OFFICIAL 2010-2011 NBA PLAYOFFS THREAD : VOL. MOST. ANTICIPATED. PLAYOFFS. EVER?

[japanair21]

See what exactly in the regular season?

The Cavaliers of past, had PHENOMENAL regular seasons.

You look at them solely based on their regular season, you'd think they had about 3 rings by now.

 

[koolbarbone]

And the Cavs were contenders in each of those seasons.

I think your definition of contenders is skewed.

 

[IATT]

and is it really fair to judge portland considering the amount of injuries that team has had?

 

[japanair21]

Yeah, and the Cavs won a Playoff series or two in between there as well.

I've just never seen so much goddamn hype for one team who hasn't even won a playoff series.

Let the kids win something before we anoint them as contenders.

Forget it, I'm wrong, everyone else is right. The Thunder ARE contenders. They will come out of the West and win the next 300 NBA Championships, because they are contenders.

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime

and is it really fair to judge portland considering the amount of injuries that team has had?

They weren't injured (minus Oden, of course), when they lost to fricking Houston.

 

[airmaxpenny1]

That's my whole point genius, reg. season W-L means doo-doo. I observe what I see on the court from the team not the W-L. From observing the Thunder this season and this summer I could observe a couple things.

1. Durant played better last season than this one, which means if he plays a fraction better they can beat anybody.
2. They have two guys that can single handily go out and beat a team if they are on.
3. They have big men that are tough and guard the hoop plus are young and still getting better.
4. Good coaching, those guys all know their role on the team and accept it. I've seen them execute well late in games and the effort is pretty consistent.
5. Chemistry. On most teams Russ and Durant would have been going at each other's head by now trying to fight over alpha dog status. But they are best friends. Everyone on that team gets along, their young, black males in the middle of nowhere who basically only have each other to hang out with in a 500 mile radius.

The Spurs and Mavs haven't gotten any better in the past couple years, only older. I know that with each day going by their losing a little bit of game to father time. However, one team who played the Champs as well as you could expect an 8-seed to play them last year is still young and improving. Their two best guys were the two best players on a stacked USA squad this summer. They came into this season with sky-high expectations and impossible standards (1st place in the West, Durant better than 'Bron, MVP etc.) Did they live up to that? Not completely but in a regular season that is a journey they did pretty damn well for themselves. As long as your in that above 50 win mark that is really all that matters.

 

[noblekane]

wow can we NEVER have the spurs on nba tv again? the spurs announce team is the absolute WORST. they beat boston and chicagos announcers as the biggest trash announce crew currently...

 

[po2345]

If it was not for a lucky-tip in last year, OKC may* have been champion or at least be in the Finals...
The team is a serious threat.

PO

 

[IATT]

Originally Posted by JapanAir21

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime

and is it really fair to judge portland considering the amount of injuries that team has had?

They weren't injured (minus Oden, of course), when they lost to fricking Houston.

are we judging teams by 1 year now?

if so what was the mavs best season historically?

and what was the results in the playoffs?

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1

That's my whole point genius, reg. season W-L means doo-doo. I observe what I see on the court from the team not the W-L. From observing the Thunder this season and this summer I could observe a couple things.

1. Durant played better last season than this one, which means if he plays a fraction better they can beat anybody.
2. They have two guys that can single handily go out and beat a team if they are on.
3. They have big men that are tough and guard the hoop plus are young and still getting better.
4. Good coaching, those guys all know their role on the team and accept it. I've seen them execute well late in games and the effort is pretty consistent.
5. Chemistry. On most teams Russ and Durant would have been going at each other's head by now trying to fight over alpha dog status. But they are best friends. Everyone on that team gets along, their young, black males in the middle of nowhere who basically only have each other to hang out with in a 500 mile radius.

The Spurs and Mavs haven't gotten any better in the past couple years, only older. I know that with each day going by their losing a little bit of game to father time. However, one team who played the Champs as well as you could expect an 8-seed to play them last year is still young and improving. Their two best guys were the two best players on a stacked USA squad this summer. They came into this season with sky-high expectations and impossible standards (1st place in the West, Durant better than 'Bron, MVP etc.) Did they live up to that? Not completely but in a regular season that is a journey they did pretty damn well for themselves. As long as your in that above 50 win mark that is really all that matters.

I agree with you about everything except this point. No one says it, but they are not good executing down the stretch of games. Westbrook goes into hero mode, Durant settles for 25 footers and Brooks isn't good with the Xs and Os.

 

[IATT]

Originally Posted by PMatic

I agree with you about everything except this point. No one says it, but they are not good executing down the stretch of games. Westbrook goes into hero mode, Durant settles for 25 footers and Brooks isn't good with the Xs and Os.

this is our biggest problem.. it's as if we have 2 plays.. 1st westbrook tries to get the ball to durant (not running off a screen for a catch and shoot or anything.. but just to give him the ball).. if that doesn't work, then westbrook attacks..

a fair amount of the time, westbrook doesn't even try to do 1



hell.. you could see in the first half durant had felton on him.. and westbrook just went and did his thing

 

[japanair21]

Just using this as your protocol...

Dirk played better last year than he did this year, and we all know he's capable of being better than virtually anyone on the court.
JET and Dirk can go out and beat any team IF they are on.
Mavs have two tough big men who can guard the hoop.
Good coaching, and guys that know their roles.
The Mavs have good chemistry.

So, then, we're contenders too right?

The Spurs haven't gotten better in the past couple years? Manu and TP haven't had GREAT years? Blair and George Hill are nobodies?

Of course the time will come when they aren't contenders anymore, but you wanna talk about being above the 50 win mark, the Spurs had an absolutely terrific season. None better, and the only team you can argue is Chicago. Spurs simply closed out games. They ALWAYS fought back and kicked @@!. They didn't rely on Duncan as much, more relying on the other kids. Saying San Antonio is old is such a lameass excuse. When will people realize that Duncan is the ONLY old guy on that roster that is a key, pivotal player? Antonio McDyess is old, yeah that's fine, but he's the third big man. You wanna call Manu old? That's fine, but he certainly isn't playing like it. He's playing like he's 26.

One team played the champs, and won two games. So, if the Mavs end up winning two games against the Lakers this year, then we should be in good shape for next year right?

All those expectations, they didn't live up to. They aren't he #1 seed, or the #2 seed, or the #3 seed. Sure, they're close, but they won't have the HCA in the later rounds (unless there's an upset, of course, which is possible).



I'm sorry, I just don't see it. They had a great regular season. They have great young players. They have a great future, I don't deny any of that.

I just don't see how they are more of a contender than San Antonio, or even Dallas.

San Antonio showed what they're all about in the regular season.

Dallas had a better record than OKC and had HORRENDOUS injuries to deal with. Their second leading scorer going down, and their superstar going down for 10 games.

So just because OKC is young and on the rise means they are moreso of a contender than SAS or DAL because they are young? And Dallas and San Antonio haven't made any noise recently? So thus they are doomed forever from this point forward to never make any progress in the playoffs since they haven't done anything recently?

I just don't get it. For a team that hasn't ever beaten a legitimate playoff team, they get so much damn buzz. All based off potential.

They're well on their way to winning their first playoff series. And congratulations to them. I can't wait to see the hype they get once (if) they get to the WCF.

 

[japanair21]

My biggest thing is, why call OKC a contender and not San Antonio?

Just because San Antonio hasn't done anything recently, and OKC is younger?

OKC, recently, has done absolutely nothing of relevance in the Playoffs, nothing more than SA has.

EDIT:

And exactly as I said itsaboutthattime.

Durant and Russ didn't have great games as they did last time, and the other cats stepped up.

They played better defensively tonight, for sure. Denver wasn't on it as much as they were last time.

 

[IATT]

^ we were a poorly structured team before we made the trade


our starting PG and SF were better rebounders than our starting PF and C (green and kristic)





so we replaced green and kristic with the ibaka and perk combo

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime

^ we were a poorly structured team before we made the trade

our starting PG and SF were better rebounders than our starting PF and C (green and kristic)

so we replaced green and kristic with the ibaka and perk combo

Okay cool, what's that have to do with OKC being contenders and not San Antonio/Dallas?

Both teams, solid at almost every starting position. Both teams deep. Both teams have good coaches. Both teams have gotten deep in the Playoffs with the same guys, or have guys with Finals experience.

 

[IATT]

JA, please tell me where I am wrong on any of these:


we have the league's leading scorer

we have the league's leader in total blocks (who wasn't even a starter until the aforementioned trade)

we have one of the best PGs statistically in the league

we have 2 top 15-20 players in the league

we have a good defensive center

we have a good bench (harden, maynor, cook, narz and collison)



you still haven't answered where exactly we would rank contender wise if we lost to spurs or lakers? because you did say they were both top 5 contenders, right?

if we were in the east, where would we rank?

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by JapanAir21

My biggest thing is, why call OKC a contender and not San Antonio?

Just because San Antonio hasn't done anything recently, and OKC is younger?

OKC, recently, has done absolutely nothing of relevance in the Playoffs, nothing more than SA has.

EDIT:

And exactly as I said itsaboutthattime.

Durant and Russ didn't have great games as they did last time, and the other cats stepped up.

They played better defensively tonight, for sure. Denver wasn't on it as much as they were last time.

Three reasons;
San Antonio's style of ball more than likely isn't going to work in the playoffs. They can't expect to rely on fast breaks like they did in the regular season.
Duncan is the only big they got with size (pause). McDyess and Blair are fairly short, Bonner is a liability on defense and Splitter hasn't done enough to even warrant playing time from Popovich.
They're a middling defensive team. That will get exposed by a good offensive team.

 

[jpzx]

Duncan is the only big they got with size (pause).

Stop with the pause nonsense. No one thinks you're talkin about his %*%@ size.

 

[IATT]

Originally Posted by JapanAir21

Okay cool, what's that have to do with OKC being contenders and not San Antonio/Dallas?

Both teams, solid at almost every starting position. Both teams deep. Both teams have good coaches. Both teams have gotten deep in the Playoffs with the same guys, or have guys with Finals experience.

don't confuse, me asking why not us.. with whatever it is you want to infer from what i am actually saying..

I'm just glad you finally admit what your real problem is with OKC.. or the commentators who speak well of OKC

 

[jaeevolution]

If the Lakers lose tonight, what does that mean for them?

 

[durden7]

Aaron f'in Gray.  

 

[IATT]

Originally Posted by JaeEvolution

If the Lakers lose tonight, what does that mean for them?

still don't think NO wins, but this is the worst thing that can happen for the lakers.. i think rest is crucial for them


plus i'm not sure how much more public criticism gasol can take from kobe before he just says F it and tells him if you think you can do it by yourself, go ahead

 

[japanair21]

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime

JA, please tell me where I am wrong on any of these:

we have the league's leading scorer

we have the league's leader in total blocks (who wasn't even a starter until the aforementioned trade)

we have one of the best PGs statistically in the league

we have 2 top 15-20 players in the league

we have a good defensive center

we have a good bench (harden, maynor, cook, narz and collison)



you still haven't answered where exactly we would rank contender wise if we lost to spurs or lakers? because you did say they were both top 5 contenders, right?

if we were in the east, where would we rank?

You can point out little facets about your team all you want. You can do that about ANY team in the League.

Dallas has one of the highest scoring averages in the L (and normally speaking, teams /w leading scorer almost NEVER wins the title).
Dallas has the best road record.
Dallas has 4th best FG%.
Dallas averages the best assist totals per game of any team.
Dallas has depth at every position.
Dallas has a good defensive Center.
Dallas has one of the most versatile PGs ever.
Dallas has one of the most versatile defenders ever.

