FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Detroit Steel said 05/09, 09:46 PM
The Boston Celtics would definitly win against the Los Angeles Lakers . . .

. . . Just like they did two out of two times this season already.

The way that Boston can beat LA is try to contain the ball on offense, use up the shot clock a bit and don't take the quick shots. This will make Kobe Bryant work on defense.

From playing so much defense, that will wear out Kobe and double teaming him will not help him at all. Derek Fisher and Lamar Odom would have to take the big shots then and I don't think they can.

The Celtics have a great starting lineup. Kevin Garnett has played fabulous defense while Paul Pierce and Ray Allen have been very good on offense. Rajon Rondo has matured a lot from last year and even Kendrick Perkins is helping out.

Their bench is also deep enough to help beat the Lakers. Sam Cassell and Glen Davis are the biggest helpers but Leon Powe and James Posey also make good contributions.

Well, just a year ago, Phil Jackson was coaching a team that perenially got knocked out of the playoffs by the Phoenix Suns in the first round. I believe that Doc Rivers is the better coach. He led the Celtics to the best record in the league, he got the ???B

Detroit Steel said 05/10, 04:20 PM
Doc Rivers coached a team that won eight more games than the Lakers, and yet, Phil Jackson is still a better coach?

If Jackson is the better coach, then what do you judge coaches on, how good the doughnuts are that they bring to the games? How good their suits look?

Doc Rivers coached the Celtics to a better record. Along with that, he got the Celtics to play better defense than anyone would have ever thought, he helped the ???Big Three??? gel, which some sports writers thought would be a very hard task and once again, he led the Celtics to a better record.

You could say that the Celtics played in a Weaker Conference. I could say that the Celtics beat up a lot of the teams from the Western Conference.

Besides, it isn???t the coaches who shoot the basketballs or defend their man, it is the players.

Boston didn???t defend Atlanta that well ??? I see, you don???t have to say that in both arguments and use up a paragraph for it because the Celtics just played lousy that series. So what? They had a bad series, they came away with the win. I see that Boston???s containing LeBron James very well.

The LA Lakers lost by 13 points in the first game and 19 points in the second game. Even if Pau Gasol was playing, I doubt that the Lakers would have won anyway.

Kobe does not play good enough defense to defend three players with All-Star talent. The Celtics will get their points. They scored at leats 100 in both games against the Lakers.

The Celtics have more depth, a better starting lineup, and a lot more. They have all of the piece in place, they have the advantages. The Boston Celtics would beat the LA Lakers.

Detroit Steel said 05/11, 07:09 PM
I got my 2,000 characters in the second argument so I don't know what else to say, I was sort of hoping that you would argue so I would have something to disagree with.

TThe Celtics didn't contain the Hawks very well - so whta? LeBron can't get past them very well. It was only seven games, no need to worry.

Kobe needs to play better defense. If he was a good defender, he would of been able to beat the Celtics already during the regular season.

The Boston Celtics have better players, better depth and better players. Simple as that, the Boston Celtics will beat the LA Lakers.