The Herd with Colin Cowherd - Nerd Sesh - NBA Finals Mailbag

Episode Date: June 6, 2024

The nerds answer all your questions about the NBA Finals in a mailbag episode, from where Luka ranks among the best offensive players ever to where Kyrie Irving ranks among the best point guards of this era, compared to Damian Lillard and Russell Westbrook. They also discuss where Jayson Tatum, Jaylen Brown and the Boston Celtics could rank among the best teams this century with a win in the Finals. Timestamps 00:00:23 - Where does Luka rank as an all-time offensive player in terms of skill? 00:16:08 - How high can Kyrie climb all-time with a Finals win this year? 00:27:24 - What should Dallas’ gameplan be offensively and defensively? 00:37:42 - Who will have the best defensive player on the court and how important is it? 00:42:45 - What would Logan think if Tatum wins or loses the Finals? 00:46:11 - If Luka dominates in the Finals, how is he not the best player in the world? 00:52:47 - How many finals winners since 2000 would beat the 2024 Celtics? 00:57:56 - Where would the Celtics rank all-time with a dominant Finals? 01:04:52 - If Boston succumbs to the pressure, how will we know? 01:08:59 - What is the most interesting Finals match-up of the last 20 years? 01:12:57 - Who are the most underrated and overrated draft prospects in the 2024 class? 01:24:11 - What can the Heat do this offseason to become a real contender again? 01:28:47 - What do you think about seeding the playoffs 1-16 01:32:18 - Do you buy the drafting Bronny sweepstakes in enticing LeBron to their team? 01:37:20 - What would you make as the 76ers GM this offseason? 01:41:17 - What do the Timberwolves do with their roster over the next few years? #Volume #herdSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an I-Heart podcast. Guaranteed Human. Another podcast from some SNL, late-night comedy guy, not quite. Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer, Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter.

Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque.

Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hard Way with your favorite therapist and host, Kear Games.

This space is about black men's experiences, having honest conversations that it's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor? It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability that does not mean that you need to. Listen and learn the hard way on the AHA radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. The volume. Oh my God. How could he do that?

Are you on? Don't get your channel. Charles Darwin. The nerds is where it's at. Welcome everybody back into nerds session. As always, I'm Carson Brever. And alongside me is Logan Camden. We are officially here on the eve of the NBA finals.

So we are extremely excited for that to get started. If you haven't seen some of the content that we've made leading up to it, we did our full in-depth series predictions on Sunday. We did a show with Joelle Moran talking about a lot of the big storylines for this series on Monday. And today, we are going to be answering your guys' questions, doing a mailbag episode, mostly talking finals, but also covering some other topics that you asked us about. But we're going to start with finals, Logan. And I really like this question from Jack, who asks, where does Luca rank all time as an offensive player?

Not talking about accomplishments, but pure skill on offense. Love the show. Thanks, Jack. Yeah, thank you, Jack. No, seriously, thanks, Jack. Yeah, thank you, Jack. The skill part is interesting because when you're talking about raw impact, there are some guys that I would have over Luca, potentially, like, maybe like a shack just in terms of his gravity and the paint. but it's interesting that you emphasize skill.

Like, there's only a handful of guys that I could go with. I only wrote down four names that I would concretely take above Luca, like concrete. And that was Yokic, LeBron, Steph, and MJ. And then my honorable mentions, these were guys that I would consider. But I think I honestly prefer Luca. And I wrote down Magic. I wrote down Bird and I wrote down KD. Wow.

And that's where I emphasize, like, the skill part, because Luca's one of the most skilled offensive players, like ever in terms of his tough shot making, his ball handling ability, the change of pace, like the playmaking, he's one of the greatest passers ever. I don't know, man, you've got to be literally one of the greatest offensive players ever to clear. And that's the most interesting dynamic to me here. Like, where did you weigh in on like just raw offensive impact versus the skill dynamic? Skill, Logan, is one of the most interesting words in the basketball sphere. It's very amorphous.

So I interpreted this question more as ability, saying we're not talking accomplishments, we're talking about your peak ability, which I do think changes the standard from where you had it, because then you can't have some bigs who are not conventionally super skilled like a shack, but whose overwhelming athletic attributes just make him one of the most valuable offensive players ever. So holding Luke into that standard, I think he probably sneaks into my top 10 offensive peaks in history. So my tier one, Yokish LeBron, MJ, Steph are the guys who you all mentioned. I would also have Magic and Larry concretely above him. In Magic's case, these are two unbelievable on-ball engines.

I do think that Magic just sort of reached a different level of efficiency in true playmaking brilliance. Like, he is really one-of-one in NBA history in that regard. So it's the overwhelming efficiency, the transition, how dominant he was there, and the ability to just drive historically great team offenses. year after year after year. We're talking about the number one offense, what is it, like eight out of 10 years or something in L.A., and that includes post-Kareem.

Like, he to me is absolutely one of the greatest offensive engines that we've ever seen in that number one tier. I would give Larry the edge because of the stylistic versatility. I think that Larry is one of the great plug-in play in any offense, and he is going to give you historic value guys that we have ever seen. Absolutely dominant on-ball creator and scorer. one of the great shot makers we've ever seen, but truly one of the greatest connective, instinctual passers of all time,

just could do everything offensively at such a high level. I do think that ability to scale regardless of teammates is extremely valuable. Then in the next tier, I have Kareem, Shaq, Oscar, and Luca. And some people may be like, why is Oscar Robertson up that high? Oscar Robertson is unequivocally one of the 10 greatest offensive players that we've ever seen, in my opinion. When you talk about the dudes who just no matter what spearheaded, number one, number two offenses

over a decade. There's three guys. It's Magic Johnson. It's Steve Nash. And it's Oscar Robertson. He came into the league, led five straight number one offenses, and his supporting cast just weren't that good. We're talking about a guy who has like all-time scoring and playmaking volume, the sort of raw production that Luca is

now approximating, but like there's very, very few guys in that range. But he also is doing it with this unfathomable efficiency, where as a guard in a pre-3 point line world, he's giving you like plus 8% relative true shooting every year. He's just incredible to me.

So I would still give him that nod for now. And then the next group of guys who I would have Luca just above would be Nash, would be Katie, would be Wilt, would be Kobe, would be Jerry West. So I do think it's interesting to do some specific comparisons here. Steve Nash is a really tricky one because I think he's the best pure pick and role player ever. I think he is one of the best transition. facilitators that we've ever seen. He led eight number one offenses in nine years, Logan, across both Dallas and Phoenix,

led the league in true shooting percentage twice as a guard, and just year and year out is better than 90th percentile efficiency in pick and roll, ISO, spot up, one of the all-time great peer shooters, all-time floater, touch. I give the edge to Luca, though, because I do think there's just a different scoring ceiling there. Like, Nash has a lot in common with magic and with Oscar, in terms of being. these all-time great point guards, all-time great offensive engines, elevating everybody around them. But I think Oscar has a different level as a score. And I think Magic, because of his physical advantages, was more inclined to a sort of takeover

scoring role. So that's where I think Lucas' physical imposition and his ability to do more with less, honestly, because of that, because of how much he can eat up that volume scoring, gives him the edge. But I don't want to see any Steve Nash disrespect. KD, particularly when we're looking in like that 2014 range. is an incredible, incredible offensive player. One of probably the three greatest pure scores that we've ever seen the combination of athleticism and shotmaking was all time.

But I do think that that's where Lucas Edge is a playmaker just pretty clearly offsets KD's edge as a score because that's a pretty slight one. Lucas Edge is a playmaker is pretty sizable, even though you could argue that KD does have more of that plug-in play value. I just think Lucas peak is higher when you consider the all-time scoring and all-time playmaking. Wilt, I imagine some people will be pretty surprised by just because of the sheer volume numbers that he puts up early in his career.

I do think that the value of some of that is overrated, as we have talked about. If you look at Wilt's most monstrous scoring seasons, he's not actually driving good team offense. And in fact, the Warriors, they weren't a very good offense with Wilt, and when he left, they actually got slightly better. and the difference when he joined versus the year prior was negligible. Like, he was just playing such a scoring dominant style that he was really neglecting the value of playmaking and limiting sort of the ceiling of a team offense. There's so many ways to weaponize your value as a score

without just putting up a shot every single time. And then you do have like 67 with the Sixers and really that whole like 65 to 68 range where he does totally figure things out offensively and he's blending super efficient scoring with playmaking. But I just think Luca's ability to blend like that overwhelming volume as a score with that all-time playmaking value. To me, I would give him a slight edge there as well. Are there any of those names that stand out to you that you disagree with that you strongly agree with?

I don't disagree with any of the guys. I would have Luca probably in his, I'm wondering if he should be in the first tier. And that's what I was going to ask you. Like, do you think that he can climb above any of the guys that you? think are in the tier above him because I think there's a different level of scoring in position that he could reach with magic and magic's an interesting dynamic because like you said like he's so unselfish like it's just a really different you know play a play style like they just play different brands of basketball lucca's going to hunt his shot first and then kick it magic is so much more

you know just unselfish going to make the right play every time and that's where I wonder like do you think that lucca's body of work and I know this is a skill-based question, so it's hard. Can you surpass any of those guys in value to you? I think he could, and I do want to give props to Luca, because we do talk about him as this heliocentric, exceptionally ball-dominant star, but I do think that he's continued to improve offensively year after year after year. That's the development of his dominant post-game that he didn't really have coming into the league, or even in that 20-20 season when he led the abs to be the number one offense. He's just gotten better and better there. He had a career. He had a

career best three point shooting season this year. Also, his willingness to play more away from the ball alongside Kyrie and specifically his improvement as a catch and shooter. He's taking twice as many catch and shoot threes as he was last year. So he's become less and less of a ball stopper. He has continued to become a more complete offensive player. And you're right. That all time blend of scoring and playmaking is transcendent. So I don't think it's outrageous to have him above those guys. I do just think that not all your offensive impact shows up on the stat sheet. And there's a reason that we can look at Magic and say, okay, he's only averaging 19, 20 points per game,

but he absolutely belongs in this conversation. He manufactured more phenomenal looks for his teammates than anybody we've ever seen in the history of this game. And again, he scored with such overwhelming efficiency. The guy just pretty much optimized offense. So Luca's going to put up bigger raw numbers than Magic for his entire career. But that to me doesn't mean that there's a gap and I would still lean magic there. But I think there's an opportunity for him to pass Bird as well just because like,

although I do very much value the ability to dominate away from the ball to have that stylistic versatility, there is a level of just overwhelming dominance in your particular on ball role that you can reach if you're Luca that could clearly transcend that. I think right now they're very close. I know we've got a lot of the questions to get through, so I don't want to No, no, this one's interesting. Too long, but I have one, I got one more follow-up for you on that. So at their absolute apex, I think the first guy that a lot of people would point to after the guys that we've already listed is probably James Harden.

Why would Harden not be in your top two tiers? Why is he not up here with the rest of these guys? Excellent question, Logan. He's not that far off, but I do think that, Luca is pretty absolutely clear of Hardin and the biggest reason is something that we've talked about It's shot making versatility now I will say when we're comparing Luca to some of these other all-time greats His reliance on pull-up jumpers and the fact that although he's very very good at those shots He's not like all-time efficient can lead to a little bit more

Downside that's another thing with Larry and magic their ability to never force the issue to such consistently create really high percentage shots for themselves easy shots for themselves and their teammates. We've seen the floor when Luca's off as a jump shooter and it's a little bit lower than the floor for those guys So that matters in that comparison but in Larry's case to just make perfect decisions within the flow of the game Manufacturing these great shots for himself and his teammates in all these different ways out of pick and roll spotting up out of the post out of isolation in transition with really exceptional balance across play types and for magic always creating great shots around the rim and in the past If it's out of the post attacking a mismatch if it's out of pick and roll as a score or playmaker if it's in transition Just leading to this overwhelming offensive efficiency and by the way

Transition specifically is a meaningful edge for Magic versus Luca in that conversation There's just a floor there not necessarily in terms of production but in terms of impact in terms of shot quality with those guys that is a bit higher than Lucas when his jumper is off and Luca's offensive on off numbers haven't quite stacked up to some of the all-time grates. And when we're really nitpicking here, efficiency and versatility at those elite, elite all-time levels is a part of that. But compared to James Hardin, then Luke is on a different level of versatility as a shot maker. He's shooting well over 50% for mid-range in these playoffs on high volume, right? The ability to pick apart a defense from that many different spots on the floor, it's all relative because some of the all-time grates like a Larry would have even more

versatility than Luca within the context of his era. But Luca absolutely surpasses Hardin there. It's also his overwhelming physical advantages. The fact that he's got a couple inches on Hardin, that he's got some weight on Hardin, and that he just plays with more physicality. So he plays more of that legitimate bully ball. He's less reliant on getting to the line. He is a better, more versatile pure shot maker, and I would argue is also a better

pure passer. So those are like the two heliocentric, ball dominant. I'm going to dictate everything offensive engines who we've seen in these last decades and they're often compared to one another. I do think that Luca is the better version of that archetype though. Yeah, I think so too. And it's the difference in shot diet. And I think the key dynamic, I'm glad you said that about Luca, it is the floor.

I didn't really think about that when I was thinking about bird and magic. It's the, it's the Jason Tatum thing, right? Like where you're settling for the jumper and you're not getting your. downhill and imposing yourself. And I think that's a good distinction. But I don't know, man, I think I'm ready with what the body of work I've seen from Luca. And I think I would have him in tier one, though. That's the only thing I really disagree with, man. I think I would already put Luca in the like best engines of all time kind of category. He may be the last guy into that tier. But I think I'm ready to put him there, man. I think his impact is, is that great already.

Top 10 is pretty damn good And the margins are slim between a lot of these guys And when we're talking about Lucas floor I want to be clear It's still pretty damn high Because his playmaking value is so constant Because his physical advantages are so significant And when he does commit to getting into the paint

Then his floor is really, really high But we are talking about splitting some very thin hairs here These are just the all-time greats And I think ultimately it's a testament to Luca that he is in this conversation but there is that dual-edged sword to, okay, you're dictating every possession. We can very much live and die with you, and particularly your tough shot-making in a way that you wouldn't quite with Larry,

that you wouldn't quite with magic. But of course, the ceiling with Luca is ridiculously high, and if he went out there and averaged 35, 10, and 10 next series efficiently, like, I wouldn't even be that surprised. But that is another thing that some of the all-time greats have over Luca, the efficiency, when you're talking about a Yokic, a Magic, and Oscar, some of these bigs who we throw into these same conversations. And the bigs are always just interesting to compare

because so many of today's great players, although we have obviously awesome bigs, are guys who are dual elite scores and playmakers, which really only Yokic has been throughout the scope of NBA history at the center position, except for you could argue Wiltz for a couple of years. But I think Kareem and Shaq really are good enough playmakers, and they were such overwhelming interior scorers

and so efficient there that they just completely destroyed defenses. But if you wanted to take Peak Luca over either of them, I wouldn't be pissed. I wouldn't think that that's outrageous. All right. We have another question about the Mavs and about all-time rankings, Logan. These are two of my favorite questions today. This one from Dunks and Hoops. Where would you rank Kyrie all-time?

And how would a finals win this year impact his legacy? I think Kyrie is already top 75 overall. I thought it was a real travesty that when the NBA came out with her list that one, Kyrie was excluded and then two the Dwight Howard wasn't on that list. I thought both of those guys should have been locks. The first guy that I look at was like Lenny Wilkins. I couldn't believe. Like shout out him for longevity purposes, but like in terms of just basketball skill, I thought it was kind of wild that Kyrie wasn't there. Zero time, All-MBA, Lenny Wilkins, OG knows. Go back to that when we had OG Chiletown Hoops on the pod. And Logan asked the question

about who has the most all-star appearances without making all-MBA, and OG literally immediately got it, and then basically just called Lenny Wilkins a fraud for like 45 seconds. That really fired me up. Yeah, I mean, I think Kyrie's already there. I don't really know how much a finals victory

has a bearing on my view as Kyrie, like, as an all-time player, though, because he ultimately is playing the number two role. And, like, I think that's valuable. Like, I think Kyrie will thrust himself into, you know, some of the greatest number twos of all time. Like you think a Scotty Pippen play in the Robin role. Like, I think that's ultimately Kyrie's role.

And maybe he's a top 10 point guard. He'd be on the fringe. I'd have to make a full list to really figure out if Kyrie's there. But those are the two thresholds. I think he's definitively top 75. He'd be 75 to 50 for me all time. And then I'd have to debate on whether he's a top 10 point guard. He'd be very close and teetering.

on that edge. But I don't think it has a huge effect on his outcome. But I think his willingness to play a role has really changed my mind about Kyrie, how great he's been in different situations. But it's really his commitment to winning in the later stage of his career that has made me change my mind on Kyrie and his impact on the game. His commitment to defense this year. His commitment to doing little things offensively and playing off ball,

like those are the things that make a real difference to me. but he's one of the most skilled guys all time. Those are the thresholds, though. Fringe the top 10 point guard and then somewhere in that top 75 to top 50 range. But I think a finals win does up him marginally and helps him in both of those regards. But it's not like the be all end all, man. I think Kyrie is a really special player all time and probably underappreciated. Like I said, man, I thought it was criminal that a guy like Kyrie wasn't top 75 already.

when they came out with that list earlier. I think Kyrie, with a finals win, is somewhere in the top 60 all time. I don't think he would be a top 10 point guard. I think that's a really, really strong position throughout the scope of NBA history. Obviously, Center is the most stacked. But then there's a real argument that point guard is the next.

I just think you get to 10 names quicker than you might think. With Magic, with Steph, with Oscar, with Nash, with Jerry West, with Isaiah, with CP3, with Stockton, with Jason Kidd, I would have Gary Payton above him still. I would have Coozy above him. So I think that you're probably getting somewhere between 12, maybe up to 15 names before, Kyrie.

But I do think that he would be in that top 60 range with a finals win. That would be obviously two championships for him. He's an eight-time all-star. Three-time All-MBA is the category where he's lacking in terms of accolades, although I don't really value accolades too much in these conversations, but just two-time third team, one-time second team. Although I am not a big guy when it comes to like just citing all-MBA with evaluating these players,

I do think that reflects the reality that Kyrie has very rarely been seen as a top-tennis short of player in the league. And I do think that that's important here. Like when we're talking about all the point guards who I named, those are guys who as your number one could propel you to a different level of success in my opinion than Kyrie. There's just too many guys, and this is across positions, who could bear that number one load at a higher level than Kyrie for him to be knocking on like top 40 or whatever. Be that because of overwhelming two-way impact. Be that because of next

level playmaking. Be that because of guys just having more physical and athletic advantages. Like the reality is Kyrie hasn't been as equipped to have that sort of multifaceted, overwhelming dominance. I am single-handedly going to propel us to being an elite offense with scoring and playmaking as a number one, or I am going to have that real, real, sizeable impact defensively at a very high level.

Like, that's just not what he's ever been built as, an elite number one. But there aren't many players ever who have been better equipped to be your number two offensively. He is an all-time versatile shotmaker. He is an all-time ball handler. He's an extremely efficient, isolation, and

pick and roll, and spot-up players. He's great on and off ball. He has such good instincts. He is such a phenomenal closer that he really fits alongside anybody. We've seen him fit with two of the most ball dominant players in terms of just great offensive engines in recent years with LeBron and with Luca. He fits so well as a second shot maker alongside them. We've also seen him fit alongside KD really well offensively.

Like there is a tremendous versatility there. And I don't want to discredit the fact that Kyrie has been a good, number one, a successful number one. We saw it in Boston for a year or two, but I do think there are peers within this generation who have reached higher heights there as a number one, and who do have more of just that overwhelming imposition that lends itself to floor raising as opposed to ceiling raising in a role, not to diminish the role of being a number two, but it's just different than being a number one like Kyrie. And in this one, as you say, he's embraced all the winning stuff, playmaking, defense, takeover scoring at a very high

level, some of the best basketball we've seen in his career. I do think some of those comparisons within this generation, Logan, related to what I was just saying about number one floor raising versus number two ceiling raising are very interesting. For example, who would you have higher all time? Kyrie or Russ? I'm not taking Russ. I understand his apex and I think people will take issue with that. Russ gives you a really high floor, but I think he puts a cap on your ceiling with how he plays basketball. I think, Kyrie can, maybe he doesn't have the highest floor, but can raise your ceiling. Just Russ is struggling with shooting, his decision making, playing out of control.

I just, I appreciate Russ and what he did to collapse defenses and how great he was. It's like the engine. I just don't know if you're getting out of the first round of the second round with Russ as your number one guy, and that matters to me. We feel similarly on this. I would take Kyrie. There's no question that Russ is the best. better floor raiser.

Kyrie could not have done what Russ did in 2017. There's just a different level of downhill force there of physicality. But to win a title, neither of these guys could be your number one. And Kyrie is a much, much better number two, in my opinion. And as you say, like, there's just too many playoff issues that pop up with Russ. Decision making, his limitations is a skilled shot maker. His relative true shooting percentage in the playoffs is minus 5%, Logan, versus league average. Like, that is really, really awful, and that has been a trend over the years.

So I would take Kyrie there. What about Kyrie versus Dame? Wow. Mm-hmm. That's a really interesting one. I think I would take Dame for one reason. This one's really close. The reason I would take Dame is because I think Dame's exceptional, like, perimeter shooting,

like how far he can stretch a defense out from behind the arc. How great he was, like even up to. to last year. Like, I trusted Dame as my offensive number one, even up to last year. I think the fall off really has been this year with, you know, his situation changing with the fact that, you know, he's got a bunch of life stuff going on and just general aging, man. You're not going to be able to keep that up for your entire career. I always liked Dame as a number one. So that one's really, really close, but I would take Dame. It's very close. Dame clearly has peaked higher to me, especially as a number one, when you're looking at like the 2020 and 21 and 20, 3 seasons,

he's averaging 30 and 7 and a half on like 64% true shooting for three seasons. And he's propelling elite team offense without a really strong supporting cast. I do think his ability to stretch a defense that is almost unparalleled, the fact that he is a more imposing downhill athlete, the fact that he has been able to have a more pronounced playmaking impact because of how he stresses a defense, all of those things point to him being the better number one to having the higher peak in a vacuum. I do think though if Kyrie really balls out in these finals and that means this is another

exceptional run from him as a number two that leads to a title if they win at all, even though I do think that Dame has peaked higher and I would have viewed as the better player in a vacuum for most of the last half decade especially, Kyrie would have just accomplished more of true historical significance. And I'm not a big guy on overvaluing rings. And I do think we should mostly just judge these guys based on their abilities in a vacuum. But I don't think that the gap is big enough to offset what Kyrie has proven playing as one of the best Robbins in basketball history. And I think he would probably get the slight edge at that point.

But it's very, very close. So what are we doing? Are you going with a guy we'd rather have? like, I mean, because that's an interesting dynamic. Like, Kyrie's going to have the two rings. Dames going to have, I mean, what to show for it. Yeah. And that's obviously not the only way that we want to view this.

But again, it's like, you are constantly striking a balance with all-time rankings of, okay, how do I think of this guy in a vacuum versus what were the ultimate results of his career? I think you have to meet somewhere in the middle between the two you have your opinion of this guy and of his value. You also can't ignore the ultimate results. And it's very nuanced. It's very close. I think that these two are neck and neck. And honestly, I think that the jury is still out.

