Did the Heatles underachieve?

I saw Broussard and Rob Parker were discussing this subject this week. Obviously they won two Championships but a far cry from the "not 3, not 4, not 5" and are never mentioned in the all-time great teams. It reminds me of Lennox Lewis. He's never in the conversation for the GOAT heavyweight because although he beat everyone he ever faced, he suffered two horrible knockouts to journeymen.

You could say the same for the Heatles. They lost to an aging Dallas with one superstar and were destroyed by a record margin at the hand of the Spurs. LeBron also jumping ship as soon as they started sinking doesnt help their cause either.

Every franchise would take back to back Championships in any situation but when all is said and done, did they underachieve?

yes they only made 4 straight finals which is something no one has ever done i


besides russel celtics :oldlol:

super ez to do bruh...:oldlol:

mikey topped out at 3
duncan went b2b...once i think? Never even 3 let alone 4

are you a rookie fan?

[QUOTE=And1AllDay;14930188]yes they only made 4 straight finals which is something no one has ever done i


besides russel celtics :oldlol:

super ez to do bruh...:oldlol:

mikey topped out at 3
duncan went b2b...once i think? Never even 3 let alone 4

are you a rookie fan?[/QUOTE]

The Cavs and the Warriors also made 4 straight.

Are you a rookie fan?

[QUOTE=Nowoco;14930192]The Cavs and the Warriors also made 4 straight.

Are you a rookie fan?[/QUOTE]

4 + 4 = 8

11-18 = bran

next

They should have won in 2011, but they took care of business otherwise. They had no real shot in 2014, that team was ravaged by injuries and age.

Yea they should have 3-peated 11-13.

They had the talent to win in the first year and did not so they underachieving a little but 2 championships is still highly respectable. People should stop belittling what an accomplishment it is to win even one championship. You have to be great and luck looms as a major factor that can both help as well as hurt.

heat are underrated now. that 2013 team was epic. had a 27-win streak and was clutch as ****. spurs were a bad matchup for them but they still clutched it out.


I'd say 2 rings and 4 finals appearances is performing right on par, not over or underachieving.

In theory, yes. But what doesn't get talked about is Wade basically being a shell of himself by the time he turned 31. He went from superstar to All-star level by the time the team broke up. Bosh also retired at like age 31. LeBron made the right move leaving.

They overachieved, they won those titles against all odds.

[QUOTE=red1;14930201]heat are underrated now. that 2013 team was epic. had a 27-win streak and was clutch as ****. spurs were a bad matchup for them but they still clutched it out.


I'd say 2 rings and 4 finals appearances is performing right on par, not over or underachieving.[/QUOTE]

This! people always say they weren't an alltime.great team and I just scratch my head looking at 2013.

I could see an argument that they underachieved looking as 2011, but that just proved to be a growing pain in hindsight. But whether or not they truly underachieved means youve gotta ask yourself: How many times has a franchise put together a team nearly from scratch in one off-season and went to 4 straight finals winning 2 back to back? If this is common then yeah they underachieved. But we know the trajectory of the 3 career and injury wise looking back. I'm saying no, if you put together a squad and they chip? mission accomplished. Hell I wish my hometown team could win 2 titles and go to 4 straight:facepalm

They left some meat on the bone in 2011, should have beaten Dallas in 6 if Lebron had played games 4-6 like he did 1-3. The overall best version was 2013 due to added depth but Wade and Bosh were also worse individually. They never quite had the perfect mix of circumstances to be as dominant as they could have been, but 4 straight finals trips and back to back ain't something to sneeze at either.

they did cuz they weren't together long. I think that's what makes it an issue, cuz they broke up due to the fact they could not sustain it, and that probably was not on anyone's mind when they teamed up. At least, it wasn't on mine. They did ok overall though.

-Smak

In hindsight...they overachieved 4 title runs in 4 years is impressive especially when you consider how good the Celtics, Lakers, and Spurs were. They were basically the fourth best team of that era...though we call them a "super team".

I don't think you were alive back then John. The Lakers were borderline washed at that point and irrelevant by the end of the Heatles run.

Celtics were washed halfway through the Heatles run and completely dismantled in the final year.

They definitely didn't overachieve given the expectations.

1 would have been disappointing l, 2 was average, 3 would have been excellent and 4 legendary goat shit.

They got 2.

Reaching the Finals 4 years in a row is impressive but who were they going to lose to? They went through a bunch of mostly 40 (sometimes 30) win teams.

They were the best team in the East by far every year. Anything less than a Finals appearance would have been a failure so I dont think its harsh to say that doing what was expected isnt a great achievement.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14930276]I don't think you were alive back then John. The Lakers were borderline washed at that point and irrelevant by the end of the Heatles run.

Celtics were washed halfway through the Heatles run and completely dismantled in the final year.

They definitely didn't overachieve given the expectations.

1 would have been disappointing l, 2 was average, 3 would have been excellent and 4 legendary goat shit.

They got 2.[/QUOTE]

Lakers also had what might be a 5 HOF team during that period... (Artest/Nash/Howard/Kobe/Gasol)

[QUOTE=Nowoco;14930292]Reaching the Finals 4 years in a row is impressive but who were they going to lose to? They went through a bunch of mostly 40 (sometimes 30) win teams.

They were the best team in the East by far every year. Anything less than a Finals appearance would have been a failure so I dont think its harsh to say that doing what was expected isnt a great achievement.[/QUOTE]

Indiana, Chicago, Orlando, and Boston were all good it wasn't like you had different teams every year. Bosh and Wade weren't going on these great title runs on their own...I don't think Bosh ever won a playoff series and I think Wade won a single one without Shaq or Lebron. I get your point but getting those consistent title runs is important.

Yes they did underachieve, and it's not debatable. They won 2 finals, but should've won the 2011 finals as well if not for Lebron choking.

2014 Heat were already running out of steam.

So yeah, if Lebron was as good as everyone expected, then the Heat win 3 finals in 4 seasons.

Have to weigh up the circumstances and look at who they beat and lost to. 2011 Boston, 2011 Chicago, 2012 Indiana, 2012 Boston, 2012 Oklahoma City, 2013 Indiana, 2013 San Antonio, and 2014 Indiana were all solid-to-great scalps. To me, those were all Western Conference-worthy series wins.

All up, that's 8 series wins. Takes 4 to win a ring.

They should've beaten Dallas in 2011. They weren't favored in 2012 against OKC and the 2013 NBA Finals was fairly even. Do those two results outweigh the other? Probably not.

But you need to factor in that those Miami teams were always overrated from a roster construction perspective. Miami was top-heavy/lacking depth, had an extremely weak center rotation, and not to mention James and Wade had a questionable fit.

People don't realize how big those teams' weaknesses were. The 2013 team was one of only four NBA championship squads to get outrebounded on average. And of those four, they were by far the worst - literally the last-ranked rebounding team in the NBA. Team rebounding is so vitally important. They tried every hail-mary option they could to find a center. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Ronnie Turiaf, Eddy Curry, Greg Oden, Dexter Pittman, etc. The only one that somewhat worked was Chris Andersen.

And not to mention how injuries worked against Miami in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Primarily Dwyane's physical decline. He wasn't performing like what he was getting paid by the end. And that hurts.

One could make an argument they achieved about as much as they should've. I'd say somewhere between that and slightly underachieving.

Chris Paul instead of Wade would've improved that team, even in the first year. Just a better fit with LeBron and Bosh. And it would've perhaps changed who they might've gone after as complimentary players. Instead of Mike Miller they could've found an actual quality center.

[QUOTE=Carbine;14930276]I don't think you were alive back then John. The Lakers were borderline washed at that point and irrelevant by the end of the Heatles run.

Celtics were washed halfway through the Heatles run and completely dismantled in the final year.

They definitely didn't overachieve given the expectations.

1 would have been disappointing l, 2 was average, 3 would have been excellent and 4 legendary goat shit.

They got 2.[/QUOTE]

Lol I wasn't even gonna bother replying to that. As you said the Lakers were washed as title contenders after 2010, and Miami beat the Celtics in 2011 and 2012 so how could Boston be ahead of them lol? The only debatable team would have been the Spurs who they were 1-1 against in the 13 and 14 finals.

[QUOTE=Nowoco;14930292]Reaching the Finals 4 years in a row is impressive but who were they going to lose to? They went through a bunch of mostly 40 (sometimes 30) win teams.

