RealGM

With Memphis slowing up, and Houston and Portland not being that far ahead….what are your thoughts on this?

We have the best PG in the leauge.
We have the best PF in the league.
We have the best defensive C in the leauge.
We have the best 6th-man in the league.
We have one of the best 3pt snipers.
We have one of the best coaching staffs.

I don't care who we play, don't care where we play'em...IF WE'RE HEALTHY...nobody is beating us 4 times in a 7 game series.

If it were up to me we'd drastically reduce our starters playing-time and go with this starting line-up instead:

Rivers
Hamilton
Wilcox
Davis
Udoh

Nate Rob, Turk, & Jones would be the first guys off the bench.

That should be our rotation for the last 15 games -- we'll win enough to cling to the 8th-seed, and our starters would be healthy enough to send the Warriors home in the 1st-round again.

Go for the highest seed possible. Rather have HCA for as long as we can.

Quake Griffin wrote:With Memphis slowing up, and Houston and Portland not being that far ahead….what are your thoughts on this?

Let's say everything else stayed the same and the Clippers got 2nd we would have

Golden Sate
LA Clippers
Memphis Grizzlies
Portland Trail Blazers
Houston Rockets
San Antonio Spurs
Dallas Mavericks
New Orleans Pelicans

This would make the Clippers matchups:
Dallas in Round 1
Winner of Memphis and San Antonio in Round 2

As it is right now (as well as getting 4th) it would be:
Houston in Round 1
Winner of Golden State and New Orleans in Round 2

3rd seed with everything else the same would be
San Antonio in Round 1
Winner of Memphis and Dallas in Round 2

I'd take the HCA for as long as possible if it is achievable.

only teams that really scare me are memphis and SA.

and since i think it's an eventuality you'll face at least one of them in the playoffs, you might as well take the best seed possible if it's an option.

For the time being, I think you have to go for HCA if possible. It's too early to tell how things are going to shake out. If/when things look a little clearer, it would probably be wise to try to aim for a favorable match-up.

Going for the 2nd seed should be the highest priority, specially cause if we do that we get both those goals (2nd seed will probably play Dallas who's likely gonna be the weakest rival of the West playoff teams).

If Memphis doesn't slip and we can't get there (it'd need a massive winning streak from us), I say try to avoid the Spurs at all costs. Worse thing that could happen to us is to get matched up with them in those 4th-5th seeds. Other than that, I'm ready to take anyone. I think we'd give the Grizzlies a lot more trouble than people think we would, and I'd love to play them again so we can settle the 1-1 tie we have in the last 3 years.

The three best teams are GSW, healthy SAS and healthy OKC. Anyone else would be ideal.

DLaren wrote:We have the best PG in the leauge.
We have the best PF in the league.
We have the best defensive C in the leauge.
We have the best 6th-man in the league.
We have one of the best 3pt snipers.
We have one of the best coaching staffs.

I don't care who we play, don't care where we play'em...IF WE'RE HEALTHY...nobody is beating us 4 times in a 7 game series.

If it were up to me we'd drastically reduce our starters playing-time and go with this starting line-up instead:

Rivers
Hamilton
Wilcox
Davis
Udoh

Nate Rob, Turk, & Jones would be the first guys off the bench.

That should be our rotation for the last 15 games -- we'll win enough to cling to the 8th-seed, and our starters would be healthy enough to send the Warriors home in the 1st-round again.

Jamal is a gun, but the LAC bench is the worst amongst the WC playoff teams. And if I was a LAC fan, I wouldn't be ecstatic with Doc's in-game management (his front-office moves have been borderline disastrous).

And in what world is Griffin a better PF than Brow or Aldridge?

The Clips have the slimmest of shots, but only because of the brilliance of CP.

Rodddman wrote:And if I was a LAC fan, I wouldn't be ecstatic with Doc's in-game management (his front-office moves have been borderline disastrous).

It's getting tiresome to address this over and over again, but Doc's GM failures is not an adult reason to criticize his coaching, which has been top-notch ever since he came here. If you have an actual reason to dislike his coaching you should point it out, otherwise it's just talking cause it's cheap.

Other than that, people are mildly optimistic because our starting 5 is one of the best 5 man units in the league by quite a margin, only behind the Cavs and Warriors starting 5 in net rating. And the Cavs play in the East, and we know how to defend the Warriors probably better than any other team in the league, mostly thanks to Doc's in-game management

Rodddman wrote:And in what world is Griffin a better PF than Brow or Aldridge?

you would have had some validity if you stopped at Brow, but no you had to stretch it.

www.basketball-reference.com/play-index ... 4=&p5=&p6=

how do you like your flakers' chances?

Yup. Understood Brow.

Aldridge? Nothnx Jeff.

Always try and win, not a good idea to intentionally loose, that is essential saying we can't defeat team X. Get the highest seed and go to work.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Neddy wrote:

Rodddman wrote:And in what world is Griffin a better PF than Brow or Aldridge?

you would have had some validity if you stopped at Brow, but no you had to stretch it.

www.basketball-reference.com/play-index ... 4=&p5=&p6=

how do you like your flakers' chances?

