Home› Mariners Baby! + Other Sports

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Zach LoweFS

RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
in Mariners Baby! + Other Sports
"The Clippers may join the sad ranks of the league’s great “what if?” teams after blitzing to within one quarter of the conference finals."

A team that never even reached the conference finals is a great "what if."
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    The Clippers would be wise to strip everything down and starting trying to build around Blake since they will most likely lack the resources to be anything more than the 4th or 5th best team in the West going forward.

    They are a "what if" in the sense that they were incredibly close but never could find the one piece needed to get them over the hump.

    A reasonable question to ask would be how much better off could/would they be if Paul was actually moved to the Lakers in the original deal?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Tequilla said:

    The Clippers would be wise to strip everything down and starting trying to build around Blake since they will most likely lack the resources to be anything more than the 4th or 5th best team in the West going forward.

    They are a "what if" in the sense that they were incredibly close but never could find the one piece needed to get them over the hump.

    A reasonable question to ask would be how much better off could/would they be if Paul was actually moved to the Lakers in the original deal?

    The Clippers shouldn't strip it down. They will have cap room next summer to get some help for Blake Griffin and Chris Paul. They just have to get through this season, which really will be no different from their recent seasons. They will win around 50 games and lose in the first or second round.

    They were never incredibly close. The Warriors would have beaten them if they got by the Rockets. For as much heat as Chris Paul gets (some is deserved), the Clippers would probably be a disaster if not for him. If they didn't get him they would have re-signed Eric Gordon to a max deal and had a big three with him instead of Chris Paul.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    The compelling reason to at least see what the market for Paul is would be considering that he'll be 31 after next season. By PG standards, he's probably got about 2-4 years tops left at an elite level. This season is stripping away one of those seasons as they should be an easy 1st round victim.

    Agreed that the Clippers weren't going to get by the Warriors. I'd expect that the Warriors would have beat them in 5 or 6 games.

    In some respects, I really like what the Clippers have done in the offseason in getting Born Ready and Pierce in the fold. What they should do is embrace the small ball movement, put Blake at the 5, and try to be the best offensive team in the league. Problem is that they've got to find a way to get some help for Blake in the front court though and how they do it is still up in the air. It will be vital for them to somehow turn Jamal Crawford into something that works.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    I think the Clippers would have given the Warriors a better run for the money. They match up better and knocked them out of the playoffs the year before. Jordan is a big who could run with the Warriors causing a match up problem. Not saying they would have won because it was the Warriors year but I bet it would have been entertaining.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • greenbloodgreenblood Member Posts: 14,434
    RaceBannon said:

    I think the Clippers would have given the Warriors a better run for the money. They match up better and knocked them out of the playoffs the year before. Jordan is a big who could run with the Warriors causing a match up problem. Not saying they would have won because it was the Warriors year but I bet it would have been entertaining.

    I don't disagree that the Clippers were a tougher out for the Warriors, but the 2015 playoff Warriors>>>>>>>2014 playoff Warriors. The biggest difference this year, is that Golden State had the defense this year that they didn't have last year.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    Golden State didn't have a single healthy big that was worth a damn in the 2014 series ... they almost beat the Clippers with the Splash Brothers and Splash Brothers only.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    The Warriors won the title by benching the healthy big they didn't have the year before
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    RaceBannon said:

    The Warriors won the title by benching the healthy big they didn't have the year before

    For a couple games. I doubt they would have beaten Memphis or Houston without Bogut.

    Every player on GS was better in 2015, they were deeper, and Steve Kerr was a huge upgrade over Mark Jackson.

    The Clippers were giving up 110+ the last three games against the Rockets. The Warriors would have shredded them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HeretoBeatmyChestHeretoBeatmyChest Member Posts: 4,295
    Clippers problem is Doc Rivers. Not a good coach and a terrible GM.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,746
    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Clippers problem is Doc Rivers. Not a good coach and a terrible GM.

    YRYK.

    Who was it that used to argue that Doc was really good, Cockus? Tequilla? RoadDawg?

    Fuck, all you fuckers are starting to run together.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    dnc said:

    HeretoBeatmyChest said:

    Clippers problem is Doc Rivers. Not a good coach and a terrible GM.

    YRYK.

    Who was it that used to argue that Doc was really good, Cockus? Tequilla? RoadDawg?

    Fuck, all you fuckers are starting to run together.
    I think Tequilla. Cockus was busy sucking off Spolstra.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    I think Doc is an above average coach ... he's proving to be a relatively poor GM in the Mike Holmgren ilk.

    As a GM, the most important thing you can do for your team if it is a title contender is to ensure that it has more than enough pieces to cover any possible contingency in the course of winning a title.

    The biggest problem the Clippers have had since getting Doc has been that their depth has let them down.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Tequilla said:

    I think Doc is an above average coach ... he's proving to be a relatively poor GM in the Mike Holmgren ilk.

    As a GM, the most important thing you can do for your team if it is a title contender is to ensure that it has more than enough pieces to cover any possible contingency in the course of winning a title.

    The biggest problem the Clippers have had since getting Doc has been that their depth has let them down.

    I agree with most of your poast, but it wasn't their depth that caused them to blow the 14 point lead to the Thunder or the 19 point lead against the Rockets. It was the Clippers being the Clippers.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,882
    Slightly disagree with the depth standpoint ...

    I do think that one of the things that really caught up to them in the Houston series was the number of minutes the starters had to play not only in the Spurs series but then in the Rockets series. When you have a 20 point 4th quarter lead, you need to be able to rely on your bench to play 4-5 minutes of relatively even basketball to not blow the lead and allow your starters to rest and be fresh. They were outscored by 25 points in the 4th. Griffin, Jordan, and Paul played 41-42 minutes during the game. Outside of Crawford's 24 minutes (and btw he was a -27 for the game), the rest of the bench COMBINED for 25 minutes. That's just flat out not enough from the bench.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • allpurpleallgoldallpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    I still think Doc is good. Just not really good. He's a flawed coach and his GMing is making those flaws stand out. But I'd still take him over half the coaches in the NBA.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dncdnc Member Posts: 56,746
    allpurpleallgold said:

    I still think Doc is good. Just not really good. He's a flawed coach and his GMing is making those flaws stand out. But I'd still take him over half the coaches in the NBA.

    The biggest benefit of Doc was supposed to be that players love him, but since he's come to the Clips they haven't attracted anyone worth a damn in free agency but the possibly still alive Paul Pierce, who's nowhere near as good as the guy they're possibly loosing in Jordan.

    If the draw of Doc isn't enough to attract elite talent, and it doesn't appear to be so, his game management is an absolute killer.

    I would take about 20 guys before him.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 105,998 Founders Club
    Gilby doesn't know shit about basketball

    Just throwing that out
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TierbsHsotBoobsTierbsHsotBoobs Member Posts: 39,680
    allpurpleallgold said:

    I still think Doc is good. Just not really good. He's a flawed coach and his GMing is making those flaws stand out. But I'd still take him over half the coaches in the NBA.

    So he's the Les Miles of the NBA then?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.