No Love Lost, Yall Die ..., Cavaliers vs. Hawks ECF Thread
- Thread starter Bone$
- Start date
Biscayne
Ocean air
KLove being out isn't much different. Whiteside is as solid as Mosgiv(if not better) at rebounding and scoring. This current team might have the most well-rounded front court in the league once Bosh gets healthy. Miami has young talent. McRoberts is a starter on any other team.
Miami doesn't have young talent, the Cavs have several key players under the age of 25 right now, with a multi-allstar PG that's 23.
Exactly
IllmaticDelta
Veteran
You mean "5 months older than JR and played in Thibs system so you gotta use dogs years" Luol Deng and 34 year old Pau breh? That's your answer to YOUNGER and deeper?.
After my almost 1 year hiatus from The Coliseum by posting almost exclusively in The Ring, I've been watching him all season here and......
Got DAMN I was a hater
That nikka is a beast and I was wrong all along about him. He's as grest as yall said he was
Just watching him all year, he's easily the best player in the NBA, and anyone who says different is just hating.
5 straight NBA Finals?
Leading castaways to the NBA Finals?
That man is amazing breh
Yall was right and Newzz was wrong
This shyt must be inspirational as hell for Cav fans.
Last post for me on this topic Gil - you're so self-deluded that there's no hope for you admitting fault.
And you were dead wrong. They didn't need him, at least not in the first few games.
Can you not read where I said, "It's preserving those legs for when the Cavs actually need it (against the Warriors or maybe in clutch games against the Hawks) rather than using them now when the Cavs are winning without him"?
During Game 1 it certainly looked to me like the Cavs could beat the Hawks without Kyrie. I made that clear - I said they wouldn't "actually need it" until the Warriors or MAYBE in clutch games against the Hawks. But for now, the Cavs were winning without him.
And you were wrong.
Did you not see where I said, "8 to 12 days"??? I wasn't talking about a day or two. But even if they only waited until, say, Game 5 (the earliest they were likely to need him in a "clutch game"), that would still have been an additional 8 days of rest - not a "day or two".
And if they had shut him down immediately when he clearly wasn't helping in Game 1 - as I noticed already in the 1st half - then he wouldn't have re-aggravated the injury even just waiting until games 3-4 would have been the equivalent of 8-12 days rest, because the rest would have been continuing from before rather than interrupted.
No, I'm telling you that they shouldn't have been playing him when he was hurt and wasn't helping. The best possible gameplan would be to play the players who could actually drive and defend, and to save Kryie until he was healed up enough to contribute to making the Cavs a better team AND he was actually needed, which wasn't going to come until they played the Warriors or maybe in clutch games against the Hawks (if that happened AND if he was better by then).
Bullshyt - you never said, "to get past the Hawks", you said he needed to get into rhythm and repeatedly said he wouldn't get any healthier. You weren't suggesting there was any situation in which it would be a good idea for him to miss the games.
Exactly. And it looks like both the Cavs and I disagreed with you, I just realized it about 2 quarters of basketball earlier than they did.
Actually, I'd say they probably realized it too, but the whole Kyrie star-power thing kept them from pulling him earlier.
We all knew that by the 2nd quarter of Game 1, so that's when you should have pulled him.
You should have waited to try again until the Cavs actually needed him - which was either the Warriors series, or late in the Hawks series IF you felt he was now ready. And if he got a little bit of playing time and showed he still wasn't healthy enough, you sit him again. This isn't hard to understand.
Never moved the goalposts - I said clearly from the 1st game that the Cavs should rest him until they needed him - which was either the Warrior series or later in the Hawk series.
You said he should not rest him until the season was over. You never, ever offered any qualifications for that. The reasons you gave never, ever suggested "unless the Cavs don't need him".
And since he was a net negative at the time, it was already a horrible argument. The facts after the case only made it more and more obviously so.
No more of this, because you're running in circles. I said to rest him until the Warriors or maybe late games against the Hawks, you said to play him in every game. The Cavs chose my path, and it turned out to be right. You're negged for not being able to admit you were wrong. Take your L and move on to some other argument - I be done with you.
And you were dead wrong. They didn't need him, at least not in the first few games.
Can you not read where I said, "It's preserving those legs for when the Cavs actually need it (against the Warriors or maybe in clutch games against the Hawks) rather than using them now when the Cavs are winning without him"?
During Game 1 it certainly looked to me like the Cavs could beat the Hawks without Kyrie. I made that clear - I said they wouldn't "actually need it" until the Warriors or MAYBE in clutch games against the Hawks. But for now, the Cavs were winning without him.
And you were wrong.
Did you not see where I said, "8 to 12 days"??? I wasn't talking about a day or two. But even if they only waited until, say, Game 5 (the earliest they were likely to need him in a "clutch game"), that would still have been an additional 8 days of rest - not a "day or two".
And if they had shut him down immediately when he clearly wasn't helping in Game 1 - as I noticed already in the 1st half - then he wouldn't have re-aggravated the injury even just waiting until games 3-4 would have been the equivalent of 8-12 days rest, because the rest would have been continuing from before rather than interrupted.
