Discussion in 'NBA Basketball Forum' started by bksballer89, May 9, 2018.
even Vlade ain't THAT dumb...
You know I love it when you talk dirty.
I listen to the Cowherd show and I tend to agree with 90% of the stuff that he says. But the 10% is so far off its ridiculous. His argument is do you really want Boston against the Warriors in the Finals? Everyone wants to see the best player (Lebron) in the Finals. I argue against this because Boston vs. Golden St. would be the best possible basketball matchup. Boston would give Golden St. some fits, but ultimately fall in 5 maybe 6 games.
Boston is constructed as a team that traditionally gives the Warriors fits. Athletic wings, bigs who can shoot and defend. Right now they're playing peak basketball. Horford has been amazing. Baynes some how became a 3 point shooter. Jaylen and Jason are playing lights out. Rozier and Smart are defending well. Would be a tough matchup for the Warriors.
FIFY, only changing one word
And that's why I think its ludicrous to bring up the idea that Lebron going to the Finals instead of these Celtics is better for ratings. Why do I want to watch Lebron get washed in 4/5 games then a tough 5/6 game series with balanced basketball?
I think Cowherd was probably talking about casual fans. Basketball junkies like those of us who post here, want to see the best basketball matchup, which is GSW/Celtics.
However, the casual fan wants to see Lebron vs. KD and Steph.
like in the case of Thomas Jefferson "i choose the lesser of TWO evils"...
I may not exactly like the Celtics, but you still gotta give 'em their respect...
Ironically, worse situation than GS.
Boston is fun to watch for anyone right now, under dogs and no ego. But sadly (See IT) their egos cant help themselves. I am hoping to god that jaylen and Jayson stay humble, but odds are not there
Saw this question posed the other day:
1) Who's better Al Horford or Draymond Green.
2) If you swapped Horford for Green, are the Warriors and Celtics better or worse?
I think Al has played phenomenal so far in the post season. I think if you asked me in the pre-season, I'd have a really clear answer on this. Now I'm stilling thinking what my answer is.
I think Draymond is the better all-around defender, particularly on the perimeter. But in the paint, and his respective role - Horford's playing better offensively. But that's also taking into consideration that Green's playing with 3 guys that are bonafide all-stars, 2 of which are top 5 NBA players.
Agreed. In the post season is where you need Draymond's grit.
Not even a question, Draymond is much better on the Ws. He's the defensive QB, the coach on the floor, the guy who is the vocal leader. And you don't need any more offense when you have the other 3.
The Ws are a finely tuned machine, the parts all complement each other so we'll that if you swap any of the 4 I think you make the team worse unless it's for someone ridiculous like AD or LeBron.
The casual fan has seen enough GSW vs cavs for a lifetime.
Mix it up and go for Houston vs Boston
I could see a good argument being made that both are the better player for exactly where they are at.
For instance: take basketball ability/talent out of the question. A young team like the C's is probably much better off with a steady, level headed vet like Horford. Draymond and his over-the-top attitude wouldn't be near as good a fit.
OTOH, Draymond provides fire and moxie for the even keeled vet's around him in GS.
Dude; they won 30 fucking games and made the playoffs LMAO. 30 games
Not going to happen.
Well I am selfish - I don't want Boston getting to the finals under any circumstances - until the Lakers have more championships then they do
Separate names with a comma.