The Lakers have been at another level in the playoffs. Those two games don't mean much.

 

I put zero stock in their two regular season meetings. The Celtics were playing nearly unbeatable basketball for the first couple of months, while the Lakers continued to improve all season.

 

The Lakers obviously didn't have Gasol for either game. But, even with Bynum, they hadn't hit their stride yet...and Andrew Bynum right now isn't as good as Pau Gasol. I don't blame Celtics fans for using those two games as a reason for confidence, but to me they don't mean anything. The Lakers we see now are a much better team than what Boston saw at the end of December.

So I hear the 2009 NBA season is getting ready to start next week...Oh wait no it's not, it's the 2008 NBA Finals that are soon to start..

So I hear the 2009 NBA season is getting ready to start next week...Oh wait no it's not, it's the 2008 NBA Finals that are soon to start..

 

They're scheduled to play one game per month...should be done by Christmas...

NBA needs a 7 game series and I think Boston winning would be better for them than the Lakers winning.

Lakers only beat the Spurs because they went through long droughts without scoring and Gino could not score.

 

Don't see that as a problem for Pierce, Garnett and Allen.

 

Celtics in 6.

NBA needs a 7 game series and I think Boston winning would be better for them than the Lakers winning.

 

I agree that a 7-game series would be great for the NBA. I'm not sure who wins really matters that much...although, considering that most people are forecasting a pretty strong run for the Lakers in the next few years, perhaps a C's title this year would produce more intrigue to see if they could return and defend it against a Lakers team with a healthy Bynum to go with what they already have.

Lakers only beat the Spurs because they went through long droughts without scoring and Gino could not score.

 

Don't see that as a problem for Pierce, Garnett and Allen.

 

Celtics in 6.

Contrary to popular belief, there is defense played in the NBA, and the Lakers are pretty good at it (especially Black Mamba.)

Contrary to popular belief, there is defense played in the NBA, and the Lakers are pretty good at it (especially Black Mamba.)

 

You do realize you are talking to the poster that made a thread, I think I did, that said the defense played in the NBA is better than the defense played in college?

 

So do the Celtics.

Not that it will decide the series, but I believe that a few days off benefits the Celtics. The Lakers have been on an amazing run, so this may get them (and the Celtics too really) a little out of sync. Also, with the Celtics beig a bit older I believe a few days off benefits players lke Pierce, Ray Allen, and even a PJ Brown.

Lakers only beat the Spurs because they went through long droughts without scoring and Gino could not score.

 

Don't see that as a problem for Pierce, Garnett and Allen.

 

Celtics in 6.

 

Actually, the Celtics are prone to go through bad stretches as well. I see a lot of similarities in them and the Spurs.

Not that it will decide the series, but I believe that a few days off benefits the Celtics. The Lakers have been on an amazing run, so this may get them (and the Celtics too really) a little out of sync. Also, with the Celtics beig a bit older I believe a few days off benefits players lke Pierce, Ray Allen, and even a PJ Brown.

 

I think the longer the series goes, the bigger the advantage will be for the Lakers. Boston's best odds for winning a game is Thursday, IMO...

 

That's not to say they don't have a chance to win after that. I just think they're less likely to win the longer the series goes.

I think the longer the series goes, the bigger the advantage will be for the Lakers. Boston's best odds for winning a game is Thursday, IMO...

 

That's not to say they don't have a chance to win after that. I just think they're less likely to win the longer the series goes.

 

This is also the 1st series that the Lakers do not have home court advantage. The Lakers have lossed some road games in the playoffs. I don't see the Lakers being favored in either of the 1st 2 games, just like I don't see the Celtics being favored in the 3 road games for them.

When analyzing this series/matchup, I see a lot of advantages for LA that I just can't overlook...

 

1. The Lakers are more talented from top to bottom, IMO.

2. They have more experience with Kobe and Fisher having won 3 titles together already.

3. Phil Jackson vs. Doc Rivers = Big advantage for LA; as the series progresses, I would expect Phil to make more effective adjustments

4. Kobe Bryant - Not only is he the best player in this series (and the league), but he's the best when the game is on the line. That's a huge advantage for the Lakers to have a guy like that on the court late in tight games.

This is also the 1st series that the Lakers do not have home court advantage. The Lakers have lossed some road games in the playoffs. I don't see the Lakers being favored in either of the 1st 2 games, just like I don't see the Celtics being favored in the 3 road games for them.

 

They're 4-3 on the road in the playoffs...they'll at least split the games played in Boston...

This is also the 1st series that the Lakers do not have home court advantage. The Lakers have lossed some road games in the playoffs. I don't see the Lakers being favored in either of the 1st 2 games, just like I don't see the Celtics being favored in the 3 road games for them.

 

I don't really care who is favored. That's largely contingent upon how the betting is going. I have no argument with Boston being favored in game one, which they are (2 1/2 points)...

 

The result of the first game will likely play a big factor in who's favored in the second though...

 

I'm confident that the Lakers can win at least one of the first two games, if not both, in Boston.