Reply With Quote
They also got taken to 7 games by the Hawks & Cavs, not looking too dominant on the road
Honestly, I had this thought, too. LMA and West coming in feels a lot like bringing in KG and Allen to some degree. That Celts team then clicked right away and won something like 66 games and a championship. But I withheld on making the comparison because that type of success is not guaranteed. Still, I can see this team coming out of the gates and blowing the league away.You dont say that
They were a recollection of cancers, washed up players and a rookie coach, they were so bad that sucked in the east.
This is more like Boston 2008 LMA and Kawhi are in good age, Sam Cassell is Manu, Glenn Davis is Boris, Parker is Rondo, David West Perkins, etc.
They also got taken to 7 games by the Hawks & Cavs, not looking too dominant on the road
i see what you're saying, but no, i don't see it.
Nope, just nope.
But a fun thread all the same.
None of those teams had the second coming of Scottie Pippen just going into his prime though.
PS And yes, I know Scottie was a better playmaker, but Kawhi is growing into that. And there are so many other similarities between them, especially defensively, that it needs to be said.
Ok I'm sorry but this thread is truly ridiculous. Neither the Nets or the Lakers had Matt Bonner
Oh, a Parker dig. You're very clever. Keep it up.
Just saw this thread. OP just compared RC's masterpiece summer of getting top tier players to sign for less dollars to play in a small market with Billy King's effort to build an 8th seed in the East by trading for cap killing contracts and giving up first round draft picks. This is the single worst comparison in basketball.
i mean Nets mortgaged their future to produce a mid tier team in the east. And they set a record in luxury taxes. RC didn't spend a single first round pick, signed three all stars to cap friendly contracts and filled the roster at bargain prices for either high quality players or upside players. And is no where near the luxury tax penalties the Nets received.
Last edited by cd98; 07-30-2015 at 11:01 AM.
They played poorly on the road in the playoffs in the first two rounds, yes.
It feels a little tainted to me to have 2 series where you win the series but don't even win a game on the other team's home floor. It's kind of cheesing, tbh. Glad that the Spurs took game 6 in OKC.
Sam Amick is already comparing the spurs acquiring lamarcus aldridge and david west to the lakers signing payton and malone?!?
People would still be satisfied had we lost Game 6 at OKC and then came home and slapped OKC at home in Game 7.
Really aiming for that jinx, aren't they?
Not really. It would have left a bitter taste in the mouth even after the championship. That we won but we still couldn't break the long-standing curse of the OKC chesapeake arena and the refs that had gone on since like forever. (Our last win there having been in the 2010 part of the 10-11 season when the Thunder still had Jeff Green, Ibaka was extremely limited and Harden hadn't quite developed yet + the Spurs extensively relied on Hill/ y/McDyess.) It would have felt like yeah we won but only because we luckyassed our way to the #1 seed in the regular season and needed all of that advantage just to win in the playoffs.
Pierce and Garnett weren't even on the team yet.
Who were the three HOFers on the team in 2012-13? Lopez and D-Will are not. Joe Johnson has best chance but still not. You talking about Ben Wallace?
Spurs have three players better than anyone on the Nets that year. The next six (Manu, Parker, Mills, Diaw, West, Green) in no particular order would have all been at worst the 4th best player on that team.
On edit, saw you had the wrong year. Still, at that point, Garnett could barely play any minutes and DWill had seriously regressed.
Whoever made this article doesn't know what he's talking about PERIOD. ALDRIGE,KAWHI AND DUNCAN hands down better then anyone on that old ass broken down team. Those guys on that team ing went off pass history and name Sake. Deron in sucked ass after Utah trade,Garnett has been done like when everyone said Duncan was done back in 2009 but how things changed and pierce who ing talks trash but doesn't have the balls to always back it up. Plus he's always been a sore loser. Go look at his career. He runs his mouth when he's winning but when he's losing he's hiding and first one off the court to get showered and get home. Plus he's a prim modonna. #factsthattruthhurts
source?
Amick said he's a little skeptical of these type of signings with big name stars just because he saw what happened in L.A. but he didn't say it in a negative way. He's been a spurs enthusiast for a long time. He just thinks the Warriors are the clear favorites since they just won. And they were dominant in the regular season.
https://soundcloud.com/espn-san-anto...ts/audio-vault
For me, this is a very lazy comparison.
1. Shaq - Out of shape (conflict with Kobe).
2. Kobe - Primadonna dealing with rape accusations.
3. Malone - A very aging star who actually did really well 'til injuries.
4. Payton - PG past his prime and pretty much a ho hum PG by this point.
Then, you look at all the Lakers role players like Shaw, Fox, Horry, Walton, (Fisher), etc whose games were based upon feeding at Shaq's teet. And with Shaq being out of shape and the new guys not spreading the court, their effectiveness suddenly became dookie.
To me, the Spurs didn't reshape their team like the Lakers did. Rather, they brought in better pieces that only maximize the system that is already in place.
I've never understood why people consider the 2004 Lakers to be an insulting comparison to their team, tbh..
I realize they had massive hype and did not reach their ultimate goal, but did everybody forget that they were in the NBA Finals? They didn't lose because they had big names that didn't fit, they lost because Kobe and Shaq finally imploded and Karl Malone got injured, tbh..
Their actual team wasn't that special in hindsight(product of a poor era), but they were clearly special in relation to their compe ion in that particular season ..
Good points. But the Lakers basically were swept in five games in the finals (Company Men gave Game 2 to them); and they were blown out very badly in the three games in Detroit. Lakers were never even in those games. They looked like the most bush league team in NBA Finals history; and they made the Pistons look like an all-time great team in comparison (even though they're not).I've never understood why people consider the 2004 Lakers to be an insulting comparison to their team, tbh
I realize they had massive hype and did not reach their ultimate goal, but did everybody forget that they were in the NBA Finals? They didn't lose because they had big names that didn't fit, they lost because Kobe and Shaq finally imploded and Karl Malone got injured, tbh..
Their actual team wasn't that special in hindsight(product of a poor era), but they were clearly special in relation to their compe ion in that particular season ..
That's all true and it was the biggest upset of all-time by Vegas' measure, it merits some ridicule, but that team was extremely dependent on the top 4 guys, they had virtually nothing else..their 5th best player was Derek Fisher who had a terrible year IIRC
They were one of the worst shooting teams in the league, had no depth whatsoever, and didn't have any notable defensive players, yet still made the Finals based on talent alone, which is why I find negative comparisons to them to be inaccurate..they are actually a pretty great example of where top-tier talent can take you in the NBA..
Take away the 3rd best of those 4 guys + the 2 primary superstars on the team accepting the end of their relationship, escalating in Kobe putting on one of the most selfish displays of basketball you'll ever see, and that's the finished product..still, though, they made it to the Finals, and they went through the Spurs and a good Wolves team, it's not like they were the 2013 Lakers, etc..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
