Dallas has always looked down it's nose at Houston. Houstonians have always replied with a big, "Oh yeah? Well **** you, you pansies!" And much worse, with Dallas deserving every bit of it. Houston and Dallas have been rivals as long as I can remember. I'm glad they lost. One hell of a lot of us are glad they lost. You're right, Nick. SA doesn't get that kind of response from your average Houstonian, if they have some success. Dallas sucks. There are some good people there, and some good things about the city, but from a sports view, and a lot of other views, coming from a Houston point of view, they just suck. Almost forgot: Dallas... CHOKE CITY!!!
Oh, the hate for San Antonio was definitely there before their first title. I have no loyalties to the city of Houston, so the whole Houston vs. Dallas as a city thing means nothing to me. I enjoy good basketball, and hope the Rockets play some - that's it. I hate the "sore loser" aspect of sports - I look at it that just because another team's fans are whiny/childish doesn't mean it's a good thing or that I should do it. And that's exactly what we're seeing here. I have no issues rooting against a team or whatnot. But I hate all the crying, whining, etc that fans do - and right now, we have like 7 threads on it. It's insane. If another team is better, set them as a standard to beat, rather than trying to justify why they aren't as good as they are, or what not. People saying "Dallas lost its best chance" or things like that make no sense. It's no different, to me, than all the people in the Astros forum whining "season's over" after every loss or what not. It's just obnoxious. People here whine and gripe about other teams. I whine and gripe about whiners and gripers.
Oh I can't stand the Mavs' whining on and off the court. But I think that's amplified by them being a rival. I'd venture most teams whine just about as much *on the court*, although Dallas does it a lot than more off the court. Then again, JVG (who I like) actually insinuated that the league was rigged against Yao in our playoff run, so I don't think the Rockets are in a position to criticize. I am disappointed that the Mavs lost, but not for the Mavs' sake. I just think it sucks that a single player still can beat a team that plays team-basketball. Outside of the Rockets, I always root for the teams that seem to play "team" basketball - hoping that they can start a trend. Phoenix was the team I was rooting for in the playoffs, but the Mavs were in the same mold. Detroit the past couple of years, and Sacramento before that were also great examples of teams built around teamwork rather than a single star and a bunch of people watching. The Heat essentially won by isolating Wade and letting him take half their shots, especially in the later stages of the game. I just find it boring basketball and am disappointed that you can win that way.
All you needed to do was stop right there... if you don't hate dallas because of the houston vs. dallas thing, then you're clearly not going to be as miffed about the Mavs. If that's the case, then yes... this all seems like sour grapes/envy/whatever. But, that's not the case for me, Deckard, MadMax, and whoever does actually have some ties to Houston. We're not envious of Dallas... we're not griping about our team being bad, while theirs is good... we just HATE the city, hate the way they look down on Houston, hate the elitist attitude their fans/citizens have, and in a recent development... hate the way their owner carries himself and thus influences/riles up his team's personnel and fans. Obviously nobody here wanted San Antonio to win a championship... but if you were to poll every single Houston Rocket fan, or Houstonian, you would find that they all respected San Antonio's team. Much like when St. Louis beats Houston... or vice versa... both cities don't have to like one another, but they certainly respect them. (But, when both cities play the Cubs... that's just hate, not respect). Respect would NOT have been the case with Dallas... we don't respect them (they disrespected us first, btw), we don't care for them, and yes... as childish as it sounds... we'll root for them to lose simply because of that. The Mavs... with the way they just "look", from the players to the coach to the owner... just made it that much easier to follow thru on those feelings.
But before Detroit (who beat a flawed Lakers team), the team-first approach always had the same problems when it came down to money-time... who was going to step up when their team needed them the most... who was going to be the MAN. I still think teams have to know who gets the ball in crunch time... and everybody knows their roles after that. It just simplifies things... and teams can save their energy for focusing on defense. I'd even venture to say that Chauncy Billups was Detroit's superstar, cause he always commanded the ball in crunch time... and the other players were simply complementing him. Obviously the team-first approach is the "right" one... but if you don't have guys who are willing to step up and take the bull by the horns... what the hell is the point of having all that depth and talent? Also, it wasn't as if Miami had terrible chemistry (which still plays a huge role)... in fact, you could challenge that they bought more into the team concept by having a bunch of former stars with huge egos take a back seat to a new up and coming true star.
