Did the series against the Hawks effect you?

[spf211]

-= original quote snipped =-



How come no one is questioning the Pistons' championship mettle for taking 6 games against Philly, another sub-500 team?

Well, no one asked me, so I don't know who this random sample is -- but I totally question the Pistons "championship mettle" as their first round series proved they did not learn from last year and Flip Saunders is almost as inept in the playoffs as Doc Rivers.

I don't think the Pistons are a championship team -- but I do think they can beat the Celtics in the Eastern Conference Finals.

Or Utah needing 6 against Houston? Or Cleveland, for that matter, taking 6 against Washington.

Both series you quoted here are 4-5 match-ups with teams that are supposed to be the most competitive in the playoffs. And neither of those even went to a Game 7 -- only the team, again, with the best record versus the team with the worst record; arguably the best team in the NBA versus the worst team to make the playoffs.

Had the Celtics won Game 3 or 4 the series would not have gone past 5 games -- but they didn't and wound up still playing the Hawks when every other available team in the NBA was underway in the second round.

The Laker trolls here are right -- the Lakers did exactly what they were supposed to do and swept out the Nuggets in 4 games -- a Nugget team that was more talented and dangerous than the team it took the Celtics 7 games to finish off.

That shouldn't be comforting to any Celtic fan no matter how you spin it.

[spf211]

The Celtics need to be taking care of teams in an efficent, championship manner like the real contenders have out West. Unfortunately, we already blew our shot at the easy series and I don't see anything from here on in lasting short of 6 games.

It's not so clear cut. All this series does is reflect that it's UNLIKELY that the C's will win a championship. Most championship teams cruise through that first series.

So yes it's troubling. But stranger things have happened. Remember how the Sox went down 3-0 vs. the Yanks? And they won a championship. That's never been done before but their is a first for everything.

After sweeping the Angels and then going on to sweep the Cardinals -- the only competitive series the Sox faced that year was the Yankees.

And go back a year to 2003, the Yankees get booted in the World Series in 6 games because they came out of a draining 7 game series against the Red Sox.

Right now if the Celtics meet the Lakers in the playoffs, it's theorhetically possible for Boston to play nine more games in total than Los Angeles before that series even starts. And we all know the Celtics have some old legs to keep fresh.

How Boston gets to the Finals is a factor and the early returns aren't good. We can all afford a round of 7 hard fought games -- but if the Celtics face four of them their odds of winning a championship will shrink drastically.

[bruno sundov]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yup, losing 3 road games straight to 32 win team shows the Celtics can't close it out on the road. Before the Playoffs started, most would say the Cavs would have no chance against the Celtics, but now I'm not so sure.

From what I've seen that first round, I like the Lakers chances against the Celtics better than the Pistons so c'mon Celtics, don't screw around and get to the Finals.

YOu make it sound as though LA is walking to the finals. They still have to beat SA,NO or Utah. Lets not say that is a forgone conclusion, because it's not.

[ermocrate]

-= original quote snipped =-



Yup, losing 3 road games straight to 32 win team shows the Celtics can't close it out on the road. Before the Playoffs started, most would say the Cavs would have no chance against the Celtics, but now I'm not so sure.

From what I've seen that first round, I like the Lakers chances against the Celtics better than the Pistons so c'mon Celtics, don't screw around and get to the Finals.

Man, you seem so sure you're going to the final, good luck!

[hiphop1]

My mind was in the mode of the old days for a while. When the sox would make it to the playoffs and LOSE! Man am I glad we one.

[MyInsatiableOne]

-= original quote snipped =-



YOu make it sound as though LA is walking to the finals. They still have to beat SA,NO or Utah. Lets not say that is a forgone conclusion, because it's not.

The thing is everyone in the national media loves LA no matter what and hates Boston no matter what (especially lately since it's been trendy since 2001 to hate all things New England) so it's a losing battle trying to reason with people.

Including all the self-loathing Boston fans on this board.

[Athanacropolis]

-= original quote snipped =-



The thing is everyone in the national media loves LA no matter what and hates Boston no matter what (especially lately since it's been trendy since 2001 to hate all things New England) so it's a losing battle trying to reason with people.

Including all the self-loathing Boston fans on this board.

To be fair, it takes more than eight years of success to erase decades of losing. When things go bad, Boston fans have nightmare flashbacks to $&%&^*#($*&%&%&ing choking and losing it all.

