Sponsored Links |
|
So Brooklyn has looked good since acquiring Harden. It’s almost as if Harden brings a bunch of problems with him everywhere he goes? Kinda weird for a guy who so many people claim is amongst the best in the game.
Did you mean to say "hasn't looked good?" Otherwise the rest of this paragraph makes zero sense.
Also, I find it interesting that the Nets looked good in the two games without Kyrie when Harden played really well and they beat Milwaukee. But then Kyrie comes back, Harden's role gets diminished and they get beat in back-to-back games by the Cavs. Is Harden the problem, or is it Kyrie?
Worse in what way? If they make the playoffs as the 1 seed or the 10 seed is kinda irrelevant. Having a seat at the table is the only thing that matters. Ask any Budenholzer led regular season front runner how important the #1 overall seed in the playoffs really is.
Sponsored Links |
|
Agreed. They should look at what MDA did with Harden/Paul and then Harden/Westbrook. Let one guy (ideally Kyrei) run the second unit and limit their minutes together to 15-20 a game. Granted, I haven't watched a minute of Nets basketball this season aside from highlights—Nash might be doing this already.
Historically have 5 seed or lower is far less likely to make it to the finals. Usually refers to the fact that there is a regular season flaw that will pop up in the playoffs and be costly. I think what's really helped Milwaukee recently is being in their dreadful division getting to beat up on Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland, with Indiana being good but not that good. So 16 games a year against that grouping can only help.
Who knows maybe Miami's year will prove to not be a fluke and more 5/6 seeds can start competing. Luckily for Brooklyn, they made this trade only 1/5th into the season and they're 2.5 games back, so plenty of time to make their move into the top 4 in the conference.
Sponsored Links |
|