Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Game #28: Sacramento Kings 93 - Toronto Raptors 108

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • G__Deane
    replied
    Bucks beat Cavs

    Leave a comment:


  • MACK11
    replied
    rocwell wrote: View Post
    Where's Bargnani
    Somewhere in Europe eating Primo Pasta and sauce.

    Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • rocwell
    replied
    Zainab wrote: View Post
    Behold the worst defense every played. Your eyes will be in shock.



    Where's Bargnani

    Leave a comment:


  • Zainab
    replied
    Behold the worst defense every played. Your eyes will be in shock.



    Leave a comment:


  • Demographic Shift
    replied
    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    For the last time, I'm not a Celtics fan. I'm just not a Raptors homer with my head up my ass.

    And I didn't address it because there's no fucking point talking about the 50s and 60s. I'm talking modern era like KeonClark said. And in the modern era it's been very rare to have one team that's just basically guaranteed to win. This Warriors thing is new.
    Your sense of self is without parallel..

    Leave a comment:


  • S.R.
    replied
    I'm still gonna disagree. Are MJ's teams too old? The league was boring those years, everyone knew the Bulls would win. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers were also dominant. Won 67 games and the championship in 99-00, then went on cruise control the next two regular seasons but were 15-1 in the 00-01 playoffs and 15-4 in the 01-02 playoffs. That team could have won 6 in a row if Shaq and Kobe could have gotten along.

    GSW are ridiculously good and people make a legit argument for "best team ever" potential, I'd just argue against the idea that there haven't been significant eras of dominance in the NBA before.

    BTW the year the Warriors won 73 games they lost to Lebron in the Finals. It ain't till it's over.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puffer
    replied
    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    For the last time, I'm not a Celtics fan. I'm just not a Raptors homer with my head up my ass.

    And I didn't address it because there's no fucking point talking about the 50s and 60s. I'm talking modern era like KeonClark said. And in the modern era it's been very rare to have one team that's just basically guaranteed to win. This Warriors thing is new.
    Fair enough. It is just that you have the habit of speaking in absolutes. "I don't think any team since the '70's..." or "I don't think any team since I have been watching basketball.." or "I can't remember a tome when any team..." I couldn't argue with any of those.

    Shaolin you are well spoken, but whenever you use terms like never/no one/always/everyone etc. you are setting yourself up. Too many people on this board with too disparate a knowledge set of basketball for anyone to use absolutes and get away with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaolin Fantastic
    replied
    Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
    So as a dyed in the wool Chowderhead fan you either didn't know or don't want to acknowledge that the Russell led Celtics were an NBA dynasty for a decade ?
    For the last time, I'm not a Celtics fan. I'm just not a Raptors homer with my head up my ass.

    And I didn't address it because there's no fucking point talking about the 50s and 60s. I'm talking modern era like KeonClark said. And in the modern era it's been very rare to have one team that's just basically guaranteed to win. This Warriors thing is new.

    Leave a comment:


  • Demographic Shift
    replied
    KeonClark wrote: View Post
    I'm with Shaolin. Let's deal with the modern era people.

    The Russell led Celitcs played in a league with 10 teams, and he would always get a bye in the first of 3 rounds. It's like a CFL championship. Not to mention there was very little talent in the league compared to today, undersized white guys running around, guys had second jobs in the summer, again like a CFL championship.

    Not to take anything away from him, you can only play what you're dealt, but lets compare that to Golden State absolutely thrashing 29 other teams of pros with Lebron, AD, Harden Westbrook etc with this day and age of scouting, analytics, training etc.
    Its a credible example of a team dominating a league during their era... because it didn't happen in the last 20 years doesn't diminish the achievement or the counterpoint raised by Puffer.
    Last edited by Demographic Shift; Tue Dec 19, 2017, 12:52 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • KeonClark
    replied
    Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
    So as a dyed in the wool Chowderhead fan you either didn't know or don't want to acknowledge that the Russell led Celtics were an NBA dynasty for a decade ?
    I'm with Shaolin. Let's deal with the modern era people.

    The Russell led Celitcs played in a league with 10 teams, and he would always get a bye in the first of 3 rounds. It's like a CFL championship. Not to mention there was very little talent in the league compared to today, undersized white guys running around, guys had second jobs in the summer, again like a CFL championship.

    Not to take anything away from him, you can only play what you're dealt, but lets compare that to Golden State absolutely thrashing 29 other teams of pros with Lebron, AD, Harden Westbrook etc with this day and age of scouting, analytics, training etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puffer
    replied
    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    ...I don't think any team has ever stacked the deck this heavily...
    this is the point you made that I am addressing. so I can see why you might not want to address it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Demographic Shift
    replied
    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    Not even sure I should bother to address this. Yeah... I shouldn't. Carry on.
    So as a dyed in the wool Chowderhead fan you either didn't know or don't want to acknowledge that the Russell led Celtics were an NBA dynasty for a decade ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaolin Fantastic
    replied
    Puffer wrote: View Post
    Boston Celtics. 10 NBA titles in 11 years. 1959-1969

    bill Russell - 11 championship rings in a 13 year playing career.
    Not even sure I should bother to address this. Yeah... I shouldn't. Carry on.

    Leave a comment:


  • Puffer
    replied
    Shaolin Fantastic wrote: View Post
    This... can people stop acting like it's always just been 1 team that has a chance to win it? I don't think any team has ever stacked the deck this heavily. This is like if LeBron joined Boston in 2010 somehow instead of the Heat or Shaq joined the Bulls after their 72 win season instead of going to LA.

    Even just going back to the late 2000s we had Cleveland, Orlando, Boston as the top teams in the East, then early 2010s we had Miami, Chicago, Boston all as credible threats to win in the east. Then in the west you had a total mess with the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, Suns all being credible threats every year to win the title.
    Boston Celtics. 10 NBA titles in 11 years. 1959-1969

    bill Russell - 11 championship rings in a 13 year playing career.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shaolin Fantastic
    replied
    KeonClark wrote: View Post
    Yes but there's usually more suspense in any given year. It's gonna be golden state, we knew that in august lime we know that in December like we'll know that in may
    This... can people stop acting like it's always just been 1 team that has a chance to win it? I don't think any team has ever stacked the deck this heavily. This is like if LeBron joined Boston in 2010 somehow instead of the Heat or Shaq joined the Bulls after their 72 win season instead of going to LA.

    Even just going back to the late 2000s we had Cleveland, Orlando, Boston as the top teams in the East, then early 2010s we had Miami, Chicago, Boston all as credible threats to win in the east. Then in the west you had a total mess with the Lakers, Spurs, Mavericks, Suns all being credible threats every year to win the title.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X