Reply With Quote
The regular season is precisely what I was talking about.
They started the season on par to break the Bulls wins record, and finished with a record slightly better than the Mavs/Spurs. That to me is "fizzling off" at the end of the season.
just ignore the regular season part.
The regular season is precisely what I was talking about.
They started the season on par to break the Bulls wins record, and finished with a record slightly better than the Mavs/Spurs. That to me is "fizzling off" at the end of the season.
Cont'd
The reg season is precisely what I was talking about what you SHOULD have been talking about, because this thread is about the #1 seed in the...*drumroll*...regular season.
whatever if winning 65 games is fizzling off then I wish the Spurs would fizzle every year.
Fizzling off and ending up losing in the Conference finals.
You want the Spurs to do that every year? Ok, guy.
you just proved you weren't talking about the regular season.Conference finals
No.
That was in reply to your "I wish the Spurs finished like Detroit every year" comment. You just proved you're lacking reading/comprehension skills.
Dude you're not smart. You stated that you were referring to detroits regular season which you described as fizziling. I told you I would take fizzle every year. Now look at the second sentence Detroits regular season = Fizzle. Third sentence I would take fizzle every year, what = Fizzle?
This might help you
What = Fizzle?The regular season is precisely what I was talking about.
They started the season on par to break the Bulls wins record, and finished with a record slightly better than the Mavs/Spurs. That to me is "fizzling off" at the end of the season.
*sigh*
This is getting pointless very quick.
Let me explain one last time, then you're on your own buddy. Your first comment was 'the spurs will finish like Detroit' so I said 'start strong and fizzle?' to which you said 'I'm an idiot, what does that mean' to which I explained...that Detroit didn't finish strong last year. To which you said 'if 65 wins is bad I'll take it every year'
TO WHICH I POINTED OUT, FINISHING WITH 65 WINS ISN'T THAT GREAT IF IT MEANS YOU FINISHED POORLY, NOT ON A ROLL, AND ENDED UP GETTING BOUNCED IN THE EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS.
To which you changed the subject from you not being able to comprehend a simple statement to "Oh my god you like said like you weren't talknig about the playoffs but like now like you are like oh my god!". To which I reply, you're an idiot. My only reference to the playoffs in this thread was in reply to your comment about "I wouldn't mind the Spurs finishing like the Pistons every year".
I hope that clarifies it, if not...too bad.
I hope so. That 2-7 matchup in the Sweet 16 always seems to provide an upset each year. If they get a #1, the committee might even place them in the regional closest to home so all the alumni can make the games.
Am I the only one scratching there head?
It's spooky to walk into a thread where Please_dont_ban_me is the only sensible poster. I'm going to bed.
No.
Yes.!!
Go ahead and have it, take a look at the last four years and tell me how the #1 seeds for both conferences have fared JUST GETTING to the Finals.
They'll drop no further than a 3 seed. Hard to predict anything when you have no clue how Butler/Elson/Bonner will perform.
Butler is a question mark.
But I think Bonner/Elson have both shown what they're capable of doing with there respective teams.
The spurs did not play bad during the regular season. The Spurs played bad in the first half of game 7 of the conference semi's. Otherwise, they'd probably be the champs again.
I'm going to get for that comment.
Anyway....I don't necessarily think SA will get the #1 seed, but it won't be any lower than 3.
I wouldn't say the Spurs played poorly. The Mavs played unbelievably well.
Oh, and everything Please don't ban me said made perfect sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions