Speaker 1: What is of Fellasiko's I Am Valley coming at you
with the one, the only, this certified, fantabulous co host
of the most popular podcasting property in the galaxy, mister
krant Hues Conference Finals primer time, and we are on
to the Timberwolves and the Oklahoma City Thunder. I'm not
sure it's a matchup anyone would have predicted at the
start of the season, but I think the Thunder for sure.
The Wolves have been all over the place this year,
but they've they had indicators that showed they were good
against elite teams. Are you ready to dive into this matchup?
Speaker 2: Grant, very excited. Great matchup. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: So for anyone new around these parts, we will start
with the tactical questions and then we will get into
our biggest storylines X factors and then of course everyone's favorite,
the predictions. If you have not drop a comment let
us know your predictions, what we want to hear about
this series, and hey, come join our discord where we
have rooms designated to every team except for the Celtics.
Their room is for TV shows and movies for maybe
not anymore.
Speaker 2: Though, Yeah, we may have to who do we nominate
for that now because the Celtics got that distinction, because
it's like, what are we going to talk about? They're
so good? What do we do now?
Speaker 1: You No, I think it should be the Pelicans, like
shame on them for like, I just don't like the
way that they're not a serious organization. I think it's
the Pelicans.
Speaker 2: Okay, different reason forgetting that that designation, But I don't know.
Maybe we should put it to a vote. I'm sure
people would have strong opinions.
Speaker 1: Drop a comment which rooms should be dedicated which team
rooms specificum should be dedicated to? Movies, pop culture references,
TV shows, recommendations, all that, But that is not related
to the Wolves and the Thunder grant. I'm gonna throw
it to you here. What is the tactical item that
you're focused on heading into this series?
Speaker 2: So this was weird. This This was hard for me,
or harder than it has been in the past when
we've done the tactical side. The narrative side is like
that just comes comes easily. I think. So from the
Thunders side of things, I think you have to be
focused on how they approach Anthony Edwards when he has
the ball, which is a little bit like I think
every Wolve series we've had, I've thrown this out as
some version of like the tactical thing, because that is
just like the threshold issue for going against the Wolves,
because it ties into all of the kind of secondary
questions we have about Minnesota, like will they turn it
over a shit ton if you're sending to it and
he's not reading the defense. Well, he made strides that
way for sure over this postseason run, and if the
turnovers pile up because he regresses, or the Thunder are
just so much faster, more athletic, bigger than any defense
they've seen, Like does that just get the Thunder out running?
They get cheap points that way, and then they hold
you to nothing in half court and that's how they win.
So it has to start with what minies or with
what the Thunder do against Edwards? Who guards him as
the primary assignment. Presumably that's just Ludort, Maybe that's I mean,
I don't know what else. Maybe that's Case and Wallace
in certain stretches, maybe that's Cruso. So I think that's
where you start for them. What do you before I
go the other way on the Thunder, what do you
have for I guess that's Minaci. I guess that's the
Thunder's tactical decision.
Speaker 1: So I had the same one. And the only thing
that I can really add to what you're saying is
how does the way that Julius Randall's been playing for
like the last I don't know, three or four months
impact your approach to going at Anthony Edwards Because if
you throw two to the ball at him and you're
working with Randall off the catch and like getting down
hill or even out of the short role in those situations,
like he's just been making the right decision all the time.
Now it feels like and so if he could punish you?
And I'm wondering, so if you're the Thunder, do you
kind of reserve that approach for maybe only certain lineups?
Or is it? And by certain lineups, I don't even
mean the Thunder personnel, even though I do. But it's
when Rudy Gobert is on the floor that's when we
are going to do that, because we will put let's say,
a small on Rudy. Or maybe you don't want Chet
going on, like you don't want Check going up against Randall.
So if you want to have chet on Rudy to
have him do that. So that's what I'm curious to
see because I think they're gonna my guess would be,
and let me know if you disagree. I think they're
gonna be like they have defenders who can play him
straight up, but they're at their best when they're forcing turnovers,
and like their offense is just better when they don't
have when the other defense. And this is true of
like almost every defense where you're going up against offense.
Excuse me, if you're going up against a set defense
or offense gonna be less efficient. Like when the thunder
generate turnovers are working off these live balls, that's where
they're they're at their best, like their absolute best. And
so if I'm Oklahoma City, I'm at least starting the
series by you don't need to throw the kitchen sink
it at But like I'm really testing his decision making
out of those double teams, those blitzes, those traps.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's pretty it is, like we both kind of
brushed up against it, but it's like it's pretty standard.
Like let's see if anybody besides the primary threat Edwards
can can do anything, because that's been a question over
the course of the season for Minnesota. So you just
you start there, but the way that it spills into
all all of the other potential tactical advantages the thunder
have is like it makes it even more important. I'm
curious what you have as Minnesota's like tactical angle to cover,
because mine is like it wasn't obvious until like a
week or two ago, but now it's like all I
can think about.
Speaker 1: So I have and I'm actually gonna preface it with
this has nothing to do with his defense. I think
there's like a huge misconception that Rudy Gobert becomes a
defense of liability when you downsize. It is possible against
certain matchups. I'm not denying that, but it's more of
a problem on offense if he has to go up
against more of a frenetic defense, and especially like if
the thundered, they won't they probably won't go no big
unless someone's injured. But like the one big lineups for them.
What happens with Minnesota in that regard, because I think
Rudy Gobert is going to be really critical to gumming
up Oklahoma City's half court offense for sure, and so
but if this becomes a series where you know what, Okay,
so he says we're gonna just run a lot of
one big looks. Is this gonna be like a twenty
three to twenty six minute per game Rudy Gobert series,
and then we know how they're gonna fill that, But
how does nas Reed perform? And offensively, sure, you want
like he's gonna help stretch the floor, has the floor
game as well to put it on the deck and
scorenges a variety of ways, but defensively you just you lose.
He's different, he's more versatile, but Rudy Gobert is a
generational defender and no Red is not. And so what
does that look like? Because that's the other question I
have for Minnesota is and a shout out to I
don't know who had this number. I think maybe it
was was it dunked on or was it might have
been Sam Vessini. That the Wolves have played like six
possessions of zone all postseason, and I think part of
that is if you're Rudy Gobert in a drop like
that's kind of like a zone. Yes, yeah, but if
you don't have Rudy Gobert on the floor. Do you
try to go to zone or is that just for
I mean I'm generally asking you is that taboo because
we don't play that normally.
Speaker 2: Well, I'm glad you asked that question because that is
my tactical focal point for the Wolves. Like you know,
they watched Denver by every possible account, like just a
lesser defense than Minnesota, Like from a personnel athleticism size
not Denver's not small, but it's like they just don't
have Like Anthony Edwards is just different than Jamal Murray defensively,
Jade McDaniels is just different than Christian Brown, like you
know what I mean, Like the're so that's the most
fascinating thing to because they watched Denver like actually like
give the thunder and shay real like they didn't stop them.
They lost the series, but it was like Denver performed
defensively far better than expectations even if they had been healthy.
This was like a pretty surprising defensive performance. How much
zone can Minnesota get away with? And to your question,
like will they be like we don't need to do
that because we have the bodies, like and we're not
practiced at it like that's a consideration or if you
incorporate a lot of what the Nuggets did and you
all so just happened to have way bigger, better younger athletes,
Like does that supercharge zone and the Thunder really can't
solve it? Like I don't know, I feel like all
that's on the table. I will say, like I'm not
sure that Minnesota is going to go to that a lot.
I think they should. I think they really should, just
at least as much as Denver did, just just because again,
like I think one concern I would have if I'm
the Wolves is that the Thunder are now the Thunder
like have emerged from a tough series where they like
had to take lumps and figure stuff out, and like
they're comfortable now. Like in a lot of ways, that
Nugget series was one that a team like the Thunder
would lose and view as a stepping stone. Oh, we
got to seven against the multi time MVP with the title.
Next year, we got it. We like absorbed that lesson,
They got the lesson and all that stuff and then
they won. Anyway, so like they don't have to wait
till next year to take the next step. They just
go to the conference finals now, So if you're the Wolves,
I think you have to be concerned that the thunder
are like kind of ready for more weird stuff than
they would have been had Denver not thrown it at him.
But I still think you try. I still think the
zone is like a worthwhile option for the Wolves.
Speaker 1: I don't I guess I just don't see them going
to it because we've seen it so little. But I
guess like we've also seen like if you're gonna go
away from Rudy Gobert. So the other question I had
to just oh, go ahead, did you have a comb I.
Speaker 2: Was gonna say like that, because as you were talking
about Gobert in a drop is kind of like a
mini zone essentially. I wonder if, like, if you're worried
as the Wolves, like, where do we put Gobert because
we definitely want him on the back line if we
can get him there, Like a zone just lets you
a zone, lets you put him where you want him,
Like he just gets to be wherever you want to.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know where would you put Rudy Gobert in?
And by the way, what makes I don't really read
and I'm actually I shouldn't say I don't really, I'm
done with the regular season informing like how these matchups
are gonna go. And I don't think the regular season
is useless. It's just players miss games and coaches save
their best stuff or it's after game one we said,
like you're focused on this one opponent rather than all
twenty nine other teams. But like this this series is
in particular, is weird because remember they played like three
times and what was it ten days or something, and
like Rudy Gobert and Julius Randall each played in one
game I think, right of this set of four.
Speaker 2: So there's no information there, right, what do you.
Speaker 1: Do with and so you're not in his zone and
maybe you don't want to play, Like would you consider
putting Rudy Gobert on dort and saying like you know
what we've seen, Like what does that do to your matchups? Though,
because if Hart and Stint and Holmgrin are then on
the court at the same time as that counterintuitive?
Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't, I don't know. I think that is.
I mean, if you put Gobert on dirt, I think
you I mean, best case, you get the thunder to
like funnel a lot more offense to Dort than they
otherwise would have, and like you you're comfortable with that
as as as the Wolves because like Dort shooting, you know,
he's gonna go one for nine and then he might
go five for nine. But it's like if that means
Shay doesn't have a lot of touches and it's then
that's a win.
Speaker 1: You know, a doub can't get to the basket.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, get right, yeah, because Dort's just hanging in,
hanging around with a foot in the lane the whole time.
That's I you know what, as we talk about all
this stuff, it's like they should try everything. So if
you're like do you think they should do this, the
answer should be like yeah, Just like the question is
like a of percentages, like what percentage of the series
do they do X versus Y versus Z.
Speaker 1: For my runner up for the tactical question, since we
both had the same ones on both ends of the spectrum,
let me throw a bonus one. What do you Julius
Randad's been I would say really good defensively, this like
this playoffs, but when you look at the Warriors and
the Lakers, it feels and he did hold up against
Luco and it's not like Lebron as easy, but the
Thunder just don't have a traditional Oh put Julius Randall
on this type of player. What are you doing with
Julius Randall?
Speaker 2: Then, defensively, I means, doesn't he just guard assuming the
Thunder start Holmegrin and hard Stein? Isn't he just on Holmgren?
Speaker 1: Like I don't know, is that the matchup you want
for him? Well?
Speaker 2: Would you rather have him on Hardenstein? You mean?
Speaker 1: That was kind of my thought, And then I was
also kind of wondering, would like if OKC to like
cross matching, So if they have Ja Dubb on Julius Randall,
they decide, hey, you're gonna get that assignment because we
don't want Chet anywhere near Randall, And I think you
need to have Hartenstein like do the go bet stuff? Yeah,
on Randall? And then does that kind of force the
Wolves to say, oh, you're gonna have to then defend
j Dubb, which, by the way, the way Julius Randald's
defended this postseason. But I just thought it was interesting
because I think I looked at even that Laker series
and maybe it was after I started walking Laker series,
but it was even some of the Laker's best lineups.
It's like, oh, like, no, that makes sense for Julius Randld.
Then with the Dubs, of course it's oh, Draymond makes
a ton of sense for Random And this one, I'm
just like, I guess you'd call it more optionality, but
I'm more curious about what he looks like defensively in
this series?
Speaker 2: Well, what about the other way? Who do you think
the Thunder would prefer to have guard rand Doll?
Speaker 1: I think it's it shouldn't be Chet, right, I just
don't want so let's let's go down the line.
Speaker 2: So like you've got uh, you've got dort On Edwards,
I think you probably have uh, well who guards Jaden?
Speaker 1: Right? Like that's what?
Speaker 2: Or do you put him on Conley? On Conley?
Speaker 1: All right?
Speaker 2: I guess then that maybe opens you up to like
Shay just has to be involved in more pick and
roll defense. Maybe that's more tiring.
Speaker 1: I don't know if McDaniels will be better because you're
not gonna put Julius on mcdal's. I don't think you're
trusting Julius to be like the primary help like that's
not really.
Speaker 2: Yeah, man, there's these matchups.
Speaker 1: Are we are wild because like here's gonna be nuts.
Speaker 2: I know we like, yeah, everyone's like overstating it a
little bit, but like I just don't know what to
expect really, like maybe just matchup wise to down to
like have the Wolves really been tested yet? Like how
how like or are we underrating the Wolves? Like I
don't know how if we're properly raiding the Wolves.
Speaker 1: Think about what you just said, and you're right, but
have the Wolves been tested yet? It's like, well, they
went through Lebron and Luca and then technically Steph and
Jimmy Butler's Warriors and context matters. Luca couldn't move by
the end of that series and Steph didn't play for
most of the other one. But like that's such a
wild thing to say, knowing the team that they was sure.
Speaker 2: And double down the thunder like we all agree, like, man,
they got through a war, but it's like Aaron Gordon
couldn't walk the last game and you know, Porter Junior
just fought through a shoulder and the Nuggets off the.
Speaker 1: Westbrook was like, maybe Okayse's fourth best player then right,
Westbrooks straight.
Speaker 2: Up lost the Nuggets at least one game, So it's
just like we've anointed the thunder of Like I definitely
am falling into the trap of like this was like
a like a meaningful series win for them, like in
the big picture of like how good can the.
Speaker 1: Arrival is what it felt like? Yeah, you've been here,
but this was the playoffer. That series was the playoff run.
Speaker 2: Right now, they're like now they can say like they're tested.
That that's I think that's right. But at the same time,
I'm like, I mean, the the Nuggets had like nobody health.
It just like did was that that big of an arrival?
I think it is, But you know what I mean,
like even they don't come with like one hundred percent
you know, conference finals validation, Like I don't know yet the.
Speaker 1: Final thing here. This could be like the series that
maybe has the like the wildest three point shooting variants
from game to game. When you look at how Okayse
struggled versus Denver, think about Minnesota's had some real duds,
like it was mostly in round one, of course, but
like it would just wouldn't like is there gonna be
a game where they're both just like I don't know,
a combined eight of seventy from three or something.
Speaker 2: Well, and it would be fascinating just the zero and
on edwards like does he take eleven or twelve threes
or is it like, well, I'm getting downhill, like you
know what I mean? Because that a lot of that
has to do with how the Thunder defend, but it
also has to do with just like what is he
what's his preferred first option? You know?
Speaker 1: Uh So here's the question. I think it applies to
each team. I'll go with okay See first. Do they
go more with dual big setups in this series or
one big setups?
Speaker 2: I think okay See will go dul big more because
I still think there's a risk that the Thunder that
I'm gonna mess up so many different teams in players'
names and say things wrong. I guarantee I already have.
But I think they're that as a way to like
head off maybe just losing on the glass against against
the Wolves, because the Wolves are just big, long, athletic,
Like I think you probably need to meet size with size.
Speaker 1: And I think that's right, And if you're Minnesota it
would be the same question. But it's always kind of
it's never just gonna be or very rare. It's gonna
be nas reed and then no Randall, no go bear.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fascinating into.
Speaker 1: How if the Thunder. I think that is best for
the Thunder, but it does sort of play into if
they do that, I think it will make it harder
for them. I don't Their defense is crazy, so I
shouldn't say that. But I think it's better for Minnesota
that way too, because I think it diminishes the likely
that Julius Randall's offense becomes super limiting.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I agree with that.
Speaker 1: We're ready for some storylines.
Speaker 2: Yes, please give me one grant. All right, So continuing
with the ant like giant slayer thing like this would
be a very different but like very meaningful addition to
like here comes the face of the league, because I
do think Minnesota is gonna be underdogs. I haven't seen
the Lions. I just I mean, I would be shocked
if the Wolves, we were favored.
Speaker 1: Played a month ago. By the way, right, it's.
Speaker 2: Been a long time. So this is you've taken down
you know, name your star of this previous generation in succession.
Now it's this team that's like build as maybe the
best era adjusted defense of all time? Like, what do
you got for this one? And if if he performs
well offensively and that's why the Wolves win, it's just like, well,
now what else? What the answer to what else does
he have to do? Is you finish it off in
the finals. But like that would be we would have
to like really readjust where we think Edwards is in
the hierarchy if if he's the reason that they also
just get through this series against this defense. So I'm
excited for that to maybe take shape.
Speaker 1: Yeah, a lot of the whole well how good can
the offense be? Was just built around and even if
it's not elite, it's like, well it got you to
me final.
Speaker 2: It beat the best defense ever. I guess it was
good enough.
Speaker 1: So I have three storylines that I'll go through in
quick succession. And these are fun because it allows us
to just go after the low hanging fruit, the one
you mentioned. Yeah, of course I'll stick with Anthony Edwards
and say I don't like you don't say this about
Shay and then like it's just not like Jokic being
a big man. It's not something you're gonna it's not
something you would say about him, like when you're going
through Superstars now, so doesn't feel like we don't have
the conversation of this is a star that would say no,
I want to check this guy in crunch time and
Anthony Edwards, I feel like, will not bey on shake
gilches Alexander a lot of the time, but will he
guard him in like the moments that matter.
Speaker 2: I don't know about the Yeah, like if you're thinking
thunderneath a bucket, it's the last possession, Like I don't know.
I think you probably just.
Speaker 1: Going to be the default and maybe even that's the
by the way, that's the other storyline Nikkeil Alexander Walker
versus Shay Gilders Alexander. I need the Shay stopper, Yeah,
the Shae stopper. So I know we'll see naw on him,
will see Jane. I like, I just want to see
Anthony Edwards versus Shake Gilda Alexander.
Speaker 2: What I'm really sure of, uh and excited by is
there will be possession like super high tension possessions where
Edwards is matched up with Shay and you know he's
gonna be like deep in a stance like they're gonna
have zoomed in looks on his face where he's just
like hyper intense. It will happen, definitely, and it'll be
really exciting. The crowd will definitely like notice it and
like get pretty buzzy. I bet I hope, I hope.
I hope it happens late in the games. I hope
we see clutch possessions with those two.
Speaker 1: Uh, the other two I have this one's like we're
already here. So it's not that whoever wins this does it.
But like the the era is changing in the NBA
at this point, but like this is the series that
signals passing of the torch Rich Anthony Edwards Shake in
the West anyway, Shake gives Alexander, Like these are the
newer age stars and like Shay Gills, Alexander's been there
for a minute. So it was Anthony Edwards, but we're
so just conditioned to seeing Oh, like even Luca is
only twenty five or whatever, but yeah, he's had these
killer playoff games and he's mentioned when it alongside the
old heads like Kevin Durant and Steph Curry and Lebron James.
Now he's teammates with one of them. Like this is
just this is new, Like this is just like this,
this proves it, Like this is the I mean, it
was going to happen, but it's like, no, we're here,
like the Warriors are gone, the Lakers are gone. Neither
of us really expected them to be here anyway, but like, no,
this happened. Is here, not even jokicch is here. The
thunder took them down while being less than perfect. Kudos
to Denver, of course. That's like I don't want to
say I appreciate all high level basketball and all the storylines,
but it's is it surreals like it feels a little
just like oh, like this is it just feels like
a landmark moment.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, because Aunt or Shay will be in the
finals like that's and it's not like you don't and
that would feel kind of the same, I think, Whereas
if it were uh Jokic or Aunt, it would be
like those are two very different me. I always I
want to see like greats be great and I want
to see the dynasties go, and I would just be like,
I hope Yokic makes another finals and like for different
reasons that I would want to see Ant make it.
But these two it's like either way you're getting like
just a giant flashing neon sign that like think things
done changed, Like we got we got some new we
got some new sheriffs in town. I guess.
Speaker 1: The other one I like talk about is about how
once a Nick, always a Nick players are really just
defining the NBA postseason. So we're gonna have take you
twenty minutes to get there. Yeah, Isaiah Hartenstein or Julius
rand will be in the NBA finals. Obi Toppin is
in the conference finals in the East.
Speaker 2: Can the Knicks get it? Will we have a former
Nick champion? No matter what?
Speaker 1: Yeah? Won't. Won't we Obi Toppin Isaiah Hartenstein champion?
Speaker 2: I guess yeah, that's a what a time? What a time? Dan.
Speaker 1: Here's my actual main storyline. It's it's the cookie cutter
one that we have to add is just kind of
assessing the stakes, like which team would you expect to
react more towards a loss here? And it's it's interesting.
It's not Oklahoma City. I think that they could have
lost the Denver series and Sam Presti would have been like,
we're not trading every pick to get you, honest or something.
The Wolves are interesting because of the financial crunch because
of the ownership change. But they've lost ownership at least
has lost cover to play the financial like you could
play it. Fans aren't gonna bide in the size, like
the Wolves aren't better off without Julius Randal at this point, right, Yeah,
very clear, And like that's kind of the other storyline
is they made that was a controversial trade, not for
the Knicks, for the Wolves, and now they're here, and
so are they gonna They've ripped reaped the fruits of
it so far, but is it gonna get them to
the finals? And if it doesn't, what does that mean?
How do they look at investing in Nasria, Julius Random, Kae,
Alexander Walker specifically, I think ideally, if you're a Wolves fan,
I think you root for Randall and reed to opt
in and then extend off those numbers, or you're rooting
for them to opt out and sign longer deals in
Randall's case that are worth substantially less on an average
annual basis. Because I don't think reads it about fifteen
million next year. I don't think he's coming in lower
than that.
Speaker 2: I wouldn't think, so. I think you're right that the
Wolves would be the team to react if they were
to lose this, but that's almost because they just just
the way that their books are, there's just more opportunity
to react because they have like real decisions and uncertainties
just with you guys mentioned all the guys read Randall,
et cetera. Whereas the Thunder it would be like, what's
our blockbuster trade we're pulling off? You know, like that,
And honestly, like, for me, this is something I've kind
of come to feel pretty strongly about in this postseason
for some reason. Maybe I'm just like tired of the churn.
But it's like, I don't think either of these teams,
whoever wins, whoever loses, Wolves Thunder, however the loss happens,
if it's like a sweep, I don't know, maybe that's
something you think about, but like they're both obviously the
Thunder are like so stupidly good that you almost like
if you made them better somehow by through a transaction,
it would almost be like accidental, because you like can't
there's like no.
Speaker 1: There's no shortening their window. It would certainly be right.
Speaker 2: It's like che GPT make me a sixty eight win team.
They'd be like impossible. That's as good as a team
can be, basically, so there's no changes to be made.
The Wolves are a little different, but like the way
they've played. I saw a stet. They're twenty five and
five like since at some point in March, and it's like, Okay,
that's the title contender March.
Speaker 1: Don't mess it up. It all matters again, Grant, just.
Speaker 2: Don't mess it up. In either case, don't mess these
teams up.
Speaker 1: I will say I am interested because it kind of
already started. I won't not that I'm acknowledging it. I'm
not gonna give it too much credence, but I kind
of saw the should the J Dub Is he really
just a no brainer max extension candidate like start to
crop up? The answer is yes, yeah, and especially for
the Thunder. I don't mean to invoke this, but the
Thunder franchise can't afford to, like, look at what happened
with James Hard And I'm not saying they were gonna
trade J Dub, but like, no, you don't. You don't
do this again. So I don't think the Thunder think
any way. I don't think they're fans or even their
media members the one'll calling for, but nationally that started
to bubble to the surface. At the surface, I would
just like to pump the brakes, like no Ja dubb
is getting a max extension this summer and that's okay, right, yeah.
Speaker 2: Everyone, it's fine. He's really good. He's not perfect, he's
good enough. One other narrative thing for on the thunder
side is, you know, it has to be about the
defense just because of all the hyperbole that's been thrown
around about it all a season. But like I don't know,
I you mentioned like the road that they went through
to get here. I really feel like this is a
chance for this defense to show that it can, like
you know, overwhelm is the word. I think the Thunders
defense overwhelms, and I would like to see if that
holds true against an opponent that maybe isn't the best
offense that they've ever faced or will face, but is
like on the on a similar level just athletically and
like size wise, and it's like, you know, Edwards is
as good an athlete as anybody in the league, let
alone on okay, see, and there's just a hint, you know,
McDaniels is like can be overwhelming too, and is his
own way. Randall just goes went through Draymond Green like
no problem for a whole series. So, like, I'm interested
to see if the Thunders defense can look so imposing
and just like just unsolvable against a really big athletic opponent.
I think that's that's exciting.
Speaker 1: Are you ready to get to some X factors? Sure,
give me which team you want to start with.
Speaker 2: I will go with the I'll go with the Wolves.
This is hard because like we're at the stage of
the playoffs where there are no real deep cuts, I
don't think, because like.
Speaker 1: The have like ten guys basically average on least fifteen
minutes a game or something, and they have eight or
nine whatever it is. It's up there. Sure.
Speaker 2: So I'm just looking at the graphic now for anybody
that's watching on YouTube, I could I have an idea
where you're leaning for the Thunder, But like so for
the Wolves, I'm gonna go with Randal. And that has
more to do with the fact that, like all of
my priors are on Randall, or that he is not
a winning player and he comes up the offense and
he does all this stuff, and like the reason I
have that opinion is because it was a fair assessment
of his career for most of it and then he's
been but he's also been undeniably awesome in this postseason
and was a huge reason that the Wolves got through
the Warriors as easily as they did. So, like, that's
the definition of an X factor. Even though he's a
great player, has made all NBA teams, but it's like,
I don't know which guy is gonna show up, and
I think that really matters for a Wolves team that
is gonna need that second creator next to Ant against
the defense that's just gonna I think will do well
in making it hard for him.
Speaker 1: I think that's a good pick for Minnesota. I think
I'm gonna go with nas Reed just because I want
to see, like, if they have to go to those
change of looks in the front court, what does that
do their defense overall? What does that do to their rebounding?
I think? And I wonder if so, let's say the
thunder don't even force this, well, I guess they it
would still be then forcing this change. But if Minnesota's offense,
which I still just don't trust, Like, dude, you trust
their defense more in their offense right, Like, that's yeah.
Speaker 2: The offense is just you mentioned it. The turnovers and
the three point variants is just like it's baked in.
That is just part of the Wolves makeup.
Speaker 1: And so like, if you're just struggling against this defense,
if you're trying to tilt Okac in so far as
you can even do that, non Asri going to those minutes,
what does that look like? And so I see him
as kind of that X factor. But I also want
to nominate Dante DiVincenzo because you talk about the three
point variants. That is the only guy on this roster
that just bombs threes. Yeah, like, and so you bring
him in and that could if you're having a rough
offensive night, or if Okac is winning the possession battle,
Dante Devincenzo can single handed to keep you in games
because of the way that he when he's on a heater.
Speaker 2: If he gives you like the five of nine or
the five of eight night, and you're just like that,
that's a game the Wolves gotta win because because you know,
he can make a huge difference in a short stint
for OKC.
Speaker 1: I ultimately thought I was Galaxy branding it by picking
Cason Wallace, who was just like you ever watched him
and we said this after like what he was a rookie,
But I find myself saying it more than the playoffs,
just like yeah, okay, soy did it again. Remember we
weren't thrilled about like that Case and Wallace trade down
that they did.
Speaker 2: And we likely right and the on.
Speaker 1: Ball speed for him. But I was gonna pick him
because I think that they might throw him on Randall
a bunch of this year, just because you want to
insulate chet, especially if it's like a one big thing,
and then like Alex Caruso, will be free to do
other stuff. So I was going to pick him, but
I ultimately went with Aaron Wiggins because one, we were
both contractually and morally obligated to do so, but also
two we just spent a lot of time about talking
how Okase's offense did go through these points where they
were struggling a bunch against Denver and even if Jay
Dubb is on, like you just need that third guy
who can go get a bucket, The only answer to
me on this roster is Aaron Wiggins. Like, if you
want shooting, it's Isaiah Joe. And I also find myself
thinking that if I'm Marc Dagno, maybe it's a game
by game decision, but I might tether myself to one
of Isaiah Joe or Aeron Wiggins. I know Isaia Joe
wasn't playing like that. The Nugget series wasn't a series
for him. But it's like, don't even eat, Like if
it's Aaron Wiggins getting twenty five minutes a game instead
of like trying to sprinkle in some Isaiah Joe, just
lean into that. And so I think because my biggest
concern about okay see in this series is what does
the offense look like, especially if Minnesota ends up being
aggressive with Shay or if they just if Jay Dubb's
having a bad night, it's it's gonna be Aaron Wiggins
for me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think the series will tell Dagnault like
which guy has called for you know, just depending on
how the Wolves are defending, Like do we need spot
up shooting and a guaranteed charge drum then we play
Isaiah Joe Or do we need like someone to go
attack the basket because things are getting scrambled, then Jay.
Speaker 1: Will to come in and punch somebody or something.
Speaker 2: Yeah, right, you need to come in and grab people.
So my underthink X factor is just is just Jada,
because like can you can you be the It's it's
the singular question we have about him now, like can
you just be the second scorer? We don't need to
belabor it. We've talked about her all year. He had
was on and off. I think it's fair to say
in the in the Denver series, I think I'm just
gonna go Caruso because even he feels like an underthink.
But it's just like he changed Game seven, like by
being able to defend Yokich, and I don't want care
to talk about the fouls that were weren't called whatever.
He he is a level of defender that in a
certain amount of time can just like wreck a game
and like the Thunder over index on those type of guys.
But if he can come in and guard Randall, I
don't know, like he prove to me he can't, or
like maybe he is the best guy for Edwards, I
don't know, like prove to me that's not true. So
I think how much he plays is really going to
be interesting to me. And then who he actually like
who did the Thunder say, like you Okay, we have
Alex Caruso. We have this like missile that we can
aim at somebody, Like who's our first target? Right, Like
is it just edwards or do you throw them on?
I don't know, I like I think and will he be, Like,
there's no guarantee he's gonna be as impactful as he
was in previous series because like, if Alex Cruso could
do that all the time over large stretches of minutes,
he'd be a max player. Like but he right, but
he doesn't, so he's not and that's why he's not getting.
Speaker 1: Freeze and the Thunder offense is off, like that becomes
something that.
Speaker 2: Could he be played off the floor if it's like
we have to play Isaiah Joe because Cruso is not
scoring like we have.
Speaker 1: That's so wild. It's sort of like similar to Rudy Gobert.
But it's it's and it's similar too because it's not
the defense here, because like Alex Crusso can't be played
off defensively just like Rudy Gobert, but offensively he probably could.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean that's that's another key is that if
the Thunder can just run enough and get transition stuff
off the defense. Then it doesn't really matter if Caruso
is not like shooting well from three or whatever, because
they'll just generate points that way. But if the Wolves
defend well and they don't turn it over, then you
are probably gonna need shooting if you're the Thunder. Like
that's a that's a knee that they have. So Crusoe
may not be the answer in that hypothetical.
Speaker 1: I will say, I love Alex Caruso on the Thunder,
but shame on the rest of the NBA for letting
that happen out ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Talk about overkill the team that needs him least in
the whole world. Grant talk predictions to me, I am
gonna go Thunder in seven. Uh, if it's a short series, obviously,
I think I think the Thunder would win it. I
don't see the Wolves winning a short series, so I'm
just trying to I think the Thunder it's it's like
six point two games, I think. So I'm just gonna
go seven for the Thunder and give Minnesota like a
like a nice little like hey, acknowledgement, you guys are
are really good.
Speaker 1: Right, I'm going Minnesota in seven as well.
Speaker 2: I was te Wait, you're going Minnesota in seven?
Speaker 1: Sorry? Okay, see in seven. I apologize to it. Honestly,
you should just flip what I say because I went
one in three in the second round. I almost went
oh and if the Thunder would have lost Game seven,
I would have went oh and four for my two.
Speaker 2: It's fine.
Speaker 1: I'm going with seven because the Timberwolves have the stats
have told us all watching them, I feel this is
one of the thing where the numbers don't align with
the eye tests and it actually hurts the team. Where's
the numbers say they're better than the eye test does.
But it's like they got up for elite teams. They're
now on this tear for the past like two and
a half months, whatever it is. So I could they
win this series? Sure, I'm tempted to think that the
Thunder could end it in five or six because of
the talent and versatility alone. But like relative to what
we come to expect from playoff rotations, both of these
teams are deep. Both of them can be versatile and
playing a bunch of different ways. I'm excited. I'm hoping
this series goes to the difference because we just spent
over thirty minutes talking about it, and that wasn't the plan.
Like it's just so fascinating from a matchup and stylistic perspective.
Excuse me, I can't talk, but yeah, I'm gonna go
Thunder in seven. It wouldn't shock me though, like you could.
That's the thing about If you told me Thunder in five,
I'd be like, yeah, but like you tell me the
Wolves won this yeraries, I'd also be like, okay, yeah,
like you very rarely, I would have been legitimate and
I was wrong about this. If you were told me
the Nuggets were gonna beat the Thunder, I would have
been legitimately surprised by the end of that series. No,
like that was this one you could talk me into,
like basically, like with the Thunder's own variants, if you
told me it was like Wolves in five or six,
I'd give pushback, but I'd be like, you know, like
I came out of that Denver series feeling both better
and worse about the Thunder.
Speaker 2: So I agree, Yeah, I agree.
Speaker 1: We're here to talk about the Eastern Conference Finals between
the Indiana Pacers and the New York Knicks. Neither team
do either of us have any allegiance to luckily. So
this is gonna be a completely unbiased podcast or segment,
mini pod whatever. Primer, Grant, how do you feel about
this series before we dive in.
Speaker 2: I just wish we had two teams with a little
more history between them, like maybe some that like were
incredibly formative to my basketball youth. Just too bad that
it's only the Knicks and Pacers.
Speaker 1: So when the Knicks went up three to one on
the Celtics, I think it's I don't know what Keshawn
Johnson's on is if Fox is at ESPN, Like, I'm
just not consuming those He had this segment where he
was talking about how the Pacers will be intimidated to
win a Game seven at Madison Square Garden if it
comes to that, and so one, I was like, let's
not like they haven't won the series yet, and then
they went on to get trucked in Game five and
so like they drinked it. But the other thing was,
and I know the Knicks were banged up, and there
are people that got mad at me on social media
for pointing this out. They already won a Game seven
at MSG and so it's not about I'm not saying
that the Pacers are going to like annihilate the Knicks,
but they're not going to be intimidated. Right, Hey, there's
a place for like that. That's why we do the
storyline part of this. So for anyone who's new, some
tactical questions are storylines, X factors, predictions. But I was
just shocked at and I look, I put my fandom
hat on from time to time too, Like there's just
a level of a rationality that even when I was
super nix pilled, that I don't think I ever displayed.
And it was just like, and you're being sensitive because
you're responding to us, and it's like, well, I'm trying
to have a discussion and you're just saying that I'm
sensitive to you disagreeing. So it was it's just that's
that type of series. These teams have histories from the nineties.
I really hope Larry Johnson's in attendance for every single game,
and I just want them to play the four point
play over and over again.
Speaker 2: Well, just let's get into it, because this one is
this one's ripe.
Speaker 1: So let's begin, as always with our tactical questions. Grant,
I will let you begin with whichever side of the offense,
you would like.
Speaker 2: I'll, I guess get like a lot of these they
kind of have a half one foot on one team
and one and the other. So from Indies side, it's
very clear that the Pacers can become sort of unmanageable
if they are able to run and get the pace going.
That's both as a transition team, but they you know,
they apply a lot of pressure on defense and they
play quickly on offense, make quick decisions, get the ball moving,
all that stuff. It's just like it's almost like ridiculous
that they are the Pacers and pace matters so much
for them just in general. But like the sacrifice is
you're gonna you can't really control the boards if you're
always running, and like that's the goal. So are they
gonna be able defensively to keep the Knicks from getting
three four cracks at it on the offensive glass? And
that's very Mitchell Robinson specific. But I just Indy wants
to play a certain way, and I wonder how easy
that's gonna be if you're also being sort of mindful,
and you're gonna have to be more than mindful. You're
gonna to be very committed to getting defensive rebounds and
just sort of I guess that slows the game down too,
But that's kind of the dynamic I think is most
interesting to me because the Knicks don't mind playing fast either,
but they just have this massive advantage of offensive rebounding
that the Pacers got to figure out.
Speaker 1: And I think what's also interesting about the Pacers offense there,
it's not just about them playing fast in the full court.
Their half court offense is really fast. Yeah, And that's
it sort of bleeds into like one of my tactical
questions because we were talking about matchups and like should
the Knick continue to switch because they were able to
do it against Boston and what Indy does And Kaitln
Cooper's written about these a bunch like dating back to
the days of Buddy Heal, which totically wasn't too long ago.
Like the ghost screens that the Pacers do, the Knicks
are just not wired to defend those very well. And
I think in those situations you would probably prefer to switch,
right or no, am I wrong? And it's I guess
it depends on is it happening like from the strong
side corner, whereas it you.
Speaker 2: Just sorry, you just illustrated why the Pacers are hard
to guard because you're not even being screened or got
screened right now, and you're like, should you switch?
Speaker 1: But should you?
Speaker 2: I don't know, Like maybe if you hesitate, your lost
if you're there.
Speaker 1: Right, And so that's what makes them so difficult to defend.
And so I don't the Knicks played. Look, Boston misshots
throughout that series that they know, especially at the beginning
before Jason Tatum got hurt. I don't think the Knicks
got that's playoff basketball. And I think what's very interesting
about this matchup, which I think is why this one
more so than Finch versus Dagnault in Okay se Minnesota,
it's not an insult to them. Like Rick Carlyle will
make these offensive adjustments, and I think that Joe Mizzoula
will make a bunch of defensive adjustments, but he decided
that if the Celtics were gonna go down, they were
gonna go down mostly with their tried and true offensive identity.
The Pacers will just try a bunch of different shit, right,
And can the Knicks defense react to more of that?
I do not know. And I think that gets into
I know you said you want to talk about some
of the specific matchups, I'll throw this question to you.
The caveat that the regular season is the regular season.
The Knicks weren't at full strength all the time. I
think the Pacers weren't at full strength some of those matchups.
The Pacers have not gone the route of we are
gonna put let's say, Miles Turner on Josh Hart. But
I'm just kind of like the Knicks when that is,
when a big is guarding Josh Hart, they have Josh
Hart screen. That means Karl Anthony Towns is not. And
I just view that as a fundamental win for their
defense because, like one Kaitlin Cooper of basketballs Road had
the stats on this, if you look at Karl Anthony
Towns as like points in the half court per one
hundred posessons or whatever it was she used, when he's
guarded by a guard, it drops precipitously from when he's
defended by a big, which is wild. I think it's
a confluence of things. It's it's definitely on Towns, but
the Knicks aren't putting him the ball in these advantageous positions.
And also because he's not an actual advantage creator. The
Knicks have one of those everybody campaign doesn't count, but
cal Bridges doesn't count. This version of Ogianninobe doesn't count.
It's Jeleen Brunton. But like, if you're the Pacers, shouldn't
you go to that well more often? Or are you
kind of thinking no, like we're we're not gonna do that.
Speaker 2: Well, I just wonder, like I guess with with the
exception of like Halliburton, you don't want Haliburton on Brunson.
Everybody's like, oh, he's so good. On tied Jerome, It's like, okay,
let's let's let's walk it back a little bit. You
figure so that that's like you're not doing that, But
otherwise do you want to just kind of go straight
up positionally? Like is that actually viable? You know? So,
like I guess it's Nie Smith probably that guards Brunson
or I or or maybe it's n M Hard although
like I think I don't know what the numbers are,
but you certainly in running up to this series have
heard plenty about how Brunson like has no issue with
them hart as good a defender as he is, So
maybe that's Niesmith. But then it's like you just have
Kat on Turner and then you just have like just
go down the line siakam guards, I guess og and
then I guess if it's Niesmyth or em Hard that's
your bridges. Guy, Like, I don't know, Like I think
a lot feels very unsettled about how these teams are
gonna match up because to your point, like the smart
move would seem to be, like, yeah, just put Turner
on Heart for example, because then Heart's not gonna shoot,
and then he can sag off and defend the rim
and Okay, so now he's gonna be involved in the
screening action. Like there's a lot of push and pull
matchup wise that I think even independent really right of
like is it Nie Smith or Emhard that gets the
bruntson assignment because and that's a very threshold issue, like
can either of them slow him down limit him somehow?
But but like I just don't know what the what
the what the matchups are gonna look like in this series,
and I don't feel confident in even like guessing.
Speaker 1: Would you agree if I were the Pacers looking at
the Brunton matchups specifically, I think I would put an
Esmith on him, and it's not necessarily because Brunton has
had success in the past against Nemhart even though he
has but I kind of like the idea of Nemhard
being able because then who does Nemhart gonna guard after that?
And I'm gonna tell you it doesn't matter because he'll
just have the like Michale Bridges are og going at
Nemhart if that's what they go, I mean, or if
you put what if you if you're gonna stick big
to big, you put Nemhart on Josh Hart, then all
of a sudden he's the roamer. Yeah, that's kind of
terrifying to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean he could Yeah, that's.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I I mean we okay, let's let's let's hammer it out,
like who actually if it's well, who's your first choice
to put on Josh Hart?
Speaker 1: If I'm the Pacers, you're the Pacers.
Speaker 2: What do you think is gonna work best? Give you
the most options, give you the most advantages.
Speaker 1: I think gets Turner on heart because of the trickle
down effect that has on Karl Anthony Towns' offense so far.
Does that make sense? It's not about like, oh okay, now,
Turner can say I go, oh yeah, that's totally part
of it, or maybe you can even decide. But I
mean Karlnthony Towns had some real success against like when
he was being defended by Biggs against the Pacers this year,
I think it's turner. I love the idea of just
like oh Neie Smith is on Brunton and Andrew Nemhart
is like kind of flying all over the place. That's
tantalizing and you could definitely go to it for stretches,
but I think the goal should be like Jalen Brunson,
for the most part is always gonna find a way.
I don't mean that as a cliche, like he will
get to the foul line if he's not making shots, like,
he will find a way. And it's if you can
take Carl Anthony Towns. He's inconsistent as it is, and
if like if you give him more of a series
that he had like against the Celtics offensively, like that's
a huge win for the Pacers.
Speaker 2: My last tactical thing because you just made me think
of it and now I want to mention it is like,
so it's funny. That's like I think I agree with
you that turner on heart makes sense, But I was
also thinking like, could it just be Haliburton and he
just gets to kind of chill and it's like, well, no,
because he's gonna get called into every on ball screen
for Brunston and get switched on to him, and then
Brunson will go at him. So the broader tactical thing
is like what kind of stomach do the Pacers have
for Haliburton getting moved on to Brunson in isolation? Because
you know the Knicks are gonna hunt that. It's just
like how difficult can you make it as Indiana? And
then how much do you trust Haliburton to like withhelp obviously,
but to like hold up for a couple of those
like I don't know like it because you would agree
that the Knicks are gonna look for that, right, Like
you got to pick at Haliburton however you can, right.
Speaker 1: But they sometimes I feel like they can get like
Haliburton's pretty long, and so I feel like sometimes the
Knicks can get caught up or Brunson specifically, it's like
it's too mismatch hunting, and like that might play into
the PACER's hands because the other thing is is that
if Haliburton ends possessions on Jeleen Brunson, that like there
could be some cross matching awkwardness then at the other end,
and if you have because they're I'm sure Haliburton's gonna
look for Brunton at the other side of the florn
if you don't even need a ball screen to do it. Yeah,
that's going to be even better for that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's really the key is like both of these
point guards are gonna try to involve the other point
guard and as many actions as they possibly can on
both ends because that's just like that's the soft spot
that that's where you have to go.
Speaker 1: What do you make of like the big man situation
in this series? So we know Siakaman Turner play a
bunch together. If you're the Knicks, does that give you
more like are you more inclined to then give Mitch
Robinson and Karl anky Towns, which was a successful bearing
in the last round run together? Or is it because
of the nature of those where it's like al Horford's
older Christos Porsing is like dealing with a major illness
like Pascal Siakam's almost a guard at points is a
big and the tear also stretches the floor, so I
think they just pose there, I would say in net
right now, especially that version of the Celtics, this front
court is more dynamic than Boston's. And so does that
give you like, I mean, we just I'm sure you
saw the one Mitchell Robinson was fantastic, but the game six,
can you play like fifteen minutes, but there's that one
play where he guarded six of the five Celtics.
Speaker 2: Right right right? Well that so turn Robinson was the
first guy I thought of as you're talking about like
the Pacers two front cork guys, is like, I'm not
super comfortable, like I hope Josh hart Well no, see,
oh I just did it. I was like, I hope
Josh Hartson the game. So Mitchell Robinson has somewhere to hide,
like that would be a guard r ok.
Speaker 1: If Mitchell Robinson is defending Josh hart I feel like
that's a win for the Pacers.
Speaker 2: Then it's then you can fire up the fire tips
chance because he's lost it. If that's what, no, Like,
I don't know where Mitchell Robinson goes. And if you
have Siaka Man Turner on the floor right, because one
or the other can get him away from the basket,
and then you're just kind of you lose some of
your rebounding clout that way. Like, I don't love him
on either of those guys. Is there of those two?
I mean, I guess, I guess he guards well if
it's a one big look, then he just is on Turner,
I guess. But if if it's Robinson and Kat, what
do you do with that?
Speaker 1: I would I'm defaulting to just because them Hard is
too good on the ball and defaulting to the Turner
for Mitchell Robinson anyway, And if Turner's gonna end up
beating you from three, you either suck it up or
you make adjustments from there, I think, but that would
be the way to go. But then that leaves you
with con Anthony Towns on Siakam. I don't, I don't know,
I don't.
Speaker 2: I don't love that. I you know what, he just
fouled him twice as zero saying that.
Speaker 1: Which makes me think that this could be more of
a one big series for the Knicks. But I don't know,
because when Robinson's.
Speaker 2: So valuable to like the way the Knicks win, right, like,
doesn't he feel like a key piece.
Speaker 1: No, I mean there aren't they boarding. I think it's
like forty percent of their is a stupid number, so
like by the and that's an advantage because that's another
sort of tactical question. Is the Knicks are just bad.
This is true for most defenses, with like the exception
of the Thunder. I think statistically their defense has been
better after they've missed shots on offense, which is weird.
I might be wrong there, but I'm pretty sure. I
remember looking at I was like, there's no way and
minu as you look at the Thunder person, I was like,
that probably just makes a little bit sense. But the
thing with the Knicks is they need to get their
defense set. And I almost look at like Karl Anthony
Town's camp be an X factor because he's too prominent,
but the things he does that frustrate I think to
ever live in fuck out of any basketball fan, is
he misses a three and then we'll like lolly gag
back in tra and he's his legs are just so long.
It just it looks like he's struggling to run all
the time.
Speaker 2: He's an awkward runner. Can we can call it out?
Speaker 1: And which that's like a physiological thing he's not responsible
for when he misses a shot at the rim or
even makes one and like is complaining about a non
call or is just slow to get back up the floor.
The Pacers are gonna push after a make and so
like you just I'm almost wondering, like this, Karl Anthony
Towns need to shoot a ton of threes just so
he's already halfway back by the time the Pacers get
the ball, and we just know Carlic Towns doesn't really
like or is it wired to shoot a ton of threes.
But that's why I think the due a big setup
has to be important because I think with Mitchell Robinson
on the court, as counterintuitive as it sounds offensively, I
think he still gives you the best chance to go
up against Indy as a set defense.
Speaker 2: Yep, I think he's a huge I'll just I'll jump
on it and we can circle back around. He's just
Robinson is the X factor, like maybe not just for
the Knicks, but like for the series, like can he
play at all? And like also does he just swing
the series? If he like it's it's all on the table.
Speaker 1: So why would you be worried about him not being
able to play, I guess is my court.
Speaker 2: It's just if Indy is too fast, is too spaced out,
it's just like he he can't leverage his advantages on
the boards or defensively because he's just when he's tired
and or I mean to say nothing of like maybe
they foul him and then that's one reason he can't
play well. Who knows what percentage he's going to be
shooting on those hack of free throws, but like it
just can't. I can see a scenario where the Pacers
have their way with like just like determining the turn
ter of engagement, Like we're gonna play at this pace,
We're gonna spread you out this much, and you just
are not gonna be able to be like the big
hulking figure that controls the boards and and like is
you know, defending the rim like we just we're gonna
be moving too fast and too much for that to happen.
Or does is he the one that kind of dictates,
like you know, the the tone or the pace of
the game, or like forces Indiana to have to go
hit the boards instead of run like that kind of thing.
Like I just I keep circling back to that as like,
maybe that's overthinking it because it's like it's Mitchell Robinson.
He's like the sixth most important Knicks player maybe, but
like in this series it matters.
Speaker 1: He was the second most important Knicks player last series.
That's the thing, like it can it can skew that
much the this isn't This could be an X factor,
but I don't have a specific name to it. It's
more of a question to you because I have two
more notes on the tactical thing. Who needs to if
If we know that Conty Cows is just going to
be up and down, which is true of any secondary
Knicks offensive option, I think it stands to reason he'll
be even more up and down if the Pacer do decide, hey,
we're putting Myles Turner on Josh Hart. Who's more important
to the Knicks offense in this series? McHale Bridges or
og Ananobi.
Speaker 2: My gut is a Bridges because I think Anonoby is
just gonna have Siakam on him, and that's like not
an advantage matchup, you go at. Although that's fun. Former
teammates just thought about that storyline. It's storyline. It's not
even in my narratives file because it seems like I
guess if Nie Smith is on Bridges, then it's kind
of like, well, he's got a good defender on him too.
But if it's nim Hard, there's just like he's got
a little more size, a little more length, his spacing
will matter. It's a close question, though I can tell
you why you asked it, but I would lean Bridges.
Speaker 1: I think that's right in part because Bridges is and
I don't necessarily love this all the time because he's
always going away from the basket after he goes downhill.
But og Ananoby is if he's taking those types of shots,
you know it's a win for the Pacers defense, Whereas
if Bridges is taking them, is the outcome always great? No,
but it's by design and you feel more comform with
him doing it. And as Lebron and Steve Nash just
talked about, like the mid range game, like it becomes
really important you can drive and pull up. That's a
really important skill in the playoffs.
Speaker 2: Remember us analyzing a lot of suns postseason stuff a
couple of years ago, and it's like, what if the
mid range stuff is just like that's that's gonna work.
Math matters, Yes, right the math bottom.
Speaker 1: By the way, it might matter here because Indy is
generally like when you're just looking at and this is
part of the pace at which they play, but when
you're looking at them being able to win the possession battle.
So there, they've taken eight hundred and sixty shots in
the playoffs so far and their opponents have taken Oh wow,
they've actually lost the shot attempt battle. But if Indy's
gonna win the possession battle, that brings into question, like
the Knicks's secondary offense is Okay, you're gonna need Towns
to shoot more threes, or you're gonna need more consistency.
Because doesn't it always this is anecdotal, I want to
make it clear. Does it always feel like the Knicks
never have three or four of their four best offensive
players going at once. It's always Jalen Brunson plus may
be one guy.
Speaker 2: If that, yeah, well, I think there's just not enough room.
The way they play offense. It's just like you're gonna
get one guy maybe if you're lucky, but like Brunson
has the ball so much that it's like there's just
not enough, not enough to go around.
Speaker 1: Natural segue into my final tactical question, Thank you, Grant.
How much do we see Jalen Brunson off the ball
this series? And I'm asking that because one, we did
see it against the Celtics, but two and I do
think that's a nice little wrinkle to just have in
your offense. But also the Pacers are just gonna defend
for a full ninety four feet a lot of the time,
and that's really taxing on Brunson to go through. Josh
Hart's basically their second point guard. When you're looking at
the like, I know campaign and Douce McBride exists, but
if you look at having him bring up the ball
more or is it because the Pacers are giving you
so much pressure? It's not. We'd like to give Jalen
Brunton a different look and some you know, in game
breaks so to speak, that don't evolve going to the bench.
But is that just not an option against the pressure
that Indy will be able to bring or will bring.
Speaker 2: I kind of well, I kind of think it's not
an option to mess around if you're the Knicks with
having someone else bring it up if Brunson's on the floor,
with some exceptions, just because like he's gonna have to
work his ass off to go get it in the
half court after ten seconds have elapsed because of the pressure.
And then that just like doesn't feel like a recipe
for offensive success for the Knicks. Like you know that
you can see this. You've seen this particular Knicks possession
a thousand times, and I always talk about it because
it's like funny whenever it happens. But if Brunson doesn't
bring it up, like half the possession is devoted to
him running around trying to get it back so and
run something. So like I guess maybe if you just
if you could know that the energy expenditure of bringing
the ball up against pressure was greater than working to
get it back in the half court, then okay, don't
have him bring it up. But like, I don't know
that there's like unless Indiana is just like not committed
to this and not conscientious about it and not like
really disciplined, I don't know that there's gonna be a
way for Brunson to have like an easy, you know
quarter in this series, just because like the Pacers have
to make so that's almost impossible.
Speaker 1: Is there. And I guess because we talked about Mitchell Robinson, Like,
could is this a Mitchell Robinson series? There any of
the pacers? Like when you look at how deep their
rotation is stretched? Is they have nine guys? Yeah, only
more than ten minutes a game in the playoffs and
they have I think eight playing more than fifteen? Are
there any of like there? And I think you look
at they're starting five, it's just okay, this is a
serious for all of them. But when it's Ben mcmatherin,
TJ McConnell will be topping like and then Ben Sheppard
and jarifs Walker on the margin of course, Like, are
any of their regularly used guys do you look at
them and say, well, maybe this might be a series
where we see their minutes get chopped.
Speaker 2: I think of the regulars, I think McConnell's the first
one that comes to mind, because, like, while he's so
important to their preserving the pace and like the chaos
that they want to play with, Like I just as
a half court defender, I just don't think Brunson's gonna
feel him. And I think that's just too easy for Brunson.
And then I think you're the Knicks are pretty big positionally, Otherwise,
like I don't. I don't love McConnell's fit in the series.
I think he'll play, but I don't. I think it's
I think you turn more towards like, Okay, Nemhar is
gonna play back up point guard when Haliburn's off the floor,
and you can have like if Kat's on Siakam or whatever,
just have bring it up like there's there's gonna be
ways to to backfill what McConnell gave you as long
as like maybe you need him if things are going
sideways and you want to just junk the game up.
And that's why McConnell adds value. But I think as
like a rotation staple, I don't know that I would
would see him that way.
Speaker 1: I will be curious if this is an Obi Toppin
series series. I think it probably probably can be just be.
But if I'm wondering if it ever behooves them to
just say like we're gonna it's gonna be one big
and it's Siakam or it's just Turner like Obi Toppin
is in on the floor. I don't think that means
it's gonna be a Thomas Bryannt even necessarily a Jaris
Walker series. But I guess if if Jaln Brunton's off
the court, I guess you could just talk yourself into
it being an Obie topin series, because that's the He's
not who else on the Knicks is gonna try and
pick on Right, if you put him in a situation
where he would need to defend towns, then that's that
meat probably for town so.
