Kansas Crimson

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:52 am

Feral wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:21 pm NBA vet JJ Redick absolutely bodied Stephen A. Smith and Chris Russo after they decided to kick Kawhi Leonard while he was down and out of the NBA Playoffs with another knee injury.

I saw this. Im actually starting to really like Reddick. Love that he called them out "you guys have obviously never played high level basketball"

YouTube started putting Reddick's video podcast into my feed a year or two ago, and even tho I'd never "liked" him because...Duke, it was good. Don't know why they stopped, I haven't watched it in a while but maybe should.

I am a Giannis fan. People are praising him for his response but........
A. How is it NOT a failure to lose to an 8 seed as a 1 seed - in 5 games?
B. Yes, Jordan "failed". Thankfully never as a 1 seed.

Well whenever someone brings up how many times KU has lost as a 1 seed I just think of all the other teams that also lost in that time period as lower seeds.

So you still lost. And we had a better regular season.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:55 am I am a Giannis fan. People are praising him for his response but........
A. How is it NOT a failure to lose to an 8 seed as a 1 seed - in 5 games?
B. Yes, Jordan "failed". Thankfully never as a 1 seed.

Jordan never lost a series to a lower seed....he was never upset in the playoffs.

he also never lost in the championship at any level 6/6 NBA, 1/1 NCAA, 2/2 Olympics

Again, when someone says, hey, at least we weren't upset, that doesn't mean all that much because it means your team wasn't good enough to be in the position TO BE upset in the first place.

The first six years of Jordan's career his Bulls averaged a seed of 5.8.
OK, so you never got upset. There wasn't much opportunity to be upset - in fact, a few of those years it was impossible.
That doesn't say much of anything to me.

This also lends itself to when people say, "yea, you have a decent record in the playoffs/NCAA tournament over the years because your first two rounds are usually easy teams" - well, yes, that's kind of the point.

Feral wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:54 am

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 5:52 am

Feral wrote: ↑Thu Apr 27, 2023 7:21 pm NBA vet JJ Redick absolutely bodied Stephen A. Smith and Chris Russo after they decided to kick Kawhi Leonard while he was down and out of the NBA Playoffs with another knee injury.

I saw this. Im actually starting to really like Reddick. Love that he called them out "you guys have obviously never played high level basketball"

YouTube started putting Reddick's video podcast into my feed a year or two ago, and even tho I'd never "liked" him because...Duke, it was good. Don't know why they stopped, I haven't watched it in a while but maybe should.

I've actually grown to like the dude. Absolutely hated him as a college player, because of Duke. Started liking him as an NBA player. Embiid always spoke really highly of him. In the early days of the process in Philly, they signed jj Redick to join a ridiculously young team basically to be kind of a mentor and veteran presence, and to give embiid some shooting and spacing. And as a sports analyst hes been great.

Seeing him torch stephan a Smith is fucking amazing lol

I think it was when he went to the Clips is when I started liking Redick.
Tat sleeve and all.
Ousdahl?

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:26 am Again, when someone says, hey, at least we weren't upset, that doesn't mean all that much because it means your team wasn't good enough to be in the position TO BE upset in the first place.

The first six years of Jordan's career his Bulls averaged a seed of 5.8.
OK, so you never got upset. There wasn't much opportunity to be upset - in fact, a few of those years it was impossible.
That doesn't say much of anything to me.

This also lends itself to when people say, "yea, you have a decent record in the playoffs/NCAA tournament over the years because your first two rounds are usually easy teams" - well, yes, that's kind of the point.

its still an impressive stat. As a 1 seed he never lost. I dont know every persons history, but I imagine that's pretty far and few between particularly given that it wasn't a 1 off situation where they were a 1 seed.

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:23 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:26 am Again, when someone says, hey, at least we weren't upset, that doesn't mean all that much because it means your team wasn't good enough to be in the position TO BE upset in the first place.

The first six years of Jordan's career his Bulls averaged a seed of 5.8.
OK, so you never got upset. There wasn't much opportunity to be upset - in fact, a few of those years it was impossible.
That doesn't say much of anything to me.

This also lends itself to when people say, "yea, you have a decent record in the playoffs/NCAA tournament over the years because your first two rounds are usually easy teams" - well, yes, that's kind of the point.

its still an impressive stat. As a 1 seed he never lost. I dont know every persons history, but I imagine that's pretty far and few between particularly given that it wasn't a 1 off situation where they were a 1 seed.

Its impressive. But, when he abruptly went into "retirement" and left those bulls teams, they still won 60 games without him, and without having a replacement for him.

I think people tend to undervalue those bulls teams and because of that over value Michael Jordan

If Giannis took this season off, that bucks team ain't winning 60 games lol

Toni Kukoc!

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:36 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:23 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:26 am Again, when someone says, hey, at least we weren't upset, that doesn't mean all that much because it means your team wasn't good enough to be in the position TO BE upset in the first place.

The first six years of Jordan's career his Bulls averaged a seed of 5.8.
OK, so you never got upset. There wasn't much opportunity to be upset - in fact, a few of those years it was impossible.
That doesn't say much of anything to me.

This also lends itself to when people say, "yea, you have a decent record in the playoffs/NCAA tournament over the years because your first two rounds are usually easy teams" - well, yes, that's kind of the point.

its still an impressive stat. As a 1 seed he never lost. I dont know every persons history, but I imagine that's pretty far and few between particularly given that it wasn't a 1 off situation where they were a 1 seed.

Its impressive. But, when he abruptly went into "retirement" and left those bulls teams, they still won 60 games without him, and without having a replacement for him.

I think people tend to undervalue those bulls teams and because of that over value Michael Jordan

"teams"? One team. They didn't win 60 without him.
I agree people undervalued the 93-94 team. I disagree that they overvalued Jordan.
92-93 Jordan averaged 32.6 regular season. 93 Finals Jordan had games of 33, 41, 55, 44, 42, and 31 points. How do you "overvalue" that?

57 to be exact. The first year without Jordan, after the first 3peat, Chicago went 57-25. That was when he shocked the world and stepped away from the game. So Chicago had no replacement plan in place, and the core of the bulls able to win 57 games without Jordan, and even advance to the conference semis.

I know Jordan was great. But so was the rest of that team

For comparison, the bucks went 58-24 this season, the best record in the NBA

Also for comparison, when lebron left Miami or left Cleveland, those teams sunk to the very bottom of the league and won about 20 games

randylahey wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:36 am

TDub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 10:23 am

pdub wrote: ↑Fri Apr 28, 2023 8:26 am Again, when someone says, hey, at least we weren't upset, that doesn't mean all that much because it means your team wasn't good enough to be in the position TO BE upset in the first place.

The first six years of Jordan's career his Bulls averaged a seed of 5.8.
OK, so you never got upset. There wasn't much opportunity to be upset - in fact, a few of those years it was impossible.
That doesn't say much of anything to me.

This also lends itself to when people say, "yea, you have a decent record in the playoffs/NCAA tournament over the years because your first two rounds are usually easy teams" - well, yes, that's kind of the point.

its still an impressive stat. As a 1 seed he never lost. I dont know every persons history, but I imagine that's pretty far and few between particularly given that it wasn't a 1 off situation where they were a 1 seed.

Its impressive. But, when he abruptly went into "retirement" and left those bulls teams, they still won 60 games without him, and without having a replacement for him.

I think people tend to undervalue those bulls teams and because of that over value Michael Jordan

did they win the title?

Steve Kerr is being exposed. For what, I don't know. What I do know (or at least strongly believe) is he has more talent than the guy he's coaching against. Have to admit as much I like the Warriors, I wouldn't mind seeing the Kings beat them.

On another note, if you lose by 1 or you lose by 100 it really doesn't matter. What does matter is when you lose in a series deciding game at it seems like the Grizz weren't prepared for it. My guess is Dillion Brooks didn't learn a valuable lesson. It's probably best to keep your mouth shut in regards to baiting superior players.
I am NOT a fan of the "play in" games. I am a fan of the Lakers, and if the Suns don't win the Championship, I hope the Lakers do.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:43 am Steve Kerr is being exposed. For what, I don't know. What I do know (or at least strongly believe) is he has more talent than the guy he's coaching against. Have to admit as much I like the Warriors, I wouldn't mind seeing the Kings beat them.

On another note, if you lose by 1 or you lose by 100 it really doesn't matter. What does matter is when you lose in a series deciding game at it seems like the Grizz weren't prepared for it. My guess is Dillion Brooks didn't learn a valuable lesson. It's probably best to keep your mouth shut in regards to baiting superior players.
I am NOT a fan of the "play in" games. I am a fan of the Lakers, and if the Suns don't win the Championship, I hope the Lakers do.

Steve kerr is not being exposed lol horrible take.

Its just a classic match up of a young up and coming team trying to take down and old fading dynasty. The kings are loaded with talent and, if you've watched, they are the more athletic team

randylahey wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 8:43 am

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 5:43 am Steve Kerr is being exposed. For what, I don't know. What I do know (or at least strongly believe) is he has more talent than the guy he's coaching against. Have to admit as much I like the Warriors, I wouldn't mind seeing the Kings beat them.

On another note, if you lose by 1 or you lose by 100 it really doesn't matter. What does matter is when you lose in a series deciding game at it seems like the Grizz weren't prepared for it. My guess is Dillion Brooks didn't learn a valuable lesson. It's probably best to keep your mouth shut in regards to baiting superior players.
I am NOT a fan of the "play in" games. I am a fan of the Lakers, and if the Suns don't win the Championship, I hope the Lakers do.

Steve kerr is not being exposed lol horrible take.

Its just a classic match up of a young up and coming team trying to take down and old fading dynasty. The kings are loaded with talent and, if you've watched, they are the more athletic team

VGR!

I said, "For what, I don't know". Now tell me how that's a "horrible take"?

You might think the Warriors are an "old and fading dynasty" but that "old and fading dynasty" won the Championship last year and has guys in their 20s playing big minutes.

The Kings may be "loaded with talent" but I refuse to believe as a whole they have more "talent" than the Warriors.

Yes, I have watched. Yes, the Kings are seemingly more "athletic".
Maybe more "athletic" can and will beat more "skilled" in this series but as I say in regards to players being referred to as "athletic" and "athletes", the person currently known as Caitlyn Jenner was one of the best "athletes" in my lifetime. Meanwhile, the person currently known as Caitlyn Jenner would be the worst player on any MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLS, etc., team back when the person currently known as Caitlyn Jenner was one of the best "athletes" in the world.