Reply With Quote
Exactly. More about Memphis playing OKC than anything.
Memphis
Dallas
Ya know, Mark Cuban still owns the Mavs...
Exactly. More about Memphis playing OKC than anything.
They both suck, but dallas i guess
Yeah, but I've never hated anyone in the Dallas organization, past or present like Jet-turtle.
Yeah, Jet is up there as one of my all time most hated players.
In terms of players who are in their prime right now, I probably hate Westbrook the most.
Dallas. Memphis sucks, though. I don't know why people can't seem to understand that. I think they may be the worst of all 16 playoff teams, although Charlotte and Atlanta are pretty bad.
agree both are bad. Dallas is less physical and Spurs pretty much play at home when in Dallas. Dallas would be a lot less fatigue on the body and mind.
Dallas plays OKC well so Memphis - as long as Pop plays Splitter vs MEM, Spurs are ok.
never seen a fanbase as scared of a team as Spursfan of Thunder.... let me go bump my thread with the same le....
Disagree. OKC matches up VERY well with Memphis due to their bigs being able to somewhat contain Memphis. Meanwhile, the Thunder have NO answer for Dirk. None. Not even close. Dirk s on everyone including Thabo.
OKC - Memphis is done in 5-6
OKC - Dallas goes AT LEAST 6, IMO.
Worst take of the month. Memphis is a 50+ win team. They would be a 3 seed in the East and I'd have them going to 7 against the disfunctional Pacers.
Not in the only game Thabo played against Dallas this year.
Be honest. Are you all saying Dallas matches up well just because of Dallas' two wins which were against teams without 2 and 3 of their starters?
Lol. Let me guess: You thought Memphis was going to win last season, didn't you?
Grizzlies. The lack of anything resembling a dominant offensive player makes them less dangerous and the fact that they're far superior defensively is largely irrelevant, considering they too are unable to slow down the Spurs.
This series isn't so much about winning for the Spurs (because it should go without saying) as it is winning it in no more than 5 games. If it somehow extends beyond that, it's a loss in the grand scheme of things.
What? I couldn't give two s about the regular season. Check my post history. I don't give a about what happened in games that don't matter. I just know that between Memphis and Dallas, Dirk would be far and away the best player on either team, and the most consistent threat to put up 35+.
Why would you say that? Me debating your thought that the Grizzlies are, at best, the 3rd WORST team in the playoffs means I think they were going to beat us last year? Come on now. I had the Spurs in 7 last year over the Griz. Again, this is a team that, playing in the West, would be a 3 seed out East. So yeah. Not buying them as the 16th best team in the league when they're sitting a game out of 50 wins.
Whomever will give OKC a harder opening round, I want the other team. Dallas gave OKC more run in the regular season, but who is to say the Grizzlies might give the Thunderefs a harder first round matchup. I like the Spurs chances against either. I only felt the young athletic Suns was the scariest Spurs matchup.
You thought Grizz would lose in seven, which is basically a coin flip from them winning. I thought sweep or five at most. Memphis sucks. They just do. They can't even beat the Clippers unless Blake is hobbled.
I don't think it's a stretch to say they're the worst team in the Western bracket. You think they're below Indiana and Miami. So we're debating four teams really. I like Brooklyn over them due to better offense and still sound defensive pieces. Toronto is about even--more upside but less proven. Washington is similar to Toronto in that they have more talent but haven't shown enough. Chicago is pretty much Memphis North with a strong defense built around a star big but lacks any upside. I'd takr Chicago's superior coaching and heart, though.
The only team I couldn't see beating Memphis is Charlotte. The Cats just have no upside at all. For being so bad for so long, the team just has no talent. I think Atlanta would win easily if they had Horford.
We can squabble over specific hypothetical matchups if you want. But I stand by my assertion that Memphis is overrated. There's a reason why Hollinger keeps breaking up the roster bit by bit.
How in the is a team who won 49 games in the west overrated? Not to mention Gasol missed a good amount of games. They could of easily been a top 4 seed this season.
Mavs. I rather the Thunder get beat up by the Grizz and Mavs vs Spurs will make the forum interesting.
Memphis sucks against the Spurs, doesn't mean they can't hang with other top teams. They went in raw on Houston a couple of times.
For starters, that's unproven. The Griz could potentially take out the Clippers in a series. And even if they lost to them, the Clippers are an incredibly dangerous team this year. Several of their players have made strides. You can't say getting beat by the Clippers is a mark of disdain anymore, a lot of people have them favored over even OKC. The Grizzlies were just in the ing Western Conference Finals, for 's sake. That doesn't happen by accident.
I'd give them even money against Dallas, Portland, and Golden State. Also, waving your hand over the Western bracket like it's a standard year is ridiculous. This is, quite possibly, the most loaded conference in the history of the NBA this season. It's absurd. The TWolves would likely be a top 5 seed out East, and they can't sniff the playoffs now.I don't think it's a stretch to say they're the worst team in the Western bracket.
Says who? I'd give them a real shot at beating the Pacers right now.You think they're below Indiana and Miami.
Nope.So we're debating four teams really.
This is pretty hilarious stuff. You'd take a team that could barely get to .500 in the East against a borderline 50 win team in a ridiculous conference that hasn't even had their best defender for a large part of the season. Ok chief. I would take Memphis over everyone except maybe Brooklyn, and I think it'd be even money with the Nets. It's apparently so easy to win 50 games out East but you think the 43 win Wizards are worthy of respect. K.I like Brooklyn over them due to better offense and still sound defensive pieces. Toronto is about even--more upside but less proven. Washington is similar to Toronto in that they have more talent but haven't shown enough. Chicago is pretty much Memphis North with a strong defense built around a star big but lacks any upside. I'd takr Chicago's superior coaching and heart, though. The only team I couldn't see beating Memphis is Charlotte. The Cats just have no upside at all. For being so bad for so long, the team just has no talent. I think Atlanta would win easily if they had Horford.
Last edited by Cry Havoc; 04-15-2014 at 07:33 PM.
Dallas, because I believe Memphis gives OKC a better series.
Edit: Wrong Thread lol.
So let me get this straight: Your only defense is records? Because you've literally brought up no other arguments. The fact that they're a poorly built team who's second-best player is in massive decline and who's rotation after their third-best player is barely playoff worthy means nothing to you?
Look, I get it: You want to be flashy and condescending and all that. Whatever. But at least bring something better to the table than what you have here. You seem to think Memphis is in a certain tier that they're just not in as far as I can see. They weren't even close to a contender last year when you thought they could take the Spurs to seven games. I didn't go around calling that a horrible take even though I thought it was absurd. Now you come back with the same belief in them, and you want to call me out for dismissing them?
Let's be clear: None of us are psychic or experts. We're all just giving opinions. It's fine to disagree with me, because you may well end up being right. But don't come here thinking your view is somehow superior, especially since your last take on Memphis ended up being so far off base.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
