# This is incredible.



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Just contemplate this for a second... every one of the top six seeds in the east is going to be thinking about how fortunate they are to get the matchup that they have. Every one of them. The six seed? Facing a horrible three. Yeah Atlanta is alright and all, but they're no THREE seed. The four seed? Great matchup with a shitty six, but that shitty six is playing a four that is just not a four ANY OTHER YEAR EVER. There are six lucky spots in the east. That conference is just... pathetic. How do we contract an entire conference?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

The Toronto Raptors are horrible? A look over the last 12-14 games would tell you that you're an idiot. A healthy Brooklyn is going to be a horrible first round matchup for any team, including Miami. 

Atlanta isn't pathetic. Cleveland have just made a smart move.

We still have a lot of season left.


----------



## Drizzy (Mar 23, 2012)

Nobody will want to play Brooklyn. You don't crave playing a team that stacked even if they haven't clicked yet.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> The Toronto Raptors are horrible? A look over the last 12-14 games would tell you that you're an idiot. A healthy Brooklyn is going to be a horrible first round matchup for any team, including Miami.
> 
> Atlanta isn't pathetic. Cleveland have just made a smart move.
> 
> We still have a lot of season left.


You're out of your mind.  The Raptors may not be "horrible" but they certainly aren't good and won't be a threat to do anything in the playoffs.

A healthy Brooklyn team isnt even as good as an unhealthy Brooklyn team who will have no legs under them

Cleveland and Atlanta are the very definition of pathetic. They are a step removed from being Charlotte and Milwaukee.

The Knicks have a better chance of getting it together and becoming a playoff threat then any of those teams do

Indiana and Miami have absolutely zero competition other than each other


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Marcus13 said:


> You're out of your mind. The Raptors may not be "horrible" but they certainly aren't good and won't be a threat to do anything in the playoffs.
> 
> A healthy Brooklyn team isnt even as good as an unhealthy Brooklyn team who will have no legs under them
> 
> ...


Indy and Miami having 0 competition doesn't mean Toronto isn't a good team right now. Toronto is looking and playing like Indiana light right now and should only get better if they keep Lowry this offseason.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Indy and Miami having 0 competition doesn't mean Toronto isn't a good team right now. Toronto is looking and playing like Indiana light right now and should only get better if they keep Lowry this offseason.


If you can't compete to get out of your conference, I can't label you as "good". You may be on the right track to becoming a good team, but if a Conference Championship is setting the bar too high, then you're not a good team. 

The Eastern Conference has two good teams. The West has about six.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> You're out of your mind. The Raptors may not be "horrible" but they certainly aren't good and won't be a threat to do anything in the playoffs.
> 
> A healthy Brooklyn team isnt even as good as an unhealthy Brooklyn team who will have no legs under them
> 
> ...


:laugh:

I don't even know what to say about this. The Raptors have been one of the best teams in the league since the Rudy Gay trade. We've got Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan playing at an all-star level.

In fact, we have an identical record to the Miami Heat over that span, including wins over the Indiana Pacers and the OKC Thunder. Good enough for a .688% winning percentage by the way. 

In the same span, we've had the 4th best defensive record, allowing only 97.2 ppg. This has meant that we've enjoyed the 5th best point differential of a +7.1 over the last 16 games. 

I look forward to your rebuttal.


----------



## ATLien (Jun 18, 2002)

Atlanta was looking legit before Horford went down for the whole season. Take away most teams all-star and they'd look pathetic too. Even without Horford, they just beat Houston and Indiana this week.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> :laugh:
> 
> I don't even know what to say about this. The Raptors have been one of the best teams in the league since the Rudy Gay trade. We've got Kyle Lowry and DeMar DeRozan playing at an all-star level.
> 
> ...


My rebuttal is your record. The Raptors are a .500 basketball team who have gone 7-3 over their last ten. 11-5 is a very nice stretch over your last 16, but it is a long season and you're going to have some runs. The Raptors had a 13 game stretch last season where they went 10-3 last season too (12/14-1/11).

It's POSSIBLE the Raptors are for real this time, but Im not buying it yet


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Marcus13 said:


> My rebuttal is your record. The Raptors are a .500 basketball team who have gone 7-3 over their last ten. 11-5 is a very nice stretch over your last 16, but it is a long season and you're going to have some runs. The Raptors had a 13 game stretch last season where they went 10-3 last season too (12/14-1/11).
> 
> It's POSSIBLE the Raptors are for real this time, but Im not buying it yet


Ok, so nothing actual factual about your opinion, it's more of just a feeling. And I can't blame you, we've been terrible for over 5 years now. However, I invite you to watch a Raptors game, we're actually a lot of fun with a lot of talent, most importantly it's the composure and ability to close games in the 3rd and 4th quarter that is something I haven't seen from this team in a very, very long time. 

I'm looking forward to reupping your post in a couple of months.


----------



## Marcus13 (Jul 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> Ok, so nothing actual factual about your opinion, it's more of just a feeling. And I can't blame you, we've been terrible for over 5 years now. However, I invite you to watch a Raptors game, we're actually a lot of fun with a lot of talent, most importantly it's the composure and ability to close games in the 3rd and 4th quarter that is something I haven't seen from this team in a very, very long time.
> 
> I'm looking forward to reupping your post in a couple of months.


I mean, a team's record is fairly factual...but I see what you're saying. I've seen two Raptor games this season. I was actually at the Indiana game last week and the other was way back in November.

We'll see. Good luck. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing Toronto as a contender for a change.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Lol it's going to take a lot more than a 16 game stretch to label a .500 team in the east as "good". I'm not saying they're not decent, or that they won't get better, but this is pretty premature.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Luke said:


> Lol it's going to take a lot more than a 16 game stretch to label a .500 team in the east as "good". I'm not saying they're not decent, or that they won't get better, but this is pretty premature.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


I only have 16 games to talk about this team. We have only been a team for 16 games. 

I was responding to being called 'horrible', and we're certainly not that, are we good? You bet your ass we are.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

The only two teams in the East worth talking about are Indiana and Miami... maybe a healthy Brooklyn.

The rest is just bad teams beating other bad teams.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Jamel Irief said:


> The only two teams in the East worth talking about are Indiana and Miami... maybe a healthy Brooklyn.
> 
> The rest is just bad teams beating other bad teams.


Thank you


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Porn Player said:


> I only have 16 games to talk about this team. We have only been a team for 16 games.
> 
> I was responding to being called 'horrible', and we're certainly not that, are we good? You bet your ass we are.


What qualifies as "good" to you? How many "good" teams are in the east? The whole league?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Luke said:


> What qualifies as "good" to you? How many "good" teams are in the east? The whole league?
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Right now the East has 3 good teams. Miami, Indiana and Toronto. 

The Nets has a roster capable of joining those. The ATL had a team that was good before there best player went down. The Cavaliers have a good team on paper after acquiring Deng, but they need a 16 game stretch like my Raptors to prove they belong.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

Porn Player said:


> Right now the East has 3 good teams. Miami, Indiana and Toronto.
> 
> The Nets has a roster capable of joining those. The ATL had a team that was good before there best player went down. The Cavaliers have a good team on paper after acquiring Deng, but they need a 16 game stretch like my Raptors to prove they belong.


So you think that Toronto could potentially beat Indiana or Miami in the playoffs? That's why you're including them in the "good" tier? 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Luke said:


> So you think that Toronto could potentially beat Indiana or Miami in the playoffs? That's why you're including them in the "good" tier?
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Bingo. 

More likely Indiana than Miami, but they're the Champs for a reason. (LeBron).


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I disagree. I think the raptors are improved, but I think either of those teams would win in 5 games. Time will tell I suppose.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

I'd be surprised if the Heat and Pacers don't just smash everyone in that conference on their way to the Eastern Conference Finals.

It's good that Toronto is taking care of business against bad-to-mediocre teams - and staying competitive against good ones - but 11 wins in 16 games isn't really something to be crowing about. Aren't nine of those wins against below-.500 teams?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> Bingo.
> 
> More likely Indiana than Miami, but they're the Champs for a reason. (LeBron).


There is a very low chance of Toronto beating Indiana in a 7 game series. 

Don't go delusional please.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

R-Star said:


> There is a very low chance of Toronto beating Indiana in a 7 game series.
> 
> Don't go delusional please.


Indiana and Miami are clearly the best two teams in the East (and arguably the NBA), I'm not arguing that, as a fan of basketball, I really enjoy what both teams do. 

Does the fact the Raptors aren't at that 'elite' level mean we're not good? GTFO, this whole argument is ridiculous. 

If the Raptors make the Eastern Conf Semi Finals and lose to the eventual Champs Miami, does that make us a bad team?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> Indiana and Miami are clearly the best two teams in the East (and arguably the NBA), I'm not arguing that, as a fan of basketball, I really enjoy what both teams do.
> 
> Does the fact the Raptors aren't at that 'elite' level mean we're not good? GTFO, this whole argument is ridiculous.
> 
> If the Raptors make the Eastern Conf Semi Finals and lose to the eventual Champs Miami, does that make us a bad team?


Read my ****ing posts in this extremely short thread where I call Toronto a good team, and defend them to people trying to call them a crap next time before writing a post like that in reply to me please.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

R-Star said:


> Read my ****ing posts in this extremely short thread where I call Toronto a good team, and defend them to people trying to call them a crap next time before writing a post like that in reply to me please.


My post was a retort to the ridiculousness of the thread, not you. Hence the 'big ups' to Indiana in my very first sentence. 

Calm down old man, you'll give yourself a heart attack.


----------



## doctordrizzay (May 10, 2011)

I would love to see Heat vs Raps conference finals. 

I think Pacers will be knocked out first or second round


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

In the west, the craptors would not make the playoffs. Neither would atl with horford. 

Deal with the real. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I also agree that the raptors would not make the playoffs in the west. They're okay.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

@Porn Player will like this. ESPN right now in their little computer ratings thing has Toronto winning the championship at 8.6% and the Miami Heat at only a 8.2% lol. Right now they have Toronto rated the second best team in the East


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Luke said:


> So you think that Toronto could potentially beat Indiana or Miami in the playoffs? That's why you're including them in the "good" tier?


If that's the standard then there are only two good teams in the NBA because Miami and Indiana are in their own tier right now.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

doctordrizzay said:


> I would love to see Heat vs Raps conference finals.
> 
> I think Pacers will be knocked out first or second round


Don't indulge him.


----------



## Floods (Oct 25, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> @Porn Player will like this. ESPN right now in their little computer ratings thing has Toronto winning the championship at 8.6% and the Miami Heat at only a 8.2% lol. Right now they have Toronto rated the second best team in the East


Skip Bayless must be running the numbers.


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

GNG said:


> I'd be surprised if the Heat and Pacers don't just smash everyone in that conference on their way to the Eastern Conference Finals.
> 
> It's good that Toronto is taking care of business against bad-to-mediocre teams - and staying competitive against good ones - but 11 wins in 16 games isn't really something to be crowing about. Aren't nine of those wins against below-.500 teams?


Since there's only 4 above .500 teams in the Eastern Conference, haven't Miami and Indiana also beaten mainly under .500 teams?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

doctordrizzay said:


> *Look at me! Look at me! EVERYONE LOOK AT ME!*


Nope.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

Porn Player said:


> Bingo.
> 
> More likely Indiana than Miami, but they're the Champs for a reason. (LeBron).


Toronto can beat Indy? Terrible post.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Toronto is certainly on the right track as an organization, but this is still a team without even one all-star caliber player. Lowry is a nice player. Derozan has improved each year. They have a lot of flexibility for the future from what I understand, but let's not jump the gun about what they are right now.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> If the Raptors make the Eastern Conf Semi Finals and lose to the eventual Champs Miami, does that make us a bad team?


