CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: Eddie20 on April 28, 2010, 02:54:55 PM
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
-
I don't care about what the media thinks. My mind is on Game One at the building that plagerized my name >:(
-
They're all wrong.
-
Awesome. I prefer the Celtics as under dogs. (...unless it is insulting, like picking Miami to Beat Boston without a doubt)
Go Celtics!
-
It should be hanged in the Celtics locker room. That feeling, that you have something to prove, is what motivates players the most. So many people to prove wrong. Can't wait :)
-
I don't care about what the media thinks. My mind is on Game One at the building that plagerized my name >:(
Quicken Loans, is that you? ;)
-
nothing would be sweeter than to see the C's get one of the first 2 games in Cle and watch the collective talking heads scramble to explain how they could have missed that in their predictions.
-
celtics in 6 over cleveland. the celtics take on game in cleveland and win at home. on to the ECF finals.
-
I could understand picking Cleveland to win the series.
But a sweep? Surely the Celtics are a tougher out than Chicago.
-
Et tu Legler?
-
I could understand picking Cleveland to win the series.
But a sweep? Surely the Celtics are a tougher out than Chicago.
Exactly. It took the Cavs 5 to beat the Bulls. It'll take them at least 6 to beat the Celtics. I feel confident in predicting that if nothing else.
-
Abott predicted a sweep? Wow, bold move there. Cavs in 7 for me.
-
What were the same expert predictions about the Cs v Heat series? The Y! experts had the Celtics barely getting by the Heat in 7 games....
-
Vegas gives us basically the same odds of winning the series as it gives the Bucks to win 2 out of the next 3 vs the Hawks.
-
Vegas gives us basically the same odds of winning the series as it gives the Bucks to win 2 out of the next 3 vs the Hawks.
^Speaking of Vegas, don't show that list to the refs or they might relapse into their 'gambling problem' again during this up-coming series...by the time we can convince anyone that they're in the tank for Le'Bro' and the Cavs the series will be be over, though we may still win it anyways... ;D
-
Here's my expert prediction. If the cavs play the same was as vs Bulls, and the refereeing won't be over the top against us - Celtics in 6.
-
Et tu Legler?
For real. Even Timmy Legs?
-
I hate to break it to you all, but the Cavs are a better team then the Celtics and should be picked by the experts to beat the Celtics. The Celtics only legitimate shot to win is if Lebron really does have a problem with his elbow and that problem bothers him during the series.
You can't even really look at the regular season since the rosters that are going to meet in the playoffs never actually played during the season (when the Cavs were at full strength the Celtics were not and vice versa).
-
I hate to break it to you all, but the Cavs are a better team then the Celtics and should be picked by the experts to beat the Celtics. The Celtics only legitimate shot to win is if Lebron really does have a problem with his elbow and that problem bothers him during the series.
You can't even really look at the regular season since the rosters that are going to meet in the playoffs never actually played during the season (when the Cavs were at full strength the Celtics were not and vice versa).
Even if he's healthy the C's should have between 20% to 33% to win, if you assume their regular season performances are indicative of their quality.
-
If your job is to be an "expert" and "accurate", how do you seriously select a sweep? That is utterly ridiculous. I have always wanted someone, or myself if I found the time, to go back through every ESPN analyst prediction on the major sports and come up with a ranking of accuracy. I think you'd see that some of them are VERY inaccurate and shouldn't have a job.
-
Ahh, Henry "lakers in 5" Abbott might get a new nickname after this one.
-
It's really odd for Abbott to pick a sweep. The guy absolutely knows basketball.
I've traded a couple of emails with him in the past. Might send one off now...
-
Ahh, Henry "lakers in 5" Abbott might get a new nickname after this one.
Back when the experts were picking the Lakers over the Celtics, I thought they were nuts and misguided. It was clear the Celtics were a better team in 2008 than the Lakers were. I fully believed we would beat them. I thought the Lakers were overrated and lucked into the finals. I thought the media loved the Lake-Show and were just going with it. It made no sense.
This year... I have pretty much no reason to rationally believe the Celtics are better than the Cavs. You'd have to be a little nutty to pick the Celtics in this series. Cavs have been dominant and Boston has been a little embarrassing. Maybe they stand a chance and will shock the world, but I'd be joking if I said I was confident in a win.
-
This year... I have pretty much no reason to rationally believe the Celtics are better than the Cavs. You'd have to be a little nutty to pick the Celtics in this series. Cavs have been dominant and Boston has been a little embarrassing. Maybe they stand a chance and will shock the world, but I'd be joking if I said I was confident in a win.
Yea, I'm fine if they pick the Cavs in this series because they are pretty heavy favorites, but a Cavs sweep? After he called for the Lakers in 5 in the 2008 NBA Finals? At what point do you classify a guy as a Celts hater? Seems like something is in the way of him picking rationally.
-
this is no surprise at all...not like we didnt expect it....it is the nba finals all over again
-
they should keep a prediction % stat over there and display it right under each 'experts' head shot. that would give their picks some needed perspective.
-
Here are the expert picks for the 2008 nba finals
http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs2008/series?series=lalbos
Legler is the only one that picked us then.
I can see the cavs winning ,but in 4 or 5 games ,come on.....
-
Kiss of death for Cleveland ;D
p.s. legler play smart he pick the local in a close game 7 so
i still like the guy and his roots :D
-
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
Let's be clear, predicting a Cavs win is not the same as saying the C's don't have a chance. I would pick the Cavs, but I do give the C's a chance. I am sure that if asked whether the C's have a chance, many of the 'experts' would say yes. Logic, though, does dictate that the Cavs will win the series. But that, of course, doesn't mean they will.
-
my unbiased opinion is cavs in 6. but ofcourse we have a chance. we have a good chance.
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
You think picking the Cavs in 7 is an idiot prediction?
-
I'm picking the Cavs in 7.
I think the C's best chance is in 6 games. Will be almost impossible to win a game seven in Cleveland with Lebron hurling himself into traffic and getting foul calls.
-
Abbott predicting a sweep... wow. :o
Funny how all the "experts" once again all pick the Cavs to win it, I think they're in for big disappointment like last year against Orlando.
-
We've never lost a series with KG... how can they predict such terrible outcomes for us???
-
This really riles me up. Hopefully the Celts read the predictions. This is exactly the motivation we need.
-
It's not like they are all crazy- they are all just assuming the most likely thing. For anyone to say the Celtics will win is going out on a limb. I think and hope they have a chance to win, but I don't think it's likely. I really think we need to get one of the first two games. If we do, then I will feel pretty good about things. Heck, Orlando pretty much destroyed them last year, so crazier things have happened...
-
Abbott
Cavs In 4
(http://forums.realgm.com/boards/images/smilies/nonono.gif)
-
Considering that the Cavs took 5 games to beat Chicago (a 41 win team), it makes little to no sense to predict that it would take Cleveland fewer than 5 to beat the Celtics (a 50 win team with far more talent and experience).
Indeed, I think Cavs in 6 or 7 is by far the most likely scenario, and the smartest pick. Anybody picking something else is either being foolish or is trying to provoke a reaction.
-
We match up with them and we beat them 2 times this season. Would have been 3 had Shaq not gone out with injury. Reg season can indicate something when both teams are trying to win.
This season was a disapointment because there was a lack of effort, not talent. If Boston gives their best effort, it's not a stretch to say they have a 50/50 chance of winning this series.
Rebound well and play the d they're capable of and they will win this series.
-
How is it going out on a limb to say the Celtics will win?
We already proved Regular Season Means Nothing.
We are a much better Playoff team then the Cavs.
-
Our play this season screamed early playoff exit so it's OK to not pick us. But predicting we'll do no better or worse than the Bull against the Cavs when we're fully healthy and managed to get out of the 1st round in less than our usual 7 games and Mike Brown is still their coach. Now that's just cold.
-
How is it going out on a limb to say the Celtics will win?
We already proved Regular Season Means Nothing.
We are a much better Playoff team then the Cavs.
I don't think we've proved the regular season means nothing by beating Miami. If we beat Cleveland, I think we could look back at some of the bad games in Feb/Mar/Apr with new eyes. But even in round one, our interest level waned for far more quarters than I'm comfortable with.
And it's pretty much impossible to say we're a better playoff team than Cleveland because neither this year's Cleveland team, nor this year's Celtics team have faced off in the playoffs. Both blew through their first round match ups. And both are different teams from last year (when Cleveland went farther) and two years ago (when we won).
-
One thing the Celtics have going for them is that they've had the same starting 5 for a few years now.
In his latest podcast, Simmons brought up the fact that the Mavericks changed 40% of their starting lineup midway through the season, and that was a huge factor he overlooked in predicting that series. Of course, when he went on to off-handedly assume that the Cavs would easily beat the Celtics, he didn't mention the fact that the Cavs starting lineup has changed drastically since last year. Three out of the five are different; one was added mid-season and the other was in and out of the lineup all year.
The point is, the Cav's starting five hasn't really been tested too much in difficult playoff situations as a unit yet. That could play in the Celtics' favor.
-
One thing the Celtics have going for them is that they've had the same starting 5 for a few years now.
In his latest podcast, Simmons brought up the fact that the Mavericks changed 40% of their starting lineup midway through the season, and that was a huge factor he overlooked in predicting that series. Of course, when he went on to off-handedly assume that the Cavs would easily beat the Celtics, he didn't mention the fact that the Cavs starting lineup has changed drastically since last year. Three out of the five are different; one was added mid-season and the other was in and out of the lineup all year.
The point is, the Cav's starting five hasn't really been tested too much in difficult playoff situations as a unit yet. That could play in the Celtics' favor.
You make a good point here. I think KG is pretty sure what he's gonna get with Paul and Ray. And Rondo looks at Perk and knows what he's doing, etc.
I'm not positive James trusts his teammates. Particularly Mo Williams who had such a bad finish last year.
And apparently even Varejao, who Cavs fans seem to be down on, after round one. Apparently, he didn't play up to expectations.
-
Has anyone noticed the schedule for the upcoming series. Games 1 and 2 in Cleveland are on Sat. and Mon.. Then we have THREE days off before game 3 on Fri. in Boston. With three days off leading into this series, and then another three days off before game 3, this could really help the C's.
-
Has anyone noticed the schedule for the upcoming series. Games 1 and 2 in Cleveland are on Sat. and Mon.. Then we have THREE days off before game 3 on Fri. in Boston. With three days off leading into this series, and then another three days off before game 3, this could really help the C's.
What this means -
We can play the starters heavy minutes in game one because they'll have just come off of three days rest.
And we can play the starters heavy minutes in game two because they'll be heading into three days rest.
Perfect.
-
Has anyone noticed the schedule for the upcoming series. Games 1 and 2 in Cleveland are on Sat. and Mon.. Then we have THREE days off before game 3 on Fri. in Boston. With three days off leading into this series, and then another three days off before game 3, this could really help the C's.
What this means -
We can play the starters heavy minutes in game one because they'll have just come off of three days rest.
And we can play the starters heavy minutes in game two because they'll be heading into three days rest.
Perfect.
I'm not sure your logic is sound. If you worry that our older veteran's won't recover well with just one day off then playing them a ton of minutes in Game 1 could leave them gassed for Game 2. Then you're trying to play them heavy minutes in Game 2 when they're already tired?
-
Has anyone noticed the schedule for the upcoming series. Games 1 and 2 in Cleveland are on Sat. and Mon.. Then we have THREE days off before game 3 on Fri. in Boston. With three days off leading into this series, and then another three days off before game 3, this could really help the C's.
What this means -
We can play the starters heavy minutes in game one because they'll have just come off of three days rest.
And we can play the starters heavy minutes in game two because they'll be heading into three days rest.
Perfect.
I'm not sure your logic is sound. If you worry that our older veteran's won't recover well with just one day off then playing them a ton of minutes in Game 1 could leave them gassed for Game 2. Then you're trying to play them heavy minutes in Game 2 when they're already tired?
I'm not sure it's sound either. You could be right. But that's still what I'd do.
We have to have a split in the first two games to have any hope of winning the series.
If that means KG plays 40 minutes both nights, so be it.
Really, it comes down to 1.25 extra minutes per quarter over what he's used to.
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
You think picking the Cavs in 7 is an idiot prediction?
to be honest, I can understand Cavs in 7. they do have home court and Bron will get the love from the refs that he usually gets.
