Anyone else feel embarrassed or dejected by these overtimes?

campybatman · Post #1 » by **campybatman** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:52 am

Because I know Boston's a better team than this. Everyone on the planet who's a basketball fan knows that this wouldn't even be that close of a match up if Garnett and others are healthy. But, they aren't... I know... Still, Chicago isn't as good as Atlanta of last season or this season with all things given equal.

This isn't the real Celtics of 2008-2009. I give Chicago credit for not being intimidated at all. If they win the series, they certainly deserve to. But, Boston can be so frustrating sometimes. Is it the players, the head coach? This team is lackadaisical at times. Thank goodness for Rondo.

The only good that can come from this is it makes for great TV drama.

sh00n · Post #2 » by **sh00n** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 1:57 am

Give off your pedestal man. Every team goes to OT. Just because you're the defending champs doesn't mean that your team is somehow above OT.

SuigintouEV · Post #3 » by **SuigintouEV** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:11 am

this team just isn't that much better than chicago without garnett, and with miller/salmons the bulls are better than thier record

meatball sub · Post #4 » by **meatball sub** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:17 am

With KG I'd say yes. I was embarrassed that the Hawks took us to 7 last year when we whipped their ass at home ever game.

Without KG, it's just entertaining basketball.

Kefa461 · Post #5 » by **Kefa461** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:19 am

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Because I know Boston's a better team than this. Everyone on the planet who's a basketball fan knows that this wouldn't even be that close of a match up if Garnett and others are healthy. But, they aren't... I know... Still, Chicago isn't as good as Atlanta of last season or this season with all things given equal.

This isn't the real Celtics of 2008-2009. I give Chicago credit for not being intimidated at all. If they win the series, they certainly deserve to. But, Boston can be so frustrating sometimes. Is it the players, the head coach? This team is lackadaisical at times. Thank goodness for Rondo.

The only good that can come from this is it makes for great TV drama.

celtics543 · Post #6 » by **celtics543** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:22 am

Let's not forget that the Bulls are missing Luol Deng too. I know he's not on Garnett's level, but he's a really good young player.

TommyPoints · Post #7 » by **TommyPoints** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:23 am

I just have low expectations without KG and even Powe. I want to ride this out as long as possible and who knows what happens when you play the games, but none of us expect to beat Cleveland if we get there. I mean I sure dont unless KG comes back and is actually healthy. The pressure is way off for me at this point, but I dont want to lose in the first round at least.

campybatman · Post #8 » by **campybatman** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:26 am

Yeah, I mentioned the lost of Deng in another thread days ago. Chicago could use him to help Salmons guard Pierce.

Post #9 » by **Bleeding Green** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:27 am

Embarrassed? LOL.

AAU Teammate · Post #10 » by **AAU Teammate** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:28 am

This has been the best series i've ever seen and I've seen a lot growing up here in the 90s.

You guys should be handling us though, i mean jesus we barely run offense at times. It's basically give it to Rose or Gordon and see if they can throw a bunch of points in.

The last offensive play of the game for us was the first time it looks like something brainy was drawn up and carried out!

TheChad708 · Post #11 » by **TheChad708** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:28 am

Bulls are missing Deng and have Salmons and Gordon playing at less than a 100%. I think its pretty safe to say the Celitcs will win this series but I consider them paper champs at this point. Cleveland and LA are just a lot better than the Cs this year.

campybatman · Post #12 » by **campybatman** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:30 am

Paper champions? Wow. Okay?

Joebiscuit · Post #13 » by **Joebiscuit** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:32 am

I said it before and I will say it again. Without KG this team is evenly matched and have had the same record the last half of the season.

TheChad708 · Post #14 » by **TheChad708** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:32 am

bonsaiflipflops wrote:Paper champions? Wow. Okay?

So in your opinion the Cs are favorites against the Cavs and Lakers? Wow. Okay?

AAU Teammate · Post #15 » by **AAU Teammate** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:32 am

TheChad708 wrote: Celitcs will win this series but I consider them paper champs at this point.

What are you talking about? Garnett's their whole thing on defense, it's not the same team that won.

TheChad708 · Post #16 » by **TheChad708** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:33 am

AAU Teammate wrote:
TheChad708 wrote: Celitcs will win this series but I consider them paper champs at this point.

What are you talking about? Garnett's their whole thing on defense, it's not the same team that won.

That is the point, they are champs until someone beats them but they have a very small chance of repeating.

AAU Teammate · Post #17 » by **AAU Teammate** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:35 am

TheChad708 wrote:
AAU Teammate wrote:
TheChad708 wrote: Celitcs will win this series but I consider them paper champs at this point.

What are you talking about? Garnett's their whole thing on defense, it's not the same team that won.

That is the point, they are champs until someone beats them but they have a very small chance of repeating.

I think you're slightly misusing the term 'paper champion' though

see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... er%20champ

EDIT: I guess i just always think of it as definition 2

Fencer reregistered · Post #18 » by **Fencer reregistered** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:35 am

Being in a series this close against the Bulls is not championship play.

But I don't see what there is to be embarrassed about.

And this is a record-setting close series. Four decisive quarters ended in a tie (overtime). And each final period in the close games also went down to the wire. Just amazing back-and-forth play.

AAU Teammate · Post #19 » by **AAU Teammate** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:37 am

I think it's kind of interesting how this series pits more talent vs. more enthusiasm.

In the C's low points during this game they were getting outhustled. Then they buckled down and hit every big shot late.

TheChad708 · Post #20 » by **TheChad708** » Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:38 am

I think you're slightly misusing the term 'paper champion' though

see: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... er%20champ

EDIT: I guess i just always think of it as definition 2[/quote]

Misusing it? oh really? How does this not fit?
"A champion who holds an official title but lacks the caliber of a real champion." With all the Cs injuries that pretty much sums it up, at least in my opinion.