No, but merely getting to the ECSF doesn't make you a good team either.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Toronto is certainly on the right track as an organization, but this is still a team without even one all-star caliber player. Lowry is a nice player. Derozan has improved each year. They have a lot of flexibility for the future from what I understand, but let's not jump the gun about what they are right now.


So when DeRozan and Lowry make the all-star game, what does that make them?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> No, but merely getting to the ECSF doesn't make you a good team either.


So being one of the best 8 teams in the league isn't enough to be considered 'good' any more? 

Do people have a different understanding of 'good' to me?


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Porn Player said:


> So being one of the best 8 teams in the league isn't enough to be considered 'good' any more?
> 
> Do people have a different understanding of 'good' to me?


Don't listen to Patchwork, he's a ****ing dork. Toronto is a good team and they would still be a 6 or 7 seed even in the West. They're a good team.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Floods said:


> Skip Bayless must be running the numbers.


I'd bring up the link but I really don't feel like it because it's so ****ing dumb


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> So being one of the best 8 teams in the league isn't enough to be considered 'good' any more?
> 
> Do people have a different understanding of 'good' to me?


They are not even top 10.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> So when DeRozan and Lowry make the all-star game, what does that make them?


Not even top 10 in the league at their position? Some merely above average players have found spots on all-star teams in pinch years. I wouldn't call them stars, and I have doubts on whether both Lowry and Derozan will make it at all (I haven't looked at potential all-stars in the east). 



Porn Player said:


> So being one of the best 8 teams in the league isn't enough to be considered 'good' any more?


They aren't one of the 8 best teams in the league. That's what I meant by making the ECSF doesn't necessarily make you good, just like losing to the best team doesn't necessarily make you bad as you pointed out. 

Right now, Toronto has the 13th best record in the league, so at best they are slightly above average. Even that is generous, because teams they have a slightly better record than play in the west with a much tougher schedule (Minnesota, Memphis). There are probably 14-15 better teams than Toronto right now.

But if you want to consider the 15th or so best team in the league "good" and players who are slightly above average starters at their position "stars" then you're welcome to do that.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

LeGoat06 said:


> Don't listen to Patchwork, he's a ****ing dork. Toronto is a good team and they would still be a 6 or 7 seed even in the West. They're a good team.


Do tell how being 18-17 playing an eastern conference schedule translates to being a 6th or 7th seed in the west? Their current record would land them 10th in the west. If they actually played in the west, they would probably be battling New Orleans for the 12th spot at best.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not even top 10 in the league at their position? Some merely above average players have found spots on all-star teams in pinch years. I wouldn't call them stars, and I have doubts on whether both Lowry and Derozan will make it at all (I haven't looked at potential all-stars in the east). .


List 10 SG's and 10 PG's better than DeMar and Kyle. 



> They aren't one of the 8 best teams in the league. That's what I meant by making the ECSF doesn't necessarily make you good, just like losing to the best team doesn't necessarily make you bad as you pointed out.
> 
> Right now, Toronto has the 13th best record in the league, so at best they are slightly above average. Even that is generous, because teams they have a slightly better record than play in the west with a much tougher schedule (Minnesota, Memphis). There are probably 14-15 better teams than Toronto right now.
> 
> But if you want to consider the 15th or so best team in the league "good" and players who are slightly above average starters at their position "stars" then you're welcome to do that.


Toronto had a slow start to the season thanks to hedging our bets with Rudy Gay. I won't reiterate my earlier post, but since the revamp of our roster we have been one of the best teams in the league in most categories (including the most important of all... wins)

Your strength of schedule paragraph is complete fallacy as well. At least look this stuff up before you start making mistakes. SoS Report - Toronto 4th Toughest


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

The Heat, Pacers, Thunder, Spurs, Trailblazers, Clippers, Rockets, Golden State, Mavericks, and Denver are all better than the Raptors. If Al Horford was healthy the Hawks would be better, and if the Nets had stayed even remotely healthy they would be better. Same goes for Rose and the Bulls.

So yeah, good may be a reach.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

You listed a possible of 4 teams in the east, two of whom require "if's". I'd say Toronto is a good team. A contender? Obviously not, but a good team none the less.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> You listed a possible of 4 teams in the east, two of whom require "if's". I'd say Toronto is a good team. A contender? Obviously not, but a good team none the less.


Okay. So if we're strictly talking about the east, then by default Toronto is a good team. Because the east is terrible this year. If we're talking about the league as a whole I do not consider Toronto to be a good team. I don't know if they would even make the playoffs in the west.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

And for PGs I would take Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Curry, Conely, Bledsoe, Dragic, Irving and Wall over Lowry. And a healthy Rose, Rondo, and Williams as well.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

They'd have a good shot over Dallas or Denver. 


But nah, lets call the Raptors a terrible team.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> They'd have a good shot over Dallas or Denver.
> 
> 
> But nah, lets call the Raptors a terrible team.


I will not argue that they would not have a chance to edge out Dallas or Denver, but I wouldn't argue that they definitely would either. And I would not consider Denver or Dallas to be good teams, they're okay. Like the Raptors.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

I also never called them terrible. I called them okay. Reading comprehension is key.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> So when DeRozan and Lowry make the all-star game, what does that make them?


The Raps are getting multiple players on the All-Star team now?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> I also never called them terrible. I called them okay. Reading comprehension is key.


Reading comprehension? Why did you just blather together a post about PG's? Who asked you about Kyle Lowry?

Are you going to break down each position for us?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Reading comprehension? Why did you just blather together a post about PG's? Who asked you about Kyle Lowry?
> 
> Are you going to break down each position for us?


Porn Player asked to know which point guards were better than Lowry. I listed them.

You're the one dismissing everyone by saying we're claiming that the Raptors are "terrible" because I don't think it's fair to call them a "good" team. A team with an 18-17 team in the leastern conference is not a good or a bad team. 

And I don't see how my statements could be construed as hating on the Raptors. They're clearly headed in the right direction, but they're not elite, they have no shot against a healthy Indiana or Miami team, and I'm not going to call them good until they've earned it. Going 11-5 over a 16 game stretch in the regular season does not automatically make you a good team.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Porn Player asked to know which point guards were better than Lowry. I listed them.
> 
> You're the one dismissing everyone by saying we're claiming that the Raptors are "terrible" because I don't think it's fair to call them a "good" team. A team with an 18-17 team in the leastern conference is not a good or a bad team.
> 
> And I don't see how my statements could be construed as hating on the Raptors. They're clearly headed in the right direction, but they're not elite, they have no shot against a healthy Indiana or Miami team, and I'm not going to call them good until they've earned it. Going 11-5 over a 16 game stretch in the regular season does not automatically make you a good team.


Why are you trying to equate good to elite? They aren't even similar when describing a team. You also threw a lot of "we" into your post, when its just you and I speaking here.

I remember similar comments from you 2 years ago regarding the Pacers. How'd that work out for you?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> List 10 SG's and 10 PG's better than DeMar and Kyle.


*Point Guards Better than Kyle Lowry*
Chris Paul
Russell Westbrook
Stephen Curry
Damian Lillard
Tony Parker
Mike Conley
Goran Dragic
Ty Lawson
Eric Bledsoe

And then I guess you could state Lowry's case of "They play for BAD teams, so Lowry is BETTER!" against Kyrie Irving, John Wall and Isaiah Thomas, though I'd take all three before Kyle Lowry. 

Jrue Holiday hasn't had a particularly good season, but he has had better seasons than Lowry in the past and is like four years younger.

I didn't include the injured Derrick Rose or Rajon Rondo in this but would take both over Lowry if relatively healthy.

I'm out on Deron Williams.

So if you want to say Kyle Lowry is an All-Star player, it comes with the caveat that at least nine better point guards play in a different conference and that all of the better point guards in his own conference play for bad teams.

*Shooting Guards Better Than DeMar DeRozan*
James Harden
Dwyane Wade
Andre Iguodala
Gordon Hayward
Monta Ellis
Arron Afflalo
Lance Stephenson

And then if you want to throw DeRozan in the next spot over the Klay Thompsons, Tyreke Evans, Kevin Martins, Joe Johnsons and Manu Ginobilis, I wouldn't fight you over it. Truthfully, they don't make shooting guards like they used to.

And I didn't include the injured Kobe Bryant on this but would take him over DeRozan if relatively healthy.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> List 10 SG's and 10 PG's better than DeMar and Kyle.


See Luke's list for PG. 

Upon looking at SG's, an argument could be made I suppose that Derozan is top 10. Kobe, Harden, Wade, Klay, Hayward, Ellis, Batum, Stephenson, Martin, Afflalo, Beal, Matthews are all guys I consider better or at least roughly equal to Derozan. I[m probably forgetting guys too. Point is, most of this list is simply not all-star caliber in my opinion. 



Porn Player said:


> Toronto had a slow start to the season thanks to hedging our bets with Rudy Gay. I won't reiterate my earlier post, but since the revamp of our roster we have been one of the best teams in the league in most categories (including the most important of all... wins)
> 
> Your strength of schedule paragraph is complete fallacy as well. At least look this stuff up before you start making mistakes. SoS Report - Toronto 4th Toughest


In any given year there are around 10 teams that win 50 games. That's about where I set the bar for being "good" in the NBA. Top 10 good, bottom 10 bad, middle 10 average. Right now Toronto is average by that measure as they're on pace for 42. 

If you think they've found something that makes them one of the best teams in the league, then I will gladly change my position on them at the end of the season when they win 50+ games. They should easily do that in the east if they are as good as you're claiming. Especially if they've played such a difficult schedule that will inevitably get easier as they cycle through more eastern conference opponents. 

You obviously watch them more than me, so either you're incredibly bias, or I am incredibly uninformed about Toronto. We can revisit this thread later and find out which one it is. I'll bump this thread in April either way. Maybe Jamel can do it actually as the archivist.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Seriously, who are the best point guards in the East who are healthy and play on playoff teams? 

John Wall, Kyle Lowry and Jeff Teague? Brandon Jennings?

What a crew.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Why are you trying to equate good to elite? They aren't even similar when describing a team. You also threw a lot of "we" into your post, when its just you and I speaking here.
> 
> I remember similar comments from you 2 years ago regarding the Pacers. How'd that work out for you?


Why are you trying to equate okay to terrible?

Pretty much everything I said about the pacers has come true up to this year. Feel free to look it up.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

GNG said:


> Seriously, who are the best point guards in the East who are healthy and play on playoff teams?
> 
> John Wall, Kyle Lowry and Jeff Teague? Brandon Jennings?
> 
> What a crew.


Forgot about Jeff Teague. I'd take him over Lowry. 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Luke said:


> The Heat, Pacers, Thunder, Spurs, Trailblazers, Clippers, Rockets, Golden State, Mavericks, and Denver are all better than the Raptors. If Al Horford was healthy the Hawks would be better, and if the Nets had stayed even remotely healthy they would be better. Same goes for Rose and the Bulls.
> 
> So yeah, good may be a reach.


Toronto are the 3rd best team in the East. They would probably sit around the 7th seed in the West, if we started the season today. 

This would sit them nicely in the Top 10 overall, enough for a spot in the good team list. 



Luke said:


> And for PGs I would take Paul, Parker, Westbrook, Curry, Conely, Bledsoe, Dragic, Irving and Wall over Lowry. And a healthy Rose, Rondo, and Williams as well.


This league has a lot of good PG's. But I would happily make the argument for Lowry to be right behind those 'elite' guys (Paul, Parker, Westbrook and Curry). 

NBA MVP Rankings - Lowry @ 10

It isn't just me that has noticed how much of a baller he's been lately either. 



GNG said:


> *Shooting Guards Better Than DeMar DeRozan*
> James Harden
> Dwyane Wade
> Andre Iguodala
> ...


This list is terrible. 

I would take DeMar over anybody on that list not named James Harden. 

He's 24 years old and averaging 21.3ppg, 4.4rbg, 3.6apg and 1.2spg. 

Have you even seen him play lately?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> This list is terrible.
> 
> I would take DeMar over anybody on that list not named James Harden.
> 
> ...


You're terrible!

DeMar DeRozan, according to PP, is the _second-best shooting guard in the entire NBA_?


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> Why are you trying to equate okay to terrible?
> 
> *Pretty much everything I said about the pacers has come true up to this year. Feel free to look it up.
> *
> ...


You're kidding me right? "Lets not go overboard here guys. The Pacers are absolutely not a contender." and your classic, "It's the East!"


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

I'm not nearly as on board with the Raptors as Porn, but Lowry and DeRozan are getting underrated here.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

GNG said:


> You're terrible!
> 
> DeMar DeRozan, according to PP, is the _second-best shooting guard in the entire NBA_?


It's a poor position right now. Kobe and Harden are better. 

After that, he's in the discussion. 

Again, I ask, have you seen him play lately?


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> It's a poor position right now. Kobe and Harden are better.
> 
> After that, he's in the discussion.
> 
> Again, I ask, have you seen him play lately?


Yup. Seen him play. I watch NBA games.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

GNG said:


> Yup. Seen him play. I watch NBA games.


DeRozan and Lowry have been pretty elite since the Raptors went straight. 

Small sample size, but so far they're tearing it up.


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

R-Star said:


> I'm not nearly as on board with the Raptors as Porn, but Lowry and Harden are getting underrated here.


This is basically how Lowry's career has gone. 

He has a super-hot month
Gets injured
Doesn't regain pre-injury form
Gets into a time share with another similarly-talented point guard on the roster (Conley, Calderon, Dragic, Brooks)
Starts complaining behind the scenes (more than usual, anyway)
Becomes a cancer
Says something in the media about the coach
Gets himself traded
Repeat

He's not a bad player. But he's not a great player either. He's an average or slightly-above-average starter at his position.

Maybe it'll be different this time. I'll at least give him credit for not packing it in after his BFF Rudy Gay got shipped out. 

Let's see how it goes.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

GNG said:


> This is basically how Lowry's career has gone.
> 
> He has a super-hot month
> Gets injured
> ...


That's fair. Can't argue with someone taking a wait and see approach on a guy who's done this before in the past.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Not to mention this is Lowrys contract year. I'm always leery of guys blowing up and playing way above their average in a contract year.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> You're kidding me right? "Lets not go overboard here guys. The Pacers are absolutely not a contender." and your classic, "It's the East!"


When did I say they weren't contenders? Like 2012? I said all last year they were a good, but not great team that would give Miami a tough series. Winning 49 regular season games and taking the champs to 7 games is pretty close. This year I've said that the east ****ing sucks, and that Indiana is a contender.

Wheres the disconnect exactly?


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> When did I say they weren't contenders? Like 2012? I said all last year they were a good, but not great team that would give Miami a tough series. Winning 49 regular season games and taking the champs to 7 games is pretty close. This year I've said that the east ****ing sucks, and that Indiana is a contender.
> 
> Wheres the disconnect exactly?
> 
> ...


**** off Luke.

We do this every few months. I'll post something you wrote and you'll try and twist it around "See, I said they were an above average team but not a contender, and that was proven correct when they took Miami to game 7."

Honestly. From time to time admit you've said something stupid in the past, or just **** off.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

GNG said:


> Yup. Seen him play. I watch NBA games.


I was only asking because they're not your team. If it isn't Toronto, or they aren't playing against Toronto, then I don't usually watch 48 minutes of any other team. 

I'm surprised you've actually been watching him play lately and you still don't think very highly of him, very surprised indeed. But each to his own, I can't convince you to like a player that doesn't inspire you I guess. 

If the Raptors continue like we have done, both DeMar and Lowry will be named all-stars. 

By the way, I *completely* concede the point you made about Lowry's career, I've noticed it myself. As a fan, I can only hope that this time it's different.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Right now, Toronto has the 13th best record in the league, so at best they are slightly above average. Even that is generous, because teams they have a slightly better record than play in the west with a much tougher schedule (Minnesota, Memphis). There are probably 14-15 better teams than Toronto right now.


I know you kind of turned yourself around on this point, I just ran into more evidence.. 



> • Toughest schedules through Sunday: 1. Utah, 2. New Orleans, 3. Toronto
> • Easiest schedules through Sunday: 1. Miami, 2. Chicago, 3. Atlanta
> Schedule strength is based on cumulative opponent record, and adjusted for home vs. away and days of rest before a game.





> Toronto (18-17)
> Pace: 95.1 (21), OffRtg: 102.7 (16), DefRtg: 99.6 (6), NetRtg: +3.1 (9)
> 
> The Raptors had played, by far, the toughest schedule in the East, so they shouldn't feel any guilt about taking advantage of the gassed Nets on Drake Night to get back over .500 and improve their division record to 6-1. And they shouldn't have a problem with playing three of the coldest teams in the league this week. The Bucks, Celtics and Lakers are a combined 3-25 since Dec. 23.


NBA Power Rankings - Toronto 8th


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> I was only asking because they're not your team. If it isn't Toronto, or they aren't playing against Toronto, then I don't usually watch 48 minutes of any other team.
> 
> I'm surprised you've actually been watching him play lately and you still don't think very highly of him, very surprised indeed. But each to his own, I can't convince you to like a player that doesn't inspire you I guess.
> 
> ...


Honestly, DeRozan seems like a smoother scorer in person and on TV than what the overall numbers indicate, which seems a little backwards, but is the reason why I'm not overly impressed by him averaging 20+ points per game. He's doing it on nearly 18 shots a night, shooting a low percentage, playing huge minutes on a team without an abundance of scoring options in the first place.

Again, it's not like he's a volume chucker. He's a good scorer - saw him torch Tony Allen right in front of me earlier in the season - but his scoring abilities aren't any more special than a Kevin Martin.

DeRozan's assist numbers post-Rudy are what impress me more.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

A few more, just for fun...

ESPN - Hollinger (Calculated)
http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/powerrankings
*Rank 7 *


> REC(L10) = 7-3 (4TH)
> MAR(L10) = +7.1 (6TH)
> SOS(L10) = .574 (4TH)


SBNation - Jason Patt
http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2014/1/13/5 ... nicks-nets
*Rank 10 (-)*


> The Raptors took a hammer to the Nets' five-game winning streak on Saturday, with DeMar DeRozan notching 26 points.Toronto looks completely legit, and it seems like only a matter of time before they take over the No. 3 seed in the Eastern Conference.


CBS - Matt MooreBuzzkill
http://www.cbssports.com/nba/powerrankings
*Rank 8 (+1)*


> Get on board! The Raptors' "Make the playoffs and then wonder what the point was seven months later" train is headed for "*Good-*but-not-great Station!"


ESPN - Marc Stein
http://espn.go.com/nba/team/rankings/_/ ... to-raptors
*Rank 8 (+2)*


> Not enough attention has been paid to the fact that Sacramento is a passable 8-9 since getting Rudy Gay. Or that Gay is shooting a crazy .621 from the field in January. No remorse from the Raps, though, thanks to a 12-5 mark since the trade that ties Miami for best in the East in that span.


----------



## LeGoat06 (Jun 24, 2013)

Porn Player is killing it right now


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

GNG said:


> DeRozan's assist numbers post-Rudy are what impress me more.


This is why I have stayed away from labelling him just a 'scorer'. He's evolved. 

His all-round game has been outstanding since the Rudy trade, and I'm glad people have noticed some of the little extra bits he has added to his game. Him and Terrence Ross are becoming a very nice defensive wing tandem.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> I know you kind of turned yourself around on this point, I just ran into more evidence..
> 
> NBA Power Rankings - Toronto 8th


I assumed based on the fact that eastern conference teams play easier schedules by the time the season is over. You presented me with evidence that went against my assumption, and I am perfectly fine granting you that point. 

This doesn't change the fact that Toronto will have an easy schedule by the time the season is over, which means they have no excuse to not win 50+ games since they have become juggernauts since the Rudy Gay trade. And if they do that, I will have no problem conceding that they're a good team. 

Just for the record, how many games do you expect them to win with their newfound recipe for success combined with their schedule naturally getting easier over the next couple of months?


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I assumed based on the fact that eastern conference teams play easier schedules by the time the season is over. You presented me with evidence that went against my assumption, and I am perfectly fine granting you that point.
> 
> This doesn't change the fact that Toronto will have an easy schedule by the time the season is over, which means they have no excuse to not win 50+ games since they have become juggernauts since the Rudy Gay trade. And if they do that, I will have no problem conceding that they're a good team.
> 
> Just for the record, how many games do you expect them to win with their newfound recipe for success combined with their schedule naturally getting easier over the next couple of months?


11-6 before the all-star break. 

20-10 after the all-star break. 

Final record 

51-31


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> **** off Luke.
> 
> We do this every few months. I'll post something you wrote and you'll try and twist it around "See, I said they were an above average team but not a contender, and that was proven correct when they took Miami to game 7."
> 
> Honestly. From time to time admit you've said something stupid in the past, or just **** off.


I say stupid shit all of the time, you just pick bad examples.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Porn Player said:


> 11-6 before the all-star break.
> 
> 20-10 after the all-star break.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. If they do this, I'd consider them a good team. Time will tell.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> You obviously watch them more than me, so either you're incredibly bias, or I am incredibly uninformed about Toronto. We can revisit this thread later and find out which one it is. I'll bump this thread in April either way. Maybe Jamel can do it actually as the archivist.


A sole myopic raptors fan arguing that his team is elite isn't worth archiving. This is the same guy who argued with me that Amir Johnson wasn't a below average starter and that he drafted a great fantasy basketball team this year.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

I won't say they're elite. However they are grinding out wins the way good teams do. Their defense has been pretty ruthless since they unloaded Ruy Gay.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> I won't say they're elite. However they are grinding out wins the way good teams do. Their defense has been pretty ruthless since they unloaded Ruy Gay.


Would you call derozen a chucker?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Usage rate over 25%, check. eFG% 50 points below league average, check. Scoring efficiency below league average, check. Firing up 18 shots a game, check.


----------



## Knick Killer (Jul 16, 2006)

I don't agree with everything @Porn Player has said, but I guarantee majority of you arguing with him haven't seen a minute of Raptors basketball this season. They are a *good* team, but still miles and miles away from being a contender and PP knows that(at least I think he does). I'm not crazy on Lowry so I won't go to bat for him, but DeRozan is quietly becoming one of the better shooting guards in the league. That list of guys @GNG had ahead of Demar was absolutely ridiculous. Monta Ellis...Lance Stephenson...Arron Afflalo...**** no. Another guy not getting enough love since the Rudy trade is Terrence Ross. He has evolved into a solid wing defender and has quickly become my favorite Raptor. 

The East is definitely a two horse race but I think the Raptors will be a much tougher out than what most people think. I don't think they could beat Indy or Miami in a 7 game series, but they would put up one hell of a fight.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Not even I realised this... 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/423099534303309824


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

E.H. Munro said:


> Usage rate over 25%, check. eFG% 50 points below league average, check. Scoring efficiency below league average, check. Firing up 18 shots a game, check.


 @R-Star what do you think?


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Knick Killer said:


> I don't agree with everything @Porn Player has said, but I guarantee majority of you arguing with him haven't seen a minute of Raptors basketball this season. They are a *good* team, but still miles and miles away from being a contender and PP knows that(at least I think he does). I'm not crazy on Lowry so I won't go to bat for him, but DeRozan is quietly becoming one of the better shooting guards in the league. That list of guys @GNG had ahead of Demar was absolutely ridiculous. Monta Ellis...Lance Stephenson...Arron Afflalo...**** no. Another guy not getting enough love since the Rudy trade is Terrence Ross. He has evolved into a solid wing defender and has quickly become my favorite Raptor.
> 
> The East is definitely a two horse race but I think the Raptors will be a much tougher out than what most people think. I don't think they could beat Indy or Miami in a 7 game series, but they would put up one hell of a fight.



