NBA Playoffs 2008 - Round 1

[Boon 0]

The rough-and-tumble playoff series between the Celtics and Atlanta Hawks returns to Boston for a fifth game on Wednesday night, with both teams getting good news from the league after practice on Tuesday. NBA spokesman Tim Frank said there would be no fines or suspensions for a Game 4 altercation that resulted in double technicals to each side.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

I'm rooting for the Hawks here, would love to see this go 7, but its hard to see them winning in Boston without the rabid crowd.

[Ripper 0]

Fuck who goes to Phoenix, its about Atlanta should be throwing money at Mike D'Antoni's feet before the Raptors scoop him up.

 

 

And yes, I realize that San Antonio was just exploiting a weakness...cause...you know...I kinda said that in my post.

 

But my point is, to say one is a "BETTER" team because you have guys that can waste fouls by hacking a guy off the ball so he can miss freethrows is silly. Purposely fouling a guy off the ball to stop the game in the middle of the quarter isn't a basketball play, its an exploitation of a rule. A rule that is going to be changed this offseason just because of this series.

 

i am not blaming them though. Shaq should stop being a bitch and shoot them underhanded if he can't bend his wrist and that "I won't shoot like a girl" crap is dumb and just cost his team a series. But when it comes down to it, at least 2 games in this series was lost due to exploitation of a rule.

 

That said, they still SHOULD have won games 1 and 5, despite the exploitation of the rule. It just came down to the Spurs getting more chances to score.

[Narcoleptic Jumper 0]

I don't understand why D'antoni didn't try the Hack-a-Bruce.

 

maybe because he has fucking principals.

 

Who goes to Phoenix, Avery Johnson?

 

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Ripper 0]

I think Avery would work in Phoenix, although Amare would be in for a shock when he wouldn't be allowed to be the worse big man defender this side of Eddy Curry.

 

He would have to let Nash run the offense, he would preach the defense (which is only bad because the bigs don't show on pick and rolls).

 

But I do think making D'Antoni the scape goat is silly. He didn't miss 17 freethrows last game and he didn't blow all those freethrows in game one. That, literally, was the difference in the series.

[naiwf 0]

Or D'Antoni could be getting the axe because Phoenix has had championship level talent for at least 3 years now and they couldn't make it out of the West because they play no defense. It was obvious Kerr and/or D'Antoni was gone the minute they traded for Shaq because anyone who wasn't a Suns fan knew that wasn't going to work longterm and someone was going to be sacrificed once they were eliminated.

[Brett Favre 0]

They don't need a new coach. What they should do is keep their draft picks and get some depth. With the 15th pick, they could draft someone like Chase Budinger who can shoot the lights out or DJ Augustin to back up Steve Nash.

[Ripper 0]

Or D'Antoni could be getting the axe because Phoenix has had championship level talent for at least 3 years now and they couldn't make it out of the West because they play no defense. It was obvious Kerr and/or D'Antoni was gone the minute they traded for Shaq because anyone who wasn't a Suns fan knew that wasn't going to work longterm and someone was going to be sacrificed once they were eliminated.

 

 

You keep saying this but it is complete and total bullshit. A Suns team without Amare Stoudimire and Raja bell and Kurt thomas 2 years ago was a championship caliber team? They got depleated by injuries and lost in 6 to the Mavs. You keep pretending it was some indictment against the Suns style of play when they were playing the "record wise" best team in the league at full strenght missing their starting 2 guard, power forward and Center.

 

They had one of the better defenses in the League last year and the year before that. "They play no D" comes from people stupidly looking at their opponents points per game and ignoring real defensive stats. They were bad his first year as a coach and this year when they happened to trade the teams best defender.

 

I know you don't like the Suns, fine. And yes, the suspensions last year was their fault, but to pretend that had nothing to do with that series outcome last year is just being silly.

 

Losing a series to the NBA champions is not indictment on the coaching. They lost a close game because San Antionio played Hack a Shaq. TWICE in this series they lost games simply because of that. What should be a 3-2 series right now is over because one guy couldn't hit freethrows. San Antonio couldn't stop their offense so Pop suprisingly went to the Hack a Shaq, something I never guessed he would stoop to, but you have to do what you have to do to win.

[naiwf 0]

Aside from not wanting to pay rookies why do the Suns consistently trade their picks for money? It's not like they're getting lottery picks here and they're not playing in front of half empty crowds every night. Their management team makes some very odd decisions when it comes to personnel.

[CanadianChris 0]

I hate the Hack-a-Shaq. It's a cheap tactic. The NBA really needs to consider changing the rule to bring it in line with the college rule on intentional fouls (i.e. make them the same as technicals at all times). Doug Collins said it best on the broadcast last night -- deliberately fouling shouldn't give a team an advantage.

[naiwf 0]

Or D'Antoni could be getting the axe because Phoenix has had championship level talent for at least 3 years now and they couldn't make it out of the West because they play no defense. It was obvious Kerr and/or D'Antoni was gone the minute they traded for Shaq because anyone who wasn't a Suns fan knew that wasn't going to work longterm and someone was going to be sacrificed once they were eliminated.

 

 

You keep saying this but it is complete and total bullshit. A Suns team without Amare Stoudimire and Raja bell and Kurt thomas 2 years ago was a championship caliber team?

 

They made the WCF 2 years ago. That's a "championship caliber" team when you can do that in the West. In the last 4 years they won 55, 61, 54 and 62 in backwards order. They had a back to back MVP and 2 other guys that made all-NBA teams during that run. They also had the 6th Man of the Year last year. They've had a former Coach of the Year pulling the strings during that whole run as well. You can cite bad luck all you want, but that's a "championship caliber" organization by any stretch of the imagination. Fundamentally though everyone has agreed that the Suns not playing playoff level defense has been their downfall and the fact that they've had that much talent and zero results has a lot more to do with their style of play than you're willing to admit because you're convinced that they're good enough defensively but "shit happens" and they get screwed every year.

 

Like I said before as a Knicks fan during the Jordan era I know what it's like to see your team lose to the same guys every year even when you were the better team and should have put them away (The Charles Smith Memorial Game). However history doesn't care about the coulda, shoulda, woulda. It just shows the actual results, and for the Suns their results don't look good for a team with that much talent on paper.

[TheOriginalOrangeGoblin 0]

I hate the Hack-a-Shaq. It's a cheap tactic. The NBA really needs to consider changing the rule to bring it in line with the college rule on intentional fouls (i.e. make them the same as technicals at all times). Doug Collins said it best on the broadcast last night -- deliberately fouling shouldn't give a team an advantage.

I agree. It's legal and it works so I can't fault Popovich but it should be outlawed somehow. It kills the game and really ruined what should've been a very fun series to watch.

[Guest]

I like the Hack-a-Shaq. I wouldn't even say that it's a cheap tactic. And as a Laker fan, it was pretty much the best thing ever when Shaq would bury the free throws.

[Ripper 0]

Or D'Antoni could be getting the axe because Phoenix has had championship level talent for at least 3 years now and they couldn't make it out of the West because they play no defense. It was obvious Kerr and/or D'Antoni was gone the minute they traded for Shaq because anyone who wasn't a Suns fan knew that wasn't going to work longterm and someone was going to be sacrificed once they were eliminated.

 

 

You keep saying this but it is complete and total bullshit. A Suns team without Amare Stoudimire and Raja bell and Kurt thomas 2 years ago was a championship caliber team?

 

They made the WCF 2 years ago. That's a "championship caliber" team when you can do that in the West. In the last 4 years they won 55, 61, 54 and 62 in backwards order. They had a back to back MVP and 2 other guys that made all-NBA teams during that run. They also had the 6th Man of the Year last year. They've had a former Coach of the Year pulling the strings during that whole run as well. You can cite bad luck all you want, but that's a "championship caliber" organization by any stretch of the imagination. Fundamentally though everyone has agreed that the Suns not playing playoff level defense has been their downfall and the fact that they've had that much talent and zero results has a lot more to do with their style of play than you're willing to admit because you're convinced that they're good enough defensively but "shit happens" and they get screwed every year.

