*** Official 2015-16 NBA Playoff Thread ***
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
When one team plays a 7 man lineup and the other plays an 11 man lineup, the 7 man lineup will be exhausted by the 4th quarter.
The Warriors come at you in waves and never seem to get tired.
The Warriors come at you in waves and never seem to get tired.
These Warriors are a team I wish I could see one of the dynastic Bulls teams. Everyone from that era says the Bulls would steamroll the Warriors, and yet I don't know about that. Those Bulls teams never had to defend a team all the way to midcourt - and yet that's how you have to guard the Warriors. Curry and Thompson, if they're being guarded, will just step back and drain an even longer three. And spreading out the defense that much just opens up lanes. Ultimately I think the Bulls would win, but I don't think it'd be nearly as easy as everyone claims.
Then again, back in Jordan's era, everyone said the teams from the '70s would steamroll those Bulls. So either the game has been degenerating with every new generation over the last century, or people think too highly of teams from their childhood.
Then again, back in Jordan's era, everyone said the teams from the '70s would steamroll those Bulls. So either the game has been degenerating with every new generation over the last century, or people think too highly of teams from their childhood.
I don't know how it would end up, but I know the Bulls were better defensively than the Cavs. I'd argue Haper, Jordan, Pippen, Rodman, 18 7 foot fouls at center was the most dominant defensive lineup I'd ever seen.
In today's game the rotating faceless big man on the inside would probably be spot minutes instead of a starter....but their small ball lineup of Jordan-Harper-Pippen-Kukoc and Rodman at center would still be an incredible small ball lineup.
In my opinion these Warriors vs those Bulls would be the best perimeter offense of all time vs the best perimeter defense of all time. When it was Harper-Jordan-Pippen specifically there was absolutely no weakness in perimeter defense.
It's difficult for me to gauge the Bulls' defense. The rules are very different today, and teams can't be as physical as they used to be. Maybe that wouldn't matter, I don't know. But I tend to think that if they played under the 90's rules, the Bulls win. If they play under today's rules, GS wins more often than not.
He also ran on the field during the World Cup. Also all of the "pranks" he does are fake
And Draymond will be suspended for Game 5. Results just came out that the league upgraded his foul to a Flagrant 1.
So we've learned you can kick somebody in the junk once with little reprisal. But you can't follow it up by punching a legendary player in the junk a few days later and expect to keep getting away with it.
To me I look at Jordan-Pippen-Harper physically and ask if I've ever seen a perimeter D that athletic, long, strong and tenacious. Jordan or Harper where a huge physical mismatch for just about every point guard in the league and most shooting guards. Then I know they have a guy like Rodman behind them who will do just about anything to stop his man and get the rebound. It was very legit.
I think that's the correct move, but I don't think it will matter. Green is a dirty player.
That's a horrible call. Shouldn't have gotten himself in that situation though I guess.
He kept pushing the wrong buttons, it's gonna bite you in the *** eventually. Probably the 3rd worst out of his 3 questionable plays, but with everything that has happened leading up to this in these playoffs it was bound to happen if he kept doing it.
How many "inadvertent" strikes to the junk should merit a suspension? Lately it's been about every 3rd or 4th game for him.
So the league said "oh ****, we've got to extend this series! I know!" and then upgraded a foul from three games ago so a starter gets suspended? That doesn't look shady at all.....
I think it would look shadier if they let a star player strike somebody in the groin every 5th game with no suspension.
It seems the NBA has an issue with overcomplicating their suspension policies. The suspension should just be because the benefit of the doubt is completely gone when you do the same thing twice in a short time frame, not because of some 4 or 5 violations on a list of check marks.
To me I don't care if he has his fourth strike on a list, it's a very shady play and he's done it twice in just a few games. Once and there's some flexibility, twice and just a few game laters? You're suspended a game or two no hesitation, probably multi-game in the regular season. A third would mean a lengthy suspension. But that's just my opinion on what would make sense to me.
