Everyone like to dog Cleveland's upper management as a way to validate LeBron...

[dtgold88]

Quite possibly but experience is huge. The Cavs were way more experienced and it wasnt close. No doubt the Bucks were more talented and great defensivwly, doesnt always find results though

I'm not even sure I'd say "no doubt" since the experience does matter and that Lebron fellow helps the Cavs in this discussion. Having the best player on the floor helps a ton in the playoffs.

 

[WiggyRuss]

Quite possibly but experience is huge. The Cavs were way more experienced and it wasnt close. No doubt the Bucks were more talented and great defensivwly, doesnt always find results though

the big thing about the Cavs is that, throughout their entire playoff run of those 4 years, whenever they got punched in the mouth they would always find a way to punch back.

If I am not mistaken, got down 2-1 to Chicago, they were losing Game 4, and comeback and win. Fight back to 4-2 against Golden State while missing Kyrie and Love. Up 2-0 against Toronto- go and lose 2 games in Toronto to have it tied up--- and come back and win the next 2 games to finish them off. Of course win the championship in the GREATEST comeback in NBA history.....go down 2-1 to the Pacers and comeback....go down 2-0 to the Celtics and comeback.

It was a team that could always counter punch becuase they had the experience and the leadership and they would never panic.

Milwaukee seemed like the opposite. They got punched in the mouth by Toronto and just could not recover. It was a team that just did not have enough offense. Did not have enough shooting. And Giannis was just not quite ready. When it got tough they folded instead of counter punching. Giannis could still be covered to just go to the rim.

Cavs easily beat them. Not even a question. LeBron at the height of his game vs. a Giannis that just wasnt quite ready- and the Bucks had plenty of flaws themselves, especially offensively.

 

[WiggyRuss]

the Milwaukee front court was especially hot garbage. Lopez played 30 minutes a game- his "speciality" shooting the 3, was at 29%--- whoop d- fucking doo. mirotic- their stretch 4 and big contribution? 29% from 3. Both of them incredibly weak rebounders for their size and both liabilities defensively.

Just think of that, a big man rotation of Love, TT, Nance Jr., vs. Lopez, Mirotic and Illysova....thats a fucking massacre.

Giannis was good, but you could just force himto shoot an outside shot. He shot 32% from 3 and 64% from the free throw line.

Giannis is great no doubt about it- but on a scale of him to LeBron its not even a comparison between last years LeBron and this years' Giannis when the playoffs came around. Giannis is 24. He was just simply not near that level. He was great- easily one of the best players in the entire playoffs, but no where near where a Lebron in the playoffs was last year. that gap was miles wide.

but, the front court is what really killed Milwaukee, Ilysova, Mirotic, Lopez were defensive liabilities and shot the 3 ball like shit, and none of them are good rebounders. Love and TT and Nance would have eaten them alive.

LeBron vs. Giannis, a gaping front court deficit, and mental weakness.....not a good combo for Milwaukee. No way the Cavs lose that series. Not a chance. I couldnt even imagine what Love would do against defensive stiffs like Lopez and Mirotic

 

[Shanemansj13]

I'm not even sure I'd say "no doubt" since the experience does matter and that Lebron fellow helps the Cavs in this discussion. Having the best player on the floor helps a ton in the playoffs.

Well if we are talking about just last years team I will say the Bucks are a more talented team and have more depth, this also factors in Clarkson, Hood and a couple other guys hadn't really found their role and weren't playing well. The years before the Cavs had a more talented team with Kyrie still there.

 

[Shanemansj13]

the big thing about the Cavs is that, throughout their entire playoff run of those 4 years, whenever they got punched in the mouth they would always find a way to punch back.

If I am not mistaken, got down 2-1 to Chicago, they were losing Game 4, and comeback and win. Fight back to 4-2 against Golden State while missing Kyrie and Love. Up 2-0 against Toronto- go and lose 2 games in Toronto to have it tied up--- and come back and win the next 2 games to finish them off. Of course win the championship in the GREATEST comeback in NBA history.....go down 2-1 to the Pacers and comeback....go down 2-0 to the Celtics and comeback.

It was a team that could always counter punch becuase they had the experience and the leadership and they would never panic.

Milwaukee seemed like the opposite. They got punched in the mouth by Toronto and just could not recover. It was a team that just did not have enough offense. Did not have enough shooting. And Giannis was just not quite ready. When it got tough they folded instead of counter punching. Giannis could still be covered to just go to the rim.

Cavs easily beat them. Not even a question. LeBron at the height of his game vs. a Giannis that just wasnt quite ready- and the Bucks had plenty of flaws themselves, especially offensively.

I am not talking about the last 4 years, I was specifically speaking to last years' team. If we are talking about the previous 3 Cavs teams and the Cavs team that won the Finals, MIL shouldn't even be compared to those teams. Last years' team had little depth, newly acquired guys hadn't established their roles, Love was hurt, Kyrie was gone....Lebron just went Lebron mode....greatest player ever mode.

 

[WiggyRuss]

I am not talking about the last 4 years, I was specifically speaking to last years' team. If we are talking about the previous 3 Cavs teams and the Cavs team that won the Finals, MIL shouldn't even be compared to those teams. Last years' team had little depth, newly acquired guys hadn't established their roles, Love was hurt, Kyrie was gone....Lebron just went Lebron mode....greatest player ever mode.

oh yah...that Cavs team turned itself over completely in February which definitely did not help things---- and Love was hurt for a significant stretch before the playoffs started, as was Hood who missed games, Korver had a foot issue practically the whole 2nd half of the season and the playoffs, etc....

The Cavs had LeBron and were just mentally tough- whenever they got punched in the mouth, whether via the Pacers or Celtics they gathered themselves and punched back- and of course they massacred the Raptors. They just had guys like TT and Korver and JR and Love who had been through tons of battles and knew how to play when the game was on the line and never ever panicked.

You go Hill, Korver, LeBron, TT, Love--- matches up wonderfully against the Bucks. Giannis, at 24, is just a poor man's LeBron who just did not have the outside shot or FT shooting to take his team to the next level and become truly unstoppable. TT and Love would have destroyed Lopez/Mirotic/Illysova. Hill of course cancels himself out. Middleton of course is a very good player, but what? is he going to sag off of Kyle Korver? You put Kyle Korver in the corner, and if Middleeton wants to give him an inch LeBron is going to zoom him a fastball for a 3 pointer.

The Bucks had some Achilles heals---- Giannis' shooting, a pretty shitty collection of bigs, and not enough 3 pt shooting, and were just not mentally tough enough- not enough big game experience.

 

[dtgold88]

the big thing about the Cavs is that, throughout their entire playoff run of those 4 years, whenever they got punched in the mouth they would always find a way to punch back.

If I am not mistaken, got down 2-1 to Chicago, they were losing Game 4, and comeback and win. Fight back to 4-2 against Golden State while missing Kyrie and Love. Up 2-0 against Toronto- go and lose 2 games in Toronto to have it tied up--- and come back and win the next 2 games to finish them off. Of course win the championship in the GREATEST comeback in NBA history.....go down 2-1 to the Pacers and comeback....go down 2-0 to the Celtics and comeback.

It was a team that could always counter punch becuase they had the experience and the leadership and they would never panic.

Milwaukee seemed like the opposite. They got punched in the mouth by Toronto and just could not recover. It was a team that just did not have enough offense. Did not have enough shooting. And Giannis was just not quite ready. When it got tough they folded instead of counter punching. Giannis could still be covered to just go to the rim.

Cavs easily beat them. Not even a question. LeBron at the height of his game vs. a Giannis that just wasnt quite ready- and the Bucks had plenty of flaws themselves, especially offensively.

