Contender or Pretender

[ambchang]

Interesting article on ESPN. Blazers actually got the most votes for contenders out of the 5 teams.

http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/page/5-on-5-141121/title-contender-pretender

Contenders or Pretenders:
Cavs (1C 4P) - I think they are pretenders. Still have issues with their defense, and Irving's hoggy ways. Trade Irving and Waiters for some rugged inside help (in the mold of a Noah, or fat Gasol), then get a guy like Brandon Knight to direct the offense a bit, play defense and shoot the corner three, and you have a contender. I don't think Love is a problem, he can work his way into an ideal side kick of Lebron, rebounding and making outlet passes. His defensive issues can be handled with a right partner.

Wiz (0C 5P) - Pretenders. I don't see anyway they can become a contender with this core. They are good players (Wall, Beal, Nene Gortat), but they are just that, good, but not good enough to be cores of a championship contender. Pierce is great (one of the most underrated wings in the last two decades), but he is way past his prime.

Blazers (3C 2P) - Pretenders. No bench, low volume chucking PG, lacks defensive system. the starting five is good, and they can be built into a contender, but a lot of work and development has to be done before we get there. I can't see them going past the Spurs, Memphis, healthy OKC, GSW, and the Clippers.

Rockets (1C 4P) - Pretenders. Tough matchup for anyone, but it's tough to see them get past all of Spurs, healthy OKC, Memphis, Clippers, Blazers, and GSW. Harden and D12 make a good core, but there are no third options, the bench is thin, and the coach is an idiot. The defensive potential on this team is phenomenal though. D12, Beverly and Ariza can really shut down a team if the right system is implemented.

Clippers (2C 3P) - Contenders. Yes, there are obviously holes, but the talent is there. CP3 is really underrated on this board (overrated else where), Griffin is very tough to stop, and Jordan, if he gets a magic pill to increase his basketball IQ, can be a great defensive anchor. However, there are no magic pills for Jordan, their wing defense is atrocious, and their bench is pitiful. That said, if they can somehow avoid the Spurs, healthy OKC (may not even have them in the playoffs this year), and play out of their minds against Memphis, I can see the Clippers winning it all.

[urunobili]

No love for them Raptors?

[Malik Hairston]

Cavs- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..based on their actual team and flaws, no, they don't fit the criteria of a contender, but their competition is weak and their flaws probably won't be badly exposed against teams that are limited in talent

Bulls- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..same as Cavs

Wizards- Pretenders, Wall has already been exposed in the playoffs, they don't have any consistent and reliable offensive weapons

Raptors- Pretenders, DeRozan's game doesn't translate well to the playoffs, vanilla system, questionable frontcourt, questionable bench, they are the Raptors

Dallas- In the middle, a lot of huge flaws(no perimeter defense, no starting PG, questionable bench), but could get by on coaching and star power if they get the right matchup

Golden State- In the middle, notable flaws(best players are easy to shut down in the playoffs, Bogut's health, rookie coach), but could get by if their team gets hot and has the right matchups

Houston- Pretender, questionable depth + the Harden/McHale playoff combination

Clippers- Pretender, can't play Jordan in clutch time, atrocious perimeter defense and overall perimeter performance, 3rd option is Jamal Crawford

Memphis- Pretender, relying on Courtney Lee and ancient Vince Carter to carry their perimeter offense in the playoffs

OKC- Contender, if they get healthy and miraculously make it to the playoffs

Portland- Pretender, the ultimate pretender, just like last year..gimmicky system that doesn't work in the playoffs

[lefty]

Cavs- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..based on their actual team and flaws, no, they don't fit the criteria of a contender, but their competition is weak and their flaws probably won't be badly exposed against teams that are limited in talent

Bulls- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..same as Cavs

Wizards- Pretenders, Wall has already been exposed in the playoffs, they don't have any consistent and reliable offensive weapons

Raptors- Pretenders, DeRozan's game doesn't translate well to the playoffs, vanilla system, questionable frontcourt, questionable bench, they are the Raptors

Dallas- In the middle, a lot of huge flaws(no perimeter defense, no starting PG, questionable bench), but could get by on coaching and star power if they get the right matchup

Golden State- In the middle, notable flaws(best players are easy to shut down in the playoffs, Bogut's health, rookie coach), but could get by if their team gets hot and has the right matchups

Houston- Pretender, questionable depth + the Harden/McHale playoff combination

Clippers- Pretender, can't play Jordan in clutch time, atrocious perimeter defense and overall perimeter performance, 3rd option is Jamal Crawford

Memphis- Pretender, relying on Courtney Lee and ancient Vince Carter to carry their perimeter offense in the playoffs

OKC- Contender, if they get healthy and miraculously make it to the playoffs

Portland- Pretender, the ultimate pretender, just like last year..gimmicky system that doesn't work in the playoffs
And they say today's NBA is better :lol

[Killakobe81]

Cavs- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..based on their actual team and flaws, no, they don't fit the criteria of a contender, but their competition is weak and their flaws probably won't be badly exposed against teams that are limited in talent

Bulls- Contenders, simply because they're in the East..same as Cavs

Wizards- Pretenders, Wall has already been exposed in the playoffs, they don't have any consistent and reliable offensive weapons

Raptors- Pretenders, DeRozan's game doesn't translate well to the playoffs, vanilla system, questionable frontcourt, questionable bench, they are the Raptors

Dallas- In the middle, a lot of huge flaws(no perimeter defense, no starting PG, questionable bench), but could get by on coaching and star power if they get the right matchup

Golden State- In the middle, notable flaws(best players are easy to shut down in the playoffs, Bogut's health, rookie coach), but could get by if their team gets hot and has the right matchups

Houston- Pretender, questionable depth + the Harden/McHale playoff combination

Clippers- Pretender, can't play Jordan in clutch time, atrocious perimeter defense and overall perimeter performance, 3rd option is Jamal Crawford

Memphis- Pretender, relying on Courtney Lee and ancient Vince Carter to carry their perimeter offense in the playoffs

OKC- Contender, if they get healthy and miraculously make it to the playoffs

Portland- Pretender, the ultimate pretender, just like last year..gimmicky system that doesn't work in the playoffs

I agree with most of this. But I think Cavs are a contender. And will prove that by May. Probably wont ring but a contender

[Malik Hairston]

And they say today's NBA is better :lol

:lmao teams with John Starks as the #2 option and Reggie Miller as a #1 as contenders..

[StrengthAndHonor]

:lmao teams with John Starks as the #2 option and Reggie Miller as a #1 as contenders..
Your turn lefty

[lefty]

:lmao teams with John Starks as the #2 option and Reggie Miller as a #1 as contenders..
Still beating most of those teams :lol

[ambchang]

:lmao teams with John Starks as the #2 option and Reggie Miller as a #1 as contenders..

As compared to a championship team with Kawhi as the #1 scoring option?

[Malik Hairston]

As compared to a championship team with Kawhi as the #1 scoring option?

Maybe I suck at math, but 4th in PPG on the team in the playoffs = #1 scoring option? That doesn't really make any sense, tbh..

[Leetonidas]

Only real contenders are SA, OKC (if they can make the playoffs and Durbeta/Westchimp are 100%), Chicago, and Cleveland. Everyone else is playing for nada imo. Rockets are gimmick team. Blazers are garbage. GSW is almost there but no team relying on Gay Thompson and chucker Curry are going to win a title. Cavs and Bulls by virtue of being in a shit conference are contenders. Spurs are gonna repeat tbh. Everyone else can suck a dick

[Raven]

spurs - contenders
everyone else - pretenders

[ambchang]

Maybe I suck at math, but 4th in PPG on the team in the playoffs = #1 scoring option? That doesn't really make any sense, tbh..

FinalsMVP, #2 in PPG and by far the #1 FG% in the Finals. #3 in PPG in the regular season and the entire playoffs.

Having Parker as the #1 actually weakens your argument.

[DAF86]

FinalsMVP, #2 in PPG and by far the #1 FG% in the Finals. #3 in PPG in the regular season and the entire playoffs.

Having Parker as the #1 actually weakens your argument.

So what's you point? Those Pacers or Knicks teams would have beaten the Spurs, OKC and/or Miami?

[Malik Hairston]

FinalsMVP, #2 in PPG and by far the #1 FG% in the Finals. #3 in PPG in the regular season and the entire playoffs.

Having Parker as the #1 actually weakens your argument.

:lol 2 games in the Finals is your argument?..

He was #4 for the Spurs in PPG in the playoffs, stop moving the goalposts..

#3 in the regular season is fine, he's easily a legit #3 option, although Ginobili was obviously ahead of him as a scoring option, too..

John Starks wouldn't even start for the Spurs, he wouldn't even be their 6th man, let alone the #1 perimeter option on the team:lmao..

