[NBA] Comments that Don't Warrant Their Own Thread (Playoffs?)
- Thread starter Mr. S£im Citrus
- Start date
Oh I see. My bad then. Silly of me to assume that a team which in:
2005-06 got to second round of the playoffs
2006-07 was the second seed in the East and went on to the NBA finals
2007-08 got to second round of playoffs
2008-2009 was 66-16 in the regular season, 39-2 at home in the regular season, swept their opponents in the first two rounds of the playoffs and lost in gm6 in the ECF
2009-2010 had the best record in the league for the 2nd straight season, finishing 61-21, then lost to the eventual EC champ Celtics in the 2nd round of the playoffs,
had at least some talent.
Besides, the Miami Heat with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh and Lebron totally won more than 66 or even 61 games right?
I'm not hating on Lebron here. I'm hating on people who dare say that a team that can have the best record in the league for 2 straight years doesn't have a chance to fight for a championship with a few more tweaks. And I'm hating on people that then go on to say James isn't responsible at all for them losing to the Celts last season.
So same thing here. Spurs had a very good regular season, but aren't looking too good in the playoffs. Must be because San Antonio has no talent other than either Ginobili or Parker right?
But let's not waste our time arguing over LBJ because I don't want to waste my energy on him. At the end of the day you're going to stand by your opinion because you like him, and I'm going to stand by mine because I don't. So let's not pursue this any further.
2005-06 got to second round of the playoffs
2006-07 was the second seed in the East and went on to the NBA finals
2007-08 got to second round of playoffs
2008-2009 was 66-16 in the regular season, 39-2 at home in the regular season, swept their opponents in the first two rounds of the playoffs and lost in gm6 in the ECF
2009-2010 had the best record in the league for the 2nd straight season, finishing 61-21, then lost to the eventual EC champ Celtics in the 2nd round of the playoffs,
had at least some talent.
Besides, the Miami Heat with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh and Lebron totally won more than 66 or even 61 games right?
I'm not hating on Lebron here. I'm hating on people who dare say that a team that can have the best record in the league for 2 straight years doesn't have a chance to fight for a championship with a few more tweaks. And I'm hating on people that then go on to say James isn't responsible at all for them losing to the Celts last season.
So same thing here. Spurs had a very good regular season, but aren't looking too good in the playoffs. Must be because San Antonio has no talent other than either Ginobili or Parker right?
But let's not waste our time arguing over LBJ because I don't want to waste my energy on him. At the end of the day you're going to stand by your opinion because you like him, and I'm going to stand by mine because I don't. So let's not pursue this any further.
Wow this one post just made me lose almost all my respect for you and your "strong" arguments.
Mo Williams and Tony Parker are not that differing in talent levels. Parker definitely has is better though, but they are not that far apart.
Duncan this season and Shaq with the Cavs also had similar production.
Daniel Gibson and Gary Neal have almost identical career averages. (in Neal's case it's only his first year)
Antawn Jamison vs Richard Jefferson. Not that much of a difference. In fact I'd take Jamison over him.
JJ Hickson vs Blair. Again, very similar stats, and Hickson's rebounding numbers have increased tremendously this season, probably because James is no longer gobbling up the rebounds.
And at the end of the day, let's not forget it's great and awesome LeBron James, who's talent is greater than Ginobili + old McDyess + Bonner combined. So like I said, if you're going to say that Lebron didn't have any/sufficient talent around him, then neither does ginobili.
There's my argument. Call it weak if you will, but I don't see you doing any better. If anything, Mike Brown's horrible coaching had a bigger part to play in their inability to win a championship with a few more tweaks than did the so called lack of talent.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the Cavs were a very talented team. But they were talented ENOUGH for James to win a championship with, if they added a few pieces and got a good coach. You replace LeBron James with Kevin Martin and I'll agree with you that the team isn't good enough to win. But well, I obviously don't think that superstars all need to have 2 other superstars around them just to win a championship.
Mo Williams and Tony Parker are not that differing in talent levels. Parker definitely has is better though, but they are not that far apart.
Duncan this season and Shaq with the Cavs also had similar production.
Daniel Gibson and Gary Neal have almost identical career averages. (in Neal's case it's only his first year)
Antawn Jamison vs Richard Jefferson. Not that much of a difference. In fact I'd take Jamison over him.
JJ Hickson vs Blair. Again, very similar stats, and Hickson's rebounding numbers have increased tremendously this season, probably because James is no longer gobbling up the rebounds.