They were the best team in the East by far every year. Anything less than a Finals appearance would have been a failure so I dont think its harsh to say that doing what was expected isnt a great achievement.[/QUOTE]

Both 2012 and 2013 ECF went 7gms.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;14930361]Have to weigh up the circumstances and look at who they beat and lost to. 2011 Boston, 2011 Chicago, 2012 Indiana, 2012 Boston, 2012 Oklahoma City, 2013 Indiana, 2013 San Antonio, and 2014 Indiana were all solid-to-great scalps. To me, those were all Western Conference-worthy series wins.

All up, that's 8 series wins. Takes 4 to win a ring.

They should've beaten Dallas in 2011. They weren't favored in 2012 against OKC and the 2013 NBA Finals was fairly even. Do those two results outweigh the other? Probably not.

But you need to factor in that those Miami teams were always overrated from a roster construction perspective. Miami was top-heavy/lacking depth, had an extremely weak center rotation, and not to mention James and Wade had a questionable fit.

People don't realize how big those teams' weaknesses were. The 2013 team was one of only four NBA championship squads to get outrebounded on average. And of those four, they were by far the worst - literally the last-ranked rebounding team in the NBA. Team rebounding is so vitally important. They tried every hail-mary option they could to find a center. Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Ronnie Turiaf, Eddy Curry, Greg Oden, Dexter Pittman, etc. The only one that somewhat worked was Chris Andersen.

And not to mention how injuries worked against Miami in 2012, 2013, and 2014. Primarily Dwyane's physical decline. He wasn't performing like what he was getting paid by the end. And that hurts.

One could make an argument they achieved about as much as they should've. I'd say somewhere between that and slightly underachieving.[/QUOTE]

Good post.

I agree and also think slightly underachieving is where I would put it. It's hard to argue that a team that won 2 rings really disappointed or something. Losing the 2011 Finals does sting a lot when they really should have won that series but other than that it's fine.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is that I think the conference opposition was pretty weak. 2011 Bulls are the only East team they beat I could call strong.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14930405]Good post.

I agree and also think slightly underachieving is where I would put it. It's hard to argue that a team that won 2 rings really disappointed or something. Losing the 2011 Finals does sting a lot when they really should have won that series but other than that it's fine.

The only thing I disagree with in your post is that I think the conference opposition was pretty weak. 2011 Bulls are the only East team they beat I could call strong.[/QUOTE]
2011 Celtics weren't strong? :kobe:

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930411]2011 Celtics weren't strong? :kobe:[/QUOTE]

In 2011 I wouldn't say they were. Post trade deadline when they were starting Nenad Kristic, then Jermaine O'Neal in the playoffs, they just weren't that great. They made the run in 2012, but I never thought the Celtics were a serious thread after the deadline in the 2011 season.

I remember Shaq telling Danny not to trade Perk because he didn't think he'd be healthy for the playoffs.

Celtics after 2008 when Garnett hurt his knee definitely weren't the same, it made a big difference even though they got t to the Finals when KG came back. KG was not the same, his mobility and explosiveness were reduced and as a result he wasn't as good offensively or defensively. Along with Pierce and Allen getting older Rondo had to become the featured player. Love Rondo but he's not going to lead a team past prime Lebron.

No one said they were as good as 08, but calling a team that went 56-26, had a +5.9 net rating and had 4 guys make the all-star team not a strong team is pretty silly.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930453]No one said they were as good as 08, but calling a team that went 56-26, had a +5.9 net rating and had 4 guys make the all-star team not a strong team is pretty silly.[/QUOTE]

Both Rondo and Shaq got injured in that series.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14930455]Both Rondo and Shaq got injured in that series.[/QUOTE]
Rondo was healthy enough to play all 5 games, everyone is banged up in the playoffs.


You can't be serious about Shaq :oldlol:

Weak af trolling



CELTICS SHAQ he said :roll:

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930456]Rondo was healthy enough to play all 5 games, everyone is banged up in the playoffs.


You can't be serious about Shaq :oldlol:

Weak af trolling

CELTICS SHAQ he said :roll:[/QUOTE]

Rondo was arguably their best player and was seriously limited by injury from the midway point of that series. How you pretend this injury isn't relevant is beyond me.

And Shaq was obviously washed up but he still started 36/37 games he played that season so his absence can be mentioned.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14930459]Rondo was arguably their best player and was seriously limited by injury from the midway point of that series. How you pretend this injury isn't relevant is beyond me.

And Shaq was obviously washed up but he still started 36/37 games he played that season so his absence can be mentioned.[/QUOTE]
Rondo was a great defender but never particularly good on offense, not sure how he could possible be their best player off the strength of point guard defense alone. Most overrated player of all time arguably.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930460]Rondo was a great defender but [B]never particularly good on offense[/B], not sure how he could possible be their best player off the strength of point guard defense alone. Most overrated player of all time arguably.[/QUOTE]

He was their floor general. :facepalm

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930460]Rondo was a great defender but never particularly good on offense, not sure how he could possible be their best player off the strength of point guard defense alone. Most overrated player of all time arguably.[/QUOTE]

Peak Rondo was an allstar assist machine. Having only made just 4 Allstar games you could only call him the most overrated player of all time if you have no idea what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=dankok8;14930463]He was their floor general. :facepalm[/QUOTE]
I like PGs who can score well. Rondo was Elfrid Payton with better defense and passing. If all you can do is pass you’re not a great offensive player.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14930464]Peak Rondo was an allstar assist machine. Having only made just 4 Allstar games you could only call him the most overrated player of all time if you have no idea what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
He hunted assists, often to the detriment of his team. Kblaze made a post about it. Find me impact stats that say he moved the needle significantly on offense, they don’t exist.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930466]He hunted assists, often to the detriment of his team. Kblaze made a post about it. Find me impact stats that say he moved the needle significantly on offense, they don’t exist.[/QUOTE]
If a player is focused on scoring to the point he sometimes doesn't make the best play does that mean he isn't a good player? "Kblaze made a topic" does not prove he was the most overrated player of all time. That was a ridiculous statement. When he took over a big role in the Celtic offense he didn't make it a bad offense. It wasn't great but with a bunch of aged stars it was the way to go and the results led to the top of the Atlantic Division.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;14930468]If a player is focused on scoring to the point he sometimes doesn't make the best play does that mean he isn't a good player? "Kblaze made a topic" does not prove he was the most overrated player of all time. That was a ridiculous statement. When he took over a big role in the Celtic offense he didn't make it a bad offense. It wasn't great but with a bunch of aged stars it was the way to go and the results led to the top of the Atlantic Division.[/QUOTE]
Their offensive rating was 18th in 2011, and 27th in 2012. Who's a more overrated player then? People used to compare Rondo to CP3 which was absurd.

Of course Rondo is not as good as CP3 offensively. That's doesn't make him overrated though.

Ben Taylor referred to "Rondo assists" which are assists without leverage. Because he's not a great scoring threat, he doesn't put pressure on the defense and draw defenders so he's making mostly basic passes that don't always lead to open shots. Better scorers get their teammates more open shots. That's all fine and dandy. The logic checks out.

However, those Celtics teams did improve offensively in the playoffs which coincided with Rondo becoming more aggressive as a scorer.

Celtics 2010-2012: -1.5 rORtg in the RS --> +0.1 rORtg in the PS
Rondo 2010-2012: 12.2/10.8 in the RS --> 16.0/10.3 in the PS

I would say that in the RS, Garnett was by far their most important player but in the PS, it's much closer and Rondo looks like a star in terms of impact. Not CP3 level but like top 15-20 player.

[QUOTE=RRR3;14930470]Their offensive rating was 18th in 2011, and 27th in 2012. Who's a more overrated player then? People used to compare Rondo to CP3 which was absurd.[/QUOTE]
There have been like, 10s of thousands of NBA players. Rondo is not the most overrated player in history just because the team didn't impress you in some random stat. Not when there are horror stories of things like Ben Simmons scoring a single point in a playoff game. No, one of the best defensive guards who was among the league leaders if not the league leader in assists is nowhere near that discussion if the person talking about it is at all serious. In the playoffs Rondo has had a number of memorable performances. Was the third-best player in the postseason for a Laker Championship. You don't have to like him but it was a silly statement.