Moderators: HartfordWhalers, BullyKing, Sixerscan, sixers hoops, Foshan
76ciology wrote:Kobblehead wrote:Dennis Smith: 23 minutes played, 0-7 from the field, 0 points
Damn.
Lloydfree’s skeleton in his closet
DCasey91 wrote:Sixerscan wrote:DCasey91 wrote:Nets are very scary (only a matter of time too).
They play down to the weaker comp but against any playoff contending team they’ve only lost one match.
One more big guy, One more defensive wing and they can cakewalk it into the finals (health permitted should be favorites).
Some playoffs series will be a wash because no team can compete offensively that’s out of the question (highest 4th quarter scoring team which makes sense).
Can easily see a Lakers/Clippers vs Nets finals. Clippers look wonderful (extra year together) and have the best half court offense.
If we do verse the Nets it might get ugly because Kyrie is the typical player that annihilates us (Booker, Beal hell even Kemba torches). And if he’s put into position to score and that’s his job he will light us up big time. Durant is Durant can score 35+ in his sleep with no system. And Harden will play PG. they know there roles now.
They are not great defensively but it’ll be like the Lakers 2000’s teams where they only have to turn it up for a short period of time.
Being down 10 in the 4th quarter for them won’t phase them at all in the playoffs. It’s a monster of a team (looking at the first three names is all you need lol.)
Assuming every team is fit for the Playoffs
Tier 1 caliber championship team is:
Lakers, Clippers, Nets and that’s it.
The unfortunate thing is with us is we have that high end talent but we haven’t put around the structure of players from spots (3-9).
I assume you're going off of Shaq saying that on TNT, and as usual I'm not sure what he was talking about. The Lakers had the top ranked regular season defense in the NBA in 2000 and were 7th in '02. Sure they went through the motions in 2001, but they weren't like the worst defensive team in the league. And that '01 team didn't just "turn it up for a short people of time" in the playoffs, they were a legitimately dominant defensive team once they started trying. Like they held the Spurs to 81 PPG in the western conference finals. Kobe and Shaq were great defensive players, they had very good defensive role players in Fisher, Fox, Horry. Anyone who watched them play knew they were a great defensive team but they/Shaq just weren't trying for most of the year.
This Nets team just doesn't have the same level of defensive personnel that those Lakers teams did besides Durant, who is very good but not like an elite elite defender at this point. Harden and Kyrie can try a little harder sure, but they're not going to all of a sudden become Kobe Bryant on defense. And DeAndre Jordan or Drummond or whoever they get on the buyout isn't going to become Shaq.
No watching the Lakers teams I never thought they were never a top 3 ranked defensive team (Pistons were far superior in that end for obv reasons).
And the playoffs are a short amount of time relative to the whole season which I was speaking in that context but I get your point.
Also I would argue they definitely have more than enough and certainly more firepower on the outside (Durant, Irving, Harden).
It’s interesting to note though about turning up the defense, they do hold better teams to very modest totals on more than one occasion (discounted the Lakers game but Jazz, Pacers, Heat game for example). I dunno looking at game logs it seems the were just cruising just playing so so against bad teams but against a legit opponent they play very well.
Either way they are extremely scary and on talent at the top end they are definitely championship caliber.
Harden by himself can drag a subpar roster into a top 3 seed in west he’s that good. (His best attribute is maybe his elite durability).
mithrandir17 wrote:If the lakers continue to lose without AD or hover around .500, does LeBron still have a case for MVP?
76ciology wrote:I think DMC’s issue is more than just basketball stuff. There’s got to be something more to it
mithrandir17 wrote:If the lakers continue to lose without AD or hover around .500, does LeBron still have a case for MVP?
Stanford wrote:mithrandir17 wrote:If the lakers continue to lose without AD or hover around .500, does LeBron still have a case for MVP?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=lebron%27s+age
Stanford wrote:mithrandir17 wrote:If the lakers continue to lose without AD or hover around .500, does LeBron still have a case for MVP?
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=lebron%27s+age
Kobblehead wrote:"Our roster is not good" - Danny Ainge
LOL at Danny saying this publicly in an attempt to look admirable in taking responsibility. When in reality, all he did was insult and piss off the players on the team.
bball4life wrote:Kobblehead wrote:"Our roster is not good" - Danny Ainge
LOL at Danny saying this publicly in an attempt to look admirable in taking responsibility. When in reality, all he did was insult and piss off the players on the team.
Yet will scoff at any trade offers that undervalue his awesome draft picks.
Stanford wrote:bball4life wrote:Kobblehead wrote:"Our roster is not good" - Danny Ainge
LOL at Danny saying this publicly in an attempt to look admirable in taking responsibility. When in reality, all he did was insult and piss off the players on the team.
Yet will scoff at any trade offers that undervalue his awesome draft picks.
I'm curious, which deals should he have taken?
bball4life wrote:Stanford wrote:bball4life wrote:
Yet will scoff at any trade offers that undervalue his awesome draft picks.
I'm curious, which deals should he have taken?
Well the latest gaff was certainly nickle and diming the Pacers for another pick to sweeten the Hayward for Miles/Mcdermott pot and ending up with a trade exception he won't use because reasons above. I'd be slightly terrified of the Celtics with a decent center. As is, not so much.