 

Like I said before as a Knicks fan during the Jordan era I know what it's like to see your team lose to the same guys every year even when you were the better team and should have put them away (The Charles Smith Memorial Game). However history doesn't care about the coulda, shoulda, woulda. It just shows the actual results, and for the Suns their results don't look good for a team with that much talent on paper.

 

I am saying, I get a feeling that if Duncan, Ginobli and...well...uh...Oberto, got hurt on the way to the finals last year and Cleveland won, I don't think "Cleveland is just a superior team" would come out of anyones mouth.

 

This is the first year that San Antonio beat the suns without a MAJOR piece being injured. Congrats to them. And they exploited a weakness and won. But to pretend that the reason the Suns haven't advanced.

 

And really how can you argue they weren't a good defensive team the last two years? Really? I mean, they were better without Amare because Amare sucks ass defensively, and they were damn good last year. Dumb talking heads say "The suns give up over 100 per game...they are HORRIBLE DEFENSIVELY" mostly because they are fucking morons. yes, the suns defense was bad this year and it was bad 3 years ago. That "they didn't win because they don't play defense" crap didn't fly the other years.

 

Major injuries to major contributors, for any other team, people say 'well, so and so was injured". With the suns its "SEE, that style can't win!!!!!! Sure they lost their leading scorer, rebounder, shot blocker, 3 point shooter, best perimeter defender, best low post defender, but its not that...its their STYLE OF PLAY".

 

You honestly don't see how funny that is?

 

[Broward83 0]

I hate the Hack-a-Shaq. It's a cheap tactic. The NBA really needs to consider changing the rule to bring it in line with the college rule on intentional fouls (i.e. make them the same as technicals at all times). Doug Collins said it best on the broadcast last night -- deliberately fouling shouldn't give a team an advantage.

 

Would you like to see the league take the stance they take with fouls that impede the direct line to the basket? The whole two shots plus the ball for deliberate fouls like the "Hack-a-Shaq"?

[Ripper 0]

I think thats a bit much. I say one shot and the basketball like a defensive 3. Plus it adds a foul to the penalty.

 

That way, the best freethrow shooter on the court can take the shot and you risk giving up 3-4 points.

 

You should only be able to punish a team with Hack-a- ______ if they are giving him the ball to score on you.

[Maztinho 0]

Interrupting Ripper correcting everyone about how the Suns' lost series in the past to say, Utah couldn't hit jack shit all night. I was a sad panda last night.

 

Back to Ripper Correcting Everyone About The Suns.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Man, Ripper, what's it going to take for you to ever concede that the Spurs are better than the Suns? How bad do they have to get beat? Sweep? 15-plus points every game? What's it going to take? Because every year you keep insisting that the Suns and Spurs are equals, and that they're "evenly matched," and this, that and a third, and all I see is 4-1, 4-2, 4-2, 4-1.

 

Seriously, you're worse than the other Kings fans I hang around; how many times/how bad do they have to get beat before you lay off?

[alfdogg 0]

I think thats a bit much. I say one shot and the basketball like a defensive 3. Plus it adds a foul to the penalty.

 

That way, the best freethrow shooter on the court can take the shot and you risk giving up 3-4 points.

 

You should only be able to punish a team with Hack-a- ______ if they are giving him the ball to score on you.

Or ______ could work to become a better free throw shooter, and eliminate the need for unnecessary rule changes.

[Ripper 0]

Man, Ripper, what's it going to take for you to ever concede that the Spurs are better than the Suns? How bad do they have to get beat? Sweep? 15-plus points every game? What's it going to take? Because every year you keep insisting that the Suns and Spurs are equals, and that they're "evenly matched," and this, that and a third, and all I see is 4-1, 4-2, 4-2, 4-1.

 

Seriously, you're worse than the other Kings fans I hang around; how many times/how bad do they have to get beat before you lay off?

 

You mean 4-1, 4-2, 4-1, right?

 

AGAIN. They Spurs were CLEARLY the better team when the two first played. The Suns went 6 deep (with Johnson hurt) and that 6th man was Jim Jackson who wasn't exactly a world beater.

 

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

 

This year, when it came to regular basketball, they were eveningly matched. THe COMPLETE difference in this series was __________ missing free throws. Not offense, not defense, not coaching, not officiating, not suspension, not injuries, not execution of the offense. The difference between the two teams was that Pop brought guys off the bench to foul a guy off the ball and he sucked ass at freethrow shooting. The suns went up big, they fouled a guy off the ball to cut the lead. Suns were coming back on them, they fouled a guy to keep the lead.

 

 

[Guest I swallowed a Q-Tip.]

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

I'd go with "San Antonio won four of the six games played."

[Ripper 0]

I think thats a bit much. I say one shot and the basketball like a defensive 3. Plus it adds a foul to the penalty.

 

That way, the best freethrow shooter on the court can take the shot and you risk giving up 3-4 points.

 

You should only be able to punish a team with Hack-a- ______ if they are giving him the ball to score on you.

Or ______ could work to become a better free throw shooter, and eliminate the need for unnecessary rule changes.

 

 

They changed the original rule because it was ridiculous how teams would just foul Wilt for the entire game and turn it into a freethrow show. It was boring, it wasn't basketball, and cheap. So they changed the rule.

 

Now, Don Nelson looked at it, found a loophole, and said "well, i am doing it because we can't stop them otherwise" and got an advantage over it. That is pretty much what Pop was saying. We can't stop them so we are going to exploit a loophole in a rule. While its legal, its still cheap. SMART as hell, and I dont' blame him for doing it, but it was cheap.

[Ripper 0]

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

I'd go with "San Antonio won four of the six games played."

 

 

One of their 4 was against a depleted team and the other, just happned to have a convict calling bad fouls...that didn't change ANYTHING, huh?

 

What I am saying here is that if, say Duncan was to go down for 2 games and the Suns win the series 4-2, are you guys going to actually tell me you would say "Well, the problem is that the Suns were just obviously a much better team than the Spurs. The Spurs should learn to play defense".

 

I am just not buying that happening. Hell, I distinctly remember the lot of you still talking about how Chicago lost to the Magic when jordan came back not because Orlando was better, because Jordan just wasn't all the way back yet and it doesn't count. The same people now pretending that suspensions and injuries don't mean anything now is just funny.

[Precious Roy 0]

And yes, I realize that San Antonio was just exploiting a weakness...cause...you know...I kinda said that in my post.

 

But my point is, to say one is a "BETTER" team because you have guys that can waste fouls by hacking a guy off the ball so he can miss freethrows is silly. Purposely fouling a guy off the ball to stop the game in the middle of the quarter isn't a basketball play, its an exploitation of a rule. A rule that is going to be changed this offseason just because of this series.

 

i am not blaming them though. Shaq should stop being a bitch and shoot them underhanded if he can't bend his wrist and that "I won't shoot like a girl" crap is dumb and just cost his team a series. But when it comes down to it, at least 2 games in this series was lost due to exploitation of a rule.

 

That said, they still SHOULD have won games 1 and 5, despite the exploitation of the rule. It just came down to the Spurs getting more chances to score.

 

So D'Antoni should have taken him out of the games if it was obviously hurting the team. Play Skinner. Play fucking Sean Marks. Pop outcoached him. AGAIN.

 

THE COACH IS PART OF THE TEAM. THE SPURS ARE THE BETTER TEAM. PERIOD. THEY ALWAYS BEAT THE SUNS.

 

Bitch about Steve Kerr and D'Antoni all you want, but your argument is refuckingtarded

 

christ...

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

Man, Ripper, what's it going to take for you to ever concede that the Spurs are better than the Suns? How bad do they have to get beat? Sweep? 15-plus points every game? What's it going to take? Because every year you keep insisting that the Suns and Spurs are equals, and that they're "evenly matched," and this, that and a third, and all I see is 4-1, 4-2, 4-2, 4-1.

 

Seriously, you're worse than the other Kings fans I hang around; how many times/how bad do they have to get beat before you lay off?

 

You mean 4-1, 4-2, 4-1, right?

Actually, I meant 4-2, 4-1, 4-2, 4-1. I went back to 2003. Actually, if you don't count 2003, that goes even further against Phoenix: that makes them only 2-11 against the Spurs in playoff games decided by single digits.

 

AGAIN. They Spurs were CLEARLY the better team when the two first played. The Suns went 6 deep (with Johnson hurt) and that 6th man was Jim Jackson who wasn't exactly a world beater.

 

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

 

This year, when it came to regular basketball, they were eveningly matched. THe COMPLETE difference in this series was __________ missing free throws. Not offense, not defense, not coaching, not officiating, not suspension, not injuries, not execution of the offense. The difference between the two teams was that Pop brought guys off the bench to foul a guy off the ball and he sucked ass at freethrow shooting. The suns went up big, they fouled a guy off the ball to cut the lead. Suns were coming back on them, they fouled a guy to keep the lead.

So, in other words, your answer to my question is "I'm not ever going to?"

[alfdogg 0]

I don't think it's really fair to count 2003. The Suns were nowhere close to being a threat at that time.

[Ripper 0]

You are counting the stephon marbury, rookie Amare team too? Well no shit that the Spurs were better than them then.

[Mr. S£im Citrus 0]

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

I'd go with "San Antonio won four of the six games played."

 

 

One of their 4 was against a depleted team and the other, just happned to have a convict calling bad fouls...that didn't change ANYTHING, huh?

 

What I am saying here is that if, say Duncan was to go down for 2 games and the Suns win the series 4-2, are you guys going to actually tell me you would say "Well, the problem is that the Suns were just obviously a much better team than the Spurs. The Spurs should learn to play defense".

 

I am just not buying that happening. Hell, I distinctly remember the lot of you still talking about how Chicago lost to the Magic when jordan came back not because Orlando was better, because Jordan just wasn't all the way back yet and it doesn't count. The same people now pretending that suspensions and injuries don't mean anything now is just funny.

See, here's the difference between your argument and your examples: in the first example, you ask "What if Duncan were injured?" Well, in 2000, he was injured, and the Spurs lost in the first round to the Suns, and the next time the two teams played in the playoffs, Duncan was healthy, and the Spurs won. And, they've won every time since then.

 

In your second example, you ask "Well, how come everybody gives the Bulls a pass when they lost to Orlando in 1995?" Well, because they played each other the very next year in the playoffs, and Chicago beat that ass, which fairly decisively ended all discussion on the topic.

 

And, as the resident Kings homer, I'll throw one more example in the mix: Sacramento beat Dallas the first time the two teams met in the playoffs in 2002, 4-1. The following year, Webber went down in Game 2, and the Kings ended up losing that series 3-4, and Kings fans were all about how, if we'd have had Webber, we wouldn't have lost, and Mavs fans were all, "stop making excuses." And then, the next year, Webber came back, and we beat the Mavericks 4-1 again, which pretty much proved (at least in my mind) that the one year the Mavericks beat us was a fluke.

 

Which is where I stand on this side of this argument: San Antonio proved that the Suns beating them in 2000 was a fluke when they beat them the next time they played in 2003. Chicago proved that Orlando beating them was a fluke in 1995 when they beat the shit out of them the following year in 1996. Sacramento proved that Dallas beating them in 2003 was a fluke when they beat them the following year in 2004... Phoenix has yet to PROVE that they're the equals of San Antonio, or that the fact that they lost because they were missing players was "just bad luck." If they were equals, they'd have won at least one of those series.

 

So, again, what's it going to take for you to ever say that San Antonio is better? Playing 4-on-5? A two-game headstart?

[Guest I swallowed a Q-Tip.]

I'm going to put on my mod hat here for a second and say this Phoenix Suns argument has a lot of brick wall tendencies, so it might be a good idea to move on.

[Ripper 0]

The 4-2 last year....comeon. Just...come on. I don't see how you can say one team was better than the other.

I'd go with "San Antonio won four of the six games played."

 

 

One of their 4 was against a depleted team and the other, just happned to have a convict calling bad fouls...that didn't change ANYTHING, huh?

 

What I am saying here is that if, say Duncan was to go down for 2 games and the Suns win the series 4-2, are you guys going to actually tell me you would say "Well, the problem is that the Suns were just obviously a much better team than the Spurs. The Spurs should learn to play defense".

 

I am just not buying that happening. Hell, I distinctly remember the lot of you still talking about how Chicago lost to the Magic when jordan came back not because Orlando was better, because Jordan just wasn't all the way back yet and it doesn't count. The same people now pretending that suspensions and injuries don't mean anything now is just funny.

See, here's the difference between your argument and your examples: in the first example, you ask "What if Duncan were injured?" Well, in 2000, he was injured, and the Spurs lost in the first round to the Suns, and the next time the two teams played in the playoffs, Duncan was healthy, and the Spurs won. And, they've won every time since then.

 

In your second example, you ask "Well, how come everybody gives the Bulls a pass when they lost to Orlando in 1995?" Well, because they played each other the very next year in the playoffs, and Chicago beat that ass, which fairly decisively ended all discussion on the topic.

 

And, as the resident Kings homer, I'll throw one more example in the mix: Sacramento beat Dallas the first time the two teams met in the playoffs in 2002, 4-1. The following year, Webber went down in Game 2, and the Kings ended up losing that series 3-4, and Kings fans were all about how, if we'd have had Webber, we wouldn't have lost, and Mavs fans were all, "stop making excuses." And then, the next year, Webber came back, and we beat the Mavericks 4-1 again, which pretty much proved (at least in my mind) that the one year the Mavericks beat us was a fluke.

 

Which is where I stand on this side of this argument: San Antonio proved that the Suns beating them in 2000 was a fluke when they beat them the next time they played in 2003. Chicago proved that Orlando beating them was a fluke in 1995 when they beat the shit out of them the following year in 1996. Sacramento proved that Dallas beating them in 2003 was a fluke when they beat them the following year in 2004... Phoenix has yet to PROVE that they're the equals of San Antonio, or that the fact that they lost because they were missing players was "just bad luck." If they were equals, they'd have won at least one of those series.

 

So, again, what's it going to take for you to ever say that San Antonio is better? Playing 4-on-5? A two-game headstart?

 

All excellent points. However, you seem to keep trying to pretend I was saying that the 05 suns were better than the spurs or even equal. Like i said in last years playoffs, we finally get to the the suns at full strength play the Spurs at full strength. Then there were supensions with the series tied at 2-2. See that screams eveningly matched to me.

 

this season, the Spurs won when the only difference betweent he two teams was that Shaq missed freethrows while they were fouling him off the ball. My question is how is that equaling basketball superiority to you? Did the Spurs out defend the Suns? No, the Suns were pretty much scoring when they wanted to. Did they out execute the Suns? Nope. Both teams look equally good and equally bad at times. The only thing they were better at in this series was fouling Shaq without the ball.

 

Its like saying Player A is better than Player B because he beat him in HORSE. In Basketball, it is SUPPOSED to be a offense vs a defense to determine who is a better team. In this series we saw that the spurs had more guys to commit fouls on Shaq than the Suns could commit on Bowen. The NBA basketball was about which team can line up and hit the most freethrows and then call it a game, then fine, but its not. Its about basketball.

 

I would see the OUTRAGE if I was saying the Suns were better than the Spurs, but what about the TWO series tell you that the Spurs are so much superior to the Suns? The difference has been Shaq missing freethrows from hack a shaq and suspensions. Which of those things have anythign to do with real basketball?