Read on Twitter
1.) One of those was with a No. 8 seed against a No. 1, which is just absurd to hold against him.
2.) Would it be better had they not been good enough to take a 3-1 lead in the first place? Is it preferable to go out in, say, 5 games? https://twitter.com/HouSports281/status/1310714466770784261
2.) Would it be better had they not been good enough to take a 3-1 lead in the first place? Is it preferable to go out in, say, 5 games? https://twitter.com/HouSports281/status/1310714466770784261
In a way, it's like slandering the Buffalo Bills of the 1990s, or Tom Brady/LeBron for losses in the Super Bowl/NBA Finals.
I know Twitter lives for that stuff, but in reality, it's still a sign of being good that you were in that position in the first place.
I know Twitter lives for that stuff, but in reality, it's still a sign of being good that you were in that position in the first place.
For clarity, I'm not saying it isn't a knock. It is. But other than maybe Popovich and Spoelstra, no coach is a 100% slam dunk. Lot of it is situational.
Not acting like Rivers is the GOAT or anything. Just think that overall, he's a very good coach who will win a lot of games.
Not acting like Rivers is the GOAT or anything. Just think that overall, he's a very good coach who will win a lot of games.
Keep in mind, Twitter HATED the Mike D'Antoni hire in May 2016, and he came a Chris Paul hamstring from winning it all two years later.
Everybody likes the shiny new toys, but there are a lot of busts with those types, too. There's value in having a high floor.
Everybody likes the shiny new toys, but there are a lot of busts with those types, too. There's value in having a high floor.
@ReduxZepp See this thread I put together earlier. Yes, Twitter always wants shiny new toys. Keep in mind, everyone hated the D’Antoni hire four years ago, and he was probably a hamstring away from a title in Year Two.
