I'm not sure about that. The deathknell to that team was the conflict between Shaq and Kobe. Don't see how snagging a surprising rookie in the second round changes that. |
Whether extending the life of those championship teams actually turns into a championship in itself is still a question mark. I think the fall in 2003 had as much to do with burning out as it did with the internal conflicts in itself.
I certainly think a direct injection of, say, 2nd rounder 15ppg young player right into 2002/2003 would’ve helped with much needed depth. I do think the lack of depth is an understated symptom to the problem, and the long term effects of the problems was the eventual breakup of Shaq/Kobe.
But then again, I am of the opinion that even after all of the turmoil, a championship in 2004 would’ve at least extended the Shaq/Kobe Laker Tenure together. Even with Kobe’s dissatisfaction and impending free agency. |
Realistically, if the Lakers had drafted a Jordan Clarkson, he wouldn't have averaged 15 points as a rookie because wouldn't have gotten 13-15 shots as a rookie. Only reason Clarkson got an opportunity with us was because we were so crappy. I mean, how many second rounders are really good enough out of the box to get minutes on a contending team? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30666
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Horry wouldn't sniff 15 ppg even if he was your alpha. His shooting was key and I loved his clutch shot making but outside of that he was awful on offense by and large. Couldn't dribble for the life of him. Zero post game. His in the paint shot making was horrifying. Larry Nance Jr. reminded me of him in that regard. When either of them had a clear runway, they were world class finishers. Any, and I mean ANY sort of resistance and this cringe worthy circus shot would ensue.
Again, love him for his clutch shot making but we were regularly teabagged by opposing power forwards in that era. It's not a coincidence that we buzz-sawed through the league in 2001 when we had Horace Grant. Grant wasn't the only reason we won but not getting destroyed at that position flipped the script for the team.
Fox on the other hand was legit on offense during his Boston days.
_________________
KOBE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j-dawg
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 12177
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You are correct, I thought Horry actually hit close to 15ppg, but he never did. 12ppg was his best season playing for Houston |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jonnybravo wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Horry wouldn't sniff 15 ppg even if he was your alpha. His shooting was key and I loved his clutch shot making but outside of that he was awful on offense by and large. Couldn't dribble for the life of him. Zero post game. His in the paint shot making was horrifying. Larry Nance Jr. reminded me of him in that regard. When either of them had a clear runway, they were world class finishers. Any, and I mean ANY sort of resistance and this cringe worthy circus shot would ensue.
Again, love him for his clutch shot making but we were regularly teabagged by opposing power forwards in that era. It's not a coincidence that we buzz-sawed through the league in 2001 when we had Horace Grant. Grant wasn't the only reason we won but not getting destroyed at that position flipped the script for the team.
Fox on the other hand was legit on offense during his Boston days. |
For the first ring, we did have a third guy who was a 16 ppg scorer in Glen Rice. Our offense was actually better the next two years (#2 in the league) with Derek Fisher as the third best scorer at 11 ppg.
There's nothing magical about having a third guy score 15 ppg.
Lots of teams won rings without that -- the first Warriors ring team; the Lakers in 08-09, the Heat in 05-06; the Spurs didn't have one 17 ppg guy; |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j-dawg
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 12177
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Horry wouldn't sniff 15 ppg even if he was your alpha. His shooting was key and I loved his clutch shot making but outside of that he was awful on offense by and large. Couldn't dribble for the life of him. Zero post game. His in the paint shot making was horrifying. Larry Nance Jr. reminded me of him in that regard. When either of them had a clear runway, they were world class finishers. Any, and I mean ANY sort of resistance and this cringe worthy circus shot would ensue.
Again, love him for his clutch shot making but we were regularly teabagged by opposing power forwards in that era. It's not a coincidence that we buzz-sawed through the league in 2001 when we had Horace Grant. Grant wasn't the only reason we won but not getting destroyed at that position flipped the script for the team.
Fox on the other hand was legit on offense during his Boston days. |
For the first ring, we did have a third guy who was a 16 ppg scorer in Glen Rice. Our offense was actually better the next two years (#2 in the league) with Derek Fisher as the third best scorer at 11 ppg.
There's nothing magical about having a third guy score 15 ppg.
Lots of teams won rings without that -- the first Warriors ring team; the Lakers in 08-09, the Heat in 05-06; the Spurs didn't have one 17 ppg guy; |
I think added depth is more important than PPG, it’s just that PPG is something that can be used to illustrate the depth of having that scoring punch. Those teams are just really thin on talent, and it goes beyond the measure of PPG (although that point can be demonstrated by that stat).
The talent pool in the NBA has gotten better since then. I would argue that even 5 years after that, the talent pool in the NBA, in particular the guard positions, had improved tremendously.
That 2002-03 team would’ve benefitted from younger legs, which would be more apparent in the regular season. Discounting any sort of stat, I think even if we had like a couple of players in the mold of the Shannon Brown’s or Jordan Farmar’s, or Ramon Sessions’ of the world, it would’ve made an impact. Heck, I remember being intrigued when we added an older (clearly out of his prime) Lindsey Hunter to the team.. Lindsey Hunter! That’s how starve we were for depth and talent.
Remember the excitement that Janerro Pargo brought to the team around that time? We were hoping he would be that infusion of fresh young talent to our team. Pargo wouldn’t have made the final cut for the 2009/2010 teams
Less reliance on Shaq and Kobe in the regular season means less pressure on guys like Devean George and Lindsey Hunter to be prime time consistent role players, and ultimately, taking the weight off of the shoulders of the Big Two. Over the course of 80+ games, that can play a huge role in how everyone heads into the playoffs with less wear and tear on their bodies. This is especially true if you’re coming off of 3-4 deep playoff runs |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30666
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j-dawg wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Horry wouldn't sniff 15 ppg even if he was your alpha. His shooting was key and I loved his clutch shot making but outside of that he was awful on offense by and large. Couldn't dribble for the life of him. Zero post game. His in the paint shot making was horrifying. Larry Nance Jr. reminded me of him in that regard. When either of them had a clear runway, they were world class finishers. Any, and I mean ANY sort of resistance and this cringe worthy circus shot would ensue.
Again, love him for his clutch shot making but we were regularly teabagged by opposing power forwards in that era. It's not a coincidence that we buzz-sawed through the league in 2001 when we had Horace Grant. Grant wasn't the only reason we won but not getting destroyed at that position flipped the script for the team.
Fox on the other hand was legit on offense during his Boston days. |
For the first ring, we did have a third guy who was a 16 ppg scorer in Glen Rice. Our offense was actually better the next two years (#2 in the league) with Derek Fisher as the third best scorer at 11 ppg.
There's nothing magical about having a third guy score 15 ppg.
Lots of teams won rings without that -- the first Warriors ring team; the Lakers in 08-09, the Heat in 05-06; the Spurs didn't have one 17 ppg guy; |
I think added depth is more important than PPG, it’s just that PPG is something that can be used to illustrate the depth of having that scoring punch. Those teams are just really thin on talent, and it goes beyond the measure of PPG (although that point can be demonstrated by that stat).
The talent pool in the NBA has gotten better since then. I would argue that even 5 years after that, the talent pool in the NBA, in particular the guard positions, had improved tremendously.
That 2002-03 team would’ve benefitted from younger legs, which would be more apparent in the regular season. Discounting any sort of stat, I think even if we had like a couple of players in the mold of the Shannon Brown’s or Jordan Farmar’s, or Ramon Sessions’ of the world, it would’ve made an impact. Heck, I remember being intrigued when we added an older (clearly out of his prime) Lindsey Hunter to the team.. Lindsey Hunter! That’s how starve we were for depth and talent.
Remember the excitement that Janerro Pargo brought to the team around that time? We were hoping he would be that infusion of fresh young talent to our team. Pargo wouldn’t have made the final cut for the 2009/2010 teams
Less reliance on Shaq and Kobe in the regular season means less pressure on guys like Devean George and Lindsey Hunter to be prime time consistent role players, and ultimately, taking the weight off of the shoulders of the Big Two. Over the course of 80+ games, that can play a huge role in how everyone heads into the playoffs with less wear and tear on their bodies. This is especially true if you’re coming off of 3-4 deep playoff runs |
That's true. I'm not sure how much it would have mattered given how top heavy we were but Dr. Buss unwillingness to spend beyond the superstars definitely hurt us. Mitch and the brain trust at the time had a penchant for going for unathletic, useless players that had "high IQ". We hit pay dirt with Pau. He was definitely a high IQ guy but more importantly, he was actually good.
_________________
KOBE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonnybravo
Retired Number
Joined: 21 Sep 2007
Posts: 30666
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | jonnybravo wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Horry wouldn't sniff 15 ppg even if he was your alpha. His shooting was key and I loved his clutch shot making but outside of that he was awful on offense by and large. Couldn't dribble for the life of him. Zero post game. His in the paint shot making was horrifying. Larry Nance Jr. reminded me of him in that regard. When either of them had a clear runway, they were world class finishers. Any, and I mean ANY sort of resistance and this cringe worthy circus shot would ensue.
