And who knows what players are going to comeback to the Lakers, besides Kobe, Gasol, and Bynum. But if were able to repeat that would mean 4 rings !!!!!!! This decade.
It was a response to Lakerfan trying to make his basketball team look better in some arbitrary sense. I thought he wanted to be correct. Apparently not.Also,at Obstructed View making a convoluted theological argument to make his basketball team look better in some arbitrary sense.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...7&postcount=32
By the way, you might need to look up the word theological.
The argument that "the nineties" as a category is somehow derived directly from the calendrical system purportedly based on the activities of the Christian god isn't theological?
Yes, we've all played the oh-so-fun water cooler games about how "the turn of the millennium" was actually on some particular date. But what does that have to do with "the nineteen-nineties" or "the two thousands", except by virtue of satisfying some Assburger fixation on number-of- les-in-a-decade?
It's about the number system; the event that was the starting point is immaterial, and is by the way the birth of a historical figure who was an actual person, not the activities of a god.
I agree, and since the Assburger Laker fan that took issue with someone elses comment about les "this decade" and went to the trouble to make a little chart about it, I figured he might as well do it correctly. I have a feeling that he's not any smarter than you are, and won't therefore accept the correction. The Lakers are really great, though.
If Bynum returns and can stay healthy, it is going to be the Los Angeles Lakers. ONLY Boston will give LA a "hard time" if they somehow make it back to the finals. Cavs just dont match up well with the Lakers and Orlando isnt ready yet.
But it isn't. "The nineteen-nineties" or "the two thousands" is a linguistic category, not a arithmetical one.
Wait, I thought you said it was theological. Make up your mind.
You're right Bostonguy. I think Bynum is going to be the main key for the Lakers to win it this season. I saw it last year how Boston's big men dominated the Lakers. This season Boston ain't the same but could still give trouble to the Lakers if they don't get Bynum back in the playoffs. Everybody's questions are about to get answered in a matter of weeks.
Well I'll root for the Spurs and hope they go far but I k now my motto for this years playoffs will be ANYONE BUT THE LAKERS
Thank you for showing some common sense. Obstructed obviously doesn't have any. And to think he's using his argument thinking it somehow diminishes the whole team of the decade debate. We all know the 90's are the 90's... i.e. 90 through 99. As I said, its just common sense and a way to classify a decade as you stated, linguistically. Nobody refers to 1970 being in the 60's, 1990 being in the 80's. Nobody! Well, one! Again, I use a simple example if you were to ask someone to name the song of the 60's would anyone logically name off a tune from 1970? No. Well, one! In all his haste to dilude the argument of the team of the decade he doesnt even grasp that by his theological and arithmetical logic, the Lakers have a very strong possibility of winning this year and 2010 and becomming the DOMINATE team of the decade.
Yeah, let's all proclaim the Lakers champions after that statement win over the clippers by 3 points.....
But the other way you can claim that the Lakers are the DOMINATE team of the 90s. Since you're hallucinating les, we might as well just give the Lakers that one too.Thank you for showing some common sense. Obstructed obviously doesn't have any. And to think he's using his argument thinking it somehow diminishes the whole team of the decade debate. We all know the 90's are the 90's... i.e. 90 through 99. As I said, its just common sense and a way to classify a decade as you stated, linguistically. Nobody refers to 1970 being in the 60's, 1990 being in the 80's. Nobody! Well, one! Again, I use a simple example if you were to ask someone to name the song of the 60's would anyone logically name off a tune from 1970? No. Well, one! In all his haste to dilude the argument of the team of the decade he doesnt even grasp that by his theological and arithmetical logic, the Lakers have a very strong possibility of winning this year and 2010 and becomming the DOMINATE team of the decade.
Doesn't surprised me at all. I expect that from all the Spurs fans. Thanks I appreciate your support.
I realy could care less... What interests me most is THIS YEAR. I was just posting a common sense reply to Spursfan092110 since he brings it up all the time. I have a lot of respect for the Spurs organization and team and had hoped for a healthy teams WCF between the Lakers and them. All is good, besides, we are shooting for team of the century anyway!But the other way you can claim that the Lakers are the DOMINATE team of the 90s. Since you're hallucinating les, we might as well just give the Lakers that one too.
That's obvious by your little chart, your denial when presented with facts, and your alliance with another idiot that didn't bother to read the thread before posting up. You win, it's a tie.
I'm sure it's a comforting cop-out sort of thought, but even a 100% Manu wouldn't be enough to counteract all the Spurs' shortcomings enough to win a le. It's time to face it, man. Timmy can't do it every night or anything close, and the Spurs have no other player aside from Tony Parker that can carry anything close to a load. Manu healthy or not, this Spurs team is not and will not be a le team again without some serious tweaking. Matt Bonner can only do so much to save the franchise, lol.
But some Spurs fans love to fall back on the injury excuse, as if without the injury, the le was San Antonio's. Pretty predicatable and pretty easy to swat away. Sorry about Manu, but it didn't really matter.
But they did sweep the Rockets, and the last time they did that in the regular season 01'-02' they went on to win it all. So I like our chances.Yeah, let's all proclaim the Lakers champions after that statement win over the clippers by 3 points.....
Yeah, this year it didn't seem to. I thought Pop was going to have a really deep team by this point, and with Vaughn and Finley out there getting that much burn, this team would have been lucky to even meet LA.
That said, the only chance the Spurs had was with Manu, so Kobe's got another road paved out ahead of him. Maybe he can actually do it this time.
I said your argument was theological.
You are, in the words of Kill_Bill_Pana, a "lie".
Regular season games aren't quite the same as the playoffs....The nuggets, blazers, rockets w/carl landry, spurs (even though they lost manu) and jazz can all beat lakers in 7 game series
Funny because Lakers fans use the Bynum injury excuse for the 2008 Finals
come on NFL!!
I think most of that road paved in front of Kobe, was paved in part by Kobe though. Last year wasn't as easy as everyone thinks it is, man. Kobe played most of last season that most cats would've shutdown in favor of season-ending surgery. Mitch Kupchak has built a deep, talented, tough team around his superstar and healthy Spurs or not, the Lakers, even with out Bynum & Ariza last year, and Bynuim again this year, are still easily the best team in the West. So no road was paved and no red carpet was laid. The Lakers front office simply put the pieces of a champion together, and championship-caliber teams make their own way, regardless of what injuries they have or what is going on elsewhere in the league. Winning it is more about the Lakers stepping up as a team than it is Kobe stepping up as a superstar. Last year's failure was about not defending and rebounding, so Bynum's injury was an easy cop-out. Whether he's here or not, we're equipped and capable of beating anybody in a series. So it's time to show and prove as a unit.
Some do, some don't. Just like some Spurs fans use Manu's injury religously, while others know there's a bigger problem in San Antonio that grows with each season. I choose not to use injuries as an excuse, man. The season is an 82-game grind. Either you survive or you don't. But well-built teams don't use the injury excuse.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
