>a good, experienced team can sorta take it easy in the reg.
>season, knowing they're basically ensured a top 4 seed. a new
>team doesn't have that luxury. they HAVE to focus on gelling
>completely in the regular season in order to have playoff
>success.

I guess. But I still think that 2011, there was no excuses. not even the "gelling" excuse. that was a legit choke job. that was the kind of shit that got Dirk fried for years, the kind of shit that made Kobe the bete noir of OKS.

>the 08 celts are a good example: they stormed in and
>took the top spot from the pistons. the heat are on the other
>end, as we should've known something was up when they let the
>bulls steal away the 1 seed (no excuse for their finals
>performance, just saying everything wasn't as perfect as
>everyone's painting it now). in fairness, they did destroy the
>bulls in the playoffs, but couldn't that be more emblematic of
>problems with that bulls team rather than a credit to how good
>the heat were? more than 1 team can flame out in a single
>postseason.

I don't remember too much about the regular season games to call the seeding issues (they basically did the same thing in 2014). but I do think the Bulls team then had some major problems. Some of which remain today but if Rose checks out I'll take 2014 Bulls over 2010 Bulls, for the reasons mentioned above.