I'm not a Lakers fan.

You can show me whatever numbers you want, and I'll still be taking Aldridge every day of the week. LMA regularly puts his team on his back and delivers in the clutch, whereas there are still questions regarding Blake's ability to lead his team at the end of big games. Whilst not a great defender, LMA's length means that he offers rim protection whilst Blake is a little undersized. Also, the fact that DeAndre has literally zero game outside of the paint means that Blake spends far too much time on the perimeter, which is not his strength.

Blake is obviously a great player, and is among the elite PFs in the game. However, I wouldn't even consider ranking him ahead of Brow and LMA.

QRich3 wrote:

Rodddman wrote:And if I was a LAC fan, I wouldn't be ecstatic with Doc's in-game management (his front-office moves have been borderline disastrous).

It's getting tiresome to address this over and over again, but Doc's GM failures is not an adult reason to criticize his coaching, which has been top-notch ever since he came here. If you have an actual reason to dislike his coaching you should point it out, otherwise it's just talking cause it's cheap.

Other than that, people are mildly optimistic because our starting 5 is one of the best 5 man units in the league by quite a margin, only behind the Cavs and Warriors starting 5 in net rating. And the Cavs play in the East, and we know how to defend the Warriors probably better than any other team in the league, mostly thanks to Doc's in-game management

Are you basing that on last year's playoffs when they didn't have Bogut and were 'coached' by Mark Jackson?

QRich3 wrote:

Rodddman wrote:And if I was a LAC fan, I wouldn't be ecstatic with Doc's in-game management (his front-office moves have been borderline disastrous).

It's getting tiresome to address this over and over again, but Doc's GM failures is not an adult reason to criticize his coaching, which has been top-notch ever since he came here. If you have an actual reason to dislike his coaching you should point it out, otherwise it's just talking cause it's cheap.

Other than that, people are mildly optimistic because our starting 5 is one of the best 5 man units in the league by quite a margin, only behind the Cavs and Warriors starting 5 in net rating. And the Cavs play in the East, and we know how to defend the Warriors probably better than any other team in the league, mostly thanks to Doc's in-game management

I would argue that his player rotations / minutes are average. If our starting 5 is as good as you say then why won't Doc play our starting 5 in the last 4 minutes of the 4th?

Honestly I think the match-up between our bench and the other team's bench is a bigger influence on whether we win or not. If our bench can hold it's own, then we are a great chance to beat anyone as I also believe we have one of the best starting 5 in the league.

LACtdom wrote:

QRich3 wrote:

Rodddman wrote:And if I was a LAC fan, I wouldn't be ecstatic with Doc's in-game management (his front-office moves have been borderline disastrous).

It's getting tiresome to address this over and over again, but Doc's GM failures is not an adult reason to criticize his coaching, which has been top-notch ever since he came here. If you have an actual reason to dislike his coaching you should point it out, otherwise it's just talking cause it's cheap.

Other than that, people are mildly optimistic because our starting 5 is one of the best 5 man units in the league by quite a margin, only behind the Cavs and Warriors starting 5 in net rating. And the Cavs play in the East, and we know how to defend the Warriors probably better than any other team in the league, mostly thanks to Doc's in-game management

I would argue that his player rotations / minutes are average. If our starting 5 is as good as you say then why won't Doc play our starting 5 in the last 4 minutes of the 4th?

Honestly I think the match-up between our bench and the other team's bench is a bigger influence on whether we win or not. If our bench can hold it's own, then we are a great chance to beat anyone as I also believe we have one of the best starting 5 in the league.

The full-strength starting 5 is undoubtedly great - it's the bench comprised of has-beens and Doc's never-been son that should be the concern.

And Doc's GM moves are directly related to his coaching. He has continually traded away young assets because he doesn't trust young players who aren't blood relatives. This attitude leads to situations where Hedo Turkoglu plays 30+ minutes in a crucial game (see, for instance, the recent Portland game, which was an epic choke-job). I will be very shocked if this doesn't cause problems for the Clips come playoff-time.

Rodddman wrote:

Neddy wrote:

Rodddman wrote:And in what world is Griffin a better PF than Brow or Aldridge?

you would have had some validity if you stopped at Brow, but no you had to stretch it.

www.basketball-reference.com/play-index ... 4=&p5=&p6=

how do you like your flakers' chances?

I'm not a Lakers fan.

You can show me whatever numbers you want, and I'll still be taking Aldridge every day of the week. LMA regularly puts his team on his back and delivers in the clutch, whereas there are still questions regarding Blake's ability to lead his team at the end of big games. Whilst not a great defender, LMA's length means that he offers rim protection whilst Blake is a little undersized. Also, the fact that DeAndre has literally zero game outside of the paint means that Blake spends far too much time on the perimeter, which is not his strength.

Blake is obviously a great player, and is among the elite PFs in the game. However, I wouldn't even consider ranking him ahead of Brow and LMA.

then what is up with the laker sporting avatar of yours?

and for Lamarcus, a guy who's offensive rating is only 5 point higher than his defensive rating while shooting 53% true shooting, is no bonafide superstar... and those numbers are worse than your league average small time stars like Rickey Pierce, and Lamarcus is a big, lol. his team is built around to maximize his skill set, that's it. you take Aldridge out of Portland and put him in a completely different system, he will look much worse. he is an NBA version of Darren McFadden. put him in power block scheme with blockers who are capable, he looks great. you put him in zone blocking scheme and regardless how great the guys in front of him are, can't see the lane. Blake and Davis will thrive in just about any system because they are versatile as well as being top notch talented in more than a few specific skill sets, kinda like Eric Dickerson, or Adrian Peterson.

if you want to prove the superiority of Lamarcus, you need to show me something tangible other than the classic anecdotal fallacies. that's for kids and idiots. grown, educated people use proof, tangible body of evidence. Im all ears.

Rodddman wrote:

LACtdom wrote:

QRich3 wrote:It's getting tiresome to address this over and over again, but Doc's GM failures is not an adult reason to criticize his coaching, which has been top-notch ever since he came here. If you have an actual reason to dislike his coaching you should point it out, otherwise it's just talking cause it's cheap.

Other than that, people are mildly optimistic because our starting 5 is one of the best 5 man units in the league by quite a margin, only behind the Cavs and Warriors starting 5 in net rating. And the Cavs play in the East, and we know how to defend the Warriors probably better than any other team in the league, mostly thanks to Doc's in-game management

I would argue that his player rotations / minutes are average. If our starting 5 is as good as you say then why won't Doc play our starting 5 in the last 4 minutes of the 4th?

Honestly I think the match-up between our bench and the other team's bench is a bigger influence on whether we win or not. If our bench can hold it's own, then we are a great chance to beat anyone as I also believe we have one of the best starting 5 in the league.

The full-strength starting 5 is undoubtedly great - it's the bench comprised of has-beens and Doc's never-been son that should be the concern.

And Doc's GM moves are directly related to his coaching. He has continually traded away young assets because he doesn't trust young players who aren't blood relatives. This attitude leads to situations where Hedo Turkoglu plays 30+ minutes in a crucial game (see, for instance, the recent Portland game, which was an epic choke-job). I will be very shocked if this doesn't cause problems for the Clips come playoff-time.

your argument is full of holes.

if being a bad GM makes you a bad coach, was MIke Holmgren and his accomplishments were fluke before he got to cleveland where he had GM power as well as being the HC which turned out to be a bad combo?

MIke Shanahan was a pretty good coach, until he got the personnel power in denver. does that tarnish his superbowl winning resume as the HC?

Doc has won it all already, has been the coach of the year long before taking the job with the Celts, by getting the most out of your has-beens and never-beens.

Doc is a bad GM. we all know it. to call him a bad coach, you must make a case why then all the other guys i have mentioned are terrible at coaching.

Neddy wrote:

Rodddman wrote:

Neddy wrote:
you would have had some validity if you stopped at Brow, but no you had to stretch it.

www.basketball-reference.com/play-index ... 4=&p5=&p6=

how do you like your flakers' chances?

I'm not a Lakers fan.

You can show me whatever numbers you want, and I'll still be taking Aldridge every day of the week. LMA regularly puts his team on his back and delivers in the clutch, whereas there are still questions regarding Blake's ability to lead his team at the end of big games. Whilst not a great defender, LMA's length means that he offers rim protection whilst Blake is a little undersized. Also, the fact that DeAndre has literally zero game outside of the paint means that Blake spends far too much time on the perimeter, which is not his strength.

Blake is obviously a great player, and is among the elite PFs in the game. However, I wouldn't even consider ranking him ahead of Brow and LMA.

then what is up with the laker sporting avatar of yours?

and for Lamarcus, a guy who's offensive rating is only 5 point higher than his defensive rating while shooting 53% true shooting, is no bonafide superstar... and those numbers are worse than your league average small time stars like Rickey Pierce, and Lamarcus is a big, lol. his team is built around to maximize his skill set, that's it. you take Aldridge out of Portland and put him in a completely different system, he will look much worse. he is an NBA version of Darren McFadden. put him in power block scheme with blockers who are capable, he looks great. you put him in zone blocking scheme and regardless how great the guys in front of him are, can't see the lane. Blake and Davis will thrive in just about any system because they are versatile as well as being top notch talented in more than a few specific skill sets, kinda like Eric Dickerson, or Adrian Peterson.

if you want to prove the superiority of Lamarcus, you need to show me something tangible other than the classic anecdotal fallacies. that's for kids and idiots. grown, educated people use proof, tangible body of evidence. Im all ears.

Calling people who offer an alternative POV 'kids and 'idiots' and making analogies to other sports is an infinitely more mature way to engage in a discussion.