And at the end of the day, let's not forget it's great and awesome LeBron James, who's talent is greater than Ginobili + old McDyess + Bonner combined. So like I said, if you're going to say that Lebron didn't have any/sufficient talent around him, then neither does ginobili.
There's my argument. Call it weak if you will, but I don't see you doing any better. If anything, Mike Brown's horrible coaching had a bigger part to play in their inability to win a championship with a few more tweaks than did the so called lack of talent.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying the Cavs were a very talented team. But they were talented ENOUGH for James to win a championship with, if they added a few pieces and got a good coach. You replace LeBron James with Kevin Martin and I'll agree with you that the team isn't good enough to win. But well, I obviously don't think that superstars all need to have 2 other superstars around them just to win a championship.
James made it to the finals before Williams and hickson arrived. Shaq wasn't there either, but let's be real here. Shaq being there never really mattered because he was never a force on that team. Who said superstars need 2 more superstars on their team to win a ring? He just needed another guy who could take the load off of him; preferably someone with a post up game. What has Kobe done without either the most dominant big man ever or one of the best(Gasol)? Hasn't even won a playoff series. What did wade accomplish when he didn't have a stacked team? First round outs and a year with no playoffs(yeah, he was injured). All these superstars need help. Why lebron gets criticized for not winning a ring I have no idea. And idiots claiming he doesn't have the killer instinct don't know what they are talking about.
Commenting on that Finals Cavs team, if you eliminate LeBron from that team - IMHO they don't make the playoffs at all. Z, Hughes, Snow, Marshall... not the makings of a playoff contender. Much like the 2010 Cavs team... take Lebron away, and they're one of the worst teams in basketball.
The Spurs have talent. With or without Manu - this year's team makes the playoffs as at least a lower seed in the West. Yes, old and slow, but Duncan, Parker, Hill, Blair, Jefferson is NOT anything close to any Cavs team in recent memory. Throw in the Coaching and that just proves the fact further.
The Spurs have talent. With or without Manu - this year's team makes the playoffs as at least a lower seed in the West. Yes, old and slow, but Duncan, Parker, Hill, Blair, Jefferson is NOT anything close to any Cavs team in recent memory. Throw in the Coaching and that just proves the fact further.
You can be objective in trivial and technical matters. When you discuss whether or not it was LeBron's fault for choking in the playoffs or the fault of the lack of talent around him, any camp is going to be biased, and anyone who thinks they are not biased in this debate is delusional. I strongly dislike LeBron, and I blame him for his own troubles before I blame anyone else, but I acknowledge that I am biased, and when the other side claims to be "objective" the whole debate becomes pointless. You can't have a meaningful discussion with people who believe that they are the sole source of truth, whether it's in sports or other matters.
I dont think Lebron is really that talented. As far as talent goes, hes probably average to above average. His jumpshot is average, as is his 3 point shooting. He can finish at the rim better than most. He doesnt have a lot of moves, no real post game, no good footwork, fakes, crossovers and other stuff. However, he is just so physically dominant, so big, strong, fast, explosive, and with such a great vertical that it allows him to be one of the best in the game.
Look, again I'm not saying Lebron isn't a great player, nor am I saying that he has no killer instinct, and I also don't think that the Cavs were talented enough for him to win a ring. In fact it's because Lebron is so good that I don't think he needs as good a team around him to win. I'm also not saying that the Cavs team minus Lebron was more talented than the Spurs or the Celtics or anything.
What I'm saying is, the Cavs did have hope, and with a few additions they could have been a championship calibre team. What I'm saying is if you had Michael Jordan, 2 decent hard-nosed role players, an above average point guard and another decent scorer, you can beat more well-rounded teams like the Spurs(as in 10-11 spurs). A couple of upgrades and you'll have a very very hard team to beat.
I dislike Lebron as a guy, but I have no question about his skill. What I can't stand is people saying that the Cavs losing in the playoffs had nothing to do with Lebron and everything to do with the rest of the team, and also defending his move for the reason that the rest of the team wasn't talented enough. That's a lame argument. The team with Lebron was talented enough to win 60 games. Make a few changes and that success would also be evident in the playoffs.
Like you said, what has Kobe done without a dominant big? Nothing! But people like you are calling him out for it. People criticize him because he can't win it without a dominant big. You're not making an excuse saying "Kobe couldn't win because the rest of the team didn't have enough talent", you're going "Kobe isn't good enough to win without talented team mates". So why is it that when a 60-win (as compared to the Lakers not even making the playoffs followed by a 45 win season) Cavs team gets knocked out of the playoffs, people put all of the blame on the rest of the team and zero blame on Lebron?
