Are the 2015 Hawks the worst #1 seed of all-time?

[DMV2]

Worse than the 2007 Mavs who lost to #8 seed Warriors?

Worse than the 2011 Spurs who lost to #8 seed Grizzlies?

What about the 2012 Bulls, 1999 Heat and 1994 Sonics?

[Just2McFly]

Dont be stupid.

[DMV2]

Dont be stupid.
2015 Hawks vs 2007 Mavs....who wins?

2015 Hawks vs 2011 Spurs...who wins?

There's no way the Hawks win either of those series.

[MMM]

2015 Hawks or 2002 Nets
give me the hawks

[G0ATbe]

Without question.

[sd3035]

This team reminds me of the Pacers last year, started out great but exposed as frauds before the playoffs even started

Vegas had them way behind the Cavs, and even the Bulls by the time the playoffs started

[ISHGoat]

How can they be the worst #1 seed of all time when they make the conference finals? Theres been countless #1 seeds that dont make it out of the 2nd round. Some of them lose in the first round, a lot lose in the 2nd round.

Just because they are going to get swept by a lebron led team, does not make them bad. Lebron is just that good.

[Ca$H]

How can they be the worst #1 seed of all time when they make the conference finals? Theres been countless #1 seeds that dont make it out of the 2nd round. Some of them lose in the first round, a lot lose in the 2nd round.

Just because they are going to get swept by a lebron led team, does not make them bad. Lebron is just that good.

The East sucks. Making it to the ECF is no big deal.

[T_L_P]

How can they be the worst #1 seed of all time when they make the conference finals? Theres been countless #1 seeds that dont make it out of the 2nd round. Some of them lose in the first round, a lot lose in the 2nd round.

Just because they are going to get swept by a lebron led team, does not make them bad. Lebron is just that good.

2015 Nets: 38 wins
2015 Wizards: 46 wins

2011 Grizzlies: 46 wins

The Nets win 32-34 games out West; the Wizards win 40-42 games.

The Grizzlies win 50 games out East (where they belong, tbh).

Hawks made it to ECF, Spurs lost in round 1. But the Spurs lost to a better team in rd 1 than the Hawks beat in the first two rounds. :confusedshrug:

[HOoopCityJones]

2015 Hawks or 2002 Nets
give me the hawks

You sound dumb.

That Nets squad is all time if they beat the Lakers, but how many people did that aside from Detroit and Spurs? They were no worse than the Kings.

[DMV2]

How can they be the worst #1 seed of all time when they make the conference finals? Theres been countless #1 seeds that dont make it out of the 2nd round. Some of them lose in the first round, a lot lose in the 2nd round.

Just because they are going to get swept by a lebron led team, does not make them bad. Lebron is just that good.
That's why I asked this question.

Is this Hawks team, who made the ECF, actually better than the 2007 Mavs or the 2011 Spurs? Or better yet, could this Hawks team beat the 2007 Warriors or 2011 Grizzlies?

And let's not forget that they took 6 games to beat the Nets, who had no business making the playoffs.

[HelterSkelter]

And let's not forget that they took 6 games to beat the Nets, who had no business making the playoffs.


It's not really a great logic. 08 Celtics' first road win was in the ECF. They were 4-3 against the Hawks and Cavs then 4-2'd the Pistons and Lakers.

[DMV2]

It's not really a great logic. 08 Celtics' first road win was in the ECF. They were 4-3 against the Hawks and Cavs then 4-2'd the Pistons and Lakers.
expectation jitters, i supposed. the 2008 Celtics were never vulnerable in the East series. And as the postseason went on, their true identity showed up.

Hawks...6 games to beat the underserving #8 seed Nets and took 6 games to beat a Wizards team without Wall for 2 games.

If this Hawks team was a legit #1 seed, they wouldn't be getting wrecked by the Cavs this badly. This is basically a LeBron Cavs and a bunch of roleplayers. They'd still lose the series but at least showed some #1 seed heart/intangibles.

[dbugz]

The most boring to watch.

[ISHGoat]

expectation jitters, i supposed. the 2008 Celtics were never vulnerable in the East series. And as the postseason went on, their true identity showed up.

Hawks...6 games to beat the underserving #8 seed Nets and took 6 games to beat a Wizards team without Wall for 2 games.

If this Hawks team was a legit #1 seed, they wouldn't be getting wrecked by the Cavs this badly. This is basically a LeBron Cavs and a bunch of roleplayers. They'd still lose the series but at least showed some #1 seed heart/intangibles.

i think its slightly unfair to say "hawks are weak because they needed 6 games to beat the nets and 6 games to beat the wiz"

as we all know, playoff basketball is about player matchups, coaching strategy, and health.

weve seen many instances of a team getting taken to the brink in earlier rounds, only to dominate in the finals and semis. just look at the spurs last year. they needed 7 to beat dallas, and 6 to beat okc. are we ready to admit that 2014 mavs, okc, > 2014 heat?

conversely, weve also seen many cases of a team steamrolling through the end of the regular season and beginning of the post season, before exiting in dramatic fashion. once again, the spurs team of 2012 comes to mind. I believe they finished the regular season on like a 10 game winning streak and swept the first two rounds, and won the first two in the WCF. they were looking invincible, till okc backdoor swept there asses

[HelterSkelter]

expectation jitters, i supposed. the 2008 Celtics were never vulnerable in the East series. And as the postseason went on, their true identity showed up.

Hawks...6 games to beat the underserving #8 seed Nets and took 6 games to beat a Wizards team without Wall for 2 games.

If this Hawks team was a legit #1 seed, they wouldn't be getting wrecked by the Cavs this badly. This is basically a LeBron Cavs and a bunch of roleplayers. They'd still lose the series but at least showed some #1 seed heart/intangibles.


Then maybe the past 2 series were jitters too... They were 60-22 (22-8 against the West) for a reason.

I'll agree that they don't play as good as past #1 seeds (when it's needed).. but it's funny how they only start to "suck" when LeBron starts beating them. People always have a hard time giving LeBron credit.

[Alamо]

If they had Korver, thabo and a healthy Carroll and horford they'd be better. They are getting swept but it's not like they aren't putting up a fight. They're a good team, they just peaked too soon which made them look better than they actually are.


They were never really in the same league as the cavs or warriors anytime during the 2nd half of the season though

[Taller than CP3]

even the Pelicans would sweep them at this point

[Ne 1]

The Wizards are the second best team in the East. That's not saying much since the East still sucks. The Hawks have been exposed as fools gold.

A shame about John Wall's injury. They easily beat the Hawks if he doesn't get injured.

[DMV2]

Disgraceful

[thejesu]

How can they be the worst #1 seed of all time when they make the conference finals?.

Yeah, that's my point.

[MMM]

You sound dumb.

That Nets squad is all time if they beat the Lakers, but how many people did that aside from Detroit and Spurs? They were no worse than the Kings.

that Nets team was mediocre AF

they only won 52 games in a Eastern conference that had no other 50 win teams iirc. Atl won 60 games in a better conference than the 2002 East.

[HOoopCityJones]

that Nets team was mediocre AF

they only won 52 games in a Eastern conference that had no other 50 win teams iirc. Atl won 60 games in a better conference than the 2002 East.

:roll:

[Legends66NBA7]

You sound dumb.

That Nets squad is all time if they beat the Lakers, but how many people did that aside from Detroit and Spurs? They were no worse than the Kings.

The Kings would have stomped the Nets just like the Lakers did. They had the best record/SRS in the league, despite C-Webb missing 28 games. The best 3 or 4 teams were in the West and neither Nets, Celtics, or Pistons were winning over them.