chakdaddy wrote:Of course not - it benefited you guys, but it didn't reflect well on your team that it took a collapse to beat a team missing KG.
That depends on what you mean by "collapse", because if you mean collapse as in the Celtics were outplayed, then yes that was definitely the case. I mean, let's not pretend here that the Celtics lost purely on their own doing, and that this had nothing to do with the Magic and the way they played.
Based on what you're saying, it's like saying the Finals win doesn't reflect well on the Lakers because it took a collapse (one of the biggest choking displays ever by Howard, Lee, and Turkoglu) to beat a team missing a healthy Jameer Nelson. But nah, a win is a win. The Lakers were the better team.
There is nothing tainted about it. Just remember, the Hawks took you guys to 7 games a year before that, and you HAD KG.
I mean, obviously what you say is literally true; but you were missing your 4th best player; we were missing our best player, an MVP candidate who was the centerpiece of the team. And it still wound up being close. So the only SPECULATION that makes much sense is that Boston would have won with KG, especially if Orlando played as poorly as they did in that series. If you guys played like you did vs Cleveland, and not like you did vs Boston, LA, and to an extent, Philly...then it's anybody's game yeah, but you've still got to favor the champs in a hard fought series.
Last year you guys played great for 1 series to beat Cleveland, but barely beat an injury decimated Celtics team that you should have swept, then were overmatched in the finals.
Actually, majority considered Jameer Nelson the 2nd best player on that team. But that's besides the point.
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't talk about it with a definitive certainty because the NBA isn't a vacuum wherein all factors remain constant. The odds are in the favor of Boston winning if KG played, but even then you can't be sure. That team you took to 7 is ALSO a different team from what it would be had Jameer Nelson been present, regardless of his value compared to Garnett.
The main chip of many people here seems to be "We took Orlando to 7 without KG, what more if we had him?". That's just as simplistic as saying "Atlanta once took Boston w/ Garnett to 7 when they were a below .500 team. They were well above .500 last season and were MUCH better, so they likely would have beaten Boston w/ a healthy Garnett had they met again in the Playoffs"
We can play that game all day long, you see how pointless it is?
Actually, looking at your post more closely, I don't think we're really disagreeing in the first place...
You guys are looking good this year though, and we're still looking shaky; I'll admit I'm starting to take the Magic more seriously as a threat this year.
You are right, we are not really disagreeing with a lot anyway. I guess it's just a few minor points here and there, but what the heck. As happy as I am with the Magic winning yesterday, I am NOT taking Boston lightly at all, and it hasn't changed my opinion of them. I still view them as a clear cut contender along with the best of them, and one game doesn't change that.
This thread probably shouldn't have been started by the OP in the first place, but let's just let bygones be bygones and stop this griping about who won and who "would've won if..." etc. It's pretty clear by now, that these two teams are capable of beating each other any given night WITH or WITHOUT certain players. That's nothing to be ashamed of at all