No, I'm telling you that they shouldn't have been playing him when he was hurt and wasn't helping. The best possible gameplan would be to play the players who could actually drive and defend, and to save Kryie until he was healed up enough to contribute to making the Cavs a better team AND he was actually needed, which wasn't going to come until they played the Warriors or maybe in clutch games against the Hawks (if that happened AND if he was better by then).
Bullshyt - you never said, "to get past the Hawks", you said he needed to get into rhythm and repeatedly said he wouldn't get any healthier. You weren't suggesting there was any situation in which it would be a good idea for him to miss the games.
Exactly. And it looks like both the Cavs and I disagreed with you, I just realized it about 2 quarters of basketball earlier than they did.
Actually, I'd say they probably realized it too, but the whole Kyrie star-power thing kept them from pulling him earlier.
We all knew that by the 2nd quarter of Game 1, so that's when you should have pulled him.
You should have waited to try again until the Cavs actually needed him - which was either the Warriors series, or late in the Hawks series IF you felt he was now ready. And if he got a little bit of playing time and showed he still wasn't healthy enough, you sit him again. This isn't hard to understand.
Never moved the goalposts - I said clearly from the 1st game that the Cavs should rest him until they needed him - which was either the Warrior series or later in the Hawk series.
You said he should not rest him until the season was over. You never, ever offered any qualifications for that. The reasons you gave never, ever suggested "unless the Cavs don't need him".
And since he was a net negative at the time, it was already a horrible argument. The facts after the case only made it more and more obviously so.
No more of this, because you're running in circles. I said to rest him until the Warriors or maybe late games against the Hawks, you said to play him in every game. The Cavs chose my path, and it turned out to be right. You're negged for not being able to admit you were wrong. Take your L and move on to some other argument - I be done with you.
loyola llothta
☭☭☭
Gil Scott-Heroin
Veteran
I'll say it AGAIN, the only one that should be admitting fault is you for moving the goalposts.
I wasn't dead wrong - it was all about gameplanning for when they would need his contribution. Again, this circular reasoning of yours, made you only bring it back up once this series was practically over with a result that YOU wouldn't have picked prior to the start of the series. You wouldn't be saying shyt if they did needed him in this series and he was no better off than he was in Game 1.
You never used that qualifier during our initial exchange. You said "rest him until he can actually move". When the fukk was that suppose to be? How can they gauge his movement on the court without actually playing him? This is why I quoted you in the first place. You had no previous knowledge of his status prior to the game.
What is wrong with you?
He was READY to go in Game 1 -
"I would say just my spirits and mental confidence, just being able to actually feel both my feet underneath me, especially when I'm shooting, it feels amazing," Irving said. "You know, just a confidence of getting extra work in and just preparing with my teammates. I think that's the biggest thing I get out of it. I don't want to be on the sideline at all, especially preparing for a big stage like this. I want to be as close to 100 percent before Wednesday as I can be, so just doing the necessary things in order to do that."
You can't use an additional 8 days like somehow he would be 100% at the point - which is about the only way he wouldn't reaggravate his injury - not to mention if the Cavs got into a one game hole at any stage prior to that he probably would be playing.
You know very damn well you wouldn't rehash this if Irving ended up playing in this series.
I already told you he needed his minutes restricted. If he was shut down in Game 1 - what was stopping him from reaggravating the injury in the next following games? I don't think you quite understand how this works or the extent to what can trigger an onset of inflammation state(s) for Kyrie, as you clearly don't know his injury history.
An addition 2-6 days rest (on top of what he originally had) would not make ANY notable difference.
This is what you're not understanding.
There's no possible way they'll know he's healed up enough until he can actually play for a long period of time, regularly. You're speaking as if he wasn't "ready" to go for Game 1. How do you propose this open-ended timeline of yours, of being healed enough to contribute when they may have needed him before he even got close to a state that was in tune to your liking?
And you proposed that the Cavs should rest him until he could actually move - an IMPOSSIBLE end-locus as they would only know if he could move in a game only when they actually played him. I didn't need to suggest there was any other situation because as I said specifically I thought they would need his contributions for this Hawks series. That's the premise I was working under; gameplanning in order to give the Cavs the best possible chance at getting past the Hawks. By saying he wasn't going to get any healthier was because I thought they would need him during this series - a window in which his ailments wouldn't be fixed.
Ailments that still probably won't be fixed, even when the Finals come around, as there's underlying issues for why he's in this state to begin with (re: check his knee-injury history from the regular season).
They didn't disagree with me, obviously after he had to be reassessed and left out of Game 2, there was no point in playing him in Game 3 as they already had a 2-0 lead. You didn't realize shyt, because you weren't privy to how he was feeling/looking before the series. This is why you shouldn't speak on things like this because your initial stance on how he should be 'managed' was built on a fallacy.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
YOU'RE the one that didn't provide any qualifiers for what you said. You initially said that they should rest him until he can actually move - not rest him until they needed him. Obviously there could be a point where they did need him and he still wasn't 'ready' in accordance to what you deem as being able to "actually move".
Blatant revisionism from you.
More lies and moving of the goalposts from you. They never took your path. And what I meant by playing him in every game, was going by how he felt from game-to-game (managing minutes according to that) - not playing him until the wheels fall off. And there's no L to take. When are you going to admit you were wrong for moving the goalposts from where they initially were, not having any knowledge of what his condition was prior to the ATL series and not understanding his injury history ?
Last edited: