2007-2008 NBA Season

[pilferk]

James' stats are great, I agree, and yes he's overrated because of all the second comings and the next Jordan hype....

I'm tired of it...

Jordan would never choke this bad... (8/41)


He's a really good player, I just hate how all these second generation fans (12-18) years old... eat up the King James bit...

Again, we agree on that.  If you compare him (or just about anyone who's initials are not KB) to Jordan, you're overrating him.  He's not....  Maybe, someday, he'll get there.  You never know.  But he's not there now.  He'll need to find a consistent mid-range jumper to get even close.....

As I said, though, I'm not sure it's fair to compare him to, arguably, the guy with the BEST playoff stats in history.  Nobody's numbers are going to stack up to Jordans. Not even Kobe's at the moment.  Which is why I asked about Barkley.

Charles Barkley? I wouldn't say he was overrated... he did get a lot more attention for his techs, and problems and attitude then his skill... As a player he was underrated in my opinion. As a character, he always got more attention for the attitude he had...

His playoff stats (when he was in them) weren't stellar.  If you compare his stats with Lebron's (which, obviously, is a much smaller sample set), they're pretty close.  Even with Lebron's tough two games...he's hovering around 40% FGS, this year.  Not great, not terrible.

I think Lebron will be a player MUCH closer to Barkley's level (or Dominique Wilkens, or Clyde Drexlers) than Jordan's.  But that still puts him in some pretty select, HOF caliber company.

[pilferk]

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24532691/

You all might find that article interesting on Lebron's performances.

[Bodhi]

true ...they are no 66 win team...they took advantage of an easy schedule...out west they probably would have won about 55 or so...they would have been in the middle of the pack with the rest of the west teams....ill tell you this...the 90's Bulls would have bitchslapped the Hawks so bad the first three games they would have forfeited game 4....thats when number 1 seeds and 60 plus win teams were for real....

See...this is the BS "media brainwashing" I'm talking about with the C's.

You can say they wouldn't have done well in the WC....but you're not looking at the fact they actually did REALL well against WC teams.  Really well.

The Hawks are a young, fast, talented team.  Did I think they'd manage more than one win? No.....and the Celts seemed content to phone in the 4th quarters in Atlanta, so they must not have taken them too seriously, either.

But I'd be hardpressed to say "the sky is falling" after one 7 game series, in which they alternated blowing the HELL out of the Hawks, and losing close games on the road (in two of which, they blew late leads).

Before we start bagging on the C's, lets see what happens against the Cavs, eh?

I see both of your points...yes the Celtics did well against the West...but I still think they would have been a middle of the pack team out West...now that does not mean they are a "run of the mill" team...this was the greatest Western Conference in NBA history this year..you can do alot worse than being in the middle of that pack...My argument for saying the Celtics would have been about a 55 win team is because of the softer schedule they had in the East...yes i know they had a good record against the West but they were not playing against the West on a NIGHTLY basis...I think that would have taken a toll on them like it did on the other West teams...its one thing to go on a road trip out West and then come back home and take it easy for a week or so playing against Chicago, Charlotte, New Jersey and New York...i think the constant grind of playing tough teams night in and night out would have knocked about 7 to 12 wins off that record of theirs.....I never jumped on their bandwagon like everyone else did at the beginning of the season...KG is a natural born loser(not as bad as McGrady but still), Ray Allen is always banged up, and Paul Pierce has never played in a big game in his life, unless you count losing to Jersey back in 02...seriously they are not battle tested and it was obvious in that Atlanta series...the Hawks had no business being in the playoffs....Now dont think I am saying they are a bad team...they are an excellent team but I wasnt ready to hand the trophy over to them in October like everyone else...and Im still not...

[Bodhi]

James' stats are great, I agree, and yes he's overrated because of all the second comings and the next Jordan hype....

I'm tired of it...

Jordan would never choke this bad... (8/41)


He's a really good player, I just hate how all these second generation fans (12-18) years old... eat up the King James bit...

