RealGM

CLE could end being the team that came closest to beating the World Champion Celtics.

I know Atlanta stretched the Celtics to 7. But Cleveland actually competed in game 7, almost won and would have if not for PP. There is a difference. Being blown out in game 7 is the same as losing in 6.

So lets say the Celtics beat Detroit in 6 and then sweep LA or beat SA in 6. Would the Cavs have a case for being the 2nd best team in the NBA? I think they do. You could argue of course that they didn't have a great regular season. But clearly this team is built for the playoffs (just as they were last season), they played the best defense in the NBA in these playoffs and the best rebounding too. The ingredients were there to make it back to the Finals as I think they would have beaten the Pistons who look softer each year while the Cavs appear to be toughening up.

Second best in the NBA?

Cleveland in the West Coast would be average at best.

The playoffs are still going. Everyone who's still playing is better than Cleveland. There's no prize for maybe being the only team to almost beat the potential champions, except for that other team that came slightly less close.

You're reading too much into a 7 game series (which in the end they lost).

Over the course of the season, their record was less than .600. In the West with that record, they wouldn't even make the playoffs.

Yes, they played well. But to throw away the 82 game stats and focus only on a 7 game stretch and say they are second best is a long shot only visible with the finest homer glasses.

A Lebron injury away from the 1st overall pick in the lottery..

But does the regular season matter at all? Besides claiming home court advantage (which almost didn't save Boston) it really doesn't prove anything in terms of how good a team is.

BRINGTHEPAIN wrote:But does the regular season matter at all? Besides claiming home court advantage (which almost didn't save Boston) it really doesn't prove anything in terms of how good a team is.

You're right.... a team's performance over 82 games doesn't say anything about how good they are....

Clearly there are some teams that are built for the regular season (Phoenix, Houston, Dallas) and others that are built for the Playoffs (Cleveland, San Antonio). If I was building a team to win the Championship I know which kind of team I'd prefer.

BRINGTHEPAIN wrote:Clearly there are some teams that are built for the regular season (Phoenix, Houston, Dallas) and others that are built for the Playoffs (Cleveland, San Antonio). If I was building a team to win the Championship I know which kind of team I'd prefer.

Yea... there's a good chance that Cleveland would lose in a 7 game series against those teams you mentioned.Can you honestly say that Cleveland is head and shoulders above those teams? In the west they probably wouldn't have survived past the 1st round since they would be playing against the top seeds .

O yea, and at you mentioning Cleveland and San Antonio together as if they're in the same tier. lol homer.

BRINGTHEPAIN wrote:CLE could end being the team that came closest to beating the World Champion Celtics.

I know Atlanta stretched the Celtics to 7. But Cleveland actually competed in game 7, almost won and would have if not for PP. There is a difference. Being blown out in game 7 is the same as losing in 6.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic argument that I've ever seen.

So really this isn't a "how would YOU rate the cavs season" thread, it's a

"I'm a homer, please argue with me about my team" thread.

Please, stop making clueless threads...

Champipple wrote:"I'm a homer, please argue with me about my team" thread.

He is NOT a Cavs fan...

10/10

They met the expectations of what people thought they would do... Last year they overachieved and this year they did what they were expected to do.

I can't imagine the Celtics winning the title. There are multiple teams in the west that are better than the Cavs and would have handled them in a 7 game series.

Im surprised NO ONE has called out the OP for his seeming dismissal of the lakers and presuming they would just sweep them.

SA in 6
Det in 6

BUt no, LA IN 4?!?!?

Can you make your Kobe hate ANY MORE obvious. LOL.

Chances of Celtics beating the lakers AT ALL, let alone in four is slim to none man....especially if thye handle the Spurs.

Spurs got JUST as good a defense
JUST as good a homecourt
AND
A WAYYYYY better offense.

we have ZERO answer to Tim Duncan. KG is no Tim Duncan. He's a jumpshooter.

And plus, the Celtics SUCK on the road and LA is 7-0 at home. So, it being a sweep just REEKS of your putrid Kobe hate.

But of course, im the only one who called you on it, cuase I know the games you play cousin.

You're one of favorites cause when kobe wins a title, it'll want to make you wnat to throw up....and i cant wait for that feeling from you.

Cleveland wouldn't even make the playoffs in the west. They got by a depleted wizards team without arenas. They're irrelevant in my book.

Average team full of scrubs lucky to be in the East, i would like to see Lebron with 2 good players around in the next years.

Care to explain what "built for the regular season" and "built for the playoffs" mean??

War3player wrote:Care to explain what "built for the regular season" and "built for the playoffs" mean??

Built for the regular season means they're a team that scores a lot and doesn't play defense(Phoenix, Denver, really most of the west outside LA and SA), whereas built for the playoffs is teams that play great, physical defense(since fouls aren't as ticky-tack in the playoffs), such as DET, BOS, CLE, SA and LA