EPTNBA 2010-2011 Season - Page 142
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
| ||
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
1. Watching Brooks on defense tonight, I was amazed that they found someone who was worse on defense than Nash to back him up. Usually if you're small you have to make up for it in speed and energy, but Brooks made no effort whatsoever. 2. As for CHI as championship contenders, I think that it's still too early to call them favorites, or even serious threats, against proven championship teams like the Lakers or Celtics simply because they haven't proven anything in the playoffs yet. I'm actually surprised that I'm not hearing more of this from people, as that's usually the first cautionary comment that comes up when it comes to new and upcoming teams that tear it up in the regular season. As well as the Bulls have played, it should still be noted that apart from the transfers from the Jazz (i.e. Boozer, Brewer and Korver), no one on their roster has any significant experience in the playoffs past the first round. Rose and Noah have never done anything except been hard outs in the first round, and none of the former-Jazz players are what you'd call leader-types or players who can show a young squad how to win in tough postseason situations. However, I can see why people are saying that the Bulls look good coming out of the East because of how shaky the Celtics have looked post-Perkins trade, how unimpressive the Magic have been despite D12 having his best season, and the Heat having serious questions. However, each of those teams has leader(s) who have been to the Finals at least once, and have made multiple deep runs into the playoffs. I firmly believe that experience becomes very important in the postseason, and the Bulls don't have much of it when compared to the other top contenders. If I were the Lakers, I'd rather see the Bulls in the Finals than the Celtics or the Heat, both of whom have multiple players who have shown they can lead teams into deep playoff runs and show up big in big games. 3. Kobe and Lebron, despite both being some of the best playmakers in the league, are so effective off the ball for their respective teams. Both teams' offenses are so much more dangerous when those two guys are coming off screens, catching the ball on the move, and not just catching out on the perimeter and creating off the dribble. | ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
I think coaching is going to play a big key in these playoffs. Miami may have D-Wade & LeBron, but Spo could be easily out-coached by Doc & Thibs (hell Thibs has 30+ years experience in the NBA alone...that's sad if you really think about it). he was w/ the Knicks when Jordan kept crushing their dreams in the playoffs. so, what the players don't have in experience, the coaching staff does...and that cannot be discounted. honestly, I'm picking the Bulls to be in the Finals. reason being mostly b/c of that #1 seed; they'll cruise past Orlando and take on either a beat-up Miami or Boston team. Orlando w/ Gilbert Arenas on the squad = epic fucking fail. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
By the time you make the finals, your team has a lot of playoff experience. If they get through Orlando and Boston/Miami, they'll be ready for the finals. http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news/billrussell_postseason.html | ||
|
pinkranger15
Philippines1597 Posts
| ||
|
SpeaKEaSY
United States1070 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
On March 28 2011 14:40 XaI)CyRiC wrote: As well as the Bulls have played, it should still be noted that apart from the transfers from the Jazz (i.e. Boozer, Brewer and Korver), no one on their roster has any significant experience in the playoffs past the first round. Rose and Noah have never done anything except been hard outs in the first round, and none of the former-Jazz players are what you'd call leader-types or players who can show a young squad how to win in tough postseason situations. If I'm not mistaken, the Bulls took the Celtics to 7 games in the first or second round in their championship year. That's experience. edit: see below - damn, I was mistaken, but it's experience nonetheless! | ||
|
KOFgokuon
United States14912 Posts
celtics > bulls in the year that KG was hurt, 7 game first round series, and that's hardly the same team, the only players remaining are noah, deng, and rose. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On March 28 2011 16:07 FQD1911 wrote: now if you want to talk about premier players not having experience for the Bulls, sure. But, Scal & Kurt Thomas do; they'll be able to tell players what to do and how to play in tough environments. plus, Thibs has the coaching experience to have the players play (you have to learn sometime, right)? Scalabrine and Thomas? Those are the vets that you expect to provide the guidance and inspiration to the rest of the team to make it all the way to the Finals and win a championship? Both have been nothing more than role players for their teams throughout their careers, and have never been significant contributors to championship teams. Scalabrine had some good moments for the Celtics, but those were aberrations in the most extreme sense. I'm not sure what you mean by Thibodeau having the coaching experience to "have the players play", but my response to the "you have to learn sometime" is that I agree. However, it's very hard to make it to the Finals or win a championship if you're still learning how to play in those environments while playing against other teams that have already learned in previous seasons and are building on that experience already. I think coaching is going to play a big key in these playoffs. Miami may have D-Wade & LeBron, but Spo could be easily out-coached by Doc & Thibs (hell Thibs has 30+ years experience in the NBA alone...that's sad if you really think about it). he was w/ the Knicks when Jordan kept crushing their dreams in the playoffs. so, what the players don't have in experience, the coaching staff does...and that cannot be discounted. While Thibodeau is clearly a great coach, he also has shown nothing yet in the postseason. There's quite a bit of difference being an assistant coach and being a head coach of a championship team. It's my personal opinion that Thibodeau is the real deal and that he has all the makings of a championship coach, but to give him those laurels now before he's earned them is a bit much, and I think even he'd agree with that. At the end of the day though, it's still the players who have to play, and win, the games, not the coaches. I've yet to see an inexperienced team be led to an NBA championship or Finals by an experienced coach. You simply need experience on the floor, and I think there are legitimate concerns about whether Chicago has it. honestly, I'm picking the Bulls to be in the Finals. reason being mostly b/c of that #1 seed; they'll cruise past Orlando and take on either a beat-up Miami or Boston team. Orlando w/ Gilbert Arenas on the squad = epic fucking fail. There's nothing to argue here as this is your opinion, and one that is completely justified and may indeed turn out to be correct. I have a different opinion, but there's no right or wrong with these types of predictions  | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On March 28 2011 16:08 igotmyown wrote: Know what Bill Russell said about playoff experience? By the time you make the finals, your team has a lot of playoff experience. If they get through Orlando and Boston/Miami, they'll be ready for the finals. http://www.nba.com/playoffs2007/news/billrussell_postseason.html To be fair, what he said is that playoffs experience is overrated, not that it's a non-factor. Also, his opinion is contradicted for the most part by the results of the past 10 or so years. Apart from the Celtics and Lakers in 07-08, where neither team had made it past the first round the season before, all the other Finals participants had at least made it past the first round of the playoffs before making the Finals, let alone winning a championship. As for those Celtics and Lakers rosters that season, we all know that there were some very special circumstances involved, i.e. three experienced HOFers being traded to BOS without having to gut their roster, and the Lakers getting Gasol for basically nothing while already having a Finals-tested backcourt of Kobe and Fisher. I don't think Chicago is in the same situation as those teams were back then. | ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
| ||
|
Ack1027
United States7873 Posts
Can't wait to see how the bulls end up in the playoffs. Hopefully bowing out in mediocrity so we can quote this thread over and over next year. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
However, once in the Finals, it's the Lakers all the way | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
On March 29 2011 02:20 XaI)CyRiC wrote: To be fair, what he said is that playoffs experience is overrated, not that it's a non-factor. Also, his opinion is contradicted for the most part by the results of the past 10 or so years. Apart from the Celtics and Lakers in 07-08, where neither team had made it past the first round the season before, all the other Finals participants had at least made it past the first round of the playoffs before making the Finals, let alone winning a championship. As for those Celtics and Lakers rosters that season, we all know that there were some very special circumstances involved, i.e. three experienced HOFers being traded to BOS without having to gut their roster, and the Lakers getting Gasol for basically nothing while already having a Finals-tested backcourt of Kobe and Fisher. I don't think Chicago is in the same situation as those teams were back then. I would contradict your point by saying that teams with better players are the teams that have playoff and championship experience. Thus, playoff experience is a self-fulfilling prophesy: Great players get drafted to shitty teams, said shitty team makes the playoffs because they drafted said great player, shitty team gets bounced because it is shitty + 1 guy, smart general manager surrounds his guy with complements (getting boozer for the Bulls this year, Shaq for the Heat a few years back) and you get a good team. Look at the wealth of "championship experience" and playoff experience on the 2003 Lakers had, its not all that great. The team with the best players and the best scheme will win unless there are some serious matchup problems. | ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On March 29 2011 02:20 XaI)CyRiC wrote: To be fair, what he said is that playoffs experience is overrated, not that it's a non-factor. Also, his opinion is contradicted for the most part by the results of the past 10 or so years. Apart from the Celtics and Lakers in 07-08, where neither team had made it past the first round the season before, all the other Finals participants had at least made it past the first round of the playoffs before making the Finals, let alone winning a championship. As for those Celtics and Lakers rosters that season, we all know that there were some very special circumstances involved, i.e. three experienced HOFers being traded to BOS without having to gut their roster, and the Lakers getting Gasol for basically nothing while already having a Finals-tested backcourt of Kobe and Fisher. I don't think Chicago is in the same situation as those teams were back then. This is a misuse of history. Most of the teams made it that far because they had better teams, regardless of their playoff experience. For this to be a non-coincidental assertion, it would be that for the last 10 years, the team with MORE playoff experience won in the finals. Which discounts the 2004 Pistons over the Lakers, the 2003 Spurs winning over the Nets, 2005 is a tossup, 2006 the Mavs had more playoff experience than the Heat. Second, it's Bill Russell, and he didn't say it was a non-factor, he said that you have to get to the finals, which gives you playoff experience. The 2007 Celtics had 20 games of playoff experience before they even got to the finals. | ||
|
Judicator
United States7270 Posts
| ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
On March 29 2011 03:19 Ack1027 wrote: I'm still laughing at the fact that scalabrine was used as an example of playoff experience. Can't wait to see how the bulls end up in the playoffs. Hopefully bowing out in mediocrity so we can quote this thread over and over next year. still counts. if you look at how Scal is used, he's another coach. that experience is valuable (he's able to recount stories about how the Big 3 handled up for the '08 championship). yea he won't play, but if you discount Scal, you discount Thibs too (i look at Scal as a coach, not a player fyi). | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
On March 29 2011 03:25 cLutZ wrote:I would contradict your point by saying that teams with better players are the teams that have playoff and championship experience. Thus, playoff experience is a self-fulfilling prophesy: Great players get drafted to shitty teams, said shitty team makes the playoffs because they drafted said great player, shitty team gets bounced because it is shitty + 1 guy, smart general manager surrounds his guy with complements (getting boozer for the Bulls this year, Shaq for the Heat a few years back) and you get a good team. Look at the wealth of "championship experience" and playoff experience on the 2003 Lakers had, its not all that great. The team with the best players and the best scheme will win unless there are some serious matchup problems. I don't see how the statement that teams with better players are teams that have playoff and championship experience, since it seems to imply that playoff and championship experience makes players better (which is generally true IMO). I don't believe any part of that contradicts my post. As for the whole cycle/process you described, it doesn't always, or even often, work that way. If we look at the recent champions, you have the Spurs who were able to draft Duncan despite already having a solid team featuring a HOFer (Robinson) through a fluke injury. So that was adding a great player to an already good team, which later made great draft picks in Parker and Ginobili by being the first team to recognize a whole pool of untapped talent in international basketball. During that time, they recruited veteran players who had playoffs experience like Horry, Kerr, etc. For the Lakers, they traded for Shaq, then drafted Kobe, then surrounded them with veteran players again, like Horry, Grant, Fox, etc. With the Celtics, they traded for three HOFers with playoff experience and got cheap veteran talent who had some as well, i.e. Brown and Posey. I can't recall a recent championship team that started off with nothing, drafted a superstar, and then surrounded that superstar with better players who got playoff experience together and eventually win a championship. The only example is MIA, but they didn't just get better players, they got a HOF Center who had led a team to the Finals just two seasons prior, along with HOFer Payton and playoff-tested Mourning. Each of those three were leaders for their respective teams who had been battle-tested in multiple postseasons, two of whom had Finals experience. The Bulls, on the other hand, have only Boozer, Korver, Brewer, Thomas, and Scalabrine who have significant postseason experience. Of all of them, Boozer is the only non-role player and he wasn't the leader of any of his postseason teams either (Deron was). They're being led by a young PG who hasn't made it out of the first round, and a rookie coach who in his first year as a head coach. You have to admit that there are at least some significant concerns as to their experience when assessing them as a championship team. | ||
|
XaI)CyRiC
United States4471 Posts
http://thepaintedarea.blogspot.com/2011/03/rose-v-howard-why-do-chicago-and.html | ||
|
FQD1911
83 Posts
| ||
| ||
