Re: Eastern Conference Playoffs - 2nd Round Discussion Thread
I picked Dallas to beat Miami, go find the 2011 Finals thread on here. The Mavs were a bit of an outlier but they still had an outright legend in Dirk who was playing great, a very good rim protector/help defender/defensive anchor, tons of veterans and shooters and great chemistry. Plus that Miami team was in its first year together and had plenty of concerns (depth, chemistry, front court). If you think that the 2011 Mavs were similar to the 2007 Cavs, 2009 Magic or 1999 Knicks then I don't know what to tell you.
As for the Spurs, the only time I thought they were finished was when I thought Duncan was finished circa 2010. But they quickly rebuilt the team and Duncan had a resurgence, which was unheard of for a mid-30's big man. So they still had the best player of the generation even though he was past his prime, the best head coach of the generation in Pop, two other future HOFers with tons of playoff/Finals experience and a very good supporting cast. If you're asking me if I thought that the Spurs could win a title at the start of the 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons (and postseasons) then the answer is an astounding yes. The only question marks for them were age and health, they had all the other prerequisites.
Yeah, this is exactly what I do and exactly why I don't arbitrarily think a team can win the championship just because they've reached the Finals. There's far more to it than that, it's incredibly naive to think that a team can win it all just because they reached the conference finals or even the Finals. As I said earlier, this is the NBA. It's not the NCAA tournament or the NFL.
I don't know why or how you get this vibe but I don't get that feeling. I'm talking about projecting the playoffs after watching a given regular season. I'm talking about RIGHT NOW projecting who can win it all. I'm not talking about pre-season predictions nor about who's done what in the past. Me questioning the Hawks has absolutely nothing to do with previous seasons. I feel like most of OSers are the same way though I'm not on here nearly as often as I used to be so maybe they aren't.
Again, I have no idea why you feel this way. I have never said anything like that, ever, regarding any NBA team. It's incredibly narrow-minded to do so. Maybe other OSers offer that up that reasoning? I don't know.
Nah, not at all man. It's called respecting other opinions and it was solely regarding how you define "contender" because it IS something open for interpretation, like I compared it to "superstar" earlier. The only counterpoint people are offering up is to use the dictionary definition of "contender". I'm not doubting my opinion at all and still think it's correct. I said I'd eat crow more as an indicator that I wouldn't run and hide if I was proven wrong. That being said, I believe there is absolutely no chance the Hawks will win the 2015 NBA championship.
I picked Dallas to beat Miami, go find the 2011 Finals thread on here. The Mavs were a bit of an outlier but they still had an outright legend in Dirk who was playing great, a very good rim protector/help defender/defensive anchor, tons of veterans and shooters and great chemistry. Plus that Miami team was in its first year together and had plenty of concerns (depth, chemistry, front court). If you think that the 2011 Mavs were similar to the 2007 Cavs, 2009 Magic or 1999 Knicks then I don't know what to tell you.
As for the Spurs, the only time I thought they were finished was when I thought Duncan was finished circa 2010. But they quickly rebuilt the team and Duncan had a resurgence, which was unheard of for a mid-30's big man. So they still had the best player of the generation even though he was past his prime, the best head coach of the generation in Pop, two other future HOFers with tons of playoff/Finals experience and a very good supporting cast. If you're asking me if I thought that the Spurs could win a title at the start of the 2012, 2013 and 2014 seasons (and postseasons) then the answer is an astounding yes. The only question marks for them were age and health, they had all the other prerequisites.
People can think whatever they want, and when making predictions projections are necessary. But the closer you get to the actual game being played, the more you have to evaluate the possibility. What do the individual matchups look like? What are the injury issues? What adjustments were made that look advantageous against the next team they play? How deep is their bench and, if not very, how many minutes did the main players have to register coming in?
Yeah, this is exactly what I do and exactly why I don't arbitrarily think a team can win the championship just because they've reached the Finals. There's far more to it than that, it's incredibly naive to think that a team can win it all just because they reached the conference finals or even the Finals. As I said earlier, this is the NBA. It's not the NCAA tournament or the NFL.
My problem with the "What's a contender" discussion (no matter how you define it) is that it's often based on data from previous seasons which makes no sense... or familiar individual players which only makes slightly more sense than previous seasons.
People see teams and players for an extended period for the first time ever because they're watching the playoffs, and then use that to decide how they'll perform the following year.
There are plenty of legit reasons to doubt the Hawks, but it often feels like the reason is they weren't that good last year or the year before so they can't be that good now.
There are plenty of legit reasons to doubt the Hawks, but it often feels like the reason is they weren't that good last year or the year before so they can't be that good now.
Then the added "I'll eat crow if I'm wrong" like that makes up for the red in the face arguing of the point against people that are giving reasons for you to doubt that opinion in the first place.
Comment