Like, I think either one of these guys could take a more decisive advantage before their careers are over. I will say, I do think that Kyrie just has a couple more years being at this level up to this point over Dame. And now he is playing better than Dame. So although Dame has been the better player for the most part in recent, in years, I think over the course of their career, there's also been several years where Kyrie has been the better guy. So that does kind of even out the peak advantage to some extent. Okay. Younger Zach asks, if you were coaching the Mavs, what game plans would you

implement on both sides of the ball? It feels like the Celtics have so many great players that it seems Dallas will have a hard time keeping up defensively. Who would you have Luke and Kyrie hunting on offense? Yeah, I mean, these are the key dynamics of the series. Starting with offense in what I want Luca and Kyrie to do. You're not going to be able to do this for 100% of the game, but I think I'm hunting Al Horford and Christop's Porzingis in space as much as possible. I'm getting those guys involved with as many pick and roll actions. Horford, I'm going at. Every second he is on the basketball court, we're going at Al Horford. Like, I think he's lumbering. I think he's slow at this point. I think he has been their biggest

weak point defensively. Anytime they have one of their bench guys, and I have one of my stars on the court, we're going at them. If it's Hauser, if it's Horford, if it's Pritchard, any bench guy, because you're not going to be able to have that luxury with anybody in their starting five. So anytime there's a bench guy on the court, I'm involving their man in the screening action with Luca or Kyrie, and we're just getting them involved in the action. And then with the starting lineup, Porzingis is the guy that I'm picking on. And not because I think Porzingis is a poor defender. I actually think he's pretty good in space because of his length. He's decently agile and mobile, and he's a great rim protector, but Luca's great at hunting

switches, and it's going to be hard for Luca to shoot over the top of him just because of his overwhelming length, but I'm going to try to attack his leg. I want to make Porzingis move. I want to make him move quick, like we are going at that leg, and we're going to make him move and work defensively. Just because it's something to attack, there's not many weak points Boston has defensively. So anything that I can exploit is Dallas's offense. we're going to go at. And then defensively, it's even tougher. I'd also say, I want Luca going at Derek White,

at Jalen Brown, and Drew Holiday. If we can't get those matchups in isolation, I'm not winning much of that, but I think Luca is stronger and taller than those guys. So he has somewhat of an advantage in one-on-one. It's not a major advantage, but it's a marginal one. Defensively, it's a lot tougher, because when you're going against their starting five,

they're going to stretch the defense out. I'd just say, try to keep lively and Gafford in the paint as much as possible to take away the rim. It's tough because they've got 40% three-point shooters literally everywhere on the court, and that's easier said than done. So I don't know. Find the guy who's not knocking down shots and maybe stick the big on him and cross your fingers. Defensively is where I'm much more concerned with Dallas, just because there really is nothing that you can do to exploit.

Al Horford's a guy that I'm picking on defensively, too. When Horford is on the court, that is the guy that I'm sagging off, and I'm letting lively and Gafford roam in the paint, and we're going to let Horford kill us. Is there going to be a game where he makes five plus threes? Probably, but I'm more likely to have more games where he's shooting two of eight, two of seven, three a nine, three of ten, you know, where he's clanging way more than he's knocking down shots.

Al Horford's the guy that I'm picking on on both sides of the ball when he's on the court. I don't know what you do with that starting five, though, man. That to me is the Rubik's Cube kind of problem here, man. I don't really know what you do and what you switch around to really exploit this Boston defense. To me, it's most about attacking Horford on the defensive end. We've seen him have some off nights as a shooter, and if you're going to leave somebody, he's not a bad option, but he's also a 42% three-point shooter in the regular season. Like, I don't want to discount his shooting ability.

He absolutely is every bit out. as likely to kill you as he is to go cold. But I do think there's a real opportunity to attack him on the other side of the ball. Like, that's who it is going to be about Luke and Kyrie hunting, because he has really struggled defending pick and roll. He's been a 20th percentile pick and roll defender in these playoffs, and ultimately just isn't the necessary deterrent as a drop defender as a pick and roll and rib protector isn't close to what KP is.

And either way, you just have several predicaments pop up with your bigs trying to guard Luca, particularly out of pick and roll in any sort of traditional coverage, if it's conceding the lobs to your vertical spaces, if it's conceding the skip passes, if it's letting him get downhill too comfortably. The guy is just an absolute maestro there. So, as I've talked about before,

as an effort to counteract that, I expect Boston, with their starting five, to put Jason Tatum on the big, and to put KP on PJ Washington. So that way you are able to switch every screening action with Derek lively, have Jason Tatum switch on to Luca, have Jalen Brown or whoever else switch onto the big. You're not conceding an advantage here.

The roller isn't getting behind you. You're not allowing Luca to get downhill out of drop. But for Al Horford, he's going to have to place some minutes where Jason Tatum isn't on the floor. And when that is the case, well, then I don't think that you have the sort of big forward who I'm comfortable putting on the big, trusting him to hang with those guys on the glass, who's also really a good option switching on to Luca. So then you probably have to go to a more traditional coverage. And I actually think I prefer Horford switching than I do him just playing outright drop. I just don't think he's good enough there. But I also think if he's switching, you have an opportunity for him to get toasted.

The only reason I don't think that's the most disastrous option for Horford. And to be clear, it is definitely a bad one, is that he still moves decently well in space. and Luca doesn't necessarily beat you with quickness, so he's probably going to be hunting the step back three mostly when he gets those switches. That's what he really likes to do against these bigs, get them retreating and then get to that step back three, and he may just be missing, right? I would just rather have him taking those looks where there's more volatility

than getting into the paint. But I do think for Boston, you're kind of just picking your poison in the Horford minutes, and I want to see Luca and Kyrie both very aggressive attacking that matchup. On the other side of the ball, I would put Derek Jones Jr. on Jason Tatum. I would put PJ Washington on Jalen Brown. I think that way you get your best perimeter defender on their best offensive player, and you force Tatum to try to prove to you that he can really play bully ball,

because that's where he has an advantage against Derek Jones Jr. It's with his physicality, and Jalen Brown more does win with physicality, and PJ Washington is a better counter to that, but sometimes we see Tatum get into these modes where he's settling, he's not fully asserting himself physically. if you can get away with Derek Jones Jr. on him because he is in that mode, then I think that's a win for your defense. I would play Derek lively a good bit more than Gafford for several reasons. He has simply been playing better basketball as of late. He's better guarding

in space, which is really important in this matchup when you have to cover so much ground and there's so much shooting on the floor. He's just a bit taller and longer to challenge KP. Gafford is a little bit thicker, which on those post-ups is an advantage. But I don't expect KP to do a ton of going at either of these guys on post-ups. I think he'll be much more trying to mismatch attack there. And when it just comes to shooting over a guy, lively is just a bit bigger, a bit more comfortable moving out in space.

He's also the better decision-maker on offense. So I don't know that they'll start him, because maybe they just don't want to disrupt their rotations like that. They're starting lineup, but I definitely think he should be playing a good bit more. In terms of how you handle these star players out of pick and roll, I would mostly be playing with the big and a high drop coverage. So then you are in position.

to potentially recover to popping Christopps Borzingus, you deter these guys from driving downhill from getting into the paint, and you can force them to try to make those skip passes as Dallas has really forced perimeter stars to do all postseason, trying to force them into making those skip passes, and oftentimes the guys just haven't been quite consistent enough there, and the offense as a whole, hasn't been good enough in terms of their ball movement and their perimeter shooting. I do think Boston is more of a challenge there. I would still be trying to force them to make those advanced playmaking reads when you're talking about Tatum, and especially with Jalen Brown, I would help more aggressively on Jalen than anybody else,

because Dallas's rim protection is what makes them a special defense. They have a lot of good stuff going on, but it's that incredible rim protection. And this is the matchup where you are most likely to get punished for loading up the paint because there is so much shooting. But I would just force Jalen to beat you as a passer, force them to make those kickout passes, forced him to make those reads to shooters. And also, he's just been so great downhill. He's been so great around the paint that I don't want to concede those drives to him.

When KP is off the floor, I would probably switch everything. I wouldn't do that when KP is on the floor because I do worry so much about his mismatch attacking. But when it's Horford out there, I really trust, especially lively, to guard in space. I think he's pretty good there. And so then I think you're just doing a nice job of negating the advantage of, is created by pick and roll. And I would concede throughout this series, or at least to start, most of these switches when Tatum and Brown are hunting a mismatch, if it's Kyrie, who I think it'll most likely be,

or if it's Luca. The dilemma there is that you either concede the switch and now they have a mismatch, or you try to hedge in Blitz, and then you're potentially conceding a three to Derek White or maybe Drew Holiday after they are the screener. I would rather make Jason Tatum prove that he can really be aggressive and beat Kyrie as an isolation score, especially seeing help because I absolutely think that you have to make sure that he's seeing help from the bigs there, and you can try to, therefore, induce him into settling, because as we talked about, he hasn't been efficient as a post-up player or an isolation score in these playoffs.

He absolutely has the ability to be, but I just think Derek White, White Open 3 is like the worst shot you can concede as a defense. So I would at least start by saying, okay, let's see what Tatum can do in these matchups. But that's still a real advantage for the Boston offense. And that's what's hard. They just have overwhelming personnel. And I do think that they ultimately just have more advantages offensively. And then a lot of good ways to deal with Dallas's offense on the other side of the ball. All right.

This one comes to us from Ethan Pritchard, Logan. Who will be the best defender for either team? And how much importance does having the best defender carry into this series? I think it's one of the most important things in this series, and I think the best defensive player on the court is going to be the best defensive player in this series, and that's Jason Tatum. Tatum just has a lot of responsibility on his shoulders in terms of, you know, I mean, in terms of how he ends possessions so consistently for Boston,

he's a great rebounder in terms of matchup-wise. Like, I think if Luca is getting what he wants against Jalen Brown, against Eric White, against True Holiday, And this isn't a slight on any of those guys as perimeter defenders. I think they're all great. Luca is just so overwhelmingly dominant as an offensive score. And I recited these numbers in our NBA finals preview. He was shooting 53% on Step Back Js and Step Back 3s.

He was shooting 43% overall from deep. Like, if we get that version of Luca Donchich, the Boston Celtics are going to have to make an adjustment. If he is just getting to all these looks against these smaller guys, Tatum is the guy that's going to have to stick on him, glue and take his level up a notch. So I think Tatum is going to be responsible if Luca's eating for shutting him down, for ending possessions consistently. If Boston's switching everything, he's got a really important job. But again, I mean, it's going to be your best

defensive player, Jason Tatum versus their best offensive player, Luca Donchich. Who's going to win that battle? It likely could be the most important matchup in battle of this series, right? We want to do Luca versus Tatum as stars, but I mean, when we're looking at these matchups, that very well could be the deciding factor. And so I think it is very important. I think Tatum is by far the best defender of either of these teams. I think he is an elite perimeter defender with what he can do at help side in the Romer role too. Taitam is a defensive playmaker. He is a game changer on that end. And when you were facing a team with two offensive creators of this level, it's going to be, you know, I think it's on him to slow him down. And so if Boston's defense is struggling,

containing Kyrie and Luca. Jason Tatum is the secret weapon that I'm deploying against both of these guys. And there are some size issues that arise, but with some other matchups, like PJ is going to have some size on whoever they switch onto him. Derek Jones Jr. is going to have some size

on whoever they switch on to him if they choose to put Tatum on Luca. But Luca's going to have a size advantage against either of those guys too. So I think it's one of the most important factors in this series, and I think Tatum has a massive burden on being awesome on that end, man. I think it is imperative that Tatum is elite defensively in this series.

Tatum is my answer here as well. And it's particularly in this matchup, just the importance that he does have because of how I believe Boston is going to approach this series with him on the big, with him also being the guy who you want to be able to switch on to Luca. Like there's just such a wide range of responsibilities that he bears there. And I legitimately think that he is your best answer to guarding Luca,

if they do ultimately trigger those switches. And then I think he does so many great things on the interior. And he is your best defensive rebounder. He's my answer. There's a number of guys who have very important challenges here. Drew and White, obviously both will have a huge task with Kyrie. Expect it to mostly be Drew. Jalen as Luca's primary defender will have a big task.

And I think all of those dudes are pretty well equipped to handle these roles. I think KP also as a pure rim protector can have a real pronounced impact. But I would have him five of five. on this Boston team for this series, because I think there's more opportunity to exploit him. I think regular season, he's definitely one of their most impactful defenders. This one is a little bit different,

and I think it's sort of more about, okay, how can we keep him from getting attacked in space? How can we just keep Luca from going at traditional pick-and-roll bigs, period? Because he's been so exceptional there. On the flip side, there's a number of really important defenders for Dallas, too. And I think that's where you look at Derek Jones Jr. His ability to handle the Tata matchup if he does get it, which I don't necessarily expect Dallas to start with.

I think they probably start with PJ. But I think both those guys, they provide an interesting counter to Boston because there are very few teams that have two wings like this who are relatively well equipped to guard these two dudes, right? They just do so much bullying and they're capable of doing so much mismatch hunting and even most teams just don't have two wings built to guard two star scoring wings

who are big and strong and athletic and skilled like Tatum and Brown are. Dowice has the potential to be an exception there. But I think their best defender probably in a vacuum or their most impactful would be Derek lively because of the rim protection. Although again, in this matchup, there's a little bit more of an opportunity to exploit a big being parked in the paint than we've seen in previous series for Dallas. All right, this one's just for you, Logan, just for you, buddy, specially wrapped and served

to you from Wesley, who asks, what would Logan think if Tatum wins the chip versus if he loses? It's all going to depend on how Tatum plays in the finals. You know, I think his team is so stacked. Winning or losing is going to have a marginal impact on how I view Tatum, and I'm really low on Tatum. He is top 10 to fringe top 10 to me right now. Like he's, you know, somewhere between like eight and 12 or 13.

Like I value Tatum, but if he wins and performs really well, I think he could climb to like outskirts to top five. He'd go from that range to five, six, seven, most likely. But like, don't get me wrong. I am going to get on him. This is an all-time talented team. If Tatum comes out here and drops, you know, inefficient 23, 24 a night isn't playmaking well, is really inefficient.

Yeah, I'm going to get on them. This is a great team. And I view Tatum as this team's number one. And in these clutch scenarios, Tatum, I still think has to be the alpha dog, has to take over, has to go get his looks. And frankly, Jason Tatum has not been the alpha dog for the Boston Celtics in crunch time. Jalen Brown has played better. Like, Jalen Brown has consistently been the guy who wants the basketball. And I think those scenarios are going to really make my gauge on what I think of Jason Tatum.

It's the biggest stage in basketball. The Boston Celtics and Jason Tatum haven't legitimately really been tested. He is underperformed in the clutch up to this point. And so in these clutch games where I expect a lot of tight, nitty, gritty, nasty battles down to the wire against Dallas. I think there's going to be a lot of clutch moments. How Tatum performs in those moments is probably going to, you know, determine how I view Tatum more over than anything else. If they win the chip, I think he could climb to seven to five for me. If they lose, he'll probably stick in that same area where I got him in that

eight to 12, 13 range. But really how Tatum performs in the clutch and how he chooses to take over or not take over if he's missing shots, if he's getting to his spots, that's really going to determine it. I mean, that's a huge dynamic to me, Carson, and how I view both Tatum and Brown. Like, There's a very real scenario in which I think Jalen Brown could be the Celtics best player in the clutch. That guy wants the ball. That guy's got something that Tatum doesn't to me, where I don't know, man. Jalen Brown may have a jankier game. He may not have as much polish.

Jalen Brown wants to get downhill. He wants to play physically. He wants to knock down big shots. He wants the rock. I don't really feel that way with Tatum sometimes, man. Like, Tatum is so passive. He's okay with letting the moment pass him by. in certain games in these playoffs where I don't really feel that way with Jalen Brown.

And I'm not saying that Jalen Brown is going to leapfrog Jason Tatum, but if Jalen Brown is the better player in the clutch, I think he has an opportunity to climb higher. But yeah, man, they got to win this chip, dude. And Tatum, in my opinion, has to be the best player for the Celtics if he really wants to change my mind and climb higher in my top 10 rankings. I've got nothing to add here. This question wasn't directed to me.

It's not my place to speak on it. Okay, Azazel asks, if Luca has a dominant performance in these finals against one of the best teams we've seen in five plus years, how can he not be considered at least the co-best player in the world with Yokic? MVP's don't really matter for best in the world discussions, and they'll each have one godly title run. What I take issue with is that this guy said they'll each have one godly title run. I don't think Luca will have that. Carson, you did a breakdown on our show with Joelle the other day, and you put a social clip on a social media that I, I thought, broke it down pretty well. Social media. We completely wiped under the rug the fact that Luca was not playing good Luca basketball

through the first two rounds of these playoffs after one great series against the best defense in basketball. And it was great. Shot the hell out of the ball. Torch, Jaden McDaniels. Like, yes, he played great in that one series. The different dynamic to me between Luca and Yokic's title run was that Yokech's title run was that Yokic killed every single series and left no doubt that he was the best player in every

series and was the best player in the world. Luca left some meat on the bone in those first two rounds. And one great series does not a player make. Like Yokic 29, 13 and a half, 9 and a half on 63% true shooting in his run. Luca, this title run 29, 10, and 9 on 56% true shooting. and in a way does this take away from how great Luca is as a player, and if you want to have him as your co-best player with Nicola Yochich, cool. I'm just not ready to do that yet. Now, if he has a great historic finals run, it'll make the margins really close,

and it'll make our arguments that much more so. That's going to be the headline out of these finals if Luca balls out in the Mavericks win the finals. That's going to be everybody's consensus. Luca is the best player in the world. There's no doubt in my mind. And, you know, that's what everybody's going to be saying, because that's what we do. We react to who won the title and who was the best player on that team.

I think the same way that if the Boston Celtics win the title, everybody is going to go clamor and go run to crown Jason Tatum as the best player in the world and say, oh, he had a godly title run. When the reality was, no, Tatum was pretty bad in the first two rounds too and stepped his game up in the conference finals and in the finals. So I just think that Yokic and Luka had completely different levels of consistency during their finals run. Yokic was consistently great every series, every single game, every crunch time moment, and throughout the title run where I don't think Luka was. So I'm still going to have Yokic, I don't know, man, unless Luca puts up, you know, 40, 10, and 10 on 65% true shooting against one of the best defensive teams we've ever seen. Sure, that might move me.

but unless we get that kind of level of step up, I don't think I'm going to be ready to move off of Yokic. And if you want to hold Yokic's playoff run this year against him, sure, by all means. But I just don't think we should willy-nilly just be throwing around godly title runs like that, man. I don't think this is the best version of Luka that we could have got series in, series out.

I think we got that from Yokic. And I want to reward Yokic for that, man. I don't want to just completely sweep his 20-23 run under the rug because Luca had a really good run. Like, that's one of the greatest finals runs or playoff in finals runs ever. And I don't want to just completely let that, you know, get lost with the wind. I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you've said. And I do think the end-to-end dominance, match-up to match-up being so clearly like head and shoulders above every other player in the series, that is something that Yolkich had that

Luca definitely did not have in the first two rounds of the series. At the same time, if Luca dominates this series and carries Dallas through against a significantly more talented basketball team, then I think it would be totally fair to say that he is the co-best player in the world. If you want to make your case, he's the best player in the world. Like, that to me would be really valid. He'd be going through consecutive awesome defenses, a Minnesota defense that is one of the best this century, in my opinion, that also gave Yokic more trouble than it did to him. Like, he absolutely obliterated them and then a juggernaut team in Boston that I think,

is really well equipped to guard him coming off a season averaging 34 9 and 10 on 62% true shooting like be my guest i just think he has to do that my problem is more with the crowning after one series a very impressive series but pretending that is equivalent to what yokish did last year pretending that that means that he's had a significantly better playoff run overall than yokic even did this year like that's where it just feels overly reactive to me that's what i took issue with, I do think that Yokic's run last year, which was an all-timer, built him some margin. And one series is not everything in these conversations. And I just feel like the way that some people got way too low on Luka last year after the Mavs missed the playoffs,

which I certainly did not do. The same thing kind of might be happening with Yokic right now, not to as extreme of an extent, but nevertheless, too much so. And by the way, I think even this is happening with Yonis to some extent, just because of health. Like, there is an extreme recency bias. There is an extreme, oh, this guy played best most recently. That guy is the best. These dudes are all amazing. And it's not ridiculous to say that any one of them has the opportunity to decisively grab that throne. I just don't think that Luca's done it yet. And honestly, even if he were to dominate the series, I wouldn't say that

he's decisively grabbed that throne. I would say that he's then on more even footing with Yokic. But I do think it's important that we discuss that although Yokic would have the better run end to end, Luca would have played amazing series against two teams that, in my opinion, are better than anybody who Denver faced last year. Now, I think a lot of the discrediting Denver's path last year is super lame and super stupid, and people just look at these teams in a vacuum and say, this was their regular season record. They don't acknowledge how well they were playing through the postseason, who they beat to get there.

They don't acknowledge Yokic's individual matchups in the fact that he individually faced the three best defensive bigs in basketball and absolutely obliterated all of them. The totality of that run, Luca can't catch up to, in my opinion, just because of how he started off slower. But he was legitimately hurt at the start of this run, and he would have a very, very strong finish. So, I wouldn't have a problem if you say that Luca's the best player in the world after a dominant series against Boston. Let's just see that happen first before everybody is saying Luca is the best guy in the world. Okay. Carson, phenomenal name, asks, how many finals winners since 2000 beat this Celtics team? I only wrote down three that I would concretely take over this Celtics team.

There's a few teams I'm on the fence with. I would take the early 2000s Lakers. I just think that Kobe and Shaq, I think, are shredding. That's such a dominant duo. The KD and the Steff Warriors, I'm definitely taking over. I think that's the greatest team of all time. I don't think any team is beating that team. And then I would take last year's Nuggets for sure.

the level that Jamal was at, the level that MPJ was at, the level that Gordon and KCP, like you got Bruce Brown off the bench. I think that team was better than this year's team and the level that Yokic was at as a difficult shot maker. That to me is the key dynamic. I think Yokic was going to go through anybody that came into his path. Even this upgraded Boston team,

the teams I was on the fence about, the 08 Celtics, who I think are a very interesting matchup, just because they've got so much individual. and aggregate talent, too. The weak spot is obviously big perk, which is probably where I side with the 2024 Celtics. The 09 and 10 Lakers, I think, are an underrated group like Kobe, Powell, Bynum, the fact that you've got good role players there, too, Areza's in one year, you've got medal one year. I still think I'm taking this year's Celtics team. That one's close. And then the

two teams I really considered, the 2012 and 2013 heat, just because I mean, you're getting LeBron, D. Wade, and Bosch. the 2019 Raptors are close to me, but I'm only concretely taking three teams or three finals champions since 2000, maybe five. So I think we're in a similar range, but I may be more on the fence with a few more teams. I think the Warriors and Lakers are absolutely unequivocally clear. I would pretty confidently take the 08 Celtics. It's one of the best defenses ever, and I do think there was a level of,

experience and maturity with the big three. You don't think they're picking on, sorry, just in a hype, but I know they're accomplished, and this is hard because we're comparing two completely different eras of balls. I'll anticipate your question. I'm not factoring in the big perk couldn't play in 2024. I am not necessarily viewing this in a vacuum as, okay, who would beat who?

I'm interpreting this question more as, where would they rank among champions? Like, who is the more convincing, who is the greater team within the context of their era? because that's kind of the only way to really view these conversations. That's what's so funny about all the, like, 2017 Warriors versus 04 Pistons or whatever. It's like generally the modern teams are going to win.

And also they're just built for a different style and a different era of basketball. So viewing it through that prism, I would give the Edge the 08 Celtics that was such a dominant regular season team, such a great defense for awesome basketball players. I do think that their offense. And Perk.

And Kendrick Perkins was there. Their offense is not as dynamic. because the Celtics team, not all that close. And that team struggled a good bit more than people remember in the postseason. Against some not-so-great teams against the pretty mediocre Hawks team, against the pretty mediocre Cavs team. They weren't super convincing. So I would lean them.

I would lean last year's nuggets because I think with Bruce Brown, with the level that the supporting cast was playing at last year, that was a special offense and they were defending really well. I would lean the 2013 heat, even though you didn't have a great version of D. Wade at that time, I think, sort of how you talk about Yolkich being at that unstoppable level. That version of LeBron is really difficult to deny. And that was a better supporting cast with Batty A and with Ray Allen and whatnot. And then I have a number of teams in the sort of maybe category.

The 07 spurs, really, really good champ, the 2014 spurs, the ultimate, beautiful basketball, aggregate talent. Nobody playing at a superstar level on that team. But they just played such good, connected offense and defense. so much skill, so many positive contributors. I would have the 09, 2010 Lakers in this maybe range, and maybe like the 2016 calves. I also think the 04 Pistons, you could make a case that they would just sort of smack them in the mouth

with that sort of dominant defense and then maybe bring out the worst in the Celtics offense. But realistically, those last few, I think I would lean the Celtics, this version of the Celtics and all of them. I do think that they just have more overwhelming talent. they have more avenues to dominance on both sides of the ball. It's ridiculous.

They have five of the top 50 players in basketball. You just very rarely see that. But the advantage almost all these teams have is that more unstoppable number one driving things, which is compelling. The spurs are a little bit different. It's not as much about that, but it's about the super impressive team and the aggregate. But I do think I would probably lean the Celtics because of the talent factor, but the spurs have the consistency and the process and the IQ.

So my answer with this may depend on how the Celtics finish out this series because that's kind of the annoying thing We haven't really seen them tested in these playoffs and that is very much related to our next question from Abbey Which I think is a very interesting one Where would this Boston team rank all time with a dominant finals say they close it out in five? I think you just hit on one of my big keys to this question that was you know it's hard to rank because of how easy their path was right? That's kind of what I don't know, makes this Celtics team. We talked about this a little bit with Joel, right?

I think it's a reason that people like to pick on the Celtics. We haven't seen them battle tested. And so I feel like, I don't know. I'm going to feel almost like shortchanged if this series ends in five. I'm going to be so disappointed. It's like, all right, man, we're waiting to see the Celtics get tested. Well, that would be pretty good answer to the test, wouldn't it? All right, man, we're waiting to see the Celtics to get tested.

I guess it would, you know? I mean, if they just mop up Dallas. Dare I say that would be an A on the test. I would say potentially a top 10 basketball team. Ever? Maybe, yeah, dude. Wow. I mean, if they mop Dallas in five,

even though their path is super disappointing. And I don't think they have a number one that compares to a lot of these teams is number one. And that's the key dynamic. They'd be towards the end of my top 10. And I'm obviously omitting a couple of versions of teams. I'm not going to have every KD Steph Warriors team. I'm not going to have every 90 Bulls team, right? I would take one iteration of those teams,

and we'd have different dynasties for more variety. But yeah, I think they certainly have a case. I'm taking Katie and Steph's Warriors. I'm taking the 90s Bulls. I'm taking, I think, you know, the 87 Lakers, the 86 Celtics, the 83-6ers. 60 Celtics, 72 Lakers, 71 bucks. We're going to take a Kareem team.

We're going to take some old Celtics. But after that, man, maybe a Spurs team too. Did you mention the 89 pistons? That's a pretty dominant team. Yeah, they're loaded. But I think you're looking at a team that would probably be nine or ten. There's so much freaking talent here. And what they did in this regular season, you know, 60 plus wins.

Again, the path sucks, but they lose, what, two games on the way to the final? finals, bro. Like, I don't know. This is a great basketball team, and I don't want to overlook that. I think the damning part of this is that they don't have a number one that is on the level of a Kareem, of a Moses, of a bird, of a magic, of a Jordan, of a Steph or KD. But this is a damn good basketball team. So I'd say they're in the fringe top 10, top 10 range, and that's still freaking historic, man. I mean, that is all-time stuff. I take the 2000s Lakers over them. Yeah, I couldn't remember if you mentioned that. Yeah, yeah, I would take the Lakers. Pretty clearly the 0-1 Lakers for sure on a different level.

But they're fighting for it, man. They're clon. If they dominate Dallas in this, it's a real conversation to me. I don't think that they have the opportunity to be top 10. If you wanted to argue sort of top 15-ish, okay, I pulled up my list of the top 10 NBA teams ever from whenever we did this episode. I have the 83-6ers at number 10. And the 83-6ers were a 65-win regular season team that then, as we know, very nearly went foe, foe, absolutely obliterated the Lakers and the Bucks in the playoffs. Sorry, not to cut you off. You have multiple iterations of the same franchise or dynasty in that, right, though?

The only one that I have a repeat of is the Bulls. I have both the 91 Bulls and the 96 Bulls here. But if we were, then I would include also the 97 Bulls above them. I think that you can get to a pretty solid 15. But after that, yeah, it wouldn't be ridiculous to have the Celtics up that high. And their statistical case will be a very, very impressive. Because as we talked about, like, their top three in net rating, top five in point differentials. So the regular season resume, the record isn't quite there.

But those metrics absolutely are among the best ever. They'd be the most talented complete starting five in like close to 40 years. That's pretty outstanding. they would be if they went in five, 16 and 3 in the playoffs. Like, if it's a convincing 5 that they beat Dallas in, then you'd be hard pressed to make the path point a super relevant one. And then it just does kind of become difficult to evaluate this team among some of the other ones in that same range because the regular season is there.

The playoff dominance would be there. The playoff path would not be on the same level. I feel comfortable with saying they'd be somewhere in like that 15 to 20 range if they have a convincing win. Their basketball talent is absolutely there. Overall, as you mentioned, it does take a really exceptional sort of complete team to get here without having that all-time great number one. The best version of it that we've ever seen would be to me like the 89 and the 90 Pistons, but the 89 team was better because Isaiah is the only guy on this list you look at and you're like, yeah, you know, he wasn't a convincing top five guy in the league. People kind of like

to rewrite history and pretend that he was, but he really wasn't. It was an overwhelmingly great team, an overwhelmingly great team defense. So they are absolutely one of these strongest champs in recent memory if they get it done. That sort of end-end dominance regular season through the postseason is very rare to see, as is this level of basketball talent. We are this close to crowning an NBA champ, and with the action heating up on the court, it's even hotter at Draft King Sportsbook,

an official sports betting partner of the NBA. And Draft King Sportsbook has you covered every step of the way, with same game parley's live betting, odds boosts and so much more, don't miss out as the NBA postseason winds down. It's super easy to get started with Draft Kings if you're a first timer. Try betting on something like a team to win. Go to the Draft King Sportsbook app, select your team, and place your bet. It's that simple.

And if you're new to Draft Kings, you got to check this out. New customers bet five bucks to get 150 in bonus bets instantly. Download the Draft King Sportsbook app now and use code nerds. That's code nerds for new customers to get 100, 150 in bonus bets when you bet just five bucks. Only on Draft Kings, the crown is yours. Gambling problem, call 1-800 Gambler, or in West Virginia, visit 1-800gambler.net. In New York, call 8778-8-Hop-N-Y or text Hope & Y 467369.

In Connecticut, help is available for Problem Gambling. Call 888-789-77777 or visit ccpg.org. Please play responsibly. On behalf of Boothill Casinoin Resort in Kansas, 21 and over, age varies by jurisdiction. void in Ontario. Bonus bets expire 168 hours after issuance. See dkng.com slash B-Ball for eligibility and deposit restrictions, terms, and responsible gaming resources. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged.

It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I-Hard Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

A win is a win. A win is a win. I don't care what I'm saying. Yep, that's me, Cliver Taylor the 4th. You might have seen the skits, the reactions, my journey from basketball to college football, or my career in sports media. Well, somewhere along the way, this platform became bigger than I ever imagined.

And now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with some of your favorite athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment, and the next we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music. The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger.

So if you've ever supported me or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need to be. Listen to the Clifford show on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. Do you remember when Diana Ross

double-tap Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at it podcast. I'm Sam J. And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick it here, unpack what went down,

and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack on day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now.

Thank you for finishing that sentence. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We had a question very much on the flip side of that, Logan. From Active Vocab, that sort of, if best case scenario happens, how does Boston look?

Active vocab asks, if Boston does succumb to the pressure of the moment, What do you think will be the outward signs of that? In other words, if things go wrong, how do you start to tell? What does that look like? I mean, I think the first thing is Tatum probably crafts his pants. He's settling for threes. He's getting overwhelmed by double teams and making playmaking errors. Boston's playing way too fast.

They're chucking up threes. They're missing long. They're letting Dallas get easy transition opportunities. And what I think you're going to see is like lackadaisical, you know, this lack of dazical effort. Through the first, and I don't anticipate any of this happening because I think Boston is so experienced in these games and have played so many, you know, big playoff games

with a lot of this group, specifically Jalen and Jason, I don't really anticipate this happening. Maybe for a game, maybe for a quarter, we get that version of the Celtics, but we saw a lot of it in the early rounds, right? where they're just not really applying great ball pressure. They're kind of letting them get whatever they want. That's the version of Boston where I think they're completely crumbling under the pressure of the moment.

But the reason I also don't have that expectation is these guys are all so much more talented, right? You're not going to Marcus Smart and Robert Williams for plays. You have Drew Holiday and Derek White, where I just feel like those guys are way more composed. I feel like Forzingis is way more composed than those guys. So I really don't. If there's going to be a guy that crumbles, it would probably be Tatum. Because I just don't trust Tatum mentally. If I had to pick a guy.

But I really don't anticipate this happening, man. I think this is a team that realizes the gravity of the moment, and they've worked all season long to get here. And I think they're ready. I think they're ready to go battle for it. Like, I don't think we're going to see a, one on the level of like a Warriors kind of finals where they just fall apart.

I think I think these guys, I think J.B and J.T. are more, more ready. And I think this team is just better and more composed. So I don't anticipate this. I don't anticipate a complete Boston Celtics collapse. I misunderstood what you said when you said Warriors.

I think you were talking about 2016. And I was like, what an unnecessary shot. why are we bringing Harrison Barnes into this? I agree with a lot of what you said. I am much more optimistic, much more confident about this version of Boston. I'm picking them to win this series. But if things are going south, we do mostly know what it'll look like. Forcing early shot clock threes.

And I love Boston taking a bunch of threes. But there's a difference between the good catch and shoot looks that they've created and the ones that are sort of one pass instinctive. Let me just force this up. I also think you could see the decision-making, from Tatum and Brown be an issue. One thing that we haven't talked about is I wonder if we see Dallas mix in some zone here. I don't think that that's necessarily their identity, but it's just something that we've seen

kind of be a like, ooh, let's see if we can trip boss and up, throw them out of their rhythm and little short stints. But specifically, it's about Tatum. It's about, is he aggressive enough physically? Is he consistent enough as a playmaker? Is he creating a high shot quality for himself? Or is he settling? Is he taking bad shots?

Is he not asserting himself enough in the key stretches? I do think you look to him because the reality is there's a lot of really steady contributors on this team, but also their roles just don't lend themselves to meltdowns nearly as much. You kind of have to be the guy if you are going to have enough responsibility for things to really go south because of your performance. And Tatum, we've seen the duality. We've seen the inconsistency. I am more optimistic about him in this series than I have been. previously, but also a lot of my faith in Boston is about their aggregate talent.

The team as a whole. Magnus Miller asks, Logan, what is the most interesting finals matchup of the last 20 years? I really think this is one of the most interesting finals matchups we've had in quite some time considering the star versus great team dynamic. You know, Luke and Kyrie basically being matched up against this super team. It seems like this juggernaut. I think the next one that I look to is kind of similar. I thought the dynamics in the 2011, like Heat Mavericks finals,

was really interesting. Dirk and this great team with great role players down the roster, man. I mean, that was a great rotation versus the big three. That was awesome. Boston versus L.A., Kobe, you know, taking on those great Celtics teams. I thought were great dynamics. Those to me are the most interesting. then probably 2016. I mean, I just can't leave that one off, man. LeBron versus the Warriors.

Like, that's just an all-time classic. Those are my favorite. Number one is probably, and maybe this is just nostalgia talking because this is the first finals. I really remember like being invested in and watching leading up to it. So Heat Mavericks is probably my favorite most interesting matchup just in terms of the number one disparity. And this is no discredit to Dirk. But, you know, Dirk had a great team behind him. And he was a great number one for that roster. But like, the contrast between where Dirk was at in his career and where LeBron was at in his career, I think was an awesome dynamic. You know, and you add in the fact that Dallas D. Thrones, L.A., they beat Oklahoma City in that run, the young group there. So that to me is

probably my most interesting finals matchup since then. But I think there's a lot of great picks. And this one ranks up there all time for me, too, dude. The star versus great team dynamic. is always super fun. That Mavs one is fascinating, the 2011 Mavs, of course, and it's interesting because if I remember correctly, like, there was a pretty even split in terms of expert picks on them versus Portland in the first round. Kind of similar to this year's Mavs team,

who's the lower seed, they're the five seed. But there were definitely a lot of people on both sides of that debate, and then same goes for OKC and same goes for Western Conference Finals. So, like, if they were to pull it off, they would very much be beating the odds, kind of like that 2011 team. Some other ones that I would acknowledge, I think 2013-14 Spurs Heat,

those were two really fascinating series. Again, the contrast between the star power and the ultimate team factor because that's the other thing with 2011. It's not so much about LeBron versus Dirk. To me, it's more about the big three versus Dirk and just a bunch of really good role players.

