Regular season don't mean anything

[DazedAndConfused]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

[Dex]

-2/10 :wakeup

[coyotes_geek]

-2/10 :wakeup

Too generous.

[Sisk]

It does for playoff seeding, tbh.

[TheSpurglar]

If the Spurs defeat the Lakers in the playoffs, will you also bump it? That'd be swell, thanks...

[concken]

cool.

[jjktkk]

It seems the OP is dazed and confused.

[Blake]

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER.

define "3 point shooting team"

[Rummpd]

http://espn.go.com/nba/hollinger/teamstats/_/sort/defensiveEff/order/false

Spurs also slightly better defensively than the older Lakers (average team age is about 2 years older)

http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball/fantasy/nba/teamstats/11/5/diffeff

Three top teams in out of the paint points are Miami/Boston/SAS with LAL down the list because the LAL basically suck at it:

SAS shoot per game 3 point attempts: 18.4 vs. 16.9 for the Lakers (Not a large ##) but Spurs make 6.9 vs. 6.1 for the LAL but the Spurs are just much better - it is not a large difference and Spurs will go inside more to Duncan in the playoffs.

[Blackjack]

Let's look at the facts:

The Lakers are 5.5 games back of the Spurs.

Lakerfan says it don't mean "sh*t" on a Spurs messageboard.

Theses are the facts as we know them. This is what we know.

[Sean Cagney]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

:rollin:rollinn I can't wait till these faggots lose in the playoffs so their fans will shut up. You guys are way too cocky.

[Martin R]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

Your arguments are hard to reject......oh wait....

[mardigan]

It's been done better by about every other troll on this board. I mean at least give some stats or some shit to back up your argument little lady.

[Rummpd]

http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/john_schuhmann/04/17/homecourt20090417/

HCA advantage means a hell of lot in the playoffs spin the crap all you want but unless LAL catches the Spurs they the LAL are playing catchup and will have to beat the odds and LAL has not won a finals without HCA in the Jackson era.. LAL is a fine team and could still catch the Spurs if the Spurs falter or have injuries as the Spurs have 5 more back to backs and three games left vs. LAL and 4 more road games but Spurs also benefit from already having played a much harder schedule.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's funny to get trolled by Lakers fans again.

[Rummpd]

It is more fun when LAL fans cannot bring a salient arguement to the table.

[honestfool84]

:lol

[cd98]

Isn't Laker fan the same one that will beat his chest if the Lakers win 8 in a row during the regular season?

[RandomGuy]

Isn't Laker fan the same one that will beat his chest if the Lakers win 8 in a row during the regular season?

eh-yup.

Look up "confirmation bias" sometime. People see what they want to see.

[DazedAndConfused]

The same Laker team that's won 2 straight NBA championships and been to the Finals 3 times in a row? Yea, they get a pass in the regular season. They're coasting and still #2 in the WC.

[Budkin]

Someone's insecure today.

[dbreiden83080]

If the Spurs lose i don't see Lakers winning it all again anyway. You barely survived the Celts in 7 games last year and this year they are deeper and hungrier. Plus they will likely have Home court.. Lakers appear to be older and not as deep..

[NRHector]

The same Laker team that's won 2 straight NBA championships and been to the Finals 3 times in a row? Yea, they get a pass in the regular season. They're coasting and still #2 in the WC.is not the same Laker team

[DMC]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

The Spurs don't score most of their points from the outside. Just because they are the best 3pt shooting team doesn't mean they are predominately a 3pt shooting team.

The Spurs make 3 more 3pt shots a game than the Lakers, but take just over 2 more a game.

I would say that Phil would accept 3 more three point attempts if he could get 3 more makes.

Our 3pt average is higher than the Lakers. That's why we take the shots. Your three point shooting sucks. That's why you don't.

You are confusing cause and correlation, but that's no surprise for a trolling homer.

P.S. Boston is 4th in 3pt percentage. I do recall a 40pt thumping in the Finals from some team, not sure who... tick...tick....tick....

[DMC]

The same Laker team that's won 2 straight NBA championships and been to the Finals 3 times in a row? Yea, they get a pass in the regular season. They're coasting and still #2 in the WC.

You do realize that "yea" is pronounced "yay", right? Probably not.

Let the meltdown continue.

[Sisk]

You do realize that "yea" is pronounced "yay", right? Probably not.

Let the meltdown continue.

Real talk

[wildbill2u]

Dazed and confused because the Lakers are too? Or is it a personal problem? Going through life all drugged out is not a good plan.

[21_Blessings]

It seems the OP is dazed and confused.

You're on fire, jj.

[DMC]

You're on fire, jj.
Just call him Creasy.

[21_Blessings]

It is more fun when LAL fans cannot bring a salient arguement to the table.

Your entire position is based on regular season (Lakers' preseason) success.

The Spurs are the new Suns and Duncan is a hop and a skip away from hanging them up.

4 is nothing to be ashamed about.

[DMC]

Your entire position is based on regular season (Lakers' preseason) success.

The Spurs are the new Suns and Duncan is a hop and a skip away from hanging them up.

4 is nothing to be ashamed about.
It's 2 more than Kobe has...

[Blackjack]

Dear Dazed,

We regret to inform you your attempt to troll upstairs has failed to elicit the requisite amount of butthurt necessary to deem it worthy of a success. And while we commend the effort and the fact that you put yourself out there -- risking public humiliation once again -- it is with great regret we must inform you that you have indeed failed to accomplish your goal (once again).

It also should be noted that we don't wish to condemn you or make you feel any worse than you already do, Dazed. We here at SpursTalk make a concerted effort to keep a friendly and familial atmosphere. So no matter how much commotion or noise you make, we realize a family member is just crying out for help. We'll be there for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Nc0FAk74c).

Finally, we know it's hard to deal with asterisk talk. Trust us, we know. And just because last year's title team didn't have to face the Mavericks because the Spurs GoldenStated them or the Celtics with their defensive anchor, Kendrick Perkins, it doesn't take away from any of the teams other great accomplishments prior to Shaquille O'Neal's departure -- again, we're family, and family wouldn't throw the whole Gasol and missing the playoffs prior to his theftquisition in your face.

With great sincerity and warmest regards,

SpursTalk (via Blackjack) :toast

[maddnezz]

Dear Dazed,

We regret to inform you your attempt to troll upstairs has failed to elicit the requisite amount of butthurt necessary to deem it worthy of a success. And while we commend the effort and the fact that you put yourself out there -- risking public humiliation once again -- it is with great regret we must inform you that you have indeed failed to accomplish your goal (once again).

It also should be noted that we don't wish to condemn you or make you feel any worse than you already do, Dazed. We here at SpursTalk make a concerted effort to keep a friendly and familial atmosphere. So no matter how much commotion or noise you make, we realize a family member is just crying out for help. We'll be there for you (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Nc0FAk74c).

Finally, we know it's hard to deal with asterisk talk. Trust us, we know. And just because last year's title team didn't have to face the Mavericks because the Spurs GoldenStated them or the Celtics with their defensive anchor, Kendrick Perkins, it doesn't take away from any of the teams other great accomplishments prior to Shaquille O'Neal's departure -- again, we're family, and family wouldn't throw the whole Gasol and missing the playoffs prior to his theftquisition in your face.

With great sincerity and warmest regards,

SpursTalk (via Blackjack) :toastHA! This.

[SequSpur]

I agree with Laker fan...Spurs are built (this year) for regular season wins against shitty teams. Spurs can't beat LA, Boston, Orlando, Miami or Dallas....Maybe not even the Hornets...but they can still beat all the other shitty teams...handily, I might add....

Spurs need a big or two to do something...Period...Timmay is a 100 years old...

[Man In Black]

I agree with Laker fan...Spurs are built (this year) for regular season wins against shitty teams. Spurs can't beat LA, Boston, Orlando, Miami or Dallas....Maybe not even the Hornets...but they can still beat all the other shitty teams...handily, I might add....

Spurs need a big or two to do something...Period...Timmay is a 100 years old...
You're so bi-polar, I think you're turning into the new Mouse. You're small so you can relate.

Dallas loses Caron Butler but yeah Dallas is better? That's a fuck no.

Miami has accomplished what exactly? That's a fuck no.

Orlando has talent, but it's discipline that will throw them off the track. That's a fuck no.

Boston-SAS ->My prediction for the Finals. Garnett has knee issues. Perkins is coming back from knee issues. But they're a well-coached team and they focus better than any other team. The Spurs have shown they can make life difficult for Boston.

LAL-Beanboy's knee is bone-on-bone. He misses shootarounds and practices but Tim does not, yet a great many of you wiseasses say that Tim's done.

Grow a fucking brain. That's a fuck yes.

[Ross Parrot]

I agree with Laker fan...Spurs are built (this year) for regular season wins against shitty teams. Spurs can't beat LA, Boston, Orlando, Miami or Dallas....Maybe not even the Hornets...but they can still beat all the other shitty teams...handily, I might add....

Spurs need a big or two to do something...Period...Timmay is a 100 years old...

:lol 2008-2009 called... :rollin

[DazedAndConfused]

You're so bi-polar, I think you're turning into the new Mouse. You're small so you can relate.

Dallas loses Caron Butler but yeah Dallas is better? That's a fuck no.

Miami has accomplished what exactly? That's a fuck no.

Orlando has talent, but it's discipline that will throw them off the track. That's a fuck no.

Boston-SAS ->My prediction for the Finals. Garnett has knee issues. Perkins is coming back from knee issues. But they're a well-coached team and they focus better than any other team. The Spurs have shown they can make life difficult for Boston.

LAL-Beanboy's knee is bone-on-bone. He misses shootarounds and practices but Tim does not, yet a great many of you wiseasses say that Tim's done.

Grow a fucking brain. That's a fuck yes.

For all the shit you give this guy Sequ, the mofo has been RIGHT more than any of you clowns. He just calls it how he sees it, the only realist on here.

[EVAY]

Regular season wins are awfully nice for the season ticket holders, though.

And often, sponsors money and more national tv revenues follow.

So, regular season DOES mean shit to some.

[Man In Black]

For all the shit you give this guy Sequ, the mofo has been RIGHT more than any of you clowns. He just calls it how he sees it, the only realist on here.

Are you just saying that like all the other shit you like to say or do you have cold hard facts to back this up?

Highly unlikely since you never back anything up. :downspin:

[cd98]

Your entire position is based on regular season (Lakers' preseason) success.

The Spurs are the new Suns and Duncan is a hop and a skip away from hanging them up.

4 is nothing to be ashamed about.

How much did Buss pay for that championship team? Rumor has it he spared no expense.

[SequSpur]

You're so bi-polar, I think you're turning into the new Mouse. You're small so you can relate.

Dallas loses Caron Butler but yeah Dallas is better? That's a fuck no.

Miami has accomplished what exactly? That's a fuck no.

Orlando has talent, but it's discipline that will throw them off the track. That's a fuck no.

Boston-SAS ->My prediction for the Finals. Garnett has knee issues. Perkins is coming back from knee issues. But they're a well-coached team and they focus better than any other team. The Spurs have shown they can make life difficult for Boston.

LAL-Beanboy's knee is bone-on-bone. He misses shootarounds and practices but Tim does not, yet a great many of you wiseasses say that Tim's done.

Grow a fucking brain. That's a fuck yes.

Did you not watch the game 2 nights ago against New Orleans? Put your money where your mouth is egg roll.

[ChuckD]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

I'll bump this when we win, but your front running Laker Trash ass will be long gone.

[Blair420]

It's... [snip] [snip] [snippity] [snap]
Says the guy with over 5000 posts on a spurs forum..

[Man In Black]

Did you not watch the game 2 nights ago against New Orleans? Put your money where your mouth is egg roll.I did ass-wipe. Vegas is holding my winnings once the Spurs collect one for the thumb.

[Man In Black]

Did you not watch the game 2 nights ago against New Orleans? Put your money where your mouth is egg roll.

What little game you have shows how bi-polar you are. You're the king of they suck and then stop sucking, and then they suck and then stop sucking. You do that so often, you make it seem as if you're a contract stud for a gay porn studio. Out of respect for the lovely Mrs. Sequ, I'll let the peeps here know that you aren't, but I'm just saying. Do they suck or have they stopped sucking?

Egg-roll? In my home country, it's called Lumpia.

[SequSpur]

I did ass-wipe. Vegas is holding my winnings once the Spurs collect one for the thumb.

never said they suck pendejo....said they weren't good enough to beat the top teams in the playoffs...

learn how to read wise guy.

[Man In Black]

You saying they can't beat the top teams means that they suck against the top teams.
There is no mediocrity here. You've been around long enough to know that bro.

Besides, you going BAMA ain't amounting to much more than a usual and expected rant fest from the new Mouse. I do think that this team has room for improvement, and those other teams you mentioned, ain't a stone cold lock for the title. The Spurs are in that tier of teams that can compete for a title. You saying that they can't means you think they suck against that tier...COMPRENDE?

[slayermin]

Three more games and then we can resume settling this shit.

[ambchang]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

The 94 Rockets and 95 Rockets says "Hi!".

[21_Blessings]

The 94 Rockets and 95 Rockets says "Hi!".

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".

[BRs.Ganso]

F- for u!

[Agloco]

For all the shit you give this guy Sequ, the mofo has been RIGHT more than any of you clowns. He just calls it how he sees it, the only realist on here.

Translation - "Sequs the only Spurfan that agrees with Lakerfan, therefore he must be right".

[Blake]

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".

Duncan's 2 MVPs and 4 rings says "Goodbye!".

[buttsR4rebounding]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

Do Spurs fans go to Lakers boards and talk so much crap? I saw where Los Angeles was named the rudest city in the US. Judging from your posts you probably consider that a badge of honor. I hope you guys don't get knocked out of the playoffs before you can play us. I will enjoy that series immensely.

[ambchang]

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".

Nothing-to-do-with-the-topic says "Hi".

[cd98]

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".

Fine.

1. Hakeem
2. Duncan
3. Kobe

Just a couple of questions for Laker fans:

1. How many times has Kobe been on a team that went to the lottery? Tim duncan?

2. Who has more regular season MVPs, Kobe or Duncan?

3. Who has more NBA finals MVPs, Kobe or Duncan?

[21_Blessings]

What does Kobe have to do with this thread? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Hakeem was relevant since the 94/95 repeat (something Duncan failed to do 4 times) was mentioned.

[cd98]

What does Kobe have to do with this thread? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Hakeem was relevant since the 94/95 repeat (something Duncan failed to do 4 times) was mentioned.

Gee, do you think Hakeem would rather have two in a row or four?

[ChumpDumper]

Three pointers have proved to be quite important in winning titles; even for the Lakers.

This is just another ankle biting lakerfan thread. They should quit being pussies and just live with being behind in the standings for now.

[hater]

poor lakerfans

they are a sorry bunch these days.

[Blackjack]

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".

:lol

How were those Rockets before trading for Drexler the next year?

[Blake]

:lol

How were those Rockets before trading for Drexler the next year?

:lobt:

[Blake]

Fine.

1. Hakeem
2. Duncan
3. Kobe

2. Who has more regular season MVPs, Kobe or Duncan?

3. Who has more NBA finals MVPs, Kobe or Duncan?

2. Duncan also has more than Hakeem.

3. Duncan also has more than Hakeem.

[Blackjack]

:lobt:

He was speaking to repeat. The Rockets weren't repeating without the trade for Drexler, the likes of a move the Spurs never swung the following year after winning a championship.

[manufan10]

It's funny to see you maggots act like you're the class of the NBA again.

The reality is your team is nothing more than a regular season performer. They are not built for the playoffs and they will lose to the Lakers should they face off. They have zero size and rely more on their offense than defense to win games. This goes against the Spur's tried-and-true formula of being able to grind out games, and that is what enabled them to win 4 championships. The Spurs have never won a ring relying so much on their offense, and it will be their undoing come playoff time.

3 point shooting teams NEVER win rings. NEVER. I'm gonna go ahead and bookmark this thread and bump it after your team is bounced out of the playoffs

http://images.memegenerator.net/Joseph-Ducreux/ImageMacro/2297132/I-know-what-you-are-Youre-a-fail-troll.jpg

[Blake]

He was speaking to repeat.

no he wasn't.

you might have been, but you didn't made that clear.

[Blackjack]

A better big man than Duncan ever was says, "HI!".


What does Kobe have to do with this thread? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Hakeem was relevant since the 94/95 repeat (something Duncan failed to do 4 times) was mentioned.

I'll make sure to hit multi-quote just for you when I'm going back to read over a thread, Blake. :lol

[Blake]

I'll make sure to hit multi-quote just for you when I'm going back to read over a thread, Blake. :lol

k, do that. It would have helped to clear up what looked to be an obvious fail on your part had you done that to begin with.

Just curious, how do you think the Rockets were after the trade for Drexler?

What makes you think they couldn't have won a trophy again with Thorpe instead of Clyde?

[ambchang]

What does Kobe have to do with this thread? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Hakeem was relevant since the 94/95 repeat (something Duncan failed to do 4 times) was mentioned.

What does Hakeem have to do with this thread about three-point shooting teams? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Kobe was irrelevant until 08 when the league gift-wrapped a top 3 big to him (something everybody in the history of the league have failed to do throughout league history).

[Blackjack]

k, do that. It would have helped to clear up what looked to be an obvious fail on your part had you done that to begin with.

I don't feel the need to prove I know what the hell I'm talking about with each post by leaving no stone unturned. I kind of know the players here and what they're trying to imply and/or where they're coming from by reading a given thread, topic.


Just curious, how do you think the Rockets were after the trade for Drexler?

What makes you think they couldn't have won a trophy again with Thorpe instead of Clyde?

Anecdotally, on the basis of watching them play, and common sense -- it's why they made a trade like that so late in the year (Feb. 14).

[K-State Spur]

The same Laker team that's won 2 straight NBA championships and been to the Finals 3 times in a row? Yea, they get a pass in the regular season. They're coasting and still #2 in the WC.

They didn't win a series in either title run without Home Court.

In fact, Shaq was still on the roster the last time they won any series without HCA.

[Blake]

I don't feel the need to prove I know what the hell I'm talking about with each post by leaving no stone unturned. I kind of know the players here and what they're trying to imply and/or where they're coming from by reading a given thread, topic.

You don't feel the need to prove it, but you tried any way.

k, thanks.


Anecdotally, on the basis of watching them play, and common sense -- it's why they made a trade like that so late in the year (Feb. 14).

If I added right,

The Rockets record without Clyde was 30-17

The Rockets record with Clyde was 17-18.

Here's the link, correct me if I'm wrong:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1995_games.html

What common sense are you referring to that tells you that a 17-18 team will win a championship?

[Blackjack]

You don't feel the need to prove it, but you tried any way.

k, thanks.

In case you didn't know, I think you're kinda special. ;)


If I added right,

The Rockets record without Clyde was 30-17

The Rockets record with Clyde was 17-18.

Here's the link, correct me if I'm wrong:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/HOU/1995_games.html

What common sense are you referring to that tells you that a 17-18 team will win a championship?

Why did they make the trade, Blake? Could they have possibly seen the type of forecast I foresaw?

Naw, they just traded an integral part of their team, a big averaging 13 and 9, on Feb. 14 with a 30-17 record because integrating another star that late in the season would be a piece of cake. A no-brainer upgrade, something without risk and would only better their already championship-caliber team.

(Went blue for ya. Didn't want to risk you missing out on the sarcasm, now. :toast)

[jjktkk]

What does Kobe have to do with this thread? Geez, is he always on your mind?

Hakeem was relevant since the 94/95 repeat (something Duncan failed to do 4 times) was mentioned.

Blessings bringing the hype, tbh. You'd make a real good used car salesman.

[Blake]

In case you didn't know, I think you're kinda special. ;)

I think your communication skills are lacking. ;)


Why did they make the trade, Blake? Could they have possibly seen the type of forecast I foresaw?

Naw, they just traded an integral part of their team, a big averaging 13 and 9, on Feb. 14 with a 30-17 record because integrating another star that late in the season would be a piece of cake. A no-brainer upgrade, something without risk and would only better their already championship-caliber team.

(Went blue for ya. Didn't want to risk you missing out on the sarcasm, now. :toast)

I didn't ask why they made the trade. The original question was 'how do you think those Rockets were after they made the trade for Drexler?'.

Are you definitely saying they were better than the previous year's championship squad?

It's not an especially difficult question to answer unless your communication skills are lacking. ;)

[spurtech09]

lol...just face it laker fan the lakers are not the same team from last season....

[romsho]

Did you not watch the game 2 nights ago against New Orleans? Put your money where your mouth is egg roll.

They are 38-7, and you point to one loss to New Orleans. They can and have beat most of the teams you have pointed out, and have yet to play Miami. What the fuck exactly are you talking about? You make an incredibly stupid point. But at least Laker fan enjoys your musings.

[cd98]

Laker fan is envious of the Spurs dominance.

He tries to make something of the Spurs not winning consecutively under the assumption that winning consecutive championships means some unique level of domination. Which is fine, except that the Spurs have won four championships during the Tim Duncan era and will tie the 80s Lakers for the most 50 win seasons (and probably break that record next year assuming no lockout). That, my little Laker friend, is historic dominance.

BTW, Little Laker fan, but for the lockout in 99, we would have already broken the 50 win record, and as recently noted by Hollinger, the lockout year, we won a percentage of the games that exceeded the 50 win mark.

[21_Blessings]

Laker fan is envious of the Spurs dominance.

He tries to make something of the Spurs not winning consecutively under the assumption that winning consecutive championships means some unique level of domination. Which is fine, except that the Spurs have won four championships during the Tim Duncan era and will tie the 80s Lakers for the most 50 win seasons (and probably break that record next year assuming no lockout). That, my little Laker friend, is historic dominance.

Can you count to 5?

[cd98]

Do you mind if we take another of your records?

[21_Blessings]

Do you mind if we take another of your records?

The Lakers have so many it's not like they give a fuck.

Get to like 15 :lobt:, then we'll talk.

[cd98]

Maybe if we can pull off a couple championships like your '49 or maybe your '50.

[21_Blessings]

Maybe if we can pull off a couple championships like your '49 or maybe your '50.

Maybe they should start with '09 and '10. Watch some of the game film even.

[cd98]

I'm more impressed by your '49. I'm surprised you don't tout it more often.

[DMC]

Can you count to 5?
Do you know Stephen A Smith's phone number? Kobe does.

[Blackjack]

Let's see:


I didn't ask why they made the trade. The original question was 'how do you think those Rockets were after they made the trade for Drexler?'.



Just curious, how do you think the Rockets were after the trade for Drexler?

Yup, technically it was. But ...


What makes you think they couldn't have won a trophy again with Thorpe instead of Clyde?

Used in conjunction with this question gives off the impression you believe a lackluster record after the acquisition somehow means the Rockets didn't improve. As if meshing talent doesn't take time, especially at such a late date. You're implying that the Rockets with Thorpe may have been a better team than with Drexler.

But maybe you should make that more clear; otherwise your questioning comes across as disingenuous -- you'd have to believe that there was a question as to whether the Rockets were better with Thorpe than Drexler, wouldn't you? Maybe you do ... I've yet to see you post anything resembling an opinion.


I think your communication skills are lacking. ;)

It's cute how you try and parse and nitpick posts, attempting to display your intellect and mastery of the interwebs. It really is.

Special, you are. ;)


Are you definitely saying they were better than the previous year's championship squad?

Don't know, and it's irrelevant.

Maybe it's too far away from your memory or you're just not as informed as you may think, but the Rockets avoided a certain team the previous year in the playoffs. They also didn't have a certain league-leading rival to contend with -- someone that had been getting the better of them that year (3-1)

See, without being privy to hindsight, conventional wisdom -- inside and outside of Houston -- was that the team had 2-3 teams really in their way out West. But 2 specifically: one a nightmare matchup, the other an impressive rival on the rise who'd been getting the better of them.

Houston fans were essentially of the same mind as many a Spur or Mav fan in '07 -- they both had a team they were hoping to avoid (Dallas, Golden State). The Rockets, like the Spurs in '07, had the good fortune of seeing their biggest challenge get eliminated in the first round.

So, you see, Blake, last year's result had a good amount of fortune and a different level of competition. The Rockets, being cognizant of that and the reality of the current league, felt their team had to make a move to combat two teams they either didn't match-up well with or felt had probably passed them by.

Which brings me to where this all started: Hakeem needed the star talent of Drexler added to his team the next year to go back-to-back. That's my belief, and judging by the actions of the team, it was theirs too.


It's not an especially difficult question to answer unless your communication skills are lacking. ;)

"The Great Communicator" couldn't hold my jock. And you're welcome. ;)

[Proxy]

The Lakers have so many it's not like they give a fuck.

Get to like 15 :lobt:, then we'll talk.

Weak argument.... at the very least take the title count down from 17 to 11 since 6 of those came before the aba joined...

and, you lakers fans are being pathetic... posting these rants on a spurs board shows how insecure you are. If you really weren't worried, then you wouldn't give a shit and this thread wouldn't exist.

It's not like you guys deserve the team you have, getting Pau for free. Timmy has never received free HOFers via trade or free agency. It must be easy being an obnoxious lakers fan.

[DieHardSpursFan1537]

Like anybody cares what a Laker fan has to say.

[Martin R]

Can you count to 5?

can you put this in there ?

[cd98]

I think any Austin Toros championships would compare or be more impressive than Laker championships in the 40s and 50s. I barely even count our 99 it was so long ago.

[Blake]

Used in conjunction with this question gives off the impression you believe a lackluster record after the acquisition somehow means the Rockets didn't improve. As if meshing talent doesn't take time, especially at such a late date. You're implying that the Rockets with Thorpe may have been a better team than with Drexler.

But maybe you should make that more clear; otherwise your questioning comes across as disingenuous -- you'd have to believe that there was a question as to whether the Rockets were better with Thorpe than Drexler, wouldn't you? Maybe you do ... I've yet to see you post anything resembling an opinion.

You never asked for my opinion.

Common sense to me says they were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

You say common sense says they were better off with Drexler. I'm trying to get a simple answer from you.


It's cute how you try and parse and nitpick posts, attempting to display your intellect and mastery of the interwebs. It really is.

Special, you are. ;)

It's cuter how evasive and butthurt you get over extremely simple questions.

;) ;)


Don't know, and it's irrelevant.

I'm just trying to figure out what common sense you are using that says the Rockets would not have won again if not for Drexler coming.

Feel free to say "it's just my opinion" and leave it at that.


Maybe it's too far away from your memory or you're just not as informed as you may think, but the Rockets avoided a certain team the previous year in the playoffs. They also didn't have a certain league-leading rival to contend with -- someone that had been getting the better of them that year (3-1)

See, without being privy to hindsight, conventional wisdom -- inside and outside of Houston -- was that the team had 2-3 teams really in their way out West. But 2 specifically: one a nightmare matchup, the other an impressive rival on the rise who'd been getting the better of them.

Houston fans were essentially of the same mind as many a Spur or Mav fan in '07 -- they both had a team they were hoping to avoid (Dallas, Golden State). The Rockets, like the Spurs in '07, had the good fortune of seeing their biggest challenge get eliminated in the first round.

So, you see, Blake, last year's result had a good amount of fortune and a different level of competition. The Rockets, being cognizant of that and the reality of the current league, felt their team had to make a move to combat two teams they either didn't match-up well with or felt had probably passed them by.

Which brings me to where this all started: Hakeem needed the star talent of Drexler added to his team the next year to go back-to-back. That's my belief, and judging by the actions of the team, it was theirs too.

so why do you think the 1995-1996 Rockets squad had a similarly mediocre regular season record before getting swept in the 2nd round by Seattle?


"The Great Communicator" couldn't hold my jock. And you're welcome. ;)

Good communication involves a message that is clear and direct. Reagan's message was always simple and basic enough for the ordinary man to easily understand.

Your posts are verbose and ambiguous. I'm not sure you could hold ducks' jock.

Thanks for nothing but cheap entertainment. ;) ;)

[FTLSpur]

insecure Laker fan being insecure what's new?

[K-State Spur]

The Lakers have so many it's not like they give a fuck.

Get to like 15 :lobt:, then we'll talk.

How many of those 15 are sitting in your living room?

[21_Blessings]

I'm more impressed by your '49. I'm surprised you don't tout it more often.

'49 was more impressive than the joke which was 2007. A convicted felon handing you game 3 and Stu Jackson suspending the Suns best player on a technicality while ignoring the fact that Duncan did the same thing.

Notice how the Spurs stopped winning after the Lakers stopped rebuilding. Must suck to be the Lakers doormat.

e;


Pau Gasol says lolwut?

:pop: tanking for Timmy says lolwut?

The Lakers earned their recent back to back through savvy front office movements.

[spursfan09]

:lol rebuilding smack.

I'd say it's pretty impressive the Spurs have not had a rebuilding mode since 97-98.

[Blake]

Notice how the Spurs stopped winning after the Lakers stopped rebuilding.

Pau Gasol says lolwut?

[Rummpd]

Give the LAL their full due they won the last two and are still the legit favorites going forward; but don't believe the crap for a second that the regular season has no bearing. LAL does not want to go potentially through both the Mavs and the Spurs to even get to the Eastern champ in the finals.

[slayermin]

lol @ Laker fan counting the five titles won by Minneapolis.

lol @ Laker fan disparaging the '99 championship when we all know that most, if not all of you are Dodger fans. And you proudly count the '81 Dodger World Series title as a regular championship.

[21_Blessings]

I'm disparaging 07, not the 99 season where nobody really practiced due to work stoppage.

Those 5 titles were won by the Lakers, fyi.

[21_Blessings]

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad :pop: tanked for Duncan. I'd rather see the Spurs win 5 before Boston wins 1.

[ambchang]

'49 was more impressive than the joke which was 2007. A convicted felon handing you game 3 and Stu Jackson suspending the Suns best player on a technicality while ignoring the fact that Duncan did the same thing.

That convicted felon never reffed a Lakers playoff game, I presume.

And Duncan did the same thing? Remember the league changed the rule after Ewing was suspended in 97 vs. the Heat when he stepped on the court. It changed from not allowed to leave the bench during an altercation to not allowed to leave the bench area during an altercation.

Duncan stepped on the court, but was right in front of the bench. There also wasn't an altercation that took place when he did.

Vs. the Suns situation where the Suns player rushed out to mid-court.

v=ZhXNhDmW86o

I am having trouble finding the Duncan video, but if memory recalls, it was no where close to the "same thing".


Notice how the Spurs stopped winning after the Lakers stopped rebuilding. Must suck to be the Lakers doormat.

You mean how the Spurs beat the 3-time defending champs the year the Spurs were rebuilding? That year?


e;



:pop: tanking for Timmy says lolwut?

The Lakers earned their recent back to back through savvy front office movements.

Yeah, and 27 FTs in the 4th and amazing "networking" with other team front offices.

[cd98]

Amazing L.A. fan criticizes 07 title while not including his 09. At least Lebron was the best player in the NBA. Nothing impressive about beating a team without its starting point guard and a platoon of Hedo, Lewis, and Gortat; and Howard, who isn't top 8 in big men for the last decade.

[cd98]

I'm disparaging 07, not the 99 season where nobody really practiced due to work stoppage.

Those 5 titles were won by the Lakers, fyi.

Judging by how things turned out for L.A., they probably didn't practice in playoffs either.

And mudslinging aside, I think '99 is the way an NBA season should be. No reason to have "meaningless" regular season games to leave teams injured and less than 100%. Better to have them playing less regular season games and going into the playoffs healthy. It was a great year for playoffs and the basketball was much better quality than watching L.A. barely beat an injured Celtic team last year. And Kobe should have enough respect to hand that MVP trophy to Gasol, who really earned it.

[ChumpDumper]

Damn, lakerfan really does care about the Spurs.

[ElNono]

:pop: tanking for Timmy says lolwut?

Mitch tanking to get Bynum says lolwut?

[Blackjack]

You never asked for my opinion.

Common sense to me says they were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

You say common sense says they were better off with Drexler. I'm trying to get a simple answer from you.

I just did. You finally contributed something.

Common sense tells you the Rockets made a bad trade.


It's cuter how evasive and butthurt you get over extremely simple questions.

;) ;)


What's evasive about stating an opinion? Adorable and so very special, you are. ;)



I'm just trying to figure out what common sense you are using that says the Rockets would not have won again if not for Drexler coming.

Feel free to say "it's just my opinion" and leave it at that.

See above. :toast


so why do you think the 1995-1996 Rockets squad had a similarly mediocre regular season record before getting swept in the 2nd round by Seattle?

Because team play, athleticism and age isn't static? Maybe because there are no guarantees on a trade's end result, in it fulfilling the goals you wish for it to achieve (being a better matchup)?



Good communication involves a message that is clear and direct. Reagan's message was always simple and basic enough for the ordinary man to easily understand.

Your posts are verbose and ambiguous. I'm not sure you could hold ducks' jock.

Thanks for nothing but cheap entertainment. ;) ;)

Here ya go, Nancy!

I state opinion.

You rebut with an emoticon after misunderstanding.

I clarify.

You acknowledge, and then pose two separate but related questions.

I've since answered both questions and posed you a question.

You've now answered that question, stating your common sense tells you the Rockets made a bad trade. You think a Rockets team that's braintrust didn't believe it could beat Seattle, San Antonio (and maybe Utah) were wrong and you were/are right on the basis of next year's result.

My common sense tells me to side with the Rockets.

You're welcome, once again. I'm a communicator. ;)

[Rummpd]

http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm


"As a whole, these plays suggest to me the refs were calling the game honestly, if perhaps not well. "

This officiating geek guy rates the dubious Lakers win over the Kings in game 6 leading to a game 7 as not definetely "fixed" but many have claimed it was and whether or not there was bias by one or several refs, it is universaly regarded as one of the worst called playoff games in NBA HX.

Either way, a break here or there or a different call and the Lakers might not be trying to tri-peat again but striving for the first tri-peat in the Jackson era and Kobe would have 4 titles the same as Duncan.

Or maybe not even that many if you regard the comments about the LAL getting all the calls in game 7 last year as plausible: http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4429187

(including this classic from BRHornet: "easily in the top 5 ... it looked to be fairly called through the first 3 quarters, then the NBA took over and pushed the Lakers to victory with those twenty-one 4th quarter freebies." or even better from Can't-_be_Faded: I would just like to see ONE PIVOTAL GAME in Kobe's bullshit career where the Lakers are not total beneficiarys of bull shit calls. They are always the ones that come out on top of bullshit officiating and it makes me sick. This league is such a sham."




Now don't get me started about the physically impossible Fisher catch, turn and leap shot 0.4 B.S. but at least due to some kind of karma, LAL did not win it all that year despite having a true dream team lineup.

*&%$ happens and whether or not funny stuff went on any of these years when it always seems the LAL are involved - the LAL hold 5 titles in the Duncan era but don't hold your breath LAL fans = Spurs might well get another one before Kobe does suprisingly this year (unless the refs make the Spurs play 5 on 8)!

[Blake]

I just did. You finally contributed something.

Common sense tells you the Rockets made a bad trade.

You whining that I hadn't given my opinion is not the same as asking for it.

Common sense.


What's evasive about stating an opinion? Adorable and so very special, you are. ;)

Nothing is evasive about stating an opinion.

You not answering a simple question is evasive.

Very terrible at communicaton and comprehension you are. ;) ;)


Because team play, athleticism and age isn't static? Maybe because there are no guarantees on a trade's end result, in it fulfilling the goals you wish for it to achieve (being a better matchup)?

Proper reading comprehension would allow you to realize this answers nothing I asked you.


Here ya go, Nancy!

Anyone with common sense will tell you that name-calling is an indication of a poor communicator.


I state opinion.

You rebut with an emoticon after misunderstanding.

I asked a question regarding your seemingly rhetorical question regarding the Rockets after the Drexler trade.

Poor comprehension.


I clarify.

You acknowledge, and then pose two separate but related questions.

I've since answered both questions and posed you a question.

You have not answered the questions directly. If anything you answered the questions with ambiguous questions.


You've now answered that question, stating your common sense tells you the Rockets made a bad trade. You think a Rockets team that's braintrust didn't believe it could beat Seattle, San Antonio (and maybe Utah) were wrong and you were/are right on the basis of next year's result.

My common sense tells me to side with the Rockets.

This does not answer the question, no matter how hard you want it to.

I also think the Rockets "braintrust" thought they made a good trade at the time, but I never asked that. I'm not sure how you think siding with the Rockets answers anything either, but it's funny.

I've already posed the question(s) at a pretty simple, easy to read level, but if you need me to, I'll try to dumb it down for you further. Just ask.


You're welcome, once again. I'm a communicator. ;)

Yes, thanks again for the cheap entertainment. Messageboard butthurt is always fun to watch. ;);)

[Blackjack]

"messageboard butthurt" :lol

What have you not comprehended, Blake?

My opinion: The Rockets don't go back-2-without the Drexler trade.

Why? Both the Spurs and Sonics were better teams prior to the trade (why the Rockets made the trade).

I've already given you the rationale as to why they made the trade and that I agreed with it.

Your turn. ;)

[Blake]

My opinion: The Rockets don't go back-2-without the Drexler trade.

Why? Both the Spurs and Sonics were better teams prior to the trade (why the Rockets made the trade).

Your turn. ;)

That reply only explains why you think they made the trade.

I'll ask again:

"What makes you think they couldn't have won a trophy again with Thorpe instead of Clyde?"

So far, all you have really said is that they were better with Drexler based on your common sense.

If that's all you have, great, just say so. Very, very simple. :tu

[Blackjack]

That reply only explains why you think they made the trade.

I'll ask again:

"What makes you think they couldn't have won a trophy again with Thorpe instead of Clyde?"

So far, all you have really said is that they were better with Drexler based on your common sense.

If that's all you have, great, just say so. Very, very simple. :tu

With that rationale, I'll take my being able to point to the Rockets making a blockbuster trade on Feb. 14 as being better evidence they couldn't repeat with Thorpe than your "I think the Rockets could have won a trophy with Thorpe."

This isn't all that hard, Blake. I made my opinion known, you thought it wise to smugly reply and -- as per the usual when our paths cross -- I've had a little fun combating your passive aggressive retorts with plenty of facetious and condescending replies.

And Nancy isn't name-calling, by the way. It's a nickname and moniker earned, deserved and bestowed with great affection.

Tim Duncan is the Big Fundamental because he is both tall and fundamentally sound.

You are Nancy because you're synonymous with the question 'Why?' and would be completely obnoxious if you weren't so adorable. ;)

[smeagol]

I miss Laker Lanny . . . :depressed

[Blake]

With that rationale, I'll take my being able to point to the Rockets making a blockbuster trade on Feb. 14 as being better evidence they couldn't repeat with Thorpe than your "I think the Rockets could have won a trophy with Thorpe."

This isn't all that hard, Blake. I made my opinion known, you thought it wise to smugly reply and -- as per the usual when our paths cross -- I've had a little fun combating your passive aggressive retorts with plenty of facetious and condescending replies.

I've basically been asking what you are basing your opinion on.

You have nothing but what you say is common sense because the trade itself makes it so.

And you are getting butthurt instead of just saying that's all you have.


And Nancy isn't name-calling, by the way. It's a nickname and moniker earned, deserved and bestowed with great affection.

It's absolutely name-calling. Nancy is a name and you are calling me that name.

It's also a desperation move by a poor communicator.


You are Nancy because you're synonymous with the question 'Why?' and would be completely obnoxious if you weren't so adorable. ;)

That makes no sense at all.

But you are an extremely poor communicator with weak reasoning skills, so it's also no surprise.

;);)

[SequSpur]

you guys are homos.

[Blake]

you guys are homos.


I agree with Laker fan...Spurs are built (this year) for regular season wins against shitty teams. Spurs can't beat LA, Boston, Orlando, Miami or Dallas....Maybe not even the Hornets...but they can still beat all the other shitty teams...handily, I might add....

Spurs need a big or two to do something...Period...Timmay is a 100 years old...

Are u mad because nobody responded to this weak post?

Do you require attention like this in real life too?

[SequSpur]

Are u mad because nobody responded to this weak post?

Do you require attention like this in real life too?

i don't require shit.

And you're a homo for quoting me...

go search the sequ "quote" topic....

lmao

[Blake]

i don't require shit.

And you're a homo for quoting me...

go search the sequ "quote" topic....

lmao

I'm sure it'll say "you're a homo".

lmao attention whore

[Blackjack]

I've basically been asking what you are basing your opinion on.

You have nothing but what you say is common sense because the trade itself makes it so.

Basically? So what are you really asking?

I told you why I believe the Rockets made the trade and that I agreed with the rationale to make the trade. That's not so hard to understand now, is it?


And you are getting butthurt instead of just saying that's all you have.

That's all I have? What more is there to have? You want to provide me with something to suggest my view's wrong and yours is right? Adorable.:lol


It's absolutely name-calling. Nancy is a name and you are calling me that name.

Literally, yes. Just like literally, as in the Rockets would have been in the playoffs and had a statistical chance to go back-to-back, you could say the Rockets could win the title. They wouldn't but they could, hypothetically; and I really hope that's not the basis for your butthurt on this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had better things to do with your time. :lol


It's also a desperation move by a poor communicator.

Great communicators know how to elicit the response they wish to receive. You keep coming back for more. :)




That makes no sense at all.

But you are an extremely poor communicator with weak reasoning skills, so it's also no surprise.

;);)

It makes all the sense in the world. But you know that, it's common sense.

Just like no reigning champion has ever made a blockbuster trade with a little more than 2 months left in the season because they believed their team was championship-caliber as is.

I look forward to your reply my sweet, adorable Nancy. :)

[Blake]

Basically? So what are you really asking?

I told you why I believe the Rockets made the trade and that I agreed with the rationale to make the trade. That's not so hard to understand now, is it?



That's all I have? What more is there to have? You want to provide me with something to suggest my view's wrong and yours is right? Adorable.:lol


Literally, yes. Just like literally, as in the Rockets would have been in the playoffs and had a statistical chance to go back-to-back, you could say the Rockets could win the title. They wouldn't but they could, hypothetically; and I really hope that's not the basis for your butthurt on this. I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had better things to do with your time. :lol

It makes all the sense in the world. But you know that, it's common sense.

Just like no reigning champion has ever made a blockbuster trade with a little more than 2 months left in the season because they believed their team was championship-caliber as is.

so you are saying that the Rockets were better just because they made a trade in the middle of a season that they won a title, even though they won a title the year before and failed to win a title the year after.

If this is not the case, feel free to ramble on further.


Great communicators know how to elicit the response they wish to receive.

I look forward to your reply my sweet, adorable Nancy. :)

it appears you aren't trying to elicit anything.

name-calling is a weak, butthurt reflex action.

I am curious to see how many more melt-down posts you are going to post regarding me instead of just talking basketball.

:wakeup

[jjktkk]

so you are saying that the Rockets were better just because they made a trade in the middle of a season that they won a title, even though they won a title the year before and failed to win a title the year after.

If this is not the case, feel free to ramble on further.



it appears you aren't trying to elicit anything.

name-calling is a weak, butthurt reflex action.

I am curious to see how many more melt-down posts you are going to post regarding me instead of just talking basketball.

:wakeup

This is a meltdown post? Man, you need to go read mono or his bff Bump's posts. Those 2 know how to throw down a meltdown.

[Blackjack]

so you are saying that the Rockets were better just because they made a trade in the middle of a season that they won a title, even though they won a title the year before and failed to win a title the year after.

Yes. Absolutely. With-out-a-doubt. I don't speak any other languages, so that's the best I've got.

Question, if I may, what does the year prior and after have to do with the Rockets ability to win in '95? The competition the same? The Rockets the same team? Health, age, any other factor the same?

Just wondering . . .


If this is not the case, feel free to ramble on further.

Ramble On, And now's the time, the time is now, to sing my song.
I'm goin' 'round the world, I got to find my girl, on my way.
I've been this way ten years to the day, Ramble On,
Gotta find the queen of all my dreams.


it appears you aren't trying to elicit anything.

Looks can be deceiving. You're still here (and I'm enjoying it).


name-calling is a weak, butthurt reflex action.

Tim Duncan doesn't get butthurt about the Big Fundamental. It's just a nickname, Blake. You should be proud of it. You earned it and were bestowed it legitimately. It wasn't some contrived 'Mamba' or 'STAT' nickname you gave yourself. I mean, how may people are nicknamed Nancy? You can truly be the trend setter Cully always hoped to be.


I am curious to see how many more melt-down posts you are going to post regarding me instead of just talking basketball.

:wakeup

Oh, I'm ready to go EPIC meltdown, Nancy. EPIC. :hungry:

Thorpe > Drexler :rollin

[Blackjack]

Common sense to me says they were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

He really did say it. :rollin

[Mel_13]

This Thorpe/Drexler debate is interesting, but I'm wondering if either of you have an opinion on that whole World Trade Center mosque controversy?

[Blackjack]

This Thorpe/Drexler debate is interesting, but I'm wondering if either of you have an opinion on that whole World Trade Center mosque controversy?

Funny you should ask . . .






























He's a racist. :)

[Blake]

This is a meltdown post? Man, you need to go read mono or his bff Bump's posts. Those 2 know how to throw down a meltdown.

every now and then mono will melt down, but I've read enough from those two to know they are mostly just trolling around.

[Blake]

Question, if I may, what does the year prior and after have to do with the Rockets ability to win in '95? The competition the same? The Rockets the same team? Health, age, any other factor the same?

Just wondering . . .

With Thorpe, the Rockets went 88-41 in the season and a half from 1993-Feb 1995.

With Drexler, the Rockets went 65-52 in the season and a half from Feb 1995-the end of 1996.

