NBA Playoffs 2007

[Krispy Kreme]

Or, if Nash had not fake flopped so much his team mates would not have left the bench. Did you notice how Nash was ready to lie there and writh in pain, until he saw the beginning of a fight and then he lept up and was suddenly ok.

don't get me wrong, I like Nash and respect him as a tough player, but I am tired of the fake flopping that goes on today in the NBA. It demeans the game and makes them look like pussies. And the Argentinean on the Spurs is the most guilty of flopping of anyone in the NBA.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Or, if Nash had not fake flopped so much his team mates would not have left the bench. Did you notice how Nash was ready to lie there and writh in pain, until he saw the beginning of a fight and then he lept up and was suddenly ok.

don't get me wrong, I like Nash and respect him as a tough player, but I am tired of the fake flopping that goes on today in the NBA. It demeans the game and makes them look like pussies. And the Argentinean on the Spurs is the most guilty of flopping of anyone in the NBA.

Dude, I hear ya loud and clear. 

Vlade Divac was the poster boy of floppers.

[pilferk]

Dude, I hear ya loud and clear. 

Vlade Divac was the poster boy of floppers.

Wow...there's 2 thing I never thought I'd see in the same sentence:

Vlade Divac and poster boy.



PS: I agree.....though I think ole Bill Laimbeer might win out in a head to head battle.

[estebanf]

And the Argentinean on the Spurs is the most guilty of flopping of anyone in the NBA.

Flopping is an art, and Manu is very talented doing that. If you know how to do it correctly, and you dont abuse of it, its a very useful move, and I also think that gives the match spectacularity.

And Manu learned to flop in the NBA. He never used to do that playing in Argentina or Europe...

Give him the MVP, he was robbed once, give him what he deserves this time 

[sandman]

Idiotic or not in terms of older teams, there are still three post-1990 teams that are ranked worse than the Cavs.

And if you can come up with a better formula, then let's see it.

Bill Simmons (aka the sports guy) has an extraordinary understanding of the nba. here's what he wrote in today's column (discussing the upcoming draft)...

We know who they're taking because it's the No Balls Association and nobody would ever dare pass up a franchise center with a ceiling (Greg Oden) for a franchise forward with no ceiling (Kevin Durant). That lack of originality explains why the league is so screwed up and a limited team like the Cavs could become the worst Finals team since the '59 Lakers.

[Mal Brossard]

The only reason you're quoting him is because he agrees with you.  If he calls them one of the five worst, you wouldn't care.

I stand by my belief that the 2001 Sixers were worse (but as a Philly fan, you'd never admit to that) as well as the 1999 Knicks.  The one Finals game they won was all Iverson.  Knicks were a #8 seed who should have been out long before they ever got to the Finals, the team Steve Kerr ranks as the worst finalists ever (and I'd take Steve Kerr's word as a former NBA player to mean a LOT more than Bill Simmons, who has played just as many NBA games as all the members of this board combined, possibly fewer).  Then of course, the 1981 Houston Rockets and their losing record in the regular season.  I could go on.  If you think this team is the worst ever to make the Finals, you're nuts, that windbag Bill Simmons included.

As an aside, only three players ever have been swept in their first NBA Finals and then gone on to win one with the same team: Elvin Hayes, Wes Unseld, and James Worthy.  So either LeBron will join some elite company with the Cavs, or he'll win one after the Lakers sign him to a $950M deal.

[sandman]

the 2001 sixers are not in the bottom 5. any educated hoops fan knows that. even that stupid formula you posted (which lists the 2004 lakers as one of the worst?!?!) puts that team out of the bottom 5.

here's another opinion...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=jones/070606&sportCat=nba

[Mal Brossard]

The 2004 Lakers ARE one of the worst.  Never before has a team full of so many big names underperformed so badly (with the exception of the 2004 USA Men's Olympic team).

Face it, you're a Philly homer.  The only "educated" basketball fans to you are the ones who go along with your homer views.

And I like how you conveniently skipped over the fact that this guy in your most recent article says the 2001 Sixers were just as bad of a team who just happened to get an MVP year from Iverson and a good coaching job.  News flash: coaching only goes so far.  A coach can't get out on the court and play the game for you.  Two below-average teams, two lame results.  You give the Cavs Larry Brown, they still get swept.  Give the Sixers Mike Brown and they still might win a game.

[sandman]

The 2004 Lakers ARE one of the worst.? Never before has a team full of so many big names underperformed so badly (with the exception of the 2004 USA Men's Olympic team).

Face it, you're a Philly homer.? The only "educated" basketball fans to you are the ones who go along with your homer views.

And I like how you conveniently skipped over the fact that this guy in your most recent article says the 2001 Sixers were just as bad of a team who just happened to get an MVP year from Iverson and a good coaching job.? News flash: coaching only goes so far.? A coach can't get out on the court and play the game for you.? Two below-average teams, two lame results.? You give the Cavs Larry Brown, they still get swept.? Give the Sixers Mike Brown and they still might win a game.

stick to hockey cause you don't know what you're talking about. your lack of understanding of the importance of coaching in b-ball is the proof. how do you think the nuggets pulled the upset this year? coaching was a major factor.

that lakers team was incredible. they beat the spurs (smack in the middle of their reign as a dynasty) and they were HEAVY favorites to beat the pistons. they lost to an inspired, defensive, and well-coached team. it was a major upset of a proven winner.

and for the record, i am hardly a "homer." i love philly sports team but have no problem calling them out when necessary. i am not blinded by my love for them; in fact, most philly fans have high standards and pretty negative views of their teams - they are usually quick to point out their teams' shortcomings. 

[Mal Brossard]

It's funny that someone doesn't want to be labeled a homer while commenting on a Bill Simmons piece.  Bill Simmons is one of the biggest reasons people outside of New England hate the Red Sox.

The fact you go against all logic, evidence, and numbers, and refuse to anoint that Sixers team as one of the worst Finals teams ever speaks volumes.  Homer.

As for Philly fans having high expectations and feeling free to criticize their teams, it may be true for the Eagles and Phillies, but I have never seen a blinder group of hockey fans than 90% of the Flyers' fans I've encountered.  I swear, most of them I've met in the past ten years acted like Lindros and Leclair were some sort of invincible demi-gods and that Brashear was god's gift to the world of hockey fights.

Once again, a good coach can only go so far and do so much for a team, no matter what sport we're playing here.  I'm not trying to underestimate Mike Brown's shortcomings.  He's clueless when it comes to creating a decent offense for a team (if he could do something with that offense, the Cavs played good enough defense that they could have won this series).  Maybe I'm stupid, but I doubt Brown tells the guys, "Just kind of stand there for 18 seconds and then try to make a pass."  Getting them to run the offense is his responsibility, but I think it took a beating like this to get them to realize they can't just "out-athlete" every other team.

Frankly, I like Mike Brown. He needs to develop an offensive scheme or bring in an assistant who has a clue on offense though. Overall, I'm ecstatic about this basketball season, even though "The Sweep" will now be added to "The Shot," "The Fumble," "The Drive," "The Catch," "The Mesa," etc.

As an aside, which would you rather be: the worst coach to make the Finals (and do it in only your second season), or the best coach never to make it?

[sandman]

you're right about SOME flyers fans. there is a large, die-hard segment of fans that are blind to reality. but most are not that way. 

the '01 sixers were not a classic team or anything, but you even said yourself they had arguably the best coach of all time, one of the top 50 players of all time IN HIS PRIME, and they played exceptional defense.

the '01 sixers had the following:

- MVP
- coach of the year
- defensive player of the year
- 6th man of the year

they were the class of the East, the #1 seed, and lived up to it in some of the most exciting eastern conference playoffs of this decade.

this cavs team is simply no comparison. they're one superstar is unproven and has not yet lived up to the hype.

but for some reason you want to hold this cavs team in high regard. you're on your own, and we will have to agree to disagree.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

The 2004 Lakers ARE one of the worst.  Never before has a team full of so many big names underperformed so badly (with the exception of the 2004 USA Men's Olympic team).

Face it, you're a Philly homer.  The only "educated" basketball fans to you are the ones who go along with your homer views.

And I like how you conveniently skipped over the fact that this guy in your most recent article says the 2001 Sixers were just as bad of a team who just happened to get an MVP year from Iverson and a good coaching job.  News flash: coaching only goes so far.  A coach can't get out on the court and play the game for you.  Two below-average teams, two lame results.  You give the Cavs Larry Brown, they still get swept.  Give the Sixers Mike Brown and they still might win a game.

stick to hockey cause you don't know what you're talking about. your lack of understanding of the importance of coaching in b-ball is the proof. how do you think the nuggets pulled the upset this year? coaching was a major factor.

that lakers team was incredible. they beat the spurs (smack in the middle of their reign as a dynasty) and they were HEAVY favorites to beat the pistons. they lost to an inspired, defensive, and well-coached team. it was a major upset of a proven winner.

and for the record, i am hardly a "homer." i love philly sports team but have no problem calling them out when necessary. i am not blinded by my love for them; in fact, most philly fans have high standards and pretty negative views of their teams - they are usually quick to point out their teams' shortcomings. 

Dude, I'm a Lakers fan, but that team didn't deserve to get out of the second round against the Spurs.  Derek Fisher's lucky shot changed all of that.

They were a VERY disappointing team, lasted only five games against what was perceived to be a "weak" Eastern conference team.

[sandman]

you call fisher's shot lucky. i call it CLUTCH. and that's not what "changed" that series. LA coming back and winning 2 straight in san antonio after being down 2-0 changed the series.

and your making my point about the lakers. you were disappointed with them cause expectations were sky high - championship or bust. those expectations were legitimate because they were a good team.

i give detroit a ton of credit for coming up with a perfect game plan, and executing it perfectly. those finals were a major upset. most didn't think detroit had a prayer.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

They tied the series at home.  Lots of teams do that.

Clutch is another word for lucky.  .4 seconds?  There has to be some luck involved in that.

They just completely imploded in Detroit.  We're talking blowout losses.  And if Kobe hadn't sent the game to overtime in game 2, it would have been a clean sweep for Detroit.

[sandman]

you're right. i forgot the lakers won their division and had home court.

this discussion started because of my belief that the cavs are an average team.

if the 2004 lakers played the 2007 cavs, the lakers would sweep them. shaq would score 40 with his eyes closed.   

[Mal Brossard]

if the 2004 lakers played the 2007 cavs, the lakers would sweep them. shaq would score 40 with his eyes closed.   

Obviously.  I don't think there's anyone who would argue the Cavs would win this one.  Maybe they'd take a game, but not the whole series.

And for the record, I never argued that the 2004 Lakers were worse than the 2007 Cavs.

[sandman]

Durant or Oden.

who would you take? who will have the better career?

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Durant.

Portland, see: David Bowie

[CheapJon]

Mal Brossard.. your avatar sux ..............................................................

[Mal Brossard]

Mal Brossard.. your avatar sux ..............................................................

Yeah, it just doesn't go far enough, does it?

I'd take Oden, but I'm also an OSU fan.  However, it seems dominant big men win championships now, so I'd say that's a good reason to take him.

1999: Robinson and Duncan
2000: Shaq
2001: Shaq
2002: Shaq
2003: Duncan
2004: Pistons didn't really have one
2005: Duncan
2006: Shaq
2007: Duncan