Page 1 of 1

Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:27 am
by campybatman
Winning the NBA championship is far more important. People tend to remember you when you've won a championship. The regular season is the regular season.

It could depend on how much Cleveland and Orlando push Boston, and how much San Antonio and Denver or Portland push Los Angeles. Otherwise, there isn't really a point or a need to win seventy-two or seventy-three games during the regular season unless you really want to clinch home court advantage throughout the playoffs, convincingly.

A team like Orlando could have a chip on their shoulders and desire to dominate this season. Still, winning seventy or more games shouldn't be a serious goal. If it is... Then your team isn't looking at the bigger picture. Sometimes, records just get broken without you trying to break them. That could be the case here for either one of the best teams in the NBA this season.



"'Oh definitely. Definitely, playing with those three other guys, also combining that with the guys we have on the bench, I think we can definitely can. Me personally, I think we can get that Bulls record. You know we have the talent for it. We have the will for it and ... I think we have the defense for it."



Because honestly, I really do feel that. That was a good team. They had some [Hall of Famers] on there, but we have a few on this team, too."


http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/blog/ball_d ... nba,195434



"I don't want the players to get that as a goal," he told the LA Daily News. "That's not a goal. The goal is to go through the season in an orderly fashion and build momentum through the end of the year. I think it just takes so much out of you to push that all the time, to just keep pushing it.

"A lot of things could happen."


http://www.nesn.com/2009/10/phil-jackso ... -wins.html



Image
ImageImage



Image



Top 10 Teams in NBA History
http://www.nba.com/history/toptenteams_index.html



This list doesn't include the sixty-six win 2007-2008 championship Boston Celtics team, or the sixty-five win 2008-2009 championship Los Angeles Lakers team. Or, obviously, the best team(s) this season.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 7:09 am
by PPAW4Life
No I don't think that's the teams goal by any means.

I think their goal is to be the best damn defensive team they can be and if that leads to winning 72 games or more then so be it.

We all know that when it comes to the playoffs it's almost a crap shoot...who is playing the hottest....who is healthiest....who's team has homecourt....etc.

I'm damn proud of this team and the identity it instills.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 7:33 am
by Joselo16
Exactly what PPAW4Life wrote! I don't know why its such a big deal! I don't think their only goal is to just win 72 games. They are playing to win every game they play, just like every other team in the league. They also have a goal (which I believe they hold a little higher) in that they want to be known as the best defensive team in league history, but the highest team goal is definitely #18! Teams can have multiple goals, right!

The best defense in league history could lead to best record in history, along the way to a championship!!! I don't see anything wrong here!

Gotta love these team goals as opposed to hoping to suck bad enough to get the #1 overall pick! Hows Greg Oden doing? Is he still developing?

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:02 am
by Jimmy76
I think you guys should focus more on staying healthy than trying to win as many regular season games as possible

Id put a an absolute 36 minute cap on the minutes of pierce, ray, and especially garnett and ideally play them less than that

rings are whats important nothing else

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:35 am
by Joselo16
Yes we want them fresh for the playoffs, but why limit their minutes now when they just started playing, if anything limit them after the playoff spot (ideally #1 seed) is secured. Injuries will always happen and KG didn't injure himself because he was tired while Ray and Paul didn't play that bad in the playoffs last year after playing all those minutes. In my belief the fact that we have a legit bench this year as opposed to last, will prove to be very beneficial to the Big 3's health! Plus if we keep blowing teams out it won't even matter!

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 9:43 am
by BillessuR6
The only goal this team has is winning the championship! No one is really thinking about 72 wins...

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 10:51 am
by sunshinekids99
Goal should just be the one seed overall. Unless of course the Celtics have injury issues like last season. There is no reason to even think about 72 wins.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:05 am
by campybatman
Obviously, the national media need a "story." Personally, I think no team should want to burn themselves out chasing a likely unachievable goal.

When you put that out there, you might be speaking for yourself. Because all the players and coaching staff that were here before Wallace presumingly want to get back to the NBA Finals.

The Boston Celtics play like a selfless team.

It's alright to feel confident, but don't over do it. Hopefully, Rasheed won't talk about it again.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:27 am
by Kefa461
The goal is to win every game.......









8-)

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:42 am
by MyInsatiableOne
Let's just get HCA and win the title! :rock: :rocking: :rockon:

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 11:46 am
by sam_I_am
I don't think the goal is to win 72 games. I think what the players are saying to the world with Rasheed's declaration is that they know what they have in the locker room and that KG, Allen, Pierce and Wallace - who have seen a lot of teams - know how freaking good this roster is.

It is no stretch to say this team could win 72 games because it is an incredibly talented team. Could the 72 win Bulls bench ever outscore the starters 62-43? I seriously doubt it.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 12:45 pm
by BIG EDDIE
Kefa461 wrote:The goal is to win every game.......



8-)


Truth said right there. And it's pretty obvious, the goal is to win the next game. So for now, the goal is 6-0.
Of course there will be some situions where Doc needs to decide whether to bring in Garnett or Pierce in a close game, or let them rest a bit, but I think Boston has enough weapons to have a serious winning chance against any given team, on any given floor.
So yeah, the goal is 82-0. After a loss it will be 81-1 and so on.
Right now, the Celts are looking as good as the 72-win Bulls, and you have to admit, that you somehow measure them by the 72 wins. Were they better than the 97-98 Bulls? Maybe not, but still you are talking about the 95-96 Bulls and not the 97-98 Bulls as probably the best team ever.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 1:42 pm
by Joselo16
"The goal is 82-0. After a loss it will be 81-1 and so on" by BIG EDDIE

Right on, thats why I don't understand why its such a big thing with the media when its the same goal every team sets for themselves! Is it cause Rasheed was the one that said it or because it was said in the first place? I could care less record wise, as long as #18 ends up in the garden!

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 5:22 pm
by GuyClinch
You still want HCA. And if your close to 72 though and it doesn't matter you still play for it, IMHO. A patriot like doom is not guaranteed. If you have to play your starters like 10 extra games then no.. but like one game for immortality - hell ya.

Pete

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:21 pm
by ParticleMan
it shouldn't be a goal but if we stay healthy i think we will win 72.

this team is a defensive monster, and has enough weapons on O that it shouldn't have more than 10 losses.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:35 pm
by sam_I_am
Lets say at the end of the season Doc has Paul, Ray and KG in street clothes. How many games is Perk-Wallace-Daniels-House-Rondo going to lose? Like last night.... you rest the starters and the reserves come in and blow the team out anyway.

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Wed Nov 4, 2009 6:44 pm
by GuyClinch
Sure the bench can win alot of games - and if you had a run of games against lower level teams you could play the bench. But I think that if you had a scenario with an up and coming team trying for playoff seedings and you needed only one or two wins to reach that magical number you absolutely go for it. Your not assured Patriot like doom and depending on how you used your guys during the regular season they might not be on the verge of "burning out." The way the C's are going they might want the practice!

Pete

Re: Winning 72 games in 2009-2010 shouldn't be a goal

Posted: Thu Nov 5, 2009 12:13 am
by Bad-Thoma
It's a rare occasion that I fully agree with GuyClinch, but I must give him his due here, right on Guy.