The competition was basically the same. One season difference isn't going to be much of a factor for age. Drexler missed a few games because of health which is another reason I think it wasn't a great deal after all.


Tim Duncan doesn't get butthurt about the Big Fundamental. It's just a nickname, Blake. You should be proud of it. You earned it and were bestowed it legitimately. It wasn't some contrived 'Mamba' or 'STAT' nickname you gave yourself. I mean, how may people are nicknamed Nancy? You can truly be the trend setter Cully always hoped to be.

Nobody is nicknamed Nancy that I'm aware of.

You calling me names doesn't mean it's a nickname. It's just continued butthurt on your part.


Oh, I'm ready to go EPIC meltdown, Nancy. EPIC. :hungry:

I've seen worse meltdowns than yours in this thread. In fact, your meltdown in the mosque thread was much much worse than this one.

[Blake]

He really did say it. :rollin

Yes, it's my opinion that the Rockets were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

I really am saying that and have been asking why you think they were better off with Drexler other than "the trade itself made it so."

It only took you a few pages of calling me Nancy before you finally comprehend what was being said. :rollin

[Blake]

Funny you should ask . . .

He's a racist. :)

So now it goes from calling me Nancy to calling me a racist.

Very telling. :) :)

[baseline bum]

:lol What? The only thing that saved the Lakers last season was their regular season record that gave them homecourt vs Boston. No way Kobe's 6-24ing his way to a title if that game is on the Celtics' floor.

[Blackjack]

With Thorpe, the Rockets went 88-41 in the season and a half from 1993-Feb 1995.

With Drexler, the Rockets went 65-52 in the season and a half from Feb 1995-the end of 1996.

They were 30-17 with Thorpe before trading him during the 94-95 season. Before and after is irrelevant.


The competition was basically the same. One season difference isn't going to be much of a factor for age. Drexler missed a few games because of health which is another reason I think it wasn't a great deal after all.

So why did the Rockets -- the reigning champion -- make a trade of that magnitude with not much more than two months left in the season?


Nobody is nicknamed Nancy that I'm aware of.

You calling me names doesn't mean it's a nickname. It's just continued butthurt on your part.

You really seem hung up on the nickname, Blake. A dude in the NBA played with the name "Bimbo" and owned it. Own it, my man. Nancy ain't nothing to be ashamed of.


I've seen worse meltdowns than yours in this thread. In fact, your meltdown in the mosque thread was much much worse than this one.

That's why you're still butthurt over, after however the hell long ago that was? :lol You really have been waiting quite a long time for an opening to bounce back from that, haven't you? :wow


Yes, it's my opinion that the Rockets were better off with Thorpe than Drexler.

I really am saying that and have been asking why you think they were better off with Drexler other than "the trade itself made it so."

Have you taken the time to look how good Drexler was for the Rockets during the playoffs by any chance?


It only took you a few pages of calling me Nancy before you finally comprehend what was being said. :rollin

I've known what you've meant all along. You've failed to provide anything close to as much validation or validity for your belief than I have for mine, tbh.

My rationale: The reigning champion had been getting beat by their matchup nightmare (Seattle) and their in-state rival who happened to have the league's best player that year (SA; Robinson) and wound up swinging a trade with a little more than two months left in the regular season -- an admission of not having a team they thought capable of winning the title that year, if I ever saw one . . .

Your rationale: The reigning champion made a trade with a little more than two months left in the season just 'cause. They could have won the title without it but figured it'd be cool to reunite Hakeem and Clyde. They were just that good.

And your reasoning? They won the championship the year prior and they flamed out the year after. Their regular season record wasn't as good as it was before and after the Drexler trade.

I'm gonna be serious for a moment, just for a tiny, fleeting, passing moment, but ask yourself this:

Why is it that the first champion didn't remain champion until their roster turned over or was retired; and that a back-to-back or three-peat are seen as feats of excellence and not common occurrences?

Oh, and pertaining to common sense, did the Rockets record after the Drexler trade in 94-95 prior to the playoffs reflect the team playing at it's proven championship-caliber best or an acclimation period after a significant trade?

Thanks. :toast


So now it goes from calling me Nancy to calling me a racist.

Very telling. :) :)

You really are adorable. You take yourself and the internets WAY too seriously. :lol

I don't think you're a racist, Nancy. It was only a little affectionate sharp-sticking.

In truth, I have no idea who and what you are pertaining to the notion. But I, unlike yourself, give people the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.

This guy will never accuse someone of being a racist, telling them they have to prove otherwise.

No proving a negative with me, my man. It's not necessary.

I'm a communicator. ;)

[Blake]

They were 30-17 with Thorpe before trading him during the 94-95 season. Before and after is irrelevant.

Irrelevant? That's been my question all along

Were the Rockets better after with Clyde or before with Thorpe?


So why did the Rockets -- the reigning champion -- make a trade of that magnitude with not much more than two months left in the season?

The irony here is that why they made the trade is irrelevant to the simple question I've been asking.

They obviously thought it would make the team better.

Obviously you want to just leave it at "a trade was made, so they are better."

Sorry that I overestimated your IQ. I won't ask you any more simple questions regarding which squad was better.


You really seem hung up on the nickname, Blake. A dude in the NBA played with the name "Bimbo" and owned it. Own it, my man. Nancy ain't nothing to be ashamed of.

I'm not hung up on any names you call me.

You though are very clearly hung up on name calling due to the butthurt.

You should be ashamed of the name-calling, but enterainment-wise, I'm glad you're not. :tu


That's why you're still butthurt over, after however the hell long ago that was? :lol You really have been waiting quite a long time for an opening to bounce back from that, haven't you? :wow

I was just referencing the severe meltdown you had in that other thread.

I don't get butthurt over silly messageboard posts, but there is plenty of evidence of yours in these two threads......all over some very simple questions that I was just asking for clarification on.


Have you taken the time to look how good Drexler was for the Rockets during the playoffs by any chance?

Absolutely. He was fantastic.



I've known what you've meant all along.

Nope. Clearly you have not.


You've failed to provide anything close to as much validation or validity for your belief than I have for mine, tbh.

You made the initial response that Clyde made the team better. I simply asked why.

You never asked for my belief and I never stated at any point that my belief was better than yours.

I just asked for clarification to which you got extremely offended and butthurt.


My rationale: The reigning champion had been getting beat by their matchup nightmare (Seattle) and their in-state rival who happened to have the league's best player that year (SA; Robinson) and wound up swinging a trade with a little more than two months left in the regular season -- an admission of not having a team they thought capable of winning the title that year, if I ever saw one . . .

Your rationale: The reigning champion made a trade with a little more than two months left in the season just 'cause. They could have won the title without it but figured it'd be cool to reunite Hakeem and Clyde. They were just that good.

That's not my rationale at all. I understand completely why they wanted to make a trade.

In the end, I don't think they were better off for it, and the from the games I recall watching and the detailed stats I've seen suggest as much.


And your reasoning? They won the championship the year prior and they flamed out the year after. Their regular season record wasn't as good as it was before and after the Drexler trade.

Comparing season records with Thorpe to the ones with Drexler is a starting point.


I'm gonna be serious for a moment, just for a tiny, fleeting, passing moment, but ask yourself this:

Why is it that the first champion didn't remain champion until their roster turned over or was retired; and that a back-to-back or three-peat are seen as feats of excellence and not common occurrences?

what first champion? I have no idea what this question has to do with anything.

What major roster moves did the Pistons make during their repeats? Lakers? Bulls? I don't know of any that was as huge or as questionable as the Drexler move during midway of a pretty good season.


Oh, and pertaining to common sense, did the Rockets record after the Drexler trade in 94-95 prior to the playoffs reflect the team playing at it's proven championship-caliber best or an acclimation period after a significant trade?

Thanks. :toast

The Rockets went into the playoffs as a 6 seed and had some lucky breaks. It also took Hakeem playing at a level above and beyond his already MVP level.