Where am I wrong at any of those?

See my point?

You're a fan of your team, you know better than anyone else about your team. If you wanna go ahead and call them contenders, sure, whatever, but why not the two teams who also finished with better records than you in the regular season.

San Antonio won 6 more games than you, even though they are old.
Dallas won more games than you, even though their best player was out ten games, and played without their arguably second best player for 50 games.

San Antonio's style of ball more than likely isn't going to work in the playoffs. They can't expect to rely on fast breaks like they did in the regular season.
Duncan is the only big they got with size (pause). McDyess and Blair are fairly short, Bonner is a liability on defense and Splitter hasn't done enough to even warrant playing time from Popovich.
They're a middling defensive team. That will get exposed by a good offensive team.


How'd their defense look tonight? I'm not convinced that just because they turned to a different system this year they can't turn it back and be a defensive team like they used to. They know they can win individual games in the regular season by gutting teams with their versatile scoring, but I just don't think Pop allowed them to forget about their defense. That's naive.

Does it matter that Blair isn't necessarily tall? He plays like he's 7', that's all that really matters as long as he doesn't get abused out there and grabs boards, and can put the ball in the hole.

If you want to go ahead and call OKC contenders, fine, that's cool, but you better include both Dallas and San Antonio in that discussion as well. It makes NO damn sense to include OKC but not those two.

 

[kevin cleveland]

LOL at thinking Kobe can guard Chris.

 

[pmatic]

Originally Posted by JapanAir21

Originally Posted by itsaboutthattime

JA, please tell me where I am wrong on any of these:

we have the league's leading scorer

we have the league's leader in total blocks (who wasn't even a starter until the aforementioned trade)

we have one of the best PGs statistically in the league

we have 2 top 15-20 players in the league

we have a good defensive center

we have a good bench (harden, maynor, cook, narz and collison)



you still haven't answered where exactly we would rank contender wise if we lost to spurs or lakers? because you did say they were both top 5 contenders, right?

if we were in the east, where would we rank?

You can point out little facets about your team all you want. You can do that about ANY team in the League.

Dallas has one of the highest scoring averages in the L (and normally speaking, teams /w leading scorer almost NEVER wins the title).
Dallas has the best road record.
Dallas has 4th best FG%.
Dallas averages the best assist totals per game of any team.
Dallas has depth at every position.
Dallas has a good defensive Center.
Dallas has one of the most versatile PGs ever.
Dallas has one of the most versatile defenders ever.

Where am I wrong at any of those?

See my point?

You're a fan of your team, you know better than anyone else about your team. If you wanna go ahead and call them contenders, sure, whatever, but why not the two teams who also finished with better records than you in the regular season.

San Antonio won 6 more games than you, even though they are old.
Dallas won more games than you, even though their best player was out ten games, and played without their arguably second best player for 50 games.

San Antonio's style of ball more than likely isn't going to work in the playoffs. They can't expect to rely on fast breaks like they did in the regular season.
Duncan is the only big they got with size (pause). McDyess and Blair are fairly short, Bonner is a liability on defense and Splitter hasn't done enough to even warrant playing time from Popovich.
They're a middling defensive team. That will get exposed by a good offensive team.

How'd their defense look tonight? I'm not convinced that just because they turned to a different system this year they can't turn it back and be a defensive team like they used to. They know they can win individual games in the regular season by gutting teams with their versatile scoring, but I just don't think Pop allowed them to forget about their defense. That's naive.

Does it matter that Blair isn't necessarily tall? He plays like he's 7', that's all that really matters as long as he doesn't get abused out there and grabs boards, and can put the ball in the hole.

It's been solid tonight. Protecting the paint way better than Sunday.

And Blair being 6'7 matters a lot. He has trouble finishing in traffic and can get exposed on defense for his lack of length on post ups.