Victim of Racism
I'm a brehette
Just gonna leave this right here:
"Are the Cavaliers this good, or is the Eastern Conference this bad?
When exactly did we decide that the East was so bad?
If you go back to the start of the playoffs, all 21 of ESPN's experts picked the Cavs to beat the Pistons in the first round. However, only two of them picked the Cavs to sweep. Four of them thought the series would last SIX games. The consensus at the time was that Detroit would be a feisty opponent that could provide a tough first round test.
And in many ways, that turned out to be correct. The Pistons may have been the toughest challenge the Cavs have yet faced. The fact that the series was over in four games should not diminish how frisky they were.
Then there were the Hawks. The conventional wisdom now seems to be that they were not a worthy challenger. But what about at the time?
Again, all of ESPN's experts picked the Cavs to win the series. But only Chris Broussard predicted a sweep. Five of them thought it would go six games, and two thought it would last the full seven. Also, there was this almost-prediction:
So the idea that the Pistons and Hawks were mere speedbumps on the road to the Finals seems to be new.
Let us at least dispel with the fiction that the Cavs' first two playoff opponents were bad. The Pistons and Hawks were perfectly fine eighth and fourth seeds, respectively. The Cavs just made it look easy. And for some reason there does not seem to be much mention that the Warriors' first two opponents were the Rockets and Trail Blazers, hardly the stiffest of competition."
Are the Cavs this good, or is the Eastern Conference this bad?
"Are the Cavaliers this good, or is the Eastern Conference this bad?
When exactly did we decide that the East was so bad?
If you go back to the start of the playoffs, all 21 of ESPN's experts picked the Cavs to beat the Pistons in the first round. However, only two of them picked the Cavs to sweep. Four of them thought the series would last SIX games. The consensus at the time was that Detroit would be a feisty opponent that could provide a tough first round test.
And in many ways, that turned out to be correct. The Pistons may have been the toughest challenge the Cavs have yet faced. The fact that the series was over in four games should not diminish how frisky they were.
Then there were the Hawks. The conventional wisdom now seems to be that they were not a worthy challenger. But what about at the time?
Again, all of ESPN's experts picked the Cavs to win the series. But only Chris Broussard predicted a sweep. Five of them thought it would go six games, and two thought it would last the full seven. Also, there was this almost-prediction:
So the idea that the Pistons and Hawks were mere speedbumps on the road to the Finals seems to be new.
Let us at least dispel with the fiction that the Cavs' first two playoff opponents were bad. The Pistons and Hawks were perfectly fine eighth and fourth seeds, respectively. The Cavs just made it look easy. And for some reason there does not seem to be much mention that the Warriors' first two opponents were the Rockets and Trail Blazers, hardly the stiffest of competition."
Are the Cavs this good, or is the Eastern Conference this bad?

Ya'll nikkas can't honestly believe the bullshyt you type 




