[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect not, given that you included the 45 win 6th seeded Denver Nuggets as a title contender (they lost in the first round!) once you saw the Cavs did poorly against them. I wonder how the Cavs did against the Lakers and Warrior? I'm sure everyone reading this was as shocked as I was to discover that the Cavs went 4-0 against those teams. The Cavs went 8-8 against the WC playoff teams.

[/ QUOTE ]
At this point it's like the WC of the NBA in 2007 just exists to you in two dimensions, more specifically an NBA standings page on ESPN.com. The Nuggets were a WAY better team than both the Lakers and Warriors, and their 45 wins isn't an accurate reflection of their playoff chances because of the Melo suspension and AI being acquired mid-season. Do you really think that over an 82 game tilt with all their players that they would only win 45 games? If so then you're lying to yourself. This is what makes the 16-6 run to finish the season even more relevant than most season-ending runs. Yet you choose to ignore this obvious fact in support of the LOLZ WELL YOUR IGNORING THE LAKERS AND WARRIORS AND LOOK HOW THE CAVS DID AGAINST THEM!!!1 Who cares? They had no chance of going anywhere, bizarre and perfect GSW-Dallas storm excepted.

Also, I bolded the part above for extra hypocrisy. They did lose to the Spurs, you know. The team that went on to win it all. What round you lose in is not indicative of your ability. Such as the year before, when the Spurs lost to Dallas in the second round even though they were clearly superior to the hobbled and Amare-less Suns team that luckboxed their way to the WC on the easier side of the bracket. Does this make the Spurs less good, that they only won one round that year? Give me a break.