I tend to agree that you need stars at the end of a game. But I think the NBA is trending towards rewarding teams that have a lot of really-good players, but not necessarily the best player - teams like Phoenix or Dallas. They all have 4 or 5 guys who could go off for 30 points on any given night. I find that to be a entertaining. I didn't get to see game 6, but I found game 5 to be boring as hell. Wade took 28 of their 69 shots. Shaq took 12, and no one else took more than 7. Wade took 25 of their 49 free throws. Comparatively, Dallas had 3 guys with 17 or more shots. I'm not saying that style can or can't win - I'm just saying I wish it would win. I thought Detroit was great for the NBA when they won.
were you really bored with game 5??? an overtime playoff game with a "must win" feel??? i think people were far more bored watching detroit win than watching a guy like wade take over. even though i was pulling for detroit like crazy, and was a HUGE fan of those Bad Boy teams for the very reason you're talking about.
I guess bored is not the right word. Certainly the game is exciting from the perspective of what it means and all of that. But the style of play from the Heat was just boring. More in the sense of, if a game didn't mean anything, I could watch a Suns-Mavs game and be very entertained. I could not watch that game and feel the same, if it were just a regular season game. Thus, I want the style the Suns/Mavs to be successful so that more teams will try to duplicate it and make the NBA more fun. I rooted for Steve Spurrier with the Redskins of the same way. Can't stand the guy, but I wanted that style of football to be successful, because I find it much more exciting to watch than the 5 yard dump-off passes that were so common with winning teams like Baltimore at the time.
I agree that having a deeeeep team, with tons of talent, will benefit any organization (in any sport, really)... and the modern-day NBA has always had a smattering of teams that represented that: Detroit, Dallas, Phoenix now... Sacramento in the early part of the decade... Seattle/Indiana in the mid 90's.... Golden State in the early 90's... and Detroit with their bad boy teams. But, I don't think any of those teams that failed would have minded if they had one guy who was just designated to take over a game if they needed him to... I think that is the biggest problem for a team with depth/solid players. Stars get the ball throughout the season in crunch time moments... they get multiple opportunities to become GOOD at just what those other teams need... one guy to lead the charge, and the others complement him. All players get some degree of aprehension/tightness at the end of close/meaningful games... to have a guy who is accustomed to the pressure (by going through it throughout the regular season) ends up being just as valuable as having 3 or 4 guys who could go off for 30 on any given night. Also, you could run into the problem that plagued Detroit this year... some egos got in the way of their "team-first" approach, and they never had that one commanding star to get them to re-dedicate and re-focus their efforts on the goal at hand. I end with this: Who do you feel was the Mavs captain this year? Keep in mind, the best player isn't necessarily the "captain" (like Ausmus). Dirk does talk the talk... but I never saw him rally the troops ON THE COURT, pull them aside, get them to calm/settle down, and let them know that he'd LEAD them.
what crying and whining are you referring to? those 7 threads look more like we're jubilant and celebrating to me.
That's a good question - I haven't seen enough Mavs games to say, but I would guess it would be Jason Terry. Or at least, if I was running the Mavs, that's who I'd want it to be. He has some fire, and as point guard, he can go beyond just being the vocal leader and get the ball to the right people when needed.
I'd agree too... and he was the biggest culprit of dissapearing/not hitting big shots last night when his team needed him the most. He was consistenly their best player throughout this playoffs, and he should have had the ball in his hand on every possesion in that 4th quarter when the Mavs were struggling to score (not just for those last two possesions). But, that's one of the problems with having a great team, with a bunch of great players... but no dominant one. When things start struggling, there is no safety net. Nobody willing to take the burden of shooting the shots that even if they don't go in... you can at least say you got the ball to the guy who'd brought you there all season. Meanwhile, I'm praying that Dallas somehow lets Terry go (really doubtful) and he comes to a team like Houston where he doesn't need to be the man... doesn't need to be the safety net. He would undoubtedly THRIVE in that position... more so than the one he's sort of forced to be in Dallas (since Dirk isn't going to step up any time soon).
Why, given that at the end of the day, whether Miami or Dallas wins, it doesn't affect my life in the least.
Yeah, I think someone like Terry would be a perfect fit with the Rockets, and is the type of player they need. As far as the first part - I agree. Having that one superstar helps steady a team. But on the flipside, you're much more dependent on that one player having a good game. For example, when Wade wasn't shooting the ball well in games 1 & 2, there's not much the Heat could do. Whereas if Dirk is having an offnight, Dallas can just give the ball to any number of other players. So it puts less pressure on that one star (Dirk) to succeed at all time. Dallas never could find a way to stop Wade, but if they had, they could have won easily. Whereas even when Dirk had sub-par games, Dallas could be still be competitive. I think the Pho/Dal style provides for more consistency, but maybe the upside isn't as high. I'm not convinced that's the case, but outside of Detroit, these team-based teams haven't won anything yet. I do think its just a matter of time, though.
