EazyRoc

Quote: Quote: The Celtics were content with coasting through the first couple rounds of the playoffs winning their games at home. However, their play on the road improved after losing at home to Detroit. This is about the biggest POT Of BS that has probably ever been written on this messageboard. The Celtics were not content going 7 games against Atlanta. Did you see the Looks on their faces when the series was knotted up 2-2? How about right after game 6?? That was not a look of content. That was concern. The Celtics had the pressure of the basketball world on them because they were supposed to beat us in 4. Don't you think that they felt like they could be the next GS? Wow!! I can't believe you came up with that BS. Then you said that they came out of their stupor after losing a home game to Detroit? More BS!!! They won in Detroit after losing to Detroit, but they were in no stupor. Ask KG if they were taking any away games off in these playoffs and I will love to get the youtube footage of him whipping your ass. First and foremost, I'm going by what Paul Pierce said himself. Paul Pierce, you know the guy that's actually playing, said that the home lost to Detroit was a wake up call. So, if you feel it's BS, take it up with a Celtic player. I'm just relaying what the man said. Ok, so you say playoff basketball isn't different then regular season basketball. You honestly think it's a cliche ? Whatever... Why didn't we manage to win our home game with Boston this year ? Can you honestly say our players didn't play with more intensity (@home) in the playoffs than the regular season ? The facts and evidence show that they didn't win a game on the road until losing at home to Detroit. So, is Boston such a bad road team that they can't win on the road ? Nope, because the facts and the evidence show they are the best team in the league on the road. So why did they lose all their games, most by small margins, on the road, and practically dominated at home ? Do you really think it is because Cleveland and Atlanta are such great home teams ? Are you disputing the fact that the Celtics played better on the road after losing their first home game ? Come back to reality, man. You're trying to find something retarded to argue about, when all the facts are spread out right in front of you. It's veering off the subject of the original post now, and the bottom line is..whether or not Boston wins it all..it will not make us look better. Perhaps if they would have won a game in Cleveland, it would have, but that's not the case. P.S. If KG doesn't do anything to another grown ass man after getting headbutted, what makes you think he'll do anything to me ? That was a pretty lame joke..

Quote: wh y so many hawk fans hate pierce? I don't hate him. He's a punk, that's all. What kind of lame throws up signs on a NBA basketball court ? and does it while backing away ? He's a drama queen who wants to everyone to think he's some kind of gangster or something.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: Realistically, it doesn't matter much. Most of the league realizes that us pushing them to seven had more to do with them not showing up all that great on the road than it did with our excellence. Especially given how how badly we got whooped in boston. I like when people say Realistically... and then they spout off some BS. I don't think most of the league "realizes" that. Boston beat Cleveland and Detroit on the road. So it can't be said that they can't win on the road. They just couldn't win in Atlanta. Now the truth may be that we're not a good road team and we didn't show up on the road. If you look at the two season records, I think you will find that the BS that you start off with Realistically doesn't hold water because Boston was probably the 2nd best road team in the game this year compared to us who may have been the worst. That is not BS. In fact, I think announcers on both TNT and ESPN practically said the exact same thing. Hell, even Paul Pierce admitted that they didn't really handle business until Detroit beat them at home. The fact that Cleveland did the exact same thing just goes to show that there is some truth in the assumption. I think we have a great young team, but Boston winning doesn't make us look better. Us winning would have made us look better. We walked into the playoffs as a team that wasn't even considered competition against the Celtics, and we proved the national assumption wrong. We proved that we are a young, competitive team with a chance to make some noise in years to come. Whether or not the Celtics win it all, that will not change. Let's make this simple... Atlanta... 25-16 at home 12 -29 on the road. Boston... 35-6 at home 31-10 on the road. Which team is more apt to have a breakdown on the road... ATL or Boston?? Since we acquired Bibby we were 11-4 at home. With 2 of those losses being suspect because we had made the playoffs. Boston didn't change going into the playoffs. They were the same team that went 31-10 on the road. There was nothing to cause them to stumble on the road. IT was BS. However, we're a bad road team. Have been all year and even with Bibby. It's more likely that us being a bad team on the road and a good team at home contributed to our playoff woes (along with matchup) than Boston being a bad home team? What team waits until the playoffs to become a bad road team? That makes no sense. I don't know why you keep referring to the regular season, when everyone knows that playoff basketball is a whole different beast. Everyone in the playoffs was bad on the road and good at home, that's why they call it homecourt advantage. The Celtics were content with coasting through the first couple rounds of the playoffs winning their games at home. However, their play on the road improved after losing at home to Detroit. Ray Allen was a non-factor in our series. I could go on and on. The bottom line is, from my observation, the Celtics played much better basketball on the road against Detroit. The Hawks' (and the Cavs') put up a noble home court effort, but why do you think the Hawks got blown out so badly on the road ? The Cavs didn't consistently get blown out like we did.

These might not be the top 8 or 9 players, but I think these players would make good teams. PG:Jose Calderon SG:Kevin Martin SF:Tracy McGrady PF:Al Horford C:Pau Gasol or PG:Baron Davis SG:Michael Redd SF:Josh Smith PF:Al Jefferson C:Brad Miller On those teams, if everyone played their role, they'd be very good teams.

Quote: Quote: Realistically, it doesn't matter much. Most of the league realizes that us pushing them to seven had more to do with them not showing up all that great on the road than it did with our excellence. Especially given how how badly we got whooped in boston. I like when people say Realistically... and then they spout off some BS. I don't think most of the league "realizes" that. Boston beat Cleveland and Detroit on the road. So it can't be said that they can't win on the road. They just couldn't win in Atlanta. Now the truth may be that we're not a good road team and we didn't show up on the road. If you look at the two season records, I think you will find that the BS that you start off with Realistically doesn't hold water because Boston was probably the 2nd best road team in the game this year compared to us who may have been the worst. That is not BS. In fact, I think announcers on both TNT and ESPN practically said the exact same thing. Hell, even Paul Pierce admitted that they didn't really handle business until Detroit beat them at home. The fact that Cleveland did the exact same thing just goes to show that there is some truth in the assumption. I think we have a great young team, but Boston winning doesn't make us look better. Us winning would have made us look better. We walked into the playoffs as a team that wasn't even considered competition against the Celtics, and we proved the national assumption wrong. We proved that we are a young, competitive team with a chance to make some noise in years to come. Whether or not the Celtics win it all, that will not change.

Quote: Quote: - A scout saw something in Josh Smith and told BK to take a chance where 15 or so other teams passed up on him and had no earthly clue about his potential. This one isn't entirely accurate. A lot of people thought Josh Smith could have been a top 10 pick if he'd gone to college for a year, but a lot of teams saw him as a risk straight out of high school. He wasn't exactly a sleeper. I think I've heard it mentioned that Josh Smith was the player most likely to be a bust. I guess they couldn't have been more wrong..

Quote: Id take Tinsley and JO over Redd and Billups. we get two good starters and a potential all defensive team player and all star in JO..plus Tinsley kind of plays like Bibby but passes better and shoots worst Michael Redd still plays at a high level. He also plays many more games than JO plays. I think JO is not going to get better as far as injuries are concerned. Who knows if he'll come back and play like he used to play ? Atleast you know what you're getting with Michael Redd. Besides for a team that has perceived financial issues, why would we take on two very big contracts like JO's and JT's ?

Quote: according to him, at least. Quote: "I think God just sent this angel down and said, 'Hey, you're going to be all right,'" Pierce said after scoring 15 of his 22 points in the third quarter. "'You need to get back out there. Show them what you've got.' Once I felt I could put weight on it I had to get back out there and help my ballclub." Man, Excuse my language, but man he's a real [censored].

Oh! Jermaine O'Neal is always hurt man. He'd come here and play like..50 games. He's also getting old.

Quote: First Michael Redd and JJ couldnt' co exist. They both need shots and the same kind of shots, that being mostly from the perimeter. Second, it does nothing to improve our post game or interior defense, it is basically a fantasy basketball trade. The thing is JJ can score anywhere on the court. Michael Redd gives us another perimeter player so teams can't pack the paint. You've got to respect both Joe Johnson's and Michael Redd's jumpshot. That would make it easy for players like Josh Smith, Al Horford, and Acie Law to get into the paint for a good shot. We need a legitimate 2nd scoring option next to Joe Johnson. Josh Smith is definately trying, but I think he'd be more effective if he didn't have force so much. You can't double or triple team Joe Johnson with Michael Redd on the floor. You can't double team Michael Redd with Joe on the floor. He's likely to be on this years USA Olympic Basketball Team, just like Joe has a chance.

Terry Porter was a name one of my friends mentioned to me. We could probably get him fairly cheap.

Quote: Quote: Quote: Quote: I picked Flip Saunders and Avery Johnson. Humor me. Who would be your 3rd and 4th choices ? Van Gundy and Thibideau (sp?) Thibadeau??? Bad call. Sure he's a good defensive assistant but so was Woody. I would say that in Detroit, Woody was better than Thibideau in Boston. Woody shut down Shaq Kobe with his defensive schemes. Thibadeau has no experience Running the show. give me Fratello, Bob Hill, or Del Harris. I can go for Del Harris. However, Woody's resume as a defensive assistant isn't as strong as Thibadeau's. He's has much more experience than Woody has as a defensive assistant. However, I think I could go for Del Harris' experience as an actual head coach over Thibadeau.

Quote: Forgot about Big Al Squared. (He has to be AL two after Horf!) Smoove is better than Martin. I was just looking at his stats from Game 4-28/8 boards/7 blocks/two steals. Hah, I really can't disagree after being reminded. Even though his team didn't make the playoffs, Kevin Martin averaged 23.7 (46%) 4.5 reb 2 asst 1 steal. Therefore, I'd put him right behind Smith.

Quote: Quote: I picked Flip Saunders and Avery Johnson. Humor me. Who would be your 3rd and 4th choices ? Van Gundy and Thibideau (sp?)

