So I just watched the replay of that, and yeah that sucks, but you guys are being ridiculous.
I thought was about to witness a murder or something.
The Zaza play was bad because not only was it an obviously dirty play with no legitimate basketball purpose, but it was the also the single biggest turning point in the game.
Zaza pulls that bullshit, Leonard goes out, the warriors immediately go on a 16-0 run and San Antonio looks fucking lost. Most dirty plays are whatever, this one completely changed the outcome of the game.
This can be argued and it was dirty but... I don't think The Spurs win this series even with a healthy Leonard.
No, probably not. But we'll never know now, and it could have been a really interesting, fun series to watch in a playoffs that has been generally lacking in them.
Spurs are so slow on defense without Leonard that GSW is just going to eat them alive now.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
Was probably the best example he could come up with.
It's the same argument I use to hate Kelly Olynyk.
It doesn't matter if you intended to hurt Kawhi/Love/Wall or not, what matters is that you play in a reckless way that you know is possible to seriously injure people with and yet you keep on doing it. That's as bad as having intent.
0
Options
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Look, I know there are some garbage teams in the NBA, but you can't look at the turnaround the Celtics have had in the past two years and call them "mediocre." That would imply the only good team in the East is the Cavs.
E: we should have put it away on Friday, but I'll take the game 7 win at home. Fuck yeah.
Look, I know there are some garbage teams in the NBA, but you can't look at the turnaround the Celtics have had in the past two years and call them "mediocre." That would imply the only good team in the East is the Cavs.
The only good team in the east is the cavs. I don't think that's a particularly hot take.
Look, I know there are some garbage teams in the NBA, but you can't look at the turnaround the Celtics have had in the past two years and call them "mediocre." That would imply the only good team in the East is the Cavs.
Wizards ran out of plays besides Beal dribbling the shot clock down
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
edited May 2017
On the one hand I'm very sad the Celtics won. And I'm also very unhappy that Olynyk had a good game because he's especially awful.
On the other hand, whichever team got through was going to get obliterated by the Cavaliers and it will be a lot of fun to see that happen to the Celtics.
Legit question: are the Cavs the only good team in the East, or are they the only team with LeBron? The idea that a team is only good if it has an elite player is ridiculous to me, and it's part of why I rank the NBA third out of the big four (baseball is just fucking boring).
Legit question: are the Cavs the only good team in the East, or are they the only team with LeBron? The idea that a team is only good if it has an elite player is ridiculous to me, and it's part of why I rank the NBA third out of the big four (baseball is just fucking boring).
LeBron, and by extension the Cavaliers, are on a completely different level to the rest of the East. The Celtics just had two hard-fought series against the Bulls and the Wizards. Meanwhile the Cavs obliterated both of their series opponents. So if the baseline for good is the Cavaliers, then no, nobody except them is any good in the east. If the baseline for good is the Celtics, then the Cavaliers are far more than merely good.
Why are you so surprised that an elite player is a dominant and required factor in an NBA game?
There are only 5 players on the court from each team, and the court itself is extremely small compared to how many people are on it.
A single dominant player has a much bigger impact on the game than in any other sport, so, yes, in all of recorded history that have been only a handful of teams that have won without having at least a couple dominant stars on their team.
The Celtics have IT and Horford, two All Stars. But they're apparently mediocre. I guess they would advance to "good" if they had an elite player to round them out?
Still waiting to see how Cleveland stacks up against a team with a competent offense.
I think they got a better draw with Boston. Not that the Wizards would have won a series against them, but I think they would have been able to expose some flaws.
0
Options
Dhalphirdon't you open that trapdooryou're a fool if you dareRegistered Userregular
The Celtics have IT and Horford, two All Stars. But they're apparently mediocre. I guess they would advance to "good" if they had an elite player to round them out?
Again, it all depends where you draw your baseline. The Cavaliers are much, much better than the Celtics, so if the Celtics are good, then the Cavaliers are transcendant.
If the Cavaliers are the baseline for good, then by definition nobody else in the East can be good.
As a Celtics fan, Bradley Beal was terrifying in that game. Apparently he's only 23? It's real easy to overlook how young some of these players actually are and how much room they still have to improve.
The Cavs have had the easiest first two opponents in the playoffs that I can ever remember.
Boston can definitely win a couple of games. I just don't think they can score enough over seven games.
I think the same can be said about the Warriors. The NBA is extremely top heavy right now with the Cavs and the Warriors both being super teams. The Warriors have 2 former MVP's and two more top 15 players. The Cavs have two legit all-stars flanking the best player of this generation who is un-guardable. It's disappointing but unsurprising that either team hasn't been tested.
Posts
I approve.
Should never have turned it on.
Curry can't do that every night
Refs forgot the rules of the game
Still had a chance despite all that other bull shit.
it has to end
I thought was about to witness a murder or something.
The Zaza play was bad because not only was it an obviously dirty play with no legitimate basketball purpose, but it was the also the single biggest turning point in the game.
Zaza pulls that bullshit, Leonard goes out, the warriors immediately go on a 16-0 run and San Antonio looks fucking lost. Most dirty plays are whatever, this one completely changed the outcome of the game.
Pop ain't happy
Turns out having the best coach and the best defensive wing in the league lets you do a whole lot.
Hard to say we didn't have a shot though with that game in evidence.
Switch - SW-7373-3669-3011
Fuck Joe Manchin
No, probably not. But we'll never know now, and it could have been a really interesting, fun series to watch in a playoffs that has been generally lacking in them.
Spurs are so slow on defense without Leonard that GSW is just going to eat them alive now.
Was probably the best example he could come up with.
It's the same argument I use to hate Kelly Olynyk.
It doesn't matter if you intended to hurt Kawhi/Love/Wall or not, what matters is that you play in a reckless way that you know is possible to seriously injure people with and yet you keep on doing it. That's as bad as having intent.
E: we should have put it away on Friday, but I'll take the game 7 win at home. Fuck yeah.
The only good team in the east is the cavs. I don't think that's a particularly hot take.
kelly oubre 6 seconds
Yes, and?
3DS: 2981-5304-3227
On the other hand, whichever team got through was going to get obliterated by the Cavaliers and it will be a lot of fun to see that happen to the Celtics.
If all it took was Lebron to win the conference every year he would have never left Cleveland.
LeBron, and by extension the Cavaliers, are on a completely different level to the rest of the East. The Celtics just had two hard-fought series against the Bulls and the Wizards. Meanwhile the Cavs obliterated both of their series opponents. So if the baseline for good is the Cavaliers, then no, nobody except them is any good in the east. If the baseline for good is the Celtics, then the Cavaliers are far more than merely good.
Why are you so surprised that an elite player is a dominant and required factor in an NBA game?
There are only 5 players on the court from each team, and the court itself is extremely small compared to how many people are on it.
A single dominant player has a much bigger impact on the game than in any other sport, so, yes, in all of recorded history that have been only a handful of teams that have won without having at least a couple dominant stars on their team.
I think they got a better draw with Boston. Not that the Wizards would have won a series against them, but I think they would have been able to expose some flaws.
Again, it all depends where you draw your baseline. The Cavaliers are much, much better than the Celtics, so if the Celtics are good, then the Cavaliers are transcendant.
If the Cavaliers are the baseline for good, then by definition nobody else in the East can be good.
Boston can definitely win a couple of games. I just don't think they can score enough over seven games.
I think the Pacers and Bucks were both better than the Bulls. Not as good as the Wizards, true.
I think the same can be said about the Warriors. The NBA is extremely top heavy right now with the Cavs and the Warriors both being super teams. The Warriors have 2 former MVP's and two more top 15 players. The Cavs have two legit all-stars flanking the best player of this generation who is un-guardable. It's disappointing but unsurprising that either team hasn't been tested.