It was the overall star power, because obviously Dirk totally outplayed LeBron. But of course, LeBron was definitely viewed as the better player at the time, just wasn't in that run and in that series. I have two more. 08 Celtics Lakers was fascinating just because you have two of the most iconic franchises, both of whom had been pretty down on their luck,

and it was just sort of like a seismic shift in the league because both these teams were put together that year. You have the big three assembled in the offseason prior, and then you have POW traded to the Lakers midway through that season. Pretty awesome dynamics at play there. And then I have the 04 Pistons against the Lakers. again, another team that was assembled midseason with them adding Sheed, but huge contrast, overwhelming star power versus ultimate team, ultimate defense in Detroit, and the Lakers were

considered like the most stacked they'd been because of the fact that they had added Carl Malone and they had added Gary Payton. Like that team is so comically oozing with all time talent. Of course, Carl and Gary are certainly past their primes at this point. but just the name power was overwhelming. I think Detroit is the biggest underdog to ever win the title. I believe they were plus 500 to win that series and they got it done. So those are some pretty compelling matchups.

Okay, that kind of does it for final talk. Now we're going to quickly go through some of your guys offseason questions. This one comes to us from, yeah. I was wondering y'all's opinions on the upcoming draft prospects. Who's not talked about enough? Who do you think is getting too much hype? We can start with guys who aren't getting enough hype. we'll start positive.

One of the guys I think that isn't getting enough hype in this class is Isaiah Collier. I think a lot of the point guard shine went to Stefan Castle, you know, after Yukon won the title, and I want to be clear about something. Collier and Castle are about neck and neck with me, but I think Collier has a higher scoring and playmaking ceiling. I like him on ball a little bit more than Castle, and so I prefer him marginally there, but they're covering him like he's a top 10 to lottery guy, and I think Collier is a guy

I would probably take in the top five. I love how strong he is and how physically he plays. His shot looks mechanically smooth. Like, he's a big athletic point guard. I just think his mold is good. And he was a number one prospect in his high school class. Like, I really believe in Collier. And I just, I love his physical imposition.

Another guy like Cody Williams, again, another guy that's being talked at is top 10 lottery. I think he's top five. He does so many little grublishing. great things. Like, I think it's going to fluctuate. I don't know if you're looking at a superstar here, but I think Cody is at least a great role player immediately. And then a guy who has, you know, thinks he does at just a really high level. I think his length and size defensively, I just think he'd be a great number three or number two. I don't necessarily think he's a number one lead guy, but I think you're getting a guy who's going to be a great

complimentary piece, you know, cutting off ball, making shots, playing within the flow of the offense. And then the other two guys I like are two G-League Ignite wings. Ron Holland and Matas Buzellas. I just did a breakdown on Holland. Holland, similar to Williams, I don't know if you're getting a superstar. Holland needs to progress as an off-the-dribble shot maker as a floor spacer, as a playmaker, like to be a star. But he does so many great things well-rounded. Like he's a great athlete. He's a really good defensive playmaker. I think He's just a mental case, Carson, and I don't mean that it's like he's crazy, but I just think court awareness is the biggest thing with Holland. Getting up to mental game speed, knowing where I need to be, where I need to move my feet, where is the ball going.

And he's 18. Like, I think all that is going to come, you know, through two or three more years of playing basketball. I think you're getting a great number two or number three. And that's the thing with this class. I mean, that's what a lot of teams are going to have to settle for. I don't know how many legitimate number one basketball players you have. have in this class. I'm not sure if there's one, especially offensively. So you need to be looking for complimentary guys, and I think Holland's a great complimentary guy, along with Boozellis.

Boozellis to me is very similar to Wagner in archetype. You know, maybe not a freak athletic wing, but he's a good athlete. But good change of pace, good ball handler, good floor spacer, good touch, and just makes good decisions. And he's a long. So those are all. guys that I think are just kind of, they're being looked at as lottery guys when I think they should all be like legitimate top 10 to top five prospects. Collier, Williams, Boozellis, and Holland, I all think are a little underrated at this point in the draft process. Boozellis is probably going to go top five.

And he was considered the number one guy before this year, the basketball actually went down. I do think he's different from Franz. I think that Franz is more polished as lead ball handler or, you know, a real secondary ball handler from the perimeter and as a playmaker. And I think he's good or better as a finisher. The one thing I wanted mention that I think Buzellis has an edge on is defensively. I think Buzellis is a defensive stud.

Buzellis definitely plays a different role defensively. He's got more of that big man, low man, secondary rim protection. I think Fronz is a significantly better perimeter defender. That's not to say that Buzellis is bad there. I just think he's okay. I don't want to sell short Fronz as a defender, and particularly as a defensive prospect, that was definitely one of his calling cards. And the question with Buzellis is a, his shot is a much bigger question than it was with Fron.

So I think they're a little different. I would like Franz more. But Buzellis I like. I went a little bit deeper with some of my names here because I do think you're right. So much of this draft is just about finding good role players, finding complimentary skill sets. So I'm talking about a couple of dudes who are probably going to go outside. the lottery, but who I just really like. Tristan De Silva out of Colorado, who I've talked

about before. You mentioned Cody Williams. A couple of buffs who you just got to love if you want versatile wings. The guy just does a lot at a high level. He's very polished. He's a good shooter of the basketball. He's big. He's athletic. He's strong. He can defend multiple positions. He's a good playmaker.

I just think the sort of plug and play wing forward that really any team would benefit from having if you're trying to seriously win. And then I have Tyler Colick, the point guard out of Marquette, who I just think every time you watch him has such a special command of the game. Now, he doesn't have the athletic tools to be approaching star status in this league, but I'll be damned if that guy isn't a legit starting caliber point guard or one of the best guys in terms of running a second

unit in the league. There's just a level of craftiness as a driver, of touch finishing, of maturity as a playmaker. I really, really like his game offensively, and I think that he's one of those guys So I'm just super confident in being good. That's kind of the theme with those two. Some of the dudes you mentioned are definitely viewed more highly as prospects, deservedly so because they have more upside, but there's still some of that hit and miss dimension with like a Boozellis. Whereas these guys, it's just like they're not worth taking in the top 10,

but if I'm picking somewhere in the teens, like just give me these guys because I really think that their games are going to translate to them being productive players. For the overhyped part of this, to me there's a pretty clear choice in its resoucher. who continues to be mocked number one overall, as Logan celebrates. I just really don't get it. And I totally understand that this is a weak draft and that the standard is significantly lower for number one prospects than it's been in recent years. But even within the scope of that, I just think there's dudes who have traits who pop more. Like, I significantly prefer Sarr.

I think his defensive tools and at least the offensive upside, like the combination of that, is much more conducive to him having a star level impact than Riesashe. Basically, the bid with Riesashe is he's tall. He's a pretty good shooter. He shot the ball very well for a year, but he's still only 70% from the line. His mechanics aren't the prettiest. Like, he was over 40% from deep, and at that size, that is appealing. But he's an okay ball handler.

It's not very functional, though, because of his lack of quickness. He really doesn't give you much self-created offense whatsoever. he's got a good size and mobility are we really talking about a sort of relatively high floor 3 and d wing but like not even super high floor in my opinion because there's still some unknowns about his game going number one overall i'm just not there with riss ashe yeah i completely agree with uh with rissashe i don't know why um he's listed as a number one pick right now on my big board i'm still working through order hierarchy and you know, sorting out second round guys.

Rissacchet is like 15 or 16 to me. And it's not that I don't hate him as a prospect, but when I look at guys, I would rather have guys that are more multi-faceted in their impact and impact the game in different areas and do a lot of things well than just having one-star trait. Now, that one-star trait can overwhelmingly, you know, take you up a notch if you're that great at it.

But I don't think I don't feel that way about Rissaché as a shooter. And if he is that, I kind of look at him as a, a one-dimensional guy. I don't know if Ressach's ever going to be a positive defensively. I worry about him in terms of defensive awareness. I worry about his slight frame and guys completely driving through him. He's not a great athlete either.

I worry about him in terms of what he brings you offensively outside of his shot. Carson, 44% of his shots this year came from behind the arc. This is a guy that doesn't create a lot of downhill pressure. He struggles to finish through contact at the rim. Really struggles. He's just one-dimensional. And I don't like putting all of my chips in on a guy who has one good trait. And he's very young.

He is 18 years old. So maybe he's going to grow and he's got this crazy upside that I just don't see right now. And maybe he's going to improve. To me, the guys who are overhyped are him and Topich. And I have Topich in him neck and neck. And it's the same thing with Rissachet. It's about the one trait. I do want to be clear about something.

I think Topich, the guy I, would comp him to in terms of NBA prospects is Josh Giddy. And I want to be clear about something with the Giddy comp. I think Topich has better touch. I think Topich is better at creating downhill pressure. And he's a good passer. Honestly, I prefer Topic as a, like, guy who runs your bench unit. I think he's a backup point guard immediately.

But the thing with Topic is about all these primary ball handlers that aren't lead scores. And I just, why would I put the ball in the hands and have a guy run my own? offense who isn't a great score. And I don't know if I ever see that great scoring ability come with Topich. So both of those guys are like mid-lotter, not mid-first round to me. And I don't really understand why they're both being mocked, you know, as top five guys. I think that, first of all, that's pretty low on Reese Hach. 15-16 is low. I would view him probably more in like that end of the top 10 range. But I think we're mostly aligned on that.

Topich, I think you're understanding. I don't like the giddy comp. I can see where you're coming from in terms of the concerns. I just means in terms of archetype, you know. But the archetype's different. Like he is a significantly better downhill driver. He's shifty. He's not afraid of physicality.

He's a very efficient below the rim finisher. He's got good body control. Like there's just much more ability from him. to actually stress the defense. Now, I'm worried about the lack of a consistent shot. I'm worried about the unproven intermediate touch. Those are valid concerns to raise. Because if he doesn't improve there, then it's like, yeah,

this guy isn't going to be a really good lead creator. He has to get better. But the problem with Giddy, as much as his three-point shot, is his complete lack of scoring inside the arc. And that's where I think Topich is significantly better. So I'm higher on him, but I think Sarr is a pretty clear number one. And I think that some people say Toppage, some people say Reesachet, some people maybe would say Boozellis. I would take sorrow over all of them.

Okay. We have another offseason question. Shane asks, what moves can the heat realistically make this offseason to get significantly better? Is it even possible for them to go into next season as a genuine contender to come out of the east? I need hope. They're going to make a big move. And what sucks about that too is you would have to sacrifice some of your young wing talent, I think, to get it. I think you have to give up Yovich.

You got to give up Jaime Haquez. as you're probably giving up hero. And I'm not saying all three of those guys in the same deal, but you're likely giving up two of the three along with another pick because you're not going to get rid of your core. If you're going to run it back, it's going to be Jimmy Bam and a third offensive creator. And that's what I think you need.

You need another high-end offensive creator. Think about how last year the big rumor was Damien Lillard to Miami, right? He was going to be the guy that took them over the top. You need some kind of lead scoring guard. I wrote down four names that I think are relatively available. Donovan Mitch. Trey Young, Zach Levine, DeJante Murray, maybe Darius Garland. And like, those are like the only guys that I can really see Miami acquiring.

Trey Young and Mitchell are honestly probably too high end. I don't know if they have the capital to go and get those guys. So I think you're looking at Levine, Murray, or like Garland, and I don't really know how much those guys move the needle for me. Because your goal isn't to, you know, just be considered a legitimate contender. you have to leapfrog New York. You have to leapfrog Philadelphia. You have to leapfrog Boston.

You have to leapfrog, I don't know, maybe you would still have Milwaukee over Miami at this point. So it's just a hard sell for me to think that this team is legitimately going to take up another notch. And then you add an added concern that is Jimmy going to be healthy? You know, I love Jimmy Bueller as much as the next guy. I had Jimmy very high on my players that I want. But I worry about him health-wise moving forward now. I think when you have two players, the caliber of Jimmy and Bam,

I think you go in on the timeline that you have now and try to win games, but I just don't know if, like, Levine or Murray or Garland really move the needle for me. Like, you need a superstar offensive kind of player, and I don't know if Miami has the kind of capital needed to go out and acquire an asset like that. What's very intriguing about Levine to me is the opportunity to buy low, because, boy, could you buy low on Zach Levine, right? now like coming off of an injury at his age with his contract I do still think offensively he has the opportunity to be a tremendously impactful player he is

one of the best pure shooters in the league he is a really explosive athlete he's a relatively efficient on-ball creator and Miami absolutely needs more pop so that's where it's like you have the opportunity with him to add him without having to give all your assets because if you could get Donovan Mitchell if everything that you have is enough and we're talking like hero Hawkes Yovich and the 2029 first, maybe another pick swap in there, which I don't think would be a bad deal at all for Cleveland. We don't know if he'll become available.

