Schweitzer_07
Active member
Hahaha! I think fans in Seattle can say the same thing about the Thunder.
Official NBA Thread
Hahaha! I think fans in Seattle can say the same thing about the Thunder.
pjcedog
New member
And a mohawk.
pjcedog
New member
McHale had tremendous basketball IQ and always seemed to be in the right place at the right time. Randolph reminds me of Paul Silas a little except that Randolph is a much better offensive player. I disagree about Dallas, but it is hard for me to be very objective about it because I live near Dallas. I think that they will beat either team that gets through fairly easily, they will have more trouble with Memphis than with OKC so I am hoping OKC makes it through to the next round. It was no fluke that the Mavs beat the Lakers in 4 games, they are playing better than they have played all year right now and this is a better team than the one that made it to the finals in 2006.
Wow....they beat the mighty Lakers in 4 but are no world beaters.....high standards you have sir! LOL!! I like their chances against either team.
Fairway2Green
The Obstacle is the Path
I see OKC winning tonight and beating Dallas to play Miami in the Finals.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
JConn
Proud 2013 MC Participant
- Joined
- May 10, 2011
- Messages
- 6,458
- Reaction score
- 12
- Location
- Vancouver, WA (/Portland, OR)
- Handicap
- 6
Yea Dallas looked impressive against LA. I'm from the Portland area so I am a huge Blazers fan, at least we took them to 6 games! If they shoot like they did against LA, they practically unbeatable.
It's all about the D for the mavs. If they play tough defense like they did against the lakers they can beat the thunder. They don't look that tough right now and they'll be tired against the mavs. If they win tomorrow. I'm not so sure they will.
Tapatalk: better on the iPad
Tapatalk: better on the iPad
- Admin
- #458
I always love the "tired" part when the media talks....Here is why
If they play a lot they are tired
If they have time off they are rusty
Typical media.
True but I'm hoping since the Mavs are a pretty veteran filled team time off helps them and doesn't make them rusty. Bu you're right. If they look bad they had too much time off and are out of rhythm. If they destroy whoever makes it then that team is tired from a tough series.
Tapatalk: better on the iPad
TC
Keg Thrower
As a former basketball player and as a fan of basketball, I find Zach Randolph's game incredibly annoying. He gets away with more offensive fouls than any player I can remember. He goes left every single time.
junior lefty
High School Golfer
Mavs beat the thunder? If Z-bo keeps his game the Griz have a shot. That's if other guys like Sam Young and O.J. step up and make shots.
Speaking of media, before the Lakers series, everyone picked the Lakers in 5-6 games saying the Mavs couldn't stay with Kobe, Odom or Gasol. Now the Mavs sweep the Media darlings and it's how the Lakers are slow and lazy. Love how the spin game is played on the East coast media boys. Not saying the Mavs have earned that sort of respect (esp based on the past) but this team is playing the best ball out there right now, maybe next to the Heat.
pjcedog
New member
I think the Mavs beat either team that wins today but Memphis gave them more trouble during the regular season so I am hoping for OKC in the next round. I am actually hoping for Miami in the finals if the Mavs get there, payback time. They played well against the Heat during the regular season and present some definite matchup problems for them, if they play anything like they did against LA they can win this.
2-1/2 super stars cannot beat a 5 man team.
2-1/2 super stars cannot beat a 5 man team.
- Admin
- #464
There are a whole lot of NBA Championships in the last few decades that disagree.
Gus R
Well-known member
While the Mavs"looked" impressive against the Lakers their 3 point shooting was unreal and will not be like that again in my opinion. The Lakers laid down and died against them. The Lakers were not a great team this year and the only reason they had the #2 seed in the West was due to a 16-1 run after the All Star game. Dallas had injuries to key people or they would have finished ahead of the Lakers despite than 16-1 run. The team you saw against Dallas was pretty much the same lazy inept team that they were for most of the year. I am surprised the Lakers got out of the first round this year and expect to see some major changes for next year. Give the Mavs their due though they did play some impressive D against the Lakers and the 2nd team basically won the series for them. Good solid bench and if they continue to play like they did against the Fakers they should get to the finals. Just not sure they are good enough to win it all. They have a habit of loosing in the playoffs no matter how deep they go in them.
