Zombie Umm I think we're better than last year.

[KingSpeed]

Deeper for sure. And better in some areas but I guess it depends on what you consider better overall. Because we certainly aren't winning 52 games this year.

Why not?

Our problem will be scoring. We really only have two scorers. The defensive potential is exciting though.

We dropped 77 in the first half vs the Warriors.

As for the Knicks, has anyone seen them play? It's not just about record but how they are playing. We look like a better team this year. Does NY? I don't know.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Why not?

Turnovers among other issues that can pop up with a young team.

Are you saying we will win 52 games? Put your prediction in the prediction thread so it is on record. You are saying we are a better team than last year.

 

[Strenuus]

After reading this thread I'm wondering how many of you guys tell people you love them on the first date?

Hey! I said I was waiting 2 months!

... that's a lot of first dates.

 

[Duckhook]

Be careful if you're putting all your Mila Kunis eggs in one basket...

 

[Natebishop3]

After reading this thread I'm wondering how many of you guys tell people you love them on the first date?

Classic Schmosby.

 

[Strenuus]

Be careful if you're putting all your Mila Kunis eggs in one basket...

heh... heh... eggs.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

Turnovers among other issues that can pop up with a young team.

Are you saying we will win 52 games? Put your prediction in the prediction thread so it is on record. You are saying we are a better team than last year.

well, lets address both of these statements separately.

First..turn overs occur period. The difference between last year and this is that when the do happen now, its not some lazy half effort low speed pass to the post (See Nic). I would not be surprised to see the total be less this year.

Second, I think I get what he is saying. We are a better TEAM. It remains to be seen if our starting five become better than last years, but one to ten we are much better. We are one heck of a lot more fun to watch. The defense is markedly improved. Those that believe that we wont be able to play well after we are scouted, I believe rather the opposite. On any given night we can have any three to five go off. How do you game plan against that?

Win more games? Naw, I really doubt it this year, but with a few tweeks, this is gooing to be a very good team.

 

[Pinwheel1]

No we won't win 50 games and will not be as experienced as last years team.

We don't know if this team can win close games and that will be a huge factor. We could be in every game, right down to the the wire..... and lose 75% of them if we can't close them out.

Wes, Nic, and LMA all had weaknesses that irritated us, but they all hit big shots.
The one HUGE constant at the end of games will be Dame. But can CJ, Meyers and ........(insert Crabbe, Henderson, or Aminu) step up? It just takes one more IMO.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

well, lets address both of these statements separately.

First..turn overs occur period. The difference between last year and this is that when the do happen now, its not some lazy half effort low speed pass to the post (See Nic). I would not be surprised to see the total be less this year.

Second, I think I get what he is saying. We are a better TEAM. It remains to be seen if our starting five become better than last years, but one to ten we are much better. We are one heck of a lot more fun to watch. The defense is markedly improved. Those that believe that we wont be able to play well after we are scouted, I believe rather the opposite. On any given night we can have any three to five go off. How do you game plan against that?

Win more games? Naw, I really doubt it this year, but with a few tweeks, this is gooing to be a very good team.

I will certainly enjoy this team and the run this year. In some ways it will be more exciting even when we don't win as many games. My original quote (way above) to KingSpeed though was that it depends on what you consider better. If you constitute a better team by getting further in the playoffs or having a better record then we overall aren't better than last year. And that is just fine. That is the goal of all teams though. But we will get there in time.

Deeper for sure. And better in some areas but I guess it depends on what you consider better overall. Because we certainly aren't winning 52 games this year.

 

[riverman]

After reading this thread I'm wondering how many of you guys tell people you love them on the first date?

and then never see them again...yeah, I never did that

 

[rasheedfan2005]

After reading this thread I'm wondering how many of you guys tell people you love them on the first date?

wait, is that why sly wont answer my calls?

 

[Natebishop3]

wait, is that why sly wont answer my calls?

Sly is a dog... he doesn't have vocal chords.

 

[oldfisherman]

This roster is better than last season’s roster, in the first quarter.

Last season’s starters never tied up their shoes until midway through the second quarter. Then they played catch-up the rest of the game. They were very frustrating to watch.

This season’s roster competes from the opening tip-off. They play hard every minute of every game. They are fun to watch.

Having two or more players competing for every position, except starting PG, is paying off. It makes the players play harder the entire game, no matter what the score is.

Now if we can settle CJ down a little so he stops trying to dribble the opponents head.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

If WE'RE better than last year, think how much better the Kings must be...

 

[Natebishop3]

If WE'RE better than last year, think how much better the Kings must be...

Adding Rondo made them worse.

 

[KingSpeed]

Turnovers among other issues that can pop up with a young team.

Are you saying we will win 52 games? Put your prediction in the prediction thread so it is on record. You are saying we are a better team than last year.

If we win 49 game

If WE'RE better than last year, think how much better the Kings must be...

How so? We basically destroyed the Kings in the first game, but benched Lillard and let them win. In the second game against the Kings, Dame didn't play either and we barely lost. With a full team, we are 4-0 right now. Easily.

 

[KingSpeed]

Adding Rondo made them worse.

What happened to Rondo? 5 years ago, he looked like the best PG in the NBA.

 

[Natebishop3]

What happened to Rondo? 5 years ago, he looked like the best PG in the NBA.

Makes a pretty big difference when you're playing with three future HOFers, eh?

 

[Strenuus]

Makes a pretty big difference when you're playing with three future HOFers, eh?

I could tell rondo was bad back then. I have never liked him, not even for a second.

 

[KingSpeed]

Makes a pretty big difference when you're playing with three future HOFers, eh?

But he played his best basketball when KG was injured. And he played with a fire and hustle that no other PG was playing with. I don't think that was just because of his teammates.

 

[KingSpeed]

I could tell rondo was bad back then. I have never liked him, not even for a second.

Bad?? He was unbelievable in the 2009 and 2010 playoffs.

 

[KingSpeed]

These lines are ridiculous:

http://hoopshabit.com/2014/12/18/rajon-rondos-10-best-stat-line-games-career/

 

[Strenuus]

Bad?? He was unbelievable in the 2009 and 2010 playoffs.

He's the definition of other players made him (look) that good.

What are his stats since he didn't have 3 hof's? That's his true mark, and the one I knew he was.

 

[Natebishop3]

Everyone was praising the Mavs last year for adding him and I was one of the few people who KNEW it was going to bust. He was horrible in that offense. He can't shoot at all. He was good at two things, distributing the ball and defending. He's not a scorer, so I have no idea why the Mavs thought he would work in that offense.

 

[Pinwheel1]

What happened to Rondo? 5 years ago, he looked like the best PG in the NBA.

I agree, Rondo was pretty damn good. Never a good outside shooter or free throw shooter but played great D, set up his teammates, and because he was lightning quick, attacked the basket with ease, especially when player left him to double the big 3

Has he lost that extra quickness since the ACL surgey? If so then he lost his one big advantage over everyone, and now his weaknesses are more exposed.

 

[DaLincolnJones]

I agree, Rondo was pretty damn good. Never a good outside shooter or free throw shooter but played great D, set up his teammates, and because he was lightning quick, attacked the basket with ease, especially when player left him to double the big 3

Has he lost that extra quickness since the ACL surgey? If so then he lost his one big advantage over everyone, and now his weaknesses are more exposed.

very nice evaluation.

Have to say that I am not a fan of his game, but with all of the shooters we have here, dont you think he would fit in? Even if he has lost a step, a true pass first PG ala Bibby might be just what we need.

 

[KingSpeed]

He's the definition of other players made him (look) that good.

What are his stats since he didn't have 3 hof's? That's his true mark, and the one I knew he was.

Well his best stats were in the 2009 playoffs when KG didn't play. So there you go. Also, you don't nearly get 20/20/20 because of your teammates. Why didn't Mario Chalmers get numbers like that? He played with 3 HOFers.

 

[Natebishop3]

I agree, Rondo was pretty damn good. Never a good outside shooter or free throw shooter but played great D, set up his teammates, and because he was lightning quick, attacked the basket with ease, especially when player left him to double the big 3

Has he lost that extra quickness since the ACL surgey? If so then he lost his one big advantage over everyone, and now his weaknesses are more exposed.

The league has changed. A point guard can simply not be a pass-only player. If they're unable to hit an open jumper, they face the risk of being dropped and then forgotten. The current rules in the league favor quick players on the perimeter. I can only imagine what guys like Isiah Thomas would be like in the current NBA.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well his best stats were in the 2009 playoffs when KG didn't play. So there you go. Also, you don't nearly get 20/20/20 because of your teammates. Why didn't Mario Chalmers get numbers like that? He played with 3 HOFers.

Because KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen are not LeBron or Wade. Both of those players are capable of running the offense. They needed Chalmers to shoot and play defense. He was not the primary ball handler on that team. Rondo was expected to get the ball to KG, Pierce, and Allen. He was the conduit. Chalmers was not.

 

[Strenuus]

Well his best stats were in the 2009 playoffs when KG didn't play. So there you go. Also, you don't nearly get 20/20/20 because of your teammates. Why didn't Mario Chalmers get numbers like that? He played with 3 HOFers.

He averaged 20 points a game? and 20 rebounds? 20 assists I can see. 20 points and 20 rebounds? No.

Bosh is not a hall of famer. lol. Lets just make that clear right now.

KG, Pierce, Allen? Yes.

Lebron? Yes. Wade? Yes. (Though I never found him to be that good, that's my IMO, but the consensus is yes). Bosh? No way in hell.

Lets just agree to disagree. I do not feel Rondo is as good as his stats suggest he is. We all know Kevin Love is not as good as his stats, for example.