Boston vs. Atlanta - Series tied (2-2)

ubernathan · Post #81 » by **ubernathan** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:02 am

Boston in five, Atlanta will steal one game, Joe Johnson will have a huge series.

NDaATL · Post #82 » by **NDaATL** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:14 am

ubernathan wrote:Boston in five, Atlanta will steal one game, Joe Johnson will have a huge series.

I hope so, but JJ has struggled this year vs. the Celtics..

BTW how much interest is there for this series?? Would people rather see this series rather than the other EC match ups? This just seems like an interesting series, even though Boston will probably destroy us.

Post #83 » by **dockingsched** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:18 am

boston sweep, double digit wins in all 4.

a 66 win team isn't going to drop a playoff game to a team 8 games under .500. this is going to be a massacre.

NDaATL · Post #84 » by **NDaATL** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:29 am

dcash4 wrote:boston sweep, double digit wins in all 4.

a 66 win team isn't going to drop a playoff game to a team 8 games under .500. this is going to be a massacre.

Don't let the record fool you, we are a horribly skitzo team that can play with the best on one night and lose to a sorry team the next. That comes with super young teams and a horrible coach. Don't get me wrong, I fully expect Boston to kills us, but we will at LEAST play a few close. I expect us to win one game though.

Post #85 » by **MagicMadness** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:59 am

This series has '07 Playoffs Magic vs. Pistons written all over it.

Kosta · Post #86 » by **Kosta** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:50 am

Boston in 4.

wigglestrue · Post #87 » by **wigglestrue** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:44 am

I really couldn't be happier to face the Hawks, not because I think they're an easy matchup, but because Josh Smith is one of the few players I truly enjoy watching, he's never ever boring. Hawks might almost win one of these games, maybe even almost win two. But I still think it's over in 4.

JUMANJI. · Post #88 » by **JUMANJI.** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 10:25 am

Atilanta what??? Nevermind, BOSTON IN 4.

wardjdim · Post #89 » by **wardjdim** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:18 am

Sweep it is...

Texas Longhorns · Post #90 » by **Texas Longhorns** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:12 pm

Added time/schedule to the front.

JoshB914 · Post #91 » by **JoshB914** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 5:57 pm

The Hawks would be .500 or a bit above if they had Bibby all year. So they are a legit 8 seed. Not that it means that we won't get swept, but we are a 40-45 win team right now based on how we have been playing.

b-ball forever · Post #92 » by **b-ball forever** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:09 pm

JoshB914 wrote:The Hawks would be .500 or a bit above if they had Bibby all year. So they are a legit 8 seed. Not that it means that we won't get swept, but we are a 40-45 win team right now based on how we have been playing.

U suck at math, ATL 15-17 since the Bibby trade = under .500

And since u obviously aren't aware of it, Bibby was injured the first 3 months of the season, so that's tarded reasoning right there

JoshB914 · Post #93 » by **JoshB914** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:34 pm

Hawks lost their last 3 with Bibby- one was to the C's, the other two were after we had clinched the playoffs. We were a .500 team with him and maybe a bit better and anyone will tell you that. Nice try though.

I know Bibs was hurt, if we had him for 50 games (from day one) instead of 33 we are probably at .500.

JoshB914 · Post #94 » by **JoshB914** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:36 pm

And just for future reference, don't comment on someone's intellectual ability and then proceed to use the words "U" and "tarded" in your post.

greenbeans · Post #95 » by **greenbeans** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:49 pm

your hypotheticals dont matter. ATL is under .500 no matter what your saying

b-ball forever · Post #96 » by **b-ball forever** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:12 pm

JoshB914 wrote:Hawks lost their last 3 with Bibby- one was to the C's, the other two were after we had clinched the playoffs. We were a .500 team with him and maybe a bit better and anyone will tell you that. Nice try though.

I know Bibs was hurt, if we had him for 50 games (from day one) instead of 33 we are probably at .500.

Oh wowzers, so 1 of the games the Hawks lost came against the Celts... what exactly is the excuse of a factor that was supposed to change the outcome of that game? U seriously think that u guys were gonna beat Orlando, the Celts, and the Heat for sure if the playoffs weren't wrapped up yet? :rofl:

LMAO : "We were a .500 team with him and maybe a bit better and anyone will tell you that".
Wrong choice of words, "Anyone" does not equate to Hawks homers.

15-17 in the Bibby it the Bibby Era was,

15 divided by (15+17) = .468, NOT "above .500", 1 + 1 = 2, and 4 + 0 = sweep

So yes, u do suck at math, and that is tarded reasoning. Yer also an obvious homer

JoshB914 · Post #97 » by **JoshB914** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:13 pm

Atlanta is playing like a .500 basketball team right now and has been for the last two months. It is possible to be playing at a level that is different than record indicates. I shouldn't have to explain that.

Duiz · Post #98 » by **Duiz** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:13 pm

Al Horford will be too much for KG and Perks... I expect a clean 4-0 by Atlanta.

greenbeans · Post #99 » by **greenbeans** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:25 pm

[quote="b-ball forever"][/quote] :rofl:

NDaATL · Post #100 » by **NDaATL** » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:34 pm

Texas Longhorns can you update the pic?

Boston vs. Atlanta - Series tied (2-2)

Who will win this 1st round series?