Maximum Taco

I think they did a good enough job showing that she's capable of accomplishing that goal. Nobody who watched the show or read the books can legitimately argue against Arya's lethality. I think where they failed was showing exactly how she accomplished it. This was obviously in service to the moment where she strikes, they wanted us to lose all hope for Bran and then have Arya spring to his rescue. The problem with this is it smacks of Deus ex Machina. Arya jumps at him, but from where? The walls of the godswood are far from the weirwood tree. Arya got to him but how? He was surrounded by undead and his most trusted generals. Arya has supernatural stealth powers, but we don't ever see her use them in this episode, and it's a stretch for us to assume she did here. If any character snuck through an entire army and attacked a general in the open while drawing zero attention from his underlings I'd cry foul too if no explanation was given and none was, and I don't think one is forthcoming.

It's never really expanded upon in the books. Gilly says that if her child is a boy Craster will "give him to the gods" another of Craster's wives say the boy's brothers will come for him with the white cold. It's definitely implied that the boys become walkers (Craster's wives believe this anyhow), and fans have inferred that Craster's sacrifices must somehow be saving himself and his wives from the Others but it's deliberately left ambiguous exactly what kind of arrangement it is. Is this an arrangement with the Great Other? Is this an arrangement with the Others themselves? Does Craster himself even know? And we'll never really find out now, cause Craster's dead. Unless Martin decides to give us a word of god.

No they don't. In A Game of Thrones (the book) Prologue, Will tells Ser Waymar that he saw a camp of dead wildlings, but they aren't mutilated or arranged. They were just sitting/laying down around a campsite with the fire having gone out. Will thinks they are dead because they aren't moving ("No living man ever lay so still") Waymar then asks if he saw any blood and Will says "no." Waymar suggests they could be sleeping, and Will says he waited for a long time and they never moved, he's sure they are dead. Gared then suggests the cold killed them. Waymar says that's impossible, the Wall has been Weeping, so it's not cold enough for anyone to freeze to death and insists upon investigating further. When they go to investigate the bodies are gone (presumably because they became wights), and they are attacked by Others. Of note here is the Others leave Will alone they don't look for him or hunt for him, even though he's just up a tree directly over Waymar and Waymar was just yelling at him. They dispassionately kill Waymar, and when there's no one left to kill they move on. Craster's sons are sacrificed, but we don't know how that works exactly. All we know from the books is that when the white cold comes Craster leaves his son out to freeze to death. What exactly happens? Is it a ritual like in the show? Or is it as simple as an infant (or young child) left to freeze will become an Other as opposed to a wight? The Others do seem to leave Craster alone, but we don't know that this is an agreed upon accord, or if it's something more mystical. Is this a blood ritual that is keeping Craster safe? Or is there really a "Great Other" who is pleased with the sacrifice and legitimately keeps the Others from attacking him so he can get more Others? How do you defeat nature? Yeah, that's the interesting question. Way more interesting IMO then the old kill Sauron and the evil army crumbles cliche. How do you defeat an enemy that is dispassionate, that has no desire, that has no intellect to manipulate, that has no emotion to take advantage of, that has no clear goal (beyond the slow methodical destruction of everything) to disrupt? Especially in a world where most of the victories have come via an enemy's hubris, or stupidity or emotion. That's what makes the Others threatening.

It would look much much different. In the books there is no Night King. The Night's King in the books is a legendary figure akin to Brandon the Builder, or Lann the Clever someone who existed long before the Andals even came to Westeros. In the books there is no indication the Others even have a leader (Melisandre does sometimes refer to a "Great Other" but he's seen more as a metaphysical god to oppose R'hllor then a physical being in this world.) GRRM writes them much more like a zombie horde, but with more elegance, they are not organized, and they have never attacked in anything like a coordinated assault like we see in the show at Hardhome or this episode. That's not to say they don't travel and attack in groups, they do attack Jeor Mormont's force at the Fist of the First Men, but in ADwD when Jon asks Tormund if the Others ever attacked them Tormund tells him they were with them the entire way, but never attacked in force. IMO, Others in the books should be seen more as the advancing front of a natural destruction, like a tsunami or lava flow or hurricane. It's going to slowly cross the wall and come south, but it's not going to be "Ok they've gathered all their forces at Winterfell! Let's make directly for there boys!" The Others don't think, they pursue warm blooded creatures. So while they will attack on mass if there's a collection of them at proximity (like at the Fist of the First Men) they aren't going to think and make an assault and use tactics to take a castle. Will there even BE a battle like this one? Arya might take out a White Walker, but I don't think the conclusion to the threat of the Others will be as a simple as "take out the leader and watch the rest of them crumble to shards of ice" in the books.

Ugh, "The Wunderkind" was just awful. First of all, you went to the trouble to cast John Larroquette, and you use him in one scene? ONE SCENE?! What the damn hell Twilight Zone? What the actual damn hell? I really hope there was another episode starring John Larroquette and they were like "Hey John, wanna be in another one? We only need one scene" cause otherwise that is a waste and a shame. Secondly the development of Oliver was all over the place. So he's smart enough to realize that schmaltz sells, and smart enough to use the death of his dog to manipulate Raff, but also dumb enough to not realize how bodied he's gonna get in a debate which he didn't prepare for? And he's smart enough to threaten video game companies with levies, but dumb enough to not realize how congress works? Come on man. I realize what they are trying to do, with the current child who occupies the White House in real life having a woeful understanding about how the Presidency cannot control the Judicial or Legislative branches, but at a certain point we reach into a too silly place. And even that man-child had a plan for debating, he didn't just go in there and cry for his mom. Thirdly, they never really go into how this kid gets what he wants. One second his parents are demanding he see his doctor, the next his mother is refusing to step in as he enforces a country wide ban on "old doctors"? I mean come on, you can't flip the script like that without showing why she has a change of heart and is suddenly ok with a fellow 6th grader overseeing her son's medical care. I mean demanding video games for everyone, ok, that's not gonna change the world, and would probably make a lot of people like the kid. But immediately nullifying the health care system (and yes I see the parallel, but there was a more plausible way to go about it) and having everyone just ok with it? Again even the current commander in chief is coming under fire for his lack of plan when it comes to health care. I'm usually on board for a trip through the Twilight Zone and am willing to suspend disbelief, this one asked too much of me.

I think Sansa learns from everyone. These lessons that you are talking about are ones she's probably learned from Margaery, who is the best example of building love among the commons. Sure, she eventually had a horrible fiery death, but until death Margaery had taken a lot of Cersei's political power mainly by cultivating a relationship with the Kingslanders.

That also depends on if the show will follow book rules on dragon bonding. If it does then Rhaegal has likely bonded with Jon, and may side with him over Daenerys. And in that case I'd take Jon's forces over Dany's. Dany's Dothraki, Unsullied, a few Iron Islanders and 1 Dragon vs Jon's wildlings, Northmen, Valemen, Shape-shifting Assassin, All Knowing Eye of God, 1 Dragon and 1 Direwolf.

Actually if the show is following the royal succession outlined in the books Jon's claim would take precedence over Dany's both because he's a male and because he's the son of Aerys' firstborn. The books gave all the male heirs of house Targaryen precedent over the females. After the death of Jaehaerys I's 2nd son Aemon, he passed over Aemon's daughter Rhaenys (The Queen Who Never Was) entirely in favor of his next son Baelon (much to the displeasure of his Queen, Alysanne, who saw no reason for a female to be passed over in favor of a male) After Baelon died, Rhaenys claim was again dismissed, and more so, the claims of HER children were dismissed because the council of 101 decided that the male line should take precedence and they installed Baelon's eldest son Viserys as Prince of Dragonstone. If all of Aerys' children and grandchildren lived the line of succession would have been Rhaegar Aegon (the first Aegon who was killed by Gregor Clegane) Jon/Aegon (Jon may have come before original Aegon if Rhaegar's marriage to Elia was in fact annulled and not just set aside) Viserys (the next eldest male who would supercede Rhaenys, even though she is the daughter of the first born) Rhaenys (Rhaegar's daughter, who would supercede Dany based on premogeniture) Daenerys (who is the last Dragon standing)

I think the issue here is Dany has never really had to worry about people standing in her way until now. In Slavers Bay/The Bay of Dragons, she killed people who she thought were bad. Slavers and child killers. Against Cersei, no one is against her. Everyone who Dany respects or cares about would prefer Cersei to be dead. If Sansa decides to assert Northern Independence though and is willing to fight for it, will Jon support Dany's desire for a united Seven Kingdoms? From what we know about him, probably not, Jon sees the need for a united front of the living against the dead, and if Dany's sticking point is his crown, he'll happily surrender it. But if they win the War for the Dawn and Sansa and the Northerners still want independence, will he go to war against his sisters and their house? Would he forgive Dany if Sansa, Arya and Bran die in that war after surviving the War for the Dawn? Moreso, could Dany count on other Westerosi houses to support her war? The Vale is already staunchly in Sansa's camp, and you can assume that if the Tullys reemerge to fill the vacuum of power in the Riverlands they will also stand with the Starks. Theon has been shown to probably favor loyalty to the Starks over his oath to Daenerys, can she count on the Iron Islanders? Her other allies in the Seven Kingdoms, the Tyrells and Martells are dead, will whoever emerges from the Reach and Dorne support her? Even moreso, will Sansa's stand against Targaryen rule inspire those other High Houses to secede from the Seven Kingdoms as well? Dany is being faced with the prospect that she may have to carve a bloody swath through people she likes (even loves if it comes to Jon) and respects now. She's not fighting against monsters or shadows anymore. Everything that has happened so far this season has been pointing towards that. From Sansa's obstinance, to meeting Sam and realizing she killed his family, to now Jon's revelation that his claim to the Iron Throne may be better then her own.

He was designed as a weapon of revenge so the Children of the Forest could eradicate the First Men. He doesn't have a motivation beyond destruction. Presumably the Children first intended that he destroy all the First Men, and then the Children had a method for killing him (dragonglass?) It's kind of like a rogue AI in my view. They had a purpose for him, and then he expanded his purview. "I'm supposed to kill all the First Men, but then the Children will kill me. What if the First Men come back after the Children kill me? Clearly the only solution is to kill the Children, so they can't kill me, and then kill all the First Men. That way I can wait around and if any more First Men show up I'll just kill them then"

Fair point, but also it should be considered that Brienne and Davos keep more reputable company than Missandei. Both Brienne and Davos are native Westerosi and kept company with the Baratheons, a family that has been the ally of the Starks for a long time and never has raised arms against them. And then later pledged themselves directly to Sansa and Jon. Missandei, while a peaceful person from a peaceful people, came to Winterfell in the company of a woman whose father burned their lord alive, and who keeps a Lannister as her chief advisor, and two fire breathing monsters out of legend, and a horde of Dothraki, who are regarded (some may say appropriately from their past deeds) as raping pillaging lunatics. These children were probably raised on tales of their brave lord Ned Stark who with his noble friend Robert Baratheon dethroned an evil king, Aerys Targaryen. These children were probably raised on tales of Dothraki screamers who would come and carry them off and enslave them if they misbehaved. Is the North racist? Yes of course they are, but it's hard to judge an insular society for not changing overnight. That just doesn't happen.

Is it? I always saw Cersei's plan as the most prudent one for her given her circumstances. I don't think she's hoping on the NK wiping out Dany, she is aware that if the dead march on King's Landing she's boned. She's hoping for Dany to defeat the NK, but to take heavy losses. Cause she can defeat a living army that has just been crippled. The thing is she would rather die then cede power. So allying with Dany was never an option. Best case scenario in that situation is the allied army defeats the AOTD, but if losses are roughly equal between the Targaryens and Lannisters then Dany would still have the advantage in the war to come. Don't get me wrong, Cersei is likely boned either way. But the path she's chosen has a slim margin for victory, where as any other path is surely defeat. I think Sansa (and possibly Jaime) is really the only one who understands Cersei's motivations at this point. Tyrion is assuming she cares way too much for her (future) children, when really power is her highest priority. She'd rather live in a world where she was Queen and her children dead, then one in which she is raising her children and not the Queen.

And it's your assumption that Dany and Jon have thought to provide for their army and not just put that on Sansa. It could easily have been addressed in that very scene. But it wasn't. At no point does Dany or Jon or Tyrion say to Sansa "We have enough food to provide for our army for X weeks" no all she gets is "Dragons can eat people too. That's fine." IMO, if someone has a legitimate answer to make someone look foolish they would use it. If someone doesn't have a legitimate answer, that is when they resort to vague statements, or threats, or name calling. The only characters who have expressed concern for Sansa's dislike of Dany are the people who are either fucking Dany, or want to. I don't deny that Sansa dislikes Dany, and that definitely is her motivation for bringing out her points in open court (something I have agreed is inappropriate), but that doesn't invalidate her concerns about feeding the armies and the smallfolk, or her concerns about the tenuous loyalty of the Northerners (something she is proven to be right on as Lord Glover's letter shows), or her concerns about Cersei's trustworthiness (something we all know she is right on.) Sansa can be petulant and still be right.

These are all assumptions and don't address the issue. "Of course Dany's army brought supplies for themselves" - Says who? Dany doesn't say so, Jon doesn't say so, Tyrion doesn't say so. When Sansa raises the issue there's a palpable beat where anyone could say that there are more than enough supplies to go around, they're all there, they all heard her. But no one does. Instead Dany responds with veiled threats about dragons eating people. "This won't be a long engagement" - So? All this means is the army is going to eat Winterfell dry and then leave, and they are currently in a winter that can last DECADES. Jon is (arguably appropriately) only thinking of the battle to come. But Sansa is the one who is going to have to provide for all the Northerners (and any wounded) when Dany presumably marches south again to finish her war with Cersei. If Dany wants to be Queen of these people, she should also be thinking about this. Now it's possible (and even likely) that the winter will magically end when/if the Night King dies, but they have no reason to assume this is true, a winter that lasts decades is the norm in this world, and they need to assume this winter will be the same as all the winters before it. Sansa's conduct makes perfect sense. There are three armies at Winterfell, and a FOURTH is proposed to be joining them. Basic arithmetic says that 4 times the people are going to plow through food 4 times as quickly. She needs to be thinking about the aftermath here, because that's what a leader would do.

If Dany is going to feed her armies, then this is true. But it sure doesn't seem like she is. Dany didn't respond to the inquiry with "I'll look after my soldiers and dragons, you look after yours" she responded with "Oh maybe my Dragons will just eat you." The context of the conversation definitely seems like Jon and Dany are going to be relying on Sansa and the North to provide supplies for the entire army, which is patently ridiculous. And if that is the case it most definitely is Sansa's problem. She has arranged to provide for her own soldiers and her own smallfolk, if that army has suddenly tripled or quadrupled, well someone is going to go hungry, and Dany has very expressly pointed out that it will not be the dragons. You also don't earn people's respect by threatening to feed them to your monsters. You earn their enmity. Sansa deserved to be rebuked no doubt, she could have easily raised the issue not in open court, something Jon asked her to do when he was King. However it was a terrible choice by Dany. The Northerners already mistrust and dislike her, threatening to feed their Lady (and by extension them) to dragons is not the way to build a happy union. Moreso ignoring the query of how we are going to get enough food to last the winter, is not the way to build trust in one's leadership. This is a land where winter is deadly, and the Northerners don't appreciate veiled threats and flippant comments. What they do appreciate is straight shooting, of the kind Sansa is doing. Sansa: I was just wondering how you plan to feed everyone. I have enough to feed the Northerners, but I don't have enough to feed the godless heathens and FIRE BREATHING FUCKING MONSTERS you brought. Other Lords Thoughts: Gee that's a good thought. Winter has come after all. It's a good thing we have Sansa looking after us. Dany: Oh maybe I'll have my FIRE BREATHING FUCKING MONSTERS start eating people. Other Lords Thoughts: Gee. I don't like that. Dany is fixing to get herself assassinated.

I'm aware of what Dany meant. Everyone in the room was aware, she is the least subtle woman alive. The thing is, that isn't helpful. Sansa is bringing up legitimate concerns about how everyone is going to get the food they need to live. And Dany decides this is the best time to remind Sansa and all of her newfound tenuous allies who don't trust her at all and only remember her as the daughter of the man who burned their Lord alive about her fire breathing monsters. All it does is deepen that distrust and ignore the issue of how they are going to get enough food to stay the fuck alive. And also remind them that a good portion of them are going to starve so her FIRE BREATHING FUCKING MONSTERS can eat eighteen goats and eleven sheep. Or worse that her FIRE BREATHING FUCKING MONSTERS are going to eat them once the food starts to run out. Gee I wonder why Dany isn't beloved worshipped and respected by the masses? Maybe it's because she could not give a rat's ass about their need for food?

