2016 NBA Playoffs - Page 22 - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

highnote · 06-05-2016, 10:43 PM

No big deal. This is not the time to panic. Cavs down 2 games to none. They will sweep the next 4.

burnsy · 06-05-2016, 10:43 PM

GS owns the 4th quarter......if you are behind them after 3 quarters, its just going to get uglier in the 4th. Even though the 1rst game was close...the Cavs and every other team, can't keep pace at the end. They run these other teams into the ground with ball movement and big shots.

highnote · 06-05-2016, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by burnsy

GS owns the 4th quarter......if you are behind them after 3 quarters, its just going to get uglier in the 4th. Even though the 1rst game was close...the Cavs and every other team, can't keep pace at the end. They run these other teams into the ground with ball movement and big shots.

You have to admit... it's impressive that LeBron hand-picked this team and his new coach.

The performance of his hand-picked team and coach, on the other hand, leaves a lot to be desired ... so far... against GS...

But I'm sticking to my guns... Cavs will sweep the next 4.

Valuist · 06-05-2016, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj

Watching these first two games makes me thinks the Cavs are about the 5th best team in the NBA at best.

I was trying to determine whether they were better or not than the Clippers. They don't look like it. Cleveland had played for nearly a month in the kiddie pool.....now they are in the deep end.

lansdale · 06-06-2016, 01:50 AM

Looks like Scott Foster wasn't as much of a factor in this game as I thought ;-).
Maybe all the scrutiny in the press (or the league office) got to him. Regardless, this series appears to be about over. Cavs can't even beat GSW bench guys.
Although GSW clearly the better team, thought this might be a little more competitive.

Biggest surprise is how badly (for him) LBJ is playing. When was the last time he didn't get at least 20 in a finals game? His drives to the hoop seem very slow and his hops seem to have vanished. GSW frontcourt players simply taking turns stuffing him. Since his outside shot is also gone, he doesn't draw double-teams so the 3-shooters can't get open shots off his shoot/drive or kick. He was really the engine of this simple offense and the engine has stalled out. The reversion to iso-ball doesn't work.

I've seen people are tending to go pirahna on the Cavs at this point, but I think it's good to keep things in perspective -- this may be the best team ever to play in the NBA. At this point, not only Curry but Green also are better players than LBJ, and that's saying something.

BTW, hope Love's concussion not serious. I missed the part of the game where they pulled him out due to concussion symptoms from the Barnes elbow in the first half.

tucker6 · 06-06-2016, 06:35 AM

I feel compelled on behalf of SRU to let you all know that Lebron is better than MJ.

Rookies · 06-06-2016, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tucker6

I feel compelled on behalf of SRU to let you all know that Lebron is better than MJ.

Flat out embarrassing when stated.

Now?

Oy vey.

ronsmac · 06-06-2016, 12:10 PM

A matter of matchups. Cavs handled OKC pretty easily, GS life and death vs OKC all year. Even in their regular season wins. GS has owned the Cavs since game 4 last year. I was begging OKC to close the deal against GS but it wasn't meant to be. An earlier poster said GS may be the best team of all time. All year I was saying they are the best tean of all time. 140 wins in two years and back to back titles at a time when the NBA's athletes at are at an all time high. The best I've ever seen and I've been an avid NBA fan since the 70s.

Valuist · 06-06-2016, 12:16 PM

Golden State IS a great team but best of all time? Maybe for one season (assuming they close out Cleveland). But not the best over several years. I still believe the Bulls 3 peat teams, over 3 years are better. But this team does remind me of the Bulls a bit; the GS/OKC series was like some of the series the Bulls had vs the Knicks. And when they finally got past the Knicks, the Finals were easier.

I suspect the Warriors won't three peat. I've already posted in another thread how difficult it is to repeat titles, let alone 3 peat, in any of the major sports. All the extra games, and this year and the focus during the 82 game season to get the win record.

RXB · 06-06-2016, 01:25 PM

When was the last time that a team had three guys the calibre of Curry (28), Thompson (26) and Green (26) all in their early-mid prime years?

Plus GSW has lots of young-to-prime depth, no cap issues and they won 67 games last year and 73 games this year. They are set for a sustained run of success.

Valuist · 06-06-2016, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RXB

When was the last time that a team had three guys the calibre of Curry (28), Thompson (26) and Green (26) all in their early-mid prime years?

Plus GSW has lots of young-to-prime depth, no cap issues and they won 67 games last year and 73 games this year. They are set for a sustained run of success.

I remember watching the 1985 Bears team tear thru the league. And they were the youngest team in the NFL. It wasn't going to be just one Super Bowl. Would it be 2? Three?

We know how that turned out. And on paper, the Warriors will certainly be the team to beat next year. But I give OKC a shot. They got really close. They just need some small changes and only slight ascension and slight regression from the Warriors.

I will be heading to Reno in October (hopefully to cash my MLB futures) and to make NBA futures for next season. The T-wolves Over (provided the number isn't ridiculous) is on the docket, and possibly an OKC to win it all (assuming Durant stays).

Valuist · 06-06-2016, 01:43 PM

And regarding the Warriors, let's not underestimate the impact of guys like Iguadala and Bogut. Both have come up big; not sure GS wins last year without the play of Iggy. Both are advanced in years. Not sure how much both will have left. Livingston is another guy who's had a big impact but isn't young. And as for Curry, he's not old but those ankles are shaky. They may bother him the rest of his career.

RXB · 06-06-2016, 01:59 PM

Bears were a one-year wonder that did it with a defensive scheme that was ahead of its time. McMahon was an okay starting QB and a bit of a headcase, nothing more and that makes a huge difference to a football team's ongoing title chances.

I see nothing about the Warriors to make me think that they aren't going to be a very strong team for an extended period. Shaq and Kobe three-peated; so can the Curry/Green/Thompson trio. And really, the point isn't so much about a three-peat as it is that they are set star-wise, depth-wise, age-wise, contract-wise, cap-wise to be very strong for at least a few more years. OKC got hot in the playoffs this season and maybe can grab a title but unless they come up with another top player they're going to be at a disadvantage against the Warriors. I haven't seen a franchise in this kind of shape for a long time.

Valuist · 06-06-2016, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RXB

Bears were a one-year wonder that did it with a defensive scheme that was ahead of its time. McMahon was an okay starting QB and a bit of a headcase, nothing more and that makes a huge difference to a football team's ongoing title chances.

I see nothing about the Warriors to make me think that they aren't going to be a very strong team for an extended period. Shaq and Kobe three-peated; so can the Curry/Green/Thompson trio. And really, the point isn't so much about a three-peat as it is that they are set star-wise, depth-wise, age-wise, contract-wise, cap-wise to be very strong for at least a few more years. OKC got hot in the playoffs this season and maybe can grab a title but unless they come up with another top player they're going to be at a disadvantage against the Warriors. I haven't seen a franchise in this kind of shape for a long time.

The Bears were 14-2 in 1986 and actually set (a then record) for fewest points allowed. The defense had Al Harris and Todd Bell back, both who held out during the 1985 season. But they stubbed their toe in the playoffs against Washington. The following year, they hosted the defending champion Giants in the Monday night football opener. At the time, it was as big a regular season NFL game as I can remember, and the Bears won it. But the strike was to shortly follow, and the 1987 season was lost. They made it back to the NFC title game in 1988, but once again lost to the Redskins.

Two points to my rambling: the Bears weren't a one year wonder, and more importantly, great teams can easily get derailed by unforeseen circumstances.

RXB · 06-06-2016, 04:46 PM

Bears were a great team for one season, no more. Their 1-3 record in playoff games-- all at Soldier Field-- over the next three years proved it, including getting demolished by the Niners (not Redskins) in that NFC Championship game. Plus, they played in a terrible division except for the '88 Vikings. Tampa, Detroit and Green Bay were basically six free wins per year over those four seasons.

The season after the Super Bowl victory, McMahon was a binge-drinking head case and Buddy Ryan had been hired away. They eked out several very close wins, offensively they struggled and thus were not a truly dominant team even though they were 14-2. Redskins (who got thumped by the Giants the following week) defeated them easily in the divisional playoff game and that was that. Not many parallels with the Warriors' situation.