Chiisuchan™

amira123:

Then you’d be like:

And then, it would take you another eternity to remember the answer.

So you’re focusing like

But you can’t remember. Then you’d be like:

(Source: barbaricara)

zellajer14:

What Disney Movies Have Taught Me

girlfromparis:

leafarja:

That you can fall in love with someone regardless of how they look

To be true to your heart.

That love can happen between any two people.

That those we have lost will always be with us.

That even our wildest dreams can come true.

That we must learn to accept differences and love each other for them

That some of the most beautiful people we will ever know, are beautiful for who they are and not what they look like.

That we are all meant for something great.

That you may find the one you are meant for in the strangest places.

yes.

By: Jim Eichenhofer, Hornets.com
During the early portion of the 2010 offseason, we’ll be examining a few of the specific categories in which the Hornets may or may not need to improve in 2010-11, as well as what steps might be required to make tangible progress heading into next season.

NBA analysts who don’t follow New Orleans closely have occasionally made the mistake during All-Star point guard Chris Paul’s career of thinking that the Hornets have been successful primarily based on an up-tempo, high-scoring offensive attack. In truth, during their rise from 18 wins in 2004-05 to a Southwest Division title in 2007-08, the Hornets were more accurately described as a methodical team that leaned heavily on defensive prowess.

While New Orleans assesses its roster this summer and analyzes ways to return to the postseason in 2011, it’s important to remember that improvement on defense will likely be the simplest way to accomplish that goal. Their decline on D this season was a precipitous one, dropping all the way from ninth place in defensive efficiency to 21st (out of 30 NBA teams).

“I think that will be the biggest focus coming into next season,” Paul said. “It has to start on the defensive end. We just haven’t been able to play defense consistently. That’s what the very good teams do. They play defense every night.”

There were a wide range of explanations for the decline, starting perhaps with a drop-off in on-the-ball containment by the Hornets’ perimeter players. Opposing guards and wings seemed to get into the lane more easily in 2009-10 than in the past, leading to several stretches in which New Orleans regularly surrendered 100-plus points. The Hornets allowed 110 points or more 21 times (roughly one-fourth of their games) and – lacking the healthy bodies or consistent firepower to keep pace – went 5-16 in those instances. By comparison, New Orleans gave up 110-plus points only five times during the entire 2008-09 season.

“We can score, but you can’t outscore teams in this league every night,” Paul said.
The constant shuffling of players in and out of the rotation due to injuries also negatively impacted the Hornets on D. Early in the season, the team’s defensive chemistry appeared lacking partly due to trying to integrate several additions to the roster. Only during the month of January – when NOLA went 12-5 and held 10 opponents out of 17 under 100 points – did the Hornets seem to show high-level cohesiveness on defense.

“There has got to be trust, and guys have to play for one another defensively,” David West said. “That’s what it comes down to – being willing to get after teams and having confidence in our ability to protect each other.”

“It’s frustrating,” Paul said of the team’s decreased effectiveness. “We just have to communicate and have the effort. We’ve got to get better.”

New Orleans also ranked last among the 30 NBA teams in blocked shots (total of 300, an average of 3.7 per game), so when opponents penetrated into the paint, they faced relatively little resistance. Other than Emeka Okafor’s 127 rejections and West’s 60 swats, no Hornet had more than 19 blocks.

As team radio analyst Gerry Vaillancourt has mentioned repeatedly of late, the Hornets must improve their athleticism on the wings and length in the frontcourt. No matter how effectively an NBA team schemes defensively, if it doesn’t possess enough individual athletic ability, it’s extremely difficult to slow down some of the league’s explosive scorers and compensate for that deficiency.

By Couper Moorhead, for NBA.com
Posted Saturday May 8, 2010 12:03AM

BOSTON (NBA.com exclusive) — For the first two games in this series, the Boston Celtics were playing as well as they possibly could while the Cleveland Cavaliers meandered about, nowhere near their maximum capacity.

And yet the Cavaliers still won a game and almost recovered from a 20-point second-half deficit in another.

Friday, we saw what happens when Cleveland plays to its ability and Boston does anything less: the worst home playoff loss in Celtics history, 124-95.

“It’s embarrassing,” Paul Pierce said, “when you lose at home like that.”

With their recovery from a Game 2 letdown and subsequent evisceration of the Celtics, the Cavaliers have regained home-court advantage, every simile for momentum and now lead the series 2-1.

“In Game 2, we just didn’t play well in every aspect of the game,” Antawn Jamison said. “We knew what happened [then] was behind us.”

In fairness, the Cavaliers played well beyond their ability, putting up obscene offensive numbers such as 142 points per 100 possessions and nearly 60 percent shooting. But that efficiency was a byproduct of Cleveland’s aggressiveness out of the chute, a change of face in a series that had seen Boston lead after the first quarter in both instances. An attitude that started with LeBron James (38 points, eight rebounds, seven assists).

“You knew it coming into the game,” Celtics coach Doc Rivers said. “We told our guys, ‘You knew he was going to grab the ball and he was going to attack all game, especially early, to get his guys involved.’ And he did it.”

“It was great to see LeBron set the tone from the jump ball and everybody else followed,” Cavaliers coach Mike Brown said.

In the first quarter, James had 21 points on 10 shots with five free-throw attempts. By halftime, he had 28 of his team’s 65 — only needing two threes — and amazingly, the Celtics had just five defensive rebounds, the smallest after the first half since Kevin Garnett has been in Boston. While this was more of an account of how often Cleveland was scoring than how Boston was rebounding, the Cavaliers still grabbed seven offensive boards.

In other words, the Cavaliers missed 15 shots in the first half and gained an extra possession after seven of those, leaving Boston just eight opportunities to get into their offense without taking the ball out of bounds.

While Boston’s scoring total was manageable in a low-possession game, the Cavaliers allowed nothing approaching comfort by making the Celtics change what they needed to succeed. After Rajon Rondo looked like the best player in the series through two games, the Cavaliers put Anthony Parker on him from the start, hindering Rondo in the backcourt, pressuring him into uncomfortable passes and generally ignoring him when the ball wasn’t in his hands.

The resulting situation was one where Rondo was scoring — 12 points on 13 shots in the first half — because he had to score, and shoot from the perimeter, for Boston to survive rather than one where he could score because the opportunities were present.

“We did a good job making him shoot jumpshots tonight,” J.J. Hickson said. “He wants to get in the lane and make plays. We made it uncomfortable for him.”

And the opportunities for Rondo weren’t present because his teammates either weren’t drawing the defense by producing or weren’t on the court long enough to produce at all.

Paul Pierce, largely absent for most of the series, shot 3-for-10 in the first half and was stopped at the top of the key by outsized players like Mo Williams. Some early whistles discouraged Boston’s big men from setting their usual brand of moving screens, making it more difficult for Ray Allen (1-for-5 in the half) to get open coming off the baseline. But worst of all, after two games spent abusing Jamison in the post, Garnett took just two shots in the first seven minutes before picking up his second foul and taking a seat.

“Offensively we didn’t have a lot of movement,” Rivers said, “didn’t go to Kevin enough. We’ve got to make a concerted effort to continue to go to Kevin, and we didn’t do that.”

So, with no driving lanes available to Rondo and no post-presence to feed the ball to, Boston scored four points in the paint in the first quarter, fell behind by 19 and watched helplessly as the Cavaliers picked apart their world-class defense.

Sure, it was impressive that Cleveland came out with a taste for blood in the second half, kept the crowd to fidgeting and booing and had Rivers waving the white flag midway through the fourth quarter, but how much of a chance did Boston, ever inconsistent, have after being down 22 at the half?

Well, the Celtics have not come back from a 20-points deficit in the second-half in 2010. Not at home. Not in the playoffs. And certainly not against the Cavaliers.