FNQ wrote:OsuCavsfan103 wrote:FNQ wrote:[
We weren't down 0-2 to start.
Warriors controlled the whole thing in 2015, and the Cavs roared back in 2016. The difference is that in 2015 the games weren't close at the end, and 2016 ended on the final play.
Can't ask others to be gracious while not expecting the same of yourself.
My bad, I meant 1-2. Still the same applies, you won the first game in OT when Irving had to leave the game, then lost the next 2 games failing behind 1-2 in the seires. How exactly is that controlling the series? You lost HCA after game 2 for crying out loud.
That's fair, when we lost game 2 there was concern. After game 4 that concern was gone, after game 5 the series looked pretty wrapped up. Point being, that wasn't a close series, while 2016 absolutely was.. so if I and other W's fans are to be gracious we got a title (one that we got handily), it should absolutely go in the opposite direction, as 2016 was decided by one shot in the final seconds.
To be fair, the Cavs were missing their only other real offensive options. What we had to deal with was so much more difficult than what the Warriors had to deal with. And keep in mind when I say that, I'm not trying to rub salt in a wound or anything. Immediately after the Cavs won, Warriors fans came to the GB and claimed it was due to injury and directly compared their situation to ours. It's fairly obvious considering the impact Kyrie had in the series that what the Cavs had to go through was more difficult. It's not something I really even want to discuss but when we've heard from people how it's pretty much the same thing, I feel compelled to discuss it at that point, because that seemed to just be homerism at its finest.
I happen to think that if Kyrie doesn't get hurt, we win in 2015 and then the Warriors come back and win in 2016. So either way we'd both have titles and I'm fine with that. But then every now and then you hear that the Cavs got lucky to get a title, and at that point I'm compelled to point out that if both teams were fully healthy both years, the Cavs would have a better shot at winning both. It's just how people react to certain fan bases and for whatever reason, some Warriors fans get to me.
I know that last year going to 7 games makes you want to think that the series was closer than 2015, but I actually don't think that's the case:
Games 1 and 2 - both went to OT so no need to discuss
Game 3 - 5 point win for Cavs
Game 4 - Cavs only down 6 heading into the 4th, only down 3 late in the 3rd
Game 5 - Cavs had a lead with 8 minutes to play in the game
Game 6 - Cavs had the lead in the 3rd quarter, Warriors pulled away late in the 3rd
So the only game where the Cavs didn't hold at least one lead in the 2nd half was game 4 - and with about 13 minutes to play in that game, Cavs were only down 3. In 4 of the 6 game, the Cavs actually held a 4th quarter lead.
Compare that to the first 6 games of 2016...blow out city except game 4, which still ended in a decisive win for the Warriors (although it was closer than the other games). On a game by game basis, the 2015 series was much more competitive IMO.
