Reply With Quote
Or Josh Howards time-out.
Robert Horry's Game 5 2005 Finals shot. If the Pistons played defense correctly that play they could of been up 3-2 and on the verge of a back to back le.
Every since we lost in that Finals we have not been the same team. Maybe if we would of won LB would of stayed, which would of kept Ben here, etc.
Or Josh Howards time-out.
Actually, more than the MJ shot.
And I 100% believe Stern personally engineered it.Bavetta cost the Jazz the 1998 NBA championship. You might recall it. His refereeing in Game 6 was the worst refereeing EVER in NBA Finals history. Gesticulating like someone who had just shaken hands with an electric fence, he adamantly waved off a 3-pointer made by Utah's Howard Eisley when replays clearly showed the shot was out of his hand before the shot clock expired. And with the same amount of bravado, Bavetta allowed a 3-pointer by Ron Harper that had clearly not gotten off before the buzzer. That's an undeniable six-point difference in a game that was won by one point. Bavetta might as well have been wearing a Bulls jersey.
I guess the Paxson 3....
would've, not would of. Short for would have. Why do so many people get this wrong?
Probably Dirk's and 1. I think it would have been far more likely the Spurs have lost games 6 & 7 to L.A. in 2004 rather than them lose to either Phoenix or Miami. We probably would have been going for 4 in a row last year...
Horse . That was one year where the Celtics would have wiped the floor with the Lakers, and LA knew it. They didn't want that kind of embarrassment so they decided to tank against the Rockets instead.
here is your winner:
the sebsequent 3-point play that followed the rod strickland over-head-the turnover in game 7 of the 1990 western conference semifinals
You are such an idiot. Ok, here's what I will do. I have a huge post elsewhere that's on a Celtic Board, as well as about 20 other NBA teams for over 36 hours. I totally have the Celtic Mystique debunked and not one person, not even a die hard Celtic fan has been able to find a reasonable arguement to challenge what I have presented. As a matter of fact, they aren't even trying, it's so airtight. It is a long read, and requires your total attention.
All the Celtic arguements for supremacy are:
17-3 Finals record
Lakers have 15 finals losses
Celtic record aganst Lakers is 9-2.
I have counter arguments to show these are cherry picked by the beantowners and easily debated and questioned.
I don't need to seek justification for my team, so I haven't posted it here, but Laker fans who have seen it, realize it will shut any Boston Celtic fan up for good.
Shall I post it here on Spurs Talk?
It definitely wasn't as bad as the Mavs vs. Heat. If it was Wade who did that MJ shot, it would have been a flagrant on Russell.
I'm not a Celtics fan. I don't give a about the Celtics, their "supremacy", or their lack thereof. I didn't say anything refuting what you said about the Celtics, it could all be 100% true. It could also be 100% Lakerfan crap. I don't give a either way. Don't bother posting it because I won't read it, I don't give a crap.
I just said it's stupid for a Lakerfan to accuse the Celtics of tanking to avoid the Lakers, because the Lakers DID THE EXACT SAME ING THING IN 1986 TO AVOID THE CELTICS. YOU are the one that keeps glossing over that.
Hahaha! I quote 7 examples in my signature, you quote 1. Your logic fails, as bad as any I have ever seen here. Typical Cherry Picking Celtic mentality. Celtic fans are mostly bandwagon folks. I don't mess with the Spurs fans here because I happen to like their team, and it's a Spurs board. Bandwagon Celtic fans that spew crocks of crap are open season. There are at least 2 foul mouthed ones of that ilk here that make 21_Blessings look like a saint. If you don't care about the Lakers and Celtics, you should drop the argument with me. Otherwise, you do care.
And remember, I dealt with 1986 in the post I mention.
Thank you for admitting the Lakers tanked in 1986 to avoid the Celtics.
I guess if one guys murders 7 people, and someone else only murders 1, it makes the murderer of one less of a bad person.
I didn't admit that at all. I said I dealt with 1986 in my post. See, you do care about this after all.
Yes you did.
I'm gonna go with .4 in 04' and Manu's foul on Dirk in 06.' I know it wouldve been HIGHLY unlikely but stranger things have happened, can you imagine if the Spurs had made it to the finals in both 04' and 06' and won? That would've been a 5-peat from 2003 to 2007. Crazy on what could have been. Or even just winning in 04' OR 06' wouldve given the Spurs a back 2 back le. But hey... happens...and happens for a reason sometimes. lol.
No I didn't, read my posts. quote me exactly or cut your losses and give up. otherwise you will look like an even bigger fool.
I already dealt with that.
no you didn't. there is an old saying....
Never argue with an idiot.
They will bring you down to their level
And beat you with experience.
Guess what, I am probably the most intelligent idiot you will ever meet. I say this because every time I join a message board, I work hard to contribute and fit in. I gain respect as a poster. Then, someone like you comes along, perhaps envious, who attempts to take me off my "pedestal". I end up leaving those places after having it out with dumbasses like you, their boards cease to be fun for me. So, I wonder how long this place will last before I run off and try again elsewhere.
I have brought you to my level, using intelligent replies, and have beaten you to death with my experience. You aren't the first person who I have handed their ass too, but you may be the last at this board. Quit lying!
wow, you'll do anything to avoid discussing the Lakers tank job of 1986.
What about game 5 vs. LAL in 1995 by mr. nick van excel. Sure the spurs won in game 6, but that one hurt..another ball buster, game 1 vs. the suns in 2003....the fact they could have won by hitting a free throw combined with the fact the suns had no timeouts, and the rebound bounced right back to marbury who had just enough time to get to the three line to hoist a shot, combined with the fact it banked in....dam...as far as the .4 vs. manu foul in 2006 argument goes, i say 2006 was much more painful. the spurs had their best regular season ever, and came back through so much, down 3-1 and down 20 at half in game 7, that victory would have been so sweet..just think, everytime they show the down 3-1 stat where a team comes back, the spurs would be on it. plus, its a lock they beat the suns and probably beat the heat. In 2004, its no lock if fisher wins they win that series, cause lakers probably win game 6, and that means it comes down to game 7, anyones game. plus the pistons were very good that year and it could have gone either way...plus, if the pistons win in 2004 vs. the spurs, perhaps the 2005 finals are different, perhaps the pistons get the mental edge in 2004....i am fine with 2004, although it sucked at the time...to me, 2006 is "the one that got away." of course, winning in 2007 made the hurt not so much.
Of course I'm going to say Jordan's shot but honestly if I could go back and change one thing it would be the pathetic play call from Jerry Sloan when Malone had the ball stolen from him by Jordan. Up by 1...you don't post up 15 feet from the basket and run a cut offense. You milk the clock down until 6-7 seconds and run the pick-n-roll. You make the Bulls defend your bread and butter. It still pisses me off today that Sloan called a post up for Malone instead of running the pick-n-roll.
wow, you really must be an attention . Just like a kid. Did you know why many school children deliberately misbehave? They are starving for attention, and even the negative kind will do. That's what you are bringing on yourself here, so you must be loving it.
How does it feel to be starved for attention? You certainly are showing you need it. The only difference between now and when the schoolyard bullies beat you up is you are now safely behind a computer screen.
I am not avoiding your question. I addressed it elsewhere in a post you say you don't want to see. I also told you at least twice I had an answer for 1986. Here is that part from my blog, maybe that will shut you up:
I call it not good enough. I also say the Celtics weren't good enough to play the Lakers all those times. "Ducking" is pure smack talk directed back at the arrogant Cetic fans, they deserve it.Now, an astute Celtic fan will say, well, you ducked us in 1986 losing in the WCF. Well, that’s true. We didn’t get there. We weren’t good enough to beat the Rockets.
Are you ready for further spanking?
Exactly. I don't want to read your ty blog, I just want your justification for 1986.
So you completely contradicted your own sig. Gotcha
So you're no better than Celtics fans. Gotcha
How kinky.
But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