Not sure I'd say easily, but do think Cavs take it. Agree adversity never got to them, but Bucks might have been better than some of the teams who gave the Cavs a little trouble.

 

[dtgold88]

Well if we are talking about just last years team I will say the Bucks are a more talented team and have more depth, this also factors in Clarkson, Hood and a couple other guys hadn't really found their role and weren't playing well. The years before the Cavs had a more talented team with Kyrie still there.

Fair, but Lebron makes a huge difference, and wiggys points are compelling.

 

[dtgold88]

I am not talking about the last 4 years, I was specifically speaking to last years' team. If we are talking about the previous 3 Cavs teams and the Cavs team that won the Finals, MIL shouldn't even be compared to those teams. Last years' team had little depth, newly acquired guys hadn't established their roles, Love was hurt, Kyrie was gone....Lebron just went Lebron mode....greatest player ever mode.

think he was as well.....notice Kyrie was never mentioned in his analysis.

 

[Shanemansj13]

think he was as well.....notice Kyrie was ever mentioned in his analysis.

All those comebacks he mentioned weren't from last year, they didn't have the same players but I do agree they still had veterans that knew how to win, they didn't have as much as that on last years team though. The core was still there minus Kyrie though.

 

[tlance]

I nailed it, though you took a little longer than I thought.......the "you like to argue" card comes out. While you continue to argue.

You were wrong. You wont admit it. Not much more to it.

I was wrong about the Bucks beating Toronto. I was not wrong about the Cavs. And I did admit to being wrong about the Bucks.

Every time you call me "extreme guy" I am going to call you "arguer guy". That is a promise.

 

[tlance]

why stop there? since we are only guessing why not add Brooklyn, Miami and even Detroit?

Because I am realistic.

 

[dtgold88]

I was wrong about the Bucks beating Toronto. I was not wrong about the Cavs. And I did admit to being wrong about the Bucks.

Every time you call me "extreme guy" I am going to call you "arguer guy". That is a promise.

Yes, you were way off on the Bucks. Yet somehow you think there's still no chance the Cavs could beat them.

Feel free to call me "arguer guy" while you argue....you could even call me "get the last word guy" as you try and get the last word if it makes ya happy.

Difference is only one of us in this discussion is Extreme Guy.

 

[dtgold88]

Because I am realistic.

Like you were realistic when you thought Bucks would take 1-2 from GS to "prove" you were right...then when it didn't happen, still cannot man up and admit you might have been wrong.

Hell, Bucks could have been swept in blowouts and you'd have just said Toronto was much better than you thought, and not owned up to your extreme comment.

 

[tlance]

Yes, you were way off on the Bucks. Yet somehow you think there's still no chance the Cavs could beat them.

Feel free to call me "arguer guy" while you argue....you could even call me "get the last word guy" as you try and get the last word if it makes ya happy.

Difference is only one of us in this discussion is Extreme Guy.

Like you were realistic when you thought Bucks would take 1-2 from GS to "prove" you were right...then when it didn't happen, still cannot man up and admit you might have been wrong.

Hell, Bucks could have been swept in blowouts and you'd have just said Toronto was much better than you thought, and not owned up to your extreme comment.

Did you not read?

I said admitted the Bucks were not as good as I thought. I have said that here and other places too.

They would still beat the '18 Cavs though.

So I don't know what you else you think their loss to Toronto proves. Basically nothing. Because Cleveland could not guard them the way Toronto did.

In other words, arguer guy, you are chasing your tail again.

 

[dtgold88]

Did you not read?

I said admitted the Bucks were not as good as I thought. I have said that here and other places too.

They would still beat the '18 Cavs though.

So I don't know what you else you think their loss to Toronto proves. Basically nothing. Because Cleveland could not guard them the way Toronto did.

In other words, arguer guy, you are chasing your tail again.

In other words, ExtremeArguerGetthelastword Guy you were wrong and cannot admit it.

OK, you admitted you were wrong about the Bucks but instead of saying the obvious...."maybe the Cavs could take them" it was, "they'd still beat the Cavs but now Toronto and pretty much every other Eastern playoff team would take them, too."

In your world, somehow the Cavs got worse when Milwaukee shit the bed.

I do appreciate the comedy you provide though.

 

[tlance]

In other words, ExtremeArguerGetthelastword Guy you were wrong and cannot admit it.

OK, you admitted you were wrong about the Bucks but instead of saying the obvious...."maybe the Cavs could take them" it was, "they'd still beat the Cavs but now Toronto and pretty much every other Eastern playoff team would take them, too."

In your world, somehow the Cavs got worse when Milwaukee shit the bed.

I do appreciate the comedy you provide though.

I won't say that because I don't believe it.

I have told you many times, arguer guy, I don't think the '18 Cavs were a very good basketball team. They didn't play anybody near the Caliber of the Bucks or Raptors in the East playoffs last year. And the best team they played was scared to death of LeBron and totally collapsed after a buzzer beater loss.

So no. I have been consistent and I am not changing my mind about a hypothetical matchup that won't ever happen.

I told you, I will call you "arguer guy" every time you call me extreme guy. That is an iron clad promise.

So you can prove me wrong by letting this die. I don't think you are capable of it.

But, if you are able to reply without calling me a name, then you can take the last word. I have said stated my case.

 

[dtgold88]

I won't say that because I don't believe it.

I have told you many times, arguer guy, I don't think the '18 Cavs were a very good basketball team. They didn't play anybody near the Caliber of the Bucks or Raptors in the East playoffs last year. And the best team they played was scared to death of LeBron and totally collapsed after a buzzer beater loss.

So no. I have been consistent and I am not changing my mind about a hypothetical matchup that won't ever happen.

I told you, I will call you "arguer guy" every time you call me extreme guy. That is an iron clad promise.

So you can prove me wrong by letting this die. I don't think you are capable of it.

But, if you are able to reply without calling me a name, then you can take the last word. I have said stated my case.

I'll stick with Extreme Guy instead of ExtremeArguerGethelastword Guy (which also fits you).

Your only consistency is your inconsistency. Somehow the cavs got worse when the Bucks shit te bed and not only were worse than the Bucks, but also pretty much every other playoff team.

Instead of doing what most rational people would do and just saying, "ya know what, dt? Maybe the Cavs were closer to the Bucks than I had thought and give them a series (maybe even win it)."

 

[tlance]

I'll stick with Extreme Guy instead of ExtremeArguerGethelastword Guy (which also fits you).

Your only consistency is your inconsistency. Somehow the cavs got worse when the Bucks shit te bed and not only were worse than the Bucks, but also pretty much every other playoff team.

Instead of doing what most rational people would do and just saying, "ya know what, dt? Maybe the Cavs were closer to the Bucks than I had thought and give them a series (maybe even win it)."

Ok arguer guy.

You can't stop.

Never said the '18 Cavs got worse. I have always thought they weren't very good. That was a pretty major part of my original statement that you continue to completely ignore.

 

[tlance]

Only in your opinion

The '18 Cavs were one of the worst teams I have ever seen to make a Finals. Right up there with the '07 Cavs, the '02 Nets, and the '99 Knicks.

They made it, and deserve credit for that, but they had 0 chance to actually win and every nuetral fan knows this.

All 4 teams currently left in the East playoffs are better than last year's Cavs IMO.

So have the last word if you want. But reality is that they weren't very good in comparison with actual title contenders and were fortunate that the rest of the East wasn't very good either.

There were only 2 legitimate title contenders last year. Golden State and Houston.

@dtgold88

This was pretty early in this thread.

Your assertion that "I am changing my tune and making the Cavs worse" after the Bucks lost is simply wrong.

I have been pretty clear from my first post in this thread that I didn't think the '18 Cavs were a legit contender.

I never talked about teams other than the Bucks because it didn't come up. My opinion on the Cavs has been the same all along.