After seeing the first game (Lakers defeat Suns), and how the Lakers basically throttled the Suns in the second half. I have come to this conclusion:
Lakers > Spurs
Since the Suns made it to the WCF 2006 and the Spurs did not, one can make this assumption, no?
Discuss.
Well, and the Suns had Amare back last night, while the Lakers played without Mihm, Brown, and that Bryant kid.
I think this year's Lakers are probably the greatest basketball team ever assembled. I'm not even sure the 1992 Dream Team would have a chance against this year's Lakers squad at full strength.
Congratulations, adidas -- your patience is about to pay off.
Well Lakers deserve props for the quality win. Is Bill Simmons Ewing Theory in effect for Kobe? lol. Maybe they should trade him. Discuss.
Bynum > Shaq
Kobe > MJ
Odom > Pippen
Luke Walton > Bill Walton
Oh yeah...possibly the best ever
Jordan Farmar is better than Kobe. And Shaq. Better than both.
The Lakers are on pace to win 82 games... The spurs are on pace to never play again. I think the math speaks for itself.
Farmar > Stockton
Man I could sit there and watch your vid for hours...just awesome.
Correction, 96 games
WIth this kind of logic, the bulls are the best team in the league because they owned the champions. And when Kobe returns, say goodbye to your team, he will search a 100 point game all by himself
Yep.
May as well cancel the rest of the season based on last night.
Is there really any reason to go through the motions after one game?
A new Laker dynasty has begun......
So, does that mean that they'll lose 2 regular season games? Or are you suggesting that after an undefeated run through the regular season and the first three rounds of the playoffs, the Lakers will crap out after Game 2 of the Finals and lose 4 straight?
96-82 = 14
4*4 = 16
He's probably suggesting the latter. As we saw last year, the Finals are meaningless in determining the NBA's best team.
As of just last year, of course...
^what he said
You are so right, I'm calling to cancel League Pass. I mean - why bother? I guess I could then see all the Laker games . . . but after the 20th or so, it'll just get repe ive.
The Lakers...Adidas will be the difference.
One game doesn't mean anything, but Bynum and Odom looked damn good.
Well, I'm pretty sure that those who advocate that position would argue that the principle applies equally to 2003.He's probably suggesting the latter. As we saw last year, the Finals are meaningless in determining the NBA's best team.
As of just last year, of course...
Perfect logic, just like when Atlanta won the NBA championship last year because the beat the Spurs in December.
But they're wrong. It's a new league.
It's the new ball variable
After seeing the first game (Lakers defeat Suns), and how the Lakers basically throttled the Suns in the second half. I have come to this conclusion:
Lakers > Spurs
Since the Suns made it to the WCF 2006 and the Spurs did not, one can make this assumption, no?
Discuss.
what happens if spurs beat mavs by 42 points like bulls beatr heat by
what happens if spurs beat mavs by 42 points like bulls beatr heat by
That would be awesome, it won't happen, but that would make my month
this is a pic of adidas from his webcam:After seeing the first game (Lakers defeat Suns), and how the Lakers basically throttled the Suns in the second half. I have come to this conclusion:
Lakers > Spurs
Since the Suns made it to the WCF 2006 and the Spurs did not, one can make this assumption, no?
Discuss.
Man I was at that game. Didn't find out that Atlanta would go on to win the championship, but was pretty convinced afterwards that the Spurs were not going to win. I still didn't give up hope, but I sure didn't see the hustle or heart.
Thanks for drudging up that memory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