You don't have to watch the team to form an opinion on them, and it doesn't mean you are automatically wrong just because you don't watch them.

For example, I don't watch the Bucks but I know they are pretty damn bad.

I'm not going to comment on how good the Raptors are or aren't. I wouldn't consider them a very good team but I don't think they are bad either.

I've never been a fan of Derozan's I feel like his game is very hollow and he only scores because of the nature of the Raptor's roster. Though this year he has definitely improved. I don't see him as a consistent 20+ppg player but if he can be a 18 5 and 4 player then I would say he's in the discussion for being right behind Harden, Kobe and Wade( at least for now).

I can definitely see a resemblance between the Raptors now and the Pacers a few years ago. Though it's going to take some tweaking and some big improvements to reach that level. Derozan will need to take a couple more big steps. Val will need to become more consistent(though my impression is he doesn't get consistent looks in that offense) and Ross will need to continue to improve. Would be nice to see another team develop a team instead of trying to buy it.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

l0st1 said:


> You don't have to watch the team to form an opinion on them, and it doesn't mean you are automatically wrong just because you don't watch them.


It might not mean you are automatically wrong, but it does mean that most people will ignore your opinion. Why? Because it isn't actually you're opinion, you're merely mimicking what others have posted (idea stealing).


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Porn Player said:


> It might not mean you are automatically wrong, but it does mean that most people will ignore your opinion. Why? Because it isn't actually you're opinion, you're merely mimicking what others have posted (idea stealing).


Or you are using statistics and bits and pieces that you've seen(hightlights, them playing your team, box scores) to form an idea. Sure it's definitely not a great way to do things and ya you'll be wrong relatively consistently but we all do it. Anyone year think the Bucks are a good team? I doubt very many people here sit down and watch Bucks games(No offense to the Bucks fans on here).

Forming opinion from methods other than watching the games isn't the best way to get an idea for a team and when teams have sudden changes(like Raptors post Gay) then ya it'll be off until time evens out. That's all I'm saying. We all form opinions on other teams without watching them consistently.


----------



## ChrisWoj (May 17, 2005)

Oh wow I made this thread. I was hammered as hell bout that time of Saturday night...


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

l0st1 said:


> Or you are using statistics and bits and pieces that you've seen(hightlights, them playing your team, box scores) to form an idea. Sure it's definitely not a great way to do things and ya you'll be wrong relatively consistently but we all do it. Anyone year think the Bucks are a good team? I doubt very many people here sit down and watch Bucks games(No offense to the Bucks fans on here).


My bad, I thought you flat out hadn't seen any Raptors basketball and were deciding to weigh in.


----------



## l0st1 (Jul 2, 2010)

Porn Player said:


> My bad, I thought you flat out hadn't seen any Raptors basketball and were deciding to weigh in.



Even if that was the case(admittedly I haven't seen much), I still don't think that makes someone's opinion wrong. You can form an opinion without watching the team. We all use stats and standings to do it.

But I didn't really give much of an opinion on the Raptor's as a whole as I don't feel all that informed on them as a team. Moreso gave an opinion on Derozan.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> @R-Star what do you think?


Do I think DeRozan is a chucker? No. You can't play the type of tight team basketball Toronto has been playing with a chucker on the team. That's why they've improved by leaps and bounds by getting rid of Gay.

Is he an efficient scorer though? No. I see him improving, but hes definitely not one of the more efficient guys at this point.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Do I think DeRozan is a chucker? No. You can't play the type of tight team basketball Toronto has been playing with a chucker on the team. That's why they've improved by leaps and bounds by getting rid of Gay.
> 
> Is he an efficient scorer though? No. I see him improving, but hes definitely not one of the more efficient guys at this point.


How is chucker defined? Could it be a guy that shoots a lot? Guys that shoot a lot of traditionally "bad" shots even if they make them (curry and kobe come to mind). What IS a chucker? Or who is?


----------



## scdn (Mar 31, 2011)

Is Charles Barkley a chucker?


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Jamel Irief said:


> How is chucker defined? Could it be a guy that shoots a lot? Guys that shoot a lot of traditionally "bad" shots even if they make them (curry and kobe come to mind). What IS a chucker? Or who is?


Is there a better definition available than "high usage player that neither shoots nor scores with anything like average efficiency"? We've had this discussion for years and I've always said that "ballhog= volume scorer that people don't like". Volume scorers _can_ be useful if they're being used correctly (and cooperating). 

There is value in guys that can create their own offense (regardless of efficiency), providing that they're willing to play defense. This was one reason why I've been a fan of Mr. Bean (though, obviously, in recent years his defense has gone to seed). When games are tight those guys that can get you key buckets are important. Rudy Gay, for example, could absolutely be that sort of player if he were willing to play D (which he isn't). I don't mind DeRozan so much because he does play defense, which means he falls on the useful side of the volume scorer ledger. But he's still a chucker.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> How is chucker defined? Could it be a guy that shoots a lot? Guys that shoot a lot of traditionally "bad" shots even if they make them (curry and kobe come to mind). What IS a chucker? Or who is?


As much as I cherish fighting on the internet, I'm not participating in this marionette show. 


No one tries to control R-Star.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

R-Star said:


> As much as I cherish fighting on the internet, I'm not participating in this marionette show.
> 
> 
> No one tries to control R-Star.


I guess I have to side with Munro. Derozen is a chucker.


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

E.H. Munro said:


> Is there a better definition available than "high usage player that neither shoots nor scores with anything like average efficiency"? We've had this discussion for years and I've always said that "ballhog= volume scorer that people don't like". Volume scorers _can_ be useful if they're being used correctly (and cooperating).
> 
> There is value in guys that can create their own offense (regardless of efficiency), providing that they're willing to play defense. This was one reason why I've been a fan of Mr. Bean (though, obviously, in recent years his defense has gone to seed). When games are tight those guys that can get you key buckets are important. Rudy Gay, for example, could absolutely be that sort of player if he were willing to play D (which he isn't). I don't mind DeRozan so much because he does play defense, which means he falls on the useful side of the volume scorer ledger. But he's still a chucker.


I agree.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

Luke said:


> I agree.
> 
> 
> Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


Who cares?

Didn't you say you take Tyson Chandler over Roy Hibbert not too long ago?


----------



## Luke (Dec 7, 2008)

R-Star said:


> Who cares?
> 
> Didn't you say you take Tyson Chandler over Roy Hibbert not too long ago?


Nope. I did not.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

GNG said:


> *Point Guards Better than Kyle Lowry*
> Chris Paul
> Russell Westbrook
> Stephen Curry
> ...


I stand by my ranking of Hayward, Afflalo and Stephenson.

Stephenson may even need to be higher. He has a legit All-Star claim himself this season.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

With all this talk of chuckers, I would like to point out that it's nice seeing Monta Ellis find a home where he fits in.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> With all this talk of chuckers, I would like to point out that it's nice seeing Monta Ellis find a home where he fits in.


Extremely unexpected, at least in my eyes. I thought it was a terrible signing.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Extremely unexpected, at least in my eyes. I thought it was a terrible signing.


Defense be damned, but putting him in the same backcourt with the league's most efficient guard (Calderon) has really balanced out Ellis' production. I can't wait to see Monta/Dirk playing Westbrook/Durant in the first round. The Mavs will not be easily vanquished.


----------



## R-Star (Jun 13, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> Defense be damned, but putting him in the same backcourt with the league's most efficient guard (Calderon) has really balanced out Ellis' production. I can't wait to see Monta/Dirk playing Westbrook/Durant in the first round. The Mavs will not be easily vanquished.


Dirk always has big games in him, and that will only be bolstered by Monta.

Hell of a lot more exciting to whatever teams squeak in to the 7th and 8th on the East side and gets murdered.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

R-Star said:


> Dirk always has big games in him, and that will only be bolstered by Monta.
> 
> Hell of a lot more exciting to whatever teams squeak in to the 7th and 8th on the East side and gets murdered.


The entire West playoffs will be a blood bath. If somehow the Blazers get matched up with Dallas, they could easily go down in the first round. If the playoffs started today, Golden State would be playing OKC in the first round! Goodness.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Thought this was worth a bump. 

Toronto is now 10 games over .500% and just put down a dominant fourth quarter pull away victory against one of the hottest teams in the league right now in Memphis Grizzlies. 

We're on pace to break a franchise record in single season wins. Porn is excited.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Porn Player said:


> just put down a dominant fourth quarter pull away victory against one of the hottest teams in the league right now in Memphis Grizzlies.


I watched that game. It wasn't even a dominant 4th quarter. The Grizz got the lead with like 7 minutes left in the game. Greivis/Lowry running things together on offense and the Raps' team defense just smothered Memphis over the last few minutes. Impressive spurt at a key moment.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

RollWithEm said:


> I watched that game. It wasn't even a dominant 4th quarter. The Grizz got the lead with like 7 minutes left in the game. Greivis/Lowry running things together on offense and the Raps' team defense just smothered Memphis over the last few minutes. Impressive spurt at a key moment.


By 4th quarter, I meant the final section of the game. The part that great teams play their best basketball. We have been doing that for months now.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I would definitely be excited if I were a Raptors fan. They have a bright future. They're a lot better than I thought, so I will partially back off my original comments. They have identity and they're well coached and well managed. 

That said, I'm still not sure they're a top 10 team and I don't think they would make the playoffs in the west. That lands them in the 11-13 range out of 30 teams. That's much better than we've come to expect from Toronto, so that's a great place to start. They are no longer a (perennial) bad team.


----------



## Adam (Jan 28, 2003)

I think it's important to note that they got better by starting at the top. New owners, new GM. There's no doubt in my mind that most effective change starts at the top.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I would definitely be excited if I were a Raptors fan. They have a bright future. They're a lot better than I thought, so I will partially back off my original comments. They have identity and they're well coached and well managed.
> 
> That said, I'm still not sure they're a top 10 team and I don't think they would make the playoffs in the west. That lands them in the 11-13 range out of 30 teams. That's much better than we've come to expect from Toronto, so that's a great place to start. They are no longer a (perennial) bad team.


Depends, once they moved Gay they started playing winning 2/3 of their games (they're 31-15 without him). And that difference was merely one of defense, really. Look at the Kings, playing on a team with other scoring options Gay has played really well, offensively. He's shooting and scoring efficiently. But the Kings still suck.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

People have to open their minds. And stop thinking that certain teams will always win and certain one will never win. Its a new world now. 

Veteran laden teams like Brooklyn, Dallas are made for the playoffs. 7 game series against the same team, no back to backs. They can slow the ball down and make it possession by possession. The younger teams get impatient. 

Notice how Dallas and Brooklyn are improving while Portland, Indy are slumping. Its a long season.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

I'm picking them to lose on the first of matched up with Brooklyn.


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I would definitely be excited if I were a Raptors fan. They have a bright future. They're a lot better than I thought, so I will partially back off my original comments. They have identity and they're well coached and well managed.
> 
> That said, I'm still not sure they're a top 10 team and I don't think they would make the playoffs in the west. That lands them in the 11-13 range out of 30 teams. That's much better than we've come to expect from Toronto, so that's a great place to start. They are no longer a (perennial) bad team.


Not Top 10? Try Top 4.  


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/453927292519993345


----------



## Porn Player (Apr 24, 2003)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/453936876269731840


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Jamel Irief said:


> I'm picking them to lose on the first of matched up with Brooklyn.


If they play Brooklyn in the first round, I like the Raptors.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

RollWithEm said:


> If they play Brooklyn in the first round, I like the Raptors.


I'm picking Brooklyn to beat anyone in the first round, so thats not a diss on Toronto. I do like Toronto over Washington and Charlotte, but I think I'd pick Chicago to beat them as well.


----------

