Printable View
[QUOTE=game3524]The 2012 Spurs were not on the same level as the 2013 and especially the 2014 Spurs.[/QUOTE]
Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.
[QUOTE=dhsilv]Based on what? That team was on a 20 something game streak and was just blowing teams away. The thunder series was a perfect storm of the thunder playing their absolute best basketball and the spurs finally not playing perfect.[/QUOTE]
IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.
[QUOTE=game3524]Ibaka killed Duncan in one of those games, but KD poured in 36 in the same game as well.
Harden and Ibaka played major roles, but KD and Russ were out of their minds in the last 4 games(especially Durant.....SA had no answer for him).[/QUOTE]
Lets look at that game 4 again.
Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5
A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.
The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.
I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!
At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.
Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.
[QUOTE=ArbitraryWater]Nah, I mean on that play, it should have been OKC FT's... they didnt call a foul though, so they were only allowed to check who it went off of, under that new set of circumstances, yea, LAC ball, but only because they missed, I think Barnes it was, fouling Jackson.[/QUOTE]That's debatable, it looks like Barnes got all ball but it's hard to tell for sure. But even if that's the case OKC only gets 2 FT's like you said and the worst thing that happens for LAC is overtime.
What you don't do is give OKC the ball and give them a chance at shooting/making a 3 when the ball clearly belonged to LAC. That game was one of the weirdest, most f*ckery filled games I've ever seen.
[QUOTE=tpols]I don't think anyone was arguing black and white, Kidd made the Finals, Paul didn't, therefore Kidd > Paul. We only have the circumstances they were dealt and what they made of them.
Kidd was dealt mediocre rosters for most of his prime, but made the most of them.. much like Paul did with New Orleans I guess you could say. Kidd was never given "great" help though like Paul has been with the Clippers. So far Paul has failed to live up to his own hype with said rosters.
We can only speculate how far Kidd could've taken a good team in a good conference, since we've really only seen him take bad/mediocre teams far in a poor conference.
In order to have Paul over Kidd you would have to assume he would fail with these Clipper teams.. and lose to the likes of James Harden and old stiff Dwight Howard in playoff series where his team was capable of even winning games without him entirely.
An opinion's an opinion but damn I have a hard time believing that.
After seeing what prime Kidd did with Kmart, and even old Kidd did with Tyson Chandler, I think a JKidd-Blake-Jordan combo would be a sick combo to witness, and would not disappoint.[/QUOTE]
You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.
[QUOTE=game3524]IMO, I think Kawhi developing into an important contributor is what set those teams apart IMO.[/QUOTE]
If we're talking 14 agree t hat Kawhi stepped it up, but Parker was rather weak in 14 imo. I think Manu was better in 12 though part of that was missing a lot of games. Splitter imo was better in 12 as well. Also Jackson was actually a pretty solid player on that 12 team in the playoffs, something they didn't have later.
Honestly think all 3 of those teams were about as good as the other. Spurs lost to two really great teams in that run.
I'd argue Cp3 has already passed those 2, and i'm not even a fan of his. I can see Kidd and Payton's arguments based on longevity and playoff success though. As for Payton vs Kidd i'd side with Payton he was a comparable defender and playmaker but a better scorer. All 3 are roughly in my 33-40 range.
[QUOTE=Smoke117]You all need to stop overrating the Clippers rosters. The bench has always been weak and they've always been terrible at the 3 in general...ie starting a washed Caron Butler or Matt Barnes. The funny thing is they were actually supposed to shore that up this season, but every acquisition they acquired in the off season has been absolutely dreadful. I also think people overrate Griffin...they want to talk about him as if he's on a Garnett, Duncan, Dirk tier when he isn't. He doesn't have Dirks offensive impact or Garnett and Duncans overall impact, but when everyone wants to talk about how CP3 is losing and can't win...they just love to make it seem like Blake is better than he really is so they make some kind of stupid point that CP3 can't win with him.[/QUOTE]
Lets not forget Doc Rivers is NOT a great coach.
CP3>>>Kidd>>>Payton
Kidd comes in with the versatility and D. Id take him over Payton because he was a smarter and more versatile defender and waaaay smarter on offense. Payton was a ball hog and a chucker.
CP3 was just on another level offensively compared to those two tbough. Hes in a tier above them.
[QUOTE=dhsilv]Lets look at that game 4 again.
Ibaka 11-11
Perkins 7-9
Collinson 4-5
A lot of those were jumpers, we're not talking about the spurs giving up 22 dunks, we're talking about the spurs forcing mid range jumpers out of not so good shooters and they basically hit every damn shot! FYI Westbrook had 7 points and Harden 11.
The game was decided by 6 points and if the spurs win that they're up 3-1.
I mean really Ibaka and Perkins shooting 18-20???? They can't do that on free throws in a normal game!
At the very worst that game goes a bit differently and we get a game 7 and who knows what happens there. But instead there was an all time great game from role players and the thunder won a huge game in the series.
Harden had a great game in game 5 along with westbrook and durant so we're not just talking 2 great players. Not many teams have a 3 4 due like Ibaka and Harden.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I feel like that series was super fluky. Ive never seen OKC hit so many jumpers against a good defense. The Spurs offense that year was just on another level from the other years too.
cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic
ISH: where it's not what you have done, but what we think you could have done.
[QUOTE=Thechosen1]cp3 is the most complete pg in nba history not named magic....hes just a mental midget bitch that cant apply his skills to rings....hes a basketball dyslexic[/QUOTE]
He's more complete than magic if we're really going there. He isn't 6'9 nor does he have god like passing ability in transition....but he doesn't really have a flaw in this game, shoot better from range and might be a better defender.
[QUOTE=DMAVS41]I disagree...once they got Rasheed Wallace they became a team capable of dominating with all time great defense...and scoring enough in the half court while playing a slow pace that made them a very tough team to beat in the playoffs.
Of course Kobe/Lakers imploding made life easier, but that is what the Pistons did. They just wrecked you with their defense...[/QUOTE]
And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.
[QUOTE=aj1987]And yet, they were would've lost to the Lakers, if it wasn't for Kobe's ego and the Heat, if it wasn't for Wade's injury. They are an ATG defensive team, but they aren't an ATG team.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about that. They dominated the Lakers in that series. Even if Kobe plays considerably better...the Pistons still could have won.
You could do that with too many other teams. There are circumstances that lead to teams winning all the time.
One could make an argument along the lines above about the Kobe/Shaq Lakers not being an all time great duo. If the Blazers don't choke or have that idiot Dunleavy as coach and the 02 Kings series isn't a joke in game 6...the Lakers only have 1 ring and they aren't ATG.
I just don't buy stuff like that. Shit happens all the time and claiming that the Pistons would have lost to the Lakers is something you don't know...we also don't know they would have lost to the Heat, but even if that is for sure true, losing to the Heat with Wade/Shaq in a tight series isn't a knock on a team.
I certainly don't think they were the best team ever or anything, but they were better, once they got Rasheed, than you are giving them credit for.