No disrespect ... but are the Celtics the weakest 1 seed in NBA history?

[Po pimp]

LeBron nearly swept them. They had the 1 seed but they had no shot of going to the Finals

The only game in that series that wasn't close was when the Bulls blew them out in game one.

 

[Mantis Toboggan M.D.]

The only game in that series that wasn't close was when the Bulls blew them out in game one.

The Heat won games 2-3 by 10+ . They were close after 3 quarters though. I forgot how ugly the fourth quarter of game 2 was. A score of 14-10 for the quarter

 

[hayesc0]

Im talking the modern era btw (post merger?) ... I obviously cant comment on the really old shyt

only 53 wins ... and just dont strike the fear a 1 seed should

this isnt some Bulls/Celtics shyt cause we're playing them either, I'd make this thread regardless who they were playing. Im talking strictly on what they accomplished in the regular season and the overall team makeup

 

[jwonder]

Yes they are. fukk the Celtics. King James will demolish them.

 

[soulfuljah]

Those Sixers would beat these Celtics. 01 Sixers are the only team to beat LA in a playoff game that year. They swept the Spurs, Kings, and Blazers.

THANK YOU

besides winning 56 games that year, and almost winning game 3 of the finals, they WON the MVP (iverson), defensive POY(mutumbo), 6th MAN (mckie), & Coach of the year (brown).

If we were to make a bracket of ALL TIME WEAK NBA 1 SEEDS, those "weak" sixers are making it to the finals EVERY TIME

Without that Scott Williams flagrant upgrade, I still say the Bucks would have taken game 7
But "what ifs" don't mean nothing

 

[Kang Deezy]

You cant be series lmaooo

It was the lockout year, only 50 wins they were on a 63 win pace

of course they lost first round, DRose got hurt

You can use injuries as an excuse but refuse to look up how many games Bradley Isaiah Horford crowder and smart missed?

 

[Brozay]

You can use injuries as an excuse but refuse to look up how many games Bradley Isaiah Horford crowder and smart missed?

Im explaining why they lost in the playoffs tho

 

[The Devil's Advocate]

the 1994 Atlanta Hawks were weak

Nets and Sixers were also type weak as well.

I can't comment on entire history of the league, and I know thats not what you meant since most of the teams you will mention would have been from the last 15-20 years. Those 3 teams were the first that came to mind in my NBA viewing experience.

the sixers who would go to the finals and be the ONLY team in the entire playoffs to beat the lakers in a game?


explain how that's weak or even all time weak

 

[Suiken]

The 2017 Celtics are definitely very weak for a 1-seed. Obviously we'd be dealing with a 60+ win Cavs 1-seed if it hadn't been for the injuries.

Here are a few other very weak 1-seeds:

1977 Sixers - Only 50 wins, got taken to 7 in their first round.

1979 Sonics - 52 wins and just a thoroughly uninspiring team

1984 Lakers - 54 wins in a very weak conference, Kareem was starting to decline, Magic missed 15 games, and Worthy hadn't stepped up yet, they basically coasted

1994 Hawks - Yeah 57 wins and a couple big names, but they were just not a scary playoff team at all. Were down 2-1 and barely escaped the 1st round before getting blown out of the water in the 2nd.

2001 Sixers - 56 wins but basically surviving off of one guy who was all their offense and another who was all their defense.

2002 Nets - 52 wins, damn that was an ugly team to make a Finals.

2003 Pistons - 50 wins, couldn't close the deal without a Sheed, it was like no one in the East wanted it that year

Didn't they won a championship that year?

 

[mastermind]

the sixers who would go to the finals and be the ONLY team in the entire playoffs to beat the lakers in a game?


explain how that's weak or even all time weak

it makes a lot of sense.

The 2012 Spurs didnt make the finals and were the #1 seed out west. Does that mean the 2001 Sixers were better than them?

The 1986 Lakers were the #1 seed in the West but didnt make the finals, does that mean the 2002 Nets were better than them?

 

[AJtheOne]

Yes they are

 

[PS5 Pro]

When did I say 65 wins shows how good a league is?

If you get 65 wins in a weak year, at least you can say you dominated that weak league. That was Portland in 1978 - dominating a weak league until Walton got hurt. Still a weak league, but at least they're showing out.

But if its a weak league AND you only get 52 wins, then you just plain aren't a great 1-seed.

Hell, just two years later, that conference was represented in the WCF by the 40-42 Rockets and the 40-42 Kings. Does that mean the conference had gotten even better?






You're calling in age when talking about the fukking 1970s? Since teenagers are just stans who don't know shyt about what they're watching, your opinion on 1970s basketball must be useless unless you over 65, right?



No wonder your rep where it at.

I said that the LATE 1970s had weak basketball. That is just about universally understood. And you haven't made ONE argument to counter it.

The Sonics started Sikma-Johnson-Johnson-Williams-Shelton and were a thoroughly uninspiring team.

They didn't go up against a single great team - their greatest wins were over the Westphal-Davis Suns and the Dandridge-Hayes Bullets

They only won 52 games despite that tt was one of the weakest eras in modern NBA history, before the Magic/Bird rivalry transformed the NBA.

It was in a Western Conference so pathetic that just two years later, two teams with LOSING records would battle in the Western Conference Finals.


Now, what's your argument that they were a great number one? So far you ain't come up with shyt.

nikka, I stopped reading at the bolded because you got in your feelings about the age question. Even pointed to my rep
My rep is like that cuz the internet is mostly p*ssy nikkaz and I speak up

You dodged the question so what that tells me is you don't have an opinion. You are literally regurgitating someone else's opinions about the time period as you casually say things like "everyone says this"

No they don't, here I am saying you don't know wth you talking about. Maybe the person who gave you that information was coked up

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Why should the Celtics be blamed for overachieving (or really, the Cavs underachieving)? Stevens did a masterful job with the team. They will probably be out in the first round now but that's no different than the Bulls losing Rose.

 

[LeMAO]

2011 Spurs and 2007 Mavs

 

[Professor Emeritus]

nikka, I stopped reading at the bolded because you got in your feelings about the age question. Even pointed to my rep
My rep is like that cuz the internet is mostly p*ssy nikkaz and I speak up

You dodged the question so what that tells me is you don't have an opinion. You are literally regurgitating someone else's opinions about the time period as you casually say things like "everyone says this"

No they don't, here I am saying you don't know wth you talking about. Maybe the person who gave you that information was coked up

Unless you over 60, you CAN'T talk about 1970s basketball without relying on other opinions.

And hell, how would you know what going on behind the scenes or on teams internally just from watching a couple games?

fukk, even the senior citizens didn't have ESPN or shyt like that to watch everyday games. Even the Finals only showed on tape delay back then. 99% of the games weren't available in anything but newspapers to the average Joe.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. That's why you haven't made ONE argument on the facts yet and just keep trying to deflect.