View Poll Results: Who loses more: Boston without KG and Allen or SA without Tim and Manu

Voters
25. You may not vote on this poll
  • Celtics

    9 36.00%
  • Spurs

    16 64.00%
Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    47,238
    Why?

  2. #2
    Reppin' Timmy's homeland. VI_Massive's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Post Count
    960
    Pretty even if you ask me. But if you include no Leon Powe and no Scalabrine and no Tony Allen, the advantage swings to us.

  3. #3
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    47,238
    Pretty even if you ask me. But if you include no Leon Powe and no Scalabrine and no Tony Allen, the advantage swings to us.
    I'm just focusing in the four stars, and I can't really make my mind.

  4. #4
    Reppin' Timmy's homeland. VI_Massive's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Post Count
    960
    I'm just focusing in the four stars, and I can't really make my mind.
    I guess I would say us. Both teams still have one star -- Parker and Pierce respectively. But we have Mason and Finley who can provide scoring from someone other than Parker. They have something similar with Rondo, but that's about it for them as far as scorers.

  5. #5
    hope and change
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Post Count
    5,749
    you're totally out of touch, the Spurs Big 3 is now TP/Bonner/Mason
    manu and TD are injury-riddled, overpaid, has-beens, we're fine without them



  6. #6
    Don't stop believin' Dex's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Post Count
    27,659
    It's almost a tough draw, but I'd have to give the slight edge to the Celtics.

    Not because I believe KG and Allen, as a duo, are better than Duncan and Ginobili. When all are at full strength, I'd actually say the opposite. Both teams rely upon the strengths of their Big Three, and supplement them with role players and shooters. Both teams can rely on their defense and offensive foundation to keep themselves in nearly every game.

    However, I think the Spurs team has a better supporting cast and structure than the Celtics. Tony Parker is capable of carrying a bigger load than Rondo, and the Spurs still have guys like Mason, Finley, and now Gooden who can occasionally explode for a 20 point game. The Spurs have been playing without Ginobili for half the season now, and while I'd hate to see them going into the playoffs this way, they haven't exactly looked like shark fodder.

    However, if you remove Allen and Garnett from the Celtics equation, who picks up the scoring slack? Pierce may be good for 25, but that leaves Rondo and the supporting cast with a lot of ground to make up. Who else is gonna score those points? Headcase Marbury? Mikki Moore? Glen Davis?

    It would ultimately come down to the battle of the benches, and I think San Antonio has the better bench ever since Posey left Beantown. Therefore, I think the Celtics need their Big 3 healthy more than the Spurs.

    That being said, let's just hope EVERYBODY is good to go for the playoffs. This injury bug has been ridiculous.

  7. #7
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    47,238
    you're totally out of touch, the Spurs Big 3 is now TP/Bonner/Mason
    manu and TD are injury-riddled, overpaid, has-beens, we're fine without them


    If getting high draft picks is our new goal, then sure we're fine.

  8. #8
    ಥ﹏ಥ DAF86's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Post Count
    47,238
    It's almost a tough draw, but I'd have to give the slight edge to the Celtics.

    Not because I believe KG and Allen, as a duo, are better than Duncan and Ginobili. When all are at full strength, I'd actually say the opposite. Both teams rely upon the strengths of their Big Three, and supplement them with role players and shooters. Both teams can rely on their defense and offensive foundation to keep themselves in nearly every game.

    However, I think the Spurs team has a better supporting cast and structure than the Celtics. Tony Parker is capable of carrying a bigger load than Rondo, and the Spurs still have guys like Mason, Finley, and now Gooden who can occasionally explode for a 20 point game. The Spurs have been playing without Ginobili for half the season now, and while I'd hate to see them going into the playoffs this way, they haven't exactly looked like shark fodder.

    However, if you remove Allen and Garnett from the Celtics equation, who picks up the scoring slack? Pierce may be good for 25, but that leaves Rondo and the supporting cast with a lot of ground to make up. Who else is gonna score those points? Headcase Marbury? Mikki Moore? Glen Davis?

    It would ultimately come down to the battle of the benches, and I think San Antonio has the better bench ever since Posey left Beantown. Therefore, I think the Celtics need their Big 3 healthy more than the Spurs.

    That being said, let's just hope EVERYBODY is good to go for the playoffs. This injury bug has been ridiculous.
    The comparison you should do here is Parker/Pierce not Parker/Rondo.

  9. #9
    America runs on Duncan! Horse's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Post Count
    4,405
    kg has become more of just a defensive player and we all know gay allen does'nt play d. So I definetly think we lose more!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •