2018 NBA Playoffs

[tap2390]

Sigh the NBA is just garbage but what do you expect when the best team ever adds the best offensive player in league. I find myself hoping one of their stars will get injured. It’s unbecoming I know, and I feel bad, but what is seriously the point if we all know one team has the talent to overcome any minor semblance of adversity?

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by tap2390

Sigh the NBA is just garbage but what do you expect when the best team ever adds the best offensive player in league. I find myself hoping one of their stars will get injured. It’s unbecoming I know, and I feel bad, but what is seriously the point if we all know one team has the talent to overcome any minor semblance of adversity?

I won't fault you as long as you wait to use the voodoo doll for after this series.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by tap2390

Sigh the NBA is just garbage but what do you expect when the best team ever adds the best offensive player in league. I find myself hoping one of their stars will get injured. It’s unbecoming I know, and I feel bad, but what is seriously the point if we all know one team has the talent to overcome any minor semblance of adversity?

I totally agree against every team not named Houston.

Steph Curry shake and baking Harden's ass is pure bliss.

[EricaLubarsky]

That’s the problem with building teams around offense. You either make shots or you don’t.

One team inevitably won’t make shots and all the reffing in the world can’t make that game close.

These games are snorers

[Bryan_Wilson]

I feel like this is more about the 3 ball than just offense in general. The advancement of the 3 ball and it's usage has created more blowouts just because on any given night a team will be cold and go 3/20+ and the opponent will be 13/20+ for a 30 point swing. You can win the TO battle and the reb battle and still lose by 20 by losing the 3's.

[Underdog]

The last two posts are why I put a premium on a rim-protecting stretch 5 like Jaren Jackson Jr.

[sefant77]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

I feel like this is more about the 3 ball than just offense in general. The advancement of the 3 ball and it's usage has created more blowouts just because on any given night a team will be cold and go 3/20+ and the opponent will be 13/20+ for a 30 point swing. You can win the TO battle and the reb battle and still lose by 20 by losing the 3's.

Exactly this.

Its chucking threes and often a team is hot and the other not and then you know the game is over in the 2nd quarter...

[saclare]

Originally Posted by Underdog

The last two posts are why I put a premium on a rim-protecting stretch 5 like Jaren Jackson Jr.

Or a smooth shooting/scoring threat like a healthy MPJ...and around we go.

[j0Shi]

Conference Finals average margin of victory: 24

gg

[Thespiralgoeson]

The NBA really needs to tweak the rules to make playing defense viable again. I'm not saying bring back the ugly days of the late 80s-90s, but there has got to be a middle ground. The game has got to be about more than just who can hit the most threes.

[j0Shi]

Yeah, but what are you supposed to do? The three pointer is the most effective shot and you can't really blame teams for trying to maximize that fact. Imho it's all about competitive balance and not giving superstars the leverage they have right now. All those bs calls, ignored travels, superteams...

It's good for "show", but you have to realize that all of this leads to lopsided results and less thrill, even if two of the better teams like GSW and HOU meet in the playoffs.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by j0Shi

Yeah, but what are you supposed to do? The three pointer is the most effective shot and you can't really blame teams for trying to maximize that fact. Imho it's all about competitive balance and not giving superstars the leverage they have right now. All those bs calls, ignored travels, superteams...

It's good for "show", but you have to realize that all of this leads to lopsided results and less thrill, even if two of the better teams like GSW and HOU meet in the playoffs.

Oh it's definitely not the teams' fault at all. Their job is to win. I think the NBA needs to take a good long look at the rules, and loosen them up a little so players are actually allowed to play defense again, and study ways to make the game less centered around the three. Wishful thinking, I know.

Superstars having leverage seems like a completely different issue- particularly "superteams." Frankly, I think people seem to have pretty short memories about this. People seem to think that Lebron invented the superteam when joined Miami, but superteams are as old as the NBA itself. There's been at least one superteam every decade- usually either the Lakers or Celtics. Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years. Wilt joined a Lakers team that already had Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. The Lakers and the Celtics were both the definition of superteams in the 80s- every single finals of that entire decade featured one or both of them, with eight titles between them. Was Lebron joining the Heat with his friends really anymore egregious than when the Lakers as defending champions had the first pick in the draft? A team that was already a dynasty was handed a future Hall of Famer. Hell, the Celtics almost had the same deal and might have won several more titles if Len Bias hadn't died of a cocaine overdose two days after he was drafted. Did Shaq and Kobe not constitute a superteam? Or how about when they signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone? Or when the Celtics got KG and Ray Allen in the same offseason? Or how about when the Lakers got Pau Gasol- a borderline franchise player- for Kwame f*cking Brown? I think Jordan's Bulls would fit anyone's definition of a superteam- at the very least after they picked up Rodman. Every decade has had at least one superteam. I might even argue that superteams are the defining theme of NBA history.

How do you stop players from signing where they want to sign? I hate that Durant signed with GSW as much as anybody, I can't sit here and say that he shouldn't have the right to play wherever he wants to play. I don't think restricting player movement is going to improve the product.

[mac222b]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Oh it's definitely not the teams' fault at all. Their job is to win. I think the NBA needs to take a good long look at the rules, and loosen them up a little so players are actually allowed to play defense again, and study ways to make the game less centered around the three. Wishful thinking, I know.

Superstars having leverage seems like a completely different issue- particularly "superteams." Frankly, I think people seem to have pretty short memories about this. People seem to think that Lebron invented the superteam when joined Miami, but superteams are as old as the NBA itself. There's been at least one superteam every decade- usually either the Lakers or Celtics. Russell's Celtics won 11 titles in 13 years. Wilt joined a Lakers team that already had Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. The Lakers and the Celtics were both the definition of superteams in the 80s- every single finals of that entire decade featured one or both of them, with eight titles between them. Was Lebron joining the Heat with his friends really anymore egregious than when the Lakers as defending champions had the first pick in the draft? A team that was already a dynasty was handed a future Hall of Famer. Hell, the Celtics almost had the same deal and might have won several more titles if Len Bias hadn't died of a cocaine overdose two days after he was drafted. Did Shaq and Kobe not constitute a superteam? Or how about when they signed Gary Payton and Karl Malone? Or when the Celtics got KG and Ray Allen in the same offseason? Or how about when the Lakers got Pau Gasol- a borderline franchise player- for Kwame f*cking Brown? I think Jordan's Bulls would fit anyone's definition of a superteam- at the very least after they picked up Rodman. Every decade has had at least one superteam. I might even argue that superteams are the defining theme of NBA history.

How do you stop players from signing where they want to sign? I hate that Durant signed with GSW as much as anybody, I can't sit here and say that he shouldn't have the right to play wherever he wants to play. I don't think restricting player movement is going to improve the product.

I agree with a lot of what youre saying here but there is a distinction between
the Lakers and Celtics trading for the picks that became Worthy(I believe the Stepien Rule was put in place to stop this from happening again) and Bias- thats more like Ainge taking advantage of a bad owner and GM in Prokhorov and King. Alot of those examples you listed, most, were not the result of stars forcing their way to form a superteam.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by mac222b

I agree with a lot of what youre saying here but there is a distinction between
the Lakers and Celtics trading for the picks that became Worthy(I believe the Stepien Rule was put in place to stop this from happening again) and Bias- thats more like Ainge taking advantage of a bad owner and GM in Prokhorov and King. Alot of those examples you listed, most, were not the result of stars forcing their way to form a superteam.

So what is the definition of a "superteam?" A team that is built through free agency, rather than draft or trade? To me it's a distinction without a difference, because the end result is the same. We don't like superteams because we don't like it when one team is completely dominant. What I'm saying is, the NBA has always been that way.

I'm also not sure what you mean by stars "forcing" their way to form a superteam. You talk of stars having too much leverage, but I'm not sure I follow. What leverage do players have that they shouldn't have? Or that they haven't always had? The ability to sign with a team that they want to sign with? And who do they have leverage over?

