Sign in to follow this  
Memfizz

What's really depressing is we could have beat these Rockets

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, guillermo said:

 

league does best when there are dynasties and superstars leading them.

 superstar lead dynasties are more likely to draw in the casual fan whereas parity only appeals to hard core fan

 

dynasty are terrible for the league...who wants to watch a movie that they already know what the outcome is going to be...the nba has become the most predicitable league in the world...like i said before get ready because its going to be cavs/warriors finals for the next 3-4years...boring imo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PutARingOnIt#GrizzFan said:

dynasty are terrible for the league...who wants to watch a movie that they already know what the outcome is going to be...the nba has become the most predicitable league in the world...like i said before get ready because its going to be cavs/warriors finals for the next 3-4years...boring imo

I understand what you are saying its not fun for the serious fan but lets get real its better for the league as a whole- financially.  Just look back through history - rivalries by dynasties is what sells to casual fan- w/out dynasties where would the nba be? in 60s it was Celtics/lakers  in 70s- none thus league was down. The 80s revived again with Celtics lakers, then Detroit kind of, then Chicago in 90s.  Then Lakers again in 00s w/shaq and kobe. Now Lebron and Warriors.

People pay to see winners.  Always have always will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, guillermo said:

I understand what you are saying its not fun for the serious fan but lets get real its better for the league as a whole- financially.  Just look back through history - rivalries by dynasties is what sells to casual fan- w/out dynasties where would the nba be? in 60s it was Celtics/lakers  in 70s- none thus league was down. The 80s revived again with Celtics lakers, then Detroit kind of, then Chicago in 90s.  Then Lakers again in 00s w/shaq and kobe. Now Lebron and Warriors.

People pay to see winners.  Always have always will.

first ppl dont like seeing dynasty they like see superstars and with these days and times with ppl's short attention spand even the casual fan is going to get tired of seeing the same ole thing ever year if its difficult for the serious fan to watch someone that has no emotional attactment to the game it will get ole to them really quick...my moms is what u would call a casual fan and she was like the same ppl be playing ever year...so you think gsw/cavs for the next3-4yrs is going to be entertaining....mark my word when the cavs lost this finals there are going to go get another super star maybe even two...heck durant and curry are free agents next year...they should just sign with cleveland and form a all nba team

curry/irving/james/durant/love

what i am saying is it not good for all the superstars to be on ONE team...the league would be better off if the talent was spread around...there is a reason the league put in rules to try and stop this from happening...they make more money when there is a legit 4-5 teams that are championship level...just think about how much money the league would make if it was producing a new superstar ever other year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PutARingOnIt#GrizzFan said:

first ppl dont like seeing dynasty they like see superstars and with these days and times with ppl's short attention spand even the casual fan is going to get tired of seeing the same ole thing ever year if its difficult for the serious fan to watch someone that has no emotional attactment to the game it will get ole to them really quick...my moms is what u would call a casual fan and she was like the same ppl be playing ever year...so you think gsw/cavs for the next3-4yrs is going to be entertaining....mark my word when the cavs lost this finals there are going to go get another super star maybe even two...heck durant and curry are free agents next year...they should just sign with cleveland and form a all nba team

curry/irving/james/durant/love

what i am saying is it not good for all the superstars to be on ONE team...the league would be better off if the talent was spread around...there is a reason the league put in rules to try and stop this from happening...they make more money when there is a legit 4-5 teams that are championship level...just think about how much money the league would make if it was producing a new superstar ever other year.

Thats really the problem. Not enough superstars. Used to be guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hill, Kidd, Iverson, Penny that were generating massive excitement from day one. Now even guys like KAT as good as they are barely get watched. Who really watches the Twolves or Sixers (Embiid) or keeps up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought GSW vs OKC Game 6 last year in the WCF was the most demoralizing loss a team could ever face on a big stage. I was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Dwash said:

Thats really the problem. Not enough superstars. Used to be guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hill, Kidd, Iverson, Penny that were generating massive excitement from day one. Now even guys like KAT as good as they are barely get watched. Who really watches the Twolves or Sixers (Embiid) or keeps up?

and when there contract is up and they get no where with said team...they are more than like gonna go join a team with one of their superstar friends...another two franchise that gonna be left with empty seats...it gonna get to a point where young guys that have super star level talent leaving the team that drafted them...because young team rarely have succes...and after these finals alot of the young talent is going to feel like join up together is the only way to win a championship...if i was the commisoner i would be very worried...heck as a nba fan i am worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dwash said:

Thats really the problem. Not enough superstars. Used to be guys like Duncan, Shaq, Hill, Kidd, Iverson, Penny that were generating massive excitement from day one. Now even guys like KAT as good as they are barely get watched. Who really watches the Twolves or Sixers (Embiid) or keeps up?

Pool of talent is too large and teams aren't spending the time developing guys.  Marketing and crafting offense around young guys from college was much easier to do in the 80s and 90s.   If a player came from a traditional power (NC, Duke, KY, KU,etc..) they got plenty of hype from day one because the College game was the only one people paid attention too.   Nobody paid attention to international games so people were way more familiar with the talent from college when they came into the league. 

Also guys back then typically played their true position while in college; so they were able to have some development before even getting to the NBA.   Nowadays coaches force guys to play the positions they need filled versus developing guys in their natural position.   How many times have we seen 6'5'-6'7 playing mostly PF in college now due to the coach having no other options.  Then when the guy gets to NBA he now has to develop better perimeter skills to stick. 

Let's also not overlook the type of offense that was ran back in the day.   Isolation basketball made it easier to identify and market guys too.  Easier to jump into the league and make an impact as an isolation scorer than it is in today's more complex offensive styles.  Its harder for a guy to stand out in the more team-oriented game of modern NBA.   Flashy guys don't get all the pub like they used to back in the day.  If you are an inefficient scorer Coaches don't give you the greenlight and build offenses around you like they used to. 

Nowadays everyone wants instant gratification so they have no patience in waiting on guys like KAT, Wiggins, D'Angelo, Smart, etc.   Players are also scrutinized to the nth degree so its even harder to get fans to buy in to a players greatness when we now know that Player A only shots 23% from 3 and has a PER of 15.  

 

For example look at Iverson's career stats:

26.7ppg, 6.2ast, 99.0WS, 42.5FG%, 31.3FG3% 45.2 eFG% 20PER

Steph Curry career stats:

22.8ppg, 6.8ast, 84.2WS, 47.6FG%, 43.8FG3% 57.5 eFG% 23.4PER

Yet there are some who think Curry wouldn't even be considered a Superstar if he played in the 90s. 

 

Lets also not overlook the signature sneaker factor.  Back in the day if you go a shoe contract that was a big deal and instantly threw you into Star status.  (Jordan, Penny, Shaq, Kobe, Marbury, Grant Hll, Barkley, Larry Johnson, Shawn Kemp).  

Today getting a sneaker deal isn't that big of a deal so it doesn't really signify much.  Everyone gets some type of deal out of the gate.  So that means that not everyone gets a commercial which is a big determination in who is considered a Star in the league or not.  Today you have to already have some-type of bigtime exposure or achievement in the league before you get a signature shoe.  For example if Conley had a signature shoe deal with Nike and commercials then he would already be perceived as a Star in the league and marketed as such.  Kawhi and most SAS have always been held back by the fact that none of them are the faces of a signature shoe-line. 

My overall point is that everything has evolved so much that its extremely difficult to make an apple to apple comparison with the eras.  These guys that are getting SuperStar status today are more talented than they get credit for. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GrizzTigerFan said:

Pool of talent is too large and teams aren't spending the time developing guys.  Marketing and crafting offense around young guys from college was much easier to do in the 80s and 90s.   If a player came from a traditional power (NC, Duke, KY, KU,etc..) they got plenty of hype from day one because the College game was the only one people paid attention too.   Nobody paid attention to international games so people were way more familiar with the talent from college when they came into the league. 

Also guys back then typically played their true position while in college; so they were able to have some development before even getting to the NBA.   Nowadays coaches force guys to play the positions they need filled versus developing guys in their natural position.   How many times have we seen 6'5'-6'7 playing mostly PF in college now due to the coach having no other options.  Then when the guy gets to NBA he now has to develop better perimeter skills to stick. 

Let's also not overlook the type of offense that was ran back in the day.   Isolation basketball made it easier to identify and market guys too.  Easier to jump into the league and make an impact as an isolation scorer than it is in today's more complex offensive styles.  Its harder for a guy to stand out in the more team-oriented game of modern NBA.   Flashy guys don't get all the pub like they used to back in the day.  If you are an inefficient scorer Coaches don't give you the greenlight and build offenses around you like they used to. 

Nowadays everyone wants instant gratification so they have no patience in waiting on guys like KAT, Wiggins, D'Angelo, Smart, etc.   Players are also scrutinized to the nth degree so its even harder to get fans to buy in to a players greatness when we now know that Player A only shots 23% from 3 and has a PER of 15.  

 

For example look at Iverson's career stats:

26.7ppg, 6.2ast, 99.0WS, 42.5FG%, 31.3FG3% 45.2 eFG% 20PER

Steph Curry career stats:

22.8ppg, 6.8ast, 84.2WS, 47.6FG%, 43.8FG3% 57.5 eFG% 23.4PER

Yet there are some who think Curry wouldn't even be considered a Superstar if he played in the 90s. 

 

Lets also not overlook the signature sneaker factor.  Back in the day if you go a shoe contract that was a big deal and instantly threw you into Star status.  (Jordan, Penny, Shaq, Kobe, Marbury, Grant Hll, Barkley, Larry Johnson, Shawn Kemp).  

Today getting a sneaker deal isn't that big of a deal so it doesn't really signify much.  Everyone gets some type of deal out of the gate.  So that means that not everyone gets a commercial which is a big determination in who is considered a Star in the league or not.  Today you have to already have some-type of bigtime exposure or achievement in the league before you get a signature shoe.  For example if Conley had a signature shoe deal with Nike and commercials then he would already be perceived as a Star in the league and marketed as such.  Kawhi and most SAS have always been held back by the fact that none of them are the faces of a signature shoe-line. 

My overall point is that everything has evolved so much that its extremely difficult to make an apple to apple comparison with the eras.  These guys that are getting SuperStar status today are more talented than they get credit for. 

 

 

i could easy make a case and say that 7 out of the top 25 players in the league are on two teams...think about that for a min...some would even say the top 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing that could save this disaster of a playoffs would be witnessin the greatest sports comeback of all time where Lebron leads his team back from a 0-3 deficit.

But that ain't happenin. Worst playoffs in a looong time, can't think of any memorable game except our OT win over the Spurs. I've only watched maybe 5 nhl games n they were all crazy. Can only hope tonight's game is another good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol while they keep showing KD crying in 2012 in the tunnel I guess I never noticed that James Harden had some "why yall hugging me" looks then walked by like he didnt give a crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Dwash said:

Lol he was the best player on the team and they likely dont win without him.

He was ******* unstoppable, no doubt. Brilliant performance.

I'm sorry though it will never not be a b**** move he made in my book especially with how he ditched Westbrook like that. Hated LeBron in 2010 and hate Durant even more now.

I wonder what GS is gonna look like next year though with the cap situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone else find it weird to watch the Warriors celebrate? Like there's no genuine depth, it all feels so empty and weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thomas said:

He was ******* unstoppable, no doubt. Brilliant performance.

I'm sorry though it will never not be a b**** move he made in my book especially with how he ditched Westbrook like that. Hated LeBron in 2010 and hate Durant even more now.

I wonder what GS is gonna look like next year though with the cap situation.

Maybe he didnt have to go to GSW but who knows what went down behind the scenes between KD and Russell. Or management. Cant decide that fot him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dwash said:

Lol he was the best player on the team and they likely dont win without him.

 

But if they didn't have him they would have been able to bring back several free agents from their 73win team that they lost to other teams or traded in order to sign him.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great job by the Warriors FO by assembling a great team, but you can't ignore that it was a d**k move from KD to join a 73-win team. His Thunder was up 3-1 against em last year and they choked LOL

And since the Cavs lost, we'd expect a few big name free agents to join The Land.

This helps no one except the guys making Game of Zones. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Grizzled Vet said:

 

But if they didn't have him they would have been able to bring back several free agents from their 73win team that they lost to other teams or traded in order to sign him.

 

 

I still think they wouldnt have won. Bogut and Ezeli both got injured. Barbosa was replaced by Clark. West and Speights were both min salary guys. And ofcourse Barnes was a flop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate this era of the nba.   It's all about punk players running to form superteams to win championships.  It's about players with commercials and larger tv markets.  It's about flopping and baiting refs into bad calls.  It's about refs dictating outcomes with their bs calls.

Lebron said he didn't play for a superteam, but his first superteam gutted two rival eastern conference opponents.  SMH

Charles barkley is right.  These guys don't want to compete.  They want it practically given to them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ratings for the finals is down overall compared to the best era (90s) and even down compared to the earlier years, but don't you think there are more television sets out there to tune in today's nba finals vs the past?   Imo, it shows that fans are tuning out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, tmoneyinmphs said:

The ratings for the finals is down overall compared to the best era (90s) and even down compared to the earlier years, but don't you think there are more television sets out there to tune in today's nba finals vs the past?   Imo, it shows that fans are tuning out. 

its time for a new league...you know the olympics is now feature 3-on-3 basketball.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/13/2017 at 6:32 AM, Dwash said:

I still think they wouldnt have won. Bogut and Ezeli both got injured. Barbosa was replaced by Clark. West and Speights were both min salary guys. And ofcourse Barnes was a flop.

Curry is still the key to that team and he allows Durant to get so many open looks.

The Warriors were still better with Curry on the floor than anyone else, and certainly were better when Curry was on floor and Durant on bench, versus when Durant was on floor and Curry on bench.

Just my opinion as it is all subjective anyway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Grizzled Vet said:

Curry is still the key to that team and he allows Durant to get so many open looks.

The Warriors were still better with Curry on the floor than anyone else, and certainly were better when Curry was on floor and Durant on bench, versus when Durant was on floor and Curry on bench.

Just my opinion as it is all subjective anyway

I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this