Jump to content

NBA 2004-2005


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 803
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd love to see the Suns win, I think they're playing the most exciting basketball in the NBA.

However, I don't see them getting past Tim Duncan's Spurs, and even if they did I don't think they'd beat the Heat or the Pistons. Running teams have a hard time beating teams that are stronger in the half-court set, so teams that have big men such as Duncan, Shaq, or Rasheed Wallace/Ben Wallace slow the game down. No turnovers, no fastbreaks, no victory for the Suns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the Suns win, I think they're playing the most exciting basketball in the NBA.

However, I don't see them getting past Tim Duncan's Spurs, and even if they did I don't think they'd beat the Heat or the Pistons. Running teams have a hard time beating teams that are stronger in the half-court set, so teams that have big men such as Duncan, Shaq, or Rasheed Wallace/Ben Wallace slow the game down. No turnovers, no fastbreaks, no victory for the Suns.

I think they'd beat the Pistons easy. Heat, a little harder. Spurs very tough.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phoenix cannot sustain a half court series where so many adjustments have to be made. All they do is run, run, run. In the series, you have to constantly make adjustments to a slower game and they have none at this point.

Phoenix is out in the second round.

B-)

:bwallace: Detroit is starting to toughen up.. Prince is the key....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Pistons have lost that much steam, Guy?  I was figuring they would duke it out with the Heat in a seven-gamer for the East.

I think the Pistons are a little overrated. They're about as good as their record suggests. Some of this is a decline from last year, but I think f the Spurs had made it to the finals, we'd have a different champion this year. Though I agree they will probably push the Heat to seven games.

I think I'm going to get Che'd if I keep going on this thread. Jim, have mercy! :)

Guy

Edited by Guy Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy, you have to be kidding me. The Spurs got beat by the Lakers last year. THE LAKERS! You saw what Detroit did to them in the finals, didn't you? It was pitiful (if one is a Lakers fan, that is!) And you think a team that got beat by the Lakers would've beat Detroit? Pul-leaze.

I think Detroit is better than they even know. They have had a rough season, what with the brawl, Larry's health problems (and his general restless attitude) and some injuries with a bench that isn't too deep to begin with. But I honestly think they are still a contender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guy, you have to be kidding me.  The Spurs got beat by the Lakers last year.  THE LAKERS!  You saw what Detroit did to them in the finals, didn't you?  It was pitiful (if one is a Lakers fan, that is!)  And you think a team that got beat by the Lakers would've beat Detroit?  Pul-leaze.

I agree what happened to the Lakers was pitiful. I was glad to see them lose. But what you're saying (Pistons>Lakers & Lakers>Spurs => Pistons>Spurs) doesn't make sense. Just because the Pistons had a much easier time with the Lakers than they did with New Jersey and Indiana doesn't mean that New Jersey and Indiana were better teams than the Lakers (and ergo, the Spurs). It just means that luck often plays a role in these series. Sometimes the worse team (Detroit in the championship, Lakers in the conference finals) wins. Sometimes the better team can't get their act together and doesn't really try.

And this isn't intended to diss the Pistons' achievement -- they outplayed the Lakers in that series, by a mile.

I think Detroit is better than they even know.  They have had a rough season, what with the brawl, Larry's health problems (and his general restless attitude) and some injuries with a bench that isn't too deep to begin with.  But I honestly think they are still a contender.

I think they're about as good as their record. I agree that they're a contender in that their chances of winning aren't 0. Assuming that they make it past Miami (unlikely), they have a very small chance of beating the Spurs or Suns. They're not an overwhelming underdog against the Mavs.

Edited by Guy Berger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't forget the freakish 0.4 second shot Derek Fisher hit to sink the Spurs in San Antonio. That shot propelled the Lakers to play beyond their injury-riddled roster, but only in getting past the Spurs. When the Finals rolled around, there was no Malone, no Devean George, Rick Fox and GP were playing the worst ball of their careers, and Kobe decided he'd rather force shots than work the ball to Shaq. Combine that with not having anyone to match up well defensively with Rasheed and Rip, and there it was...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't forget the freakish 0.4 second shot Derek Fisher hit to sink the Spurs in San Antonio. That shot propelled the Lakers to play beyond their injury-riddled roster, but only in getting past the Spurs. When the Finals rolled around, there was no Malone, no Devean George, Rick Fox and GP were playing the worst ball of their careers, and Kobe decided he'd rather force shots than work the ball to Shaq. Combine that with not having anyone to match up well defensively with Rasheed and Rip, and there it was...

I think the Spurs were overall a better team and choked.

Guy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can't forget the freakish 0.4 second shot Derek Fisher hit to sink the Spurs in San Antonio. That shot propelled the Lakers to play beyond their injury-riddled roster, but only in getting past the Spurs. When the Finals rolled around, there was no Malone, no Devean George, Rick Fox and GP were playing the worst ball of their careers, and Kobe decided he'd rather force shots than work the ball to Shaq. Combine that with not having anyone to match up well defensively with Rasheed and Rip, and there it was...

Well......

That's basketball isn't it, a TEAM effort???

Isn't that why they have 12 men instead of just 5???

Karl Malone was never the issue with the Lakers, you are still grasping for straws..

B-)

:bwallace:DETROIT ROCKS YET AGAIN!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because the Pistons had a much easier time with the Lakers than they did with New Jersey and Indiana doesn't mean that New Jersey and Indiana were better teams than the Lakers (and ergo, the Spurs).

I think that's exactly what it means. Both New Jersey and Indiana would've done the same thing to the Lakers. The Lakers last year were playing on their reputation and the Spurs bought into it and got psyched out.

I agree that a Pistons/Spurs series would be tougher, but I still think the Pistons would've won it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...