StillUnknown Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Can someone tell me who these people are picking against 73 win GSW? old heads looking for something to invalidate the team's greatness Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichmondRedskin88 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 The Bulls didn't play a team as good as these Thunder either. And they still got smashed by 21 in game 4 of the Finals too I openly questioned if they were point shaving that game. Back then you didn't run over teams. You wouldn't have teams like Cleveland playing preseason warm ups to the finals. You wouldn't see such mismatches where one team is up 80 at half time. Most series were battles. There are a few quality teams every year now. Back then you had quality teams not making the postseason. Now you have a bunch of lousy teams that act as a warm up to the quality teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justice98 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 People that think Love and Irving are worth two more wins against the Warriors than Cleveland was able to get without them last time. Thats the most convincing argument out there right now. I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that it's the one I've heard and read a bunch. The Cavs are better than the Thunder and the Thunder just took GSW to seven. There's a lot of arguments that give Cleveland a decent chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 People that think Love and Irving are worth two more wins against the Warriors than Cleveland was able to get without them last time. Thats the most convincing argument out there right now. I'm not saying I believe it, I'm just saying that it's the one I've heard and read a bunch. Agai zt last years Warriors, sure. Not these mf'ers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 There are a few quality teams every year now. Back then you had quality teams not making the postseason. Now you have a bunch of lousy teams that act as a warm up to the quality teams. This is so wrong. The talent nowadays is head and shoulders higher than it was back then. Not even close. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillUnknown Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 The Cavs are better than the Thunder and the Thunder just took GSW to seven. There's a lot of arguments that give Cleveland a decent chance. I'm not convinced the Cavs are better than the Thunder team that beat San Antone and took GS to 7 games 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 This is so wrong. The talent nowadays is head and shoulders higher than it was back then. Not even close. Doesn't keep people from still trying to convince themselves of it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 The Cavs are better than the Thunder and the Thunder just took GSW to seven. There's a lot of arguments that give Cleveland a decent chance. the Cavs are also very different than the Thunder. The Thunder are much longer and more athletic than the Cavs, and when the refs are in "playoff mode" they can uder that length to crash the offensive boards and not worry about ticky-tack fouls just because they crash into someone's back. I give Cleveland a good chance because 1) they shoot from outside much better than the Thunder and 2) Lebron is a basketball genius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 This is so wrong. The talent nowadays is head and shoulders higher than it was back then. Not even close. In terms of basketball IQ, if you want to argue it's lower now, I guess you could because you have less guys learning over three to four years in college. Not saying that's accurate, just saying it's at least an argument to be made. But yes, in terms of physical talent and athleticism, there's no question we are at the apex of the NBA pretty easily too. In the end though, the NBA has always been a few elite teams competing for a title with a bunch of pretenders and that will never change so what's the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sinister Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I'm not convinced the Cavs are better than the Thunder team that beat San Antone and took GS to 7 games Not to mention getting handled in Canada the way they did by Lowry and Derozan is a bad omen. They aint Steph and Klay. The Cavs will have to play perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Doesn't keep people from still trying to convince themselves of it It's strange. I watched the NBA all through the 90s, and mostly it was terrible basketball. Those Knicks teams had no talent - they just beat up on people. The Pacers had one shooter and a bunch of stiffs. Utah was literally a two man team. Mediocre teams regularly won 50 games because of the lack of talent. The Bulls were truly great, but they were the only complete team in the league. In terms of basketball IQ, if you want to argue it's lower now, I guess you could because you have less guys learning over three to four years in college. Not saying that's accurate, just saying it's at least an argument to be made. I dunno. I think guys were just as dumb back then, but the game was so much slower and you had many fewer decisions to make. When a team posts up 50 times a game and illegal defense rules force you into only two choices for how you defend it... when the offense just stands around waiting to see what happens on the post up - that style of game is pretty easy to master. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Gsw would go down as one of the best if it takes the title but it won't be the best. They got run over in a couple games in these playoffs which never happened to like the Bulls. Okc >>>> any team those bulls ever faced. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 It's strange. I watched the NBA all through the 90s, and mostly it was terrible basketball. Those Knicks teams had no talent - they just beat up on people. The Pacers had one shooter and a bunch of stiffs. Utah was literally a two man team. Mediocre teams regularly won 50 games because of the lack of talent. 100% agree on this. What was exciting about watching a bunch of 84-79 games with no ball movement? Those were ugly days for the league and that is not how the game is supposed to be played. The Knicks and Heat were not good basketball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 There was more drama in the playoffs but the quality of play was much worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 OKC needs a hardened veteran with championship experience. Someone like Paul Pierce. That was fisher and that didn't work. did he really have to add in the rhetorical ".... someone that doesn't suck" at the end there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 Back then you didn't run over teams. You wouldn't have teams like Cleveland playing preseason warm ups to the finals. You wouldn't see such mismatches where one team is up 80 at half time. Most series were battles. There are a few quality teams every year now. Back then you had quality teams not making the postseason. Now you have a bunch of lousy teams that act as a warm up to the quality teams.this is all completely untrue. Especially in the 1995-96 NBA which was the final year where the league expanded by 6 teams in 8 years, further diluting talent. The Magic were arguably as good as the Thunder, and the Bulls swept them.debatable, at best and they played in a terrible division. I think OKC would beat that Magic team in a 7 game series. The Cavs are better than the Thunder and the Thunder just took GSW to seven. There's a lot of arguments that give Cleveland a decent chance.the Thunder are long and athletic. The Cavs are not that. The Thunder also played amazing defense, the Cavs just cant with Love and Irving on the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 In terms of basketball IQ, if you want to argue it's lower now, I guess you could because you have less guys learning over three to four years in college. Not saying that's accurate, just saying it's at least an argument to be made. But yes, in terms of physical talent and athleticism, there's no question we are at the apex of the NBA pretty easily too. In the end though, the NBA has always been a few elite teams competing for a title with a bunch of pretenders and that will never change so what's the difference. I would argue that the basketball IQs in the 70s and 80s were higher than they are today, because those guys (for the most part) spent 4 years with drill sergeant coaches....and those that didn't (Bird, Magic, Isiah) were preternaturally gifted in that area. Of course, no one lifted weights and everyone was on cocaine so how this impacted the actual quality of the game may be up for debate. The 90s into the early 2000s were a truly dreadful time to be an NBA fan. I will never understand why anyone wants to go back and watch those Knicks-Heat rock fights. And Reggie Miller is the single most over-rated player in all of team sports history. I don't think that can be argued. In watching the last two games especially, one thing became clear: The Thunder are forever missing James Harden. They've rebuilt a championship level team, but, they still really only have two guys who can score/get their own shot. Game 6 was a game designed by God for Harden. The Warriors were in the penalty so early in the 4th Quarter. He would have shot 15 free throws in that quarter. Cleveland's guard play will probably decide this. Irving can't be such a defensive liability that he forces Delavadova to play a lot of minutes. And JR Smith can't suddenly decide that he wants to get into a three point shooting contest with Curry and Klay. It just seems like Cleveland has been trying to play like the Warriors, but there is no way they can win if it becomes a question of who makes more threes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I would argue that the basketball IQs in the 70s and 80s were higher than they are today, because those guys (for the most part) spent 4 years with drill sergeant coaches....and those that didn't (Bird, Magic, Isiah) were preternaturally gifted in that area.i disagree with this because there was an infantile concept of team defense back then. You could use zone in college, but the zones played in college are not as complex as in the NBA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveakl Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Do Itch Big Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 You ever try cocaine? That might make not lifting weights a wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taylor703 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Warriors are one of the GOAT teams, and may be the GOAT team after this season is over. Curry went to another level. Was amazing to see. The team defended great the last two games as well. If they can play with that intensity on defense, IM not sure what the Cavs can do to beat them. Especially since the main problem Golden State had this series was with OKC's athleticism, which the Cavs do not have much of. I just feel like the 72-10 bulls would've waxed this warriors team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I just feel like the 72-10 bulls would've waxed this warriors team. Nostalgia is a helluva drug. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) The Magic were arguably as good as the Thunder, and the Bulls swept them. Yep. Those Jazz teams were good too. And this Thunder team constitutes the only quality opponent GS has faced in the postseason over the last two years. Those Magic teams were the Thunder. Except they had a terrific player at all five positions. Penny was a little better than Westbrook and Shaq was better than Durant. They could have been the next Magic and Kareem if Shaq had stayed and Penny hadn't wrecked his knees. They also beat Chicago in the postseason the year before, they were legit. Edited June 1, 2016 by stevemcqueen1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhead36 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I just feel like the 72-10 bulls would've waxed this warriors team. Agreed. I don't see anyone beating prime Jordan in a series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Going Commando Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 This is so wrong. The talent nowadays is head and shoulders higher than it was back then. Not even close. The shooting is better now. But the ball handlers were better in the 90s and the bigs were much, much better. The centers now are trash and they have been since Shaq and Duncan declined in the early 2000s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now