Printable View
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: