Erick Blasco

Oh yeah. He was what they needed to develop into a respectable team. He did a good job of nurturing them. Now they need a coach who is a finisher...and a miracle worker given Atlanta's collective psyche.

Well, those segments are marketed towards 13-year-olds.

I'm looking at their team as is with LeBron on it. That offense would generate absolutely no spacing. Gibson could knock down a jumper or two from the power forward spot, but teams could really pack the paint, and that's with Hinrich playing the two. If the Bulls try to get wacky and play LeBron and Deng at each wing, they'd have the same problems. They also have no bulk up front, unless they play Brad Miller, who is the basic equivalent of Zydrunas Ilgauskas. The Bulls would probably be a second round team, and a Conference Finals team tops, assuming Orlando and Boston continue to be Orlando and Boston.

He gave the Hawks what they needed to become respectable, but he's not an elite coach. He takes short cuts on defense by switching everything and his team therefore is often unprepared when playing screen/roll defense that can't be switched. His offense is too predicated on one-on-one isolations. His mindset, even when his team was getting blasted defensively, was that if they made their shots everything would be A-OK. The Hawks could've kept him and been a first round knockout every year (it took them seven games to beat two very ordinary playoff teams that past two years), but ownership thinks that a new coach could breed a tougher mentality. Good move.

Virtually all the evidence pointed towards a Cavs victory based on how each team played over the regular season. You can't always assume teams playing below the level they're capable of, and there was almost no body of work of Boston playing a full 48 minute game against a good opponent.

I kind of brought the topic up as part of the reputations that have been reinforced through this series. Diesel, I'll try to respond to your arguments in a new thread within the next few days.

You can find some answers in the links I provided.

Did he really say that? That's what LeBron has done. He's looked for excuses. When has Kobe ever taken his excuse. Go find his quotes from when Boston wrecked them in the Finals. Go look at what he's said this year with his various ailments. Kobe's probably not as purely talented as LeBron is, at least not at this stage of his career. And Kobe's had definite character issues in the past. But one thing Kobe has never done is used an excuse or not brought his best effort in a playoff series. He's been selfish in playoff series (Look at Game 4 against OKC when he stood up Phil Jackson's critiques of his shot selection by not shooting at all and really hurting his team), but he's never physically backed down. LeBron was deferential to players who weren't stepping up. In second halves of games, you can't try to get poor performers involved in the offense, especially players with proven track records of failing. Why are you forcing passes to Andy Varejao on screen/rolls for example? Why are you coming flat off screens and swinging to Mo Williams and then backing up to halfcourt when Boston is making a run? Why are you taking yourself out of the play? LeBron hasn't shown that he can take the bull by the horns and ride it to a title because he expects things to come easy to him. They always have. Don't blame supporting cast, Dwyane Wade's greatness invalidates that argument. This Celtics team was supposed to be over the hill too.

The turnovers, the turnovers, the turnovers. The fact that his post up game is too easily defendable by single coverage. The fact that his handle isn't top notch. The fact that his pull up game isn't there. The passivity. The fact that most of his baskets came after the Cavs were down big. The fact that he can be gameplanned away much easier than Kobe. Boston's rotations were sharp, but too often at the point of attack, Tony Allen beat LeBron. It's not about playoff success or playoff failure...it's about playoff performance. It's also about competitive hunger, and the ability to look adversity in the eye and rise above it. All the successes LeBron has had in the postseason have come when his team was an underdog or didn't face real adversity. His performance in this year's playoffs was well below his capabilities, well below what Cleveland needed from him, and especially in terms of picking up his intensity level, well below what Kobe would've provided. A bad series is a bad series, but LeBron is supposed to be Superman right? He turned in a similar performance in last year's Game 6 against Orlando. LeBron hasn't proven that he can turn it on against the best of the best in the playoffs in extreme pressure situations. Kobe has proven that.

This was the kind of series that solidifies reputations... LeBron as being Kobe's lesser. Mo Williams as being a choke artist. Antawn Jamison as being a boy and not a man. The Cavs as being an arrogant team that couldn't deal with adversity. Mike Brown as being an average coach who doesn't make a difference. Delonte West and Andy Varejao were non-factors...Only Shaq and Anthony Parker came to play. Gracious. Meanwhile, Tony Allen continues to build a defensive rep, and Rajon Rondo keeps shutting people up. Rondo IS the Celtics' offense now. Now that the Celtics have turned on their defensive swag (something I didn't think they had left), they're suffocating teams. Orlando-Boston should be the best series of the playoffs.

Before the playoffs I had Cavs first on the pecking order and the Lakers second, and now I have the Lakers first with Orlando second. The Lakers are sharp right now. Kobe's played very efficiently except for a horrendous Game 3 in OKC, and an embarrassing Game 4 where he kind of showed up Phil Jackson by being ultra, ultra passive. Those two games aside, Kobe has been the best player this postseason, LA's defense is sharp, the Lakers are very focused, and they still have tremendous talent. Phoenix will be a test, but the Lakers should prevail in five or six. I want to see Orlando face some adversity. They played a team that couldn't beat them, and a team that didn't try to beat them. They look great, but I want to see how they play against a real team. Even if they keep this up, the Lakers will find ways to slow him down and they match up well everywhere else. Plus, Orlando runs the same offense the Lakers will face in Phoenix. Boston has found its heart but they lost Games 6 and 7 to Cleveland last year, and I still think KG and Pierce have lost half steps, and the bench is only so-so. Cleveland is solidifying reputations right now for...LeBron for being scared of challenges; Mo Williams for being a postseason choke artist; Antawn Jamison for being the overhyped cream puff he is (He's being attacked defensively, and has provided little on offense. People really thought this guy was the final piece to a puzzle?). Plus Delonte West hasn't shown up, Ilgauskas is predictably terrible, and Varejao has lost minutes to Jamison. If Cleveland loses this series Mike Brown will go (Which probably would be a good team. He's not an elite coach. He's not a bad coach, but LeBron seems like he's tuned out Brown's sense of urgency.

When both of your star players don't care. What an ugly, ugly series that will leave a coach fired, damage the reputation of one star (Joe Johnson), and solidify an already bad reputation for another star (Josh Smith). And to think I voted for Smith as an All-NBA player!

The more I check this site out, the more I like it... http://www.hardwoodparoxysm.com/

Probably little, but here's what you can do on the three-point shooters... http://nbaplaybook.com/2010/05/11/hawks-second-round-summed-up-in-2-plays/#more-2263 and on the screen/roll... http://nbaplaybook.com/2010/05/07/the-hawks-struggling-against-the-pick-and-roll/#more-2220 And they could've done more novel things like, you know, believe they can win, and focus, and try to execute, and you know, try.

No hate to Milwaukee, and they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves like Atlanta did, but that would've been an ugly series. With Orlando playing really focused basketball, and the Bucks being a perimeter-oriented, small skinny team, Howard would've massacred them. Phoenix is simply playing great basketball, and so are the Lakers. If Denver and Dallas think that they could've put up better fights...beat Utah and San Antonio. Utah didn't have home court and was playing without 2/5ths of its starting lineup. The Nuggets threw in the towel. Dallas got outplayed by a better team. They'd lose to Phoenix too.

It's nothing but a good thing that this place is still up

Yeah, the Hawks were kind of exposed in Games 3-5 against the Bucks as being an iso-oriented team that doesn't have great focused. Now they're facing a team with Milwaukee's level of coaching and attention to detail but with a ton more talent.

They have the talent to steal a game but yeah...

I wish I got here before the game started but does anyone believe anything other than Magic in 5?

The only way it's a travel is if the refs assume LeBron jumped so high that it's an up and down. You'd think the refs would be good by now at knowing how to not call travels.

:lol:

Mason has taught you well. One of the funniest shows ever to be aired...but nobody watched it.

I've written a piece on this. Picking an NBA MVP is always difficult due to the undefined subject of what constitutes an MVP. An MVP should be a dominant player that is the driving force of his team's greatness. An MVP should be able to enforce his skills against even the most skilled of opponents. An MVP shouldn't just be a player who plays at a high level, but one who has his team play at a high level because of him. An MVP should only play for a team that has matched or exceeded expectations as MVP's don't disappoint. MVP's should be able to dominate weaker teams because of their presence, and should be able to beat elite teams because of their tremendously talented and clutch play in close games. Numbers should not matter in determining an MVP. Players are great on basketball courts, not stat sheets. The best individual season criteria isn't strong enough, as it assumes a player's goal is to produce stats and not wins. The best player doesn't even work, because what is the point of being the best if it doesn't translate to wins? There becomes no value in being a great player. A team could be mediocre or worse with anyone on its roster. The Most valuable to any team criteria could reward horrendous teams with one good player that provides all that team's success. Under that criteria, it could be argued that Brook Lopez is this year's MVP. Best player on best team doesn't work because being the best team (having the best record) over the regular season isn't an accomplishment in itself. The goal of the regular season is to be the most prepared for the playoffs. Sometimes the most prepared team isn't the team with the best record. Two regular seasons ago, I looked at the Celtics as being the only elite team in the league. Paul Pierce was their go-to guy, he was an elite defender, he performed against elite opponents, he was incredibly clutch---I voted him as my MVP. Last year, I believed their were only two elite teams, the Cavs and Lakers, and believed LeBron performed better according to my criteria last year than Kobe did. This year, I look at the Cavs as the clear cut elite team, and LeBron is LeBron. People voting for Durant have to realize they are playing for a team too young to know how to win in the playoffs, and a player with much more serious flaws compared to LeBron. Fortunately, history has a way of course correcting, as seen with the results of Dirk's bogus MVP, Durant being second this year, etc.

It was Ibaka's missed assignment, not Collison's.

I'm loving the classic second round matchups. Suns-Spurs is epic. Lakers-Jazz have met the past several seasons. Celtics-Cavs is a classic series from the last two years. Only Magic vs. Hawks/Bucks has no real sense of recent history.