Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 64
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by 53n206 View Post
    I've thought, for a long time, that some team owners really like finishing up in the middle of the pack than having to pay super stars to get the chance to win it all. Can't be specific except that the St.Louis football Cardinals struck me that way when they had Bud Wilkinson as their coach. Bud never said that to me but some of his friends did. Anyone agree with me? Possibly mid pack teams lose money so I've been misleading myself. (Thinking here of Charlotte)
    It's hard to square that with MJ's ultra-competitive personality, but one really does have to wonder sometimes. Being just ok is pretty clearly the worst of all worlds for an NBA team from a competitive standpoint - not good enough to matter, not bad enough to draft franchise-changers. That seems so obvious that it's hard to imagine that the Hornets *aren't* doing it on purpose.

    On the other hand there's that old adage about never inferring ill intent from things that can be explained by simple incompetence.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Derm
    I find the NBA boring. During the regular season I might watch the end of the 4th quarter, if the matchup is compelling. Otherwise I just watch the playoff semis/finals. Why would anyone expect MJ's skills to translate to being a good owner? I'm in NC and love to see them suc* -- miss the playoffs: keep drafting Tar Heels, no Devils.

    But simply rooting for former Dukies, which for many, Durham has just been a rest stop, is too facile. Free agency has largely eliminated traditional rivalries. I'm left with the inclination to revert to childhood allegiances, and hope for a return to glory of the long hapless Knicks: Reed, Bradley, DeBusschere, Clyde and the Pearl might re-materialize one day.

    To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.

  3. #23
    Used to root for teams (mainly the Celtics - grew up watching Larry Legend do his thing), but now the only allegiances I have are for Duke players. If a team has one, I'm for them. If not, I don't care. If a team has a Cheater, I root against them. Hence my conflicted view of the upcoming Lakers' season.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    Quote Originally Posted by elvis14 View Post
    ...
    I really hope the Pelicans do well next season. My other favorite player is JJ and I suspect Zion will be on that list as well. Also, I'd love to see Jah make a comeback, Frank make a splash and Ingram eat a pizza...I mean continue to improve...
    If Brandon does eat a pizza, you will probably be able to see it move through him as it is digested, like a wild boar eaten by a python.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Colorado
    Quote Originally Posted by jimmymax View Post
    I find the NBA boring. During the regular season I might watch the end of the 4th quarter, if the matchup is compelling. Otherwise I just watch the playoff semis/finals. Why would anyone expect MJ's skills to translate to being a good owner? I'm in NC and love to see them suc* -- miss the playoffs: keep drafting Tar Heels, no Devils.

    But simply rooting for former Dukies, which for many, Durham has just been a rest stop, is too facile. Free agency has largely eliminated traditional rivalries. I'm left with the inclination to revert to childhood allegiances, and hope for a return to glory of the long hapless Knicks: Reed, Bradley, DeBusschere, Clyde and the Pearl might re-materialize one day.

    To top if off, one must live with the fact that many pro sports teams have obscenely rich, often unethical owners that make slimy demands of their cities -- unsustainable I hope.
    I really liked the NBA when it wasn't all that popular. I used to go to Chicago Bulls games in the late 60's and early 70's when the NBA had a bit of a cult following. My friends and I were all broke but we could get a ticket for a dollar in the upper deck at the old Chicago Stadium. No celebrities there, no pumped in noise, not much glamour. The Bulls' unofficial mascot was a fat guy named "Super Fan" who ran around the court sweating and gasping. Can't go back to those days. I've always had a contrary streak that causes me to dislike things that are trendy and to like things that are relatively unappreciated.

    I'm amused by the breathless gossip in this offseason concerning free agents and trades. It's been a 24/7 news cycle full of alleged insiders offering their theories and predictions on things. I admit that I've been sucked in by it and, at times, it's more interesting than watching an actual game.

    I won't pay to see an NBA or NFL game. It's just too expensive and most games are covered on t.v. I will accept free tickets and, on the rare occasion when I attend an NBA game, I enjoy it and marvel at the skill and athleticism of the players.

    All things considered, I could live without the NBA. I'm happy to see Duke players do well but find that my interest is usually limited to looking at box scores the next morning ( thank you again for the "Devils in the NBA" tab) rather than actually watching games.

    On the other hand, I watch every Duke game I can. I also watch every N.C. game that I can. I think sports interest often depends on having a team to root for and a team to root against. I've got that in the Duke-N.C. rivalry.

    I guess I'm indifferent to the N.B.A. and am a college basket ball fanatic. I root for the Duke guys in the N.B.A. but some of those seem like relative strangers after only a short year at Duke.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    Used to root for teams (mainly the Celtics - grew up watching Larry Legend do his thing), but now the only allegiances I have are for Duke players. If a team has one, I'm for them. If not, I don't care. If a team has a Cheater, I root against them. Hence my conflicted view of the upcoming Lakers' season.
    I'm the same when it comes to the NBA. I grew up watching NBA games. I loved the Celts and Lakers. They had exciting players and I really didn't care who won for the most part. Jerry West, Hondo, Russell, etc. The pro team that I loved was the old Carolina Cougars of the ABA. Of course having Bob Verga had a lot to do with that. Today's pro game doesn't give me that excitement. Not the way watching Duke basketball and football does. GoDuke!

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Deeetroit City
    I miss the strategy of the old days, the planning that was allowed as they removed the ball from the peach basket.

    And the excitement of the jump ball after each basket! I miss that too, it was like the face-off in hockey or lacrosse.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Winston Salem, NC
    Quote Originally Posted by BD80 View Post
    I miss the strategy of the old days, the planning that was allowed as they removed the ball from the peach basket.

    And the excitement of the jump ball after each basket! I miss that too, it was like the face-off in hockey or lacrosse.
    Bill Russell didn't let the ball go in the peach basket.
    Last edited by -jk; 07-18-2019 at 10:33 AM. Reason: fix quote tag

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by moonpie23 View Post
    It's interesting to me that there are not any "real" team rivalries anymore...most everyone has a favorite team, (or teams) but follow players more than "teams"...

    now that the dubs are just "really good", the CAVS/DUBS rivalry has dissipated...who cares if Boston plays LA, or Chicago? or even the spurs?

    with free agency, and players calling the shots, will there ever be another real team rivalry? I mean, seriously, i'm gonna throw up in my mouth every time i have to pull for the lakers...
    Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.

    I don't have a duck in the fight but I think the Staples Centers battles next year are going to be a lot of fun!

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Quote Originally Posted by Kedsy View Post
    Philadelphia and Boston still kinda hate each other. The rivalry was muted while the Sixers were tanking, but at least on the Philly side, it seems pretty active now.
    It's active, but Boston has a few rivals. Our biggest rival is undoubtedly the Lakers.

    Philly should absolutely crush the Celtics this year. The 76ers solved one of their biggest kryptonites by signing that player to their team (Horford).
    Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. - Winston Churchill

    President of the "Nolan Smith Should Have His Jersey in The Rafters" Club

  12. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by flyingdutchdevil View Post
    It's active, but Boston has a few rivals. Our biggest rival is undoubtedly the Lakers.

    Philly should absolutely crush the Celtics this year. The 76ers solved one of their biggest kryptonites by signing that player to their team (Horford).
    Brad Stevens is going to have an incredible bounce-back year, I'm betting. Because that's what the greats do.

    I could totally envision Jayson breaking out, Walker having a fantastic year playing for a good organization / great coach, Hayward playing much better his second year back from injury, and Stevens stealing 3-4 wins during the regular season with his end-of-game playcalls / coaching.

    If someone wants to give me 3 to 1 on Boston having a better record than Philly (pies / beer/ name it), I would take that. The Celtics are not going to fall off very much if at all, and I envision the players are very motivated to eclipse the 49 wins they had last season with Kyrie and Horford.

  13. #33
    Greatness is earned by success, not promise of success. Stevens represents the promise of hoped for success.

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Albemarle, North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Indoor66 View Post
    Greatness is earned by success, not promise of success. Stevens represents the promise of hoped for success.
    I mean he has exceeded expectations every year from what I can tell. Last year he didn't but he got to where they were supposed to, and that's with chemistry issues revolving around Kyrie and Rosier (both of whom are now gone).
    "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Brad Stevens is going to have an incredible bounce-back year, I'm betting. Because that's what the greats do.

    I could totally envision Jayson breaking out, Walker having a fantastic year playing for a good organization / great coach, Hayward playing much better his second year back from injury, and Stevens stealing 3-4 wins during the regular season with his end-of-game playcalls / coaching.

    If someone wants to give me 3 to 1 on Boston having a better record than Philly (pies / beer/ name it), I would take that. The Celtics are not going to fall off very much if at all, and I envision the players are very motivated to eclipse the 49 wins they had last season with Kyrie and Horford.
    Boston will miss Horford a lot. Big time influence in the locker room. Elite defender. Stretches the floor.

    If Kemba can distribute thew ball better than Kyrie, then it will help a lot. But Kyrie averaged a career high 6.9 assists last seson and Kemba has been stuck below 6 per game. So that seems unlikely.

    Up front, Boston has Enes Kanter who is ok I guess. They will rely on Semi to play for than a handful of minutes, and may even play Grant Williams and Robert Williams rotation minutes. I dont think that fares well unless they can play a lot of small ball.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by superdave View Post
    Boston will miss Horford a lot. Big time influence in the locker room. Elite defender. Stretches the floor.

    If Kemba can distribute thew ball better than Kyrie, then it will help a lot. But Kyrie averaged a career high 6.9 assists last seson and Kemba has been stuck below 6 per game. So that seems unlikely.

    Up front, Boston has Enes Kanter who is ok I guess. They will rely on Semi to play for than a handful of minutes, and may even play Grant Williams and Robert Williams rotation minutes. I dont think that fares well unless they can play a lot of small ball.
    Keep in mind Boston is more talented than their 16-17 version (53 wins) and 15-16 version (48 wins). Stevens is going to absolutely squeeze the maximum out of this roster, like he did for every team he coached prior to last season. It's a nice "buy low" opportunity for a great coach and good franchise, imo.

    You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Keep in mind Boston is more talented than their 16-17 version (53 wins) and 15-16 version (48 wins). Stevens is going to absolutely squeeze the maximum out of this roster, like he did for every team he coached prior to last season. It's a nice "buy low" opportunity for a great coach and good franchise, imo.

    You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.
    Keep Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart in the rotation

    Subtract Kyrie, Horford, Rozier, Marcus Morris from the rotation

    Add Walker, Kanter, Langford, and Semi(?) to the rotation with Robert Williams taking Aron Baynes backup 5 minutes

    Maybe the pieces and egos fit together better but I don't see a big talent increase.
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

  18. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    You're right that swapping Horford for Kanter (and Kanter's horrid defense) is essentially the big problem. I think Stevens will use deep drop coverage to try to protect Kanter as much as he can. The Celtics definitely can't switch as much as they did in the past.
    How likely do people here think it is that the Celtics spend any significant time going small (or even super small) this year? They've been so good with heavy switching defenses over the past few years (apart from last year, when things were going haywire), and you're probably going to lose most of that in any lineup with Kemba/Kanter. But since they just have so many big wings (and Smart, who can play up multiple positions defensively almost as a big wing because he's so strong) you could see them running out something like Smart, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and either Williams or one of their gazillion versatile PFs (Theis, our good friend Semi, Grant Williams) as the lone big in cases where Kemba's on the bench. That would let them switch, if not 1-5, then at least some approximation of that.

    I don't think it's likely, but it would be REALLY fun to see Stephens get wild with it and trot out Kemba, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward for short stints. The post-Hamptons 5 league seems to be moving back towards lineups with a lot of size, especially in the East where you can see teams (say, Milwaukee picking up their second Lopez brother) loading up to deal with the Sixers huge lineups, but that small lineup with be just a terror to defend even if Hayward still doesn't fully have his game back. Since you're not likely to be great defensively with Kanter as defensive pivot, might as well figure out some unique ways to score. (Again, limited minutes only, especially in the regular season. The last thing their wings, especially Hayward, need is to take a ton of punishment trying to fight bigs in the post for 82 games.)

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by tbyers11 View Post
    Keep Tatum, Brown, Hayward, and Smart in the rotation

    Subtract Kyrie, Horford, Rozier, Marcus Morris from the rotation

    Add Walker, Kanter, Langford, and Semi(?) to the rotation with Robert Williams taking Aron Baynes backup 5 minutes

    Maybe the pieces and egos fit together better but I don't see a big talent increase.
    Kyrie, Jayson, and Hayward weren't on the team until the 17-18 season, though. And Brown was only a rookie in 16-17.

    (My guess is you misread my post and are off by a year).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOldBattleship View Post
    How likely do people here think it is that the Celtics spend any significant time going small (or even super small) this year? They've been so good with heavy switching defenses over the past few years (apart from last year, when things were going haywire), and you're probably going to lose most of that in any lineup with Kemba/Kanter. But since they just have so many big wings (and Smart, who can play up multiple positions defensively almost as a big wing because he's so strong) you could see them running out something like Smart, Brown, Hayward, Tatum, and either Williams or one of their gazillion versatile PFs (Theis, our good friend Semi, Grant Williams) as the lone big in cases where Kemba's on the bench. That would let them switch, if not 1-5, then at least some approximation of that.

    I don't think it's likely, but it would be REALLY fun to see Stephens get wild with it and trot out Kemba, Smart, Brown, Tatum, Hayward for short stints. The post-Hamptons 5 league seems to be moving back towards lineups with a lot of size, especially in the East where you can see teams (say, Milwaukee picking up their second Lopez brother) loading up to deal with the Sixers huge lineups, but that small lineup with be just a terror to defend even if Hayward still doesn't fully have his game back.
    Fairly likely, I would say. I think you've laid out he idea well.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Quote Originally Posted by Troublemaker View Post
    Kyrie, Jayson, and Hayward weren't on the team until the 17-18 season, though. And Brown was only a rookie in 16-17.

    (My guess is you misread my post and are off by a year).
    D'oh. My bad

    19-20 Celtics are more way more talented than the 15-16 and 16-17 teams.

    I concur that they should be likely to beat those win totals from the POV that sheer talent USUALLY wins out in a battle with team chemistry
    Coach K on Kyle Singler - "What position does he play? ... He plays winner."

    "Duke is never the underdog" - Quinn Cook

Similar Threads

  1. Football season prediction thread
    By OZZIE4DUKE in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 12-02-2018, 11:03 AM
  2. A Bold Prediction
    By Volunteer Duke in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-23-2016, 04:48 PM
  3. Early Prediction
    By greybeard in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-22-2009, 07:36 AM
  4. ACC Prediction
    By gw67 in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-26-2007, 09:11 AM
  5. Prediction: Duke over MD
    By TwoDukeTattoos in forum Elizabeth King Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-28-2007, 09:05 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •