Reply With Quote
Nope, but keep thinking it will.
Nope, but keep thinking it will.
i don't understand how taking care of business in the 1st and 2nd round by making quick work of your opponent gives you a disadvantage against a team that turned their 2nd round into a 7 game slug fest.
the Cavs will have another week off the hang out and rest up, while Kobe gets more and more run down. He already looks very tired, an extra 6 games more than the Cavs won't help.
Hey Dunderdan,
Remember this? Yao, "See you in Houston" game.
Cavaliers 74, Rockets 93
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=290226010
Don't crown yourself champs just yet.
This thread isn't about communism and outsourcing, it's about the best team in the NBA and the team that has yet to come within 20 points of losing a Playoff game.Hey Dunderdan,
Remember this? Yao, "See you in Houston" game.
Cavaliers 74, Rockets 93
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/recap?gameId=290226010
Don't crown yourself champs just yet.
seems like nobody is answering the question. yes. pathetic conference, depleted elite teams in the conference and second round opponent who cant even get 3 starters out there. cavs were good so now this just about ensures a east le
the Cavs have to go through a team that has won over 55 games and/or the defending champs to get to the Finals. The Lakers have to go through the ty Rockets- a team that is making it's first appearance in the 2nd round since Crystal Clear Pepsi, and the Nuggets who flat out suck all together. The reason the Lakers look ty is because they don't play defense because they are soft and old
I answered the question. Lake Show, 1987. 37-win Nuggets, 42-win Warriors, 39-win Sonics. The West was absolute garbage in those days. L.A. had a milk run every year unless they went up against Houston. And the Cavaliers still have to play either the 59-win Magic or the 62-win, defending Champion Celtics in the ECF.
So no, this isn't the easiest road to the Finals ever.
The Magic are missing Jameer Nelson and are known playoff chokers.
The Celtics don't have KG.
Neither team is even as good as the Rockets or Nuggets at this point.
The rest versus rust debate is overrated for both sides. Too many factors really end up deciding which is better. If a team has a lot of injuries, then of course rest is better. But, if a team has a great rhythm and is a team that relies on a lot of jump shooting, sometimes, rest isn't a good thing. It really depends on the team and the match-up. There are pros and cons for both.
Should the Cavs worry they haven't been tested yet? Not really. They should have pounded Detroit and Atlanta and that's what they've done. It's not like the Cavs can do anything about who they play. And, the Lakers might be better off that their toughness has been tested early on. It certainly helped the Celtics last year. I think any debate over which is better is simply just talk from either sides or haters. We'll have to wait and see how things turn out.
The Rockets don't have T-Mac and the Jazz didn't have Okur for 2 games, what is your point?
T-Mac is better than Jameer Nelson and the Lakers lost a game to the Rockets. So the Lakers suck. If TMac is playing it's a 2-0 series and Houston is looking to close things out this weekend. The Lakers are just too soft, they have to look at instances of thuggery by their PG to inspire them and to trick them into thinking they are physical. The fact is that the Lakers are like their fans, fruitcakes and wear sunglasses indoors.
It's not even close to the easiest ever.
In 2001, Philly had to go through the Pacers and Raptors in the first two rounds. In the eastern finals they did play a 52 win team, but that win total doesn't really matter when you factor in the fact Glenn Robinson was their leading scorer and 2nd leading rebounder.
I don't think the Cavs would benefit from having grueling early rounds because they have not coasted at any point in the season. They come out each night and play hard, which is a testament to Lebron and Mike Brown (aka Mr. Potato Head).
The Lakers will benefit from getting punched in the mouth early. All season long they've played as if they expected to coast to the Finals. They definitely did seem to have a sense of en lement, toying with teams and blowing 20+ pt leads left and right. It's a good thing HOU whacked them early and woke them up.
Look, the Cavaliers can't win here in the eyes of a lot of you. If they're tested by Detroit or Atlanta, that just shows how overrated and soft they are. If they blow by Detroit and Atlanta, that just shows how soft their compe ion is and how it's going to hurt them when they play an elite team down the road. Either way, it's going to be used against them.
I answered the question also. I said the 2001-02 New Jersey Nets.
And, while the record didn't really show it, that 1987 Seattle team was pretty good. They had three guys that averaged 23 PPG or more in Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Xavier McDaniel. They had a couple decent role players with Nate McMillan and Eddie Johnson and an old Maurice Lucas.
The best team that the 2002 Nets faced was a two man Boston Celtics team of Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker, with Kenny Anderson. I think that was an easier path for that Nets team.
And, the Cavs will end up facing either Boston or Orlando who are both depleted with multiple key players. You can't go by their regular season records to show how good of a team they are now in the playoffs. Celtics are obviously missing KG, and also Powe. Magic are missing Nelson and Courtney Lee, two starters. Can't just look at their regular season record to prove how tough they'll be to face in the playoffs.
and in 2002 the Nets had a cakewalk road to the finals. None of the 3 teams they played won 50 games. Their 2nd round opponent's leading scorer was done for the season, and in the East finals they played the famous 2002 "There's never been a three pointer I wouldn't chuck up" Boston Celtics.
We shall see tonight if this is the case.
Jam, every team outside the dregs has good players, especially in those days before mass expansion. , the 1986-87 Kings (the team that fell behind L.A. 40-4 after the first quarter of a game that year) had Reggie Theus and Otis Thorpe. Those were good players too. But that didn't mean Sacramento was a good team.
i'm not thinking that.
i was just responding to DrHouse, who was already finding excuses in case the lakers lose in the finals.
Then please accept my apology for being a presumptuous bag.
Not every team had three elite scorers. Plus I also mentioned that they had decent players around them. Their record didn't adequately show how good a team they were. Plus, they started playing well right around the playoffs. And, they did beat the Lakers twice in the regular season that year. That was a solid Sonics team. I'm not saying they were a great team. But compare that team to the 2002 Boston Celtics, I would say that Seattle team was better. And, that was my point. 2002 Nets had an easier path.
I def think LA is going to run into trouble if they play Denver. Thats if they make it past Houston. I think the refs will help get them past Houston though.
DEN is going to be a tough team, but IMHO HOU presents far more challenges for LAL. DEN is still too undisciplined defensively to stop Kobe, Gasol, and Odom.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions