Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Agreed.  But few players have the drive to win of guys like Russell, Jordan, Magic or Bird.

    It's something that cannot be willed into existence.  I like what Tommy Heinshon said of Russell--that he had a "neurotic need to win."
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    That's the reason I think KG is so important to the Celtics he has that drive, everyone wants to 'win' but KG brings them over the line when it comes to that extra something. Although it wasn't really on display much in MN. Finally had the right team around him in Boston.

    Love that quote from Heinshon. I think Russell was a born winner when it came to basketball if there is such a thing as a born winner. 

    Bird was a freak as well. He carried Boston in 1987 and he did it for the rest of his career while dealing with serious injuries. Certainly had something that is very rare in basketball players. Watched a game of his from 1992 against Portland which was breathtaking when you consider how badly hurt he was during that year. I forget his stats but it was on a Bird DVD set. Had me shaking my head at times with what he was able to do while hurt.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Happy birthday Kobe.....now for the 3-peat!
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]you are absolutely right Elias.....we both enjoy our histories......mine go back a to the late '50's...I still enjoy the teams I remember....and I am enjoying today as well....Cow asks how I think the players like Russ, Wilt, Baylor, West, and The Big O would do? [/QUOTE]
    Nope I didn't ask you that. I asked you how

    Jackie Moreland, Willie Jones, Lee Shaffer, Dave Gambee, Kenny Sears, Carl Braun...

    would do. And notice the canned response are the same each time. Fans who have to resort to ancient history to support the Celtics would revert back to Wilt, Russ, Baylor, West, Oscar every time, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS FOR THE STIFFS IN THAT ERA!!!!

    As I said, they think this illusion of every player in that era being Russ, Baylor, Wilt, etc. can really stick...

    And for fans still enjoy remembering teams of the 60s, that tells a lot about their recent achievements. I am a big Redskins fan. I still enjoy remembering the Hogs and the Redskins of the first Joe Gibbs era. I enjoy it because the Redskins of the past 17 years has nothing for me to remember.







     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]
    2.  His definition of "big time NBA" does not exist on any level, or in any article.  The game changed with the invention of the shot clock - except in Glass Cow's world.[/QUOTE]

    http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/steve_aschburner/03/05/greenburg/index.html

    'And we were very adamant, and mostly Bryant Gumbel at the end of the piece was very adamant, about reminding people that Magic and Bird saved the NBA, not Michael Jordan. Let's get that clear and put it as fact."

    http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016111.html

    "He is more than the player who, along with Larry Bird, transformed the NBA from the brink of bankruptcy into a lucrative attraction."

    http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2010/columns/story?columnist=broussard_chris&page=kobe-100618

    "Magic, along with Bird, saved the NBA."

    Well, maybe it's consolation to you that they didn't call it "big-time", but it's a common opinion that it's called "saved the NBA"...

    It's really not that hard to find out the common perception on what separate the big-time era (with someone saving the NBA) and before. There is also a common perception of the "modern NBA", as defined by the NBA/ABA merger, which is not much different from the big-time NBA since the gap is only 3 years, and neither the Celtics nor the Lakers won in 1977, 78 and 79. If you need help to learn how to Google, let me know...

    [QUOTE]
    4.  Lastly, Duke, and most importantly, he has written THE dumbest thing ever on this board:  GlasgowRangers has said numerous times that the Celtics lost  ON PURPOSE in the 90's because they were afraid of the lakers.  Then he tries to defend it. You can do what you want, of course, you are an intelligent poster.  You know that I usually respond to venom with venom.  But even I have this guy on ignore.  You can't argue with him.  It's like a Monty Python sketch.  "I came here for an argument."  " No you didn't."  " You're not arguing, just contradicting everything I say."  "No, I'm not." See?  And watch for his response to this, which I expect will be within the hour, be cut and pasted, have no relevance, and he will be gone by tomorrow!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]
    Yes, you respond venom with venom, but your venom is nothing but Nabiscohot sauce at this level. And I suggest you put me on "ignore". As far as argument is concerned, you are far from it.

    And you have strengthen the argument of point 4. Look no further than Duke himself. He only counts the years that Celtics reached the finals, thus keep stressing the 17-4. It's as the the Celtics didn't participate in the NBA in all other years, or was it because the Celtics lost deliberately before the finals to make those 43 years disappear? It's as if the Celtics only play in the NBA for 21 years...


     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]He would be unbelievable my friend....you know, guys tout all of the world's greatest players being in the NBA....right!  ....the early league was filled with quality bigs...and I only listed centers (although the Big E also could play the 4)...think of the quality at the other positions....guys like Baylor, West, Cousy, The Big O, Gus Johnson.....the list goes on and on...how many quality bball talent wasn't good enough to make it do the the number of teams? Think about it....those guys had basketball skills and IQ.....so many of today's players are athletes first....they don't know enough of the true basketball fundamentals...Cow brings up names like Dave Gambee and Lee Schaeffer....for every one of those guys there are literally dozens of names like Gerald Green and Michael Olowakandi coming into this league
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    And Gerald Green and Michael Olowkandi were getting paychecks from the NBA. They play against and train with NBA players day in day out. Are they better than those in the 50s/60s missing out on NBA jobs and selling insurance/used cars?

    Or do you think legit NBA players are limited by 100 at any era? Ever heard of "growth of the game"? 40 years ago, there weren't players in Europe/South America who could excel in the NBA. Nowadays? And we haven't even touched the pool of African American kids that are interested in the game in the two eras. Just mentioning Chuck Cooper, Bill Russell and the Jones boys don't cut it.

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Hedley, thanks for your comments....I really do try to be reasonable but some posters just revert to criticism and name calling....they even start sounding like 13 year olds (who knows, some of them might be)...I notice the Glass Cow makes mention of any number of modern era's when it is generally accepted that the shot clock remains the point at which the game changed forever....he does not get the concept of competition and strength of conference....I mean, one team from each conference goes to the finals....the odds have been pretty much in LA's favor, hence more trips to the finals....you know, if you eliminate their records against each other for the title....the Lakers have more wins (by virtue of more appearances) but the Celtics would hold the better winning percentage (.888 to .684)....the Finals usually determine the better team....although not always.....the Lakers were better than the Rockets, who won on a fluke shot and ended up representing the West in '86....the Celtics were a walking Mash unit in '87........I mentioned the "Big 4" of the '80's.....I'm still waiting for a response...I agree that the cut and paste gets a little tedious......I did have him on ignore....maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion...
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    LA's advantage is not 31 vs 21. But you can keep dragging that up. I mean, would it be better if LA lost deliberately  in the conference in those years that they knew they had no chance, i.e. back in the 60s, 1983, 1989, 1991, etc. Would you like their record better if they had lost in the conference finals and end up with a finals record of 16-7?

    I mean, it's hilarious to count AGAINST making the finals but lost. Your fellow fans just refute this lunacy 2 months ago. But no sweat, the Lakers were 16-46 and the Celtics were 17-47. I don't see what advantage you have there. If this is baseball standing, the two teams were tied for Nth place with one team only % points ahead.

    So, you care to tell us why the 43 years that the Celtics failed before the finals didn't count? Again the question, did the lose deliberately before the finals to maintain a cool finals record?

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Problem I have with Dwight Howard is that he's too nice. Doesn't have that 'killer' streak in him that guys like Russell, Magic and Jordan had. It's essential to have that if you're going to lead a team to victory in the Finals.  David Robinson didn't have it, took Tim Duncan to get him to the finals and onto victory. Maybe Dwight's own 'Duncan' is out there someplace.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    again, you are wise beyond your years.....you just nailed it....(again!)
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I just read the Cow's posts.....well actually I "skimmed through"......they are so long I had to stop reading....I don't get it....I am going back to ignore..... but I think this guy has some serious thoughts.....just no "give and take"...oh well....we all move on right....so.....see ya.....take care
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]I just read the Cow's posts.....well actually I "skimmed through"......they are so long I had to stop reading....I don't get it....I am going back to ignore..... but I think this guy has some serious thoughts.....just no "give and take"...oh well....we all move on right....so.....see ya.....take care
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    He is a huge stalker.  His mom only lets him out on weekends, so we'll have to deal with him today and tomorrow.   Then he goes back into hiding for the weekdays.  The only serious thing he has are issues!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    GlasgowRanger,

    you are so right on the money that you've got them telling each other they have you on "ignore." Keep it up! You are taking their arguments appart by exposing their flawed perceptions. Celtics fans see the NBA through their 1960's glasses. I personally think they're run did them more harm than good. They cannot see the truth about how far superior the NBA is today compared to 40 years ago. Bill Russel to these guys is probably the all time greatest basketball center who ever lived and yet he was what? 6' 8"? 6' 10"?

    (something like that)

    Cool
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    They're should be 'their'. As in their run.


    Bill Russell is the greatest player of all time. The greatest winner and the ultimate team mate. He's just ahead of Michael Jordan they're in my mind the two greatest basketball players ever. There is nobody else who is in their league for when it comes to dominating the game. Just took Jordan a little longer to reach the summit than it did Bill Russell.

    And yes from what I can see the league was better decades ago. At it's peak in the 80's. The 60's were not half bad either. Less teams means that average players are forced out of the league, rosters are more talented, which therefore gives you stronger teams. And a better competition. It's simple math.






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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Bill Russell Wilt Chamberlain Nate Thurmond Walt Bellamy Wayne Embry Zelmo Beaty Willis Reed Wes Unseld Elvin Hayes ....all starting centers who played during the glory era of the Celtics......[/QUOTE]
    You don't think you can get away with this nonsense, do you?

    First Zelmo Beaty is not in the HOF. By "the glory era of the Celtics", I assume you meant 1956-57 to 1968-69. If so, Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld and the Celtics glory years overlapped for ONE year, but I'll let go with that. So you have named 8 players.

    However, they are not all the starting centers in the league. There are a lot you haven't named. For example, in 1956-57

    Knicks: Ray Felix
    Royals: Art Spoelstra
    Lakers: Walter Dukes
    Pistons: Larry Foust

    1968-69:
    Suns: Jim Fox and Gary Gregor
    76ers: Darrall Imhoff
    Royals: Connie Dierking
    Hawks: Zelmo Beaty (NOT A HOFer)
    Bulls: Tom Boerwinkle
    Sonics: Bob Rule

    So, do 8 HOFers over 13 years sound a lot? Let's look at another era (the era I claimed as the big-time era), say, from 1979-80 - 1991-92, another 13 seasons. Look at the # HOF centers:

    Kareem,
    Moses,
    Parish,
    Ewing,
    Akeem,
    DRob,
    Dan Issel
    Artis Gilmore
    Bob Lanier
    Dave Cowens,
    Wes Unseld,
    Elvin Hayes,
    Bill Walton
    Bob McAdoo

    But Dave Cowens only played 1 year in that era, you protested?

    Elvin Hayes and Wes Unseld only played 1 year in the "Celtic glorious years", yet you have no shame putting him as one of the HOFers. Your rule.

    Let's see what your next excuse is.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics : He is a huge stalker.  His mom only lets him out on weekends, so we'll have to deal with him today and tomorrow.   Then he goes back into hiding for the weekdays.  The only serious thing he has are issues!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]
    Headless, you are still smarting that your weak "venom" didn't cause any sting?

    You may be jobless, but I have a very busy schedule during the week. If you think you miss me, no sweat, I have my vacation coming up, and I can give you therapy during the week...


     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]They're should be 'their'. As in their run. http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're Bill Russell is the greatest player of all time. The greatest winner and the ultimate team mate. He's just ahead of Michael Jordan they're in my mind the two greatest basketball players ever. There is nobody else who is in their league for when it comes to dominating the game. Just took Jordan a little longer to reach the summit than it did Bill Russell. And yes from what I can see the league was better decades ago. At it's peak in the 80's. The 60's were not half bad either. Less teams means that average players are forced out of the league, rosters are more talented, which therefore gives you stronger teams. And a better competition. It's simple math.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]
    No chance.

    This "simple math" works iff the # players capable of playing ball is a constant throughout the years, in the 1960s and in the 1990s. But do you think that's possible? Why do you think it's true that only 100 players can play ball in both the 1960s and the 1990s?

    Do "growth of the game", "more people exposed to the game", "expand the game at the grass root level", "a bigger pool of international and African American players" mean anything to you? Obviously not. You must be thinking that God designate 100 players to play basketball in all eras...

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I do understand, and I believe the league has been diluted though expansion. But the almighty dollar rules so there will always be more teams, not less. And therefore because of this the overall standard of the game will continue to suffer.

    There are a lot of people out there 'capable' of playing the game. But you just don't want to pay money to watch 'capable' players. You want to watch the best players. And in most teams in this league players 10 though 12 on almost every team are not very good players at all. 

    You throw the 86/87 Lakers into the current NBA and they'll win 70 games.

    BTW, what is God designate? 




     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Cow didn't read my post correctly.......I listed all those centers and said all were All Stars and MOST were HOF's.....so he immediately points out that Beaty is not in the hall.....right man.....an all star as I said (great career)...not in the hall....did you miss something here?

    Then he lists some mediocre centers from different era's.....you can do that in any sport, in any era....my point was....during the Celtic's run the league was loaded with talent...I asked someone to name me the "great centers of today's NBA".....I'm still waiting....all this great talent from all over the world and a handfull of good pivot men?  .....Shasha is a Laker....back in the 60's & 70's Shasha would not be playing Amercian pro basketball.......this league is full of '60's type "bench players" making millions.....
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]They're should be 'their'. As in their run. http://www.wikihow.com/Use-There,-Their-and-They're Bill Russell is the greatest player of all time. The greatest winner and the ultimate team mate. He's just ahead of Michael Jordan they're in my mind the two greatest basketball players ever. There is nobody else who is in their league for when it comes to dominating the game. Just took Jordan a little longer to reach the summit than it did Bill Russell. And yes from what I can see the league was better decades ago. At it's peak in the 80's. The 60's were not half bad either. Less teams means that average players are forced out of the league, rosters are more talented, which therefore gives you stronger teams. And a better competition. It's simple math.
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    Woman, please continue to post here.  You are the voice of reason in a  delusional pool of lakers fans.  Don't understand how lopsided lakers logic works.
    When saying Rondo is better than Fisher, many posters here will say, "Fisher has 5 rings, 'Brick' has one."  Then doesn't it work the other way as well.  Russell has eleven.  As many as Michael and koME COMBINED!
    "He wouldn't be as good now as he was then."  How does anyone know that?  I'd say Russ would be AT LEAST as good as Perk, wouldn't you? (ha ha)Perk gives Howard, Shaq and Bynum fits. Bill Russell was an intellectual player, YEARS ahead of his time.   He was an innovator.
    But, of course, my favorite is that the lakers have dominated since "big time NBA".  That is a selective and objective argument.  SAVING the NBA does not mean it became modern.  The NBA was a slow league, with very few fans.  The shot clock was invented, and the speed of the game changed forever.  THAT was the start of the Big Time NBA.  People forget that the 1970's ravaged the NBA with drugs and people were turned off by it.  Magic and Bird saved it in that regard, but it was already "big-time."
    Lastly, while denigrating the Celtics 60's championships as "non Big Time", lakers fans are quick to "take" the 5 titles won in MN as their own.  Without acknowledgement from Jack Kent Cooke, who brought the team to LA, TheOldPerv and his family had a sham of a ceremony to "honor" the MN lakers, took their 5 titles, and hung them all on ONE banner...............what a Hollywood performance that must have been!
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Excellent post my friend.....and right on....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Cow didn't read my post correctly.......I listed all those centers and said all were All Stars and MOST were HOF's.....so he immediately points out that Beaty is not in the hall.....right man.....an all star as I said (great career)...not in the hall....did you miss something here? [/QUOTE]
    If your criteria is merely all-star, then you lose even more. Look at these all-stars besides the HOFers I listed during the same big-time era (1979-80 - 1991-92): Bill Laimbeer, Brad Daugherty, Jack Sikma, JB Carroll, Jeff Ruland, Mr. Bill, Mark Eaton, James Donaldson, Kevin Willis, ...

    You still want to play?

    [QUOTE]
    Then he lists some mediocre centers from different era's.....you can do that in any sport, in any era....my point was....during the Celtic's run the league was loaded with talent...I asked someone to name me the "great centers of today's NBA"[/QUOTE]
    Why only today's NBA? the big-time era that I introduced was from the beginning of the Bird/Magic era. So are you going to wimp out on the players I listed and only concentrate on today's NBA?

    OK, let's see some all-stars in this era:

    Shaq, Dirk, Al Hortford, Superman, Amare, Chris Kaman,  Z, Yao, ...

    So I don't know what you are getting at. Do you realize that there are all-stars EVERY YEAR?

    "But the players you list are not HOF materials", you say?

    How do you know? I listed more HOFers from early in the big-time era than you listed in the glorious Celtics years. Do you realize they have to induct someone every year?

    [QUOTE]
    .....I'm still waiting....all this great talent from all over the world and a handfull of good pivot men?  .....Shasha is a Laker....back in the 60's & 70's Shasha would not be playing Amercian pro basketball.......
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    and the stiffs in the 1960s can? You have yet to tell us how bit players like Jimmy Darrow, Dick Eichhorst, Bill Smith, Joe Ruklick, etc., who spend the prime of their careers selling insurance or used cars or something else, can be better than a Shasha who plays/trains in the NBA day in day out...