I agree with you. But teams are built a certain way for a reason, around a certain player. You can't just take away the superstar and then compare the teams, because the superstars aren't all equal. Lebron James is arguably the best player in the NBA. Please don't bring up the Lakers as a comparison and say that if you take away Kobe, who is in the same league as LBJ, the team is still a good team, because we all know the Lakers are the exception, and got lots of talented players for half the market rate.
If the Cavs didn't win 60 games for two seasons in a row we wouldn't be having this argument. But the fact is they did, and that shows you something. It either shows you that the rest of the team are good enough to win a championship with Lebron with a few changes, or it shows you that Lebron James is good enough to win a championship with a lousy team. Either way, you upgrade the rest of the roster a little bit and they could have had real championship hopes.
What I'm saying is, the Cavs did have hope, and with a few additions they could have been a championship calibre team. What I'm saying is if you had Michael Jordan, 2 decent hard-nosed role players, an above average point guard and another decent scorer, you can beat more well-rounded teams like the Spurs(as in 10-11 spurs). A couple of upgrades and you'll have a very very hard team to beat.
I dislike Lebron as a guy, but I have no question about his skill. What I can't stand is people saying that the Cavs losing in the playoffs had nothing to do with Lebron and everything to do with the rest of the team, and also defending his move for the reason that the rest of the team wasn't talented enough. That's a lame argument. The team with Lebron was talented enough to win 60 games. Make a few changes and that success would also be evident in the playoffs.
Like you said, what has Kobe done without a dominant big? Nothing! But people like you are calling him out for it. People criticize him because he can't win it without a dominant big. You're not making an excuse saying "Kobe couldn't win because the rest of the team didn't have enough talent", you're going "Kobe isn't good enough to win without talented team mates". So why is it that when a 60-win (as compared to the Lakers not even making the playoffs followed by a 45 win season) Cavs team gets knocked out of the playoffs, people put all of the blame on the rest of the team and zero blame on Lebron?
I agree with you. But teams are built a certain way for a reason, around a certain player. You can't just take away the superstar and then compare the teams, because the superstars aren't all equal. Lebron James is arguably the best player in the NBA. Please don't bring up the Lakers as a comparison and say that if you take away Kobe, who is in the same league as LBJ, the team is still a good team, because we all know the Lakers are the exception, and got lots of talented players for half the market rate.
If the Cavs didn't win 60 games for two seasons in a row we wouldn't be having this argument. But the fact is they did, and that shows you something. It either shows you that the rest of the team are good enough to win a championship with Lebron with a few changes, or it shows you that Lebron James is good enough to win a championship with a lousy team. Either way, you upgrade the rest of the roster a little bit and they could have had real championship hopes.
I'm not even saying that Lebron choked in the playoffs. I'm just questioning why he should be free from any blame while the rest of the Cavs get ALL the blame. I'm also questioning why he needs to go to a team with Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh when he got to the finals with the Cavs and had 2 straight 60+ win seasons.
I don't believe the Celtics lost BECAUSE of those calls. They got beaten down. However, every time those calls happened, the Celtics were making a huge run... particularly the flagrant on O'Neal. That foul first off was terrible, that was probably the worst foul, IMO, ever called a flagrant. If that foul doesn't happen, I believe, the Celtics AT LEAST make a game of it. Would they have won? Who knows, but it would've been close at least.
Secondly, the officiating in this game BOTH WAYS were terrible in some instances. I don't care what anyone says, that was a headbutt by Pierce. A little less intense than Zaza's in the Hawks/Magic series, but nonetheless a headbutt. He should've, IMO, been ejected on that call. I have a feeling that ref felt that way too, and that's why he ejected Pierce so quickly in the last fight.
So, all that being said, the flagrant wasn't one. The headbutt wasn't treated like one. The game should've been closer, but it wasn't. Did Heat deserve to win? Yes. Was the late Celtics comeback stopped short by a call? Yes. No matter what, it's Heat 1-0.
Secondly, the officiating in this game BOTH WAYS were terrible in some instances. I don't care what anyone says, that was a headbutt by Pierce. A little less intense than Zaza's in the Hawks/Magic series, but nonetheless a headbutt. He should've, IMO, been ejected on that call. I have a feeling that ref felt that way too, and that's why he ejected Pierce so quickly in the last fight.
So, all that being said, the flagrant wasn't one. The headbutt wasn't treated like one. The game should've been closer, but it wasn't. Did Heat deserve to win? Yes. Was the late Celtics comeback stopped short by a call? Yes. No matter what, it's Heat 1-0.