But then it's like you've decimated your depth. With Levine, I think you're looking more at like maybe just hero and a first. Like, I think the asking price is obviously significantly lower. But you have two clear needs. You need another offensive star in the back court, ideally. You need more punch there. And then you need more. So I would lean towards going in on trying to add an actual star, even if you don't love the value, even if it's not the perfect fit just because I think you need that to have a legitimate contending ceiling.

If you don't do that, or maybe even if you can buy low in addition to that, use your remaining assets to get a big versatile wing. I'll say it, he's going to be one of my favorite targets for a number of teams this offseason. but Denny of Dia, man. If you could add a Denny of Dia, you want that size, you want that offensive skill, you want that defensive versatility. I think that that is a pretty reasonable goal to try to accomplish, and I think that would make you significantly better as a basketball team. So the heat don't have a wealth of assets, but because Hawkes was so good,

because Yovic really progressed this year, like, I do think that they have more intriguing packages than they did this past off season that they can put together, and they're going to continue to go all in. I don't think it is within the organizational DNA here to rebuild. I think when you have Jimmy and Bam and when you're already out a couple firsts over the next few years like they are, I just expect them to continue to commit to this core. And I'm not opposed to that because Jimmy and Bam is a really good foundation.

It won't be for that much longer, so you do need to be aggressive. Okay, question from Titus Beard. Hey, guys, I love your content. You guys are making it easy to watch the playoffs. Thanks, Titus. Appreciate that. Speaking of the playoffs, how do you feel about a 1 to 16 playoff bracket? All teams play each other three times a year.

Just think it could eliminate some of the issues with week conferences by playing. Yeah, thank you for the kind words, Titus. I don't hate the idea. Nobody is actually saying these compliments. I'm adding them. Oh, well, thank you, Titus anyway. I think that's what they're probably thinking. Thank you, Carson.

I appreciate it, man. You're welcome. I don't hate the idea logistically in terms of the imbalance and talent that we have between the two conferences. The only issue that I have with this is, it's really similar to the dissolution of like the PAC 12 or these college conferences. I wonder if you're undermining like the rivalry aspect of these games that we get in the playoffs. Like the fact that we got clippers and Mavs again, right? That is just, it's must watch.

There's actual beef on the table. I want to watch because I want to watch Luca jawjack with these guys and go at them. And, you know, I just think you're losing some of that. but the West is stupid talented, way more talented than the Eastern Conference. And I understand like the frustration of lower teams out West. And, you know, you've got like the Bulls making the play in. And it's like, bro, the Chicago Bulls are a joke basketball team. And the fact that they are in the playoffs at all in the conversation and that you've got the Pelicans, you know, scrounging for a playoff spot.

Like I think those two teams are in different, not completely different tiers, but the palicans are just so much better, right, with a healthy Zion Williamson. And so I could hear an argument if that was your argument, but I like the fact that we have consistent rivalries and that we could get, you know, we can get Clippers Mazz again. We can get Warriors Kings in the first round. We can get these battles year after year that just make the playoffs feel like they mean a little more, right? Like New York Philly, right?

If I'm getting New York Phoenix in the first round because it's a 1 to 16 playoff bracket, I don't really feel the gravity of the matchup the way I do that is just cutthroat between New York and Philly. And so that's where I would push back a little bit at this idea. I do think we definitely want to preserve rivalries. So I wouldn't want to abolish conferences for that reason. Also, I just think logistically, everybody playing everybody three times a year, travel-wise, it's more difficult than you staying primarily within your state and your region, playing those teams four times a year.

Also, I'm pro-playing. I wouldn't want to get rid of that. I absolutely see the case that there is a big disparity between the two conferences right now, and it doesn't really look like that's going to change just because of how much young talent is concentrated in the West, and how much free agents have been going to the West, and just some of the best organizations in the league right now, some of the best infrastructure is in the West. I get all of that, and the East playoffs this year were obviously way worse than the West. So I understand the impetus to ask this question

But we want to preserve rivalries I think we want to preserve the play-in And that was some of the most fun basketball of the year Dude what we saw in the play-in Like out west the stakes are so high You're seeing really good basketball teams Play each other in these do-or-dye scenarios I think we keep things as they are

But we'll see Maybe in another half decade Like the East just hasn't gotten any better And then it's frustrating But the other thing is the East was so affected by injuries this year. I think that that put an extra damper on their postseason. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal but encouraged. It's the enhanced games.

Some call it grotesque. Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast's Superhuman documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the IHard radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. A win is a win.

A win is a win. I don't care what you're saying. Yep, that's me, Clifford Taylor the 4th. You might have seen the skits, the reactions, my journey from basketball to college football, or my career in sports media. Well, somewhere along the way, this platform became bigger than I ever imagined. And now I'm bringing all of that excitement to my brand new podcast, The Clifford Show. This is a place for raw, unfiltered conversations with some of your favorite athletes, creators, and voices that not only deserve to be heard, but celebrated. One week, I'll take you behind the scenes of the biggest moments in sports and entertainment, and the next we'll talk about life, mental health, purpose, and even music.

The Clifford Show isn't just a podcast. It's a space for honest conversations, stories that don't always get told, and for people who are chasing something bigger. So, if you've ever supported me, or you're just chasing down a dream, this is right where you need. to be. Listen to the Clifford show on the IHeart radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast. And for more behind the scenes, follow at Clifford and at TikTok Podcast Network on TikTok. Do you remember when Diana Ross double-tap Little Kim's boobs at the VMAs? Or when Kanye said that George Bush didn't like black people. I know what you're thinking. What the hell does George Bush got to do with Little Kim? Well, you can find out on the Look Back at a podcast. I'm Sam Jay.

And I'm Alex English. Each episode, we pick a here. unpack what went down and try to make sense of how we survived it. Including a recent episode with Mark Lamont Hill, waxing all about crack in the 80s. To be clear, 84 is big to me, not just because of crack. I'm down to talk about crack all day, but just so y'all know. I mean, at this point, Mark, this is the second episode where we've discussed crack. So I'm starting to see that there's a through line. We also have AIDS on the table right now.

Thank you finishing that sentence. Yes. I don't think there's a more important year for black people. Really? Yeah. For me, it's one of the most important years for black people in American history. Listen to look back at it on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. All right, question from Mikey Ryan. What's up, boys? Been watching since Midway this season, and you two have really made basketball a lot more enjoyable for me to watch. Again, he didn't say that. I added that. Do you actually buy the, if you draft Brani, you get LBJ sweepstakes?

Or is it just some media agenda? I personally don't think LBJ is going anywhere, but I anticipate the Lakers signing him to their summer league team and so on. That's Brani he's referring to. Yeah, I don't really buy into the draft Brony and get LeBron's sweepstakes. I think that's more of a media ploy or ploy by LeBron to get Brony drafted, you know, a little extra incentive, you know, a little icing on the cake, so to speak. But I do buy into the Lakers actually drafting him. This is something kind of intertwined with the Lakers' current head coaching search where, I mean, I'm not going to dress it up. I think LeBron James runs.

the Los Angeles Lakers. He was the driving to their Pinocchio. He's Jackie Moon at this point. That is what LeBron James is to the Los Angeles Lakers. He pulled the trigger on acquiring Russell Westbrook when Polinka needed to put his foot down and say no, LeBron. We cannot give this up to go get an aging guy who doesn't fit alongside you and Anthony Davis. What LeBron wants, LeBron is going to get in Los Angeles. And that is an issue that I have with the dynamic between them going out and getting a head coach like JJ Reddick because I just worry about them the power dynamic between the two and where does LeBron as head coach start and where does J.J. Redick is, you know, the head coach end. Where is the, you know, I worry about players legitimately listening to the JJ. I don't question

his basketball acumen whatsoever. I question his authority as a coach and guys buying into him as the head coach when basically it's going to be LeBron and J.J. Reddick co-head coaching the basketball team. That's what it's going to be, you know. And so that's where I can definitely buy into the Lakers drafting Brani. And I think Brani has NBA tools. That's why I'd be okay with him getting drafted, you know, the size of the point guard position. I don't think you're looking at a star. I think to think that you're getting that out of Brony is foolish, but I think Brony as a backup point guard, a defensive-minded guy who makes the right decision, add some floor spacing, add some dogs, some rebounding, some athleticism. Yeah, I think.

think he could be an NBA caliber player. So in summation, I would buy into the Lakers drafting him. But look, man, if, yeah, the Hornets say, yeah, we're going to draft Brani so we can drag LeBron to Charlotte. That's not happening. No. I think that Brony is probably going to end up in L.A. If I were anybody else, I probably wouldn't take Brony this year.

I think he's a very late second rounder. but if the Lakers sitting there in the mid-50s, why wouldn't they take him? Keep LeBron happy. A significant majority of second-round picks don't ever turn out to be relevant NBA players anyways. I absolutely do not think that there is a team that can just draft Bronny and then get LeBron.

I think LeBron is staying in L.A. That would be kind of an insane way for him to view things. If anything, I think maybe it would be like them holding Brani out there as Baten being like, ooh, trade us a first, overpay us, so you can get your little son to come play. with you and even that i don't know if it's super likely brawny as a prospect there's always interesting conversation surrounding him because there was the expectation just because he's lebron's son and also he had a very good high school career but because of the cachet that comes with his name like a lot of people thought

this dude's going to be a star and then he's very clearly not that and then a lot of people are just like this guy outright sucks i think he's a fringe NBA guy i think his viability really swings on his shot combining his senior year at Sierra Canyon with his freshman year at USC, shot 30% from deep, 40% on 2 point jumpers, 21% on runners, under 68% from the line at USC. So that is a pretty complete profile of a below average shooter. And his mechanics are good, but I think him becoming an above average shooter would take some real work. And he's a good defender, only 6-1, but he does have the 6-7 wingspan, really solid frame. He's a good athlete, plays with a lot of effort and pride on that and very clearly wants to excel there.

That's more than something he's comfortable with being known for, which I think is really good. And he's a good decision maker offensively. He's a good connective passer, but he is 6-1. He's not very comfortable handling. He's not a super quick downhill athlete. And so far, he has been a poor shooter. So that's not really a great profile for an NBA guard. To me, you're drafting a low-ceiling project, not generally two things that you want to hear together,

who just averaged five a night on 47% true shooting for a bad USC team. So the talk of him going in the first round just as like some sort of leverage play, to me is crazy. I don't care what you think of this draft. He's not close to a first round prospect. Would the Lakers take him in the mid-50s? Yes, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Okay, Zena Knight asks, if you were the Sixers front office and you had to keep the core of MBEed and Maxi, what moves would you make and why?

Well, yes, 100%. I'm keeping the core together. I think they work way too well together. Maxi, I think, is steadily ascending. Like, I think the more responsibility you give this guy. Like, I think he's going to even get better next year. He has already gotten so much better, so much more comfortable as a ball handler, out of pick and roll.

And as many gripes as I have with Embed and his health, you're not going to just throw away a guy who could be a top five player in basketball, could be the best player in the world in a hypothetical playoff. run. Here's not sacrificing this. And the big thing is, is that this offseason, Tobias Harris's mammoth contract is finally heading out. And the Sixers have a surplus and an abundance of cap space to work with. So the guy that I'm targeting is a guy's a free agent. That would be Paul George. That's the first guy that I'm looking at where I think that Paul George can just come in here and not play a role. I don't want to, you know, paint Paul George as that kind of player at this point

in his career. But, you know, he could be your offensive like number three. He doesn't really have to, you know, he spots up, attacks, closeouts, sprays the ball, gives you a little bit of, you know, he alleviates some of the pressure of Maxi as a ball handler. It gives him beat another guy that he can play off of. And I think you bring back a couple of guys if I'm Philadelphia. I'm bringing back Buddy Healed. I'm trying my best to bring back Kelly Ubre.

I thought he was great for Philadelphia. You're going to have to pay him a little more. But again, Philadelphia does have some cap space. It may be difficult to bring all of these guys in. But I would try to bring back Uber A. I'd try to bring back Buddy Heald, and I would try my damnedist to bring in Paul George. Just because I think he works here, man.

