>Dwight has been in his 08 form all season long with no
>lingering back issues and was clearly dominant on both ends
>prior to the all star break.
>
he was still playing, as someone who has Andrew Bynum....I can tell you that matters.

>Nash didnt miss significant time with Darius Morris and Jodie
>Meeks taking his place. Those guys are just as good.
>
Nash has been misused even while there to the point where it's almost a 'why bother having Steve Nash' because it's been almost as effective having Blake there.

>Jerry didn't die.
>
c'mon, if anything that helped this team focus, Dwight particularly.

>Jordan Hill wasn't a quality backup and wasn't lost for the
>season?
and missing him brought about Clark.

Nobody is cysing him like he's Dwight or some shit, so
>stop pretending we are, but acting like he wasn't a key bench
>component on both ends to back up both starters and such a
>loss is inconsequential is flat out dishonest- especially when
>both of those starters missed time. Having a quality backup is
>important when one of them is still rehabbing his back and the
>other is out.
>
>Disgusting? Please with the so-called pleas. You can't cite
>the incredible expectations on this team and then downplay
>every single event that's occured and pretend that there is no
>realistic impact on those expectations.
>
>They were expected to win 60 games with that starting 5! Wait,
>they played a grand total of twenty games all year? SO WHAT,
>they had TWO of that HOF team all year! So when 2 of the 4
>guys that were expected to win 60 games miss significant time
>and only played 20 games together, that 60 game projection
>doesn't change? In what world does that make any sense? Only
>on some agenda shit.
>
>Wait, one of the two that was there most of the year was
>coming off back surgery and clearly wasn't himself until the
>All Star break? So what! No consequence, even if his primary
>backups are out for the year!
>
>You can downplay this season all you want. They still
>underperformed, but acting as though all these injuries,
>coaching change, a beloved owner dying, and Dwight rehabbing
>on company time aren't factors that reshapped any realistic
>expectation is so dishonest it barely deserves to be taken
>seriously.
>
didn't say it didn't factor in, we just disagree about the level to which it did.

>They still underperformed in light of these hardships, just
>not to the degree you'd like us all to believe. 5-6 seed is
>reasonable in light of all this, and holding them to a 60 game
>standard when most of what could have went wrong actually did
>says you're letting your hatred for this team and it's fans
>overtalk a level head. You're better than that, or so I
>thought.

I'm not holding them to any standard but the one they've had in place historically, I don't find this season to be a success on any level despite what they had to deal with....that's my only point.

With what they had, they should have a winning percentage better than the 2011-12 Sixers even if Ron's chase for 72 & all that other stuff obviously was unrealistic.