Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by theDragicLegacy
If the dictionary talked about basketball it would say include under the definition of upset Cavs vs Boston 2010
no one that knows anything about either team can honestly say it was an upset. just like last year orlando was a 3 and cleveland a 1. it wasnt an upset the better team won
alston
lee
tergolu
lews howard
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Anytime a vast majority of people believe a certain team will win, and that team ends up losing, then it is an upset. In hindsight "nothing" is an upset. But it is hindsight, after all.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by LBJMVP
no an upset is when the clear better team loses.... the better team won.
No it doesn't. A upset means a team that beat the heavily favored opponent or an unexpected win.
The Cavs were favored to win it all or at least go to the finals this year. From the fans and sports analysis, people thought the Cavs would go to the finals. I thought they would meet their match against Orlando again. People thought the Celts was done in the latter half of the season. They played terrible. They thought that the Heat vs Celts series would go seven games afterall.
The Celts surprised everybody. They upset'd the Cavs, who most people thought they were the better team. It was the same last season too. Everyone thought that the Cavs would go to the finals, but the Magic upset'd the Cavs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchguy
After it all sunk in a bit. I'm thinking:
Why did nobody really call Mike Brown out before?
Some people did. People did notice how flawed the Cavs offensive was, and they can't really do that with elite teams. But, it worked for the regular season. Unlike last season, the Cavs did beat the elite teams this year in the regular season. They had all the right tools, and they had the best record in the league. I guess it is easy to overlook the Cavs flaws when they were doing so well?
While people are making fun of LeBron choking a bit, it was other reasons why the Cavs lost other than LeBron being shut down by the Celts. One of the reasons was because the Cavs don't have a good team offensive game.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Quote:
Some people did. People did notice how flawed the Cavs offensive was, and they can't really do that with elite teams. But, it worked for the regular season. Unlike last season, the Cavs did beat the elite teams this year in the regular season. They had all the right tools, and they had the best record in the league. I guess it is easy to overlook the Cavs flaws when they were doing so well?
While people are making fun of LeBron choking a bit, it was other reasons why the Cavs lost other than LeBron being shut down by the Celts. One of the reasons was because the Cavs don't have a good team offensive game.
Again, I'm not saying I predicted this, but I do have the feeling that everybody who watched the Cavs should have had more doubts. I don't know their record against all the elite teams, but they split the games against (banged up) Boston for example. You're totally right that it's easy to overlook their flaws when they have the best record, but how come 8 ESPN 'experts' pick the cavs?
I really think that anyone who's watched the cavs and knows basketball should have noticed this. It's easy in hindsight, but I can honestly say I saw it when I watched them, just didn't really pay attention to it, cause I've only seen them against the Celts.
On this boards I can only remember 1 or 2 persons saying their offense sucks, somewhere in january (forgetting all the trolls, who just hate the cavs).
The more I think of it the more I'm shocked
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutchguy
Again, I'm not saying I predicted this, but I do have the feeling that everybody who watched the Cavs should have had more doubts. I don't know their record against all the elite teams, but they split the games against (banged up) Boston for example. You're totally right that it's easy to overlook their flaws when they have the best record, but how come 8 ESPN 'experts' pick the cavs?
I really think that anyone who's watched the cavs and knows basketball should have noticed this. It's easy in hindsight, but I can honestly say I saw it when I watched them, just didn't really pay attention to it, cause I've only seen them against the Celts.
On this boards I can only remember 1 or 2 persons saying their offense sucks, somewhere in january (forgetting all the trolls, who just hate the cavs).
The more I think of it the more I'm shocked
Probably because of LeBron and they believed that the Celts didn't have 'it' anymore. I don't think anyone really expected him to struggle against the Celts and seem to give up later on.
For example, this article:
Quote:
The Cavaliers are the No. 1 seed in the Eastern Conference while the Celtics are the No. 4 seed.
Oddsmakers from online sports book Sports Interaction have made Cleveland the overwhelming favorites to win the series with a money line of -450 while the Celtics have a line of +325.
....
The Celtics certainly are going to give Cleveland all it can handle, as many of the vets on Boston know this may be their last chance for glory, but the Cavs seem to be title or bust, and Boston won’t be able to keep up with LeBron and the younger, faster Cavaliers.
Many people believed that the Celts were less hungry than the LeBron and the Cavs, and that the Big Three were older, slower, and they weren't as good as 08. They made that judgment through the regular season.
Another article:
Quote:
1. Cleveland Cavaliers vs 4. Boston Celtics: Saturday, 8 p.m. This series obviously hinges on the health of LeBron James' right elbow. There doesn't appear to be any serious damage, so I think the best player and MVP of the NBA will have no problem overcoming this. He averaged nearly 33 points and over 8 points and 8 assists in the first round against the Bulls. The Celtics will need huge series from Ray Allen and Paul Pierce to have a chance. I just don't see LeBron losing in the second round; he wouldn't allow it. Cavs in 5.
Nobody really consider the match ups and the Cavs offensive. They thought the Celts were washed up. No one would've guessed that Rondo would have exploded. No one would've guessed that Tony Allen would step up. Everyone thought that LeBron was going to have a GOAT playoff year like last year probably.
Since LeBron James is the Cavs offensive, it's easy to get deluded. And even with the knowledge that the Cavs offensive were flawed, I'm guessing people thought LeBron James was good enough to make up for it. When the Celts stopped LeBron, people got to see what the Cavs offensive were really like and were puzzled by it. You could tell by the press conference that they didn't really address Brown's offensive, they address whatever LeBron was ok with the elbow.
Even Charles Barkley, who thought the Cavs would sweep the Celts, was aware of the Cavs horrible offensive since he constantly said that the Cavs do a 1 on 5 offensive game with LeBron. So, people thought the Celts weren't good enough to take advantage of the Cavs weakness. The Magic is a different story.
The Cavs vs Celts series was a slap back to reality for people who ignored the Cavs flaws I guess. Even people who did watch the Cavs regularly on the board did comment on Mike Brown's bad offensive teamplay, but LeBron always made up for it. This time he didn't when the expectations were high for them and they were facing a good team, they got exposed big time.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Micku
The Cavs vs Celts series was a slap back to reality for people who ignored the Cavs flaws I guess. Even people who did watch the Cavs regularly on the board did comment on Mike Brown's bad offensive teamplay, but LeBron always made up for it. This time he didn't when the expectations were high for them and they were facing a good team, they got exposed big time.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
It's simple - Jamison and Shaq. Jamison was used wrong in Cleveland, you need to post him and let him cut off the ball for layups. He can hit threes, but he's not really great at it and it's wrong to treat him like a stretch four. He's also short and can't contest Garnett's shots, since KG is longer, more athletic, and about five or six inches taller. Shaq's turnover prone, a huge liability on defense, and not that effective when he's being guarded by someone like Perkins who can't be steamrolled. Also, as a pair, they're fairly slow on defense, which opens up drive and dish opportunities.
I'm convinced that Cleveland would have been better off and maybe even would have won if they'd been playing Varejao instead of Shaq and giving more of Jamison's minutes to Hickson. Actually, Jamison as a sixth man would have been perfect for them.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Also, the Cavs offense wasn't that horrible, I think Boston's defense was very good and their offense was abnormally good. Cleveland's defense is what really cost them the series, these games should have all been like 95 - 87.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
Did anyone mention that.. the Celtics are healthy? They were only the 4th seed because of injuries and being unhealthy. Garnett was coming off major injury, then re-injured the knee, Pierce got injured, Tony Allen came off major knee injury, Baby cme off major thumb injury.. Going back to Pierce, he was injured and was playing before he was ready and it hurt the team more than anything.. he tried to be Kobe playing with injury, but he aint no Kobe.
A lot of people are pointing fingers at Shaq and Jamison. They had Shaq all year, and Jamison since ?February?.. Cavs were still number 1.. they still had the best record in the league. I see more "Cavs hurt themselves" than the Celtics played excellent. But I know that's directly due to the Celtics being unhealthy all year. So everyone thought they were old and washed up and Cavs were going to roll by them. I guess no one watched the Heat-Celtics season because the C's looked great, best I've seen them all year (including game 1 of the season when they beat the Cavs and Garnett was barely jumping off the ground.) Only reason they didn't sweep Heat is because D. Wade had to go super saiyan in that one game. People were expecting the washed up Celtics to lose one or two games to the Heat but lose in the second round.
I say Shaq hurt the Cavs, and Jamison couldn't handle Garnett. People are saying Jamison as if he's a bad player. He's good, and on the Cavs, but couldnt stop the opposing player. But because he is new, suddenly he's not a Cav but the "new addition to the team" rather than the guy that played pretty well the rest of the season. Got to love how easy fans turn.
But there isn't enough credit being given to the Celtics, they are healthy now, and amusingly, Paul Pierce isn't even playing well. Think if Pierce comes back in the Magic series..?I only added in that last line about the Magic because I still see people talking about the Celtics like they are the same unhealthy team that lost 3/4 games to the Magic during the season.
Re: Analysis on why LeBron/Cavaliers lost to Celtics in 2010 round 2