Again, love him for his clutch shot making but we were regularly teabagged by opposing power forwards in that era. It's not a coincidence that we buzz-sawed through the league in 2001 when we had Horace Grant. Grant wasn't the only reason we won but not getting destroyed at that position flipped the script for the team.
Fox on the other hand was legit on offense during his Boston days. |
For the first ring, we did have a third guy who was a 16 ppg scorer in Glen Rice. Our offense was actually better the next two years (#2 in the league) with Derek Fisher as the third best scorer at 11 ppg.
There's nothing magical about having a third guy score 15 ppg.
Lots of teams won rings without that -- the first Warriors ring team; the Lakers in 08-09, the Heat in 05-06; the Spurs didn't have one 17 ppg guy; |
Not sure if you were responding to me or just the thread in general but I never said a 15ppg scorer was a necessity nor did I suggest it was some barometer of success.
Horry wasn't a very good offensive player. Nothing more than that.
_________________
KOBE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | slavavov wrote: | | Mike@LG wrote: | | Steve007 wrote: | | Fwiw even Jerry West picked several busts at the end of his time with the Lakers. |
True. Devean George was a good pick. Always a good idea to pick a former guard with a growth spurt. Coming from Div III, it was a big risk, but George pretty much had a 10 year career.
Lots of guys struggled for 2nd contract types after that. |
How was Devean George a good pick? He was the stereotypical "great athlete, but not a basketball player" type. |
I'm not sure if I would call him a "good pick." But most 23rd picks don't play 11 years in the NBA, so I can't call him a bad pick at that position. About a third of the guys drafted in the first round that year didn't play more than 4 years/159 games in the NBA. Once you get past the first 7-10 guys, there are lots of busts. |
Yup. Just considering the elite scouting of the 80s and 90s, it's shocking to miss so badly for so many consecutive years.
He's a bet on potential. Period. Can't blame the organization when the depth of the draft isn't great.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike@LG
Moderator
Joined: 10 Apr 2001
Posts: 65135
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | | The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. |
I'm not sure about that. The deathknell to that team was the conflict between Shaq and Kobe. Don't see how snagging a surprising rookie in the second round changes that. |
It would have helped to have an actual point guard go between them.
_________________
Resident Car Nut.
https://lakersdraft.substack.com/
I am not an economic advisor nor do I advise economic strategies or plans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madsen35
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 8611
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| j-dawg wrote: | I’m not the biggest Rick Fox fan, but looking back, I think it was unfortunate that he was out of his prime by the championship years. When I watch old games of Rick Fox in the 90’s, it is clear that he wasn’t really the same guy by 2001-02. A 1996-97 Rick Fox would’ve helped tremendously with regards to depth.
As Robert Horry bulked up to play PF, He also transformed as a player. These guys were once capable 15ppg guys back in the mid 90’s, but evolved by those championship years. Imagine if we had a mid 90’s Fox and Horry for 2001-02
Wish we had our scouts from the 2010’s. Those championship teams showed the greatness of Shaq and Kobe, with timely contributions from time to time from role players. The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. I’m not even talking about drafting “Star” players. Just imagine if the early 2000’s Lakers had, say, a Jordan Clarkson on the team. I think even then, it would’ve made a bigger impact than most realize. |
Why don't you like Fox? I love the guy. Always took on the role of the gritty sh*t stirrer. It was hilarious. Here's this pretty boy who would get in the face of other team's stars. It drove them crazy.
He took less money and a smaller to come to LA. He was a team player. He was kind of the go-between when it came to serving as an intermediary between the coaching staff and players.
He actually had a huge game 7 against the Kings in 2002. Almost had a triple double. He was also instrumental in the 2001 playoffs, possibly our third or fourth best player.
_________________
Good Laker book I recommend, "The Biggest What-If's in Lakers History" http://www.amazon.com/Biggest-What-Ifs-Angeles-History-ebook/dp/B00BB3OEC0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mike@LG wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | j-dawg wrote: | | The life of those championship teams would’ve been extended with better talent. |
I'm not sure about that. The deathknell to that team was the conflict between Shaq and Kobe. Don't see how snagging a surprising rookie in the second round changes that. |
It would have helped to have an actual point guard go between them. |
I don't disagree with you. But, honestly, I don't get this entire thread.
The threepeat was one of the greatest teams of all time with two GOAT-level players. It was exciting to watch. It brought me a lot of joy and entertainment.
I have no need to imagine alternative realities for that team. So I'll let others pine for what could have been. I am more than happy with what actually was, and I wouldn't have a change a moment of it. Life isn't meant to be perfect. But that team was close enough to perfect to satisfy me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
madsen35
Star Player
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 8611
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:49 pm Post subject: Re: Lack of depth and role player support on 2000-02 title teams |
|
|
| Steve007 wrote: | | madsen35 wrote: | I was looking at the roster of the 2001 title team.