EDIT^^ I see that it was joshi who said the bit about stars having leverage. My bad. You seem to be saying more or less the same thing though, so I still pose the question.

[MavzMan]

My loose definition of super team is when 3 or more players get together who were their own team's franchise players. Toronto/Bosh, Cleveland/Bron, Miami/Wade. Worthy and Pippen were never franchise players. Rodman, hell no. Now the Lakers with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton yes that should have been. KG/Ray/Rondo is more no than yes because Rondo was really young and stepped up big time, but it is close.

Jordan's Bulls I will say no every single time. Look at what every one of those players did away from Jordon and Phil. Phil is one of the best coaches of all time IMO who had arguably the best player of all time, but besides Pippen, those were teams of at best solid role players and nothing more.

GS is a little different in that Curry is the franchise player, but Klay and Green add up to another even though they've never been on other teams. Adding KD was just the supreme kick in the nuts.

This is easily fixed with some cap management by the league. Off the top of my head, give each team a $50 mill/yr max they can sign one player to. Then give a set remaining balance for everyone else, like 2 players get $12, 2 more get $8, so on. If a KD type player takes $12 instead of $36, then good for him.

[MavzMan]

To predict in the future, a super team will be when Lebron and KD team up in LA followed by the team dumping everything they have to in order to drop Deng from the books and then signing PG13 along with all the bandwagoners that want a ring. That would be a team that could beat GS next year.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by MavzMan

My loose definition of super team is when 3 or more players get together who were their own team's franchise players. Toronto/Bosh, Cleveland/Bron, Miami/Wade. Worthy and Pippen were never franchise players. Rodman, hell no. Now the Lakers with Shaq, Kobe, Malone, Payton yes that should have been.

Fair enough, but it seems arbitrary. Again, I think it's a difference without a distinction. If the end result is the same- one team being dominant- what does it matter how the team came together. (Oh and not for nothing, but Pippen was absolutely a franchise player. He was a top 10 player of that era, and carried the Bulls to a 55 win season without Jordan.)

KG/Ray/Rondo is more no than yes because Rondo was really young and stepped up big time, but it is close.

Uh.... Rondo???? The Celtics big three was KG, Ray, and Pierce- not Rondo. Pierce had been their franchise player for a decade. By your definition, that was definitely a superteam.

Jordan's Bulls I will say no every single time. Look at what every one of those players did away from Jordon and Phil. Phil is one of the best coaches of all time IMO who had arguably the best player of all time, but besides Pippen, those were teams of at best solid role players and nothing more.

GS is a little different in that Curry is the franchise player, but Klay and Green add up to another even though they've never been on other teams. Adding KD was just the supreme kick in the nuts.

Again, it seems like an arbitrary label. That Bulls team was the greatest team ever. But they weren't... super?

This is easily fixed with some cap management by the league. Off the top of my head, give each team a $50 mill/yr max they can sign one player to. Then give a set remaining balance for everyone else, like 2 players get $12, 2 more get $8, so on. If a KD type player takes $12 instead of $36, then good for him.

Eh. I don't think restricting player movement or limiting teams to only having one star would be good for the product. I think it would just result in a lot of really, really mediocre basketball, and water the talent pool down even more.

[MavzMan]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Fair enough, but it seems arbitrary. Again, I think it's a difference without a distinction. If the end result is the same- one team being dominant- what does it matter how the team came together. (Oh and not for nothing, but Pippen was absolutely a franchise player. He was a top 10 player of that era, and carried the Bulls to a 55 win season without Jordan.)

You mean him and Phil Jackson. I do see some of point but I also look at what he did when he went to Houston and Portland which wasn't much. I'm not sure that I would label him a top 10 player of that era either. In no specific order, consider Malone, Stockton, Robinson, Barkley, Shaq, Hakeem, Reggie, Drexler, Payton. I consider all of those to be legit franchise players and ahead of Pippen with maybe the exception of Payton.

