***NBA Playoffs Thread***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Or listen to reason, I've noticed.

Oh, is that what you're calling it these days?

Fine, using your terms, sometimes I don't like to admit to "reason", either. Like when I say one coach is only successful because he happens to coach very talented players, but not saying the same thing about another coach with even more talented players. That's "reason", right?
 
Oh, is that what you're calling it these days?

Fine, using your terms, sometimes I don't like to admit to "reason", either. Like when I say one coach is only successful because he happens to coach very talented players, but not saying the same thing about another coach with even more talented players. That's "reason", right?
The ring thing might validate him. You ignored that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Oh, is that what you're calling it these days?

Fine, using your terms, sometimes I don't like to admit to "reason", either. Like when I say one coach is only successful because he happens to coach very talented players, but not saying the same thing about another coach with even more talented players. That's "reason", right?

How about the part where I mentioned that Spoelstra led Miami to 47 wins, and the 5th best defense in the league, with a front line of Beasley, Richardson and Jermaine O'Neal? Did you skip right over that part?
 
How about the part where I mentioned that Spoelstra led Miami to 47 wins, and the 5th best defense in the league, with a front line of Beasley, Richardson and Jermaine O'Neal? Did you skip right over that part?

Wow, he led a mediocre team to mediocrity. I'm pretty impressed.
 
Because pretty much every NBA fan measures rings as a measure of success regardless of the talent level of players on the team. If we're doing that Phil Jackson sucked as a coach because he had Jordan/Pippen/Rodman and Kobe/Shaq to win his rings. Silly argument is silly.
 
Making a meme

(Wade talks to lj and kd) What if i told you Spoelstra won our title
(lebron and durant starts laughing)
Instead of pat riley
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You were touting what Scott Brooks had done with Westbrook, while previously bashing him in this thread.



I never made that argument at any point. All I have stated is that Scott Brooks should not be considered a good coach if he loses in a series to Vinny Del Negro, and that you can't have it both ways with Westbrook. A well developed player won't cost your team 2 games in a 7 game series.


But then again, I was arguing earlier that Westbrook is a good player, and that the Thunder will beat the Clippers. And never said anything against Scott Brooks. Just against your arguments and claims that appear to be contradictory in my mind...

"Brooks helped make Westbrook" is touting him as great?

what the ****?

Of course players can cost series...did you watch the Heat-Thunder series? Westbrook was a big reason they lost it...
 
Av99cdkCMAA-Nar.png:large

images



spoll.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course players can cost series...did you watch the Heat-Thunder series? Westbrook was a big reason they lost it...

You are mis-remembering that series. It was the fact that Harden disappeared more than anything else. (If you are blaming the Thunder for losing)

So, did you watch the Heat Thunder series? No way I blame Westbrook for losing.

Westbrook averaged 27 points, 6.6 assists, 6.4 rebounds, 2.2 turnovers per game in the finals last year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CycloneRulzzz
"Brooks helped make Westbrook" is touting him as great?

I said good. If you don't think Westbrook is good, then why use him as an example for Scott Brooks coaching him to be who he is?

Also if you don't think Westbrook is good you are wrong, but I don't think you believe Westbrook isn't good.
 
You are mis-remembering that series. It was the fact that Harden disappeared more than anything else. (If you are blaming the Thunder for losing)

So, did you watch the Heat Thunder series? No way I blame Westbrook for losing.

Westbrook averaged 27 points, 6.6 assists, 6.4 rebounds, 2.2 turnovers per game in the finals last year.


Jordan your bringing to much common sense to this discussion. Stop It. :smile:
 
You are mis-remembering that series. It was the fact that Harden disappeared more than anything else. (If you are blaming the Thunder for losing)

So, did you watch the Heat Thunder series? No way I blame Westbrook for losing.

Westbrook averaged 27 points, 6.6 assists, 6.4 rebounds, 2.2 turnovers per game in the finals last year.

Actually Westbrook was the only guy on the Thunder that seemed to play his *** off.

Mr beard nutted up and killed my Spurs, made every big shot in 4th quarter of really games 2-6. Then weeping vag'd his way through the finals. Throw in a little stern ref corruption, and the Heat got to avoid the only team that might have beaten them last year., notice I said might.

Ohh I was ******. I really wanted Tim to get his 5th ring. Then listen to all the Kobe suckers cry. Even though you can make a very real argument how overrated he is.
 
Other than the Pistons (who had one guy who had a weakness on either side of the ball which was Wallace on offense) I can't think of a team that hasn't had at least two of the top 5 players at their position who won a Championship. Bottom line: talent usually comes out on top. MJ had it around him, Kobe had it around him and LeBron has it around him. Remove that surrounding talent from even the best of the best and results shrink to, at best getting to the Finals (LJ), getting to the conference championship (MJ), or even missing the playoffs. Phil Jackson is considered one of, if not the best ever but he's not getting Orlando to the playoffs and he's not getting Atlanta a ring. I know Phil is a great coach but he's picked his spots and deservedly so. It takes an awful coach not to at least get to the Championship with the Heat roster or something like it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Help Support Us

Become a patron