-
Embiid > Jokic
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
I don't think physically it would have made much of a difference, they were relatively healthy and the minutes they played per game were well managed. The only affect 73-9 might have had would be mentally. After breaking the record those players know they become a laughingstock if they don't win the title. Same thing happened to the Patriots, if they had finished 15-1 I think they play with much less pressure. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I think it's at least a possibility
-
NBA Legend and Hall of Famer
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by SouBeachTalents
I don't think physically it would have made much of a difference, they were relatively healthy and the minutes they played per game were well managed. The only affect 73-9 might have had would be mentally. After breaking the record those players know they become a laughingstock if they don't win the title. Same thing happened to the Patriots, if they had finished 15-1 I think they play with much less pressure. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I think it's at least a possibility
I think it hurt them because it undermined their opponents. Everyone counted OKC out but they have more experience and have been through more adversity way before the Warriors were even a thing.. so it put a chip on their opponents shoulder big time.
-
with God-given ass
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
So if GS wins 69 games, other teams won't trying to play up the underdog role and GS wouldn't be getting out played by OKC? Athletes look for every advantage possible. Us against the world is as common as it gets. I've seen teams that were clearly the most dominant and/or talented in that particular season use it. ****, the Warriors were doing that all season after the media and butthurts were calling their title run fraudulent.
Maybe, just maybe, OKC (the team with two top 5 players) is playing better.
Last edited by JimmyMcAdocious; 05-25-2016 at 08:34 PM.
-
*****
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Worth what? Resting the players for 3-5 games wouldn't have done shit.
-
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by SouBeachTalents
I don't think physically it would have made much of a difference, they were relatively healthy and the minutes they played per game were well managed. The only affect 73-9 might have had would be mentally. After breaking the record those players know they become a laughingstock if they don't win the title. Same thing happened to the Patriots, if they had finished 15-1 I think they play with much less pressure. I'm not saying this is necessarily the case, but I think it's at least a possibility
I agree with a bit of this. Not only were minutes generally well-managed throughout the season, but they had a fair bit of off-time in the postseason due to a spread schedule and ending at least one series relatively early.
I've actually kind of wondered the opposite about Curry. After sitting out with the ankle sprain then missing something like two weeks with the sprained knee, I'm a little curious about his conditioning.
And I reckon there's some pressure with winning 73 games, but I'd take that pressure over not striving for greatness. The 72-win Bulls faced that pressure too, and what they got was an NBA championship AND the all-time record for wins in a season.
-
Game. Set. Match.
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
I don't see how more rest would stop the Thunder from turning into World beaters. Warriors aren't losing because they're tired.
-
Wilt Davis
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Everyone forgets that the Giants who beat that undefeated Patriots team, were not rested at all. In fact, they had the final spot of the playoffs sewn up before the last regular season game, also against the Patriots.
The Giants starters voted to try and end New England's perfect season. It went to overtime. So the Giants risked injury and skipped rest, being that they were a wild card team, just to try and win a regular season game.
Then they go on the road to beat three teams, before the great upset in the Super Bowl. And what did they say about that last regular season game? It gave them confidence going into the SB.
Rest is a load of crock.
-
#knickstape
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
how hard is it to pull of 3 straight wins
-
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by Uncle Drew
* Assuming they won't come back from 3-1 down.
Was it really worth it? Instead of resting key players, getting them ready for the playoffs, Kerr ran them into the ground, chasing the record. Records can be broken, but banners hang forever.
(Legit) Dubs fans: would you rather go 71-11 and win the championship, or go 73-9 lose in the WCF and be remembered as the NBA's New England Patriots?
Too disrespectful. Pats have 4 Championships under Brady/Belichick and barely lost that Super Bowl.
-
Free the banned users.
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Hell no.
Ruined their season.
Meaningless record.
-
I rule the local playground
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by kamil
New England Patriots made it to the Superbowl... by the looks of it, GSW isn't even going to make it that far.
LOL I thought it was worse to lose in the finals than before it, right?
Retard.
-
2nd Greatest Player
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by dubnation
LOL I thought it was worse to lose in the finals than before it, right?
Retard.
His IQ is below sea level.
-
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
going 73-9 might have been premature ejaculation
now they can't get it back up anymore
-
NBA lottery pick
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by dubnation
LOL I thought it was worse to lose in the finals than before it, right?
Retard.
Context, bitch.
-
2nd Greatest Player
Re: Was 73-9 worth it?
Originally Posted by DCL
going 73-9 might have been premature ejaculation
now they can't get it back up anymore
Biggest Choke job in NBA History.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|