I definitely got myself pumped up with the excitement of getting a big name SF at the deadline, but after giving it a day I think we made the right move. If the game against ATL is any indication, we've got some 2nd round potential for the playoffs, IMO.
Frankly, after seeing LeBron James go off for 55 against Richard Jefferson, and seeing the Nets lose at home to the Wizards with Vince Carter flailing on defense, I don't know how anyone can criticize the team at this point.
I think it makes the players look naive. It shows their age actually. It's great and all that they are winning, but to say "youth got us this far" is silly.
Since it quite clearly did get them this far, your post makes you look naive to me. Advantages of youth are: Energy, enthusiasm, ambition, drive, eagerness to learn, willingness to listen, desire to belong. Few "vets" manage to retain these qualities, which is a big reason there are always lots of vets being shopped around.
Wow... I actually agree with Maris on this one. MM, they DID in fact make it this far while being this young. It's just an undeniable fact. Perhaps what you're alluding to is that they can make it far in the playoffs while being this young. Did I misread your post?
*falls out of the chair* I'm not sure if this is a sign of the end times, but I actually agree with this
But youth didn't get us this far. In reality, Brandon Roy got us this far. The rest of the team is acting like as a whole they are a good team. While I don't thik they are a bad team, they are probably average at best without Roy. That is all I was saying.
I think this is a cop-out argument. Yes, Brandon Roy is the star - and he has a lot to do with where they are - but he is a part of the team - and one of things that makes this team as good as it is is the fact that they are fantastic rebounding - and while Brandon Roy is a good rebounder for a guard - he is far from the dominant rebounder on this team. This is a team with amazing talent - they are just raw and inconsistent as hell. The only guy that you can assume will have a good game 90% of the time is Roy. You can get 75% good games from Aldridge - the rest are very inconsistent - but very talented and can be downright dominant for short spurts. Are they going to win a ring this year? I very much doubt it - but they are a good team, very talented and very well coached. Saying that it's just Brandon Roy is just wrong.
And Cleveland is probably average at best without LeBron. This team has shown tremendous growth over the last 2.5 seasons. They will continue to improve as their individual skills get better, they get used to playing together, and meet new challenges. They aren't an elite team yet, but they are very good and getting better. Even veterans Blake and Przybilla are having their best seasons. They have three rookies getting significant minutes (and a 4th that should be). This team wasn't built to win a championship this season. They are right on track, even ahead of schedule, for a wide championship window starting 2 - 3 seasons down the road and lasting at least 5 or 6 years. Getting a veteran small forward at the deadline may have helped them win a few more games this season, but it wouldn't have put them any closer to winning a title today. No one they could have gotten would make them better than the Lakers, Spurs, Celtic or Cavs. I don't think lightening will strike twice, but remember that '77 teams was also very young and untested in the post season. Win or loose, the play-offs will be a good experience for this young team and an important part of their growth process. BNM
This doesn't make much sense....you take away any team's best player and the team will be significantly worse. Take away Kobe, Lebron, Howard, Billups and what would you expect to happen?
This is my point exactly. Take any of those players away and those teams aren't very good. So like I said, our youth didn't get us to where we are now. Brandon Roy got us to where we are now. Why are people having a hard time understanding that?
At the ripe old age of 24 in his 3rd NBA season. Sounds pretty youthful to me. As was the entire roster. The top five in minutes played were: Maurice Lucas: 24 (3rd Season - 1st in NBA) Bill Walton: 24 (3rd Season) Bobby Gross: 23 (2nd Season) Lionel Hollins: 23 (2nd Season) Dave Twardzik: 26 (5th Season - 1st in NBA) The top five scores were: Maurice Lucas: 24 Bill Walton: 24 Lionell Hollins: 23 Bobby Gross: 23 Larry Steele: 27 (6th Season) Sounds like a whole lot of youth to me - Walton included. BNM
BUt AGAIN. Youth had nothing to do with the fact that we won. We won because Bill Walton was an absolute stud. The fact that he was young also is a side note. There is a difference between youth winning a championship, and a young team winning a championship. Lebron is young, but the reason they played for the title is because he is the best player in the league.
How many titles did that team win? They were young, they let them grow together, they didn't make any big additions, right? Then Walton goes down and the team doesn't sniff anything for another decade. It's a different era, certainly, but if people are going to point to the successes of that team I think it's fair to inquire about the failures, too. I agree with Mediocre Man here on two fronts: -- Walton, not the team's youth, was the reason that the Blazers won the title. Roy, to a lesser extent, is the reason this Blazers team is here. Not because of youth. -- Of course, "here" is a pretty good record, but it's not even a shoo-in for a playoffs appearance. While Outlaw's reaction is understandable, that doesn't mean it's a wise way to run a basketball team. Ed O.
