Replies

>>By making a conference finals, Detroit proved themselves ready to make the next step. The Mavs aren't ready.<<

You are really making a fool out of yourself.

DALLAS MADE THE CONFERENCE FINALS, DUDE. And as stated several times, it doesn't matter whether they did or didn't, as there is no one progression to a championship. Explain how SA and LA won a championship with worse progressions than Dallas has made.

>>BTW, Dallas' last five years are NOT better than Detroit's prior to winning in 2004. <<

This is just WRONG. Go back and read post 52. There's no way you can say Detroit's was better. NO WAY.

>>Detroit improved their showing each year and won a fricking title.<<

Prior to winning the title, Dallas had done better than they had.

Your arguments still boil down to you attempting to say that because Dallas hasn't won a title, they can't or won't win one. That's truly idiotic. I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding what you wrote.

>>They never made it back to the confernece finals after getting there once. <<

Actually, they've been to the WCF twice. Once in the last 5 years, but that's not the issue. There's no rule requiring one to be in the finals the year after being in the conference finals, or there's no way one can win. That's idiotic.

>>How in the heck do you figure that going backwards towards your goal is better than going forwards toward your goal? <<

As before, you are making things up. I didn't say is was "better." What I said was that it had happened.

>>Dallas winning this year would indeed be from out of nowhere because they haven't shown an ability to beat the Western conference's only complete team, the San Antonio Spurs when it counts...in May.<<

They beat them twice in May two or three years ago and likely would have won that series had Dirk not gotten hurt. No excuses; SA won, but your statement is incorrect. Besides, this is a different team with a different coach.

Again, by your standard, Detroit had not shown it could beat Boston in 1987, so I guess that proves they didn't beat them the next year or two. You can't get away from your circular reasoning, since that's the only basis you've given for your arguments. Not matchups, coaching, talent, fans, whatever. Just history. But history is never on the side of a team that's never won a championship. Just like the Cowboys were called "next years champions" back in the late '60s and early '70s due to their repeated losses in conference championship games or Super Bowls, wasn't an indication that they weren't going to eventually win one.

>>Stack REALLY does suck in the playoffs though<<

He played OK last night.

I think the Mavs win this series in 4 or 5 games, then wait for what will likely be SA in the second round. I think that series goes 6 minimum, and its questionable whether the off time the Mavs will likely (but not certainly) get will help or hurt. I think this year, it will help because of injuries.

However, if last night is any indication, I think the Mavs have a very good chance to defeat the Spurs in what will likely be a very good 7 game series -- probably the best series of the entire playoffs this year. After that, frankly, I'm not that worried since I think the Mavs match up well with Detroit. Of course, that assumes Detroit wins the East, which they should do.