2013-2014 NBA Thread - IND @ WAS and OKC @ LAC on ESPN

[100027]

They Couldn't beat LeBron and a Broken down Wade................... What makes you think Kd and Russell wouldn't have a field day?

You say that as if the Thunder are better than last year's Heat. Logic is incredibly foolish.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

They Couldn't beat LeBron and a Broken down Wade................... What makes you think Kd and Russell wouldn't have a field day?

You just posted that if "the Pacers get past the Heat"

So according to your own theory, if they do get past the Heat, then why would they not be able to defeat the Thunder?

 

[you go boy]

the hate for melo is so strong that i wont even bother to make an argument... imo melo career cant be judged until he gets real talent around him

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Great offense will always beat great defense. The Pacers are amazing defensively, but in no way will they stop a Westbrook and Durant, a Lebron/Wade/Bosh, even the GSW if they're on fire for 7 games.

They need another go 2 option. Once you key in on PG for 7 games, I cant see anyone else helping him out with a consistent 20+ a game for 4-7 games.

To me this team is VERY SIMILAR to that 2011 ECF Bulls team.

except for the fact that basically no team has won an NBA championship in the history of the nba without an elite top 7 defense.

like are you aware of this, MANY teams have won chips with ****** offenses and dominant defenses, but NOBODY EVER on a chip with a great offense and a ****** or even mediocre defense.

 

[ballinsam23]

The Pistons actually were the only exception. When you think about it.

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Jordans Bulls

All completely stacked offensively. Better offensively than defensively. Obviously you've have to be a top 10 defense as well.

Dantonis' Suns are an *

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

The Pistons actually were the only exception. When you think about it.

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Jordans Bulls

All completely stacked offensively.

Dantonis Suns is an *

Do me a favor and check those teams you listed defensive rankings

Again, why are you being so black and white about this? Teams aren't just great defensively, or great offensively. They can be exceptional on both ends of the court.

 

[100027]

The Pistons actually were the only exception. When you think about it.

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Jordans Bulls

All completely stacked offensively. Better offensively than defensively. Obviously you've have to be a top 10 defense as well.

Dantonis Suns is an *

Also great defensive teams though.

This is a stupid argument. You almost always need a complete team to win.

 

[datznasty]

Pacers definitely have a more complete team than the Thunder. I don't see why they couldn't win that matchup.

I disagree. Granted it was regularly season and in our building, but the Thunder destroyed them a few weeks back. Guys on the Thunder aren't scared to go in and finish over the top of Roy Hibbert, in fact shot 83% at the rim in that game, a staggering difference from his at rim average which I think is low 40s.

I don't think they score enough for a team who also plays D and scores. Being top 6 in both offense and defense > being #1 in defense and like bottom 3rd in the NBA in offense.

 

[sea manup]

how are the Spurs and Celtics known more for their offense than their defense?

 

[100027]

Also, the Mavs were NOT stacked offensively... That whole post made little sense

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

I disagree. Granted it was regularly season and in our building, but the Thunder destroyed them a few weeks back. Guys on the Thunder aren't scared to go in and finish over the top of Roy Hibbert, in fact shot 83% at the rim in that game, a staggering difference from his at rim average which I think is low 40s.

I don't think they score enough for a team who also plays D and scores.

I disagree with you, not saying the Thunder would for sure lose a series with the Pacers, but when you take into account the defensive abilities of Indy, you can make the argument that Indy wouldn't have to score high numbers to win.

 

[ballinsam23]

In last 14 years the Celtics and Lakers were the only #1 defensive team to win it all. Every other team was obviously in the top 5-10

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

In last 14 years the Celtics and Lakers were the only #1 defensive team to win it all. Every other team was obviously in the top 5-10

So a top 10 defensive team. That's saying that these teams are great offensively and defensively. Not just great one way or the other.

 

[firstclass]

You just posted that if "the Pacers get past the Heat"

So according to your own theory, if they do get past the Heat, then why would they not be able to defeat the Thunder?

George Hill gonna lock up RW? Lance Gonna give RW Problems?

 

[ballinsam23]

Obviously you need a complete team, a good coach, and some luck.

My main argument was that when it matters most great offense will beat great defense.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

George Hill gonna lock up RW? Lance Gonna give RW Problems?

I don't know? Are you still going to ignore how you're not making any sense with your claims.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The Pistons actually were the only exception. When you think about it.

Lakers
Celtics
Spurs
Miami
Dallas
Houston
Jordans Bulls

All completely stacked offensively. Better offensively than defensively. Obviously you've have to be a top 10 defense as well.

Dantonis' Suns are an *

houston had an average o, but dominant D, same with the spurs for most of those chips, same with the 90's pistons, .

the point is DEFENSE is the prerequisite to winning a chip, and the Pacers have a HISTORICALLY GREAT defense, to say they can't win one becuase of some murky semantic classification like "purely defensive" makes no sense.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

Obviously you need a complete team, a good coach, and some luck.

My main argument was that when it matters most great offense will beat great defense.

You need to understand that all of these teams were great defensively too. Not just offensively.

 

[ballinsam23]

Without a doubt they were. But they didnt rely on their defense to beat whoever they beat in the FInals.


Houston - beat the #1 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 94)
Spurs - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 99)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Pacers in 00)
Lakers - beat the #2 defensive team in the league (Nets in 02)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Celtics in 10)
Dallas - completely on fire offensively beat the #5 defensive team in the league (Heat in 11)

 

[osh kosh bosh]

yeah in reality you need a great defense and a competent offense,

the axiom D wins championships is often overused but its mostly true, you can win with a less then ideal offense but you simply can't do it without a defense that can protect the rim especially.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

Without a doubt they were. But they didnt rely on their defense to beat whoever they beat in the FInals.


Houston - beat the #1 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 94)
Spurs - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 99)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Pacers in 00)
Lakers - beat the #2 defensive team in the league (Nets in 02)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Celtics in 10)
Dallas - completely on fire offensively beat the #5 defensive team in the league (Heat in 11)

You can't just look at one series though, look at how each team got there and who they had to defeat to even get to the Finals

 

[ballinsam23]

Without a doubt they were. But they didnt rely on their defense to beat whoever they beat in the FInals.

Houston - beat the #1 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 94)
Spurs - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Knicks in 99)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Pacers in 00)
Lakers - beat the #2 defensive team in the league (Nets in 02)
Lakers - beat the #3 defensive team in the league (Celtics in 10)
Dallas - completely on fire offensively beat the #5 defensive team in the league (Heat in 11)

You can't just look at one series though, look at how each team got there and who they had to defeat to even get to the Finals

I understand. But some of those Lakers, Bulls, Spurs teams straight dominated everyone they played. Mainly because no one could stop them on the offensive side.

 

[datznasty]

I disagree. Granted it was regularly season and in our building, but the Thunder destroyed them a few weeks back. Guys on the Thunder aren't scared to go in and finish over the top of Roy Hibbert, in fact shot 83% at the rim in that game, a staggering difference from his at rim average which I think is low 40s.


I don't think they score enough for a team who also plays D and scores.
(((video)))

I disagree with you, not saying the Thunder would for sure lose a series with the Pacers, but when you take into account the defensive abilities of Indy, you can make the argument that Indy wouldn't have to score high numbers to win.

Yes they will, because you simply aren't going to hold the Thunder to 80pts too often. That **** might fly out East but not against the better W.C teams. San Antonio as well is top 6 defensive efficency and offensive efficiency. You're going to have to be around 104+ every night against those 2 teams, and I just don't think they can do it.

 

[Vincent Van Goat]

Yes they will, because you simply aren't going to hold the Thunder to 80pts too often. That **** might fly out East but not against the better W.C teams. San Antonio as well is top 6 defensive efficency and offensive efficiency. You're going to have to be around 104+ every night against those 2 teams, and I just don't think they can do it.

Who said anything about 80 points? There's no reason the Pacers couldn't win against the Spurs or Thunder in a series allowing around 90 points or even more. Regardless of how bad the East is, the Pacers are every bit the team that the Thunder or Spurs are.

 

[tomdiginson]

George Hill gonna lock up RW? Lance Gonna give RW Problems?

Lance will get in RW head. It also doesn't hurt that Lance can play.