I think picking a sweep is unbelievably stupid.
5 games-- I can't see it considering the Bulls have less talent than the C's and got that far. It also assumes the C's have no chance on the road and cannot hold serve on their own court. I think that's unrealistic.
6 games is a stretch too I think. I can't see this group of C's going down for the count in the Garden. I think they'll move heaven and earth to get to a game 7.
-
This series will go 7 if the Cavs bring it, but I dont think they will. Got a feeling they are scared of us, and all of this over hype is going to back fire huge.
-
Et tu Legler?
my thoughts exactly. The only man on the planet that picked us over LA in '08.
-
again
Kiss of death for Cleveland ;D
-
I'd say Celtics in 7 - but that's me ;D
Anyone who says this is a less than 6-game series is stupid (of course, if Cavs/Celts win in 5 or less then I am going to look stupid). On current form, and previous results as well, it just isn't gonna happen. Maybe Cavs win in 4, but all four of them go to OT, or we lose by a point.
I thought Abbott was a good writer, but this and his Lebron-hype post on TrueHoop (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15461/longest-jumper-in-nba-history) have really reduced my opinion of him.
Hollinger should stick to advanced statistics. These numbers are too simple for him. Who is Sheridan?
-
I'd say Celtics in 7 - but that's me ;D
Anyone who says this is a less than 6-game series is stupid (of course, if Cavs/Celts win in 5 or less then I am going to look stupid). On current form, and previous results as well, it just isn't gonna happen. Maybe Cavs win in 4, but all four of them go to OT, or we lose by a point.
I thought Abbott was a good writer, but this and his Lebron-hype post on TrueHoop (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15461/longest-jumper-in-nba-history) have really reduced my opinion of him.
Hollinger should stick to advanced statistics. These numbers are too simple for him. Who is Sheridan?
That post changed your opinion on Henry Abbott? There's nothing controversial in it at all.
-
Et tu Legler?
Read my mind. Legler you judas.
And Henry. I know it was you. You broke my heart.
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
ACF
Celtics In 6
;D
-
They just want us to lose. Beantown is hated everywhere in the sports world. Because we're so [dang] good! Half of those "professional experts" also said that Miami will take us to 7.
-
They just want us to lose. Beantown is hated everywhere in the sports world. Because we're so dang good! Half of those "professional experts" also said that Miami will take us to 7.
No they didn't. The ESPN experts all picked the Celtics to win, most in 6 or 7.
-
TP to Eddie for putting the word "Expert" in quotes ... you nailed it, Brah ... nuf sed. ;)
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
You think picking the Cavs in 7 is an idiot prediction?
to be honest, I can understand Cavs in 7. they do have home court and Bron will get the love from the refs that he usually gets.
I think picking a sweep is unbelievably stupid.
5 games-- I can't see it considering the Bulls have less talent than the C's and got that far. It also assumes the C's have no chance on the road and cannot hold serve on their own court. I think that's unrealistic.
6 games is a stretch too I think. I can't see this group of C's going down for the count in the Garden. I think they'll move heaven and earth to get to a game 7.
I like how you guarantee yourself an out if they are proven correct by ahead of time saying Lebron will get calls.
You have decided that if we lose, it is due to the refs.
You think Clev can lose at home, but the Celtics can't? You do realize they were much better at home this season than we were, don't you?
You are free to your homer views, but you shouldn't be calling those with different views idiots.
-
I'd say Celtics in 7 - but that's me ;D
Anyone who says this is a less than 6-game series is stupid (of course, if Cavs/Celts win in 5 or less then I am going to look stupid). On current form, and previous results as well, it just isn't gonna happen. Maybe Cavs win in 4, but all four of them go to OT, or we lose by a point.
I thought Abbott was a good writer, but this and his Lebron-hype post on TrueHoop (http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/15461/longest-jumper-in-nba-history) have really reduced my opinion of him.
Hollinger should stick to advanced statistics. These numbers are too simple for him. Who is Sheridan?
Anyone who says this is a 7 game series is stupid.
See how easy it is to name call?
-
They just want us to lose. Beantown is hated everywhere in the sports world. Because we're so dang good! Half of those "professional experts" also said that Miami will take us to 7.
