Re: [Ignore The Chalk] Winning, but No Message

Was a message necessary? Sure, it's great to win by 50 when you're down 3-1, but as they say, you can only win the game once. If anything, a rout would have just given the Cavs was a false sense of security. "Things are turning our way." But they're not. Defensive lapses, subpar rebounding, and turnovers by the Magic. LeBron dominating and his supporting cast contributing. These are not things you can count on every night. By now, the Cavs know this.

So it's still an uphill battle. But every seven-game series is 3-2 at some point. The Cavs need to consider this series up for grabs and take it one game at a time.

Winning, but No Message

So the Cavs won Game 5, with a convincing score (112-102) but a less-than-convincing performance--solid, but no dominance.  It seems...written (to quote this year's Best Film) that the Cavs are capable of putting up a 20+-point lead in games against the Magic this series.  But it's equally certain (written AND spoken?) that they'll blow the lead in a manner that will lead to an obvious rise in sports-based ulcers in Cleveland.

 

They won with improved performances--what were once, but no longer are, certain performances in the course of this NBA go-round--from their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th options, Mo Williams, Delonte West and Zydrunas Ilgauskas.  But they also won with LeBron basically taking over the game in such a fashion that you wonder if he can do it in Orlando, where the Magic seem far more comfortable.

 

I was hoping Game 5 would be like the Pistons' Game 5 from 2007, where LeBron proved unstoppable, putting up 29 of 30 points in a stretch, in a fashion that stomach-punched every Detroit fan, a hurt that lingers to this day.

 

Maybe had LeBron scored or assisted on the 32 points in front of Orlando fans, the vibe seemed hopeful but not positive in Cleveland media/news.  Like, maybe we can do this; not, we should.  Daniel Gibson (let's ignore the nickname for a bit) said after the game to the fans that the Cavs were coming back for Game 7. 

 

But do the Magic fear this?  Or was Game 5 just a throwaway for the inevitable devastation they'll unleash in Game 6?

Re: So it's over, right?

It is likely over.  The Magic will probably have one shooting game over the last three games (probably Game 6) that it won't matter what the Cavs do.  The Magic will just hit too many threes.

 

BUT

 

I don't think it is totally over.  And this has nothing to do with LeBron.  I'm not sure he can do any more than he has done in the first four games, and they still lost three of them.  It comes down to Mo Williams, Delonte West, and Z.  Those three guys hit the open jumpers LeBron creates all season long and the Cavs won 66 games because of it.  They are not shooting well at all.  Sure, they are getting points, but their shooting percentages are atrocious.  If they get their collective touch back, I think the last three games will really be interesting to watch.  I still think the Magic will win one of the last three games and finish the series, but I don't think it is a complete stretch of the imagination to see the Cavs come back and win this thing.

 

Don't you agree those three have to start shooting better?  And that is the difference in this series compared to the regular season and the first two rounds?  It is almost like I am watching the team that played in the 2007 Finals again.

So it's over, right?

This nightmare of a series is over, right?  Put it to sleep, right?

Or maybe not?  Cavs-Magic has turned into somewhat of a one-sided affair.  Not necessarily in the results (ignore the 3-1 ad the Magic have) if you look at the fact that three games have been decided by 1, 1 and 2 points, but rather the process--I haven't watched a single game this year where the Cavs have imposed their will on the Magic.  Where the Magic fans have genuine fear in their eyes/hearts/minds, much as the Pistons fans did in years yore.  Each game, and I attempt to be less fatalistic than the normal Cavs fan, I feel this slinking feeling, like the Cavs are pushing a rock up an endless hill, as if things are more than awry.

So--spare me the "LeBron's on the Cavs so anything can happen" spin some in the Cleveland media (although very few) and many more in the national media will serve up between now and Thursday.  Can it be done?

And if not, what are the Cavs missing?  Why can't a 66-win team take control, at least once?

Highlight or Memory/Matchups

Agreed that it's only closure, but only if the Cavs win the series.  There's no question that it was a huge, ridiculous shot that gave everyone here in Cleveland hope.  That said I couldn't believe the negativistic atmosphere that permeated Game 2.  Sitting in the stands, it was dead quiet when the Magic came back on the Cavs to bring it within 10 (admittedly a big run having been in a 23 point deficit).  There were scattered boos.  People (at least in my section) were actively cursing the Cavs for being a bunch of [screw]-ups.  All of this when they were STILL up by 7! 

I hate to say it but I don't know if the people in this city are ready for a champion, especially witnessing how crazy it was outside after the people left the building...I must've heard "MVP! MVP!" at least 100 times walking to my car.  It was as if the series was over, not as if the Cavs had narrowly avoided losing twice consecutively--in a building they'd lost in only twice (some would say once) in the regular season.  Just bizarre.  Great shot, but seriously?  It's 1-1. 

(Big caveat to the last sentence--I don't know how one becomes "ready" for a champion.  Is this possible?)

Two points of discontent though:

1)  I like how the Magic are trying to marginalize LeBron's shot, as if it's not a big deal (one Magic player said the Cavs' celebration meant that "we [Magic] know we're in their heads now"--really?), they've recovered before from shots by Andre Iguodala and "Fat Baby" (Fat, not Big--he's Oliver Miller reincarnate).  Look--Courtney Lee was in absolute shock after the game, the Magic players were devastated.  Not disappointed.  Devastated.  And let's never use LeBron and AI/Fat Baby in the same sentence.  It will affect them.

2)  I get that the Magic are a tough matchup for the Cavs, and that the Magic have had good second halves the last two games.  But haven't they had miserable first halves, falling down by 16 and 23?  Sure, the Cavs have blown massive leads--but the Magic allowed them to put up massive leads!  Is anyone mentioning this?  The reality is that teams that thrive on a penetrate-and-kick offense fare better in the second half of games (as the other team gets worn out having to close out on long-range shots on what seems like every play) but most teams don't struggle that significantly in the first half as the Magic have the first two games of the series.  So why aren't we at least saying the Cavs can, oh, occasionally, be a poor matchup for the Magic?  Or was 16/23 point leads in consecutive games a fluke?

The Magic have proven to be a poor starting team, and a great finishing team, this series.  The Cavs have been just the opposite.  I wouldn't be wholly surprised if the roles flip in Orlando.

What a shot...

Absolutely incredible.  Although, I can't believe Pietrus chased Pavlovich to the midcourt line when that ball was absolutely going to LeBron.  At least get in the way dude!  My thought is how it is perfect closure for Cavs fans on The Shot...as long as the Cavs go on to win the championship.  The curse will be broken officially.  In fitting fashion too.

That said, I do not like this matchup for the Cavs.  It is an interesting thing.  I think the Cavs would beat the Nuggets or the Lakers.  I have no doubt about that.  And I think the Magic would lose to both of those teams.  But the Cavs are going to have a hell of a time beating the Magic.  The matchups just aren't right.  To me, there is only one solution.  Make Verajao the backup center and play LeBron at the 4.  Pavlovich has to play more.  Those two provide the right defensive matchups for Lewis and Turkoglu.  It also makes offense easier for the Cavs.  We'll see if Mike Brown moves more in this direction.  He did do it some last night, but I would like to see more.  Anyway, your thoughts?

The (2009) Shot

So dude--what are your thoughts on last night's game winner by LeBron?
I was at the game and will comment--but I'm still adjusting to the
fact that Jordan didn't hit that shot against the Cavs for once.

--
Sent from my mobile device

So wait here...

I think we're agreeing.  Leach might as well say crazy things that get him noticed by the rest of the company.  As long as he's not taking his shirt off arbitrarily, he can only gain by trying to talk up Michael Crabtree.  The biggest problem for Texas Tech is their location.  Where is Lubbock, anyway? 

So in other words, how is Leach diminishing his chances, or taking that risk?

Re: [Ignore The Chalk] See I don't have any issues with Leach

The major difference I see between Graham Harrell and Colt Brennan is that Brennan was still drafted (following hip surgery), albeit in the sixth round. But I agree that Mike Leach may indeed gain more by stirring controversey than he loses in terms of recruiting. When Josh Freeman goes as high as he does, it's probably clear to most recruits that "measurables" are all that matter, anyway.
 
That said, while Texas Tech may not be a "big-time" school with a steady stream of potential NFL players, it is currently, due to Leach, a high-profile school that occasionally gets a Zach Thomas or a Michael Crabtree. It's hard enough building a program out in the desert.

 

Fertile ground. 

Tech may never be seen as an NFL factory, but why risk being seen as a school that will actually diminish your NFL chances?

In this economy, how is this possible?

A little late on this, but it took me a while to recover--how is Byron Scott returning as coach of the New Orleans Hornets?  I guess it comes down to money, and only money (Scott has one year left guaranteed and odds are the owner, George Shinn, has no interest in paying two salaries).  But this is devastating.

When I was in 8th grade, I played on a really bad middle school team.  Our first game of the season, the coach didn't want me to play point guard--and let me be clear, the team we were playing was good enough that it wouldn't have made much of a difference--but our team couldn't get the ball over half court.  The other team would trap our guards, steal the ball, and score easily.  This went on for an agonizing 40 minutes.  It was the most humiliating game I've ever been a part of, and I hope nothing in my life ever matches that.

However, we still only lost by 57.  I should start a campaign to hire me as coach of the Hornets--my slogan?  "I've never done worse than Byron Scott."

See I don't have any issues with Leach

The harsh reality is that if you don't go to a big-time school in NCAA football, you're laboring under a "glass ceiling"--the supposed ceiling being the doubt that either a) you're facing inferior competition or b) you're a pure product of your system (or for that matter, both).  I'm no Big 12 fan by birth (although I suppose a little by indoctrination having gone to a Big 12 school) but it seems to me this is clearly a case of b), since you'd either need to be under a rock or this guy to think the Big 12 doesn't have ridiculous competition.  And maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but I don't see a real difference between Texas Tech's Graham Harrell and Hawaii's (now Washington's) Colt Brennan--big QBs who flourished in a system that was pass, pass, pass (and maybe some fi, fo, fum).

So in fact I'd say what Texas Tech coach Mike Leach did--torpedoing Eric Mangini to protect the interests of Crabtree, his top recruit (by far--Harrell was never projected as a starter in the pros)--probably helps the interests of his program long-term.  Look, because colleges don't pay their athletes to play or in any way cheat to get their athletes--a rock-solid recruiting system by all accounts--the college system overemphasizes the importance of a coach and his reputation (and by the way, any alleged cheating hasn't happened recently.  You want to play for a big-name coach, a guy who defends his players to the death.  Look, Leach isn't a big-name coach.  He's getting there, but at least where I'm from, the Midwest, you have a better chance of identifying this guy than Mike Leach.  And recruits will notice that Leach is supporting his top guys, and they'll like that when they're making the ultimate decision as to what school to commit to.  And in fact it's probably good PR since a good contingent of Browns fans aren't fans of Mangini. Leach acting up for his players gets his name out there, which is all you can ask for at this point.

Building a college program takes time and a little bit of controversy, and I think Mike Leach is very aware of that.  Brilliant!

Choose your words carefully, or: Watch what Mike Leach does, then do something else

Let me begin by saying that I really like Mike Leach. He puts an interesting, or at least competitive, team onto the field most years, and he demonstrates a refreshing lack of interest in playing anyone's game but his own. That said, he's hit and miss (not unlike his teams). Example of a hit: Mike's Pirate School. Example of a miss: his latest shots directed at the Texas A&M coaching staff and Eric Mangini--and the ensuing fallout. Regardless of whether Leach's comments are accurate (they're certainly entertaining), he's only hurting himself by drawing attention to the fact that his star quarterback, Graham Harrell, a former four-star recruit who threw for a bazillion yards in college, went undrafted. Heck, even Greg Paulus received interest based solely on his high school rating.

 

This is a huge blow to Texas Tech recruiting. I've always assumed that regardless of whatever weaknesses a player transitioning to the NFL might have as a result of Leach's system (whether actual or merely perceived), the main reason they weren't, generally speaking, highly drafted was because they weren't very good to begin with, i.e., that Leach was using his system to do more with less. But apparently, even objectively talented players coming from Leach's system are doomed. It's not clear to me that Harrell would be much worse off than if he had played four years of basketball instead.

 

Not that any of this was a secret. But Leach's comments serve to remind recruits (and his rivals) that if you go to Texas Tech, you're laboring under a glass ceiling. They couldn't have helped Harrell's chances of walking on with the Browns either. Just not smart, Mike.

Can I say one thing about Bulls/Celtics?

Yes, I agree this has been a tremendously entertaining series, in terms of overtimes and close games.

 

BUT

 

This series does not contain good basketball.  Both teams have been atrocious on defense.  Both coaches have made significant tactical errors repeatedly (Del Negro has been worse, but Tony Allen should not see the court for the Celts).  Both teams have executed fairly poorly for long stretches of time.  And both teams have had players make incredibly dumb plays (looking your way, Paul Pierce, on that foul on Noah last night).  Why is nobody mentioning the fact that basketball has not been played that well?  Are people just that swept up in the excitement of the close finishes?