JVL wrote:Arrow wrote:^I agree. The Nuggets and Celtics/Heat aren't chopped liver by any means, but they're not an all-time great team like the Warriors or Spurs were. If the Lakers don't win, I would view this as a bigger black mark on his career than 2011.
Exactly. I don't want to underestimate either of the 3 teams that play hard-nosed big effort ball, but the Heat or Celtics are no challenge for the Lakers. The Nuggets shouldn't be either, LAL in 5.
Wow, not so long ago flawed was one of the most used words with the Lakers:
"Rival Executives See Obvious Flaws in Lakers Roster, but ...bleacherreport.com"
"5 Solutions for the LA Lakers' Biggest Flaws - Bleacher Report"
"The Flawed Lakers Are Screwed Without Andre Iguodala"
"This Lakers offense still shouldn't scare anyone - ESPN.com"
"Lakers Continue To Be As Vulnerable As Ever After Clinching ..."
"Los Angeles Lakers: 3 roster flaws that have emerged during ..."
These are just some of the critical notes. Of course, this was in an era where almost everyone still thought Kawhi was a cyborg, and the Bucks were unbeatable. But what happened to all those flaws, are they all of a sudden gone? I mean, yeah, they are the favorites, they have the two best players. But it's not like they are playing 2 on 2. I guess people forgot that this play off roster contains 11 guys who were free agents last summer, most of them not wanted by any team.
Unless LeBron averages 15/5/5 or something the rest of the way, the Lakers not winning a championship is not any where close to a black mark like in 2011. It's because the other team was a more cohesive unit in the final stretch.