| | |  | | Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant didn't seem to enjoy themselves in Game 5 in Indiana, but they still hold a 3-2 lead in the series. |
LOS ANGELES -- Los Angeles. Dynasty.
The only time those two names should come together is when we are talking
about the television show, and whether Linda Evans is going to divorce John
Forsythe.
Really, how presumptuous can we be?
That was the talk this week in Indianapolis, when the Los Angeles Lakers
took a 3-1 lead on the Pacers in the NBA Finals and everybody had coronated
them the champions.
The next obvious question, of course, was whether the Lakers could repeat
and threepeat in the same fashion that the Chicago Bulls did, and the Houston
Rockets did, and the Detroit Pistons before that, and the Lakers and Celtics
before that.
Because, after all, while the Lakers have aged veterans like A.C. Green
and John Salley and Ron Harper around, the core of their talent base is
Shaquille O'Neal, 28, and Kobe Bryant, 21.
As long as those two were in place, around which to put complementary
pieces, the Lakers could be the dominant force in the league.
I heartily dispute that notion.
And you know why?
Because right now, I don't see either Shaq or Kobe possessing the same
killer instinct, the same drive and determination, the same maturity, that
Michael had and Isiah had and Magic had and Larry had.
This is not to say that the Lakers are not talented, and they in all
likelihood are going to win the series. But the fact that people are speaking
of this team as a possible dynasty already is something of a joke.
After all, the fact that they set an NBA record by losing six times in games that could have closed out series is enough to tell you how
psychologically fragile this team is.
Perhaps it is a measure of the state of the league that a team that
possesses such little pride, such disdain for doing what is expected, will win
the next NBA title.
Ron Harper was asked the other day to compare this Lakers team with the
Bulls team with which he won three NBA titles.
"Not even close," Harper said. "Those Bulls team would easily beat this
team. That Bulls team was great defensively."
This Lakers team is only average defensively, and that's because half
the
time, when it does not feel like it, when it is not motivated, it does not
play defense at all.
It probably is not fair to compare everything to Jordan, because he was
such an extraordinarily gifted, once-in-a-lifetime athlete. But it is not
even his heroic play that makes him stand apart. It is his drive, his desire
to win.
He was able to find motivation where there was none, and win games on
that alone -- even if he had to lie to himself to do it. Can you say,
LaBradford Smith?
Sure, the Bulls knew in first-round series that they were better than
their opponents. But did they let down when they went up 2-0 because of that
knowledge, or did Jordan prohibit that mindset and force his teammates to
focus on shutting down an opponent?
I'll tell you this: Were the Bulls leading the Sacramento Kings two games
to none in a best-of-five series, they never would have allowed the series to
get to a dangerous fifth game.
And yet, this Lakers team does that time and again. It seems to me that
the individual parts of the Lakers are more concerned about the well-being of
their public images than they are about claiming the championship.
Why else would Robert Horry jack up 3-pointers in the first quarter? Why
else would Glen Rice try to take people off the dribble? Why else would Kobe,
as good as he is, try to repeat the performance he had in Game 4? Wasn't that
enough?
Why is it that the only people in the entire world who can't see that all
the Lakers need to do is throw the ball into Shaq is the Lakers themselves?
And how many times do they have to flirt with disaster before they learn the
valuable lesson that they've been told and forgotten six times already in
this postseason: Shaq is the MVP; Give him the ball.
The problem with this Lakers team is that Shaq needs his teammates to
give him the ball. When MJ and Larry and Isiah and Magic wanted the ball,
wanted to take over the game, his teammates never would have dreamed of
usurping that power.
With Shaq, his teammates simply can say, "Sorry, I tried to get you the
ball, but the entry pass was not open, so I had to take the 3."
When you see Phil Jackson sitting on the postgame interview dais spouting
off his philosophical mumbo jumbo, it is difficult to tell whether he is being
smug -- which most people think -- or if he is masking -- or hiding from --
the fact that, for all he has done for the cohesion of this team, they simply
will not listen to him when it comes to this fact.
Because, really, if he is not telling them to throw the ball to Shaq, he
is a bad coach. And if he is telling them to throw the ball to Shaq and they
are not listening to him, he is a bad coach.
When this series is over, and the Lakers likely will walk away with the
trophy, they will forget about this aspect of the season.
But when they are looked at in the context of history, this team never
will compare to the others that know what it is to exert their will on an
opponent.
Dynasty?
Where's Joan Collins?
Frank Hughes covers the NBA for the Tacoma (Wash.) News-Tribune. He is a regular contributor to ESPN.com.
| |
ALSO SEE
Complete coverage of NBA Finals
California dreaming: Pacers win Game 5 in a rout
Frozen moment: Miller's sparks cool the Lakers
X factor: The"other" dynamic duo saves Indy
Hughes: Reggie's bark worse than bite
|