You get a high-in wing defender, a great shooter. And a guy who at this stage in his career doesn't have to play that number two role, which I don't know if he's suited to do anymore. He could play the number three fiddle behind Embed and Maxie. And I think they all really compliment each other really well. Are you a little injury prone with Embed and Paul George? Yeah, maybe a little bit. bit, but I think he is still one hell of a basketball player.

Having the luxury of him playing that number three role would be great. And trust me, he's not going to disappear like a ghost the way Tobias Harris did on a playoff stage. I think Paul George is going to give you a little more. And if you can't get PG, just more athletic connecting wings who can either shoot or defend. Those are the kind of players that I'm trying to bring in. But Paul George is like the premier version of that archetype at this point in his career. and I think would be a great number three for Philadelphia.

I'd be all in on PG. Philly has a pretty clean slate contract-wise this offseason. Like there's almost nobody on the books for them. And definitely I would want to retain some of these role players, Batum, Ubre, D Anthony Melton, those are guys who I really like. But priority number one to me would be adding a third star. I'd be all in on Paul George. I just couldn't really dream of a better third option, as you say.

Doesn't have to bear the consistent burden of being your number two. is an elite off ball player doesn't have to be creating consistently with the ball in his hands, but when you need him to, he can dominate offensively kind on any given night. It allows him to commit to the defensive end. You get a big, versatile wing there. It's just a great fit playing off the Maxie NB two-man game. I think he'd be insane. And he gives you the firepower that you need to compete with Boston.

And once you're knocking on that door, I think it's easier to fill out the remainder of this roster, or even if it means compromising a bit of your depth. Because now you have the star power to go head to head with them. And that's not something that anybody else in the East has. The Knicks don't quite have that. The Bucks don't quite have that in terms of having a legit big three like this. So I understand the age. I understand the reputation that he has.

The guy is still a top 25 basketball player on the planet. He fits really well. I would be in on it. All right. Last real question. And then we have some silly ones. Tommy. Hey guys.

New to the show as of this playoffs. Really enjoying the content. Thank you Tommy. I'm a wolf fan and my question is how do you see the front office navigating the salary cap for the next two to three years? Do you foresee them trading cat or Rudy? Are there any moves you'd like them to make or do you run the current team back with some minor bench tweaks? The issue with making minor bench tweaks is the fact that you're tied up in so much money next year not only does Edwards contract kicks in $43 million. Jaden McDaniel's $20 million contract is going to kick in too. So it leaves you straps for just maneuvering on the margins. I would bring back for sure this offseason. Kyle Anderson, I just thought he was great. Like he provides a lot of versatility in your lineup in terms of what he can do with ball handling, shot making, small ball five, like what he brings defensively. I would bring back Kyle Anderson. That's probably my biggest priority. And the one big

hole that I look at with this team that I would love to see them address is a real high-end perimeter creator off the bench. Again, the issue with that is finding that guy won and then finding that guy for cheap. If they are going to make a big move, I think it would be trading Carl Anthony Towns. And we're going to have to see. Honestly, I think next year is going to determine a lot of their moves. I think they run back this iteration of this team next year. They bring back Kyle Anderson. There's not a lot of other moves they can make. I think the group you've got in this playoff is going to run back next year. It's really going to be how they perform. If Carl Anthony Towns does not play up the standard, he's the odd man out.

The reality of the situation with Minnesota is you're not moving Rudy Gobert for a few reasons. One, the contract's really big. Two, you gave up a ton of assets, and you're just not nearly going to get that kind of value back for Rudy Gobert. You're going to be losing value on the deal that you gave up, and then Gobert makes your defense great. So if there is somebody that would be moved, I think it would be Carl Anthony Towns to get another secondary superstar alongside Ant. and I don't know who that guy is, but to me, you wouldn't move off of Gobert. You're not going to move off of Ant. You're not going to move off of McDaniels.

The odd man out would be Carl Anthony Towns. So to me, if I'm going to move off of a player, it would be Kat to find another secondary offensive stud that works alongside Ant. Yeah, I don't think that happens this offseason. I'm pretty confident that they'll run it back for next year. You have the formula to beat Denver within the West, and that really does matter. I still view them as the top dog with how things are currently laid out. Denver going into next year if they can keep KCP, so that's very valuable. And if Ant and Cat play better than they did in the conference finals this year,

like I think you could get through the conference. There's going to be a lot of strong teams, but I am not permanently out on this configuration. Minor tweaks, I would like to upgrade your bench ball handler role if you could upgrade that Montemortemort's spot using your mid-level exception. That'd be great. easier said than done though and overall your roster is very locked in you have a lot of cap committed to your top seven players already so you run it back next year after that you make an assessment and i think it's more likely that they trade cat because of the reasons that you mentioned gobert's

so essential to their defensive foundation and they just traded so much for him less than two years ago but gobert is going to be 33 at the end of next season so that's not really great either and that's to me why Minnesota not getting it done this year. Losing out on their opportunity after beating Denver is so hard to stomach, because your window may just not be that long. Like Gobert is currently still playing as one of the best defensive players on the planet. Will he be in a couple years when that contract is up once he's taking his player option? Will you want to resign him at that point?

We just don't know. So Ant gives you a prolonged window, but this specific iteration, I think you run back next year and then you see where you progress from there. I would not expect any major changes in this offseason. All right, Logan. Aidan asks, who are your favorite gooners? Lamar Odom, goaded gooner, beat it before every basketball game. The goat.

Jesus. Well, don't be crass. Don't be crass. I got flapjack, Philly is my number one gooner, followed by Sandbag and Steve, followed by Lenny Wilkins. The Bronze Age. What is your favorite type of honey for honey-pouring purposes? The honey I get at the store What kind of honey is that

The honey I get at the store Logan likes bee honey You know honey never expires Man, it never goes bad Yeah because bees are eternal You and I have only been here for what 22 years bees have been here forever And bees will be here forever

I like honey White sucks denier, better singer Logan or Carson For sure Carson man Like we're actually singing I could maybe I don't know, dude, your resume is actually stacking up, bro. Like, you've got now the rap battle beefs, you got a musical, you've got the Greg Oden rap.

Frankly, I'm getting cooked. My resume just doesn't stack up. Music is in the heart and it is in the soul, is it not? So at the end of the day, comparison is the thief of joy. It's not about the music we make on our own. It's about the music we can make together with our mouths, with our bodies, etc., etc. All right, last question. This one I really like.

Kup to Snoop. Who's the worst NBA player you would interview? Jordan Poole. I just like to talk to Jordan Poole. Really? That's the worst? If somebody worse than Jordan Poole said, hey, I want to come on a nerdsush.

I want to talk to you guys. You would say, no. Fuck you, Sam Houser. What is Sam Houser going to talk to me about? Maybe the Boston Celtics winning the title. Maybe you could learn about Jason Tatum's idiosyncrasies. all the little things that he does where he likes to have his cereal in the morning. Does he shower? Does he take baths? Does he go to a local river and just jump in the water?

If Tony Bradley wanted to come on to nerds, would you talk to Tony Bradley? Tony Bradley. U.N.C. legend. I don't know. Let's throw some names out there. Nemeas Cato wants to come on the show. Hell yeah, man. Cato's a beast. Cade isn't actually a good player. You are one funny guy, Logan. You say, hell no to Sam How is, you say, hell yeah, and me is Kada. Kada's all right, man. Well, okay, I think Celtics

are too relevant. What about Sosco? Yeah, I talked to him. What's said one dude from Turkey? Learn about one. I cannot pronounce his name. He plays for, on,

he's got, the guy for the Bulls? Yes. Yeah. Would you talk to him? What's his, it's like, but it's beat him.

If I could figure out of pronounce his name, I would talk to him, yes. I think he's, got an interesting story. Would you talk to Grant Williams if Grant Williams wanted to come on the show? Absolutely. Would you not? Think about the things you could say to him.

We could do a 45-minute interview, all polite and clean. At then at the end, you could call him the Michelin Man, you could call him a big old tub of lard. You can say your teams get better when they move off of you, fat boy. I'm going to make both of them. I'm going to make both of them. Instead of Batman, you could call him fat man. Yeah. I would 100% name.

interview Grant Will. Yeah, if he dressed up as bad man, I would actually be down. Well, I don't know that we can stipulate that. I guess we'd have to see what he's comfortable with. Would you talk to Georgus Nying? Yes. I would want to know how he feels about the way that people talk about his physique as an NBA player. People saying things like he's built like a minivan. They say that on broadcasts, bro. Ryan Roco is just like baiting Richard Jefferson the whole time into calling him a rotund. I would want to know how he feels about that. Also, his name is George, but it's spelled with an S at the end.

That's kind of weird. He's kind of strange. So, yes, I would talk to him. Look, guys, we haven't talked to any NBA players on this show yet, but just know that when the moment comes, you're going to see this big J journalism degree coming into use. I'm going to be asking incisive questions. I'm going to be learning about these people's relationships with their mothers.

If they're international players, I'm going to be talking to them about childhood sports that they played that only exist in their country. I'm going to be learning what sort of swimsuits do they like to wear? Did they prefer French onion soup or do they prefer tomato soup? When was the last time that they really felt truly, madly in love? And are they still in pain from that? Are they still in a state of joy after that?

A lot of good questions to be asked to these guys. I'm going to get to the bottom of it. I think we should invite Grant Williams on the show. What's their favorite Miley Cyrus song? Grant Williams? Probably just party in the USA if I had to guess. Grant, who's your favorite gooner? Grant, who is your favorite gooner?

Who's your favorite Edgemaxer? Have you been jelking recently? And why is the answer to all of those questions, Nas Reid? Nas read. I'll tell you who we'd have on the podcast, Logan. Nas read. Nas read. Nas read.

Would you have Rudy Gay on the pod? Yes. Rudy Gay is a top 100 score in NBA history. Who do you think we are? Do you actually think Rudy Gay is a top? top 100 score. No, no, no.

I am saying objectively, he is top 100 in points scored in the history of basketball. Oh my gosh. Really?

Yeah, he's a bucket. From Toronto to Sacktown to Memphis and back down. Rudy Gay has gotten buckets his whole career. And that proves it Carson is the better musician,

man. He's not ready for the Rudy gay rap. There's a lot of dudes named Rudy in NBA history. What's up with that? Something to consider. All right, guys.

Appreciate all your questions. Hope you enjoyed our answering them. Hope you're excited for the NBA finals. If you are, well, good. So are we. We're going to be back tomorrow night talking about it. React into the game live.

So stay tuned in for that. Check out everything across our YouTube channel, all of our full shows, all the video essays that we do. Listen to the pod across audio platforms. You can follow us across social, TikTok, Instagram, at nerds, Twitter at nerd underscore sesh to see clips from the show to see our trivia content, which is always, oh, so much fun. Oodles and oodles of fun.

And you can check out our merch at thevolume.com. You can also join our Discord. The link to that is at the link tree across our social media bios. So with that, as always, appreciate you guys. I have been Carson Braver. I have been Logan Camden. And this was an Eric Sedge. Another podcast from some SNL late night comedy guy, not quite.

Unhumor me with Robert Smygel and friends. Me and hilarious guests from Bob Odenkirk to David Letterman help make you funnier. This week, my guest, SNL's Mikey Day and head writer Streeter Seidel, help an a cappella band with their between songs banter. Where does your group perform? We do some retirement homes. Those people

are starving for banter. Listen to humor me with Robert Smigel and friends on the IHeart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Imagine an Olympics where doping is not only legal, but encouraged. It's the enhanced games. Some call it grotesque.

Others say it's unleashing human potential. Either way, the podcast, Superhuman, documented it all, embedded in the games and with the athletes for a full year. Within probably 10 days, I'd put on 10 pounds. I was having trouble stopping the muscle growth. Listen to Superhuman on the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, what's good, y'all? You're listening to Learn the Hard Way with your favorite therapist and hosts Kear Games. This space is about black men's experiences, having honest conversations.

that it's really not safe to have anywhere, but you're having them with a licensed professional who knows what he's doing. How many men carry a suit or armor. It signals to the world that you're not to be played with. And just because you have the capability that does not mean that you need to, listen to learn the hard way on the IHard radio app,

Apple Podcast, or wherever you get your podcast. This is an IHart podcast. Guaranteed human.