No they didn't. The ESPN experts all picked the Celtics to win, most in 6 or 7.
I said that Miami will take us to 7 games, not that they will win in 7 games.
-
Watch what happens in this series. Rondo kicks it into high gear and does outrageous things, Paul has a good to excellent series and my other surpise pick is Perk. Cleveland has the ability to flat out slaughter us in a game or two but likewise in return. That is the mark of two excellent teams dueling it out. The series hinges on the play of Rondo and I say he is up for the task. Celtics in 7. Oh, and by the way, someone gets hurt in the series. Not trying to wish that on anyone, I just think it happens.
-
Reminds me of the way they said we had no shot vs LAL
EXPERT PICKS
http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/matchup/_/teams/celtics-cavaliers
Abbott
Cavs In 4
Adande
Cavs In 6
Broussard
Cavs In 6
Ford
Cavs In 7
Hollinger
Cavs In 5
Legler
Cavs In 7
Rose
Cavs In 6
Sheridan
Cavs In 5
Stein
Cavs In 6
Thorpe
Cavs In 6
Let's see, no one gives a chance. nice motivation if they needed any.
1 picks a sweep.
2 pick the full 7 games where we lose the final game.
2 pick a 5 game series meaning we can't hold serve on our home court.
5 pick a 6 game series meaning we lose an elimination game on our court.
They're all idiots.
You think picking the Cavs in 7 is an idiot prediction?
to be honest, I can understand Cavs in 7. they do have home court and Bron will get the love from the refs that he usually gets.
I think picking a sweep is unbelievably stupid.
5 games-- I can't see it considering the Bulls have less talent than the C's and got that far. It also assumes the C's have no chance on the road and cannot hold serve on their own court. I think that's unrealistic.
6 games is a stretch too I think. I can't see this group of C's going down for the count in the Garden. I think they'll move heaven and earth to get to a game 7.
I like how you guarantee yourself an out if they are proven correct by ahead of time saying Lebron will get calls.
You have decided that if we lose, it is due to the refs.
You think Clev can lose at home, but the Celtics can't? You do realize they were much better at home this season than we were, don't you?
You are free to your homer views, but you shouldn't be calling those with different views idiots.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say they'd lose because of the refs. I stated "I can understand Cavs in 7. they do have home court and Bron will get the love from the refs that he usually gets". So, to clarify this for you, I can understand someone picking the Cavs in 7 games because I think having that extra home game will make a difference if it gets that far. the fact that Bron will get the referee love is almost a guarantee so that will make the C's possibilities of winning a game 7 that much more difficult. For those reasons, I can understand picking Cavs in 7.
On your other comments:
You think Clev can lose at home, but the Celtics can't? You do realize they were much better at home this season than we were, don't you?
-->your words, not mine. In fact, I don't expect either team to hold serve on their court. I'm anticipating each will take a game on the other's court if it gets to 7 games. C's were very good on the road but not as good as they should have been at home.
You are free to your homer views, but you shouldn't be calling those with different views idiots.
-->I would never and have never called any poster on this site an idiot. National pundits are a different issue because they're paid well for their supposed expertise and therefore are fair game in my opinion--->particularly when their opinions defy logic.
Just to make you happy, I'll rescind my idiocy comments towards the pundits that picked the Cavs in 7 since that's a reasonable expectation. If I had to put money on the series outcome, that's what I would put it on. The homer in me though would anticipate C's in 6: lose game 1 by double digits, win game 2 in a squeaker (catching the Cavs napping), winning games 3 & 4 in the Garden (very close each time), losing game 5 in Cle and winning a close one in game 6 to close it out. That's my homer prediction.
the non-homer prediction is that they split in Cle, split in boston and then each holds serve on their courts for the rest of the series with Cle taking game 7 sadly.
Feel free to check back after the series to see if I came close and hold me to my guesses if it makes you feel any better. It won't bother me one way or the other.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
-
I always seem to mess up when I post photos on this site, but here is one from 2008 you guys might like.
-
The outcomes that would surprise me are:
Cavs in 4
Celtics in 4
Celtics in 5
Celtics in 7
Therefore, the outcomes that obviously would not surprise me are:
Cavs in 5
Cavs in 6
Cavs in 7
Celtics in 6
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
They work for Disney...
-
Guys: in the series two years ago, Ray Allen played as many minutes as anyone and was 4-24 from three and averaged 9.3 points a game! And you know what? He played next to a guy who couldn't shoot at all either. And we still won!
If Ray plays(SHOOTS) well and Rondo penetrates and goes to the line and makes his shots(80 of 110 from the line over several weeks) those will be contributions that will make up any degredation between this team and that Celtic championship team. TA, and Baby off the bench should be decent contributors and Sheed has to suplly a PJ like series. We can do this!
-
Guys: in the series two years ago, Ray Allen played as many minutes as anyone and was 4-24 from three and averaged 9.3 points a game! And you know what? He played next to a guy who couldn't shoot at all either. And we still won!
If Ray plays(SHOOTS) well and Rondo penetrates and goes to the line and makes his shots(80 of 110 from the line over several weeks) those will be contributions that will make up any degredation between this team and that Celtic championship team. TA, and Baby off the bench should be decent contributors and Sheed has to suplly a PJ like series. We can do this!
e can win the series, but the 2008 team was better on D than this team. plus we had posey who could guard lebron a little but off the bench. Can TA? Marquis? Not sure.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
TP
That was funny.
To be fair, no matter how much time you spend around a game, exact predictions are a craps shoot. Even if it is clear which team is better, that doesn't mean they will win. Also, some of the "Experts" are actually more expert at writing or broadcasting than at evaluating the actual sport.
Of course, I would listen to ESPN experts before I would listen to fans of particular teams, including myself.
-
No problem that they all picked the Cavs. To pick the Cavs in 4 or 5 before the play-offs began I could even understand, but after the first round, where we have clearly demonstrated an ability to hang with Cleveland, I don't get it. Plus the rest will really help us come out strong in game 1.
-
If this were an 11 game series, it would last the full 11.
One way or another, this sucker is going the full 7. I'd be very surprised if it ended any other way. These teams just match each other too well.
-
Guys: in the series two years ago, Ray Allen played as many minutes as anyone and was 4-24 from three and averaged 9.3 points a game! And you know what? He played next to a guy who couldn't shoot at all either. And we still won!
If Ray plays(SHOOTS) well and Rondo penetrates and goes to the line and makes his shots(80 of 110 from the line over several weeks) those will be contributions that will make up any degredation between this team and that Celtic championship team. TA, and Baby off the bench should be decent contributors and Sheed has to suplly a PJ like series. We can do this!
I agree with this. Ray should have been a huge advantage last time around, but he wasn't, and - as you note - we still won. This time around Rondo is much better and Ray ought to play much better as well. Rondo/Allen should absolutely destroy Williams/Parker. Doesn't mean we'll win the series, but if we win the guard match-ups, we should have a very good shot at this thing.
-
I always seem to mess up when I post photos on this site, but here is one from 2008 you guys might like.
TP for the Finals prediction link.
I find it hilarious that the same Abbot, who is predicting a Cavs sweep, predicted Lakers in 5 when we won #17. If his "expertise" would have been correct it means that we would've gone 1-8 combined vs the Lakers and Cavs. Since when did we become the Nets?
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
They spend their entire weeks focused on basketball, studying and breaking it down, in a lot of cases and talking with players, coaches, scouts, front office people, etc. about the game. They've also put in many years as, e.g. beat reporters or players.
No word on their message board use.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
TP
That was funny.
To be fair, no matter how much time you spend around a game, exact predictions are a craps shoot. Even if it is clear which team is better, that doesn't mean they will win. Also, some of the "Experts" are actually more expert at writing or broadcasting than at evaluating the actual sport.
Of course, I would listen to ESPN experts before I would listen to fans of particular teams, including myself.
You're right about the crap shoot nature of predictions. We all look like idiots with the Hawks-Bucks series. What's silly is questioning someone as an expert because they get a prediction wrong. Expert doesn't mean infallible. Some people don't realize that.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.
You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.
But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.
You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.
But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.
I think the pro's benefit from a broader knowledge of the league, but, without question, there are quite a few posters here who know the Celtics much better than the pro's do, and understand the game just as well. Consequently, I value the insights of many posters on this blog more than the pro experts.
I'd guess that most of the experts would view the center position as a large advantage to the Cavs, when those who have "scouted" the Celtics as well as we have might see that as more of a wash, for example. Rondo/TA can keep Mo Williams' scoring in check, but most national writers probably don't know that. Jamison seems like a major addition for the Cavs, and he is, but against KG, Jamison is no quicker while giving up a height advantage to KG. But the national people don't watch as closely, and consequently don't respect what the C's really can do.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.
You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.
But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.
None taken. I should have written what I said differently. Many of those who write for ESPN or the mainstream media lack knowledge or insight. The really good ones know way more than the average message board poster.
-
What qualifies these people as experts?
Silly things like actually playing professional basketball, coaching it or spending massive amounts of time around the sport and it's athletes. Y'know, nonsense like that.
Most of them are journalists. Journalists are basically fans who get paid to watch games. Don't think they are experts any more than the people on this blog. Former players are different.
You're wrong about the journalists thing. The job of a journalist, particularly one who focuses tightly on something like the NBA, is to develop a deeper and broader base of knowledge and understanding (therefore "expert"). This should not upset people. I mean - sure, Charles Barkley puts in no effort but we don't really watch Charles for his expertise. And Simmons clearly knows the game but his heart makes him say things that seem silly sometime.
But guys like, to pick at random, Kevin Arnovitz or writers like, Jackie MacMullan - they know waaaay more than the average poster on this message board. Again - not an insult.
None taken. I should have written what I said differently. Many of those who write for ESPN or the mainstream media lack knowledge or insight. The really good ones know way more than the average message board poster.
I think there's some truth in what you're saying about some of the national media guys. Although I think the espn.com writing crew are very strong. Hollinger, Stein, Arnovitz, Abbott, Adande, Chris Forsberg (from espnboston) - these are all really sharp guys.
Which is why I'm still surprised Abbott picked Cle in 4.
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
-
(http://www.redsarmy.com/.a/6a01156f2c3287970c013480b6955a970c-450wi)
Someone needs to stamp epic fail all across Abbot's face.
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
It's majorly peeving me off. Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
It's majorly peeving me off. Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?
The half time coverage p---ed me off to.
All LeBron and barely a mention of the C's, despite our 2 point lead.
-
Simmons picked the Cavs tonight too.
I say let the experts ignore us. Makes it sweeter.
-
"We almost forgot there is a winning team too. The Celtics will be returning to the Conference Finals. But first let's check out the scene in Cleveland with George Smith." ::)
-
Simmons picked the Cavs tonight too.
I say let the experts ignore us. Makes it sweeter.
Really?
I'm definitely going to have to listen to his BS report to hear his reasoning. I was amazingly nervous and tense before and during the game.
-
Mashburn deserves a tommy point for picking Boston and getting an I told you so in there. ;D
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
It's majorly peeving me off. Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?
Of course it annoys me too, but in ESPN's defense, this game may have just altered this decade if Lebron leaves.
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
It's majorly peeving me off. Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?
Of course it annoys me too, but in ESPN's defense, this game may have just altered this decade if Lebron leaves.
LOL of course and when they finally start talking about us it's to discuss how old our team is.
-
Sportscenter's post game analysis:
Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Cavs, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron, Lebron,
It's majorly peeving me off. Where's the coverage about how the Celtics defense dominated?
Of course it annoys me too, but in ESPN's defense, this game may have just altered this decade if Lebron leaves.
LOL of course and when they finally start talking about us it's to discuss how old our team is.
I wouldn't have minded the coverage if 1/2 was on all things Lebron, 1/4 was on Magic v. Celtics, and 1/4 was on the Celtics "miraculous" victory. I think that's a lot of leeway for the network.
But about 1 3/8 hours of the show was on all things Lebron, 1/16 on the Celtics/Magic, and 1/16 on Suns/Lakers. I get that Lebron is a big story, but seriously?
-
Simmons picked the Cavs tonight too.
I say let the experts ignore us. Makes it sweeter.
Really?
I'm definitely going to have to listen to his BS report to hear his reasoning. I was amazingly nervous and tense before and during the game.
He picked Cle in game 6, Bos in game 7.