Speaker 2: But then I'm just but then you're just doubling in
towns as liable to make a mistake. So I think
you're right about top though. Sorry, we've really been picking
on towns a little bit. Uh. I think like if
if Topping is in the game and it's Og that's
going at him, or it's Bridges, I think it's the Pacers.
You're like, okay, cool, Like, well, we'll live with this
to keep me out of it.
Speaker 1: I think the Pacers will be able to play fourteen
guys in this series.
Speaker 2: They sure hope. So just because the Knicks, at some point,
the Nicks will run out of gas, we have to
keep saying it.
Speaker 1: Uh, are you ready to move on to storylines?
Speaker 2: Sure?
Speaker 1: Uh? Nostalgia that's one of them, right.
Speaker 2: It's the best I'd like so many of those series
just matter so much, like all the all the the
Reggie and Spike stuff eight points nine seconds, the like
the ewing layup LJ. You mentioned, like it's pretty great
that that's like, that's really fun. I hope they really
go to town with like during the series, like in
cutaways and like the pregame stuff that really should like
let's just give me like six minutes of just like
a highlight reel before game one of these teams. Yeah,
the the nostalgia, the rivalry stuff, that's like that's the best,
and like, I'm so happy these two teams are playing
each other. Do you I want one? Like not nostalgia
based narrative. Thing is like I think if the Pacers
are successful here and maybe we're already there, but I
do feel like we would have to then concede like
we are in the full parody era if the Pacers
make the finals, because like they were Like if we
had listed ten title contenders before the season, would the
Pacers have been on the list.
Speaker 1: They might have maybe Thanksgiving? They were not. That's the thing.
Remember I was on this podcast and I said I'm
out on the right Exactly what I said, I was
out too.
Speaker 2: I was just like, well because it was so easy, Like, oh,
their run last year was injury aided, Like this was
a fluke that Halliburton looks terrible, like maybe that blip
when he was a top five MVP guy early last
year that was that was the anomaly. This is more
who But like, I mean, have these four teams in
the conference finals other than the Thunder, I guess, although
it's not like the Thunder have been you know, on
the dais or the championship podium very often or since
whatever it is seventy nine. So like the Pacers more
so than the Knicks, because the Knicks are like a
glamour marquee franchise even though they haven't won a million years,
Like if they go to the finals, it's like all right.
But the Pacers just feels like this team, like this
is this is a this is a finalist that would
that would really drive home the paar anything I would.
Speaker 1: I guess it's either way. The NBA and this is
I find it ridiculous. But you know, the league office
is like it could be Indiana versus Minnesota or okay see,
and basketball wise, that's fine, but you know that they're
gonna be that's gonna become a storyline. It will absolutely
become a storyline. Another storyline. Siakam versus og already kind
of mentioned it former Raptor shaping the playoff race. If
you haven't listened to our Timberwolves versus Thunder primer on
a WI forgot they were playing the Thunder. We already
mentioned this. There's just going to be someone who has
played for the Knicks within the past three years in
the NBA Finals toppins in Indiana. You have, of course
your current Nicks, then Hartenstein and OKC and Julius Randall
and Dante Diviongenzo in Minnesota. That's bizarre and also really cool.
The storyline I might be most interested in, what's the
Is there like a betting odd for like Tyre's Haliburton
doing the Jallen Brunson celebration after he makes a shot
because he's like he's exceeded Trey Young as the NBA's
most willing villain. Yephrey Young did tweet memory. He was saying, like, oh,
I think the Pacers crowd or was it the Thunder
crowd is better than Knicks fans. So Trey Young is
still trying to be it, but it loses luster when
you're not.
Speaker 2: Playing right a little bit.
Speaker 1: So I love Tyrus Haliburton just wanting to be the villain.
Speaker 2: Uh. I agree with you. Uh, he's the most lovable
villain there is. But from the Knicks side, we've I
feel like I check in with you on this fairly often,
and I agree with where you're at on it. If
the Knicks make the finals, can we then say that
all of the costs and all of the picks and
all of the moves and thinning the roster, because you like,
it goes hand in hand that like there are three
former Knicks on other teams that are in the conference finals,
Like they sacrificed a lot of depth and talent to
build this team. If this team does make the finals,
this Knicks team, do we just have to say that
the moves were all good and it was all worth it? Like,
is that the point where it's like I know that,
like objectively, it's like you should just never trade five
first round picks for mckail bridges. That's stupid, that's too
much like that. Yes, we agree, like in a vacuum,
but like, at this point, don't you then just have
to be like, I guess it was worth.
Speaker 1: It, probably, but I was actually this was a storyline
I was gonna have. I think the fallout we like
talk about what's the fallout for whoever loses for the
pay there just is none. They might balance their books
and dump salary to keep Miles Turner and stay under
the tax easy, but it's you've just proven that this week. Yes,
I know the Bucks were injured, but like, you can
only play the teams in front of you, and this
has been a good team for like I don't know,
sixty something games now right, like dating back to the
regular season with the Knicks. I struggle with this because
I do this has been as a Knicks fan. And
you know what's funny is that people don't realize I'm
a Knicks fan, which makes me feel like I do
my job.
Speaker 2: I was gonna say, that's a credit to you, I think, But.
Speaker 1: As a Knicks fan, I am concerned. And this might
be the era in which I grew up as a
Knicks fan just like coming to the surface because and
I get it, there are a lot of Knicks fans
that like they've never just one. There's probably a lot
of Knicks fans right now that don't remember the dysfunctional Knicks.
But then there's a lot of Knicks fans like me
where I'm like on the later end of this spectrum,
but like we just grew up and the teams were
bad and depressing, right, And I look at this and say,
just making it to the conference finals even or even
getting to the NBA Finals and losing in five games
to Okay See or Minnesota or something, does that reinforce
like the wrong things here that Thibodeau is the right coach,
that we're not gonna make any changes over the offseason.
I think there's value and continuity. But it's similar to
the Denver Nuggets right now, whereas when you are this
shallow and your margin for error is so thin, just
because it broke right for you this year doesn't mean
you're guaranteed these subsequent years. You can sit here and
tell me the East is wide open because the Tatum injury,
what's going on with Giannis. You're absolutely correct, Pacers aren't
going anywhere, Magic are on the way up, the Calves
aren't going anywhere. This, I think you can argue, is
going to be the Nicks's best shot to win a
title with this core. Oh yeah, and then so that's
an awkward thing to say, and it's all right, that's fine, Like,
isn't that the whole point? It's yeah, if you win,
but if you don't. The trade that you made specifically
for McHale Bridges, this is not I'm not trying to
indict mcaal specifically. That trade says you are all in
on winning the title and if you don't ever get
back to this point. So I think it buys you
time to whereas you lost against the Pistons or even
the ceuth especially after like it looked like when they
were down with that first twenty point lead in Game one,
wasn't there a part of you that said, like, this
series is over?
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, absolutely.
Speaker 1: So I'm worried about that, but you can't. Like, the
Knicks have found a grit that they didn't have during
the regular season, and you can chastise them for not
finding it sooner, but they found it when it mattered.
But I do think that the fallout if they lose,
there's such a fine line for them between I think
Timms has saved his job and you know what, that's fine,
but now you have to Honestly, Mitchell Robinson breaking out
makes their offseason if they lose here, which we haven't
gotten a prediction, yets everyone Rex doesn't make their off
season more complicated because now it's well, what's the expendable salary?
Speaker 2: Right in the trade there's none that we were trying
to trade him all summer and like he's an integral now.
Speaker 1: And even if you think dude McBride's expendable, that dude
makes like three dollars right, Like, who are you getting
back in that trade? So it's all of a sudden,
how do we use the mini mle to make this
team better? Yeah? I don't know. So I think it
buys you time, but I don't when you give up
that many assets, like if the Calves is a good example,
they're all staying together, so it's like they have time.
But like you gave up all those picks for Donovan Mitchell.
Now if you start trading Darius Garland and Jared Allen
or whatever, like all right, Like there's a different type
of urgency there. The Nicks didn't have that same infrastructure
like they gave up. I understand the reality of what
they did. They didn't send out any real players like
to them anyway, So it buys you time to where
I think people were prepared to call this a failure
from the outset, and now you can say, oh, I
see the vision, but your margin for error is still
so thin because the other thing here, Yes, I know
they've dealt with some injuries like they've been last year
was a disaster by the end of the playoffs, they're
relatively like John Brunton missing time by the end. I
kind of wonder that was a great thing for him,
just because it was like he got a breather that
he otherwise wouldn't have gotten. And look at the two
teams he just went through their defenses in Detroit and Boston.
So as a Knicks fan, I think that they bought
themselves time, maybe even the benefit of the doubt. But
like making the finals. For me, and this is someone
who hasn't seen I barely remember the Knicks finals in
nineteen ninety nine and they just weren't supposed to get there.
That was found money. I'd be ready, even as someone
who hasn't seen a lot of good basketball over the
past however many years, I couldn't just say that, Oh,
it's like, yeah, I see the vision and if they
win a title, you never have to apologize. But making
the finals just once, Are they back here next year
would be my question. If it's continuously getting to the
conference finals being in that late season discussion, sure, but
like I also can't like, this is the team that
fell behind by twenty or more points four times in
a series they won in six games. This is a
team that went oh to ten against the best three
teams in the league during the regular season. This is like,
there's this is a team where you can't point to
me on any given night and tell me who their
second best player is gonna be. And in some case
that can be endearing. In this case, it's harrowing, right
because none of the guys they have are actually supposed
to be the second best player on a title team.
Like you can stretch it and say, no, Towns are mckailled, No, no,
there We know enough about Towns in Minnesota to where
if he was going to be the second best player
on a title team, you need to have the infrastructure
that Minnesota did on defense around him. And then I
think you could argue that Rudy Gobert was like the
second was important player to that team. So I don't
mean this to insult the Nicks. They're here, they've played great,
this has been riveting as hell run, but I'm not
ready to say like, yeah, they've made all the right movies,
like I can't wait to run this back.
Speaker 2: Okay, that's fair, that's what. That's a nuanced answer. I
was trying to pin you down to like a yes
or no, and you wriggled out of it.
Speaker 1: I do want to know if fans feel the same
in the comments or our discord, So get in there.
Are you, like, are you beliegued enough to have my
jaded view of it?
Speaker 2: Are you never satisfied by any level of success?
Speaker 1: Honestly, if they win fewer than six championships with this corps,
I think it's a.
Speaker 2: Failure, not worth it. I've more, just more, just five,
So one for every Bridge is picked. We've already tipped
my hand on Mitchell Robinson's my X factor. I think
it could just be whoever you want for the Pacers. Well,
is Mitchell Robinson your Knicks X factor too? I feel
like he's like the only guy I've talked about.
Speaker 1: I think he has to be you could go with
because I can't even get there with Josh Hart just
because it's like he can go five of seven from
three every single night and the Pacers will just be like,
that's fine. So I think it has to be him
because otherwise it gets too high end, like Conthie Towns
is technically an X factor and that's kind of a problem.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm gonna say. That feeds into your Your
whole deal on the Knicks is like that he can't
be an X factor. He's got to be like a given.
Speaker 1: What about the Pacers, Like, do you expect them to
switch as much against Indiana as they did Boston?
Speaker 2: I mean normally I would say no, but like, had
I not seen this like a I don't know what,
some kind of logical fallacy, but it's like I would
have said no, and then I saw the Boston series,
and now I think anything's possible because they switched there.
It's just like, well, I guess maybe I think they
probably should. I think we're at the we're officially at
the stage of the playoffs where like you need to
go in with your original plan and like scrap it
in three minutes if it's not working, Like we are
in full on adjustment territory to figure out what works.
I think that's the way it's got to go.
Speaker 1: Who do you have for the pacers? I think we're
gonna have the same one there.
Speaker 2: Oh, I doubt it because I had such a hard
time and I wanted to stay away from the nim
Hardniesmith thing. We haven't talked about this guy. He's not
one of my favorite players. I'm gonna pick Benedict Matherin
because I'm looking your question about, like, which of the
deeper bench guys can be a factor in this series.
I'm not convinced Matherin can, but I do think if
he's playing really well, especially against like whatever passes for
a nixt second unit, if it's like pain is out there,
then it's like and Matherin can score. I think maybe
that could swing things. And also, he really is someone
I just have no idea how he's gonna play night Tonight.
Like he's taken on kind of the irritant role too,
which is very X factor behavior. He might be someone
that tries to get this series's version of DeAndre Hunter
to punch him like the punch with quote marks, because
that was not a punch I didn't feel like, but
I don't know where else to go other than like
picking from starters, which if you did, I get it,
because I was tempted to do that, and I just
will talk about him in the tactical side.
Speaker 1: So I went with Nie Smith, but not for the
reason that I think that you will think to where
it's he's gonna defend Jalen brunts in a bunch. I
think he will. I think what's interesting is that the
Knicks would normally put Jalen Brunton on Aaron E. Smith offensively.
The way that Aaron Smith has played in the playoffs,
you can't do that and just expect to emerge Scott Free. Yeah,
he'll go at him, He's yeah, And it's not it's
the jump shooting has been through the roof. He's been
like the most efficient jump shooter in the playoffs basically,
but like the drives haven't always been efficient. Like he's
getting your shoulder into you, he's drawing fouls, he's getting
into the basket. You don't want Jalen Brunton to have
to go through that. And so now you're all of
a sudden saying, Okay, I guess it's better than him
having to defend Tyre's Halliburton. But do the Pacers just
not like Nie Smith to me, in their best lineup?
Do you just not have anywhere that you feel almost
uncomfortable putting jail in Brunton? And that's why I think
that Ernicemi is an X factor.
Speaker 2: That's a good one, Yeah, because we didn't really talk
about we focus on the other side more like they
got to put brunts in someplace and and the Pacers
are going to go at it. We've mentioned that a
little bit, I guess, but like, there's not a safe
space I don't think for Brunson.
Speaker 1: Really, no, I don't think there is. I think you
could argue is their safe space for towns here?
Speaker 2: Boy? That's I mean, that's been the question for the
Knicks throughout every playoff series and they just keep winning.
So I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, he had some really good moments against Boston,
but that was not like it was moments. It wasn't right. Yeah,
So Grant talk predictions to me.
Speaker 2: Do I have to go first? I'll go first. I'm
not afraid I am going. I'm terrified. And I told
you I was going to try to come up with
this after we discussed it because I didn't have a
strong enough feeling beforehand. I'm going to pick the Knicks,
and I'm gonna pick the Knicks in seven, in seven
games and four, No, it's seven games. And I feel
really horrible about it because I just I can just
see the Pacers making them look really bad and tired
and they just really go through it. But I'm gonna
go Nicks. I think I think Brunson is just like
at a level where there's nothing you can do with
them defensively, and I think the collective size and the
offensive rebound I think the offensive rebounding and the second
chance stuff is really going to factor into the knicks favor.
So even if they play shitty offense, they're gonna get
two cracks at it like pretty often. And that's kind
of swaying it for me.
Speaker 1: My heart says Nix and seven. My head says Pacers
in six or seven. I do think they have the
ability to make more adjustments. I think if you go
through the list after you go from the second best
player in Indiana. And I'm not trying to discredit Nem Harder,
NEI Smith or Turner like O. G. McHale Kronthy Towns
is like populating your top four vers of the Pacers
top four. I like it a little bit better. I
think I'm gonna go Nixon seven, probably catering to the
heart a little bit. But also I think what's really
going to help the Knicks here is that while the
Pacers like are unique in the sense that, especially because
you mentioned like Benn mcmathm becoming an irritant, you don't
really see a team aside from the Thunder ever play
that fast and physical. But the level of physicality is
just not gonna match what they saw against Detroit, and
I don't even think Boston. Yeah, And so I think
that that's kind of prepared them well. And I'm also
more optimistic about the defense because Tom Thibodeau took too
long sometimes, like what was that game five where Karnthy
Towns just decided like, yeah, I'm gonna play like fifty
feet off of every single like Celtic, and it took
him forever to adjust. But he seems more flexible than
even we've even said that he's grown when it comes
to his rigidity, and he was more flexible, and I
thought he was gonna be I'm gonna go Nixon seven.
I think that that might be a little bit of
me tapping into because I think the Pacers feel like
the more complete team. The Knicks feel like this season
they might have the higher ceiling when you look at
their talent. But you know, even as I'm saying, it's
just like, I don't know how you look at what
happened to offensively to the Knicks throughout these playoffs and
think I feel good.
Speaker 2: Right, it's like a bet on, well, these games are
gonna be one in like a messy way, and the
Knicks just thrive in that. And it's like the Pacers
are like a finely tuned engine that it's like, oh,
if you poor a little sand in there, it's just
it all falls like, which isn't true, but it is.
There is like a sense to me of the Pacers
have a lot of talent, and but it's like their
success is like because their style is so awesome, and
you know, like there's some part of that and I
just have this feeling that I could just imagine the
Knicks being like, we don't have a style. We just
fucking go and like we we you can mess us
up and we'll just still get it. To Brunson, and
we'll still get a half decent shot, especially in the clutch,
and we're big and like, okay, we'll just you know
what I mean, Like the Pacers feel like you can
like tilt the axis and maybe it falls apart. Probably
that's a that's extreme, but you know what I'm getting at.
Speaker 1: No, yeah, I know what you're getting at. This isn't
I don't think if you have a problem with either
of us picking the next I just think this is
a series that more so even than Thunder Wolves, this
feels like more of the coin toss. Yeah, where wouldn't
you Because if I told you that Wolves Thunder and
I won't like not even telling you who wins, but
that it ends in five. I think you'd be like
if you told me this series ended in five, Like,
if this series doesn't go seven, I might be mildly surprised.
Speaker 2: Right right, because they're both teams are imperfect and like
neither of them. I guess the Pacers have a superpower.
I guess it's that offense. But like, yeah, I I yeah,
it would be a thunder in five, that's what happened.
But if it was this, it'd be like what who like, well,
how did like who dominated who and how?
Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I would agree with you there. All right,
I'm sufficiently terrified. Are you ready to take us out here?
Speaker 2: That was tiring trying to parse that one. Thanks every
buddy that went through it with us. Let us know
what you think. Let us know if this was a
short series, who would take it and why.
Speaker 1: And then we will already over by the time you'velicted.
Speaker 2: If it's right, if it's well explained, we'll just co
opt that as our own original thought and say we
never picked to get the nix and seven rate review. Subscribe,
watch this on YouTube, leave it, leave a comment there,
thumbs up, Tell your friends, Tell your enemies, join our
discord at leaks for that in YouTube and podcast description.
That's gonna do it. Let's get to the conference finals.
It's very excited, shouts Frank milkein a former nick apologies,
Jared Allen