Bos,Cle,Orl,Lal,Sas-all contenders have great benches!

[BillessuR6]

I like ORL˙s bench. Gortat, Bass, Anderson, Barnes, Reddick that is pretty good. I especially like Anderson for them. Fits them perfectly. I like his addition more for the magic than Carter!

Nice thread, BTW!

[humblebum]

Sure DEEP Eddie isn't any type of complete player or anything but he has value as a streak shooter. Daniels is really going to be the key for the Celtics backup backcourt this season. He's a slasher and exceptional interior finisher who's going to come on the floor surround by four shooters. He's also possesses a solid overall court game. Beyond Ginobli and possibly West (it's arguable that Marquis might be better than West) I believe that Marquis is probably the best of the backups in the backcourts of these teams. Eddie House is going to be Marquis' little sidekick which he's well suited for. The Lakers backup backcourt of Farmar and Brown isn't really comparable to Daniels and House. In fact, put Tony Allen on the Lakers and he might be the best player in the Lakers backcourt when healthy.

Then in the front court the Celtics pair Davis and Rasheed. So the Celtics have the best four bigs rotation in the NBA, IMO. The Lakers have the best three big rotation.

OK and another point on the Lakers. They use a tighter rotation and are a younger team. So they don't rely on big minutes off the bench. Plus Kobe, Odom and Gasol are all the types of players who are versatile offensively, they're all creators/playmakers, and can defend multiple positions and types of athletes. This allows the Lakers to bring in some pretty limited players off the bench (Sasha, Walton, Farmar, etc.) and still be successful because the three key Laker players are taking a tremendous amount of pressure off them in terms of ball handling etc. So the point being that in terms of raw skill/talent off the bench the Lakers aren't going to the top of the list, IMO, but in terms of effectively utilizing and covering for the bench players the Lakers are solid. The talent, however, just really isn't there.

And if that's really in dispute: I challenge you to post three names off the Lakers bench that are comparable to these three names: Rasheed Wallace, Glen Davis, Marquis Daniels.

[hourockman]

i think you guys are underestimating our bench. it's not like Phil plays the whole bench together, like i said we usually have 2 starter quality players in with 3 bench players

Phil even split Kobe and Shaq's minutes w/ the 2nd and 3rd rounds of substitutions for years. Either they can't recognize it as fact or don't want to admit it. He's gonna have Odom and possibly Artest or Bynum out there w/ the 2nd unit. By the time the bench is cleared, LA is gonna be up by 20+ in garbage time.

Besides that, what wins titles is your 8 man rotation (especially w/ 1-2 superstars), not your full team. Check the 2000 Blazers for more info on that.

[hourockman]

I noticed how shallow LA is and people are still picking them to win. When we had that crappy bench last year, people didn't give us a shot.

I can't believe they're picking the Lakers to win the championship. Der.

[chakdaddy]

I don't get the Lakers fans arguing their bench isn't that bad, because Gasol / Bynum whoever will be out there most of the time at center.

Well, that's why they'll probably be able to overcome a weak bench. Fisher is ok, and 2-5 they are just terrifying, and their 6th man is elite too. They're going to be tough for anyone to beat.

I don't get the lack of respect for House, even from Celtic fans out here. He hustles on defense and does ok. He's an elite streak shooter that can practically take over a game; he's a pretty special 3 pt shooter. He can't handle the ball that well and isn't a great defender, but who cares; he brings something major to the table. Rasheed/Daniels/Davis/House is a hell of a bench. Lakers haven't had a 4th big man in some time, and could be in trouble if there's injury. Of course, they could go small with Artest at 4 and do fine now. There's enough versatility in the starting 5 that they should be fine.

[hourockman]

I don't get the Lakers fans arguing their bench isn't that bad, because Gasol / Bynum whoever will be out there most of the time at center.

Well, that's why they'll probably be able to overcome a weak bench. Fisher is ok, and 2-5 they are just terrifying, and their 6th man is elite too. They're going to be tough for anyone to beat.

They're not arguing that that is why they'll overcome a weak bench, they're saying that the Lakers' substitution patters may not make them applicable to this discussion at all. Phil doesn't like to make wholesale bench substitutions when he has more than one star/superstar to hedge his bets.

[Banks2Pierce]

I don't get the Lakers fans arguing their bench isn't that bad, because Gasol / Bynum whoever will be out there most of the time at center.

Well, that's why they'll probably be able to overcome a weak bench. Fisher is ok, and 2-5 they are just terrifying, and their 6th man is elite too. They're going to be tough for anyone to beat.

They're not arguing that that is why they'll overcome a weak bench, they're saying that the Lakers' substitution patters may not make them applicable to this discussion at all. Phil doesn't like to make wholesale bench substitutions when he has more than one star/superstar to hedge his bets.

We said the same stuff last year, but lack of solid depth will absolutely murder you if you have any injury to anyone in your rotation.

I like the Magic depth, but I don't know if their big guns are enough to hang with Boston and LA.

[DEEP3CL]

Sure DEEP Eddie isn't any type of complete player or anything but he has value as a streak shooter.

To an extent I some what agree, but for the most part he's containable most nights if he's not hitting.

The Lakers backup backcourt of Farmar and Brown isn't really comparable to Daniels and House. In fact, put Tony Allen on the Lakers and he might be the best player in the Lakers backcourt when healthy.

Sorry but I gotta disagree, Tony Allen is mostly an OC guy and strays away from the offense too much. You can't do that in the Tri unless you're Kobe Bryant or MJ.

in the front court the Celtics pair Davis and Rasheed. So the Celtics have the best four bigs rotation in the NBA, IMO. The Lakers have the best three big rotation.

Fair assessment, we probably could use another big but I like the versatility Ron gives us because he can post also.

OK and another point on the Lakers. They use a tighter rotation and are a younger team. So they don't rely on big minutes off the bench. Plus Kobe, Odom and Gasol are all the types of players who are versatile offensively, they're all creators/playmakers, and can defend multiple positions and types of athletes. This allows the Lakers to bring in some pretty limited players off the bench (Sasha, Walton, Farmar, etc.) and still be successful because the three key Laker players are taking a tremendous amount of pressure off them in terms of ball handling etc. So the point being that in terms of raw skill/talent off the bench the Lakers aren't going to the top of the list, IMO, but in terms of effectively utilizing and covering for the bench players the Lakers are solid. The talent, however, just really isn't there.

You made my exact point here with this quote, the Lakers unlike most of the elite teams don't really rely on the bench effort as a whole. What they do is infuse bench players to the starters we have on the floor. Their production is more like a counter punch..........you can't defend what you don't expect to see. Catch my drift ?

if that's really in dispute: I challenge you to post three names off the Lakers bench that are comparable to these three names: Rasheed Wallace, Glen Davis, Marquis Daniels.

I'm not naive enough to say we have a counter to Sheed, but as far as Daniels and Baby........Odom is better than both combined. I challenge you to say he's not. Remember humblebum Baby's production was a byproduct of KG being out. I wanna see what he puts up this season.

[Slartibartfast]

The Cavs bench could be a standalone team. Gibson's pretty mediocre but West, Moon, Powe and Ilgauskas are a frightening foursome. Powe's knee and West's mind are shaky (and West as always struggled off the bench for whatever reason), but if it all comes together, that's a lot of productive talent off the bench. Their biggest problem is that their bench doesn't contribute that much in the way of versatility. Z is exclusively a 5 and can't play with Shaq, while Powe and Hickson can't shoot outside of 10 feet and thus are also poor pairings with Shaq or Varejao for that matter. Moon doesn't have the ball skills to do much other than play off-ball, but the only real playmakers on the team are in the starting unit. Still an intriguing line-up.

Don't have much insight on the rest of the benches, but it's hard to give a clear edge to any of them. The Cavs have the most overall bench talent, the Lakers have the best overall bench player (Ginobli doesn't count because the Spurs have to start an inferior player to bring Manu off the bench) and the Celtics have the nicest balance of talent at the 1-3-5. I'm hoping that the Celtics bench wins out, as its stengths seem to be more friendly to an 8-man playoff rotation than the others.

[humblebum]

Well DEEP, I think that there are two discussions happening here and I want to clarify. My contention is that the Celtics have more talent, particularly in terms of experienced, proven guys, coming off the bench vs. the Lakers. Sure Odom is the best player coming off the bench for either team but he's not the type of transcendent talent that can make up the difference between players 7-9 on each bench.

Odom vs. Wallace
Farmar vs. Daniels
Brown vs. House
Walton vs. Davis

As far as I can tell those are the Lakers top 4 guys off the bench. Beyond Odom none of those players are really starting material. Davis, Daniels, and Wallace are all starting caliber. The Celtics simply have the better bench.

Now, the other discussion which is happening is how the bench is utilized in combination with the starters. But that's a question of coaching and rotations and if we want to talk about Doc vs. Jackson in terms of strategy regarding substitution patterns then I'll easily give Jackson the nod. He's much more accomplish. And I'd also say that Kobe, Odom, Gasol's versatility and playmaking abilities allow for a lot of flexibility in using the bench strategically.

So in the end I think that the Lakers are every bit the match of the Celtics because their top of the roster talent and coaching (the Triangle offense vs. the Celtics offensive system is a big advantage IMO) will allow them to play at a very high level. But the Celtics have more weapons off the bench and probably a more solid roster top to bottom.

[butter17]

I noticed how shallow LA is and people are still picking them to win. When we had that crappy bench last year, people didn't give us a shot.

We have the same bench we had when we won the championship last year, so you tell me how are bench is shallow.

[DEEP3CL]

Well humblebum, as far as guys who are starter material let's not forget Walton has been an off and on starter for us through the years. He's probably better as a starter than a bench guy. So we'll probably have to agree to disagree here.

Daniels himself has been a starter but hasn't had the impact you'd expect, he's better suited for the bench but minutes will determine his impact and output. When Daniels has been on the bench his numbers have fallen off ( but that's common) on a team like the Celtics he'll have to take advantage of his time.

As far as the guys you listed coming off our bench, that's not the rotation at all. That's the beauty and versatility of our bench also. This is why we have a strength no one else has, most teams will have to abide by a strict rotation the Lakers don't. For Phil it is determined by the team and match ups. Yes those 4 will play but it's not set in stone.

Just because the guys you listed for the Celtics being stater material doesn't mean they have the better bench.....that's not objective thinking. Odom, Walton and certainly Farmar could be a starter for any other NBA team. I'd beg to say Davis isn't really starter material for one because he's under sized for the position he plays and Daniels is usually out matched the position he plays also. I see Baby as a starter being a huge liability especially if were going against the bigger front lines of the NBA such as the Lakers, Cavs,Blazers or Spurs. If I'm correct all those teams out rebounded the Celtics when they played.

In the end the versatility the Lakers have allows for the bench to be used as a component and not a dependent such as the case with the other contenders including the Celtics. I think the only guy that will impact the Celtic bench will be Sheed, Daniels and Davis have flaws that can be exposed nightly if attacked correctly. For example Daniels is a .237 career 3pt shooter. He can't space the floor well enough, this will cause defense to sag on Paul and crowd KG.....see what I'm getting at ?

Bottom line it's no way to say you're just flat out better without looking at things objectively. I even stated in this very thread when asked by one of your fellow poster what I thought was a weakness for the Lakers bench or otherwise. I said probably the 1 spot given the youth of our back ups and age and mileage of Fisher. I'm always thinking objectively rather with my purple and gold shades on.

All in all if it comes down to the Lakers and Celtics, it'll be which offensive system is the most efficient. Most of you will say your defense is still better, but that's another convo for me. It's will come down to offense and the Triangle is more proven than what the Celtics run.

[humblebum]

I don't know what this objective thinking line is really all about. Objectively the Celtics have better more complete, proven players on their bench than do the Lakers. Yes, the Celtics tend to use a second "unit" moreso which will tend to allow opponents who don't (such as the Lakers) to expose the weaknesses in certain players. But again, utilization of your talent is a different conversation than analyzing which team has more talent off the bench. Do you what I'm getting at?

