Lakers defense stifling Nuggets forward Anthony

**Purple & Gold** · 04-29-2008

@ weak ass spurs fans here. Trying to talk about winning something that matters.

Classic

**DazedAndConfused** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by Strike

Would they be in the running for a le if they hadn't landed Pau? How were they doing before the trade?

#1 in the WC you dumb ! Damn you podunk hokeys are ing stupid. Go do some ing research before you run your mouth.

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by MajicMan

god you are dense. lakers were raping the spurs during the shaq years. spurs are default champs if you want to go there. come talk to me when you have nearly as many rings as the lakers franchise does. try repeating before you talk . you need to go kill yourself you are so en stupid.

Were raping the spurs - past tense

during shaq years - he's gone, get over it. and youve seen how Tim can & will go off on shaq now, get some new material to argue with. perhaps some recent stuff.

default champs - how do you figure, b/c the lakers weren't good enough to make it to the finals, or because the Spurs didnt have to go through them or is it because the spurs were able to sweep the finals?

again, I wouldnt have the rings, the Spurs franchise would. And if you wanna start talking about how good a team is, then how about 4 in 9, which just was easily could have been 7 in 9. and a team that has been the most efficient winning machine in ALL of sports!

and i have not said that the lakers are a bad team, so get over yourself and stop getting all defensive when im not even attacking your team.

**Purple & Gold** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by cash459

Were raping the spurs - past tense

during shaq years - he's gone, get over it. and youve seen how Tim can & will go off on shaq now, get some new material to argue with. perhaps some recent stuff.

default champs - how do you figure, b/c the lakers weren't good enough to make it to the finals, or because the Spurs didnt have to go through them or is it because the spurs were able to sweep the finals?

again, I wouldnt have the rings, the Spurs franchise would. And if you wanna start talking about how good a team is, then how about 4 in 9, which just was easily could have been 7 in 9. and a team that has been the most efficient winning machine in ALL of sports!

and i have not said that the lakers are a bad team, so get over yourself and stop getting all defensive when im not even attacking your team.

Nobody gives a what you have to say.

But I love how you gave your team an extra 3 Championships

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

do you not read......i said COULD HAVE......dont jump to conclusions on your jump to conclusion mat over there.

**Purple & Gold** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by cash459

do you not read......i said COULD HAVE......dont jump to conclusions on your jump to conclusion mat over there.

I think every team should add 3 trophies to their resume. Now suns and Mavs fans can talk and point to trophy scoreboard. Care to add any other trophies to your list? How about an extra 3 MVP's or an extra 3 DPOY awards??

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by Purple & Gold

I think every team should add 3 trophies to their resume. Now suns and Mavs fans can talk and point to trophy scoreboard. Care to add any other trophies to your list? How about an extra 3 MVP's or an extra 3 DPOY awards??

ok, guess i gotta spell it out......one year, duncan was hurt (couldve EASILY been another le) another, the 0.4 sec shot by fish (questionable) and the other, the foul on dirk by manu in a series of blown calls by the refs.

Thats what i meant.......dont get all hot & bothered b/c i was making conversation & debate in here......

**DazedAndConfused** · 04-29-2008

The Spurs lost to BETTER teams each and every time. The Lakers were flat out better than the Spurs from 2000-2004, there is no denying that. 3-1 you dumb hokey. Stop making excuses. Even your boy "FromDowntown" disagrees with you.

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The Spurs lost to BETTER teams each and every time. The Lakers were flat out better than the Spurs from 2000-2004, there is no denying that. 3-1 you dumb hokey. Stop making excuses. Even your boy "FromDowntown" disagrees with you.

my boy? just because he disagrees with me, that makes me wrong......i can find others who DO agree with me.

better teams....ehh...maybe.....but they sure as didnt WHOOP the spurs, like you claimed in your other post

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

and if anyone in here is a "dumb hokey" its you Jeff......how was your KFC for lunch? having another for dinner?

**21_Blessings** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by cash459

better teams....ehh...maybe.....but they sure as didnt WHOOP the spurs, like you claimed in your other post

Are you ing re ed? Oh yes you are

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by 21_Blessings

Are you ing re ed? Oh yes you are

guess you are too then.....http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../NBA_2003.html

BFD!

**21_Blessings** · 04-29-2008

^^ Look how dumb you are

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by 21_Blessings

^^ Look how dumb you are

yeah, real dumb, b/c i said that if youre calling me re ed, then you obviously are b/c your proof was weak....

im ok with making fun of myself or saying that, b/c i know that im not....you on the other hand, im not so sure

**21_Blessings** · 04-29-2008

Proof weak? The Lakers SWEPT the Spurs by an average of 20+ points. Thats called getting WHOOPED which you claimed never happened.

**cash459** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by 21_Blessings

Proof weak? The Lakers SWEPT the Spurs by an average of 20+ points. Thats called getting WHOOPED which you claimed never happened.

if you even knew what "other post" i was talking about, you would know that it wasnt in reference to that year.....so before you start spouting off at the mouth junior, get your together and KNOW what youre talking about......so know your role, and shut your mouth

**21_Blessings** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by cash459

if you even knew what "other post" i was talking about, you would know that it wasnt in reference to that year.....so before you start spouting off at the mouth junior, get your together and KNOW what youre talking about......so know your role, and shut your mouth

Again, more proof that you are completely re ed. The other post read, "2000-2004"

**Purple & Gold** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by cash459

ok, guess i gotta spell it out......one year, duncan was hurt (couldve EASILY been another le) another, the 0.4 sec shot by fish (questionable) and the other, the foul on dirk by manu in a series of blown calls by the refs.

Thats what i meant.......dont get all hot & bothered b/c i was making conversation & debate in here......

Well let's see Lakers can play this game too. 89 Magic and Byron hurt, 90 Kareem retired, 04 Malone hurt. And this is only against Detroit, I haven't even brought up any of the old series against the Celtics. This is fun, the Lakers might end up with 20+ by the time we're done

**TheMACHINE** · 04-29-2008

the suns could have 3 rings...also.

The Memphis Grizzlies could have 3 rings too if the win the championship 3 times.

I could have 2 trillion dollars.....

See what i did there...

**Purple & Gold** · 04-29-2008

Originally Posted by TheMACHINE

the suns could have 3 rings...also.

The Memphis Grizzlies could have 3 rings too if the win the championship 3 times.

I could have 2 trillion dollars.....

See what i did there...