This is just fine, and Sansa no doubt expected an army to show up, what she didn't expect was for the army to show up WITH NO GODDAMN SUPPLIES. She says she ensured enough to keep the Northerners fed through the winter, but not for Dany's Unsullied, not for Dany's Dothraki, and not for Dany's Dragons. Which IMO is entirely reasonable. If you are bringing an army to an inhospitable field you'd think you'd bring supplies to feed your army, instead of relying on whoever is there already to feed you in addition to their own forces. They're in the North, and Winter has come. Jon knows this, so Tyrion and Dany should also know this. Sansa can only do so much to provide, she's called her banners, presumably with all the food stores they have, but she can't create food out of nothing. This is the issue, Jon is a warrior, a commander, he knows what it will take to defeat an army, and how to lead that army. But he seems to have no idea how to provide for an army, or maintain any kind of loyalty cause he's never really had to, he's simply gotten loyalty by doing what he usually would do. The Night's Watch had an infrastructure in place. The Lord Commander Commands, but it's the First Steward who is responsible for the minutiae of actually feeding, clothing and housing the brothers. If a Night's Watch brother chooses insubordination, he's entirely within his rights and powers to kill them, and nobody is going to harbor a deserter. He can't do this with the noble houses of the North though, sure they could go and burn down Deepwood Motte, but it would be stupid to start a war an another front when the dead are marching south. Dany is also inexperienced here. In the past she's done things the Dothraki way. She conquers rich lands that overflow with gold and supplies. She takes a city and lives off the spoils. She has no experience with caring for people because she just kills her enemies and feeds her friends with their food and wealth. Well you can't do that when you take a barren rock that sits in the middle of the sea (Dragonstone) and you can't do that when you form an alliance which grows your army, and you can't do that when your enemy IS THE DEAD who has no supplies to loot and pillage. Sansa is the only one asking the important questions here. "How do we feed our army?" "Why do you expect the Northerners to be loyal to you?" "Why do you expect Cersei to be honest with you?" Tyrion apparently has gone simple. Jon is interested in nothing but the actual business of fighting. Dany is more interested in dick slinging then providing any kind of solution. I mean what the fuck was that answer? "Dragons eat whatever they want." Thanks Dany that's real fucking helpful. And you wonder why everyone hates you in the North.

This show pretty much is Quantum Leap though, both shows involve time travel where in each episode they need to "fix" something before they can leave that time period. There are differences to be sure: Dr. Sam Beckett has no control over his leaps and he has no clue where he is going and no idea about his goals, whereas the Time Team can control where they are going (even though in a larger sense they don't control where they are going cause all they really do is chase the Mothership), and know exactly where they are going and (using a knowledge of history) can at least guess at their goal (or more accurately guess at Rittenhouse's goal.) Dr. Sam Beckett never returns home, and the Time Team does continually go home. However it could be argued that in a larger sense they also never return home because they always end up in a timeline where things are slightly (or drastically) different. Both shows are equally as formulaic though. They leap, put right what once went wrong and leap again. You do have to balance confusing viewers with advancement of the plotline. I think they did make a good choice not including Future Lucy in the pilot. But I think they skewed way too far to the other side. The second season was way too stagnant, they didn't really advance the main plot at all, they just kept replacing it with side plots. This whole "Get Rufus Back" is just that, a side plot. It's not going to advance the main plot of stopping Rittenhouse at all, beyond the fact that having Rufus is better for their prospects then not having him.

That's true, but Fringe also started laying the groundwork really early on. Even in Season 1 they were gearing up to take the storyline big and laying the groundwork to make it work in Season 2 and beyond. Shows like this that are quirky and complex know that they can't get too far down the rabbit hole or they'll lose the audience. So they play the first season like a procedural and then hit the audience with the hook at the end of season 1, or midway through if they write a half season and that goes very well. I thought that's what they might have been doing here with the whole "Lucy's mom is Rittenhouse!" deal in the Season 1 finale. They could've easily played a lot of Season 2 (maybe even the whole season) with Lucy on the side of Rittenhouse, and the Time Team trying to get her back (this also would've allowed Jiya and Flynn to be more involved without that stupid installing a 4th chair sideplot), only to have her reveal at the midseason mark that she's gone native and really is working for Rittenhouse! But instead she's back with the Team at the end of episode 1 and we're back to rinse and repeat with the story of the week nonsense. Of course to make this believable they would've had to paint Rittenhouse as less cartoonishly evil. They really had the chance to make a complex nuanced enemy that was doing bad things for good reasons, in an "ends justify the means" sort of way, but instead they made them a bunch of Male Rights Activists with Time Travel technology. Honestly the more I think about it, this show (that was exceptionally well acted, and nicely produced) had the storyline of a 1990's Saturday morning cartoon.

