contender most likely to win without 2 of their big 3... [Archive]

hater

12-30-2009, 11:15 PM

Tacker

12-30-2009, 11:22 PM

Lebron made it to the finals in 07 without Shaq or Mo no?

TIMMYD!

12-30-2009, 11:23 PM

LeBron would probably be the only other guy that could contend with us because he has shown he can get pretty far in the playoffs without a big star next to him and Kobe couldn't do shit alone, so he's out.

hater

12-30-2009, 11:23 PM

Lebron made it to the finals in 07 without Shaq or Mo no?

well I was talking about regular season. No team would advance to the finals w/out 2 or their big 3.

BUT, I put the Cavs w/Bron a close second to the SPurs

JoeTait75

12-30-2009, 11:26 PM

We have a big three?

I thought we had a big one. :wakeup

lil_penny

12-30-2009, 11:26 PM

Cavs.

DPG21920

12-30-2009, 11:40 PM

If you switch out Shaq/Z/Andy with Pau/Bynum/Odom, how good are the Cavs?

024

12-30-2009, 11:41 PM

cavs would have this one... james did go to the finals without mo and shaq. i wouldn't consider mo and shaq part of anything "big" though.

hater

12-30-2009, 11:41 PM

damn, yeah Blazers/Spurs would be a good matchup

anonoftheinternets

12-30-2009, 11:43 PM

ok this is cavs easy.

lil_penny

12-30-2009, 11:43 PM

damn, yeah Blazers/Spurs would be a good matchup

And don't forget the rockets

IronMexican

12-31-2009, 12:05 AM

Cavs. Easy

ginobili's bald spot

12-31-2009, 12:17 AM

What makes the spurs contenders?

Mr.ChugDynasty

12-31-2009, 02:26 AM

What makes the spurs contenders?

They aren't.
Homers just can't accept the truth :wakeup

Cry Havoc

12-31-2009, 02:35 AM

If you switch out Shaq/Z/Andy with Pau/Bynum/Odom, how good are the Cavs?

:wow

That's frightening.

in2deep

12-31-2009, 02:03 PM

What makes the spurs contenders?

they are 4th in Hollinger's rankings :)

stretch

12-31-2009, 02:06 PM

You gotta give this one to the spurs.

Spurs would win more w/out 2 out of Duncan/Parker/Ginobili

over
Lakers: Kobe/Gasol/Artest
Celtics: Garnett/Pierce/Allen
Mavs: Dirk/Kidd/Terry
Suns: Nash/Amare/Richardson
Cavs: Lebron/Mo/Shaq

um, no.

im taking the celtics, because all three of them have been #1 players that lead a team to the playoffs. so at least you have one of them.

parker and ginobili have never been a true #1 that led a team without any other real stars to the playoffs.

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:07 PM

It depends on which two of the three are gone. Everybody is saying the Cavs but if one of those two is Lebron they're fucked.

in2deep

12-31-2009, 02:08 PM

um, no.

im taking the celtics, because all three of them have been #1 players that lead a team to the playoffs. so at least you have one of them.

parker and ginobili have never been a true #1 that led a team without any other real stars to the playoffs.

I would agree with you except it's 2009 and Ray Allen/KG are shells of what they used to be in their primes....

at this point KG/Ray equivalent to Manu/TP. Spurs are stronger in the bench.

stretch

12-31-2009, 02:09 PM

I would agree with you except it's 2009 and Ray Allen/KG are shells of what they used to be in their primes....

at this point KG/Ray equivalent to Manu/TP. Spurs are stronger in the bench.

KG/Ray >>> Manu/TP

GTFO homer

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:09 PM

um, no.

im taking the celtics, because all three of them have been #1 players that lead a team to the playoffs. so at least you have one of them.

parker and ginobili have never been a true #1 that led a team without any other real stars to the playoffs.

That's only 'cause they never had to. I've no doubt they could have done it if given the chance.

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:12 PM

stretch

12-31-2009, 02:15 PM

That's only 'cause they never had to. I've no doubt they could have done it if given the chance.

i have no doubt that lebron could win 10 titles in a row if he had a team of:

C - Duncan
PF - Dirk
SF - Lebron
SG - Allen
PG - Kidd

Bench - Garnett, Bowen, Nash

all in their primes

coulda woulda shoulda

TP and Manu havent proven shit other than they can win titles as second/third fiddle to Timmy who is one of the 5 greatest players of all time

stretch

12-31-2009, 02:16 PM

KG/Ray > Manu/TP

...However...

Manu/TP = or > Ray/Pierce

Ray/Pierce >> Manu/TP

DUNCANownsKOBE2

12-31-2009, 02:18 PM

at this point KG/Ray equivalent to Manu/TP.

Manu and TP have been about as useless as an asshole on your elbow this year.

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:22 PM

i have no doubt that lebron could win 10 titles in a row if he had a team of:

C - Duncan
PF - Dirk
SF - Lebron
SG - Allen
PG - Kidd

Bench - Garnett, Bowen, Nash

all in their primes

coulda woulda shoulda

TP and Manu havent proven shit other than they can win titles as second/third fiddle to Timmy who is one of the 5 greatest players of all time

I have no doubt that the Mavericks could win a title someday if they weren't a bunch of pussies.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

12-31-2009, 02:23 PM

I have no doubt that the Mavericks could win a title someday if they weren't a bunch of pussies.

Way to waive the white flag by randomly bringing something up completely unrelated.

stretch

12-31-2009, 02:27 PM

I have no doubt that the Mavericks could win a title someday if they weren't a bunch of pussies.

great comeback bro

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:33 PM

Way to waive the white flag by randomly bringing something up completely unrelated.

He's the one that started with the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" thing.

I could have answered: "Hey Stretch if you don't like the "if" talk, then why do you always say the Mavs would have won it all in '06 if it wasn't for the refs"

But I liked the other response better.

DUNCANownsKOBE2

12-31-2009, 02:36 PM

I could have answered: "Hey Stretch if you don't like the "if" talk, then why do you always say the Mavs would have won it all in '06 if it wasn't for the refs"

But I liked the other response better.

What does that have to do at all with the argument?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

12-31-2009, 02:36 PM

4 rings, faggot

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:37 PM

What does that have to do at all with the argument?

What does what he said have to do with what we were arguing before?

DUNCANownsKOBE2

12-31-2009, 02:38 PM

What does what he said have to do with what we were arguing before?

Because the hypothetical, "Manu and Parker could be the #1 option on a championship team if they needed to be," is completely unproven and not a valid arguing point.

DAF86

12-31-2009, 02:45 PM

Because the hypothetical, "Manu and Parker could be the #1 option on a championship team if they needed to be," is completely unproven and not a valid arguing point.

The talk was about a playoffs team not a championship team and if Scola, Brooks, Landry or Ariza (pick one) is the #1 option of a playoffs team then Parker and Ginobili can easily be one too.

BadOdor

12-31-2009, 02:48 PM

And maybe one day the spurs could man up and actually beat the mavs in the playoffs.

stretch

12-31-2009, 04:43 PM

I could have answered: "Hey Stretch if you don't like the "if" talk, then why do you always say the Mavs would have won it all in '06 if it wasn't for the refs"

i actually dont say that very often at all, dumbshit. in fact, im one of the people that always say that the mavs would and could have won it if they had made just a few more plays instead. yeah, the officiating was horrible, but the mavs could have overcame it.