Was Dallas losing really a "shock"?
I'm tired of hearing what a tremendous upset this series was. I can't believe everyone had Golden State as such huge underdogs going in. Sure, Dallas has hands down the more talented players. But, what you really had to look at, and what the real difference in the series, was the coaching. Anyone remember who coached the Mavs before Avery took over? Now, can you remember who is the coach of the Warriors at this point in time? You got it. Same person. Good ol Don Nelson. He practically assembled the team that Dallas has, so who should know their strengths and weaknesses better than he? He is a good enough coach to understand how to exploit the weaknesses in his opponents, especially when he spent so much time with the nucleus of that team.
So, was the early exit by Dallas surprising?
Slightly.
Was it "shocking" or "the biggest upset ever"?
Hardly.
8 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
To be honest
There have only been a handfull of teams (ever)that have been as dominant as the Mavs were this season. Their 67 wins came with a few losses at the end of the season while they were resting their starters.
I think the real conversation here is how do you expect your team to have chemistry against the hottest team in the league (Warriors) when you havent been playing together and winning ballgames for the last two weeks of the season.
I believe that Dallas was the strongest team top to bottom in the league this year. When they were clicking they could beat anyone.
Golden State went through periods when they couldnt beat anyone.
but the morale and chemistry was high and Don Nelson had them believing. Im very, very happy for them and the franchise.
They came in with utter confidence and kicked butt.
an Oaktown beatdown.
They looked incredible, but do you think they can go all the way?
my answer is.............I cant wait to find out.
It was shocking
This series broke the most fundamental rules of playoff basketball -- you know the ones, you win with size, you win with post play, you live and die by the 3 pointer, you have to take good shots (seriously, the warriors shot selection was just atrocious -- I don't know too many people who would've recommended a serious diet of Matt Barnes 3 point attempts, contested, with a hand in the face, early in the shot clock).
The fact that an underdog who plays all wrong beat a serious favorite to win the western conference -- yeah, that was shocking.
how could it be SHOCKING
by junit3123 @ Blazer's Edge on May 5, 2007 11:54 AM PDT reply actions
People said Mavs
I'd say that Sonics-Nuggets was the biggest upset, but Seattle won 63 games, so everyone should have seen that one coming. 63 win teams either disappoint or fall short. The number is cursed. Out of more than a few teams to win 63 games, only the '89 Pistons won a title (they got lucky with LA losing Scott and Johnson to pain-over-their-hammies). But the basketball gods allowed them to win two titles with Bill Laimbeer. Which makes me think "sold their soul" which makes me think "win title in 63 win season" as some sort of bonus throw in.
it shocked me
this starts with mark cuban....and then their ugly road unforms, and avery johnson's voice -- all kinds of superficial reasons. but hey...when i first became a sportsfan i was a child, and when i played i was a child (or young man), so the enjoyment i take in sports is kind of childlike by definition.
i was thrilled and surprised. but i'm not entirely sure that every team should now seek to play like golden state. i doubt they'll win it all.
You should've taken this knowledge...
by jayseyfield on May 6, 2007 1:58 AM PDT reply actions
if i were a betting man
not surprised
Still... golden state has been the thorn to Dallas. When they did win, I shrugged.
Also, guard play is dominating the league with the newrule changes. Because of that i was really surprised when miami won last year.
this year i pick the suns, although the spurs seem able to beat the suns ant their own game.

by 





















