Why can't we beat anybody in the east?

[STChaser]

Again,

Thaddeus = Pierce
Sam < Garnett
Iguodala > Allen
Miller > Cassell
Lou > Rondo
Evans > Big Baby
Carney < House
Sam > Perkins
Smith < Powe

Again, I think we match up quite well against the Celts. They don't scare me that much. They have a bunch of finesse shooters who can knock down the 3 in House, Pierce, and Allen, and they've got Garnett who while crafty around the rim, is not a bruiser like Bynum or Howard and that plays more to Sam's strength.

Yes, they have more "skill" than us. But we're also younger, faster, equally if not more athletic, and this team plays a style of ball that is tough to match up against IMO. Does skill win out over hustle? It didn't last week when we played them.

STChaser

[IggyTheBEaST]

We beat boston in 1 game but in a series they can make adjusments and I just dont see us beating them in a 7 game series. Same goes for Detriot, they are beatable, but their playoff experience and the way they close out quaters make them one tough cookie.

Every other team is fair game tho

[STChaser]

Iggy, ironically, it has been our young team that has been "closing out quarters" lately. Maybe that's Miller's influence on the squad. Regardless, these kids have shown a lot of poise - more so than many of the much more experienced teams we've gone up against.

STChaser

[noone]

-= original quote snipped =-

None of those names do anything for me, and they are average defensively IMO. Excluding stats. I hate stats. They just give clueless basketball fans an argument by stating random numbers.

But we should take your opinion as fact. "I think they suck because I don't like them". And those random numbers clueless basketball fans use reflect the games actually played. Opponents points per 100 possessions and opponents fg% do not lie, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. Btw, how many Celts games have you even seen this year?

Throw out the name Pierce, and I'll throw out the name Thaddeus. You might find that laughable but I've seen what this rookie can do on both ends of the court and I have 100% faith in this kid based on what I've seen so far this season. Throw out the name Allen and I'll put Iguodala up against him any day. Throw out Rondo's name and I'll one-up you with Lou Williams. Throw out Cassell and I'll show you what a real PG looks like in Andre Miller. Throw out Big Baby and I'll throw down Evans and Jason Smith. Throw out Garnett and you've got us beat. But if Sam can avoid foul trouble like he did the other night, I'll take my chances come the 4th quarter with a one-on-one matchup.

That's a laughable argument. I'm sure even you don't believe that. Even if we do go with it, Pierce is MUCH better than Thaddeus right now. And Sammy vs. Garnett, you've gotta be kidding me. That's not even close.

Post-up PF's (which we lack) usually have slower foot speed and can't recover on defense, and when they do manage to get back, they usually pick up fouls against teams that can run.

I'd love to see some kind of proof of that. And post up PFs may have slower lateral quickness, but that isn't the same as saying they're slower getting up and down the court. These guys aren't running 50 yards, they're going about 80 feet from one basket to the other. And you only need 3 guys most of the time to stop a break. That post up PF getting back isn't even an issue.

[IggyTheBEaST]

Iggy, ironically, it has been our young team that has been "closing out quarters" lately. Maybe that's Miller's influence on the squad. Regardless, these kids have shown a lot of poise - more so than many of the much more experienced teams we've gone up against.

STChaser

I dont disagree, but are we better at it than the pistons...

[STChaser]

STChaser wrote:
Throw out the name Pierce, and I'll throw out the name Thaddeus. You might find that laughable but I've seen what this rookie can do on both ends of the court and I have 100% faith in this kid based on what I've seen so far this season. Throw out the name Allen and I'll put Iguodala up against him any day. Throw out Rondo's name and I'll one-up you with Lou Williams. Throw out Cassell and I'll show you what a real PG looks like in Andre Miller. Throw out Big Baby and I'll throw down Evans and Jason Smith. Throw out Garnett and you've got us beat. But if Sam can avoid foul trouble like he did the other night, I'll take my chances come the 4th quarter with a one-on-one matchup.


That's a laughable argument. I'm sure even you don't believe that. Even if we do go with it, Pierce is MUCH better than Thaddeus right now. And Sammy vs. Garnett, you've gotta be kidding me. That's not even close.

Is Pierce that much better than Thaddeus right now? He didn't look that much better against us the other night. Noone, you seem to like the trendy, house-hold name guys. I'm not sold that Pierce is all that much better than Thaddeus. Maybe he was 5 years ago but Pierce hasn't wowed me in quite some time. And please show me where I said that Sam was equal to Garnett?


Quote:
Post-up PF's (which we lack) usually have slower foot speed and can't recover on defense, and when they do manage to get back, they usually pick up fouls against teams that can run.


I'd love to see some kind of proof of that. And post up PFs may have slower lateral quickness, but that isn't the same as saying they're slower getting up and down the court. These guys aren't running 50 yards, they're going about 80 feet from one basket to the other. And you only need 3 guys most of the time to stop a break. That post up PF getting back isn't even an issue.

