Welcome to another edition of NBA RoundTable. The Spurs and rockets are starting to fall off pace. Can they keep up with the Warriors? This week, Should the NBA institute the one and one rule, Are the clippers ready to have their own home building, that and so much more on NBA RoundTable.
Lets get started:
Should the NBA go to the one and one rule for the free throws just like the college game, instead of automatically getting 2 free throws after the 4th foul?
Todd: Well this rule would absolutely screw the bad free throw shooting teams and individuals. I wouldn’t have a problem with it.
Steve: Honestly, I didn’t even know college had a rule like that. So I guess I would not change anything. There are many other things that the NBA should focus on, and that is getting good training for the officials. They are awful this year.
Chad: I think because the NBA is quarters and College is halves it would make a one-one-one and then a double bonus situation moot more often than not because of the time differential. I say No
Dan: Yes, the NBA needs to go to the 1-and-on rule for free throws. Not only will it speed the game up, like the talks have been recently, especially in the last two minutes, but it’ll also make for better competition. If you’re down 1 with 5 seconds left and you foul the opponent, now they can go up by 3 instead of missing the first and only up 1 still with you having the ball. Currently, they’d be able to extend their lead to 2 even if they miss the first free throw. I don’t agree with that. College has a good set up and one the NBA should adapt.
The Lakers and Clippers play in the same building the Staples Center. Now that the Clippers have had a descent team for the past few years is it time for them to spread their wings and get their own home building?
Todd: The question is why does L.A. have so many damn teams. It would be nice because then there would be a clear home court for each team or maybe just move the Clippers out of L.A. Then again the NFL is moving the Chargers to L.A. after moving the Rams last year. WTF?
Steve: I would not have a problem with it, but will the city of Los Angeles pay for it? Having two stadiums can be pretty costly to the tax payers, unless the Clippers are planning on fronting the bill, and that isn’t going to happen any time soon. I would support it, but I don’t see it happening.
Chad: LA has enough problems with sports teams and stadiums (hello; NFL) I can’t see another stadium getting built in that area anytime soon.
Dan: No, I don’t think so. I think the Clippers need to stay where they’re put. I don’t think Los Angeles city would like to spend a lot of money on a new stadium for the Clippers when they’re already building a new NFL stadium for the Rams and now Chargers. Clippers are doing fine in the Staples Center with the Lakers and I think they both should stay there.
The 76ers just had their first 3 game win streak in 3 years? Will they make it to 20 wins this season?
Todd: They should get 20 wins this season unless they have a complete breakdown or a major injury.
Steve: Yes, and some. The 76ers seem to have found their stride, and are playing well as a team. They are not giving up in game when they are down, and are closing out games they are leading. I could see this team (as long as they stay healthy) winning between 20 to 25 games, and maybe next year even competing for a lower playoff seed. You never know.
Chad: With the pieces they have and their current momentum I do see them getting 20 wins this season. They’re a scrappy team that will play you hard for 48 minutes.
Dan: Yes, I think they’ll win them easily. They’re at 14 wins already on the year after just beating the Milwaukee Bucks in a MLK Day upset and I really do believe that they can push to 30 wins. they have a good, young team that has tremendous amount of talent and has shown it earlier in the year against games like Milwaukee and Cleveland. They’ll surpass 20 wins easily. Still a lot of basketball left to play and they’re already almost there.
It is rumored that the Lakers are interested in Paul Milsap or Nerlens Noel but they refuse to trade any of their young core. Is either of these 2 guys worth breaking up the young core of the Lakers.
Todd: You know being a die hard Laker fan, I watch every game. I would not want Nerlens Noel due to his past injuries. Paul Milsap on the other hand I would want him and a 2017 1st round draft pick for Julius Randle and Jordan Clarkson. The reason why is Milsap is a stretch 4. He can shoot the 3. Jordan Clarkson just pisses me off every time I watch him play. He is a fricken ball hog. He could beon a fast break go up against 3 guys and there could be a wide open guy but he won’t pass the damn ball. Julius Randle he is good but I just don’t think he fits in with the Lakers. Sometimes he tries to do too much and go 1 on 3 also. I just think with Milsap at starting power forward and Larry Nance backing him up when he returns from injury they will be a better team.
Steve: Absolutely not! Keep this team together as long as you can. They are all going to develop and eventually start playing better. They got off to a nice start, which tells me that they have the talent on the floor. Unless you can get a solid superstar, you keep this team together.
Chad: No, neither move make sense for the Lakers stay the course and find a big time player in Free Agency and this team will be back in the playoffs.
Dan: Well, Atlanta has already said that Paul Millsap is off the trading block and won’t be moved this season so you can cancel him out. I think Nerlens Noel would be a solid acquisition by the Lakers. The 76ers aren’t using him as he’s their last man on their roster currently. I can’t see him being expensive or someone who would cost the Lakers anything of much value with how Philadelphia is treating him. He’s already in an over crowded big man rotation in Philadelphia, get him to the Lakers and let him play!
Russell Westbrook has 19 Triple doubles to lead the league. How far can he carry OKC this year?
Todd: They will make the playoffs but that is only because the bottom of the Western conference is so bad. I don’t see them going any farther. Westbrook does not have enough supporting cast. They would probably be better off if they missed the playoffs.
Steve: Look, eventually this guy has to wear down, right? This guy seems to be unstoppable, and as I stated before, he has to in order for the Thunder to be relevant. I think he can lead this team to the playoffs, but I see a one and done, as once playoff time comes, he is going to be so worn down, he may be nearly ineffective.
Chad: He’ll get them there but that’ll be it I can’t see not finding a way to at least contain Westbrook in a 7 game series and put a stop to the Thunder.
Dan: I think he can carry them to a fourth seed in the West but they won’t surpass Houston (better overall team led by James Harden), San Antonio who is just dangerous and the Warriors who are on another level of all teams. While they’ll win the first round, could even be in a sweep, they’ll be taken out of the playoffs in the second round. The likely match-up (since I don’t see any upsets happening against SA or Houston) would be to face the number one seed Golden State Warriors. I think Westbrook can help bring OKC to last six games, but they will be eliminated. And that’s a significant carry by Westbrook if you look at the type of team he has around him.
Tiny URL for this post: