1-5

[td4mvp3]

just gaining some perspective, but against denver, phoenix, and utah, the cavs went 1-5. phoenix swept them, badly, they split utah and got swept by denver, badly. before the iverson trade, i think.

spurs went 6-4 against those teams, splitting utah, beating phoenix 2-1 and beating denver 2-1 with the final loss being the most meaningless game at the end of the year.

[JMarkJohns]

OK, but what did the Cavs do against the more slowed down teams like Houston, Dallas and San Antonio? They won't be playing either of the three styles you mentioned, unless Pops goes small for stretches.

[boutons_]

I thought the consensus was the season doan mean sheeyit.

[exstatic]

OK, but what did the Cavs do against the more slowed down teams like Houston, Dallas and San Antonio? They won't be playing either of the three styles you mentioned, unless Pops goes small for stretches.
Well, since Hughes is dinged, and Cleveland has a bevy of bigs that crash the boards, I'd look for that. They're already using extra wing/guard minutes with Gibson. Stretch them out thin...make them play Eric Snow 25 minutes and crash their offense.

[td4mvp3]

OK, but what did the Cavs do against the more slowed down teams like Houston, Dallas and San Antonio? They won't be playing either of the three styles you mentioned, unless Pops goes small for stretches.
the logic doesn't hold. san antonio just beat utah, apparently not in those slow-down teams you mentioned. and phoenix is definitely not a slowed-down offense either. if the idea is that the cavs will try to outrun and gun the spurs, i don't see it based on what they've done against the pistons.

[TampaDude]

I thought the consensus was the season doan mean sheeyit.

Yup...regular season doesn't mean shit.

[td4mvp3]

Yup...regular season doesn't mean shit.
tell that to the mavs. and no, the spurs are not the mavs, but i hate the rationale that an opponent's victories in the regular season mean squat. it's usually a pretty good indication of matchups and performance (just not heart). it's telling that the spurs had winning seasons against all the teams they've beaten in the playoffs, no sense in discounting the info provided by the regular season.

[TampaDude]

tell that to the mavs. and no, the spurs are not the mavs, but i hate the rationale that an opponent's victories in the regular season mean squat. it's usually a pretty good indication of matchups and performance (just not heart). it's telling that the spurs had winning seasons against all the teams they've beaten in the playoffs, no sense in discounting the info provided by the regular season.

Right...the Mavs had the best regular-season record in the NBA, and they got bounced in the first round by the 8th-seeded Warriors...what was your point again? :lol

[Strike]

tell that to the mavs. and no, the spurs are not the mavs, but i hate the rationale that an opponent's victories in the regular season mean squat. it's usually a pretty good indication of matchups and performance.

Yeah but a fly in, play, fly out matchup is completely different from a 7 game series. That's why the regular season means little to playoff matchups.

To me, the regular season matchups are like movie trailers. You get a small taste of what is coming soon but when you get the whole thing, sometimes it's different from what you expect.

I don't expect the Spurs to walk all over the Cavs, but I do expect them to win in 6, maybe 5. That's assuming the Pistons don't come back.

[JMarkJohns]

the logic doesn't hold. san antonio just beat utah, apparently not in those slow-down teams you mentioned. and phoenix is definitely not a slowed-down offense either. if the idea is that the cavs will try to outrun and gun the spurs, i don't see it based on what they've done against the pistons.

You can't use the "this team beat that team which killed this team which we beat" arguement. I saw a thread where Cleveland was 2-0 vs. San Antonio.

You beating Utah and Phoenix which the Cavs went a combined 1-3 against doesn't change the fact that, if I read right, the Spurs were 0-2 vs. the Cavs.

As exstatic said, it wouldn't surprise me, especially with how well Finley, Manu and Parker are playing, to see Pops go small for stretches, if not games. That could play into San Antonio's favor. It may not. They may dominate you on the offensive glass the way you guys always do the Suns.

Despite me saying this, I wouldn't expect Cleveland to pose much more than a two-win threat if they advance, but I just don't see how saying that because San Antonio can handle the fast paced teams the Cavs can't, that it indicates the Spurs can/will handle the Cavs when, again if the info is correct, San Antonio lost the series series two games to none.

[td4mvp3]

You can't use the "this team beat that team which killed this team which we beat" arguement. I saw a thread where Cleveland was 2-0 vs. San Antonio.

You beating Utah and Phoenix which the Cavs went a combined 1-3 against doesn't change the fact that, if I read right, the Spurs were 0-2 vs. the Cavs.

As exstatic said, it wouldn't surprise me, especially with how well Finley, Manu and Parker are playing, to see Pops go small for stretches, if not games. That could play into San Antonio's favor. It may not. They may dominate you on the offensive glass the way you guys always do the Suns.

Despite me saying this, I wouldn't expect Cleveland to pose much more than a two-win threat if they advance, but I just don't see how saying that because San Antonio can handle the fast paced teams the Cavs can't, that it indicates the Spurs can/will handle the Cavs when, again if the info is correct, San Antonio lost the series series two games to none.

it was just meant for perspective on those two wins. on the one hand, the sweep shows a team that is capable of winning against the spurs, even in san antonio. for my own peace of mind, though, after the lebron show friday night, it was nice to see how they fared against teams we'd already beaten.

[td4mvp3]

Right...the Mavs had the best regular-season record in the NBA, and they got bounced in the first round by the 8th-seeded Warriors...what was your point again? :lol
an exception makes the rule though. how did the majority of other 65-plus win teams fare? how did the spurs fare in 03-04 after losing 3-1 to the lakers in the regular season yet winning the first 2 playoff games? i'm not saying reg season records are ironclad gaurantees of anything, but to dismiss them as "nothing" is silly.