Again, we agree on that.  If you compare him (or just about anyone who's initials are not KB) to Jordan, you're overrating him.  He's not....  Maybe, someday, he'll get there.  You never know.  But he's not there now.  He'll need to find a consistent mid-range jumper to get even close.....

As I said, though, I'm not sure it's fair to compare him to, arguably, the guy with the BEST playoff stats in history.  Nobody's numbers are going to stack up to Jordans. Not even Kobe's at the moment.  Which is why I asked about Barkley.

Charles Barkley? I wouldn't say he was overrated... he did get a lot more attention for his techs, and problems and attitude then his skill... As a player he was underrated in my opinion. As a character, he always got more attention for the attitude he had...

His playoff stats (when he was in them) weren't stellar.  If you compare his stats with Lebron's (which, obviously, is a much smaller sample set), they're pretty close.  Even with Lebron's tough two games...he's hovering around 40% FGS, this year.  Not great, not terrible.

I think Lebron will be a player MUCH closer to Barkley's level (or Dominique Wilkens, or Clyde Drexlers) than Jordan's.  But that still puts him in some pretty select, HOF caliber company.

Lebron James is better at his age than both Kobe and Jordan were back in the day....Lebron also is naturally gifted physically...he came into the league with the body of a 4 or 5 year veteran....he looked  completely silly when he was playing in high school...Lebron will be a better player than Barkley but probably not Jordan...there is only one Jordan...Charles Barkely was phenomenal given his physical attributes...he wasnt that tall and he was always kind of fat, but he would out rebound and hustle anyone on that court...Barkely is the perfect example of doing as much as you possibly can(and more) with what youve got....

Lebron is also all alone on that Cavaliers team....they have nobody around him...That Cleveland team that made the finals last year is probably the worst team to make the finals in the past 30 years....with the exception of the 2001 Sixer team which was god awful and the 2002 Nets werent too good either....

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Lost one to the Jizz, lameness.

They played such a dumb game, they better not turn the ball over so much on Sunday!

[faldor]

true ...they are no 66 win team...they took advantage of an easy schedule...out west they probably would have won about 55 or so...they would have been in the middle of the pack with the rest of the west teams....ill tell you this...the 90's Bulls would have bitchslapped the Hawks so bad the first three games they would have forfeited game 4....thats when number 1 seeds and 60 plus win teams were for real....

See...this is the BS "media brainwashing" I'm talking about with the C's.

You can say they wouldn't have done well in the WC....but you're not looking at the fact they actually did REALL well against WC teams.  Really well.

The Hawks are a young, fast, talented team.  Did I think they'd manage more than one win? No.....and the Celts seemed content to phone in the 4th quarters in Atlanta, so they must not have taken them too seriously, either.

But I'd be hardpressed to say "the sky is falling" after one 7 game series, in which they alternated blowing the HELL out of the Hawks, and losing close games on the road (in two of which, they blew late leads).

Before we start bagging on the C's, lets see what happens against the Cavs, eh?

I see both of your points...yes the Celtics did well against the West...but I still think they would have been a middle of the pack team out West...now that does not mean they are a "run of the mill" team...this was the greatest Western Conference in NBA history this year..you can do alot worse than being in the middle of that pack...My argument for saying the Celtics would have been about a 55 win team is because of the softer schedule they had in the East...yes i know they had a good record against the West but they were not playing against the West on a NIGHTLY basis...I think that would have taken a toll on them like it did on the other West teams...its one thing to go on a road trip out West and then come back home and take it easy for a week or so playing against Chicago, Charlotte, New Jersey and New York...i think the constant grind of playing tough teams night in and night out would have knocked about 7 to 12 wins off that record of theirs.....I never jumped on their bandwagon like everyone else did at the beginning of the season...KG is a natural born loser(not as bad as McGrady but still), Ray Allen is always banged up, and Paul Pierce has never played in a big game in his life, unless you count losing to Jersey back in 02...seriously they are not battle tested and it was obvious in that Atlanta series...the Hawks had no business being in the playoffs....Now dont think I am saying they are a bad team...they are an excellent team but I wasnt ready to hand the trophy over to them in October like everyone else...and Im still not...

I hear you, solid thoughts.  However, I think you're overstating the fact that people were ready to hand them the trophy in October.  I didn't hear that at all.  I heard quite the opposite.  The East has been Detroit's to lose since the beginning and only towards the end of February did people start giving the C's the nod as tops in the East.  I agree, the West is much more of a grind than the West, so in that sense maybe they would've had less than 60 wins.  But I still think they stack up against any team in the NBA.  The Hawks are far from a good playoff team, but what they are is an athletic team.  They gave the C's fits, especially at home when they could feed off the crowd's energy.  Cleveland. while a better team than Atlanta, is not nearly as athletic outside of LeBron.  But even with that fact, I'm still amazed they weren't able to win at least one game in Atlanta.  We'll see how they do in Cleveland.  Can LeBron bounce back, or will the C's stifling defense keep him scratching his head and looking perplexed?

[Bodhi]

true ...they are no 66 win team...they took advantage of an easy schedule...out west they probably would have won about 55 or so...they would have been in the middle of the pack with the rest of the west teams....ill tell you this...the 90's Bulls would have bitchslapped the Hawks so bad the first three games they would have forfeited game 4....thats when number 1 seeds and 60 plus win teams were for real....

See...this is the BS "media brainwashing" I'm talking about with the C's.

You can say they wouldn't have done well in the WC....but you're not looking at the fact they actually did REALL well against WC teams.  Really well.

The Hawks are a young, fast, talented team.  Did I think they'd manage more than one win? No.....and the Celts seemed content to phone in the 4th quarters in Atlanta, so they must not have taken them too seriously, either.

But I'd be hardpressed to say "the sky is falling" after one 7 game series, in which they alternated blowing the HELL out of the Hawks, and losing close games on the road (in two of which, they blew late leads).

Before we start bagging on the C's, lets see what happens against the Cavs, eh?

I see both of your points...yes the Celtics did well against the West...but I still think they would have been a middle of the pack team out West...now that does not mean they are a "run of the mill" team...this was the greatest Western Conference in NBA history this year..you can do alot worse than being in the middle of that pack...My argument for saying the Celtics would have been about a 55 win team is because of the softer schedule they had in the East...yes i know they had a good record against the West but they were not playing against the West on a NIGHTLY basis...I think that would have taken a toll on them like it did on the other West teams...its one thing to go on a road trip out West and then come back home and take it easy for a week or so playing against Chicago, Charlotte, New Jersey and New York...i think the constant grind of playing tough teams night in and night out would have knocked about 7 to 12 wins off that record of theirs.....I never jumped on their bandwagon like everyone else did at the beginning of the season...KG is a natural born loser(not as bad as McGrady but still), Ray Allen is always banged up, and Paul Pierce has never played in a big game in his life, unless you count losing to Jersey back in 02...seriously they are not battle tested and it was obvious in that Atlanta series...the Hawks had no business being in the playoffs....Now dont think I am saying they are a bad team...they are an excellent team but I wasnt ready to hand the trophy over to them in October like everyone else...and Im still not...

I hear you, solid thoughts.  However, I think you're overstating the fact that people were ready to hand them the trophy in October.  I didn't hear that at all.  I heard quite the opposite.  The East has been Detroit's to lose since the beginning and only towards the end of February did people start giving the C's the nod as tops in the East.  I agree, the West is much more of a grind than the West, so in that sense maybe they would've had less than 60 wins.  But I still think they stack up against any team in the NBA.  The Hawks are far from a good playoff team, but what they are is an athletic team.  They gave the C's fits, especially at home when they could feed off the crowd's energy.  Cleveland. while a better team than Atlanta, is not nearly as athletic outside of LeBron.  But even with that fact, I'm still amazed they weren't able to win at least one game in Atlanta.  We'll see how they do in Cleveland.  Can LeBron bounce back, or will the C's stifling defense keep him scratching his head and looking perplexed?

you are right...it was around February where alot of the hype started to build up around the Celtics...it was in November a few said they would challenge the Bulls win record....tough loss tonight for them though..They need to find a way to win onthe road before they play the Pistons

[faldor]

Yeah things could get scary for the C's if they don't get their act together.  This losing on the road could become psychological if it hasn't already.  And the Cavs were down 0-2 last year to the Pistons and came back to win the next 4 so this if familiar territory for them.  Plus, at least Cleveland was competitive in the games in Boston for times at least.  They easily could've won game 1 and blitzed out to a double digit lead in game 2 before the Celtics corrected themselves and cruised to victory.  I didn't see any of the game last night, but it doesn't appear that it was much of a game at any time.  So even though they're down 2-1, Cleveland still is not in a bad position.

[Bodhi]

Lost one to the Jizz, lameness.

make that 2...with another 2 on the way....

[w.axl.rose]

Lost one to the Jizz, lameness.

make that 2...with another 2 on the way....

lakers will take it in game 7... i hope 

[Thorned Rose]

Lebron James is better at his age than both Kobe and Jordan were back in the day....Lebron also is naturally gifted physically...he came into the league with the body of a 4 or 5 year veteran....he looked  completely silly when he was playing in high school...Lebron will be a better player than Barkley but probably not Jordan...there is only one Jordan...Charles Barkely was phenomenal given his physical attributes...he wasnt that tall and he was always kind of fat, but he would out rebound and hustle anyone on that court...Barkely is the perfect example of doing as much as you possibly can(and more) with what youve got....

Lebron is also all alone on that Cavaliers team....they have nobody around him...That Cleveland team that made the finals last year is probably the worst team to make the finals in the past 30 years....with the exception of the 2001 Sixer team which was god awful and the 2002 Nets werent too good either....

NIce points... but a little off...

LeBron had help last year, he didn't shoot the ball as well as he does... this year he has even more help (Wally, Joe Smith)

Also what about that 99 Knicks team.... that's probably the worst team in the last 30 years...

And on JAmes being better at this age? You can't compare that, because Jordan didn't jump from high school, so obviously James has more accompished because this would be jordan's 2nd year...

rookie years... Jordan averaged 6 more ppg then James, Lebron has only reached a finals faster than jordan, but back then the east wasn't so damn weak when he did it.... put JOrdan in the east today from the 80s and he would of won 3 more titles...

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Lost one to the Jizz, lameness.

make that 2...with another 2 on the way....

 

At least they made those games close.  More like, we gave them away.

No worries man, as long as Boozer and AK47 continue with their cheap shots, we'll get to the free throw line and do our thing.

[Eazy E]

Celtics still winless on the road.   

[w.axl.rose]

once they lose their first game at home its over for them

[faldor]

once they lose their first game at home its over for them

That would stand to reason since they haven't won on the road yet.

[D]

Standing by my Boston overrated post


KG, Pierce and Allen did not show up

I am a huge Dallas fan and I hear constantly from people how Dirk has no heart etc. they even call him the tinman

Funny to me that no one on Boston is being called that. They are losing to teams they shouldnt. Hawks won 3 and now Cleveland makin them look bad.

KG Zero pts in 4th quarter which was my point. he is a great regular season player, shrinks in the big moments.

[faldor]

Standing by my Boston overrated post


KG, Pierce and Allen did not show up

I am a huge Dallas fan and I hear constantly from people how Dirk has no heart etc. they even call him the tinman

Funny to me that no one on Boston is being called that. They are losing to teams they shouldnt. Hawks won 3 and now Cleveland makin them look bad.

KG Zero pts in 4th quarter which was my point. he is a great regular season player, shrinks in the big moments.

I've heard plenty of people bagging on KG this post-season, and obviously Allen who until last night was completely non-existant.  I do think Boston is a far better team than Cleveland, but the Cavs aren't exactly a pushover.  I mean they were down to the Pistons 0-2 last year and went on to win 4 straight to advance to the finals.  I wouldn't say the Celtics have no business losing to them.  Looks like we're destined for another 7 game series, as long as the C's can take care of business at home.  I don't see them winning game 6 at Cleveland, regardless of what happens in game 5.  In a sense you're right about "the big 3".  They do have to step it up on the road.  Aside from those guys, James Posey, P.J. Brown, and Sam Cassell, the other guys are young and lack any playoff experience.  Those guys have a reason to be intimidated by the spotlight.  But not the aforementioned, they've been through it, so there's no excuses.  KG played well early last night, Pierce played well in spots, and Allen played well for a 8 minute stretch or so, but you're right all 3 were way too inconsistent to lead the team to victory.

[pilferk]

I've heard plenty of people bagging on KG this post-season, and obviously Allen who until last night was completely non-existant.  I do think Boston is a far better team than Cleveland, but the Cavs aren't exactly a pushover.  I mean they were down to the Pistons 0-2 last year and went on to win 4 straight to advance to the finals.  I wouldn't say the Celtics have no business losing to them.  Looks like we're destined for another 7 game series, as long as the C's can take care of business at home.  I don't see them winning game 6 at Cleveland, regardless of what happens in game 5.  In a sense you're right about "the big 3".  They do have to step it up on the road.  Aside from those guys, James Posey, P.J. Brown, and Sam Cassell, the other guys are young and lack any playoff experience.  Those guys have a reason to be intimidated by the spotlight.  But not the aforementioned, they've been through it, so there's no excuses.  KG played well early last night, Pierce played well in spots, and Allen played well for a 8 minute stretch or so, but you're right all 3 were way too inconsistent to lead the team to victory.

They just can't get everyone together for 4Q on the road...it's bordering on the insane, now.

Game 3....nobody showed up for the 1Q..and that was really the difference in the rest of the game.

In game 4...they played well for the first 2 and 1/2 quarters-ish.  Spotty, but well enough to win.  But they took the rest of the night off starting with that run by the Cavs at the end of the 3rd.  From then on.....they looked like they were sleep walking.

Tired maybe?  I don't know...

[faldor]

See I thought they still had a legit shot in the 4th quarter but they just took bad shots.  Ill-advised 3's, fall aways, etc.  Of course give Cleveland's defense credit for forcing them into those shots, but partly it was bad decision making.  And when they did get off good shots they just didn't go down for the most part.  The NBA is not like most sports where you have to play a full game in order to win.  You really just have to play well enough to be in it in the 4th quarter, which the C's did last night.  They played far from a great game those first 3 quarters but they were right there in the 4th.  But you're right, they've collapsed down the stretch a number of times on the road in these playoffs.

Did you guys catch LeBron yelling at his mom after she reacted to a nominally hard foul Pierce had on a James drive to the hoop?  The action spilled into her section right behind the hoop and she looked like she wanted a piece of Pierce.  KG got wrapped up in the middle and LeBron was screaming at her.  Obviously there was no intent to injure on Paul's part, he was just doing all he could to prevent James from getting a shot off.  And LeBron understood that, but his mom was just trying to protect her baby boy I guess.  Afterwards LeBron sought out Pierce and gave him a fist pump, which I thought was a nice move.  No need to overreact, it's basketball.

[D]

Anyone saying Lebron is overrated are out of their minds

Have u checked latelythe numbers he puts up?


Dont make the Jordan had morePPG cause back then Jordan jacked up way more shots than Lebron.

Lebron is already a better teammate, he makes his teammates better than Jordan did at that age and he is the greatest 22 year old ever

Some will say Magic Johnson but look at the talent Magic had around him.

Lebron will be right up there. Not sure about Jordan level, but will at least be up there with Magic and Bird.

The kid is only 22 years old

Remember Kobe at 22? nothing like Lebron.

Imagine Lebron when he gets in his prime! He isnt due for his prime till bout 5 more seasons!!!!!!!!!!!


thats just insane.

I think people who question Lebron forget how old he is.

To put him in a class with Clyde and Dominique is unfair and quite ridiculous. He will be way better than those guys cause truth be told, he already is.