EC Playoffs Rnd1: (2) Magic vs (7) Bobcats
- Thread starter jalfa
- Start date
Gargamel
Starter
Wonder if Vitale still thinks Orlando should've gone with Okafor.
Charlotte may or may not have the talent to beat Orlando (I am, obviously, rooting for them), but they appear to be writing the blueprint on how to beat the Magic. You could tell by their strategy that they had no regard whatsoever for any of the Magic other than Howard. If I'm an Orlando fan, I'd be real worried about what a better team would be able to do against them.
Also, Gerald F. Wallace! A grand total of 17/8/2 in fifteen career playoff games in Sacramento, 25/17/2 in his first playoff game in Charlotte. I've been on the Wallace bandwagon for a loooooong time, and I'm real happy to see him shine on the big stage.
Also, Gerald F. Wallace! A grand total of 17/8/2 in fifteen career playoff games in Sacramento, 25/17/2 in his first playoff game in Charlotte. I've been on the Wallace bandwagon for a loooooong time, and I'm real happy to see him shine on the big stage.
jalfa
Starter
Sooo, the Magic make a major point of going to Howard early in the game and as of five minutes later, they completely forget about him again. Weird. Also, the Bobcats need more scorers and they need to get Gerald involved more. Getting to the basket and Howard into foul trouble is their best shot to win this. Lastly, Nazr Mohammed takes weird shots, I kind of appreciate that.
Great sequence for the Bobcats just now. Amazing block by Gerald on Dwight Howard of all people, then the and-1 by Jackson. Looks pretty good by now.
Great sequence for the Bobcats just now. Amazing block by Gerald on Dwight Howard of all people, then the and-1 by Jackson. Looks pretty good by now.
Last edited:
It's amazing how ridiculously average the Magic look when Howard isn't on the floor. I mean, most teams look worse without their best player, but goddamn...
How 'bout some dap to Charlotte's defense for basically getting shut out, but still managing to keep the game within reach.
How 'bout some dap to Charlotte's defense for basically getting shut out, but still managing to keep the game within reach.
I can't help but feel bad for Charlotte. I mean, nobody thought they had a chance, and they clearly didn't, but you hate to see a team have a franchise best season, and go out on a sweep.
It sucks, too, because Orlando is the only team in the eastern conference that I thought they couldn't beat: hell, they'd have had a better chance against Cleveland than against Orlando.
It sucks, too, because Orlando is the only team in the eastern conference that I thought they couldn't beat: hell, they'd have had a better chance against Cleveland than against Orlando.
Yep, just couldn't hang with them offensively. Once Orlando gets hot, they are almost unstoppable. Ask the Cavs.
I don't particularly agree with that: I think it has more to do that Orlando is the one team in the playoffs that Charlotte's playing style is ill-suited to play against. They're not built to beat a jump-shooting team. As for last year, whereas Cleveland built a team to beat Boston, Orlando built a team to beat Cleveland. I don't think that they have the same advantage this year.
You know who is, though? The Hawks... presuming, of course, that they stop ****ing around with Milwaukee. But the Hawks have athletes at every position (when they bring Crawford in for Bibby, anyway), and can stay up on their shooters. The only way that Orlando beats Atlanta is if they force-feed Howard the ball, and they have shown that they are disinclined to want to do that.
You know who is, though? The Hawks... presuming, of course, that they stop ****ing around with Milwaukee. But the Hawks have athletes at every position (when they bring Crawford in for Bibby, anyway), and can stay up on their shooters. The only way that Orlando beats Atlanta is if they force-feed Howard the ball, and they have shown that they are disinclined to want to do that.
That's what I meant, really. Charlotte struggles against teams that shoot the three well, especially if they're just gonna commit to stopping Dwight Howard. And once Orlando starts hitting a few three pointers, they open up a lead that changes the complexion of the game, even against teams that can shoot the three well.
I just don't get it. It's starting to make me think that Stan van Gundy is the worst coach in the NBA. You have a big man that can get his own shot off on the block (Dwight Howard's offensive game has really improved this season, by the way), but you don't give him the ball? I understand you have good shooters, but you have them because your big man can help them get open. The Magic will go several possessions in a row without Howard even touching the ball. It's incredibly annoying. I can't really watch them play because of it. (Portland does the same thing with LaMarcus Aldridge, in favor of Andre Miller dribbling the entire clock out.)
As for Atlanta/Milwaukee, I see a good, old-fashioned smackdown coming to the Bucks in Game 5. And I don't think the Bucks can win in Atlanta, period, so even if it goes seven games, the Hawks will advance. Against Orlando, they can hang offensively, and possibly even pull off the upset, especially if Orlando ignores their biggest advantage in Howard.
The Hawks are my third-favorite team, behind the Kings and Bobcats.
The teams I root for in order are: Kings, Hawks, Whoever's playing the Celtics, Whoever's playing the Cavs, Whoever's playing the Bucks
Of course I do; it's all about matchups. The Hawks match up better against Orlando than they do against Milwaukee. The strange thing about it is that they would actually match up better against Milwaukee if Bogut was healthy.
The hell? Am I being whooshed? Is there anything in my post history that lends itself to suggest that I don't believe that?
It doesn't really have much to do with whether or not the Hawks have anybody to defend Bogut (although, I think that they do: you're really underrating Horford's defense against "power" centers), and a lot to do with how Bogut's presence completely changes the way that they play, not unlike the difference between Cleveland (and Phoenix before them) with Shaq, and without Shaq. The way that Milwaukee plays on offense is different than how they play without him; and the way that the Hawks defend, the would actually do better against the Bucks offense + Bogut.
It doesn't really have much to do with whether or not the Hawks have anybody to defend Bogut (although, I think that they do: you're really underrating Horford's defense against "power" centers), and a lot to do with how Bogut's presence completely changes the way that they play, not unlike the difference between Cleveland (and Phoenix before them) with Shaq, and without Shaq. The way that Milwaukee plays on offense is different than how they play without him; and the way that the Hawks defend, the would actually do better against the Bucks offense + Bogut.
est.1999
Starter
This is just such nonsense and goes against any successful basketball formulas. They were tearing up the league when they got salmons and bogut was on a mission finally playing up to expectations. It's not even worth arguing with you on this subject cause it's clear your hawks bias is getting in the way. I actually like the hawks and I don't like the magic nor do I like the bucks and would love for the hawks to advance to the conference finals.
What does any of that have to do with what I said? The Bucks play differently on offense, and are different (and, to some teams, easier) to defend with Bogut than they are without Bogut, just like Cleveland and Phoenix were both easier to defend with Shaq than without Shaq. Prove me wrong... or does me having a "Hawks bias" mean you don't have to?
est.1999
Starter
You're comparing the shaq of the last 2 years to this version of bogut. Bogut is a main focal point in his teams recipe for success. Shaq is not. Plain and simple. So let me ask
you this: if bogut were on the kings would we be easier to defend? I mean we have Evans and udrih(I guess you can say they are in retrospect Jennings and salmons). 2 guards. One more of a penetrator. One more slasher/shooter. If bogut were on the kings Evans and benos games would open up even more. The same way that bogut would do for the bucks. And the kings and bucks would both be way better.
you this: if bogut were on the kings would we be easier to defend? I mean we have Evans and udrih(I guess you can say they are in retrospect Jennings and salmons). 2 guards. One more of a penetrator. One more slasher/shooter. If bogut were on the kings Evans and benos games would open up even more. The same way that bogut would do for the bucks. And the kings and bucks would both be way better.
That is an utterly specious argument. The Kings and Bucks don't have the same kind of offense. You can't just say "wouldn't we be better," as though it works like that all the time. We're not talking about fantasy league, here: as evidenced by the 2006-07 Kings, sometimes the whole is actually less than the sum of their parts... Even if Bogut made the Kings better, which I'm sure that he would, that does not prove that it wouldn't make a team like the Hawks match up against us better.
Sometimes a player's presence on a team changes their whole offense, whether that player is the focal point or not. The Suns were arguably worse, and unarguably slower when Shaq was on the court for them; that he was not the focal point is not relevant to that fact. Because that is undisputed: that's not a "what if" scenario, that actually happened. The Suns played differently with Shaq than without him. So do the Cavaliers. And the Bucks play different with Bogut than they do without him. That doesn't mean they play worse; it just means that some teams are built to match up better against teams that play inside-out than against teams that play outside-in, or outside-out, and Atlanta is one of those teams.
Sometimes a player's presence on a team changes their whole offense, whether that player is the focal point or not. The Suns were arguably worse, and unarguably slower when Shaq was on the court for them; that he was not the focal point is not relevant to that fact. Because that is undisputed: that's not a "what if" scenario, that actually happened. The Suns played differently with Shaq than without him. So do the Cavaliers. And the Bucks play different with Bogut than they do without him. That doesn't mean they play worse; it just means that some teams are built to match up better against teams that play inside-out than against teams that play outside-in, or outside-out, and Atlanta is one of those teams.
Last edited:
est.1999
Starter
Exactly, this isn't fanasy basketball. You brought up the shaq subject. He was forcefully plugged into two teams. The Phoenix one was a disaster and the cavs one seems alright to me. But bogut is a part of that Milwaukee team. We're not talking about plugging a random center into the bucks.
You still haven't disproved my statements. Bogut is a part of that Milwaukee team: that doesn't change the fact that their offense is different when he's in there than when he's not in there. They don't run post plays for Kurt Thomas or Dan Gadzuric, they run like hell. And the Hawks are built to defend a post-up team better than a run-and-gun team, to say nothing of the fact that that's how Mike Woodson coaches them.
It's amazing how some people don't understand simple points haha... Dear est.1999, the point is that the Hawks would match up better against a more half-court oriented offense as opposed to getting Mike Bibby to try and catch Brandon Jennings running around.
Some teams are built to play against certain styles. You know how we always said that Sergio could come into the game and give us a change of pace? It's because when he came in our offense moved slightly faster, that at times would give the opponents a harder time. Does that mean that we are a better team with sergio at the point VS tyreke?
Some teams are built to play against certain styles. You know how we always said that Sergio could come into the game and give us a change of pace? It's because when he came in our offense moved slightly faster, that at times would give the opponents a harder time. Does that mean that we are a better team with sergio at the point VS tyreke?
Similar threads
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links
- Poll
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA -
- Kings News Links