- Jan 29, 2005
- 7,285
- 10
Roundtable: Is Cavs' sweep of Lakers a sign of things to come?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ble/index.html
1. What do you take away from the Cavaliers' two-game regular-season sweep of the Lakers?
Ian Thomsen: The Cavs match up well, between their length up front and their strong team defense. Plus, they undoubtedly are, as Kobe Bryant suggested, hungrier than the Lakers right now. The lesson of this highly fluid season is that it's too early to reach conclusions. It started with the Celtics looking like the team to beat, then the Lakers, and now there is reason to believe Los Angeles will have trouble defending its championship should Cleveland reach the Finals -- all of this with the second half of the season still to come.
Frank Hughes: If the Cavaliers and Lakers met in a seven-game series, I'm not sure Cleveland would beat them. I still think L.A. is the best team in the league when healthy. But at the very least, it puts LeBron James on a Kobe level, if he wasn't already there. He will not be his complete equal until he wins a title and removes any doubts, but LeBron has effectively established himself as the best player in the league.
Jack McCallum: Besides the fact that LeBron is pretty good? Mainly this: The Cavaliers believe they can beat anybody. Their confidence is as high as any team, and no matter what they've said in the past, they never felt like this before. That hauteur, along with James and the experience of Shaquille O'Neal, will get them to the Finals.
Chris Mannix: If I'm the Lakers, I'm most disappointed in the play of Ron Artest. Much has been made about Artest's decision to play for the Lakers on the cheap. But he has to, you know, still play. Artest has offered little resistance for James, who averaged 31.5 points (on 50 percent shooting) and 9.0 assists in the two meetings against L.A. Artest is not playing like the championship-caliber defender the Lakers thought they were getting.
