NBA Playoffs Season 2014-2015

[RockinRyA]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

Id take Sheed over any hawk right now. Sheed has superstar skills, just doesnt have the drive to be one.

[mahonedog88]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

Id take Sheed over any hawk right now. Sheed has superstar skills, just doesnt have the drive to be one.

Oh I agree 100%.  That Pistons team had players I'd consider way closer to superstar level than this Hawks team.

[SHAQATTACK]

Devia ....coasted most of the regular season......he played 100 %full bore very rarely .  He played just hard enough to help the team over the hump.

Actually ...IMO ...the most exhausted he has looked so far was in those last two Celtic playoff games .

He beat us , but we beat him down pretty darn good.

[GreenWarrior]

hate to be a hawks fan today. this is absolutely the worst possible scenario they could find themselves. the hawks will be thinking they lost this series because of injuries, when in reality they never had a chance. they won't improve and will spend the next 5 yrs. trying to recapture their 60 win season with the same group....they're done for.

[mr. dee]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

1979 Seatle Sonics.

[Beat LA]

Looking like five straight Finals for the King. We really are all witnesses. 

I guess the only good thing is that this marginalizes Love somewhat...maybe..hopefully. And that Cleveland can't beat Golden State.

But it's still our fault if they lose , right, lol ?

[Beat LA]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

1979 Seatle Sonics.

For the 04 pistons, Ben Wallace was their superstar, imo, but Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed were all go-to guys, and that's the difference between them and this year's Hawks.  What Cleveland has done is taken the 3s away from the Hawks, and if Atlanta isn't hitting them, they can't win, because apparently no one can take a step towards the basket and hit a midrange jumper, let alone drive it to the hoop.  Most of their guys are specialists, and they're being exposed in this 'series,' if you even want to call it that.  They're good players, don't get me wrong, but they're not complete, well-rounded, ones, imo.

As for the 1979 Supersonics, they had a ton of stars and go-to guys in Gus Williams, DJ, Sikma, John Johnson, with downtown Freddie Brown, Lonnie Shelton, and Paul Silas off the bench.  They were loaded.  Wow.

[staticcc]

Why does it seem like the Hawks are nursing career-ending injuries when they happen but the players come back to the game after 5 minutes???

[mahonedog88]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

1979 Seatle Sonics.

One could argue in that year, Dennis Johnson was on a superstar level.  But even if he wasn't...congrats, you came up with ONE more.  So that's 2 teams in the span of about 40 years since the merger.  The fact is, unless the rest of the competition around the league is inferior in that year, your chances of winning a title without at least one legit superstar is next to none.

[RockinRyA]

Are we really looking at a sweep?

This series proves it, the Atlanta blueprint is cute and all, but the NBA still hasn't changed.  You need at least 1 superstar talent to be considered a true title contender.  How the Hawks fared in this series was going to be very telling for the Celtics in terms of how just far away they are from a title.  Unfortunately, the Hawks are proving that a team with a star or two (note: star, not SUPERstar) and a bunch of solid role players playing great regular season team ball still doesn't ultimately get a title.

Oh please. 2004 Pistons didn't have a single superstar, although the starters are all-star calibers. Atlanta's front court have been exposed. They have no enforcer in the paint and Horford is clearly not the answer although he's a good defender. They also lack ball handlers. Teague and Schroder ain't doing it. Who in the hawks deserve to be in all-defensive team? none.

the 04 Pistons are the ONE exception to the rule.  Besides that team, name a team to win the NBA title without at least 1 superstar?

1979 Seatle Sonics.

For the 04 pistons, Ben Wallace was their superstar, imo, but Billups, Hamilton, and Sheed were all go-to guys, and that's the difference.  What Cleveland has done is taken the 3s away from the Hawks, and if Atlanta isn't hitting them, they can't win, because apparently no one can take a step towards the basket and hit a midrange jumper, let alone drive it to the hoop.  Most of their guys are specialists, and they're being exposed in this 'series,' if you even want to call it that.  They're good players, don't get me wrong, but they're not complete, well-rounded, ones, imo.

As for the 1979 Supersonics, they had a ton of stars and go-to guys in Gus Williams, DJ, Sikma, John Johnson, and downtown freddie brown off the bench.  Wow.

I wouldnt call Ben Wallace a superstar but yeah, I agree. Both Rip and Chauncey are very good go-to-guys.

[D.o.s.]

Ben Wallace wasn't a 'superstar' but he was probably the NBA's best player that year. Dude was seriously ahead of his time as far as the ways that we measure the game.

[mahonedog88]

Ben Wallace wasn't a 'superstar' but he was probably the NBA's best player that year. Dude was seriously ahead of his time as far as the ways that we measure the game.

The guy won defensive player of the year 4 times in 5 years and yet SI did NOT put him on the top 10 list of greatest defensive players of all time. 

[Roy H.]

Why is Lebron still in there?

This is Perk & Haywood time.

[BleedGreen1989]

Why is Lebron still in there?

This is Perk & Haywood time.

Because he's got a triple double at stake.

I'm not gonna pretend Lebron doesn't care about his stats.

[YeezusChrist]

Atlanta has not played like a championship team throughout the playoffs. They may blame the injuries this series but what about the 6 game series against the Nets and I think they could have lost to the Wizards last round if wall was atleast 80% but anyways  i'm looking forward to GSW against the Cavs