- 91,041
- 124,848
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Teague is beasting out there.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by PMatic
Teague is beasting out there.
Originally Posted by Zyzz
Originally Posted by JPZx
http://twitter.com/ChrisMannixSIChrisMannixSI
Lakers center Andrew Bynum has been suspended five game and fined $25,000 for his hit on J.J. Barea. less than 20 seconds ago via web
Theres a difference between tough and dirty though.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
I wish it were important enough to me to jot down the names of everyone making a big deal of the Bynum foul, just so I can bring it back up if those people ever complain about the league being too soft.
And I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong, so don't even come with that.
I'm not even saying he was justified. It was terrible, he was given an F2, kicked out, and now suspended 5 games. But talking about how that wasn't enough? Like I said, I wish it were important enough to me to jot down everyone who feels that way.
DubA169:
ska the celtics and pistons got older and more beat down as the bulls climbed up the ladder to greatness with PJ over Mr. "i used to coach michael"
just like this heat team assembled 3 years ago doesnt beat the celtics or lakers
I get the 'Elite teams got older' argument, but it's still invalid, for two reasons.
#1. OK, those teams getting older wasn't JUST an advantage for whatever team Phil was coaching; their aging opened the door for the other coaches, too. Van Gundy, Brown, Rudy T (yeah, he grabbed a couple when Mike retired), Sloan, Pop, hell, Bird... so many other coaches could have done something. They didn't. He did. Those other teams got older? OK, should have been easier for Riley's Knicks, then, right? Nada.
#2. Just because those traditionally elite teams get older doesn't mean there aren't any elite teams to go through any more. Just because the Spurs and Lakers are out in the West now doen't mean there is no top team in the West anymore. The Thunder and Grizzlies are SERIOUS right now; same concept applies to any era. Just because the 80s Lakers/Pistons/Celtics were wore out and rebuilding in the 90s doesn't mean other teams weren't forces to be reckoned with. There were other strong teams, and Phil beat them, too. If the East wins the championship this year, it will NOT be by beating the Spurs or Lakers, who won all but 2 championships last decade. That means it doesn't count? If they beat the Mavs or Thunder or Grizzlies, we need to say "Yeah, but they didn't beat the Spurs, soooo, no credit"?
Nah, if Buss had been more patient with Del Harris they would have got those three titles.Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
I keep bringing this up with the Phil Jackson argument, and I want an answer from someone who thinks Phil is overrated or hates Phil or doesn't think he deserves credit for being more than average or just however you want to word your feelings towards him:
Phil Jackson comes in after Doug Collins, and begins to coach that team to DOMINANCE. Collins was there 3 years, won 40, 50, and 47 games those 3 season. Phil's first 3 years? 55 (already topping Doug's highest mark), 61 (NBA championship), 67 (and another championship). Of course we all now he continued to win more, but looking at those 3 years compared to Doug's is fair, because I think most would agree that Doug is at least decent.
Then later he takes over for Del Harris, and takes the team from 31 wins under Del to 67 wins and a championship the first of 3. Now, I now, I know: "C'mon, ska, you're going from comparing Doug & Phil to comparing Del & Phil." No, Del Harris doesn't belong in a conversation of great coaches. BUT LOOK WHAT PHIL DID THE VERY NEXT YEAR. You would expect a great coach to take over for a terrible coach and completely turn things around, right? Well, that's exactly what he did. *shrugs*
He's great.
Durden7:
23ska909red02:
I wish it were important enough to me to jot down the names of everyone making a big deal of the Bynum foul, just so I can bring it back up if those people ever complain about the league being too soft.
And I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong, so don't even come with that.
I'm not even saying he was justified. It was terrible, he was given an F2, kicked out, and now suspended 5 games. But talking about how that wasn't enough? Like I said, I wish it were important enough to me to jot down everyone who feels that way.
Theres a difference between tough and dirty though.
Dirty happens all the time, and when it's caught, it's punished. Boozer just chin checked Josh Smith when Smith came down from a dunk. Technical foul, let's keep playing.
Actually, it's not even punished all the time. Wade pulled Rondo down: nothing. Take away that we know what the result of the pulldown was, and just look at the actual action: he pulled him down. Ref saw it. That's definitely dirty as hell, but he got nothing. And not only did he get nothing, but most people are ok with that.
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
And Bynum, I don't know... I guess in my mind, I don't see how the result would have been any different if Bynum would have committed what we call a body foul. If he would have jumped into Barea without trying to be dirty, Barea would have still landed the same way, but I doubt a F2 and an ejection would have been called. Foul, Barea goes to the line after wiping himself off no biggie. But since it was a rib shot instead of a body foul, it's "Oooooh, dirty player!", but body fouls happen every quarter of every game. :/
You have to be in a club and party in order to be normal ?Originally Posted by airmaxpenny1
I see what your getting at Osh...It's why the Championship argument kind of is stupid at time but kind of not. Winning rings does matter but I despise those Kobe fan's who when ever you say anything negative about dude will say something like "5 rings" or whatever nonsense. Luck plays a huge part in determining the outcome of one's career. Just for instance, you think Rondo is the player he is now not having gone through his formative years playing next to three HOF guys? Of coure not. If he had gone into a %*%#!% situation I could see him riding the pine somewhere almost never playing especially with his jumper.
Knowing you OKB I'm willing to bet you think Dirk is better than Kobe and I wouldn't necessarily say you are wrong in a sense. I mean the best guy Dirk ever played with in his prime was Jason %%$#%*+ Terry. Aside from Hakeem, I can't think of a superstar whose ever had a worst cast than Dirk. I think its impressive Duncan with 3 with Ginoblili and Parker cause those guys to mean are second tier all-stars. But those guys are a huge upgrade compared to what Dirk had around him. I mean without a horrible officiating performance, Dirk might already have a ring but the fact is he doesn't.
Luck is everything in basketball. The hilarious thing about the LeBron move getting criticized to me especially from the older guys who made it seem like they won rings themselves. Magic played with one of the 3 greatest players EVER! I mean he came on to a team with IMO the best center of all-time. I'm pretty sure no one ever told Magic, "Leave Kareem and go win it yourself". Bird is idolized but played with 4 HOF guys through his career, McHale, Parish, Archibald and DJ. No one wins chips by themselves, except for Hakeem in 93 really, but that was when the league was very watered down talent-wise. So LeBron decided to create his own luck, something he never had shread of playing in Cleveland. I mean the guy who was supposed to be his running mate was Larry Hughes.
I heard someone say Derrick Rose is better than 'Bron cause he has been in the playoffs every single year...Yea, well the Bulls weren't supposed to be the #1 pick, that was a team with a core that had beaten the Defending Champion Heat a few years prior. He was lucky and got to go to a team that already had some decent established guys.
As for Kobe, people think I dislike the guy on here. I don't at all. I loved Kobe especially from 05 to 08 the 3 years to me that he was the best player in the league. He was a beast, a carbon copy of Jordan during those years. The man knew his team was trash and went out hard every night, dropped 30, guarded your team's best player and did it all. I always take about the Olympics on here because I think it shows a lot when you have the best playersin the world on one team at the same time. Certain dynamics emerge. On the redeem team, the way those guys looked up to Kobe and the way he commanded respect from those guys was amazing. You could all see the reverence they held for him and that speaks miles. I think he's top prolly top-10 all-time, and he is still vying for Best Player Post-Jordan with Shaq and Duncan. How you rate those 3 to me is all subjective, you could really make a case for anyone of them. But there are many negatives to him. He is a %*%#!% teammate and leader. He will never be a guy that can really inspire guys around him and as much as CP will tell you its amazing that those Lakers won 3 in a row, those teams left you wanting more and it was mainly due to Kobe's immaturity.
I think he is just a generally weird guy, very smart, but just odd. Has always struck me as odd. I always mention this, but the guy lives in LA and I think I can't remember seeing one flick of him in a club partying with celebs. His devotion to the game of basketball is unparalleld, he lives, sleeps and breathes it. He is the biggest "go-hard" "thirst" of all-time. IT matters to him. Even when it doesn't matter at all, like this year's all-star game. The guy was visiblly trying twice as hard as everyone else from the start. But you know what, as corny as that is, he brings it and that matters.
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
I keep bringing this up with the Phil Jackson argument, and I want an answer from someone who thinks Phil is overrated or hates Phil or doesn't think he deserves credit for being more than average or just however you want to word your feelings towards him:
Phil Jackson comes in after Doug Collins, and begins to coach that team to DOMINANCE. Collins was there 3 years, won 40, 50, and 47 games those 3 season. Phil's first 3 years? 55 (already topping Doug's highest mark), 61 (NBA championship), 67 (and another championship). Of course we all now he continued to win more, but looking at those 3 years compared to Doug's is fair, because I think most would agree that Doug is at least decent.
Then later he takes over for Del Harris, and takes the team from 31 wins under Del to 67 wins and a championship the first of 3. Now, I now, I know: "C'mon, ska, you're going from comparing Doug & Phil to comparing Del & Phil." No, Del Harris doesn't belong in a conversation of great coaches. BUT LOOK WHAT PHIL DID THE VERY NEXT YEAR. You would expect a great coach to take over for a terrible coach and completely turn things around, right? Well, that's exactly what he did. *shrugs*
He's great.