I waited a few days, figuring someone would post this eventually but no dice.
ESPN has had 93 panelists answer all kinds of questions on the NBA, latest one being who wins the West
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/s...t10-WestChamps
88 said the Lakers, 2 each for OKC & Hou, 1 for Dallas.
Right now, SA just doesn't have the guns to get it done when they are playing for rings or bust. Why not roll the dice on guys like JR Smith or Iverson? What really does the Spurs have to lose?
Best case scenario with those guys isn't a ring. I don't see anyway JR Smith puts you over the top without some sort of brain transplant. I wanted to bring him in before, but that ship has sailed and rightfully so.
Iverson is washed up and we aren't weak at the guard position so I don't see how bringing him in helps.
The ones who voted for Houston or OKC are dumbasses.
No smart spurfan in this forum thinks so either.
But the season hasn't even started so there's plenty of time.
The roster looks good. No need to make changes yet.
Why does everyone think Dallas is better than the Spurs? Didnt we whip that ass 4-2 with a sorry RJ?? We picked up Splitter and James Anderson...........how in the can Dallas all the sudden be better?
Beabous and Chandlers????
While I don't disagree about the Spurs chances, I wasn't aware that the vote of 93 people determined who can and cannot get it done when teams are playing for rings.
Did I miss the decision to change the NBA playoff format to an American Idol-style popular vote?
Why do people think Houston is so good?? I just don't get it. Lakers, Spurs, Dallas, OKC, Blazers, Denver and Jazz are in my opinion all better than them. Even Phonix can defeat them.
3 guesses as to where those 5 "panelists" are from......
I can see a Dallas vote perhaps; but OKC and Hou? Come on now.
Even without Amare?
Frankly, I can see the OKC vote, but not the Dallas or Houston vote. While I still think the Thunder are a couple of years away, they were in position last year to be a mid-level seed -- they were 7-11 in games decided by 3 points or less, after all. If they had gone 11-7 in those games -- or even 9-9 in the right games -- they are the 5 or 6 seed in a tournament that really lacked great strength after the #1 seed; had they won a playoff series last year -- a realistic possibility had they gotten a higher seed -- and with their youth, would anyone really dispute that they'd be an understandably fashionable pick to take a leap in 2010-11?
Houston would probably beat Phoenix, but no way in they get out of the west. Same goes for OKC.
Dallas vote = mark stein?
The first round series against L.A last year showed that OKC can't beat them, they don't have the big men to do it. Only team in the west who could match the Lakers size is Dallas if healthy.
Your take is a good one and makes sense, from a popularity-fashionable standpoint. My statement had more to do with the reality of it all. Take a leap they might, but the question was about who would win the west. With that in mind any vote for OKC is silly IMO. Any leap they take won't be big enough to get them into the Finals this coming year.
I don't have any doubt that they'll be right in the mix. They don't beat LA in a seven game series though. I have a hard time seeing them beat SA or DAL for that matter. They're a good team. They haven't had the opportunity to demonstrate that they can duplicate their good play in successive years though. We all know what heightened expectations can do to a young team.
7 games and 1 dumb decision not to block out gasol. hmmm...
They arguably played LA as well as anyone did last year. They have a lot of pieces -- scorers, bombers, defenders -- and for now at least, they appear have a pretty good home court advantage for big games. Along with all of that, they have assets in place to make a deal to improve a weakness. And, from an intangibles standpoint, they've already taken on the big, bad bully of the league in a playoff series and held their own.
I'm not sitting here saying that OKC will win the West. I am saying that I can completely understand why others would believe that OKC could win the West.
So I guess we don't even have to play the season, ESPN has already decided who was winning. For several years now they don't even have the Spurs making the playoffs... we all know how that ends.
OKC have Collison/Kristic/Ibaka for big men. That rotation won't get you out of the west.
Hakim Warrick is the new Amare!!!
ok, he's not really, but if Yao goes down then yes.
No way voters decide, just pointing out the expectations. And its different when one idiot writer says it about SA, that none of the writers believe SA wins the West.
OKC went down in 6 games and they lost in LA by 8, 3, and 24.
And no, Stein didn't vote for Dallas.
Marc Stein, ESPN.com: Lakers. Not sure how you can dare to pick anyone else when no one can definitively tell you the second-best team in the West.
The overall depth in the conference is obviously still superior to the East's, but how can you say that any team out West has closed the gap on the Lakers?
Exactly ... you can't.
I see the reason for some Dallas love because Chandler and Haywood have some size. Houston banking on Yao playing a full season and Houston to stay physical on D. OKC votes are just about falling for the hype.
That's because right now nobody expects anything from the Spurs. If Splitter turns out to be the legit C we are hoping for then we can start talking about possibly winning the west. If not then no way does Duncan/McDyess/Blair/Bonner beat L.A.
No one thinks we'll get Gasol for Matt Bonner and Jarvis Critterdon?
Wow, those espn guys are smart.
All of them are right.
No one ever does pick the Spurs. It's just business as usual.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
