# On Board with the New Look



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

It has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion, but I think this team is better than last year's team. They actually have a shot to win this thing. I'm guessing their 8-man playoff rotation will look like this:

PG Mo Williams
SG Anthony Parker
SF Lebron James
PF Anderson Varejao
C Shaq O'Neal
-----------------------
G Delonte West
F Jamario Moon
C Z Ilgauskas

I imagine Boobie Gibson and JJ Hickson will be the 9th and 10th men, respectively. Why couldn't this team win the East and challenge for the championship? Are Orlando and/or Boston really better than this team. If this team wants to defend at their best, I love this line-up:

West/Parker/Moon/James/Varejao

If they want to score to get back in a game, what about this group:

Williams/West/Parker/James/O'Neal

If they want to surround Lebron with shooters for the end of quarters:

Williams/Gibson/Parker/James/Ilgauskas

If they want to go small:

Willams/(2 of West/Parker/Moon/Gibson)/James/(1 of Varejao/O'Neal/Hickson)

As far as 8-man units go, this team has to be top 3... which means they have a legit shot. I'm on board.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

of course they have a legit shot, no one is taking that away

just want to add my thoughts from last year, when they signed Mo and Lebron saying the team got instantly better, when it was only to an extent, i took back my words and doubts around AStar break but the weaknesses were glaring when they reached their nightmare matchup, i was never convinced they had what it took to take the Celtics (healthy of course) and i'm still not going to be convinced this team has what it takes, Shaq and AP are great but at this point they are good role players, Shaq might even be a detriment

i still have the Cavs as underdogs when ranked among the elites

1 Lakers
2 Orlando
3 Celtics
4 Cavs
5 Spurs


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

chairman5 said:


> I still have the Cavs as underdogs when ranked among the elites
> 
> 1 Lakers
> 2 Orlando
> ...


I see it more like this:

1. Spurs
2. Lakers
3. Cavs
4. Celtics
5. Magic


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

yeah, it's far too difficult to rank and speculate, sigh, i was leaning towards your rankings the instant i saw it, surprised to see the Spurs first though

anyways, i see Shaq clogging the lane, that's the main concern for Cav fans i think? the Cavs cant play a grind out half court game, that would only limit their success, the East is far too tough for those fluke entrances into the Finals


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

chairman5 said:


> anyways, i see Shaq clogging the lane, that's the main concern for Cav fans i think? the Cavs cant play a grind out half court game, that would only limit their success, the East is far too tough for those fluke entrances into the Finals


I don't think this will become a problem because I don't think he'll play more than 25 minutes a game. Take a look at all the line-ups I suggested. This team is far to versatile now to just write them off because "Shaq will clog the lane." Just think of him as a post asset more than a crushing detriment. Used properly and in moderation, Shaq can only help this team. It just remains to be seen whether Mike Brown is a good enough coach and a strong enough force in the locker room to keep Shaq's ego in check for the good of the team.


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

lol i was just going to mention Brown's coaching midway through your post

did Shaq take the Big Witness as his nick yet?


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

It's crazy how much people are underrating the Celtics.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> It's crazy how much people are underrating the Celtics.


And I feel they are currently being over-rated. Has anyone even confirmed whether Kevin Garnett's knees are ever going to recover?


----------



## Chan Ho Nam (Jan 9, 2007)

it's definately overrated but how can you not? it's warranted when there's a optimistic chance that KG will be healthy and hungry come next June


----------



## Smithian (Apr 3, 2006)

In defense of Shaq, Shaq clogged the lanes in Miami and Wade just owned the lane regardless. It was a lot of fun watching Wade juke, drive, and spin into the lane and either get off a acrobatic layup between three people or just dump it off to Shaq for a slam.


----------



## Pay Ton (Apr 18, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> And I feel they are currently being over-rated. Has anyone even confirmed whether Kevin Garnett's knees are ever going to recover?


The Garnett issue is pretty much what puts the team's future in the balance, I agree. But I always go into season predictions assuming a team (or player) is healthy as opposed to unhealthy, unless it's been confirmed that said player will not be participating for a significant portion of the season. And with that said, I had always thought that the Celtics would have repeated as champions last year with a healthy Garnett, as I thought they were better than the Magic and the Cavs all year last year, and slightly better than the Lakers to boot. I still pretty much think Pau Gasol would have cowered against the Celtics more physical frontline play with Garnett, and I never bought that this years Lakers team that won it all was much better than last years team that made the Finals, they were just more battle tested than their Finals opponent.

As a healthy squad, I just don't see how the Cavs or the Magic are better than the Celtics despite their additions (and especially the Vince Carter addition, which doesn't impress me in the slightest). The Spurs are an interesting team to me, and a little bit mysterious as I don't think I ever saw them fully healthy last year, so I forgot just how good they can be, but assuming they're fully recovered as I do, I'd have to put them at least behind the Lakers and the Celtics.

Now the Lakers addition of Artest and loss of Ariza has been said to have some pros and cons, but I tend to think the pros outdo the cons, so I _do_ think this years Lakers team to be at least slightly better than last years Laker team, and would place them a notch above last years Celtics team.

But then when we factor in the Celtics recent big men additions, I think both teams are pretty much even. Especially if Wallace and Williams can give Garnett some much needed rest on the bench for the playoffs.

I'd have the teams as...

1a. Lakers
1b. Celtics
3. Spurs
4. Cavs
5. Magic


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Pay Ton said:


> *(...)* And with that said, I had always thought that the Celtics would have repeated as champions last year with a healthy Garnett, as I thought they were better than the Magic and the Cavs all year last year, and slightly better than the Lakers to boot.


I actually agree with you. I said the same thing many times throughout the playoffs last season. 



> As a healthy squad, I just don't see how the Cavs or the Magic are better than the Celtics despite their additions (and especially the Vince Carter addition, which doesn't impress me in the slightest).


I agree about the Magic. I think they are the third best team in the East if everyone is healthy. That being said, I really like how the Cavs match-up with the Celts right now. Defensively, I think Varejao will do just enough to aggravate Garnett so that he can't dominate. Perkins will not be able to post up Shaq at all. Pierce will have a tough time scoring consistently against Lebron. Mo Williams has the quickness to stay with Rondo. The biggest mismatch in the Celtics' favor offensively last season (had they met in the playoffs) would have been Ray Allen scoring over Delonte West. This season, though, Anthony Parker will be just the type of physical defender that gives Ray fits. When you consider the benches, I don't think the C's have much of advantage their, either. Delonte won't let Eddie House get going. Moon will bother Daniels. Rasheed, at this point in his career, will not dominate his match-up with Joe Smith, and I don't really see anything coming from the Big Baby/Big Z match-up other than uncontested jumpers both ways. I don't think the Celts really have a go-to match-up offensively anymore (with the possible exception of Rondo on an isolation).

The Cavs on the other hand have the most dominant force in the league. If the Celtics gear up to stop Lebron, I think he has a much improved supporting cast this year to get his back. They can put many versatile teams on the floor with lots of shooters all around James. I think these two teams are at worst on equal footing.



> The Spurs are an interesting team to me, and a little bit mysterious as I don't think I ever saw them fully healthy last year, so I forgot just how good they can be, but assuming they're fully recovered as I do, I'd have to put them at least behind the Lakers and the Celtics.


I wouldn't. I think a fully healthy San Antonio team last year was the second best team in the West. They got a significant amount better this offseason where I think the Lakers might have gotten a little worse. There's no question in my mind that the Spurs are better if fully healthy.



> I'd have the teams as...
> 
> 1a. Lakers
> 1b. Celtics
> ...


And I'd go with:

1. Spurs
2a. Cavs
2b. Celtics
4. Lakers
5. Magic


----------



## Kidd Karma (Oct 30, 2003)

I think adding Powe or Joe Smith should be the final piece. Both offer an interior presence behind Varejao. Hate to see James get too many minutes at the 4.


----------

