Unless it was "OK, first to 120 wins!" When I was younger, 14 of us used to rent a high school gym, make the teams pretty even, and that's what we played. Twos and threes, halftime when one team hit 60, first to 120 wins. I honestly don't think Wade will re-sign with Miami until they get him a quality running mate. He wants to win another championship, and that isn't going to happen with Beasley and Jermaine O'Neal. Bosh, maybe. Amare, maybe. What they have now? No way. They are good enough to make the playoffs, which means they won't get a decent draft pick. They need to spend some money. The Nets could do Devin Harris, Lebron, and the good Lopez twin, but if you take the ball out of Devin Harris' hands, he's not going to be what he's been lately. He isn't a spot up shooter. Lebron with someone like Ray Allen... That would be nasty.
Yeah looking at this thread sober, it is a pretty retarded argument cause so much depends on who is added where and that's impossible to predict.
In case you missed the Spurs game (you probably did, because besides me and about three other people, who really watches the Spurs anyway?), Manu Ginobili swatted a bat out of mid-air tonight. With his bare hands. I know there's about 100 reasons to hate the guy, but his bat-killing prowess is not one of them.
I saw it, of course, though I was lucky to catch a Sacramento broadcast down here in San Diego. I'll you what, though...Theo Ratliff was swatting Kings' shots like they were flying rodents too. For a pickup I thought was a throwaway veteran signing a la Kevin Willis or Tony Massenburg, Ratliff has shown he can still patrol the lane like a drunken Irish cop. He got a lot of minutes tonight because of McDyess' flu but four blocks is still four blocks. The Spurs went from really shallow to really, really deep seemingly overnight. Ratliff is the 11th man for crying out loud. The second unit of Ginobili, Mason, Hill, Blair, and McDyess could probably be a decent starting lineup for some other NBA clubs.
One of the local newspaper writers called it a "revolving door of talent;" after the first game a New Orleans writer said "the Spurs came in waves. Tidal waves." A lineup featuring Parker, RJ and Duncan is really good, but not enough to be great (see: Lakers). But when the first three guys off your bench are Manu, McDysse, Blair (who could be starters absolutely anywhere else), when you go 11 deep and pull the human flyswatter in Ratliff, you have to really like your chances. The Spurs' starting lineup is not the strongest in the league, but their bench is going to absolutely wear down opponents. The Spurs won't beat the Lakers/Cavs/Celtics/Magic with the beginnings or closing of games, they'll beat them in the middle when those guys are forced to rest their starters. 82 games is a war of attrition. I like the Spurs' chances when former starters (Ratliff, Bogans) ride pine.
Are you guys fucking kidding me? Yes, the spurs bench got a lot deeper this season, but to imply that these guys would be starters on most teams is absurd.
Manu could start anywhere, McDyess could be a starter depending on the team, and Blair is a second team guy everywhere. In other news, the Knicks got their first win, but it looks like NateRob is gonna be out two weeks with an ankle sprain.
Well, I'll admit that statement should be taken with a grain of salt considering that I just watched a game featuring the Sacramento Kings, a team starting a former Spurs 12th man (Beno Udrih) at PG. George Hill is good, but I doubt there are more than four or five teams where he would be an upgrade over the #1 guy.
Thus far, I'm loving the Celtics. I still hate having to cheer for Rasheed Wallace, but he's fit in perfectly with this team. I honestly think this team is better than the one that won the title two years ago. Marquis Daniels and Wallace are just awesome additions.
Byron Scott fired after Phoenix beat down I watched this game, and even though the Suns played great and shot ridiculously well, you could tell the Hornets had zero motivation or willingness to hustle.
Over on the old board, I mentioned once that Byron Scott had a track record of losing his teams' attentions. I always figured Scott as being just a less stupid version of John Lucas, and if he gets another gig I suspect he'll go out with a wimper there, too.
Jesus, I know it was on a back to back against a great team, but how did the Suns go from that crushing win to being crushed? The Lakers may be better, but they can't be that much better, can they? Also, ElTee, where do you see the Western standings? (realistic please) 1. Lakers 2. ? (spurs/nuggets) 3. ? (same) 4. Suns ...?
Scott is the Buck Showalter of NBA coaches. He has some decent success for a season or two but then his teams fall drastically off and players just stop playing for him. I'm sure he's going to get another gig soon, he has had some pretty good success and has a nice coaching resume, but he's more of a stop gap measure rather then a long term solution.
I think it's too early to tell. I don't even know how good the Spurs are yet, since Popovich is still tinkering around with his rotations. If you had told me a week ago that Keith Bogans was going to be playing 30+ minutes a night I would have thought you crazy. Michael Finley is creeping ever closer to the end of the bench and Roger Mason seems to be following him. They have a creampuff schedule for the rest of the month so it's going to be a while until we get to see how they handle serious competition (they play Boston on Dec. 3). But generally speaking, the Spurs are MUCH better than last season I can tell you with no uncertainty that barring multiple injuries they're going to be a fine tuned Laker-killing machine come April. I haven't seen the Nuggets play yet, but the Blazers deserve some mention in the Top Four discussion. When they play well, they play really well. I'd be more concerned with them than I would be about the Suns.
Brandon Jennings dropped 55 points on the Warriors after going scoreless in the 1st quarter. http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/boxscore?gid=2009111415 21-34 7-8 6-8 Meanwhile, my Knicks picked Jordan Hill 2 picks ahead of Jennings because Chris Duhon is so fucking awesome. Hill has scored 25 points total this season, can't rebound for shit and makes Channing Frye look like Ben Wallace on defense. Jennings on the other hand looks like Kenny Anderson at Georgia Tech only with the addition of Dennis Scott's 3 point range. I hate being a Knicks fan.
What the fuck happened in Dallas last night? You're telling me the fucking Warriors only dressed five NBA players and My-Key Moore and still beat the Mavs on their own court? That's embarrassing.
I'm not sure where on this board this fits, so it's going here. I recently decided I need to start following the NBA, so I'm in the market for a favorite team. I'm doing my best to stay away from bandwagons, heartless owners, and really thuggish behavior from the players. The finalists are Houston, New Jersey, Dallas, and Indiana. Thoughts on these teams?
I am a die-hard Spurs fan, but even I have to admit, I still find time to root for the Thunder. They have THE vest young talent in the game in Durant, and an exciting young core surrounding him including Jeff Green, Westbrook, Harden, etc and are primed to add a (hopefully) big name piece in free agency with a shit-ton of salary cap space. Fuck the Knicks or any other "up-and-coming" team ... The Thunder are THE team's whose bandwagon you want to HOP upon.
It's an odd question, but I agree with the answer. OKC has no following anyone can accuse you of trying to gravytrain.