Jump to content

NBA Thread


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, BGleas said:

I think he has been on that second tier (8-15) of star level. I'm not putting him in the LeBron, Durant,  Curry or Kawai (when he's right) category, of course. 

He's certainly more one-dimensional than some guys (Vic, Greek Freak, etc.), but he is an elite scorer and ball handler. In his defense, he did average 27ppg in the Finals in 2016, including making the championship winning shot in Game 7. 

Also last season, while certainly more talented than the Bucks and Pacers in terms of the rest of the roster, Kyrie was the leader of a team that finished 2nd in the conference, and was considered a mid-level playoff team after Hayward went down 5 minutes into the season. 

Vic is certainly a more all-around player, no doubt, but Kyrie is far more proven at this level in terms of being a star and leading teams. 

I just don't see this take at all. He has never led a team in his college or NBA career.

I mean, I guess last year, but the team didn't miss a beat without him and to use the Vic comparison the Pacers were 0-7 without him. 

Kyrie came into the league with immense hype, it continued because he can make a highlight play as good as anyone, then because he played with LBJ in a weak East. Honestly, what evidence is there that Kyrie actually elevates a team to new heights? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FW_Hoosier said:

 

Pretty clear AD is easily the third best player in the league right now, if not the second best.

Agreed, Paul George, then AD. 😀

LBJ, AD or Durant. I personally see AD as better, Durant (though I don't like him) really raised his game by taking his D to an elite level, no question he's in that top 3 to me, but I'd take AD over him, imagine him on the Warriors. He's been in basketball purgatory, though the Pels are getting better, and he was plagued by constant injuries for a while. Now? Just get out of the way.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it's just me but I feel like for the last 2 days all I keep hearing about is the Bucks. It's like someone passed out the same note to Indy media and said Milwaukee will be the big surprise this year. To me it's the Celtics and Pacers/Raptors/76ers battling for 2-4. 

Regarding Troy...hopefully he'll find a new team soon. Sucks that he makes the team and is waived before opening night. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Maybe it's just me but I feel like for the last 2 days all I keep hearing about is the Bucks. It's like someone passed out the same note to Indy media and said Milwaukee will be the big surprise this year. To me it's the Celtics and Pacers/Raptors/76ers battling for 2-4. 

Regarding Troy...hopefully he'll find a new team soon. Sucks that he makes the team and is waived before opening night. 

Bucks made a big coaching upgrade and added some nice pieces.  I see the top 4 in the east being Celtics, Raptors, Pacers, Bucks, not necessarily in that order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Pacers first game - balanced shooting and scoring (and minutes)

Vic 6-11 for 16

Evans 6-12 for 14

Sabonis 7-11 for 14

Bog 7-9 for 19

McD - 5-9 for 12

Turner 4-8 for 8

Young 5-7 for 10

Joseph 5-7 for 11

And a 29 point w (over Memphis) 

Everyone played well except for Turner and Collison and the bench was great.  I was not really for the long term contract for Turner because I feel like the Pacers will have to choose between Turner and Sabonis at some tine.  To me they can't play together on the court for a long period of time and I would rather have Sabonis as the long term starter at center.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, dbmhoosier said:

Good solid team as always but also as always never a serious threat to win anything.  Been that way for like 30 years.

The Pacers were in the NBA finals in 2000 so  your 30 years is a little off.  They also have been in like 8 Eastern Conference finals since 1994 which is 24 years so they have been serious contenders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, IU Scott said:

The Pacers were in the NBA finals in 2000 so  your 30 years is a little off.  They also have been in like 8 Eastern Conference finals since 1994 which is 24 years so they have been serious contenders.

Also can't forget the Artest-brawl in the Palace team. That team was really good, and they were destroying that Pistons team in that game, and then Artest pulled his stupidity and the team went poof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

True, but kidding aside it was the players they lost, not the Melo addition.

Wouldn't mind a Houston meltdown and they clean house and we trade for Eric Gordon. I like the Pacers and I think adding Tyreke will help the falloff when Vic goes to bench but come playoff time....I sure would like to add another pure 3 point shooter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

I just don't see this take at all. He has never led a team in his college or NBA career.

I mean, I guess last year, but the team didn't miss a beat without him and to use the Vic comparison the Pacers were 0-7 without him. 

Kyrie came into the league with immense hype, it continued because he can make a highlight play as good as anyone, then because he played with LBJ in a weak East. Honestly, what evidence is there that Kyrie actually elevates a team to new heights? 

I hate to be in a position to not support Vic, because I'm a huge fan, but with that said, in 6 NBA seasons the only place Vic has led a team is to a first-round loss in the playoffs one time, granted that team did overachieve largely due to him. But, you could also argue that as a #2 overall pick that Vic had been a disappointment until last season. But, there's also no doubt that Vic was phenomenal last season. 

Kyrie is by no means a perfect player, and he's not the all-around player that some of the other top guards are, but he was a 5-6apg guy early in his career when he was surrounded by garbage, and then LeBron came which certainly elevated his teams, but also caused his playmaking to regress because LeBron dominated the ball. From a team perspective, Kyrie absolutely benefitted from having LeBron, as does anyone he plays with, but at the same time with Kyrie injured Cleveland got crushed in the 2015 Finals, with him back they won the title in 2016 with Kyrie outplaying Steph in that series, averaging 27ppg and hitting the game/championship winning shot. He did outplay Steph in that series. 

Being honest, I was not a big Kyrie fan before watching him more closely last season, and being really honest I still don't love his game. But, he is better than I previously thought, he cares more than I previously thought, and he's definitely in that second tier of NBA stars. He was a great leader of that team after Hayward went down and they went on that run of wins, he played a huge part in keeping the team together and playing well.

But, If he wasn't surrounded by Danny Ainge and Brad Stevens and an overall stable organization like the Celtics, would I want him as my teams best player, the honest answer is no. If I were the Knicks there's no chance I would give him a max contract to be my teams best player next summer. But, with the Celtics, it works. But also being honest, if my goal is to win a title, I wouldn't want Vic as my best player either. They're both second-tier NBA stars, not guys that instantly make you a title contender. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Seeking6 said:

Wouldn't mind a Houston meltdown and they clean house and we trade for Eric Gordon. I like the Pacers and I think adding Tyreke will help the falloff when Vic goes to bench but come playoff time....I sure would like to add another pure 3 point shooter. 

EJ has definitely come into his own, getting by the several years of injuries -- always had the talent. 

I don't know about meltdown, the Rockets have enough talent to still make a strong playoff push, but they're no longer a threat to GS, imo, and I think they fall from the #2 team -- I can see the Thunder (if/when Roberson gets back healthy, along with Westbrook), Pelicans, Utah and Nuggets all in the mix to be better than the Rockets (I'm not one who thinks the Lakers are there this season). EJ is a key player on the Rockets, doubt they let him go, but it's always possible and the Ariza move was pretty surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dbmhoosier said:

Good solid team as always but also as always never a serious threat to win anything.  Been that way for like 30 years.

So the team in 2013-2014 wasn't a threat, I would consider making it to the ECF significant?  The team in the early 2000s were not a threat? I know its early(only 1 game) but assuming the bench can play like this 75 or 80% of the games, I cannot think of a better bench over the last 10 years or so that the Pacers have had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...