interlooper
Wishing I was golfing now
Just got back from celebrating the victory by my bulls; is there really any question as to who is the best team in the NBA?
pjcedog
New member
No, right now it is the Mavericks after blowing the defending champion LA Lakers out of the water.:devil:
pjcedog
New member
Today was a good example of what I was talking about, a team playing as a team will always beat superstars playing one on one, not playing as a team. I don't remember any champions that had 2 or 3 superstars in the last 5 years playing as dysfunctionally as the Heat played for most of this year and I have to believe that under pressure they will revert to that pattern.
pjcedog
New member
I think they were throwing up 3s because they were ahead and just coasting, that is their pattern, they don't have to shoot 3s to win, they have proved that this year. Maybe the Lakers did quit but that could be said of other teams almost any given year, they don't take away the win because one team quits. This is a completely different Maverick team than the one that has caved in the playoffs in the past.
- Admin
- #470
Who said anything about 5 years? I said decades! And last time I checked, the Lakers were hardly a 5 man team and they did just fine for a few titles.
pjcedog
New member
- Admin
- #472
Im not missing your point at all. I understand what your saying, but look at past chamionship teams. That is what the NBA has come to. 3 stars win titles and history dictates that.
pjcedog
New member
Bulls with MJ and Pippen and ? Lakers with Kareem and Magic, Kobe and Shaq. Celtics with Havlicek and Russell and later Bird and who, Parrish? Not sure there are 3 legitimate superstars on any of these teams, Worthy would be the closest. I can't think of any team other that has 3, the Celtics Big 3 maybe but how many have they won? Kobe and who Gasol? Odom? You may be classifying players as superstars that I would not consider to be in that category, so that may be where we don't agree ultimately.
- Admin
- #474
First off, Bird and McHale and DJ would be 3 (or Parish). Second if you think Havlicek and Russell were the only superstars on the Celtics, take a closer look at that roster. Bulls had Jordan, Pippen and Rodman through a stretch and say what you want about Dennis, he was a dominant rebounder and defensive player for a long time. Lakers with Kareem, Magic and Worthy. You are selling a lot of playes short if you dont think players like Worthy was a star. Heck, look at the Spurs and Rockets roster as well during their years and see the same trend.
3 stars has always been the rule of thumb since salaries went over 7 figures in the very early 80s. Most of the time you get 2 and maybe another borderline star. Solid teams have proven time and time again that the NBA is a superstar driven league. I said it was a superstar driven league and that two superstars (which is what I believe the Heat have now) win titles. 3 stars is considered a bonus. The last few decades dictate that as well. Team basketball is for the most part an afterthought unfortunately as new rules have changed the way the game is played and capology keeps role players away for long stretches. Superstars win titles in the NBA.
You seem to be forgetting your quote that sparked this.
History says you are incorrect. Which is what I have said all along.
pjcedog
New member
McHale was a great player but not a superstar, if he had played somewhere else he would have been a starter and not a 6th man and still an all star but not a superstar. Dennis Johnson was a great player but not a superstar. Dave Debusscherre was a great player but not a superstar. I don't put many players into that category, Lebron and DWade are both in that category. The Pistons had Isaiah Thomas and ? the bruise brothers? I don't think anyone would consider many other players on that Detroit team as superstars. When the Lakers had West, Chamberlain and Elgin Baylor together that is three hall of famers together and they could not beat the Celtics because they had Wilt off doing his own thing half the time. The Bucks won a title with Oscar Robertson and Kareem and nobody else. I don't think it is quite as cut and dried as you make it sound. Dallas will win this year with one superstar. I do appreciate Rodman as one of the greatest rebounders and defenders ever to play the game but I don't think he qualifies as a superstar with basically no offensive dimension to his game. Spurs had David Robinson and Tim Duncan and who else ? I don't consider all stars to be superstars, but I agree with you if you say that you have to have all stars on the team. To me that is different from calling them superstars which is where we started.