The PF getting back IS an issue. It's exactly why Gooden sat on the bench most of the game. It becomes an issue when your team repeatedly fails to get back on defense. You think Chris Webber or Coleman in a Sixers uniform weren't major liabilities on defense when they were here. Both were incapable of keeping up with the faster PF's in this league. Don't even start trying to sell me on your theory that PF's getting back on D isn't an issue.

STCHaser

[noone]

Is Pierce that much better than Thaddeus right now? He didn't look that much better against us the other night. Noone, you seem to like the trendy, house-hold name guys. I'm not sold that Pierce is all that much better than Thaddeus. Maybe he was 5 years ago but Pierce hasn't wowed me in quite some time. And please show me where I said that Sam was equal to Garnett?

20/5/5 on 46% FG and 38% 3PT alone says Pierce is much better than Thad right now. Forget even mentioning what Pierce does for their offense. And Pierce's defense when he's motivated (I've watched plenty of Bostons' games this year, I know) is as good as most SF. Thad vs. Pierce isn't even close. Thad has looked great up to this point, but let's not forget he's still a rookie, still pretty raw and has a long way to go before he reaches his potential and can be even thought of being compared to Pierce.

You saying you'd take your chances in a one-on-one matchup come the 4th quarter with Sam if he isn't in foul trouble is pretty much saying Sam is at least close to comparable. Well, it's not. Defensively and especially offensively.

First of all Gooden isn't even a post-up PF. Second, Gooden sucks. His defense sucks. Webber and Coleman's issues defensively weren't getting back in transition, they were being able to rotate and play the pick and roll in the half court.

[Sixerscan]

Is Pierce that much better than Thaddeus right now? He didn't look that much better against us the other night.

If you're just going to base something on one night there's really not much point in having a discussion.

[IggyTheBEaST]

Is Pierce better than Young RIGHT NOW? Yes.

Will he be by time time Thaddeous can legally drink a beer? Doubt it

[LongLiveHinkie]

-= original quote snipped =-



But we should take your opinion as fact. "I think they suck because I don't like them". And those random numbers clueless basketball fans use reflect the games actually played. Opponents points per 100 possessions and opponents fg% do not lie, no matter how much you'd like to believe otherwise. Btw, how many Celts games have you even seen this year?

I saw about 20-25 Celtics games this year. I haven't been the least bit impressed with any of them.

[Sixerscan]

Good argument. I don't think you have the balls to bring a real one to the table though, because I'll bury you before you even get started.

This has summed you up in this thread perfectly. People give good points and you just disregard them. If you're already convinced and don't value anyone else's opinion why even challenge someone to prove you wrong? It's a terrible way to talk to people. This thread has been nothing but a giant headache to read.

[Gant]

-= original quote snipped =-



I saw about 20-25 Celtics games this year. I haven't been the least bit impressed with any of them.

I agree. I've seen all the Celtics games this year. They're terrible. I never seen such incompetent play. The 56-15 record, 24-5 against the West, best defense in the game, three all stars, first team in seven years to sweep Texas, holding Phoenix to 2 fast break points last night, largest consecutive season gain-in-wins in league history-- none of that means anything. They are just not a good team.

Anyone denying this is just not listening closely to the voices inside their head. I hear them. There they are. They're singing to me now. How beautiful.

[barkley34]

The Celtics would sweep us or take us out in 5 games. Some of you guys are getting carried away from that win the other night.

It was a nice win but we didn't get Boston's "A" game. Rivers was experimenting with his bench rotation and once we got momentum we made them pay for it.

[bigdavid]

We beat boston in 1 game but in a series they can make adjusments and I just dont see us beating them in a 7 game series. Same goes for Detriot, they are beatable, but their playoff experience and the way they close out quaters make them one tough cookie.

Every other team is fair game tho

I totally agree. On any given night we can beat any team in one game, however in 7 games better teams usually win. I am an absolute sixer fan but it takes a lot more than a fast break to win. Teams need a deep bench and also know how to win a long series.

[LongLiveHinkie]

-= original quote snipped =-



This has summed you up in this thread perfectly. People give good points and you just disregard them. If you're already convinced and don't value anyone else's opinion why even challenge someone to prove you wrong? It's a terrible way to talk to people. This thread has been nothing but a giant headache to read.

I don't think I've dismissed anything in this topic other than the Celtics being a good team.

The Celtics debate has nothing to do with the original discussion of the Sixers. It broke off into a side little debate. In fact, I have agreed that the Warriors were a good running team, and agreed other posters brought up good points to support it. So I really don't know what you are talking about.

Plus 90% of the posters in here agreed with my original point, so there was not much debating going on anyway.

[noone]

-= original quote snipped =-

I don't think I've dismissed anything in this topic other than the Celtics being a good team.

The Celtics debate has nothing to do with the original discussion of the Sixers. It broke off into a side little debate. In fact, I have agreed that the Warriors were a good running team, and agreed other posters brought up good points to support it. So I really don't know what you are talking about.

Plus 90% of the posters in here agreed with my original point, so there was not much debating going on anyway.

The Celtics debate has everything to do with the original discussion. If you want to believe that the Sixers have a chance against every team in the East, then you better have a solid argument against why you think the Celts aren't the real deal, despite all the stats saying otherwise. But instead, the only thing you've brought to the discussion is how you don't like them because that's how you were raised, therefore they suck. If you can't convince others or at least bring solid reasons why to back your opinion, then your original post doesn't have much merit.

There are 4 teams ahead of the Sixers in the standings. And there are only 2 teams that most people (outside of some Sixers fans) are giving the Sixers zero chance against. One of those teams you're dismissing outright. That's half the argument gone right there, but I guess it serves your purpose.

[LongLiveHinkie]

-= original quote snipped =-



The Celtics debate has everything to do with the original discussion. If you want to believe that the Sixers have a chance against every team in the East, then you better have a solid argument against why you think the Celts aren't the real deal, despite all the stats saying otherwise. But instead, the only thing you've brought to the discussion is how you don't like them because that's how you were raised, therefore they suck. If you can't convince others or at least bring solid reasons why to back your opinion, then your original post doesn't have much merit.

There are 4 teams ahead of the Sixers in the standings. And there are only 2 teams that most people (outside of some Sixers fans) are giving the Sixers zero chance against. One of those teams you're dismissing outright. That's half the argument gone right there, but I guess it serves your purpose.

My argument to why we can beat the Celtics is in my original post. We proved we can beat them just last week. In their own house. We've proven we can beat anyone. So, there is no reason we can't beat anyone in a series.

People like to act like the playoffs change a lot of stuff, but in reality, not much changes. Style of play doesn't change much, experience matters little, and tempo doesn't really slow down either. Those are just cliches that have no real consistency from year to year. I'm sure people could point out specific examples where those things mattered, but I could point out just as many where they didn't.

Case in point: a running, less experienced team last season in GS upset Dallas. They ran them to death, and went on to almost beat Utah as well.

Slowing down the tempo, experience, and records had nothing to do with Golden State last year. They were just playing well, and were a couple last second mistakes away from upsetting Utah and going to the WCF.

[noone]

My argument to why we can beat the Celtics is in my original post. We proved we can beat them just last week. In their own house. We've proven we can beat anyone. So, there is no reason we can't beat anyone in a series.

So because we beat them 1 game out of 4, we can take them in a best of 7 series? That's your argument?

We beat all the top teams in the West too, so surely you must believe that we can win it all, no?

Case in point: a running, less experienced team last season in GS upset Dallas. They ran them to death, and went on to almost beat Utah as well.

Slowing down the tempo, experience, and records had nothing to do with Golden State last year.

The mismatches heavily favored GS in that series and they took advantage. All of Dallas' big men are/were soft. That heavily favors GS. Much like Boston or Detroit versus Philly, Philly not only has more weaknesses but most of the mismatches will favor Boston/Detroit on their side.

They were just playing well, and were a couple last second mistakes away from upsetting Utah and going to the WCF.

Experience?

[Sixersftw]

btw i thought utah won in 5 w/ most of the games having a fair margin of victory?

[LongLiveHinkie]

My argument to why we can beat the Celtics is in my original post. We proved we can beat them just last week. In their own house. We've proven we can beat anyone. So, there is no reason we can't beat anyone in a series.

So because we beat them 1 game out of 4, we can take them in a best of 7 series? That's your argument?

We beat all the top teams in the West too, so surely you must believe that we can win it all, no?

Case in point: a running, less experienced team last season in GS upset Dallas. They ran them to death, and went on to almost beat Utah as well.

Slowing down the tempo, experience, and records had nothing to do with Golden State last year.

The mismatches heavily favored GS in that series and they took advantage. All of Dallas' big men are/were soft. That heavily favors GS. Much like Boston or Detroit versus Philly, Philly not only has more weaknesses but most of the mismatches will favor Boston/Detroit on their side.

They were just playing well, and were a couple last second mistakes away from upsetting Utah and going to the WCF.

Experience?

1. Absolutely. But not only that. We are playing better basketball than anyone in the NBA right now. We can beat anyone in the NBA right now. So I see no difference in the playoffs. We've proven we can match up with anyone and beat anyone.

2. Yes, I do believe we can win it all.

3. That can be debated.

4. Making mistakes really has little to do with experience despite the cliches. Experienced teams make mistakes all the time. Pressure gets to players sometimes. Some players can't beat the pressure their entire careers.

Sixersftw:

I forget which specific games they were by number, but two games out of the first 4 went down to the wire and GS blew both of them at the very end. One of them went into OT when GS had the game won.