Wow the Celtics looked good vs Denver last night. They ended up winning only by 26 but it wasn't that close. Up by 39 at the half (77-38) and the big three were all out by early in the 4th. Very impressive Celtics, very bland looking Nuggets.
Wow the Celtics looked good vs Denver last night. They ended up winning only by 26 but it wasn't that close. Up by 39 at the half (77-38) and the big three were all out by early in the 4th. Very impressive Celtics, very bland looking Nuggets.
In fairness to the Nuggets, they played the night before in NY in a game that was a track meet at times (119-112, NY won). I didn't think that they'd have a shot last night in Boston.Originally Posted by klw
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
The Atlanta Hawks have defeated Dallas and Phoenix so far this year.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
Playing on back to back nights is part of life in the NBA. On Monday San Antonio rested as Dallas and Houston played. The next night Houston beat San Antonio.
Houston can beat the Spurs on the second of a back to back but you are making excuses for Denver because they played the Knicks the night before?
Denver didn't have a shot because Boston has the best trio of offensive weapons that the NBA has seen in a long, long, long time.
Playing the night before obviously isn't a help. But it is no reason to fall behind by 40 at the half.
Did you watch the Knicks-Nuggets game? I'm guessing no. It was an extremely intense game. A track meet. The Nuggets looked gassed at the end of the game. When the announcers noted that the Nuggets were flying up to Boston that night for a game tomorrow, I knew they'd get blown out. Boston is a quality team.
Denver played at home Sunday. Flew cross country to New York on Monday. Played the Knicks on Tuesday, flew to Boston on Tuesday night and played Boston on Wednesday.
Houston played at Dallas, which is a cab ride away, and then beat San Antonio at home the next night. There is a slight difference.
I wasn't disrespecting the Celtics at all.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
Not sure why a 240 mile journey from Dallas to Houston is a cab ride while 215 miles between Boston and New York requires a plane?
I'm talking about the flight from Denver to NY. But I guess if you don't genuflect to all Boston sports teams these days, you offend all New Englanders.
I'm off to by a Taylor Twellman fathead poster.
Last edited by NJReds; 11-09-2007 at 11:22 AM.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
http://www.realgm.com/src_wiretap_ar..._more_minutes/
Good timing for me huh?
Bottom line, you called the flight to Boston a flight. You then turned around and called a longer trip, a cab ride.I'm talking about the flight from Denver to NY. But I guess if you don't genuflect to all Boston sports teams these days, you offend all New Englanders.
I'm off to by a Taylor Twellman fathead poster.
So the team you are backing, had to go thru the trouble of going on a plane.
But the Rockets, the team I said had to go through the same thing, all they had to do was find their wife for the short car ride home.
The flight from Denver to New York has nothing to do with this and you know that. You had no idea how far it was between Boston and New York OR Houston and Dallas and IMO you decided the Texas cities were closer because they are in the same state.
I get that Denver was tired and that Melo was probably out shooting people on Monday night on his way home from Scores. But that isn't my problem. These guys get paid to play basketball. They get paid to take care of themselves. The Celtics have had to shake off jetlag from a preseason trip to Europe. When football or baseball teams do this all we hear about is how long it takes to get back in sync upon returning home. The Celtics lost their sixth man early in the game to back spasms. Doc Rivers dad just died and he hasn't been around as much. I could go on. Its called adversity. There is a reason that teams coming off a game the night before don't get a head start.
The Celtics have lost more games than I could count playing the second of the back to back. They usually play at home on Friday and then have to play on the road on Saturday. I'm sure the Celtics will lose plenty of games this season in this situation and no Celtic fan I know will use it as a crutch.
Boston is better than Denver. Maybe not 40 first half points better but better. That is why they won. Easily. You called the Knick game a hard fought battle. Go ask Denver who gave them the tougher time.
BTW, did you watch that Knick vs Denever game, knowing Denver would lose after that brutal flight from Colorado?
Hopefully you were kidding. Just watched the Celtics and Nets and I never once noticed Jamal. He finished with no points and 2 rebounds. He still stinks.
Celtics are 5-0.
Bottom line. I'm a Knicks fan who thought that Denver would have no chance beating a quality team like Boston the night after an extremely high-tempo game that they had in NY. I thought they'd get blown out, in fact. And I was right. That's it...end of story. You like to start fights in every single thread, or so it seems.
The team I was backing is awful, and will be until the Dolans relinquish ownership. I don't assume that they'll win any game that they're in. But once again, you forgo facts in search of an internet debate.
Boston is the best team in the NBA. They should just give them the trophy now. I'll be shocked if they don't go undefeated.
Last edited by NJReds; 11-11-2007 at 11:13 AM.
"The players make the manager, it's never the other way." - Sparky Anderson
Is that sarcasm?I think you point about back to backs was valid even if it got lost in the minutia of travel details. a good example is the Celtics who lost some steam against the nets at the end of the second game in a back to back.
Something to take note of when considering Boston's team. KG, Pierce and Allen are all playing a TON of minutes. Each is right about at 40 MPG right now.
If they continue to do this through the entire year, and more than likely they will because of how sad their bench is, it's going to have a big impact on them come playoff time.
On the other end of the spectrum, look at the Spurs. Tony parker is leading the team in minutes at 35 per game, and he's a young guy that shouldn't be running out of steam towards the end anyway. As much as I don't really like the Spurs, I have to respect how incredibly well-run they are.
Going to see the Spurs when they roll into town next week. WFU alumni group has arranged a deal where we'll get into Philips around 5:00 pm and get to check out the shoot-around, etc. They did it last year when Chris Paul & the Hornets were in town last year, and CP3 spent about 45 minutes signing autographs & posing for pictures for fellow Deac fans.
and for all this talk about the Hawks, just imagine how good they'd be if they had taken either Chris Paul or Deron Williams a couple of years ago instead of Marvin Williams. Either of those guys running with Joe Johnson in the backcourt would be lethal. And I still say they screwed themselves by not taking Mike Conley in the most recent draft. There hasn't been a decent PG in this town since Mookie Blaylock.
As for the way the season will unfold, I'll gaze into my crystal ball and speculate that folks will be talking about Kobe, they new Garnett dynasty in Boston, and all sorts of flashy other stuff all year long. The Spurs will yet again fly under the radar, and be the last team standing when the final buzzer sounds.
Tim is the man.
The main reason for the big minutes has been James Posey not playing in 3 of the 5 games. Most of the 20 minutes or so he will play will likely be split between the 3 guys mentioned above. That would reduce a 40 minute workload down to around 35.
They've also got Tony Allen who is playing but is slowly working back from knee surgery. As the season goes along he will be able to play more minutes. And Big Baby has only been around for 5 games but he is coming along and will likely see more minutes.
I know it is has become the in thing to do, to criticize the Boston bench but if their bench is sad, could you give a couple of examples of Eastern Conference teams who don't have sad benches? Pretty much every team has a sad bench but for some reason it has become popular to only point it out only in regards to the team with the most talent in their starting five.
Why is nobody saying the Wizards have no bench? Or the Knicks? Or the Nets? Or the Heat? Or the Cavs? Take away David Lee and I question if these teams can combined to come up with 3 players better than Tony Allen, Eddie House and James Posey.
Here is an easy link to every teams roster. I'd love to know (being serious) the names of some Eastern teams with benches that aren't "sad":
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/teams
15fan, no argument on the Spurs. But they have won 4 titles and have yet to win one back to back.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote