In response to JWensink's comment:
Disagree ...you say you'd like facts to back it up, and then point to conditioning as the main culprit. Something that you apparently know factually from your HDTV. My facts or evidence is from watching them struggle late in games. It's just an issue that I feel is worth discussion, even though I never brought it up. It was used as an example of fans making statements that they shouldn't on this board by NAS. I just presented a reasonable explanation for why such an issue is valid, and nobody on this board should be able to determine what is and isn't acceptable comments.
Sorry, but my opinion is that it flows from the top down, and CJ tends to focus on stopping people more than staying aggressive offensively thereby taking chances that might lead to opportunities for the opponent. Also, everybody had a shortened season including the Hawks in the 3rd of game 6 -
I'm sure there's some stat somewhere showing leads going into the 3rd, don't have the pateience to find it. But it's my observation and opinion that it was an issue.
There you go, an exchange of differing opinions- it's all good.
Sorry if you disagree with any thing I've just stated, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't, but it does mean it's ok if you do - something that seems to be overwhelming to some
Fair enough, it's my opinion, through observation, that it's conditioning (which differs from player to player, so maybe the Hawks were just in better shape) not a hard core fact I can point to. And with blown third leads, how would a high number on that stat discount my point anymore than yours? We simply are offering different reasons.
And I disagree with you as to the CJ thing, because in most cases I have simply not seen a distinct change in playing style - slower play, yes. Blown plays, yes. Mental mistakes, yes. But those can all be easily attributed to wind and legs.
But a change in playing style? My eyes just don't tell me that. I guess yours see something different. Faair enough. Agree to disagree.
And not to poke the Hornets nest, but going back over your posts I disagree with the highlighted part above. I could say that your reason is possible (even maybe reasonable) though I disagree with it, but it hasn't been presented in a reasonable matter. You do tend to attack posters who disagree with you on this point, even if they haven't been agressive to you first (some of your responses to Fletch in this thread show this behaviour).
That's going to cause a few issues.