2025 Playoffs Chat & Chill Thread

[Saint Cy of JFC]

Not without Tatum. Unless he was secretly weighing them down and now players like Brown, White and Pritchard can shine. So I guess it is possible, but I just don't see them getting past this one without Tatum.

dont think he was weighing them down at all, but Boston is just really ****ing good, even without Tatum.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

dont think he was weighing them down at all, but Boston is just really ****ing good, even without Tatum.

I think it's entirely in the cards the Boston still wins this series and possibly even makes the finals. There's still a lot of talent on that team. The FO has done a very good job constructing a complementary roster around its stars. Though, I think NY making the finals would be a great story, and I'd like to see it; however, I'd see them getting crushed by OKC, who I think will win the West.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I think it's entirely in the cards the Boston still wins this series and possibly even makes the finals. There's still a lot of talent on that team. The FO has done a very good job constructing a complementary roster around its stars. Though, I think NY making the finals would be a great story, and I'd like to see it; however, I'd see them getting crushed by OKC, who I think will win the West.

If NYK chokes game 6 I dont see them winning G7 on the road

 

[Coach Ellis]

If NYK chokes game 6 I dont see them winning G7 on the road

This I agree with. I just don’t see them choking. I think they close it out. I’d definitely rather be in their spot than Boston’s right now.

 

[HermanG]

This I agree with. I just don’t see them choking. I think they close it out. I’d definitely rather be in their spot than Boston’s right now.

After Tatum injury Knicks got all the pressure in the world and Celtics can play like true underdogs.

Besides, the Celtics 3P barrage style of basketball is something that can give them the W even if they get outplayed (... and it can lose them games they should win as well).

 

[fishonjazz]

This I agree with. I just don’t see them choking. I think they close it out. I’d definitely rather be in their spot than Boston’s right now.

I agree.
I think the Knicks win game 6 because the knicks are really good. Regardless of the tatum injury.

 

[The Midnight]

Dammit.. Murray was sick this morning..

As if the job wasn’t hard enough.

Now he’ll have to do it with 1 arm tied behind his back..

 

[The Midnight]

Strawter coming up huge for Denver.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

We may have a Game 7 cueing up.

 

[FalseFlagg K]

I agree.
I think the Knicks win game 6 because the knicks are really good. Regardless of the tatum injury.

i think the Knicks will win by 30

 

[The Midnight]

Game 7 - One game to rule them ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

 

[FrenchJazzFa]

Gobert 2nd straight conference finals.

Still remember almost all NBA specialists describing this trade as one of the worst in NBA ( was before Luka one...)......probably true.... for the Jazz. Hope Rudy, Mike, NAW get a ring at that stage.

 

[fishonjazz]

We may have a Game 7 cueing up.

I love game 7's
I hope celtics can force one as well.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

Strawter coming up huge for Denver.

Strawter, and even Braun, are good examples of the need to build a supporting cast of not great but serviceable rotation players around a core of focal points. Part of the problem of judging our youth has been that they've been thrust into roles beyond their ability (at present at least) to thrive in them, i.e., starter or high-minute central focus. By way of analogy, when I started skiing in high school, my ski friends were all high-level skiers, who routinely took me on runs that were far beyond my ability to ski. Consequently, for years I never developed good skiing form, habits, or skills because I was always over my skis, so to speak. However, once I began to focus on skiing runs commensurate with my growing ability, I was able to develop the form, habits, and skills that have since allowed me to become an advanced skier.

How many games do you think an NBA team highlighting Braun, Stawther, Jaylen Wells, Cason Wallace, Aaron Wiggins, Lou Dort, etc. would win? Probably in the 20s, give or take, but they all play key roles on winning and playoff teams. It makes me wonder whether player development such as what the Jazz have done the last few years, i.e., throwing rookies and youngsters in the deep end in central roles without sufficient seasoning, is really the best way to develop young players. It's a great way to tank to increase lottery odds (how'd that turn out?), but perhaps not the best way to develop talent and evaluate whether the youngsters have a role and what that role is, whether central or supporting. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's kind of along the same lines of Locke's "over dipped Oreo cookie" theory.

Anyway, I'm not sure this is anything new or profound, but it's a slow morning, and I'm putting off doing something I need to do but don't really want to. (Posting on boards is an effective procrastination method.)

 

[The Midnight]

Strawter, and even Braun, are good examples of the need to build a supporting cast of not great but serviceable rotation players around a core of focal points. Part of the problem of judging our youth has been that they've been thrust into roles beyond their ability (at present at least) to thrive in them, i.e., starter or high-minute central focus. By way of analogy, when I started skiing in high school, my ski friends were all high-level skiers, who routinely took me on runs that were far beyond my ability to ski. Consequently, for years I never developed good skiing form, habits, or skills because I was always over my skis, so to speak. However, once I began to focus on skiing runs commensurate with my growing ability, I was able to develop the form, habits, and skills that have since allowed me to become an advanced skier.

How many games do you think an NBA team highlighting Braun, Stawther, Jaylen Wells, Cason Wallace, Aaron Wiggins, Lou Dort, etc. would win? Probably in the 20s, give or take, but they all play key roles on winning and playoff teams. It makes me wonder whether player development such as what the Jazz have done the last few years, i.e., throwing rookies and youngsters in the deep end in central roles without sufficient seasoning, is really the best way to develop young players. It's a great way to tank to increase lottery odds (how'd that turn out?), but perhaps not the best way to develop talent and evaluate whether the youngsters have a role and what that role is, whether central or supporting. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's kind of along the same lines of Locke's "over dipped Oreo cookie" theory.

Anyway, I'm not sure this is anything new or profound, but it's a slow morning, and I'm putting off doing something I need to do but don't really want to. (Posting on boards is an effective procrastination method.)

It would have been great to have gotten either Flagg or Harper this year so all our young guys can fit in place.. we had a 50/50 chance …

Oh well..

 

[HermanG]

Strawter, and even Braun, are good examples of the need to build a supporting cast of not great but serviceable rotation players around a core of focal points. Part of the problem of judging our youth has been that they've been thrust into roles beyond their ability (at present at least) to thrive in them, i.e., starter or high-minute central focus. By way of analogy, when I started skiing in high school, my ski friends were all high-level skiers, who routinely took me on runs that were far beyond my ability to ski. Consequently, for years I never developed good skiing form, habits, or skills because I was always over my skis, so to speak. However, once I began to focus on skiing runs commensurate with my growing ability, I was able to develop the form, habits, and skills that have since allowed me to become an advanced skier.

How many games do you think an NBA team highlighting Braun, Stawther, Jaylen Wells, Cason Wallace, Aaron Wiggins, Lou Dort, etc. would win? Probably in the 20s, give or take, but they all play key roles on winning and playoff teams. It makes me wonder whether player development such as what the Jazz have done the last few years, i.e., throwing rookies and youngsters in the deep end in central roles without sufficient seasoning, is really the best way to develop young players. It's a great way to tank to increase lottery odds (how'd that turn out?), but perhaps not the best way to develop talent and evaluate whether the youngsters have a role and what that role is, whether central or supporting. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it's kind of along the same lines of Locke's "over dipped Oreo cookie" theory.

Anyway, I'm not sure this is anything new or profound, but it's a slow morning, and I'm putting off doing something I need to do but don't really want to. (Posting on boards is an effective procrastination method.)

We arent in the business of developing quality role players right now. We push a lot on their plates in hopes someone develops into something more.

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

We arent in the business of developing quality role players right now. We push a lot on their plates in hopes someone develops into something more.

It's not an either or. I definitely think the FO is making this type of assessment, or trying to. It's not all about developing stars. It can't be, teams need role players as much as they need stars, as the Suns, Lakers and other have discovered to their detriments and OKC has discovered to its benefit. My question is whether thrusting young players into central roles and denuding the team of active, quality veterans is an effective way to assess a player's potential to be a solid, contributing role player on a winning team. Maybe it is. At least I think it's a valid question.

 

[HermanG]

It's not an either or. I definitely think the FO is making this type of assessment, or trying to. It's not all about developing stars. It can't be, teams need role players as much as they need stars, as the Suns, Lakers and other have discovered to their detriments and OKC has discovered to its benefit. My question is whether thrusting young players into central roles and denuding the team of active, quality veterans is an effective way to assess a player's potential to be a solid, contributing role player on a winning team. Maybe it is. At least I think it's a valid question.

What? We have had plenty of vets in our roster for a rebuilding/tanking team for the past 3 years. One could say "too many" rather than too few.

I would understand such ceiticism if it was directed towards Washington, Portland or even Charlotte...

 

[Schrödinger's Gerbil]

What? We have had plenty of vets in our roster for a rebuilding/tanking team for the past 3 years. One could say "too many" rather than too few.

I would understand such ceiticism if it was directed towards Washington, Portland or even Charlotte...

Yes, plenty of vets who are held out for extended periods of time for spurious reasons and on a team that is actively trying to lose. It seems to be me to be a sub-optimal environment to evaluate a player's potential to be a solid, contributing role player on a quality, winning team. But, I was just musing in my earlier post and don't feel strongly enough about it to engage in a protracted back and forth. I could be wrong, and if I am, that's ok.

 

[HermanG]

Yes, plenty of vets who are held out for extended periods of time for spurious reasons and on a team that is actively trying to lose. It seems to be me to be a sub-optimal environment to evaluate a player's potential to be a solid, contributing role player on a quality, winning team. But, I was just musing in my earlier post and don't feel strongly enough about it to engage in a protracted back and forth. I could be wrong, and if I am, that's ok.

That wasnt the case in previous two seasons. This year they wanted a high pick bad but felt its better to keep the vets dusting in the corners.

I think the problem in this seasons approach is more related to what it does to the value of those vet contracts.. but having them around is better for rookies than not having them around.