E-N: Three Is Not Enough For NBA’s Best

[DxB]

Other than 1999, and even that is debatable, Robinson was not a superstar as far his game was concerned. Only for what he had accomplished.

Robinson was not a superstar? Good god some ppl around here are ing re ed...

[L.I.T]

No, I'll talk to you here.

You haven't "wronged" me, you are wronging the forum in general IMHO. I'm simply pointing out that covering the forum with posts which consist of you quoting someone and following that with a meaningless emoticon is annoying and, in terms of "communication", usually not particularly communicative. If you did it occasionally I wouldn't have mentioned it, but you've been filling the bloody forum with it. It is asinine.

When I look down the forum and see that most of the responses to threads are you (and I know that most of those posts are a meaningless emoticon), how am I to decide whether I want to read an updated thread or not? I have no idea who the last person to actually post something is because you've covered it up with one of your emoticon posts. Think about what you're doing. You're basically spamming the forum with garbage.

I'm sure you are a nice guy, and when you actually write something sometimes it's worth reading, but please, less of the spam. It makes me dislike you.

If I'm out of line, I'm sure I'll get a roasting from others.

PS Just so people don't think I'm exaggerating, of the 25 active threads currently on my screen, 13 of them were most recently posted in by the poet, and most of those posts was an emoticon. Dude, if you are a poet, USE YOUR WORDS!

If there was an emoticon for plus infinity I would be using it right now.

And seriously, just in case you're trying to artificially inflate your post count because you think people will respect your takes more if you're trotting around 2K+ posts...that don't happen on this forum. If your takes suck, they will always suck no matter how many posts you have (witness Ducks).

Unless you're Marcus Bryant of course.

[L.I.T]

Fair enough friend. I will post as I have been. This will be my last post on the subject, so good day to you. If you are so inclined, perhaps we will engage in further basketball discussion.

Farewell.

Just to perfectly blunt. I completely concur with Ruff. Your posting style is bull . Or in your language:

:wgaf:

And one of these for the road:

[Extra Stout]

[Marcus Bryant]

[Knoxxx]

Wow, pretty slow around here! Valid points made for both sides I suppose. The Poet posts are not a problem for me, he's just saying he agrees. Kind of lame to quote a really long post though and just add that. I try to quote just a portion.

There's always someone that is going to have a problem with what or how you post at some point. Not really worth worrying about. To suggest someone is inflating their post count, silly to cares much about that.

As far as some of the pictures and graphics, some of those are nice to look at, and some are a nuisance, so I guess I am 50-50 there. My Internet is rippin' fast, so I imagine those would be irritating on a slower connection, but apparently you can just turn those that stuff off. Nice feature. Think there is an ignore one too.

[K-State Spur]

i don't hate the addition from the Mavs perspective, but....

Marion + Dirk = "tough on the inside" ????????????

[antimvp]

seems there is no room for roleplayers. Maybe it is power creep but i remember when you only needed two superstars to win

kobe-shaq
tim-david

magic-kareem-worthy

parish-bird-mchale.

[elbamba]

Other than 1999, and even that is debatable, Robinson was not a superstar as far his game was concerned. Only for what he had accomplished.

Respectfully disagree. Robinson was a superstar from 1989 to 1998. , he was named one of If you are in the top 50 all time for the NBA, you are a superstar by default.

[fyatuk]

Respectfully disagree. Robinson was a superstar from 1989 to 1998.

That was sort of the point there. Robinson, particularly in 03, was not playing as a Superstar by the time he won championships. He was a role player with a superstar past.

That's not to say Robinson isn't a superstar, just that he wasn't playing on that level

[nadroj117]

[elbamba]

That was sort of the point there. Robinson, particularly in 03, was not playing as a Superstar by the time he won championships. He was a role player with a superstar past.

That's not to say Robinson isn't a superstar, just that he wasn't playing on that level

Gotcha, I see what he was saying.

[ffadicted]

Robinson was not a superstar? Good god some ppl around here are ing re ed...

I was surprised it took this long for anyone else to catch that, it was the first thing I noticed when I entered the thread

[Dunc n Dave]

magic-kareem-worthy

parish-bird-mchale.

Houston won with Hakeem and Drexler.

The Bulls 1st 3 Peat was Jordan & Pippen.

For awhile in the 90s it was the "2 star players" system. You could even argue the 2nd Bulls 3-peat as a 2 star system since Rodman was more of a role playing, one-trick pony.

From 99 to 2002 it was a 2 star system
99 - Duncan-Robinson (Elliott was not a star)
2000-2002 Shaq & Kobe

You could argue that 2003 was really 1 star team since Parker and Manu were inexperienced, Robinson was a s of himself, and the Spurs needed guys like Kerr and Sjax to win big ggames for them.

The trend lately has been a 3 star system though:

Spurs: Duncan, Parker, Manu
Lakers: Kobe, Gasol, Odom
Celtics: KG, Pierce, Allen
Orlando: Howard, Lewis, Turkoglu

Now it's moving toward 4 stars (or All Star Quality, at least):
Spurs add Jefferson
Lakers add Artest
Orlando adds Carter and Nelson is becoming a star
Celtics add Rasheed (I know, he's old, but after Howard and Shaq, whose a better center in the East?)

[SpursFanInAustin]

Houston won with Hakeem and Drexler.

Don't forget that Hakeem won in 1994 without Clyde Drexler. He was still in Portland in 94 and the Rockets had Otis Thorpe before they were traded for each other in 1995. Their 2nd best player was probably Vernon Maxwell or Otis Thorpe who averaged around 14 ppg. Hardly all-star numbers.