The depth of post players was super weak.
Shaq's backup was Greg Foster. Occasionally Horace Grant would slide to the 5. Mark Madsen and Slava Medvedenko played limited minutes that year as young players.
Horry was pretty good, but not great.
I'm honestly stunned by how thin the Lakers were. Obviously, Shaq played a lot of minutes, so his backup didn't really need to. But a serious injury to Shaq would have spelled disaster.
I feel like the laker dynasty could have been extended in the early 2000s if the bench had been filled out more.
And it wasn't just the post player depth.
In 2003, guys like Fox and Shaw were on their last legs. What did management do? They went out and got... TRACY MURRAY?
Lindsay Hunter was traded for Kareem Rush, which looked like it could be a smart move in order to bring in a young wing player, but it didn't pan out.
Samaki Walker was brought in but we know how that turned out.
I understand that Kobe and Shaq ate up most of the salary cap, and certain players weren't signed because of the belief that they wouldn't fit in the triangle offense. But yeesh, the bench wasn't very good...
I'm not a Mitch hater. He acquired Pau eventually. He got Ariza for pennies. Got Shannon Brown. He made some good moves. But I wonder how in the world he thought the benhh was acceptable from 2001-03. |
I thought it nearly cost us the Kings series in 2002. They had 7 double digit scorers compared to 3 on our team. But the team was strong enough to overcome that.
2003 was when it really hurt. The Spurs were just better that year.
I never thought Horry was great. He was clearly outmatched in the playoffs against guys like Rasheed Wallace, Webber, Malone and Duncan. Thankfully he could bail the team out with super huge shots.
This is why I don’t buy the claim that Shaq and Kobe would have won more rings together. They needed more help around them. And after he left LA Shaq never played at the same level he played at in the championship years. |
Amen to that. I never was a big fan of Horry. He got abused all the time defensively. I know he had some tough tasks against guys like Rasheed and Webber, but he never did much to actually slow them down.
And offensively, he was limited. But to his credit, he did allow the team to space the floor. But overall, he was the classic case of "if he had played better in the first three quarters, he wouldn't have to make shots in the fourth."
maybe I'm being harsh, but he was just never as high on my list of favorite players...
_________________
Good Laker book I recommend, "The Biggest What-If's in Lakers History" http://www.amazon.com/Biggest-What-Ifs-Angeles-History-ebook/dp/B00BB3OEC0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Palin
Star Player
Joined: 26 Feb 2008
Posts: 1807
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Turning point was 2002 summer imo. We wanted to keep George but we didn't have his bird rights somehow (not sure how that happens, maybe Larry can explain) so we spend our MLE on George to keep him rather than signing Billups which would be an amazing deal.
Billups was a perfect fit for us. He is a big PG which Phil likes and he can shoot and doesnt demand ball much which makes him great fit next to Kobe and Shaq. Also he would fill the need for 3rd scoring option. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
j-dawg
Franchise Player
Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 12177
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 02, 2020 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| madsen35 wrote: |
Why don't you like Fox? I love the guy. Always took on the role of the gritty sh*t stirrer. It was hilarious. Here's this pretty boy who would get in the face of other team's stars. It drove them crazy.
He took less money and a smaller to come to LA. He was a team player. He was kind of the go-between when it came to serving as an intermediary between the coaching staff and players.
He actually had a huge game 7 against the Kings in 2002. Almost had a triple double. He was also instrumental in the 2001 playoffs, possibly our third or fourth best player. |
He was a frustrating player to live with. When people look back at those 3 peat teams, they tend to think about the good things with Fox, which are valid because he always came through in the clutch. Even in big regular season games, I remember him coming through more often than not. That’s not a knock on him as a player at all and it’s easy to remember the good things in part because of that.
But he would go on for long droughts during the regular season shooting 20-something to low 30-something percent from the field. It killed us in the regular season because lack of contributions from players like Fox were the reason why we had to rely so much on Shaq/Kobe. And I am specifically picking on him because even though (in hindsight) he was out of his prime, he wasn’t a scrub or even a limited role player; he was capable of doing much more than he did. If we are talking about pure talent and skill alone, Fox was always #3-6 behind Shaq/Kobe (depending upon whichever ring chaser or washed up veterans we had in different years). Definitely had more talent and less limitations than a guy like Derek Fisher.
He took a pay cut to come here and he was solid in the mid to late 90’s. But his inconsistency was frustrating on a game to game basis. The passage of time doesn’t make me forget about the F-Troop |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
