1. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39607
    29 May '10 13:11
    Who would have thought? Boston played only .500 ball over the last 54 games (almost 2/3 of the season) and suffered embarrassing home losses to the Nets, Sixers and Wizards. Though favored over the Heat in round 1, they were heavy underdogs to the Cavs and Magic, the two teams with the best records in the NBA. Yet, they beat both in six games (including winning at one point 6 straight). The stifling Celtic defense is back and Pierce is playing like 2008. KG was subpar offensively against Orlando though.

    I'm sure they'll be underdogs again when they play either the Lakers or Suns, but can they pull another surprise off?
  2. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    29 May '10 14:01
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Who would have thought? Boston played only .500 ball over the last 54 games (almost 2/3 of the season) and suffered embarrassing home losses to the Nets, Sixers and Wizards. Though favored over the Heat in round 1, they were heavy underdogs to the Cavs and Magic, the two teams with the best records in the NBA. Yet, they beat both in six games (including ...[text shortened]... erdogs again when they play either the Lakers or Suns, but can they pull another surprise off?
    The only thing which might hold the Celtics back is tired legs. Lakers and Suns are somewhat younger and fresher. If Suns win tonight and force a game seven then the added play may even things out. I don't see the Suns winning a game seven in LA, but stranger things have happened. Celtics found themselves a jewel in Nate Robinson. He could spark the Celtics into a finals win. Whomever they play the finals looks like it will be competitive and interesting!
  3. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39607
    29 May '10 14:26
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    The only thing which might hold the Celtics back is tired legs. Lakers and Suns are somewhat younger and fresher. If Suns win tonight and force a game seven then the added play may even things out. I don't see the Suns winning a game seven in LA, but stranger things have happened. Celtics found themselves a jewel in Nate Robinson. He could spark the Cel ...[text shortened]... a finals win. Whomever they play the finals looks like it will be competitive and interesting!
    The Finals won't start until Thursday night either way, so I don't think a Sunday game would be a disadvantage to the Lakers should they advance.
  4. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    29 May '10 15:59
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The Finals won't start until Thursday night either way, so I don't think a Sunday game would be a disadvantage to the Lakers should they advance.
    Probably not except there's always more wear and tear the more games you play and greater likelihood of injury. Last night's hard fall by Rondo is but an example of things which could go wrong for a team. The Celtics bought themselves an extra day of R&R by winning handily last night. Big Baby can recover from his concussion and so on. I favor the Celtics regardless of who they end up playing, but that's only because I love everything and anything Boston. But reality says Celtics might have a hardier adversary than Cavs or Magic reagrdless of who they play. If they play Suns, they are vulnerable to Nash's awesome PG play, 3 point skills and inside play by Stoudemire. If Lakers, goes without saying they are a solid basketball team and hands down the grittiest performer of the remaining teams. Other teams would have folded under the back breaking tying three the other night. Lakers responded like champs. Tokk the best shots suns could throw their way and emerged victorious. Celtics should perform credibly and are never in awe of opponent's crednetials! I say Celtics in 6! Only because of their better D!
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39607
    30 May '10 12:05
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Probably not except there's always more wear and tear the more games you play and greater likelihood of injury. Last night's hard fall by Rondo is but an example of things which could go wrong for a team. The Celtics bought themselves an extra day of R&R by winning handily last night. Big Baby can recover from his concussion and so on. I favor the Celti ...[text shortened]... never in awe of opponent's crednetials! I say Celtics in 6! Only because of their better D!
    Lakers v. Celts; the guys at ABC must be happy (imagine the TV ratings for a Magic-Suns series). My heart says Celtics, my head says Lakers.
  6. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    30 May '10 12:23
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Lakers v. Celts; the guys at ABC must be happy (imagine the TV ratings for a Magic-Suns series). My heart says Celtics, my head says Lakers.
    NO argument on any count. Indeed heart says Celtics, mind says Lakers. Hope it's a good series this time!
  7. SubscriberHelder Octavio
    Luso-brasileiro
    Cajamar, SP
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    60014
    03 Jun '10 02:09
    Celtics in 6 games!!!
  8. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    03 Jun '10 02:39
    Originally posted by Helder Octavio
    Celtics in 6 games!!!
    May you be prophetic Luso-brasilero!
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39607
    05 Jun '10 15:04
    A grim start; the Lakers easily win by 13 in Game 1. I guess the positive thing is that the Celtics played so badly in all areas - shot poorly, gave up over 50% shooting to LA and got manhandled on the boards - that even reasonably better play in any could make Game 2 a close one. Another performance like Thursday, however, and I think it will be a short series.
  10. Joined
    30 Sep '08
    Moves
    2996
    05 Jun '10 15:121 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    A grim start; the Lakers easily win by 13 in Game 1. I guess the positive thing is that the Celtics played so badly in all areas - shot poorly, gave up over 50% shooting to LA and got manhandled on the boards - that even reasonably better play in any could make Game 2 a close one. Another performance like Thursday, however, and I think it will be a short series.
    Celtica have yet to stink it up two games in a row so there is great hope tomorrow night!
  11. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    07 Jun '10 15:40
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    Celtica have yet to stink it up two games in a row so there is great hope tomorrow night!
    You called it.

    P-
  12. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    07 Jun '10 16:05
    Originally posted by scacchipazzo
    The only thing which might hold the Celtics back is tired legs. Lakers and Suns are somewhat younger and fresher. If Suns win tonight and force a game seven then the added play may even things out. I don't see the Suns winning a game seven in LA, but stranger things have happened. Celtics found themselves a jewel in Nate Robinson. He could spark the Cel ...[text shortened]... a finals win. Whomever they play the finals looks like it will be competitive and interesting!
    Is Larry Bird still playing?
  13. Standard memberRevRSleeker
    CerebrallyChallenged
    Lyme BayChesil Beach
    Joined
    09 Dec '06
    Moves
    17848
    07 Jun '10 17:15
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Is Larry Bird still playing?
    Always the same year in and year out....Celtic triumph one and Rangers the next, not the best league on mother earth.
  14. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    West Coast Rioter
    tinyurl.com/y7loem9q
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    10 Jun '10 17:28
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Is Larry Bird still playing?
    No, he's helping to run the Pacers. Bad back, 1992.
  15. Joined
    05 Jan '04
    Moves
    45179
    10 Jun '10 17:38
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    No, he's helping to run the Pacers. Bad back, 1992.
    Only 18 years ago. One would think that question wasn't serious.
Back to Top