Originally posted by LA9erFan:
Originally posted by andes14:
Originally posted by LA9erFan:
The revisionist history just cracks me up.
Very few people thought Orlando would beat Cleveland in '09. Very few people thought Boston would beat Cleveland in '10. Very few people thought Dallas would beat Miami in '11. Yet looking back on it, some would have you believe that it was inconceivable for those teams to go any further than they did. It's amazing how the story has changed. I can't be the only person that remembers this. Some of you are completely full of s**t.
The "almost singlehandedly carried his team to 127 wins in 2 seasons" argument is even funnier, considering those Cleveland teams won more games than Miami did this year. So we're either forced to conclude that either...
A) Cleveland's supporting cast was better than Miami's.
B) Maybe regular season wins aren't the best metric.
By this logic, San Antonio had an incredible year this year.
I think the main reason Miami didn't win more games was that it was their first year together (and they were just as bad, if not worse, than his Cleveland supporting cast at PG and C). And yes, there is more to basketball than regular season wins. I was just throwing it out there that I thought he happened to be the only guy that could do that (the 127 in 2 years). That's NOT implying that that's all that matters, however. If you disagree, who else do you think could have done that with that squad?
And the difference between them and San Antonio is that San Antonio had a great TEAM that could have been reasonably expected to go further. You can legitimately be surprised that they didn't. Who the hell is surprised that those Cavs teams didn't go further?
They were "as bad or worse" at PG and Center? So what? He had freakin' D-Wade and Chris Bosh next to him, as well as some nice role players. Was Miami's supporting cast better this year or not? Who cares if it was their first year together...you're certainly not bringing up Cleveland's continuity as a notch in their belt. It's simply just "the supporting cast sucked". Talk about picking and choosing your talking points.
As for the bolded, just about everyone who was watching those Cavs' teams at the time, by virtue of how heavily favored they were in '09 & '10, as well as how heavily Miami was favored over Dallas this year. Everyone was picking LeBron's team to win.
Then when those teams didn't win, the narrative turns into "how can anyone expect them to go further"?
When I say how can anyone expect the Cavs to go further, it's based on the fact that LBJ was essentially a one man squad. The only instances of that to win it all were Hakeem in '94 and Duncan in '03, and even then, their supporting casts were way better than what LBJ had in '09 and '10, no? So even if they were favored to win, they were favored to win solely because of him, so to blame him for not beating Orlando in '09 or Boston in '10 is ludicrous. Those are 2 outstanding defenses that could afford to gameplan for him and only him and he's STILL supposed to beat them? Yes, he had Wade and Bosh next to him. But considering you called Bosh a top-20 player and the best #3 guy (and not even close) in the NBA, I feel you significantly overrate him. And Wade is great, no doubt about it, but he is essentially the same guy. That team isn't great at any dynamic other than what LBJ is great at. But again, they still beat 2 great teams in the playoffs and still at least won the conference. It's not like they were a first round flameout or anything. And fine, if I didn't mention it before, perhaps, yes, Cleveland's continuity was a factor in the 127.
The question remains though, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY (NOT to say it's all that matters), do you think if you replace LBJ with anyone else in NBA history, those Cavs teams win the 127?