Jump to content

NBA 2017: Playoffs? Playoffs?!


Relic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

Hopefully that starts to change with a Finals run this year.  Not that I expect it, but we've got a clear path to the ECF, and we'll have a puncher's chance if we get there.  Getting swept by the Warriors would be a lot of fun, right?

Yep, a lot of my Bulls contingent are suddenly strutting like we are a 65 win team after rolling over the Celtics for two games. We just match up too well. I'm incredibly pessimistic about this season, regardless of how we looked these two games, and I feel like the Wizards would stomp us. But, I've been consistently wrong about everything any time I talk about this team, so who knows, maybe your team will fold as well. My money is against my team, that's for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Argonath Diver said:

Yep, a lot of my Bulls contingent are suddenly strutting like we are a 65 win team after rolling over the Celtics for two games. We just match up too well. I'm incredibly pessimistic about this season, regardless of how we looked these two games, and I feel like the Wizards would stomp us. But, I've been consistently wrong about everything any time I talk about this team, so who knows, maybe your team will fold as well. My money is against my team, that's for sure.

The Bulls have been fluky both ways this year.  They have played well against a lot of good teams, and fallen completely flat even against teams that are trying to lose.  Neither the Bulls sweeping the Celtics or losing in 6 games would be a huge surprise. 

I would agree that the Bulls match up much better against the Celtics than the Wizards.  I'm sure Butler would cause us a lot of problems as well, but I don't see Lopez or Wade or Rondo being particularly problematic.  But first things first, we both need to turn our 2-0 leads into actual series wins. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

How can he be a fast zombie? 

Well, there are a couple of schools of thought around that. A baseline willful suspension of disbelief would suggest that "walking dead" or reanimation is such a stretch to begin with that if you're going to buy into the concept at all, then why put strictures on what makes sense or doesn't make sense. The very concept is nonsensical. I personally liked the way the remake of "Dawn of the Dead" handled this. When a zombie was first turned, it was fresh. Fast, strong, fairly agile, etc. As it started to decompose, it then slowly became less mobile, slower, more of a shuffler, etc.   

Others will say that Fast Zombies aren't technically zombies at all. Like say take the "zombies" from 28 Days Later. These are typically referred to as Plague Zombies. They are not technically dead in the same way that traditional zombies are. They have an active circulatory/nervous system, their heart still beats, they need oxygen, etc, but their brains are taken over by some sort of parasite that drives them to violent behaviors, doesn't allow them to communicate in a typical manner, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Well, there are a couple of schools of thought around that. A baseline willful suspension of disbelief would suggest that "walking dead" or reanimation is such a stretch to begin with that if you're going to buy into the concept at all, then why put strictures on what makes sense or doesn't make sense. The very concept is nonsensical. I personally liked the way the remake of "Dawn of the Dead" handled this. When a zombie was first turned, it was fresh. Fast, strong, fairly agile, etc. As it started to decompose, it then slowly became less mobile, slower, more of a shuffler, etc.   

Others will say that Fast Zombies aren't technically zombies at all. Like say take the "zombies" from 28 Days Later. These are typically referred to as Plague Zombies. They are not technically dead in the same way that traditional zombies are. They have an active circulatory/nervous system, their heart still beats, they need oxygen, etc, but their brains are taken over by some sort of parasite that drives them to violent behaviors, doesn't allow them to communicate in a typical manner, etc. 

I know it's off topic, but I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake.  It was refreshing to see a director take the source material for a remake and make it his own rather than try to ape the magic of the original.  It did its own thing with the basic premise of the original, had fun with it, and was just an enjoyable movie.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Nah, I'm just a fan of Horror in general. I'm not really a writer at all, I just stole that tagline from a poster in one of the "Stanek" threads over on the literature board. 

fraud!!!! 10 lashes!!!!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maithanet said:

Neither the Bulls sweeping the Celtics or losing in 6 games would be a huge surprise. 

Pretty much. While being up 2-0 is great I can't really see the role players performing like they are consistently for the entire series. Bulls are obviously a bad matchup for the Celtics, but you also have Zipser/Portis having career games, Sideshow Bob looking unstoppable at times making every jumper he takes and then Wade is confidently drilling 3's. I obviously hope it continues but I'm cautiously optimistic at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, briantw said:

I know it's off topic, but I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake.  It was refreshing to see a director take the source material for a remake and make it his own rather than try to ape the magic of the original.  It did its own thing with the basic premise of the original, had fun with it, and was just an enjoyable movie.  

Yeah, that was a solid remake. Arguably the best of the Romero based zombie flicks, although not directed by Romero, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, briantw said:

I know it's off topic, but I loved the Dawn of the Dead remake.  It was refreshing to see a director take the source material for a remake and make it his own rather than try to ape the magic of the original.  It did its own thing with the basic premise of the original, had fun with it, and was just an enjoyable movie.  

I like it as well. I'd go on and recommend 28 days later, 28 weeks later, and 30 days of night, I enjoyed all of them.

I'm also looking forward to an upcoming film by a new director JackBauer24, "Dead Man can Dance: The Bealification".

Speaking of our man, anyone know whatever happened to him? Used to be prolific and now I kinda miss him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Calibandar said:

I like it as well. I'd go on and recommend 28 days later, 28 weeks later, and 30 days of night, I enjoyed all of them.

I'm also looking forward to an upcoming film by a new director JackBauer24, "Dead Man can Dance: The Bealification".

Speaking of our man, anyone know whatever happened to him? Used to be prolific and now I kinda miss him.

All solid flicks, though 30 Days of Night is technically a Vampire flick. 

I have not seen Mr. Bauer post here in a number of months, but his legacy does indeed live on in this thread. Much like Bradley Beal himself. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

All solid flicks, though 30 Days of Night is technically a Vampire flick. 

I have not seen Mr. Bauer post here in a number of months, but his legacy does indeed live on in this thread. Much like Bradley Beal himself. ;)

Bradley Beal died but he rose harder and stronger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...