i honestly don't fear the Lakers. the Spurs are always tough, and we've had our share of problems with the Mav's, but the Lakers...not so much.
I don't believe the Rockets will win the West....I didn't think they could even with Yao. I thought the team would do well in the playoffs, but would lose in 2nd round or CFs. I don't totally agree with Thompson's prediction, but I can see where he is coming from more so than the talking heads in sports columns and ESPN. He understands that it takes a team to win at any level of basketball....you can't just go out and win championship with 2 or 4 players.... 19 straight games is not something that is all that ordinary.....average teams do not win 19 games in row ....average teams do not go 24 -1 over the last 25 games. Average teams do not win by more than 10 points a game for 10 consecutive games. It's crazy how the media and other fans play this out: "Rockets have a great streak going (3rd best all time)....w/o Yao Ming.....better team w/o him...will not make it past the first round or deep into playoffs....because they don't have Yao Ming....Rick Adelman is not a prime time coach...because he lost to the 2x champion Lakers and a championship Bulls team...T-Mac is a choker (even though his teams are on many occassions the weaker team)......other players have no playoff experience...but have a top flight defense and offense has been one of the better ones in the league over the last 19 games....rookies have made them a better team (no playoff experience)....a 52 win team....who have no chance of beating LA, Utah, SA, and etc.....even though the Rockets took a similar Jazz to a seven game series with an inferior team...LA and SA have lost to or stuggle to beat teams that the Rockets ran out of the stadium..." It really shows most of these talking heads know absolutely nothing about basketball, unlike Coach Thompson who is a real champion. Just because you lose your best player doesn't always make you non-factor or a non-title contender.....look at this.... 1994 Chicago Bulls win 55 games w/o Michael Jordan and almost beat the defending Eastern Conference Champs in 7 games. 2006 and 2007 Phoenix Suns were pretty much on brink of a without Amare Stoudemire went through the entire playoffs without him in 06 and had chance to beat the Spurs when he was suspended and even in foul trouble. Especially last year in some of the games, he was at times a non-factor, but the Suns were able to stay in games. 1999 New York Knicks lose Patrick Ewing, but end up in finals. If a team is a good or great missing one player is not going to matter as much, it will hurt and expose a few weakness, but with a good coach, great defense, somewhat deep bench, and balanced attack on offense....you still have a pretty competitve team. It's not to say that your team is better without a superstar, because they're not as you can see by most of the end results. What team would not want their superstar unless he is a voracious ball-hog or team cancer, like T.O.? Sports is pretty much like "life," nothing is automatic.....just look at New England Patriots, Detroit Pistons from the last two years, and Dallas Mavericks from the last two years. All three were pretty much living example. And all of teams above lost to very inferior teams....according to the media - Vegas - the roster sheets. Detroit should've been in the finals two more times they had a much better team than both the Cavs and Heat. The Giants should not have beaten New England held them to 14 lousy points (especially for a team that average 35 ppg). I would hope that coach Thompson is right and I am wrong.
we're all equal like the Five Elements when these Newbs destroyed the our castle and took out our master. we formed in 1999 to defeat these elements of fire, earth, and water. Clutch, we'll teach these newbs that their tricks can't stop our true kung-fu!
JT3 didn't "inherit" the team. g'town was lost in the wilderness under craign esherick for quite a few years after JT retired before they put in the call to JT3 to come and save the program.
