• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Official '16-17 NBA Thread: not with a bang but a whimper

Filthy how? The East is weak.
 
PhDeac said:
So how does the rest of the league react to this postseason?
Click to expand...

I am still in the camp is that the way to beat a GS type team is not to match them in tempo and range, but to pound the ball inside. Everyone is going small ball, and I dont think that is the answer. I think the alchemy of the Warriors lineup is super unique. They are probably the only team that can win the title this way, and it probably will only last another year or two.

The 3 fest of the last two years reminds me of the read option in FB. The biggest success stories of that era, RG3 and Kaep, are out of the league now. But all the coach donk tried to copy it as 'the future of the game' for two years before abandoning it as a fad that can only work with certain personnel.

So, we will probably see another year or two of small ball before the next dominant center comes along.
 
I completely disagree TAB. You'd need a pair of bigs on par with Shaq and Duncan and wings who can shoot and defend and a scoring PG with a deep bench to pull that off.

Any team going big against the Dubs risks trading 2s for 3s.
 
PhDeac said:
I completely disagree TAB. You'd need a pair of bigs on par with Shaq and Duncan and wings who can shoot and defend and a scoring PG with a deep bench to pull that off.

Any team going big against the Dubs risks trading 2s for 3s.
Click to expand...

And no one going small will be able to match the shooting of Curry/Durant/Klay, so going with an opposite would be better. Probably with a harden/wade type that can draw a billion fouls.
 
One of the big problems for the Cavs and Spurs is they are sinking a ton of money into two bigs.

Teams with a elite wing should get a bunch of cheap athletic bigs who don't need the ball and can hustle like McGee and Dedmond and a stretch 4 or guy who can defend the perimeter. Maybe a bruiser too. Don't overspend on bigs.
 
PhDeac said:
Filthy how? The East is weak.
Click to expand...

Are we forgetting about last year? It was pretty much the exact same matchup with KD being the only significant difference. GM LeBron took down the team with the most wins in regular season history.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
Are we forgetting about last year? It was pretty much the exact same matchup with KD being the only significant difference. GM LeBron took down the team with the most wins in regular season history.
Click to expand...

This team wasn't as good as last year's Cav team.

Losing Draymond was huge last year.
 
PhDeac said:
I completely disagree TAB. You'd need a pair of bigs on par with Shaq and Duncan and wings who can shoot and defend and a scoring PG with a deep bench to pull that off.

Any team going big against the Dubs risks trading 2s for 3s.
Click to expand...

So what? Recency bias. The league hasnt had a dominant big since early Magic Dwight or Lakers Shaq really. We forget how a truly dominant big changes a game.

The best 3pt shooters are around 40%. Two good post players against lil Draymond and Zaza or that other scrub are going to dunk on GS all day.

What would happen if CP3 grabbed some good perimeter defenders (George, Butler) and went back to Nolya? Boogie and AD absolutely deee-stroy the inside D of GS. 75% FG. Dunks. That is the way you beat them. You arent going to out 3 them.

The 3 point shot stops itself at a 60% clip in the best case scenario. A beast down low is truly unstoppable.
 
The style of play is almost irrelevant. What matters is that the Warriors have 4 of the 20 best players in the game.

If you added Kawhi and Beal to the Cavs in lieu of Love and Thompson, the Cavs probably win. It just turned out that having 4 top 20 players is better than having 2 top 20 players and 2 top 40 players. Even when the best player plays for the Cavs.
 
Do you really think that the Harper-Bryant-Fox-Grant-O'Neal Lakers would have been able to guard this Warriors team? The Warriors would have run all over them, and then denied the passes from the wings enough to make it really difficult to get Shaq the ball. He still would have scored 30-40, but the combination of long rebounds from the Warriors 3s and the transition game would have made it difficult for him to be truly dominant.
 
DeaconSig said:
Do you really think that the Harper-Bryant-Fox-Grant-O'Neal Lakers would have been able to guard this Warriors team? The Warriors would have run all over them, and then denied the passes from the wings enough to make it really difficult to get Shaq the ball. He still would have scored 30-40, but the combination of long rebounds from the Warriors 3s and the transition game would have made it difficult for him to be truly dominant.
Click to expand...

They actually would have been alright defensively (as alright as a team can be against these Warriors). That lineup had length and height and versatility in Shaw and Horry off the bench.

Also how exactly do you deny an entry pass to a 7 foot 300 pound freak athlete when everyone potentially throwing the entry pass (save Fisher) is 6'6 or taller.

That matchup probably just comes down to who could control the tempo.
 
DeaconSig said:
The style of play is almost irrelevant. What matters is that the Warriors have 4 of the 20 best players in the game.

If you added Kawhi and Beal to the Cavs in lieu of Love and Thompson, the Cavs probably win. It just turned out that having 4 top 20 players is better than having 2 top 20 players and 2 top 40 players. Even when the best player plays for the Cavs.
Click to expand...

Klay isn't a top 20 player, I'm not even sure he's the fourth best player on the team. The real difference is their coach is a genius and they have two top 10 players while also being stronger 3-10 than any other teams 3-6 or 7
 
DeaconSig said:
Do you really think that the Harper-Bryant-Fox-Grant-O'Neal Lakers would have been able to guard this Warriors team? The Warriors would have run all over them, and then denied the passes from the wings enough to make it really difficult to get Shaq the ball. He still would have scored 30-40, but the combination of long rebounds from the Warriors 3s and the transition game would have made it difficult for him to be truly dominant.
Click to expand...

With Shaq in the lane, the Warriors don't get those easy drives to the basket or rebounds in the lane.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
It's like when Steve Nash won the MVP awards. Not the most deserving and people will talk about it, but it won't be terrible.
Click to expand...

It also speaks to the absurd level of talent in the NBA right now. There were at least 5 legitimate MVP candidates this year, maybe more. That's nuts.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
I am still in the camp is that the way to beat a GS type team is not to match them in tempo and range, but to pound the ball inside. Everyone is going small ball, and I dont think that is the answer. I think the alchemy of the Warriors lineup is super unique. They are probably the only team that can win the title this way, and it probably will only last another year or two.

The 3 fest of the last two years reminds me of the read option in FB. The biggest success stories of that era, RG3 and Kaep, are out of the league now. But all the coach donk tried to copy it as 'the future of the game' for two years before abandoning it as a fad that can only work with certain personnel.

So, we will probably see another year or two of small ball before the next dominant center comes along.
Click to expand...

There is also an influx of post talent coming into the league over the next two years (not to mention already in the league), so that would make sense.
 
DeaconSig said:
Do you really think that the Harper-Bryant-Fox-Grant-O'Neal Lakers would have been able to guard this Warriors team? The Warriors would have run all over them, and then denied the passes from the wings enough to make it really difficult to get Shaq the ball. He still would have scored 30-40, but the combination of long rebounds from the Warriors 3s and the transition game would have made it difficult for him to be truly dominant.
Click to expand...

Or Shaq would foul out Draymond in a quarter and a half, and break his forearm while doing it, and then it would be 95% FG from there on out vs 45% 3s.

Also, don't forget that Kobe was the most alpha dude around and that KD, Steph and Klay are all sort of soft spoken millennial betas. Kobe would talk so much shit that he would take at least one of them completely out of it.

This is also why Lebron has lost 5 finals. MJ would never sub tweet anyone to get their attention.
 
RJKarl said:
With Shaq in the lane, the Warriors don't get those easy drives to the basket or rebounds in the lane.
Click to expand...

Shaq wouldn't have been in the lane, because they would have put whomever he was guarding in a million pick and rolls with Durant or Curry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top