The 1995-1996 team should have had plenty of time to acclimate. Instead, they didn't even win 50 games and got swept by the Sonics.

This bit of information appears to be irrelevant to you only because it doesn't jive with your opinion.


I don't think you're a racist, Nancy. It was only a little affectionate sharp-sticking.

Yes, but you still went to the name calling card, which again, is very telling about the amount of butthurt you have experienced in this thread.


In truth, I have no idea who and what you are pertaining to the notion. But I, unlike yourself, give people the benefit of a doubt until proven otherwise.

This guy will never accuse someone of being a racist, telling them they have to prove otherwise.

No proving a negative with me, my man. It's not necessary.

In truth, I have no idea what you are saying here.


I'm a communicator. ;)

Whoever told you that you are is also a poor communicator......or just a liar. ;);)

Clearly, and for whatever reason, you still don't understand what the question is. I'll save you from any future butthurt and not ask it any more. :tu

[FilSpursFan]

Someone's insecure today.

:tu

[Blake]

I'm a communicator. ;)


Someone's insecure today.


:tu

:tu

[Blackjack]

Irrelevant? That's been my question all along

Were the Rockets better after with Clyde or before with Thorpe?

You already know the answer to that. Yes. Absolutey. With-out-a-doubt, I believe is exactly what I said in the post prior. Adorable. :lol


The irony here is that why they made the trade is irrelevant to the simple question I've been asking.

They obviously thought it would make the team better.

Obviously you want to just leave it at "a trade was made, so they are better."

You're a dense one. Adorable, but dense. :lol

They made the trade because they knew they weren't going to win without it. That's why a team with championship aspirations makes a trade of that significance that late in a season.

Ya know, because it takes time for talent to mesh, gel? You should be a Maverick or Suns fan. You'd fit right in, arguing that a regular season record is any indication that a team is better than a championship result.


Sorry that I overestimated your IQ. I won't ask you any more simple questions regarding which squad was better.

Now there's irony. :toast


I'm not hung up on any names you call me.

You though are very clearly hung up on name calling due to the butthurt.

You should be ashamed of the name-calling, but enterainment-wise, I'm glad you're not. :tu

You keep feeling the need to address it, Nancy. And you've got an awful lot of fondness for the word "butthurt".

Methinks someone protests too much . . . ;)


I was just referencing the severe meltdown you had in that other thread.

You're never gonna get over that troll, are you? I mean, I didn't initially start out to do it, I really didn't, but offseason boredom and a beauty like yourself was really just the perfect storm, tbh.

Sorry you didn't enjoy it as much as I did. :(


I don't get butthurt over silly messageboard posts, but there is plenty of evidence of yours in these two threads......all over some very simple questions that I was just asking for clarification on.

Obviously you don't. No one uses the word that much without projecting.


Absolutely. He was fantastic.

Yeah, like having the most Win Shares, having a PER that was better than two Kobe's three as a sidekick to Shaq while rated as the team's best perimeter defender and third best defender overall to only Hakeem and Horry, something Kobe never was.

Yeah, he was fantastic -- and without him they don't beat the Spurs.


Nope. Clearly you have not.

I'm pretty sure saying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result goes hand-in-hand with doing. Just guessing. But maybe you can prove otherwise . . .

You have questions ...

http://pdhomes.net/collections/notlad/ArtStuff/kerrigan.jpg

but you'll never hear an adequate answer. :depressed


You made the initial response that Clyde made the team better. I simply asked why.

If you want some statistical facts, I just gave you some. If you had the common sense I assumed you to have, you wouldn't need to ask me how Clyde Drexler made that team better.


You never asked for my belief and I never stated at any point that my belief was better than yours.

You initiated the back and forth and have yet to accept 'Yes.' for an answer. Obviously you believe I'm wrong, which means you believe you are right, no?


I just asked for clarification to which you got extremely offended and butthurt.

You're an adorable, even if transparent one. :lol


That's not my rationale at all. I understand completely why they wanted to make a trade.

In the end, I don't think they were better off for it, and the from the games I recall watching and the detailed stats I've seen suggest as much.

They won the Championship, no? They were worse off, how? Are you telling me the Rockets win the title without the trade and are better off next year?

So the Rockets in a win-now mode pull the trigger on a trade they obviously feel they had to make and it winds up working out, but your knowledge of the team from the outside looking in surpasses theirs? Interesting . . .

Otis Thorpe was more than capable of contributing the "fantastic" play needed from Drexler that postseason


Comparing season records with Thorpe to the ones with Drexler is a starting point.

No, that's irrelevant. You must have had one of those basketball hoops with water or sand in the bottom. You seem to really like to move that goal around. The only one I ever had was cemented like a sonbitch.

I said the Rockets needed Drexler to win the 94-95 title. You took exception. The actions of the Rockets suggest they needed him to win the title that year; the performance needed from Drexler for the team to win the title suggests it was more than they ever could have dreamed of getting from Thorpe -- not to mention the kick in the ass and energy injected into a team that the organization felt they needed and had to have.

But again, that's common sense. Some possess it, you obviously don't -- or you're just unwilling to concede when you're wrong or not winning the debate?

Could be . . .


what first champion? I have no idea what this question has to do with anything.

You're getting lost a lot, aren't you?

You seem to believe the Rockets 93-94 championship has some kind of bearing on next year and the player they got rid of. It doesn't -- otherwise the Larry O'Brien wouldn't change hands all that often, eh?

The Rockets couldn't win the title without trading for a player that could be "fantastic". To their credit, they got it done. With Thorpe, they don't. They knew/know it, I do as well, and I'm guessing though you'd never admit it, you do as well.

But party on, Blake. :)


What major roster moves did the Pistons make during their repeats? Lakers? Bulls? I don't know of any that was as huge or as questionable as the Drexler move during midway of a pretty good season.

They didn't need to and they didn't. They're irrelevant to the conversation. The Rockets did need to and they did happen to.

That's why you know they had to make the trade: Reigning champions don't make moves like that unless there's the feeling of impending doom. They know they're not good enough.

Damn, there's that common sense again. :bang


The Rockets went into the playoffs as a 6 seed and had some lucky breaks. It also took Hakeem playing at a level above and beyond his already MVP level.

WTF? :huh

So without Drexler they're still able to capitalize on those breaks; and how does this have anything to do with whether the Rockets did or did not need Clyde?


The 1995-1996 team should have had plenty of time to acclimate. Instead, they didn't even win 50 games and got swept by the Sonics.

Again, WTF? What does 95-96 have to do with 94-95? You do know that the Rockets were an aging team and had just played in two consecutive Finals though, right?


This bit of information appears to be irrelevant to you only because it doesn't jive with your opinion.

Well, yeah it's irrelevant to me, Nancy. It has nothing to to with the debate. :lol


Yes, but you still went to the name calling card, which again, is very telling about the amount of butthurt you have experienced in this thread.

I knew something good would come from this. I've got a new drinking game:

'"Butthurt" from Nancy and bottoms up, y'all! :drunk


In truth, I have no idea what you are saying here.

And that's why you're still bent over it. You never were able to grasp what happened or what it was all about. :lol


Whoever told you that you are is also a poor communicator......or just a liar. ;);)

I'm a communicator. ;)


Clearly, and for whatever reason, you still don't understand what the question is. I'll save you from any future butthurt and not ask it any more. :tu

DRINK!!! :drunk

[Blackjack]

And seriously, you're welcome for that (I ain't breaking quotes down like that anymore). :toast

Looking forward to it, Nancy. :hungry:

[Blake]

i'm a communicator. ;)


someone's insecure today.

;) ;)

[Blackjack]

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__dkHamJGCLI/SqpDEoxHInI/AAAAAAAAAfg/ZtXpQiivWI0/s400/JohnnyDramaVictory.jpg