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Uh.... Rondo???? The Celtics big three was KG, Ray, and Pierce- not Rondo. Pierce had been their franchise player for a decade. By your definition, that was definitely a superteam.

I totally stand corrected on this one. It's late afternoon and my mind is about shot I guess.

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Again, it seems like an arbitrary label. That Bulls team was the greatest team ever. But they weren't... super?

The greatest team ever? I don't think so. They had arguably the best player and coach ever.

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

Eh. I don't think restricting player movement or limiting teams to only having one star would be good for the product. I think it would just result in a lot of really, really mediocre basketball, and water the talent pool down even more.

Valid argument, but I'm spit-balling how to prevent the Lebron and KD from teaming up or GS from forming in the first place. Yes, you water the talent pool down to balance out the teams in the league. It's not possible to give every team a Lebron or KD.

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

How do you stop players from signing where they want to sign? I hate that Durant signed with GSW as much as anybody, I can't sit here and say that he shouldn't have the right to play wherever he wants to play. I don't think restricting player movement is going to improve the product.

There is a very easy way if you ask me. Don't put a cap on how much a player can sign for. If Lebron was able to make 55-60m a year he would. If KD or steph could make 20m more somewhere else one of them would leave etc.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

There is a very easy way if you ask me. Don't put a cap on how much a player can sign for. If Lebron was able to make 55-60m a year he would. If KD or steph could make 20m more somewhere else one of them would leave etc.

So get rid of the salary cap? How on earth would that hurt the chances of KD going to the Warriors?

[Bryan_Wilson]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

So get rid of the salary cap? How on earth would that hurt the chances of KD going to the Warriors?

Not the team cap the cap on a player's max. Why is Lebron only allowed to sign for 30-35m? He's worth a shit load more to a team so why can't he sign for whatever he wants? I don't recall the NFL or MLB saying "Hey Arod, u massive tool, you can only sign for 20m a year not 30m like you want".

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by MavzMan

You mean him and Phil Jackson. I do see some of point but I also look at what he did when he went to Houston and Portland which wasn't much.

You mean when he was old??? He was still a damn good player in Houston, and he was 34 years old by the time he got to Portland.

I'm not sure that I would label him a top 10 player of that era either. In no specific order, consider Malone, Stockton, Robinson, Barkley, Shaq, Hakeem, Reggie, Drexler, Payton. I consider all of those to be legit franchise players and ahead of Pippen with maybe the exception of Payton.

I'll take Scottie over Drexler, Reggie, and Payton, but that's me.

The greatest team ever? I don't think so.

I mean, you're free to disagree. But I'd bet you're in the minority. Either way, they were really, really, really f*cking good, yes?

They had arguably the best player and coach ever.

You say this as if the best player and the coach are, like, not part of the team.

Valid argument, but I'm spit-balling how to prevent the Lebron and KD from teaming up or GS from forming in the first place. Yes, you water the talent pool down to balance out the teams in the league. It's not possible to give every team a Lebron or KD.

And what I'm saying is, I think that would be bad for the league. For one, I think it's borderline unethical to prevent star players from playing together just because... we don't like it, I guess? Call me crazy, but I think these guys SHOULD be able to team up and play together wherever they want. I'm generally a believer in player empowerment. I don't *like* that KD went to GSW, but I think it was absolutely his right to do so.

But more importantly, you're completely altering the landscape of the league- in a very negative way, I think. You're essentially saying that great players should never be allowed to play together- unless they happen to be lucky enough to be drafted by the same team, or someone agrees to play for much less than what they're worth. I think these would both be TERRIBLE for the league, and for the sport. You're basically putting a hard limit on how good a team can be. You might not like superteams, but I promise you, most of us WANT to see great players play together. We want to see the game played at its highest level. What we absolutely do not want to see is every superstar in the league stuck on an island, all spread out over the league, with every team being mediocre and none of them being great. We see WAY too much of that already in the league. There are already far too many lone stars wasting their careers on bad teams with lousy supporting casts.

Most importantly of all, what I'm trying to argue here is that I don't think "superteams" are some kind of problem that need to be addressed. Again, the point I'm stressing is- THIS IS NOT NEW. THIS IS THE WAY THE NBA HAS ALWAYS BEEN. The NBA has always had that one or two teams that utterly dominate all the others. Hell, look at the previous era- 9 out of 15 championships were won by either Tim Duncan or Shaquille O'neal.

Nobody ever complained before Lebron joined Miami. So apparently we don't mind one team being dominant, but for some reason we can't tolerate it when the players themselves decide where they want to play? I don't understand this.

Furthermore, people seem to think that superstars joining up in free agency is some massive trend and the league norm now. But it's been done exactly twice. Lebron in 2010, and KD last year. That's it. This isn't some long term trend- not yet anyway.

Plus, superteams built through free agency do actually have a built-in weakness. The salary cap demands that in order to have multiple max contracts, the rest of the roster suffers for it. This is ultimately what destroyed the Miami superteam. GSW will fare better, because they already had the supporting cast in place before Durant came on board. Plus they're younger and just better. Still, they'll only be able to keep all those guys together for so long. I'm betting they'll have a shorter shelf life than some of the other all-time great teams.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Bryan_Wilson

Not the team cap the cap on a player's max. Why is Lebron only allowed to sign for 30-35m? He's worth a shit load more to a team so why can't he sign for whatever he wants? I don't recall the NFL or MLB saying "Hey Arod, u massive tool, you can only sign for 20m a year not 30m like you want".

This is a pretty intriguing idea. In addition to discouraging "superteams" it might also finally fix the free agency market. This way you wouldn't have Mike Conley being the highest paid player ever.

[MavzMan]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

I mean, you're free to disagree. But I'd bet you're in the minority. Either way, they were really, really, really f*cking good, yes?

The 91-93 Bulls consisted of Jordan, Pippen and these guys who played every game of the playoffs:
Horace Grant
Bill Cartwright
John Paxson
BJ Armstrong
Craig Hodges
Will Perdue
Cliff Levingston
Scott Williams
Stacey King
Trent Tucker

The 96-98 Bulls consisted of Jordan, Pippen, and now Rodman, plus
Toni Kukoc
Ron Harper
Luc Longley
Steve Kerr
Bill Wennington
Bison Dele
Scott Burrell

I don't consider either of those to be super-teams as of today. I give the vast amount of credit to Jordan and Phil, then a significant to Pippen and much smaller to Rodman. Other than those, it's role players who were coached or led to play above themselves.

You drop KD and Curry from GS, then Jordan and Pippen from the Bulls, and the Warriors would destroy the Bulls.

That's about all I got so I'll quit there and give you the last thoughts/rebuttal.

[EricaLubarsky]

Thompson injured

[BPo001]

First Draymond gets posterized by Harden. Then he gets stuffed by the rim on a wide open dunk attempt. F that guy.

[tap2390]

Hell yeah, fuck the Warriors.

[DevinHarriswillstart]

Sports need to officially end if the f'in Rockets win it this year.

[tap2390]

Originally Posted by DevinHarriswillstart

Sports need to officially end if the f'in Rockets win it this year.

The way I see it is that the Cavs actually have a shot to beat the Rockets. (Yes, the Cavs are going to the Finals. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think the league will pull out all the stops for ‘Bron. Then again I’ve been wrong about pretty much everything recently. Which, coincidentally, is why we absolutely should not draft Marvin Bagley.)

[Bryan_Wilson]

Imo the Cavs, or bos, have no shot against either gsw's or rockettes. I will give them a game at most it really could be a sweep. Cavs don't have the scoring to keep up with either team and their defense will be exposed against both. Only reason Boston can't win is Kyrie is out. If Kyrie was there they would win imo. As good as rozier has been he can't break a defense down and carry the scoring load in those closing moments or when the other team makes a run. Every team needs a guy who can simply go get buckets and Boston doesn't have that guy with Kyrie out.

[Harpospoke]

Well well well.

How about this? Some drama in the conference Finals! Didn't think Houston had it in them frankly. Best of 3 and they have home court. Still think the Warriors will win, but now I think Hou has a real chance. Could go 7?

Side note: Harden went 1 of 7 in the 4th quarter and they win. That's the MVP? Doesn't sound like his team needs him more than any other team needs their star to me. That's why you don't give the MVP to a player on the best team. Obviously the best team doesn't rely on one player.

Celtics actually play defense at home so the Cavs role players will probably go back to hopeless mode. Celtics in 7?

Side note: Korver with 3 blocks? That's hilarious. Won't see that again.

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

The NBA really needs to tweak the rules to make playing defense viable again. I'm not saying bring back the ugly days of the late 80s-90s, but there has got to be a middle ground. The game has got to be about more than just who can hit the most threes.

I think they need to call it by the rules. They are letting them mug each other out there in every game. It's not fun to watch either. If you want less threes stop letting them mug anyone who tries to play in the low post. The 3 is the only viable option when you do that.

Originally Posted by MavzMan

Jordan's Bulls I will say no every single time. Look at what every one of those players did away from Jordon and Phil. Phil is one of the best coaches of all time IMO who had arguably the best player of all time, but besides Pippen, those were teams of at best solid role players and nothing more.

That doesn't say much for the competition in the 90s if the Bulls were able to dominate them that much. I guess we can just stop with that claim that the 96 Bulls were the "greatest team of all time". If they were just a bunch of role players the great super teams of the 80s would curb stomp them. Today's Warriors would run them out of the gym.

Especially if Pippen is now not even in the top 10 players in the league at that time? Wow! The guy is considered one of the top 25 players of all time and some are trying to put him behind Reggie freaking Miller?? Wow....the 90s must have suuucked!

I agree with @Thespiralgoeson It's pretty selective to get upset about "super teams" only when the players put it together. It's the exact same result either way.

If it bothers you that a team is stacked and dominating the league only when the players do it, that's a bias against the players because it looks exactly the same on the court. As a matter of fact, that Heat team was pretty flawed. They didn't have a bench and their role players were pretty mediocre too. They were top heavy. The super teams of the past would destroy them.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by MavzMan

The 91-93 Bulls consisted of Jordan, Pippen and these guys who played every game of the playoffs:
Horace Grant
Bill Cartwright
John Paxson
BJ Armstrong
Craig Hodges
Will Perdue
Cliff Levingston
Scott Williams
Stacey King
Trent Tucker

The 96-98 Bulls consisted of Jordan, Pippen, and now Rodman, plus
Toni Kukoc
Ron Harper
Luc Longley
Steve Kerr
Bill Wennington
Bison Dele
Scott Burrell

I don't consider either of those to be super-teams as of today. I give the vast amount of credit to Jordan and Phil, then a significant to Pippen and much smaller to Rodman. Other than those, it's role players who were coached or led to play above themselves.

You drop KD and Curry from GS, then Jordan and Pippen from the Bulls, and the Warriors would destroy the Bulls.

That's about all I got so I'll quit there and give you the last thoughts/rebuttal.

I think we're again just quibbling over the definition of what is a "superteam." You say it's not a superteam because it was all about Jordan and Phil... I'm saying they were the superteam of that decade, because they utterly dominated that decade. I don't care if its one superstar or a bunch of role players, or 3 superstars and no role players... Hell, Jordan was a "superteam" by himself, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm saying that team as a whole with every guy playing their part was the- in my opinion- the best team ever. Those role players- the Kerr's, Cartwright's, Paxson's, and Kukoc's of those Bulls teams all played their roles perfectly. They did exactly what they needed to do, no more, no less.

I agree that the current Warriors without Curry and Durant would destroy the Bulls without MJ and Pippen. I don't care about that though. All I care about is which team would win with both teams at full strength. I'd put the 1996 Bulls against the 2018 Warriors any day. Since we can't do that, all we can do is look at what each team has done in their respective era. Jordan's Bulls won 6 titles in 8 years- and I firmly believe it would have been eight consecutive titles if Jordan hadn't left to play baseball. They also never at any point in that entire decade lost more than 2 games in a row. That seems impossible... But it happened. The current Warriors are still early in their run, but I don't think they will ever reach that peak. No other team has dominated the league that way in the modern era (Russell's Celtics don't count. The sport was in its infancy.) THAT is what I mean when I say that Jordan's Bulls were the greatest team ever- and the most super of all superteams.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by tap2390

The way I see it is that the Cavs actually have a shot to beat the Rockets. (Yes, the Cavs are going to the Finals. You’re kidding yourself if you don’t think the league will pull out all the stops for ‘Bron. Then again I’ve been wrong about pretty much everything recently. Which, coincidentally, is why we absolutely should not draft Marvin Bagley.)

That's the scenario I'm crossing my fingers for. Rockets upset Warriors. Then Cavs upset Rockets. Stranger things have happened.

[MavzMan]

Originally Posted by Harpospoke

If it bothers you that a team is stacked and dominating the league only when the players do it, that's a bias against the players because it looks exactly the same on the court.

I don't think I have complete dislike of super teams. In fact, I am rooting for GS to win by sweeps for the next several years. I'd like to be able to say that I saw the greatest team ever since I obviously never saw that Celtics during their massive run. And the fact that the Mavs are in pure rebuild mode during all of this makes it a lot easier to accept.

I do have a pretty high level is dislike for that Miami team, specifically Wade and then Lebron and Bosh mainly by association.

[mac222b]

Steve Kerr- secretly bad coach?

[EricaLubarsky]

Originally Posted by mac222b

Steve Kerr- secretly bad coach?

Kerr is the new Jackson.

Super nice guy. Helps players get along and be happy. Give him amazing players and he will do it all.

Give him a struggling team or give him a situation where he needs to make adjustments and he will fall on his face. That's not where his strengths lie.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by Thespiralgoeson

That's the scenario I'm crossing my fingers for. Rockets upset Warriors. Then Cavs upset Rockets. Stranger things have happened.

Thats what my heart wants. My head says differently. Even if Rockets pull off one of the greatest upsets, Bron or Celtics would be hard pressed to beat Houston. The douchebag duo is on a mission to win a title.

[Melonhead]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Kerr is the new Jackson.

Super nice guy. Helps players get along and be happy. Give him amazing players and he will do it all.

Give him a struggling team or give him a situation where he needs to make adjustments and he will fall on his face. That's not where his strengths lie.

Its possible, we just dont know. Can he elevate a middling team?

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by EricaLubarsky

Kerr is the new Jackson.

Super nice guy. Helps players get along and be happy. Give him amazing players and he will do it all.

Give him a struggling team or give him a situation where he needs to make adjustments and he will fall on his face. That's not where his strengths lie.

As in Phil Jackson? That's either incredibly generous to Kerr, or insulting to Jackson. Yeah Jackson had amazing players, but I honestly think he's the only guy who could have managed all those massive egos and headcases. He may not have been a master X's and O's guy, but he was a master psychologist. The current GSW squad seems perfectly manageable, despite all that talent- nowhere near as temperamental or combustible as Phil's rosters were- particularly all those Laker squads.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally Posted by Melonhead

Thats what my heart wants. My head says differently. Even if Rockets pull off one of the greatest upsets, Bron or Celtics would be hard pressed to beat Houston. The douchebag duo is on a mission to win a title.

It would be an upset, but honestly I don't think it would be as improbable as beating the Warriors in 2016. The bigger upset by far I think would be Houston beating the Warriors- I don't care what the regular season records are. The only way GSW loses is if they suffer major injuries or they just take their foot off the gas for two more games- like they did last night.