NoStatsGuy wrote:puja21 wrote:haste10176 wrote:
They were clearly contenders with two guys injured it was a toe on the line in game 7 that went to over time against the team that won definitely in contender status.. There were the bulls in 1994 who lost the knicks on an erroneous call who otherwise would of beaten a team who went 7 games in the nba finals so also definitely a contender.. Non contender wouldnt be going 7 games against the eventual winner in an overtime game 7.
The 2008 Hawks, who started 21 and 20 yo Josh Smith and Marvin Williams as well as a declined Mike Bibby took the champion Celtics to 7 games too
because the cavs and the pistons were better that year. usually you dont consider 4 teams from one conference to be real contenders.
but the nets have clearly been the 2nd best east team in the playoffs that year. which showed in the later series, the bucks played. id even argue the nets were better than the suns, who reached the finals that year. but srsly what am i doing here.. who cares if they were contenders or not. i just smelled out the blatant ignorance and hate and had to respond
Well, this is all semantics. They were "contenders" when all three stars were on the floor. But any team that lost in the 2nd round did not "contend" for a title. It was all hopes and dreams.
IND won 7 playoff games last season... did they contend?
LAL won 8 playoff games the prior season before falling to the most competitive sweep in NBA history... They made it a contest, but did they contend? No, they were a 7 seed that fell on the right side of the bracket, eventually folding when facing the eventual champs.
PHI is the gold standard of a team that is labeled a contender but is never contending when it matters. They haven't made it out of the 2nd round so I would argue that they have not yet contended for a title. They are contenders again this season but their lack of a legit PF tells me they will not be contending in June. #lightintheshorts