Eff the national media, and Boston fans have to get one thing straight--admit that L.A. are really, really good this year. If someone comes here talking about how good L.A. is, well, they're right. And so are the Celtics. I think Atlanta was a bad matchup (and a pesky, talented, but young team), and now that that series is over with, the Celtics will get down to business.

[MyInsatiableOne]

No doubt LA is very good, thanks to Chris Wallace, but the inclination for YEARS has been to nitpick on the good Boston teams while pumping up the bad, mediocre, or good LA/NY teams.

Oh well, who cares? We all know who's really the best!

[spf211]

Do we honestly think if the Western Conference was less competitive and in the first round the Lakers faced a team 29 games worse than them (I'll be generous and make Sacramento the comparison here, a 19 game difference, instead of the Clippers, a 34 game difference) that the national media wouldn't be all over Los Angeles for not sweeping the Kings?

No one is raising questions about the Lakers because the team hasn't given a reason for any to be raised.

Against better competition in the playoffs so far, Los Angeles has impressively taken care of business. Against inferior competition in the playoffs so far, Boston has shown some serious deficencies.

It's not a conspiracy -- it is what it is.

[TommyPoints]

I agree, but its obvious it just was a bad matchup for Boston and Atlanta is better than their record gives them credit for.

[MyInsatiableOne]

I agree, but its obvious it just was a bad matchup for Boston and Atlanta is better than their record gives them credit for.

Yup.

spf seems to be a self-loathing C's fan

[ermocrate]

I agree, but its obvious it just was a bad matchup for Boston and Atlanta is better than their record gives them credit for.

Yeah, PO games are basicly matchups games.

Bibby-Rondo OK
JJ-Ray Not so good
PP-Childress OK but with the help of athletic freaks inside the paint it's very hard
Garnett-J.Smith Terrible
Perkins-Horford is In Offensive favor of ATL

With Cleveland

West-Rondo Great matchup for us
Wally-Ray no contest
LeBron-PP Slightly in Cle favor
Wallace-Garnett all in our favor
Z-Perkins Clearly in Cle favor if Z hits the outside shot.

[spf211]

spf seems to be a self-loathing C's fan

I actually love this team and the players on it -- Doc Rivers had me fooled for 82 games thinking we had a legitimate shot at the title; but not any longer.

There's a difference between watching a team struggle and using that to inform your opinion about how far they can go and blindly thinking, regarldess of what happens, the Celtics are destined to win it all.

[ermocrate]

-= original quote snipped =-



I actually love this team and the players on it -- Doc Rivers had me fooled for 82 games thinking we had a legitimate shot at the title; but not any longer.

There's a difference between watching a team struggle and using that to inform your opinion about how far they can go and blindly thinking, regarldess of what happens, the Celtics are destined to win it all.

Did you ever tinked, during this series, we would be upset? Man we destroyed ATL in every single game we have play at the Garden...

[spf211]

Did I think we would be upset? I probably thought after we couldn't win in Atlanta there was a slim, maybe 5% chance, that it would happen -- especially given what happened the last time we saw Doc coach a Celtics team in Game 7.

Beyond that, the Hawks forced a team that already has some old legs to play, in my honest opinion, three more games than they should have. I don't see any series from here on out lasting short of 7 games and it only further weakens the Celtics as they go on.

But the "upset" factor is besides the point because the Celtics proved an inability to win on the road. And this was against our easiest opponent and the easiest crowd -- it only gets harder from here on in. So now as the Celtics move on to face Cleveland or Detroit or Los Angeles you get teams that have increasingly more difficult home courts and are increasingly more likely to win in Boston.

Right now, until Doc can prove otherwise, all it will take is a Cleveland win in Boston and all the pressure is on the Celtics to win a road game. And it should be. They have yet to prove they can do it in the playoffs.

Can the Celtics win the title without ever winning a road game? Sure. Is it very likely? No. Should Celtic fans be worried after the Hawks series? Absolutely.

[GuyClinch]

Way to jump off the bandwagon man. Come on dude - you have to have a little faith to be a sports fan. Do you think Giants fans spent their time "analyzing" why they had no shot against the Pats. Try to enjoy the good times while they last..

Pete

[MyInsatiableOne]

Way to jump off the bandwagon man. Come on dude - you have to have a little faith to be a sports fan. Do you think Giants fans spent their time "analyzing" why they had no shot against the Pats. Try to enjoy the good times while they last..

Pete