So in terms of looking at simply the raw talent off the bench the Celtics > Lakers, but looking at the bigger picture (coaching, systems, substitution patterns, versatility and ability to play big minutes in the starting unit, etc.) balances things out to the point where the Celtics despite their edge in talent off the bench are not consistently producing results which are consistent with that edge in talent.

In other words, Phil Jackson (the triangle offense is big here, and again the versatility and playmaking ability of Kobe, Odom, Gasol is a HUGE factor) simply utilizes his roster more effectively. Thus the Celtics can have a more talented bench, a better bench but the Lakers "bench" (I put that in quotations because Jackson doesn't use a second "unit" like Doc tends to do) can be equally or more effective, despite their talent deficiency.

[Slartibartfast]

As far as the guys you listed coming off our bench, that's not the rotation at all. That's the beauty and versatility of our bench also. This is why we have a strength no one else has, most teams will have to abide by a strict rotation the Lakers don't. For Phil it is determined by the team and match ups. Yes those 4 will play but it's not set in stone.

Just because the guys you listed for the Celtics being stater material doesn't mean they have the better bench.....that's not objective thinking. Odom, Walton and certainly Farmar could be a starter for any other NBA team. I'd beg to say Davis isn't really starter material for one because he's under sized for the position he plays and Daniels is usually out matched the position he plays also. I see Baby as a starter being a huge liability especially if were going against the bigger front lines of the NBA such as the Lakers, Cavs,Blazers or Spurs. If I'm correct all those teams out rebounded the Celtics when they played.

In the end the versatility the Lakers have allows for the bench to be used as a component and not a dependent such as the case with the other contenders including the Celtics. I think the only guy that will impact the Celtic bench will be Sheed, Daniels and Davis have flaws that can be exposed nightly if attacked correctly. For example Daniels is a .237 career 3pt shooter. He can't space the floor well enough, this will cause defense to sag on Paul and crowd KG.....see what I'm getting at ?

Bottom line it's no way to say you're just flat out better without looking at things objectively. I even stated in this very thread when asked by one of your fellow poster what I thought was a weakness for the Lakers bench or otherwise. I said probably the 1 spot given the youth of our back ups and age and mileage of Fisher. I'm always thinking objectively rather with my purple and gold shades on.

All in all if it comes down to the Lakers and Celtics, it'll be which offensive system is the most efficient. Most of you will say your defense is still better, but that's another convo for me. It's will come down to offense and the Triangle is more proven than what the Celtics run.

I love how we always come to the objective and inescapable conclusion that our team is best.

All the versatility you are ascribing to the Lakers bench is basically just Lamar Odom. He's a one-man bench, he can do everything. But he's still just one guy and nobody can play a 6-man rotation.

As for the rest of the bench, there is no set rotation because there's not enough quality to establish one. Farmar was awful last year, Shannon Brown has been awful for most of his short career, DJ Mbenga is a painfully raw 29-year old project, Josh Powell is an invisible 6'10 jump shooter, and Adam Morrison grades as one of the worst players in the NBA by most statistical and common sense measures. The best of the lot are Luke Walton and Sasha Vujacic, but they play the 2/3 positions where the Lakers need the least help, and they're not that good anyways.

When each of these players spends time on the floor as "components" or "dependents" they can be exploited just like the Celtics weak bench players.

As for offensive systems, it has very little to do with the Triangle vs. Doc's high-post tomfoolery, it's about the offensive skillsets of the players. The Lakers employ more shooters/scorers than the Celtics and fewer defenders. The Lakers have recently depended more on scoring points, the Celtics have recently depended more on stopping others from scoring points. The addition of Ron Artest theoretically adds tougher defense to the Lakers without a loss of offense while the addition of Rasheed Wallace theoretically adds more potent offense without a loss of defense.

[DEEP3CL]

OK humblebum some how you're making my exact point yet it's not transparent to you. Look at what you said here.....

but the Lakers "bench" (I put that in quotations because Jackson doesn't use a second "unit" like Doc tends to do) can be equally or more effective, despite their talent deficiency.

This is what I was getting at earlier when I said the Lakers use their bench as a component rather than a dependent. The Celtics have to depend on their bench for major production.

Bottom line is that with the Triangle the players we have just have to play to their strongest strength. That is what I mean by you not looking at this objectively. You're failing to see or realize the flaws some of the Celtic players have. That's why I said you just can't flat out say they have the best bench. It's a arguable point of emphasis for any fan of any team.

You list Daniels who to me is less skilled than Luke Walton, simply because he isn't the passer Walton is, he's also very turnover prone another facet he's not better than Walton. And I guess the .237 3pt percentage for his career is overlooked by you. This plays directly into how he'll compliment other on the floor. You have to factor this in.

You know my stance on House.....no need to rehash. Baby up until KG's injury was not a factor, his up tic in production was a byproduct of KG being out it was a direct correlation was it not ?

[humblebum]

The Triangle and Kobe/Odom/Gasol cover the weaknesses of the Lakers bench players. That's the point. That outside of that system those players are not really that valuable in and of themselves. Farmar, Vujacic, Walton... these guys are all subpar athletes. Walton is the only even half decent defensive player of the three and he's limited on this end. None of these guys can consistently create opportunities for themselves. They're completely dependent on the system and on the key Laker playmakers.

Conversely. Daniels and Davis can both create opportunities for themselves and both are at least average defensively, which is more than can be said of the above Laker players. Both players are capable of handling big minutes with Walton being the only player I'd even think about playing long minutes out of that trio. Farmar and Vujacic, to most people watching the game, are no more valuable than how you value House. Fisher on his last legs is 2X the player that those two guys are. The Celtics can trot out a unit with 4 bench players and one starter and will remain competitive against most if not all teams in the NBA. The same cannot be said of the Lakers.

Which team would you take?

House/Daniels/Pierce/Davis/Rasheed

or

Farmar/Kobe/Walton/What's his name?/Odom

[DEEP3CL]

No humblebum........everything you're saying about the Laker cast the same can be said for the Celtic player you're mentioning. Daniels and Davis aren't creators. I don't know how you've fool yourself into thinking so. Walton is more of a creator than any of them.

Defensively Davis isn't the polish product you think he is, didn't KG berate him on national TV for just that very thing.........a blown coverage ? Yes it was exactly that ! Now I'm exaggerating that a little, I always thought that situation had to do more with Baby and Doc than KG. But the subject is correct, a blown coverage is why that happened.


Daniels also defensively isn't what you guys are starting to build him to be, he's a long 6'7' or so but he's not strong enough physically to cover a bigger 3 guy say like Carmelo Anthony or LeBron James. And you'll find out first hand when he has to try to check James. And his speed isn't at the level it needs to be at to cover a D-Wade or Rip Hamilton. He's a tweener and it's one of the reasons he's now on his 3rd team. So like wise him being with better players will cover his weakness and over glorify his strengths.

And obviously you've forgotten that the Lakers on several occasions last season trotted out 4 subs along with Gasol most of the time and ran teams smooth off the floor. Because we had guys that can change the pace, they would sort of abandon the Tri and push tempo. So the theory you had was completely off base.

Now getting to your last question there, of that 4 you list for the Celtics I'd say your only creator is Sheed base on if he goes to the post, but fact is he rarely does. So now we're at Paul, but he doesn't post either.....but he can create off the drive. Daniels can't space the floor because he can't shoot from deep distance. That leaves the erratic House as you lone 3pt threat. Overall it depends who that group faces to decide on how effective it can be.

The Laker 4 you list are solid.......lets say you add Josh Powell who I believe one poster here said was nothing more than a 6'10" jump shooter...........which is a lie. Powell has a nice mid range jumper but that's all he shoots, he'll bang inside. Sheed fits more of that bill than Powell does. Anyway that's not a very big line up for LA but they have speed and the ball will move simply because of the Tri.

But I'll take that 5 against your 5