Suppose the difference on this one is that in the NBA you have to win a 7 game series for the ring. It's not a one game, winner take all event where a bad day, or a fluke play (say, avoiding a sack, running BEHIND the pile, tossing up a ball that should be intercepted, guy catches it on his helmet, somehow holds on while being bodyslammed. That kinda fluke play. After that, if Samuel holds onto the ball he should have intercepted, the Giants STILL lose.
Damn, you're still hurting aren't you? Well I don't blame you, under the circumstances you have good reason.
Which team do you figure has the manpower to beat the Celtics 4 out of 7 times right now?
None.
But, even in a 7 game series sometimes manpower and schemes aren't enough (similar to the Super Bowl). The Celtics are still a very inexperienced playoff team and though I don't anticipate they will have any trouble winning the eastern conference (thanks Detroit), I think they are going to run into something different in the NBA Finals where I think they'll meet the Spurs.
And just like you argued position by position why the Pats were better than the Giants (you were right, though irrelevant), you could do the same thing with the Celts and the Spurs. However, the Spurs are a very good defensive team which can score, and won't be intimidated by playing on the road in the Finals. Instead of self destructing, the Spurs are capable of playing disciplined ball thereby forcing their opponent to
beat them. And frankly, Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and KG (especially KG), have all been guilty of meltdowns under playoff pressure.
But the big intangible (and I know you aren't big on "intangibles"), is that I really think the Spurs are actually seriously going for that repeat this season. They are motivated in a way the Celtics aren't.
Now, if the Spurs don't make it to the Finals, I think the C's, much to my absolute and utter disgust, will be hanging their 17th flag this year.