Quote: the MEMPHIS GRIZZLES? when have they ever been to the conference finals? They aren't in the Eastern Conference.

Weren't the Wizards (Bullets back in the day) an expansion team in like the 80s ?

Quote: I assume they are talking about Tom Thibodeau. He coached with Van Gundy in Houston and NYC and is supposedly the defensive guru behind the Celtics and Van Gundy's Knicks. Not to mention that when Van Gundy coached the Rockets, their defense was ridiculous, too.

Quote: The point is that Smoove has all the skills and athleticism in the world and probably alot of BBIQ, the problem is there is no application at all. He plays recklessly, that is the only problem I see. Occasional lack of effort, yes, but it is not that load of crap that he is skilless. OK, question for all you Smoove-haters. Is he or is he not the second best player in his draft class behind, obviously, Dwight Howard? Maybe after Al Jefferson, sure. EDIT: I think you would also have to consider Kevin Martin, too. Although, I would say they are tied. As a matter of fact, Kevin Martin may really be the most underrated player in the league.

Quote: skills = shoot, pass, handles some of you guys get skills mixed up with athletic ability JS is below average in all of those areas which is why he'll never make a good SF or tweener. Now if he concentrates on being a pure PF and developes a nice low post game he'd be a top 10 player. JS needs to improve his skills regardless of what position he plays. He's not big/strong enough to focus solely on his post game. He needs to be able to pull his defender out and beat them off the dribble, and in order to pull them out he needs to be able to shoot. Also, to reduce some of the charges he draws, he needs to improve his handles and make better passes.

Quote: I think the man to get is Micheal Redd from the Bucks. I've seen rumors that he is available and is not too happy in his current situation and wouldn't mind to relocate. I think his shooting would improve JJ's game immensly. Especially JJ's post-up game, which im sure more of us would like him to exploit more often. I think he would do alot for Smoove and Horford as well, who's post-up games should be improved over the summer and featured in the offense next year. Marv/Bibby(exp)/2009 1st rnd pick top 5 protec for Micheal Redd Then I've seen alot about Calderon being the man that the Raptors want to keep up in Canada, and Calderon mentioning that he wants to be a starter. Meaning Ford is expendable. I think he can be had for a cheaper price than he is worth. Sign &Trade Chillz for TJ Ford Our Lineup: Ford/Law JJ/Stoudemire Redd/Richardson Smoove/Zaza Horford/Solo Coach: Mike Fratello This team in my opionion is ready to finals contenders in the weak East. I think this team can still be tweaked in terms of strengthening the bench but this deffinetly is a good start towards improvement. All Fratello needs to do is instill a winning attitude, toughness, and defense into these guys and I see no reason why they can't take over the east next year. Thoughts? I would love to bring in Mike Redd. Although, I don't think we would be able to include a first round draft pick in that trade. Marvin and Bibby might have enough value to get the trade done on a team that's in rebuild mode. I don't understand why everyone is so hyped up about Fratello. He hasn't coached in years, and when he did coach it wasn't like he making deep runs into the playoffs..

Oh my god. That thing is ugly, man.

I picked Flip Saunders and Avery Johnson.

Quote: What sense would this make? None. Jason Maxiell is 6'5" (check his pre-draft measurables), and is a PF. Don't we have enough PFs ?

Quote: 1. Lebron James. 2. Steve Nash/A-Rod 3. Sergio Garcia. 4. McNabb 5. Chris Bosh 6. Brian Urlacher 7. Tony Romo 8. Vince Young 9. Eli Manning 10. David Beckham LeBron is slightly overrated right now. I think he'll live up to the hype eventually. Chris Bosh is not overrated. He has carried Toronto to the playoffs these past couple of years. It's not like he gets a lot of hype like LeBron, but he carries his team in a way only a few players can. Tony Romo and Urlacher are not overrated. Eli Manning just won a ring. He performed exceptionally well in the Super Bowl, therefore I disagree with that one too. Steve Nash is overrated. McNabb is just washed up now, not really overrated. Vince Young isn't really overrated, because he isn't hyped up. He'll be good, though.

Quote: This is good news for the Falcons. I'm excited about the MLB Lofton we drafted, too. I think he could be our next Tuggle. Our corps of DB's should be better than people think. Hall was probably the most overrated corner in the NFL, and I'm personally glad to be rid of his attitude. This year, there are no expectations of the playoffs, so the season is about finding out which guys are keepers and which one of the 3 or 4 CB on our roster can start opposite Houston. I'd also be greatly encouraged if Jamaal Anderson showed me something from the DE position. I think this is quietly going to be one of the Falcons' best draft in years. Our offensive line, as horrible as it was, will be better this year with better coaching. Our receiving corps is finally maturing into something respectable with Laurent Robison emerging, and Harry Douglas giving a good showing in camp. Our cornerback position is surprisingly not our weakness. If Grimes can earn that starter spot, him and chris houston form a very good cornerback tandem. I believe Jamaal Anderson will shine under Mike Smith, who was a defensive line coach when the Ravens won the superbowl. With the way the NFC South looks, we could still compete for a playoff spot. I can't wait..