Nitro

Las Vegas or Orlando. When I turn 21 in a year, I'm sure I'll lean towards Vegas.

FG% is directly coorelated to scoring, and in Amare's case so is the TO's. The FG% is a result of less PnR oppertunities and an offensive game far more iso-oriented, and the TO's are also a result of him being placed in a greater amount of iso situations. A 10% drop in FG% and over 1.5 more turnovers is a MASSIVE difference in offensive effectiveness. I am sure both will get better as the season goes on, but there will be a significant hit to his stats in both categories by year's end.

Check the 10% difference in FG% and additional 1.5-2.0 turnovers, and that's where the absence of Nash can be felt.

For all you "fire Spoelstra" people, below is the link to a site devoted to firing Spoelstra, as well as a sig to express your displeasure... http://www.firespo.com/ http://i.picasion.com/pic33/43834b41ddb564d04da77b9893f9fb9f.gif

Oz The Soprano's Entourage Curb Your Enthusiasm Seinfeld Angry Beavers Rocko's Modern Life Rugrats King of Queens All In The Family House Fresh Prince of Bel Air Cheers Criminal Minds Law & Order: SVU Family Guy Chapelle's Show South Park The Boondocks Aqua Teen Hunger Force Married With Children

Amazing game. J-E-T-S JETS JETS JETS!!!!

I think House would be a much better fit at PG than Arroyo. Arroyo is just as crappy of a defender, and unlike House he doesn't have 3pt range and is scared to take shots. House and Z fit the starting lineup so much better than Arroyo and Anthony. When Miller comes back I think it will be interesting to see if Spoelstra (or Riley) will slide Wade over to defend PG's and use the Wade/Miller/LeBron/Bosh/Whoever lineup. Hell, I think they could get away with it now, but instead of Miller sliding in James Jones into the lineup. But yes, as everyone else said, they need muscle inside. I disagree with BFT as I do think Dampier would do wonders. The area the Heat have consistently gotten murdered in has been the offensive glass. If there is one thing Dampier is good at, it's grabbing offensive boards or tipping those rebounds out to wing players. Also, he would give the Heat some much needed size, and he offers a lot more offense than Joel Anthony does (which isn't really saying anything at all). Size has KILLED the Heat all season long, and even if Dampier isn't the most talented big man out there, it's a lot harder to bully him around the basket than it is Haslem or Bosh (who have been playing far too many minutes at C).

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. After last night's game the team is 6th in the league in Ortg, scoring over 102PPG on 47% shooting from the field, 39% from 3. They have scored over 100pts in 5 of the last 6 games, and shot over 50% from the field in 3 of those. They are taking nearly 10 more free throws per game than their opponents as well. Keep in mind, that's with a totally new, still-developing team without their 4th best offensive player. Offensively the have been fine. They have not things in a particularly pretty manner, but they have been effective and things are only going to get better. Spoelstra still hasn't implented many set plays, and with chemistry still an issue, I don't expect them to be the Boston Celtics or Los Angeles Lakers in terms of offensive fluidity yet. But, they don't have to be yet, and every game it is getting better. Getting killed on the defense glass and overall talent at the PG and C positions are the only issues that won't sort themselves out. IMO I think the PG play will be good enough with Arroyo/House, but Riley needs to call Dampier ASAP.

Not true, it's just that tonight Wade was horrific so the offense was more Bron-centric than usual. Wade has been averaging 26PPG on the best efficiency of his career, the team was shooting over 40% from 3 before tonight's game WITHOUT Mike Miller, and Bosh is only just starting to hit an offensive groove. So to say the team is only in the game when LeBron is going off or if Haslem is hitting 15 footers is ridiculous.

The offense is fine. Before tonight they were 9th in the league in offense, and that's with the Big 3's chemistry still being shaky, and without their 4th best player. Tonight they dropped over 100pts on 50%+ shooting against arguably the best defensive team in the league. Defensively, they need to make some adjustments, and they badly need Dampier. The Haslem/Bosh frontcourt getting over 20 minutes each night is killing them inside. They desperately need depth, size, rebounding (especially on the offensive glass), and a little offense around the rim from the C position. Dampier, as a 1-year rental, could provide some of that.

Can someone hook me up with the explicit?

I know, which is why I said it was very clear this game who the better team is. Of course since Boston won the game they were the better team this game, I wouldn't make a statement so obvious. Boston is a better team. BTW, forgot to add in my last post, Dampier needs to be signed ASAP.

Neither play good defense...

Haven't seen the box score, but I did catch the entire game. Just a few quick notes... -Wade was god-awful, one of the worst games I've ever seen from him. He was literally invisible on offense, and it seemed like every time the Heat were making some kind of run, he either made a bad turnover or missed the shot. Defensively, I have NO idea why they kept matching him up with Pierce. Pierce is too big and strong for Wade to defend, and he burned Wade 3-4x on simple pump fakes. Also, it seemed like everytime Wade made a bad play on the offense end, he would look at the refs, not get back on defense, and 3 seconds later Ray Allen would bury a wide-open 3 pointer. Just a horrific game from him. -Speaking of Ray Allen, he was amazing tonight. When he is hot, the Celtics are almost unbeatable. -LeBron and Bosh both played pretty well. Bosh's defense was bad, but he didn't look like a broken man playing against KG tonight, and he gave them something on offense. LeBron was great, but he took too long to take over the game. When he is aggressive, good things happen. -Heat's defense was attrocious most of the game. Offensively they were fine, they scored efficiently with their leading scorer having a nightmare game. On defense they were just awful. Little energy, missing rotations, and not using their athleticism to disrupt the offense like they had the first few games. -I think it was very, very clear who the better team was this game. The Celtics came with far more intensity, better balance, and played great basketball.

I don't think there's anyway the Rockets give up Scola for Love, let alone along with Lowry and other pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAxIdOtYVm4 I know this will probably only get 20 views and 1 reply if I'm lucky, but this is a sick collab.

You can read my earlier posts regarding the 08 Celtics vs. the 3-peat Lakers, but as for the 2003 Spurs, it would be an interesting series. I do think, however, the 08 Celtics were a far, far more balanced team. That Spurs team relied on Duncan to do superhuman things to carry them as Parker and S-Jax were only 2nd year players, Manu was a rookie, and both Kerr and Robinson were about to retire. That post-season Manu, Jackson, Parker, Rose and Bowen all shot below 42% from the field, Kerr played in less than half those post-season games, and no one else on the team was contributing. Prime Duncan was indeed a better player than 08 KG, but if there has ever been a PF in the last decade that could at least slow Duncan a little, it would be KG. Offensively, KG would also make Duncan work, and would take him away from the basket, possibly limiting Duncan's impact on the boards and defensively around the rim a bit. Also, even though Parker was probably better that season, I don't think he was much better than 08 Rondo, and defensively I think Rondo would have a better chance at keeping Parker in front of him than vice versa. Bowen would definitely give Pierce problems, but Ray would also give Jackson major problems. I think the Celtics had a much stronger bench as well. Overall, after Duncan, the Spurs would have a lot of problems finding offense against the Celtics. The Celtics would also have problems, but they had a lot more offensive weapons and an equally impressive defense. I'd take the 08 Celtics in a 7-game series.

That's horrible... ...I'll be back in 10min, gotta go smoke a Newport...

In 99-00 Harper was 5 years older than Kobe was in the Finals last year, had played just as many seasons, and simply wasn't as good of a defender as Kobe is when he decides to make that aspect of his game a focus. Harper was a good, smart defender at the end of his career, but there is no way he's keeping arguably the most quickest PG currently in the NBA out of the paint. None. And while Rondo wasn't the same player he is today, his dribble penetration has always caused problems for defenses, even if he isn't scoring or racking up 10+ assists. In the 2008 post-season he had some flashes of brilliance, including some great games against Cleveland, Detroit, and his 16 assists in Game 2 against the Lakers was the difference in that game (and maybe series). Harper wasn't making the kind of impact in the Lakers 1st championship as Rondo was in Boston's. He probably could have kept up with Ray, but Rice and Green aren't keeping up with Pierce and Garnett, and I trust Ray/Posey/T. Allen's defense on a young Kobe considering they did a stellar job on him in that 2008 series. And even if Garnett spends less time focusing on keeping Kobe out of the paint, Kobe did not have the same outside game in 99-00 as the one he eventually developed, and in no circumstance would Kobe be having a feast in the paint against the Celtics. They had too many good individual and help defenders to have that happen. And besides, what I think is a factor is that Kobe was not yet used to being a guy to score in huge volume, which would be necessary against the Celtics. I just don't think young Kobe would be having much success against the Celtics, even if the Celtics throw some doubles at Shaq. It isn't about stopping Shaq...that just ain't happening. However, Perkins is a huge body and very good post defender, so I think he could do a similar job as Big Ben did on Shaq in 2004, when Shaq averaged about 29/14 on over 60% shooting for the series and the Lakers still lost in 5. I just think that even if Shaq went for his 30/15, and Kobe managed to go for 25/5 on 45% shooting ( better numbers than his regular and post-season averages that year, which wouldn't happen against the Celtics), the Celtics would still have matched up too well to have been beaten in a 7-game series. Personally, I think the Celtics' big 3 would have out-performed the Lakers' big 2 because of matchups, and I think the Celtics' defense would have shutdown the Lakers' 3pt shooters, which was their only weapon aside from Shaq/Kobe.

I don't think it's a big deal, they are two strong ego's and Phil knows how Kobe can get...he's dealt with it for a decade now. Phil knows he has to give Kobe some free reign, and Kobe knows Phil is the coach that will give the Lakers the bench chance at more championships.

In my OP I included all seasons from 2000-2010 (aka all seasons that began this decade). But yeah, it doesn't matter, we can do it either way. I actually think the 1999-2000 Lakers would have even more trouble than the next year's group. That 2000 post-season the Lakers were starting an old Ron Harper at PG, an old AC Green at PF, and an old Glen Rice at SF. Harper was still a good defender at that age, but he was on his last legs and would either be expected to defend Rajon Rondo, who would get into the paint at will, or Ray Allen, who would run him ragged off screens. Either way it would be an issue on defense, and on offense Harper simply wasn't producing or playing efficiently at that stage. AC Green was a good defensive player, but against KG he'd be giving up 3 inches and a lot of athleticism. Also, like Harper, he wasn't an offensive factor at that point. I like Glen Rice a whole lot better than Rick Fox offensively, but he still was primarily a 3pt shooter at that point, which would play into the Celtics hand. Defensively, he'd have no shot at stopping Pierce. Lastly, Kobe's game developed significantly from the 1999-2000 to 2000-2001 season, and he became more adept at being able to handle greater offensive responsibility (i.e- volume). Against the Celtics, who would force Kobe into a perimeter-oriented game and would require Kobe to be a bigger part of the offense than he was in the 99-00 regular and post-seasons, I'd prefer the 00-01 version over the 99-00 version.

All fair points, and I certainly can't argue against the 2000-2001 Lakers track record. However, that 2000-2001 Laker team only won 56 games (because of Kobe's injuries). The 1999-2000 Lakers are the ones who won 67 games, but that was also the team that was 1 quarter away from being eliminated by the Blazers, and Kobe was just starting to really hit his stride. The years I included in this topic also didn't include that 1999-2000 Lakers squad. My arguement for the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics largely revolves around how they would have handled the other elite teams of the decade (2000-2002 Lakers, 2002-2003 Spurs, 2003-2004 Pistons, 2008-2010 Lakers and 2009-2010 Celtics being the best teams of the decade IMO). First off, their track record and health was pretty amazing. They won 66 games with a point differential being over 10pts. They held teams to 90PPG on under 42% shooting. Not only was their defense amazing, but they were also killing teams on the glass. One of the things I think that separates them from some of those Laker teams, and also the 2009-2010 Celtics, was their health. No key player played less than 70 games, and everyone was healthy for the entire post-season run. Their balance on offense was tremendous, with 3 guys who were #1 options and averaging 22-25PPG the year before. Not only were they top heavy, but the Big 3's chemistry was near-perfect, with a go-to iso scorer in Pierce, arguably the best 3pt shooter ever in Ray Allen, and a do-everything big man in KG. Outside of those guys, the team had a ton of role players who didn't do too much offensively and also defended extremely well (Posey, Perkins, Rondo, Tony Allen, PJ Brown, Powe, House, etc...). The team did tend to lose concentration and would play down to their opponents at times, but when the pressure was on, this team was intense, gritty and performed extremely well in big-game situations. If they had played the 2000-2001 Lakers, I don't think the Lakers would have matched up very well. Much like in 2004 against the Pistons, Shaq would probably get his numbers, but they would force Kobe into a well-contested, perimeter oriented game and low shooting percentage for the series. The Celtics were very, very good at closing out on and defending 3pt shooters, which was the Lakers only real offensive threats outside of Kobe and Shaq. Defensively, I don't think Rick Fox would have had a ton of success defending Pierce, and KG's versatility would have been a major problem for an old Horace Grant and Horry. The Celtics also had an advantage in the depth department, and ultimately just had more weapons on both sides of the ball.

Who do ya'll think was the best team of the '00's (2000-2001 through 2009-2010)? My pick would be the 2007-2008 Boston Celtics. I'll explain my pick later on...

All that describes Joel Anthony, except Dampier has size, can rebound the ball (especially on the offensive glass), has better hands, and he still has a better offensive and defensive arsenal than Anthony. He needs to be signed, even as just a 1-year rental until the Heat have the MLE and a fresh batch of FA veterans to work with in the off-season. If it was one of those marginal moves where the Heat could probably get by without his services, then I'd say F him because of his attitude. But in this situation, where there is such extreme pressure to win it all this season, a move needs to be made, and the Heat don't have the trade assets to get it done any other way.

Haha, for the most part we agree on the majority of stuff, it's just that not a lot of people will nitpick certain things or enter an all-out debate like I will. But yeah, I would have probably freaked out if someone else made this same topic in regards to T-Mac