The difference is I used IF scenarios when discussing games that have yet to be played. I can still be proven wrong. Using IF after the fact, when nothing can be proven from it, is a different story. For instance, IF Bev comes back in the middle of this series to defend Curry, we have a better chance of winning it. IF Bev came back for round 2, we'd have swept. I can only be proven wrong in one of those two sentences above. Don't get me wrong, What-If discussions are exciting (Tyson vs Ali), but they'll never be settled.
Honestly, wouldn't be surprised if the Rockets swept GSW. F what everyone says. I'm just sayin. There is alot of bulletin board material and momentum/belief within the team to destroy the Warriors.
I wouldn't be very surprised either. But I'm expecting GSW to go on some pretty big runs, so I think the safest bet is Rockets in 7.
IF you read the entire post (#101), you would know I stated a "future IF" that specifically addresses the Jordan sentiment. You just got emotional and stopped reading after the first line. I never stated Rockets lose to MJ in the first place... I only said Jordan deserves mention. Btw- DMO ain't returning this year, so your IF scenario is invalid in that case (if people choose to be difficult)
I think a big problem GS has is the feeling of entitlement. At some point you start to believe your own hype. They got a minor wakeup call against Memphis but not enough to sink in. They haven't really been tested yet. I look at GS and I see some really good BBall players, but I don't see Magic or Bird or Jordan or Dream. These guys can be taken and I think they will get tighter as the series goes on.
I agree with you on that. From the first game against the Pelicans where Curry did the little tick tock thing with his head as time went out. He was acting as if that was the end of the playoffs. It was game one and he was already in a way taunting them. Yes you guys are good, but how about you do more than win your first playoff game this year before you start clowning on people.
Jordan played in 95, he averaged 27pts and over 30pts in the playoffs, and got eliminated in 6 games by the team we eventually swept in the finals. That's the only mention Jordan deserves (by the way, what do you even mean by "mention?"). To say "IF Jordan..." we'd first have to insert an eliminated Chicago team past the ECS and the ECF and into the finals. And that's just not even possible. Oh my emotions~
The following year, Chicago beat the squad that swept us. I think we would've beat the Bulls regardless, but when your city has no other championships, it's easy to mention the MJ situation. If you believe Jordan's not playing a full season didn't effect his postseason play, you're being naive and biased. His "retirement" effected the Bulls roster as far as who did and didn't resign (Grant). He averaged his most turnovers in the playoffs that year also. Regardless, the championships count and I'm glad they happened. It's just easy fodder to inject MJ's retirement when your city has no other championships. Like I said though, if the Rockets win this year, the MJ argument will lessen greatly.
There is no MJ argument. The Bulls were never a deterrent to the Rockets winning a championship. They were never in the way. Seattle would be a different argument. If Kemp had retired for 2 years I'd say you have something. The rockets handled Jordan soundly 5-1 in the 3 seasons prior to his retirement. And while yes the regular season doesn't say much, it's a bit of a leap for anyone to automatically assume the team that lost 5 out of 6 games is certainly the champion. Jordan was never winning 8 championships in a row. That Bulls team needed a refresh. Unfortunately for lazy people it's cute to say we only won because Jordan was gone.
Same. Golden state has no post game whatever. We are one of the few teams that have a perimeter game and a post game If you actually think bogut can guard or out rebound dwight then your crazy. I think dwight/jones/and smith are gonna have a field day. They are probably gonna have to end up putting more focus on dwight allowing the and smith more chances to score.
Ok? So that roster would have won 8 in a row? I think it's highly unlikely they get past the Knicks in 94 even with Jordan.
Realize FIRST, I said we could/would beat Chicago. Get that straight first because many here seem to bypass major details in my posts. ____ To answer your question, who knows if CHICAGO wins 8 straight. The entire point is we don't know and that's why MJ deserves mention when talking about those titles... the city's only titles. The titles still count and glad it happened. BUT, if DAL was in a similar situation you seriously wouldn't knock them? Be real. You think if Hakeem and Co had won in '86 MJ would be mentioned as much? The city's fate isn't sealed yet. The Rockets have a tremendous opportunity to make more history.
Fine, it's easy to mention MJ, and it wouldn't be as easy to if our chips weren't sandwiched between all of his. But my point is mentioning MJ is a weak argument. It's an opinion, and it can never be proven. However, the Rockets two championships are facts. They are proven. Indisputable, unlike the MJ argument. There's not enough MJ fans or Rockets haters in the world that can change the record books. Go have a Tyson vs Ali argument. Come back when you have a result.
When you have to introduce a matchup between boxers whose primes were 20 years apart to players that actually played each other in their primes, you have no argument.
I literally facepalmed when I read this. But anyway, your MJ argument is weak. Take that ish to BR or somewhere.