Is it? It seems pretty formulaic. They find out the Mothership has gone somewhere, they chase it. They try to find out what Rittenhouse is trying to do there and stop whatever that is. In the first season there was a much higher emphasis on not damaging the timeline and trying to make sure things transpire exactly (or as close to exactly as possible) as they should. In the second season they seem to be totally fine about imposing their own morals into situations and essentially don't care at all about messing with the timeline, as long as Rittenhouse's goal is foiled. But in both seasons there isn't really an overarching storyline or anything. There's no progression ever in either sides' plans. Rittenhouse keeps trying to screw with the past (in an effort to I guess make the present/future better for white males?) and the TimeTeam keeps trying to stop them, and in the end things end up exactly the same (even in the second season where they are just jumping rope with the timeline in certain cases.) How much more procedural can you get? Don't get me wrong, I like the show a whole lot, but that doesn't make it any less of a cop procedural with the added wrinkle of time travel. I was hoping for the series to kind of transition. Look at a series like Fringe. The first season was very much a "Case of the Week" style show, and it was very much a procedural in the spirit of The X-Files (another series which moved from a procedural format to include a more expansive storyline), but then it transitioned into a show with a more expansive storyline with story arcs going over the entire season and then series. In this sense it feels like they missed a big opportunity with the second season. They started messing with the timeline very early on. They should've been causing massive changes, why not have them go back to find out that they have drastically damaged the world they know, and then send them time hopping to try and fix it? They could even have someone who used to be on their side no longer on their side. Lucy, Wyatt and Rufus think they are always doing the right thing, but what if they come back to the present to find out they are now being hunted by Agent Christopher because of the changes they have been making to the timeline? They could've even brought in the concept of multiple timelines that they have created, and histories that deviate from what we know, but they never did, in actuality each episode ended in the same place it started.

I don't really care who ruined the NBA, the point is the NBA is ruined.

I agree, that's why I think the MLE itself should be eliminated. There's way too much opportunity for abuse. I'm honestly shocked that this is the first time it's happened. Also why should capped out teams get a benefit to sign role players? They already have a benefit over the other teams, that benefit is that they can spend to the cap. Oh poor rich team can't sign a player? Well tough, you should've been more mindful. I don't hate the Warriors, or DeMarcus Cousins, they are using their smarts and means to win, that's what they are supposed to do. I'm mad at the NBA, they should be making the sport fair and even, really they just make it easier for the top teams to abuse the rules.

This is how rules evolve though. Before it was never expected that a team in the lead would just pass the ball and hold possession for minutes. Boom! The shot clock was introduced. This was intended to be used on role players, this is the first time it has been horribly abused. Now hopefully they'll fix it.

Restructure the CBA. The NBA has a lot of well meaning rules that the Warriors are taking advantage of. Kudos to them, it's impressive and smart, but the NBA needs to respond by closing these loopholes. The Warriors are using the MLE right now in a way it was never intended to be used, FiveThirtyEight has an article on it right now: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-warriors-are-making-a-mockery-of-the-nba-salary-cap/ The NBA should close that loophole, it was designed to let capped out contenders add role players, not stars. If the Warriors want to ruin it for everybody the NBA should take the toy away. No MLE for anyone, and you can thank the Dubs for that. It's the same thing the NHL did. When the teams tried to get smart and sign players to 15-20 year front loaded deals that everyone knew they would retire long before the deal expired, in order to lower the annual average value the NHL responded. They didn't say "Oh too bad those are the rules." instead they changed the rules, 7 year contract limits, and you can't distribute salary in a lop sided way anymore AND if an player who is 35 or older signs one, the salary cap is not alleviated when he retires. Now they are dealing with a whole new issue where the team claims that the player is injured instead of retired, but I'm sure that's gonna be worked out in the next CBA.

I think you mean the League is over. Nobody in the East is stepping to the freaking Monstars. The Celts with Kyrie might fare better then the Cavs did this year, but I'd be surprised if they even pushed it to 7. I really hope that happens, because then maybe Adam Silver will finally do something about this joke of a league.