What's with the Lakers schedule?

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Hey, at least I have the guts to put on record my prediction. You poor little man, afraid you'll get it wrong?
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]
     
    Oh my goodness, what courage you have, you are a real hero.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : What The F! You said 60 wins is irrelevant. Flip-flopping are we? So let's have it then, how many wins will the Lakers get this year?
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    I will try and go slower for you. I don't know if the Lakers will get sixty wins or not. I really don't care as long as they get the championship. I said the Lakers will win more regular season games than the Celtics. That is my prediction. Above sixty wins, below sixty wins, no matter. They will have a better regular season win total than team social security. Is this clear enough for you? 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]You want to go back to ancient history when the league had only 8 teams? If that's what helps you feel better about losing tio the Lakers, more power to you. But the fact is, the Lakers have been the team of the 2000s with 5 titles to 1 miserable title for Boston. That fact alone must be depressing to many of the Boston faithful. Another fact: the Lakers are much better this year than last. The pickups of Barnes and Blake and the improvements in Odom and Brown, makes L.A. look unbeatble right now. Imagine when Bynum gets back in 3 more weeks, you'll have a juggernaut on your hands. And a final fact: Kobe and Bynum were seriously hurt in the playoffs in 2010 and the Lakers were still able to win. If healthy at the end, then I don't see any team beating L.A.
    Posted by rsalas67m[/QUOTE]

    Where the Celtics were sitting in 2005, I think any of their fans would have been ecstatic with winning ONE championship in that decade.

    You denigrate our own history by dismissing our Minneapolis era when you attack the so called 'ancient' history of the NBA. Yes it was a different game. But we dominated with Mikan and company. Why shouldn't we as fans celebrate this era of dominance any less than another.

    To denigrate the Boston teams of the 50's and 60's then you denegrate the Mikan teams of the 50's.

    On top of this you also denigrate the Lakers teams of Baynor and West who were SENSATIONAL enough to keep making it to the NBA finals six times against the Celtics. It takes two teams to make the finals. Why don't you like the Baynor/West era? They were two of our greatest players ever.

    You can't on one hand denigrate the Celtics without denigrating six of our teams in the same process. It's not logical.





     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : You're a freakin' coward! Put up or shut up! Come on, how many Laker wins this season? What's the worst that can happen if you get it wrong? The Lakers will not win a championship if you get it wrong?
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Coward? No. Watching you twist this exercise into something that makes you think you are a man with guts is too funny for me to relent. On the other hand, I wish you would use those so called guts of yours to deal with Perkin's basketball injury like a grown up. You think you can bait me with childish taunts, think again.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from rsalas67m. Show rsalas67m's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    You want to go back to ancient history when the league had only 8 teams? If that's what helps you feel better about losing tio the Lakers, more power to you.

    But the fact is, the Lakers have been the team of the 2000s with 5 titles to 1 miserable title for Boston. That fact alone must be depressing to many of the Boston faithful.

    Another fact: the Lakers are much better this year than last. The pickups of Barnes and Blake and the improvements in Odom and Brown, makes L.A. look unbeatble right now. Imagine when Bynum gets back in 3 more weeks, you'll have a juggernaut on your hands.

    And a final fact: Kobe and Bynum were seriously hurt in the playoffs in 2010 and the Lakers were still able to win. If healthy at the end, then I don't see any team beating L.A.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : What is all this nonsense?  The Boston Celtics have a record 17 Championships: FACT The Minneapolis Lakers have 5 Championships: FACT The LA Lakers have 11 Championships: FACT The Celtics have won all their rings in Boston: FACT The Lakers have split their rings between Minneapolis and LA: FACT You keep those Championships because you relocated and kept the name Lakers, that's all. Imagine if Seattle's 1979 Championship suddenly belong to OKC because they decided to keep the name Sonics. Is it not the same situation?  Also if the LA Lakers had won any Championships in the 50's and 60's you would obviously claim them as they would be rightfully yours. As it stands the LA Lakers didn't win a Championship until 1972. FACT What this means is that during the 50's and 60's the Boston Celtics beat the entire league including the Minneapolis Lakers since 1957 to 1960 when the LA Lakers were born. Then the LA Lakers proceeded to lose every Finals appearance they played against Boston until 1972 where they beat the Knicks. So, face to face in the Finals: Boston 9, Lakers 3: FACT If you keep denying the importance of the "dark ages" then you deny the importance of "your" Championships and your franchise. And believe I'm not talking about no 60 wins nonsense. I'm talking about rings, as it should be. I'm sorry to say the NBA did not start when you wish it would, it actually began by the Celtics setting it's foundation by beating the Lakers everytime...wherever it is they claim to be from.
    Posted by fiorelladad[/QUOTE]

    Nice post.

    I actually believe the NBA's foundation was built by George Mikan, his Lakers who created the leagues first dynasty proceeded that of the Celtics. Although it was a much different game back then.

    I don't understand fans who accept one part of the leagues history, but denigrates another because it's not their/our team that is dominating the league. The Celtics dominated because of Russell IMO. If Russell had gone to the St. Louis Hawks they'd have been the ones winning multiple titles. And we wouldn't even be discussing the 'relevency' of eras.

    The NBA began in the 1946/47 season (FACT), not 1979/80. Just like the second world war started in 1939, NOT 1941 (FACT).

    I believe the Lakers have won 16 titles. Although the management only started to acknowledge this themselves when it became clear that the team was in striking distance of the Celtics 16 titles (was 16 at the time the Lakers added the Minni titles). An excellent example of this is in the book; The Lakers by Roland Lazenby (FACT). It's worth checking out.

    Personally I don't care who's won how many titles. I mainly care about the current season and how my team performs. History is nice and it's important to learn about, but sporting history, is mostly there for an enchancement of a game we enjoy watching, it provides records and feats for others to aspire to. And that's it.

    Like it's not as if fans are being asked to gain a working knowledge of the history and fall of the
    Weimar Republic.



     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from OldFirm. Show OldFirm's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : That's why the Celtics had to play Game 6 and 7 at Staples. 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    So why do 60 games matter?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from OldFirm. Show OldFirm's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : You really want us to believe the NBA started in 80s? HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    You really want us to believe the bush league championships in the 60s are significant?

    6 rings are enough to be considered the greatest player ever, greater than the player with 11 rings. Go figure.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Coward? No. Watching you twist this exercise into something that makes you think you are a man with guts is too funny for me to relent. On the other hand, I wish you would use those so called guts of yours to deal with Perkin's basketball injury like a grown up. You think you can bait me with childish taunts, think again.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    You say 60 wins is irrelevant, then you say the Lakers will not win 60 games. You're full of crap!

    Give us a number! 

    Is this a case of I don't want to be wrong in front of all the Celtic fans?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Well, I asked "according to whom"? whose criteria is it? You wimped out. Can't blame you for that, because that's something you made up out of thin air. I can't care less whether they win 60 games. As long as they get game 7 of the final at Staples (and forced the old farts to play tired and foul a lot, and you folks whine non-stop for 3 months), that's OK with me.  
    Posted by OldFirm[/QUOTE]

    Laker fans say the Lakers have the best player in the NBA and they have the best frontcourt in the NBA. Now tell me, does that mean that the Lakers are only good for 50 wins every season?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from OldFirm. Show OldFirm's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Even Dr. Buss put 16 diamonds on the latest Laker championship rings. Did you know that Dr. Buss designed that ring himself?  The PA announcer also said that the Lakers are raising the banner for their 16th championship. Facts are facts, deal with it! Such is life! 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    The championships in the big-time NBA are more significant than the championships in the bush league NBA. Deal with it. Such is life.

    10-4 is a bigger deficit than 13. This is not simple arithmetic, but you'll learn the difference between the two eras.



     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakersBreeze. Show LakersBreeze's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?


