Game 1 of the 2018 NBA Finals had everything: An all-time performance by LeBron James, an all-time gaffe by J.R. Smith, and an all-time team in the Warriors looking beatable in a lot of ways. 

Here are five questions about Game 1, with a look ahead to what the answers might mean heading into Game 2.

1. What must Cavs replicate from Game 1?

Outside of expecting LeBron posting a 50-piece, rebounding, pace and Kevin Love were the three biggest reasons the Cavs were able to compete as well as they did in Game 1. They must do the same for Game 2. 

The Cavs pulled down 19 offensive boards in Game one, which led them taking nine more total shots than the Warriors. For the playoffs, the Warriors are averaging better than a point per possession. So let's do a little math: 19 offensive rebounds to the Cavs is about 20 points taken away from the Warriors. Throw in the fact that Cleveland scored 21 second-chance points to the Warriors' 10, and you can see that for all LeBron's heroics, the Cavs likely wouldn't have been able to stay in this game without those extra possessions. 

Obviously, 19 offensive rebounds is a monster number that would appear tough to duplicate on the surface. But the Cavs' margin in this area does appear sustainable when you consider Kevin Love and Tristan Thompson, Cleveland's two best rebounders, only had four offensive boards combined in Game 1. If everyone had maxed out, OK. But Love and Thompson are more than capable of an uptick to compensate for any fall-off from, say, LeBron and Larry Nance Jr., who combined for eight offensive boards in Game 1. 

Beyond the extra possessions, the offensive rebounds were also a big part of Cleveland being able to dictate its desired pace, for the most part, in Game 1. No run and gun. A lot of late shot-clock action. Offensive rebounds not only force the Warriors to play another 24 seconds of defense and contribute to the overall goal of wearing them down, but they flat-out keep Golden State out of transition off those long rebounds that so often fuel their break. Overall the Cavs' dominated the Warriors on the glass, and that has to continue. Love had 13 boards to go with 21 points. 

Speaking of Love, he has to show up big again in Game 2. He's the most reliable Cavs player outside of LeBron. He was only 1-of-8 from three in Game 1, but they were good, clean looks that you would expect to go in at a higher clip if replicated in Game 2 (more on this in a minute). Early in the game, Love got himself into a scoring rhythm by simply squaring up and taking mid-range jump shots rather than beating his head against a wall by trying to get physical and back down against the size of Kevon Looney and/or Draymond Green. Like this:

Analytics will tell you that's a bad shot. It isn't. Love getting into an aggressive scoring mindset with clean looks, on his terms, is worth more than some algorithm would indicate. We have seen this throughout the playoffs. A steady diet of mid-range shots is not going to pay off in the end, but they still have their place as a means of getting guys going, or buoying them when the threes aren't falling. (The Rockets would've done well to consider this in their Game 7 loss to the Warriors when they missed 27 straight threes at one point, when just a couple well-timed twos could have legitimately won them that game when you consider the butterfly effect they could've had).

Love can still score in the post (he is still really good getting to the middle for that baby jump hook) and did so in Game 1, but it's not a bad idea in this series for him to play outside-in rather than the other way around. Get his confidence going early rather than diving right into the teeth of the defense. 

Now, Love's own defense, or lack thereof, is another story. He's simply out of his depth with all the perimeter action the Warriors create, but he has to find a way to at least be passable enough on defense to stay on the floor for the spacing and scoring he provides on the offensive end. 

This is an absolute must as long as Andre Iguodala is out and the Warriors can't even play their Death Lineup. Once that lineup is in play again, Love becomes an even bigger defensive liability. In other words: make hay while the sun isn't out in the Hamptons, or something like that. 

2. What part of Game 1 did we not talk enough about?

Other than George Hill's missed free throw -- which was immediately forgotten in the chaos of J.R. Smith's, shall we say, unfortunate miscalculation -- I'm going to say Steph Curry's defense. Curry took a beating for the way he was getting roasted by Chris Paul and James Harden in Games 1 and 2 of the Western Conference finals, but he took the challenge and acquitted himself well over the later stages of that series, and he was really good in Game 1 vs. the Cavs. 

It's no secret the Cavs want to get Curry switched onto LeBron, but in Game 1 that didn't happen all that often. Expect Cleveland to force that action a bit more in Game 2, if only to try to get Curry in foul trouble, but for what it's worth, perhaps part of the reason they stopped seeking out Curry is he proved capable of doing his job. While Kevin Durant defended LeBron on 45 possessions, and gave up 10 buckets on 15 attempts on those possessions, Curry, per, was isolated on LeBron for seven possessions in Game 1, and LeBron didn't score a single point on him. 

That's a bit deceiving: LeBron's monster and-one finish to put the Cavs up with under a minute to play started with him beating Curry, though he ultimately finished through the foul of Looney. The Warriors are constantly compensating off ball for Curry, trying to stay ahead of rotations, showing and recovering and trying not to switch things unless entirely necessary, which can leave them in some precarious spots for which Curry does not get the common-fan blame. Still, Curry holding his own as an on-ball defender on actions designed specifically to spotlight him in a one-on-one setting is potentially the biggest crack in Golden State's system, and for the most part, Curry absolutely acquitted himself against the world's best player with efforts like this:

That is as good as you can play LeBron James. Curry forced him away from the hoop, stayed connected to his hip and in front of his angle, and ultimately allowed time for his help to come contest the shot on LeBron's release. Given the height and athletic disparities in play here, that's a flat-out masterful defensive possession for Curry. 

On this next possession, watch how determined LeBron is to not only get Curry switched onto him, but also to set up the action so he's coming off the screen to his right hand. At the point of attack, Curry first fights for his position against the screener, Jordan Clarkson, so that when the inevitable switch does happen, he hasn't been moved off his spot to give LeBron a runway for a head of steam. He is right in LeBron's space on the switch, and then, as soon as James starts downhill to his right, Curry beats him to the spot, forcing him to cross back to the middle, where help is waiting for a swipe steal. 

Again, this is what you call doing your job. Nothing fancy. He didn't pick LeBron's pocket or stuff him at the rim. He simply stayed in front, played to his help, and forced LeBron, if only subtly, to go away from his preferred angle. Also, both these possessions were in the heat of the fight. The first one, the score was tied 73-all late in the third quarter. The second one, the Warriors were up 94-92 with six minutes left in the game. These are crucial stops. Give credit to Curry, who was also terrific on the offensive end in Game 1 as the Warriors have slowly crept back to the obviously superior strategy of running their offense through Curry rather than Durant's high-post isos. 

3. What must Cavs do better in Game 2?

This is simple: They have to make more shots. Particularly, more 3-pointers. In Game 1, Cleveland shot 10-of-37 -- or 27 percent -- from downtown, but the good news is that they got quality looks, mostly courtesy of LeBron, who had the Warriors' defense on a string as he masterfully went back and forth between getting his own buckets and setting up teammates for quality looks like this:

Get this: LeBron had just eight assists in Game 1, but he had 23 potential assists. Put another way, 15 times LeBron set someone up with a good, clean shot like the one above that the Cavs simply didn't convert. If you're Cleveland, you like those numbers. If the Cavs can't make more than 27 percent from three, given all the other places they're outmatched vs. Golden State, they're not going win anyway. 

4. Are LeBron's heroics sustainable?

At this point, can we really doubt the guy's ability to continue doing the seemingly impossible? Now, I don't know if he's gonna hang a 50-piece again, but if the Cavs just make a few more shots as mentioned above, a 40-point night could do, and a 40-pointer is basically a walk in the park for LeBron right now. 

Also, it's not like he was raining threes in Game 1, which might be a little more difficult to duplicate. He was a solid 3 for 7 from deep, but the bulk of his impact was, frankly, pretty easy, calculated and steady, 12 points in each of the first three quarters and 13 in the fourth. Just straight up going about his business. Yes, he can do that again. More than likely, he will, because he doesn't really have any other choice. 

5. Is Game 2 a must-win for the Cavs?

Yes. There is no way they are going to win four out of five against the Warriors, which is what they'd have to do if they go down 0-2. If we're being honest, Game 1 was probably a must win given how close it was. That was a monster missed opportunity to steal home court and swing some decent pressure to the Warriors in Game 2. Now, all the pressure is on Cleveland. They must win this game. 

Now, Golden State has been prone over the years to letting its guard down, and if Cleveland does come out of Oakland with a split, this would be a legit series, obviously, heading back to Cleveland. Game 2 is everything. After it's over, we'll either be on our way to a very short series or a potentially long, competitive classic that almost nobody saw coming.