And using the Spurs as a comparison is pretty stupid regardless, they're literally the most unique team in NBA history..the other contenders were led by Lebron/Wade/Bosh, Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka and Paul/Griffin, all superstar players minus Ibaka, who would be the 2nd best player on most of those 90s "contenders" :lol..

Look at the team leaders of some of the legit contenders in the 90s:

John Starks:lmao
Toni Kukoc as a #2 guy on a contender:lol
Reggie Miller and Rik fucking Smits as the best players on a team that was supposed to be DK's biggest challenge
Otis Thorpe as the 2nd best player of a title team

[Cry Havoc]

:lol 2 games in the Finals is your argument?..

He was #4 for the Spurs in PPG in the playoffs, stop moving the goalposts..

#3 in the regular season is fine, he's easily a legit #3 option, although Ginobili was obviously ahead of him as a scoring option, too..

John Starks wouldn't even start for the Spurs, he wouldn't even be their 6th man, let alone the #1 perimeter option on the team:lmao..

And using the Spurs as a comparison is pretty stupid regardless, they're literally the most unique team in NBA history..the other contenders were led by Lebron/Wade/Bosh, Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka and Paul/Griffin, all superstar players minus Ibaka, who would be the 2nd best player on most of those 90s "contenders" :lol..

Look at the team leaders of some of the legit contenders in the 90s:

John Starks:lmao
Toni Kukoc as a #2 guy on a contender:lol
Reggie Miller and Rik fucking Smits as the best players on a team that was supposed to be DK's biggest challenge
Otis Thorpe as the 2nd best player of a title team

This is serious damage being wreaked by HH. Obviously the legends of the NBA would still compete today, but some of the players of the past had giant, gaping holes in their games that would be so exploited today it would be silly to see them on the court.

There is a reason that the NBA is shifting toward hybrid SFs like Kawhi and James. Because they're hyper-athletes who can jump out of the gym, yet still have considerably decent handles and yet manage to outrun most players down the court.

Kawhi Leonard or James in the 1970s or 80s would have been absolutely unstoppable, especially on defense since no one knew how to play D back then beyond giving the occasional "hard foul".

[ambchang]

So what's you point? Those Pacers or Knicks teams would have beaten the Spurs, OKC and/or Miami?

No, that a comparatively weak #1 or #2 option doesn't mean that the team is bad.

[ambchang]

:lol 2 games in the Finals is your argument?..

They played 5 games in the finals, he finished #2 in ppg.


He was #4 for the Spurs in PPG in the playoffs, stop moving the goalposts..

Tied for #3. 2 points less in 23 games is a rounding error.


#3 in the regular season is fine, he's easily a legit #3 option, although Ginobili was obviously ahead of him as a scoring option, too..

How do you figure Ginobili is ahead of him as a scoring option despite less PPG?


John Starks wouldn't even start for the Spurs, he wouldn't even be their 6th man, let alone the #1 perimeter option on the team:lmao..

He would be the #1 perimeter scoring option for a team like the Clippers though, which is a contender like the Knicks were a contender.


And using the Spurs as a comparison is pretty stupid regardless, they're literally the most unique team in NBA history..the other contenders were led by Lebron/Wade/Bosh, Durant/Westbrook/Ibaka and Paul/Griffin, all superstar players minus Ibaka, who would be the 2nd best player on most of those 90s "contenders" :lol..

As opposed to using the Knicks and Pacers when the other teams in the era had:
Malone/Stockton/Hornacek
Kemp/Payton/Schremph
Barkley/Johnson/Marjele
Hakeem/Clyde
Jordan/Pippen

Or ignoring teams like: George/Hibbert/Hill, Lillard/Aldridge, Randolph/Gasol, Noah/?, Lowry/Derozan


Look at the team leaders of some of the legit contenders in the 90s:

John Starks:lmao
What's wrong with a 19ppg player who played for a defensive oriented contender (like the Pacers a couple of years ago, or even last year) that ranked 16th out of 27th team in ORtg?


Toni Kukoc as a #2 guy on a contender:lol
Reggie Miller and Rik fucking Smits as the best players on a team that was supposed to be DK's biggest challenge

Vs. George and Hibbert as Lebron's biggest challenge in the East? How about Noah/?


Otis Thorpe as the 2nd best player of a title team

And who was the 2nd best player on last year's title team?

What about the 11 Mavs? Was it a 37 year old Kidd, or was it Marion?

[ambchang]

This is serious damage being wreaked by HH. Obviously the legends of the NBA would still compete today, but some of the players of the past had giant, gaping holes in their games that would be so exploited today it would be silly to see them on the court.

There is a reason that the NBA is shifting toward hybrid SFs like Kawhi and James. Because they're hyper-athletes who can jump out of the gym, yet still have considerably decent handles and yet manage to outrun most players down the court.

Kawhi Leonard or James in the 1970s or 80s would have been absolutely unstoppable, especially on defense since no one knew how to play D back then beyond giving the occasional "hard foul".

And we are assuming those players would have the same advancements to the game over the last 30 years when they were transported back in time?

Was it a gene mutation that allowed players to suddenly learn how to play defense the last little while?

What allowed players today to be so much bigger stronger and faster than those of yesteryears? Another gene mutation? Have we sped up the evolutionary cycle?

[Killakobe81]

Contenders: (in order)

1. Spurs
2. Bulls
3. Cavs



4. Mavs
5. GSW


No one else is worth discussing. Blazers and Rox would be next but I cant see either getting past 2nd round. OKC of course could get get in at 8 and be very dangerous but hard to win a title from there was Hakeem's Rox the only one to
do so? I forget what seed they got it might have been 5 or 6 ...

[Splits]

Contenders: (in order)

1. Spurs
2. Bulls
3. Cavs



4. Mavs
5. GSW


No one else is worth discussing. Blazers and Rox would be next but I cant see either getting past 2nd round. OKC of course could get get in at 8 and be very dangerous but hard to win a title from there was Hakeem's Rox the only one to
do so? I forget what seed they got it might have been 5 or 6 ...

6 seed

[apalisoc_9]

Contenders: (in order)

1. Spurs
2. Bulls
3. Cavs



4. Mavs
5. GSW


No one else is worth discussing. Blazers and Rox would be next but I cant see either getting past 2nd round. OKC of course could get get in at 8 and be very dangerous but hard to win a title from there was Hakeem's Rox the only one to
do so? I forget what seed they got it might have been 5 or 6 ...

6

[SPM]

Contenders: (in order)

1. Spurs
2. Bulls
3. Cavs



4. Mavs
5. GSW


No one else is worth discussing. Blazers and Rox would be next but I cant see either getting past 2nd round. OKC of course could get get in at 8 and be very dangerous but hard to win a title from there was Hakeem's Rox the only one to
do so? I forget what seed they got it might have been 5 or 6 ...


Pretty much this. I wouldn't write off LAC yet.

[Cry Havoc]

And we are assuming those players would have the same advancements to the game over the last 30 years when they were transported back in time?

Was it a gene mutation that allowed players to suddenly learn how to play defense the last little while?

What allowed players today to be so much bigger stronger and faster than those of yesteryears? Another gene mutation? Have we sped up the evolutionary cycle?

This isn't an assumption of relative player skill. Just how they played back then. The game has evolved and the players with it. Effort on defense alone since the Jordan era is leagues beyond anything that came before.

[313]

Amb going ham

[SPM]

Forgot about OKC......... I'd hate to be a top seed having to play a healthy OKC team in round 1 lol

[ElNono]

It's too early... I'm 99% sure the Cavs will make a move before the season is over. Waiters is a ticking time bomb in that roster, IMO, he's gonna get dealt.

[ambchang]

This isn't an assumption of relative player skill. Just how they played back then. The game has evolved and the players with it. Effort on defense alone since the Jordan era is leagues beyond anything that came before.

And those same players wouldn't have the ability to exert the same effort and learn the same schemes despite having tens of millions of dollars at stake?

[ambchang]

I am still not sold on the Mavs, I think they have great coaching, but the team itself has a lot of holes.

Dirk is their only consistent offensive threat (including passing ability), Ellis can score, but I still do not trust his efficiency or passing, Chandler can finish but cannot create, PG play is weak. Their coaching is excellent. I actually think Carlisle > Pop in terms of in game moves (Pop is better in terms of building a team and overall preparation), and is far better than anybody else, but there is only so much a coach can do.

GSW has great talent, inexperience is a concern, and their chances hang on the health of Bogut. People like to put Bogut in the bust pile, but his defense is elite, and he can be a decent mid range threat if need be. Then of course, he is not healthy too often.

I'd rank

Spurs
Healthy OKC
GSW
Bulls (healthy Rose)


Clippers
Mavs
Cavs


Rockets
Blazers

[tlongII]

Keep doubting us you dumbshits. We're gonna make you pay in May and June.

[Splits]

Keep doubting us you dumbshits. We're gonna make you pay in May and June.

What offseason moves did the Blazers make that would change the outcome of that beatdown we laid on you 6 months ago?

[SpurSwag]

I define a contender by a team that makes the conference finals in each conference and would have a legitimate change to win once there. With that being said, I think the west contenders are: spurs, thunder, mavs, warriors, and maybe the clippers or rockets. I actually have more faith in the rockets than the clippers, I just hate the clippers roster so much. Out East, I consider chicago, cleveland, a fully healthy Miami, and depending on matchups Toronto and the Wizards. Toronto actually has a good chance to make teh finals if Derozan steps his game up and can play efficiently, he's starting to look like a Harden-lite in terms of depending on free throws.

[tlongII]

What offseason moves did the Blazers make that would change the outcome of that beatdown we laid on you 6 months ago?

Acquiring Kaman and Blake. Another year of experience for guys like McCollum, Leonard, Robinson, and Barton. Our team is so much better this year it's ridiculous. We run two quality 7-footers at all times and we have great 3 point shooters. We are top 10 in offense and defense. We're going to be tough to beat.

[elmanutres]

Keep doubting us you dumbshits. We're gonna make you pay in May and June.

:lol You guys cant even defend a simple pick and roll

[313]

Acquiring Kaman and Blake. Another year of experience for guys like McCollum, Leonard, Robinson, and Barton. Our team is so much better this year it's ridiculous. We run two quality 7-footers at all times and we have great 3 point shooters. We are top 10 in offense and defense. We're going to be tough to beat.
You guys were tough to beat last November too. Them May came around, and the guest were shown the door.

[Killakobe81]

And we are assuming those players would have the same advancements to the game over the last 30 years when they were transported back in time?

Was it a gene mutation that allowed players to suddenly learn how to play defense the last little while?

What allowed players today to be so much bigger stronger and faster than those of yesteryears? Another gene mutation? Have we sped up the evolutionary cycle?

I know Amb and I have battled and lately i have agreed with HH but Amb is the one making the great points backed by facts and stats. the 90's did suffer toward the middle and end of the decade because the 80's stars got old. Most players at least went to college for 2-3 years so replenishing that talent was slower. Overall I think the 80's and 2000's were superior to the 90's but people that act as theough th 2010's are vastly superior to that era exaggerate to much. We only have two bonafide legitimate superstars that are clearly in their prime this decade (Durant/Lebron). rose had that promise but may be done. Blake and Davis especially show that promise but I dont see any other legit sure-fire HOF'ers while the 90's produced Shaq, David, GP, KiddPippen etc some who were drafted in 80's but saw their prime hit in the 90's. I cant see this decade or the last producing that many. the 2000's benefited from players drafted in the 90's and hit their prime the next decade.

[ambchang]

I know Amb and I have battled and lately i have agreed with HH but Amb is the one making the great points backed by facts and stats. the 90's did suffer toward the middle and end of the decade because the 80's stars got old. Most players at least went to college for 2-3 years so replenishing that talent was slower. Overall I think the 80's and 2000's were superior to the 90's but people that act as theough th 2010's are vastly superior to that era exaggerate to much. We only have two bonafide legitimate superstars that are clearly in their prime this decade (Durant/Lebron). rose had that promise but may be done. Blake and Davis especially show that promise but I dont see any other legit sure-fire HOF'ers while the 90's produced Shaq, David, GP, KiddPippen etc some who were drafted in 80's but saw their prime hit in the 90's. I cant see this decade or the last producing that many. the 2000's benefited from players drafted in the 90's and hit their prime the next decade.

Exactly. I am not saying the game didn't progress, what I am arguing is that the complexities of today's game has more to do with rule changes and what has been learnt over that time.

Are players stronger and faster than before? Sure, but that has to do with the better training and nutrition than anything else. To say players in the older days wouldn't be able to compete in today's game is asinine. Player will adapt and would obviously be subjected to better nuititikn and training, just like players in the future will get better trainng and nutrition.

[Spurs 4 The Win]

Keep doubting us you dumbshits. We're gonna make you pay in May and June.

:lmao

[Legacy]

Keep doubting us you dumbshits. We're gonna make you pay in May and June.

God, you are so fucking stupid.