    Laker fans are still laughing at Doc's "they didn't beat our starting 5" excuse. Guess he didn't notice Bynum didn't play when you won the title. I guess he needs to keep his boys motivated or something. 
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : What is all this nonsense?  The Boston Celtics have a record 17 Championships: FACT The Minneapolis Lakers have 5 Championships: FACT The LA Lakers have 11 Championships: FACT The Celtics have won all their rings in Boston: FACT The Lakers have split their rings between Minneapolis and LA: FACT You keep those Championships because you relocated and kept the name Lakers, that's all. Imagine if Seattle's 1979 Championship suddenly belong to OKC because they decided to keep the name Sonics. Is it not the same situation?  Also if the LA Lakers had won any Championships in the 50's and 60's you would obviously claim them as they would be rightfully yours. As it stands the LA Lakers didn't win a Championship until 1972. FACT What this means is that during the 50's and 60's the Boston Celtics beat the entire league including the Minneapolis Lakers since 1957 to 1960 when the LA Lakers were born. Then the LA Lakers proceeded to lose every Finals appearance they played against Boston until 1972 where they beat the Knicks. So, face to face in the Finals: Boston 9, Lakers 3: FACT If you keep denying the importance of the "dark ages" then you deny the importance of "your" Championships and your franchise. And believe I'm not talking about no 60 wins nonsense. I'm talking about rings, as it should be. I'm sorry to say the NBA did not start when you wish it would, it actually began by the Celtics setting it's foundation by beating the Lakers everytime...wherever it is they claim to be from.
    Posted by fiorelladad[/QUOTE]

    When I buy a car I buy all the mileage on the clock that's it's done before. FACT.
    When I buy a house I buy all the history that goes with it. FACT.
    If I could buy a sports team, I buy the history that goes with that team. FACT.

    Celtics=17
    Lakers=16

    FACT!

    Next.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakersBreeze. Show LakersBreeze's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?


    I thought Celtic fans were knowledgeable. You act like the Lakers pick who they want to play and when. So stupid of you. Already whining. You better be sure your old heads O'neal and O'Neal can survive a full season. The Lakers are solid, my man, Very solid.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : I will try and go slower for you. I don't know if the Lakers will get sixty wins or not. I really don't care as long as they get the championship. I said the Lakers will win more regular season games than the Celtics. That is my prediction. Above sixty wins, below sixty wins, no matter. They will have a better regular season win total than team social security. Is this clear enough for you? 
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    You're a freakin' coward! Put up or shut up!

    Come on, how many Laker wins this season?

    What's the worst that can happen if you get it wrong? The Lakers will not win a championship if you get it wrong?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : You say 60 wins is irrelevant, then you say the Lakers will not win 60 games. You're full of crap! Give us a number!  Is this a case of I don't want to be wrong in front of all the Celtic fans?
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    62
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]Kobe and the best frontcourt in the NBA can't win 60 games... Dr. Buss must be overpaying some of the Laker players. 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    I think most players are overpaid. But that's another issue. I think age will prevent us from winning 60 games this season. Although once Blake and Brown are worked into the team we may be capable of pulling a surprise. But the team, I'd hope is more looking towards the bigger picture than winning say 60 regular season games.

    The Western Conference was very tight last year and I don't see things changing.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from OldFirm. Show OldFirm's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Since you insist that the Lakers should not win 60 games every season then so be it.
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Well, I asked "according to whom"? whose criteria is it?

    You wimped out. Can't blame you for that, because that's something you made up out of thin air.

    I can't care less whether they win 60 games. As long as they get game 7 of the final at Staples (and forced the old farts to play tired and foul a lot, and you folks whine non-stop for 3 months), that's OK with me.

     


     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : So why do 60 games matter?
    Posted by OldFirm[/QUOTE]

    That's because the Celtics didn't take home court advantage seriously. If they didn't play possum in the regular season Game 6 and 7 would have been in Boston. Banner #18 should be hanging on the rafters of the TD Garden right now.

    Think about it, if the Celtics had home court advantage they only needed to win 1 game in LA.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tachometrix. Show Tachometrix's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : 62
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    And you said 60 wins is irrelevant... such a hypocrite... Yell
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Aslanb0ynn. Show Aslanb0ynn's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : no they don't. for example the lakers play the awful clippers more than the Celtics do. the Celtics have already had 1 back to back and will have several more before the lakers have even 1. so it's not about how many home and away games there are since every team has the same amount. he's talking about having 3 days off after the lakers first game while the Celtics have a back to back. or having the schedule front loaded with more home than away. or giving more days off between games than other teams get. or the lakers playing the d  league level clippers and the kings for their back to back while the Celtics open with the heat then the next night play a tough cleveland team on the road. see the point yet?
    Posted by 003323344[/QUOTE]


    IS this guy kidding???  I have read this blog since the end of last year but NEVER commented because it was all in good fun with the trash talking back and forth between two great teams.  But this has got to be the most ridiculous statement i have seen yet.  C'mon the schedule is separating two conferences that how it's been ever since god knows when.  Ofcourse the lakers gonna play more game against the clippers or the grizzlies or the kings than the Cs do.  But c'mon what about Cs play more game with the nets, or  sixers or toronto or cleveland (since they are pretty irrelevant now w/o ... ) than the lakers do.  C'mon man if you put the clippers against any of those teams i just mention... i would take the clippers over all of them.  Seriously!  and i think most of you would be too...  am i right or wrong? 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : no they don't. for example the lakers play the awful clippers more than the Celtics do. the Celtics have already had 1 back to back and will have several more before the lakers have even 1. so it's not about how many home and away games there are since every team has the same amount. he's talking about having 3 days off after the lakers first game while the Celtics have a back to back. or having the schedule front loaded with more home than away. or giving more days off between games than other teams get. or the lakers playing the d  league level clippers and the kings for their back to back while the Celtics open with the heat then the next night play a tough cleveland team on the road. see the point yet?
    Posted by 003323344[/QUOTE]

    The Lakers play a back to back today and tomorrow, so that is just not true. The bottom half of the Eastern conference is the armpit of the NBA, so the Celtics are going to get their fair share of cream puff games too. So many built in excuses, everything is subject to whining and crying by the faithful here. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : When you go on Lakers forums to challenge the faithful, is it because you are unhappy too? What a joke.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    You're here to agitate the Celtic fans, is that it?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Because they're overrated, and they're a bunch of losers, Championships notwithstanding.  Is that what you want to hear? Furthermore, I think only teams with 60 wins should play in the playoffs.  This cuts out all the clutter of 50 and 40 win teams because they're terrible anyway.  Therefore, because they were the only 60-win team last year the Cavs should have been crowned the Champs.  There, I solved your issues.
    Posted by victorlee1234[/QUOTE]

    Even your fellow Laker troll thinks the Lakers will win 62 games this season.

    How many wins do you think the Lakers are going to get this season?
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Funny, just saw this list on the baseball pages: Yankees - 24 Cardinals - 10 A's  - 9 Red Sox - 7 Dodgers - 6 Giants - 6 Hate to burst your bubble, but the A's only won 4 in Oakland, and the Giants just won their first one in SF. How did they get 6? FACT are FACT, but many people use FACTs to lie too, but misleading or making false implications with FACTs. Example: "the Celtics are losers in the playoffs". You dare dispute that? did they win the last playoff game they played? And the significance of this? you mean the Celtics losing to the Nets, Magic, Pistons, 76ers, etc. when the Lakers won the title didn't count? I see it. Boston only played the Lakers in the post-season. The seasons they lost to all these eastern teams early are wiped out. 10-4 in the big-time era; FACT. The icing on the cake of seeing the Lakers win the championship: the Celtics keep their 9-3 H2H record and you folks keep bragging it. You know what that means...
    Posted by OldFirm[/QUOTE]

    I googled it, I couldn't find the Big-Time Era of the NBA. 

    Guess you're an inventor, you should patent your invention, "Big-Time Era".
     

Share