In my articles, I usually attack those one-sided, popular understandings and find some understandings that have insights into the discussion space. Today we're going to look at O'Neill's remarks, and whether there are some loopholes.
O'Neill said that if the Lakers want to keep the Big Three, everyone else must be young.
Is that correct? It's okay to look at it, but there's a lot wrong with that. Next, let's analyze these wrong places.
O'Neill's words are nothing more than a way for the Lakers, but his words do not take into account people's personalities, but see people as machines.
In fact, in the comments of many comment areas, we can see many examples of fans treating people as machines, such as "who can win the championship by replacing whom", that is, there is no consideration of the adaptability of the replacement environment and the personality of the person. O'Neill's words naturally fall into this category, and fans should look carefully.
Why?
First of all, we analyze the core members of a championship team, generally with a coordinated age distribution, and even those teams that win the championship with veterans as the core are essentially veterans who bear the most. Veterans take on a lot of leading roles, and then young people can play their full strength, which is a human inevitability.
But the Lakers' problem is not so simple.
It's true that the Lakers are veterans, but veterans have shown that they can't take the lead, especially on the defensive end. The bad effects of James' defensive end on the team have probably been shown in previous seasons. James has a good defensive performance, but not every round is in the right defensive position.
This season, the Lakers especially need young people to defend, and it is true that James needs more help from young people, but will young people be willing? This is a hidden question.
That is to say, the Lakers can find more young people outside the Big Three, but the Big Three offense plays a more role, and the special and deliberate expectation of young people in defense is probably something that young people are not willing to accept.
If young people are willing to accept it, then there is another problem, that is, the Lakers need high-quality young people, not just young people.
It is already agreed that James' team needs good defensive outside shooters, and as mentioned above, role players are likely to be assigned more additional defensive tasks, which means that young people's defensive roles should be a must. So the young people that the Lakers need are young people with strong defensive roles and strong three-point effects, is this something that the Lakers can easily get?
So although O'Neill said an answer that everyone knows, the Lakers' problem is that they will not use these people well at all, and these people are difficult for the Lakers to get.
Keeping the big three in the lineup means that they can only find people with similar salaries to this season's role players, and I am afraid that some young people with good strength are reluctant to choose. Everyone knows that the Lakers' ball is not easy to play, and who wants to come when they can't get much money?
That is to say, if the Lakers want to create a good lineup, it is dangerous to retain the Big Three.
Because of James, for the Lakers' approach, always aim to win more high-quality instant combat power, but all of these need good chips, the team's competition is the whole league. The Lakers' chips have been exhausted in the Davis deal, and they can only maintain a 27-year first-round hope, what is the operation now?
The Lakers can only update some veterans. Because only veterans can accept the Lakers' environment and bag clips, these veterans have a certain NBA career, but they do not have much achievements, which is a good type of immediate combat power. After they can't get more and better young people or get some young people, the slack of the veterans also loses their morale.
The Lakers only have one way to go, and that is the big three to drive the role players no matter who they are.