     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]I do understand, and I believe the league has been diluted though expansion. But the almighty dollar rules so there will always be more teams, not less. And therefore because of this the overall standard of the game will continue to suffer. There are a lot of people out there 'capable' of playing the game. But you just don't want to pay money to watch 'capable' players. You want to watch the best players. And in most teams in this league players 10 though 12 on almost every team are not very good players at all.  You throw the 86/87 Lakers into the current NBA and they'll win 70 games. BTW, what is God designate? 
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]

    designate: denote, indicate, signify

    as in "designated hitter" in baseball.

    If players 10 through 12 on almost every team are not very good players at all, then players 10 through 12 on any 50/60s teams couldn't be very good either. Why not? due to lack of playing mintues. And players who just missed out the league in that era and ended up selling insurance/used cars can't be good either, even though one might be the 150th best basketball talent in the world. This is simply because he didn't get the chance to play at the highest level day in day out.

    Dilution is a funny thing. At the first year or so after an expansion, the league may be diluted. But after a while, the mix will get thick again, because the expanded opportunity allows more players to get the training and the competition. Look no further than comparing the 1950s and the Bird/Magic era, which was considered an golden era of basketball. Would you say it's diluted as compared to the 1950s?

    Why not? 1950s had only ~100 jobs in the league, the Bird/Magic era had about ~270 jobs. There were 170 more jobs.  But more players are capable of playing NBA basketball in the 1980s, due to re-concentration.




     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics : Woman, please continue to post here.  You are the voice of reason in a  delusional pool of lakers fans.  Don't understand how lopsided lakers logic works. When saying Rondo is better than Fisher, many posters here will say, "Fisher has 5 rings, 'Brick' has one."  Then doesn't it work the other way as well.  Russell has eleven.  As many as Michael and koME COMBINED! "He wouldn't be as good now as he was then."  How does anyone know that?  I'd say Russ would be AT LEAST as good as Perk, wouldn't you? (ha ha)Perk gives Howard, Shaq and Bynum fits. Bill Russell was an intellectual player, YEARS ahead of his time.   He was an innovator. But, of course, my favorite is that the lakers have dominated since "big time NBA".  That is a selective and objective argument.  SAVING the NBA does not mean it became modern.  The NBA was a slow league, with very few fans.  The shot clock was invented, and the speed of the game changed forever.  THAT was the start of the Big Time NBA.  People forget that the 1970's ravaged the NBA with drugs and people were turned off by it.  Magic and Bird saved it in that regard, but it was already "big-time." Lastly, while denigrating the Celtics 60's championships as "non Big Time", lakers fans are quick to "take" the 5 titles won in MN as their own.  Without acknowledgement from Jack Kent Cooke, who brought the team to LA, TheOldPerv and his family had a sham of a ceremony to "honor" the MN lakers, took their 5 titles, and hung them all on ONE banner...............what a Hollywood performance that must have been!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Fight venom with venom? It's funny that you claim to ignore me. But knowing that you reference what I said, I know you still can't resist reading the truth. Of course, you know you have no courage to respond to my post, as you know I'll smash your arguments into pieces...


     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I count 3 names in your list that are HOF material.....another one or two might develop.....how many are on my list? ....also, I implied players that are current starters right now....Shaq no longer qualifies...you keep asking me if I want to continue....first of all, you are on our team's board...this isn't like we went to the Laker board and started something....in addition, you have Laker fans disagreeing with you....Worthy may be a young gal but she knows what she is talking about....you are obsessed with arguing with Celtic fans on our own board.....you seem to have something driving your obsession....seems like rationalization to me.....whatever...I am done....enjoy your banners....including the ones that came in a league where a team could be outscored 3-1 in the final quarter....now there was basketball at its best!!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]I count 3 names in your list that are HOF material.....another one or two might develop.....[/QUOTE]
    That's not bad. That's not even 1/3 of the all star centers that appear in a 13-year period (your criteria). Getting all the all-stars from 1997-98 to 2009-10, how many do you think will make it to the HOF? My rough guess (without looking at the whole list):

    DRob (already in), Superman, Yao, Amare, Dirk, Shaq, Mutombo, one of KG/Duncan (starting center for the west in 2001 and 2002), Mourning, Gasol,

    [QUOTE]
    how many are on my list? [/QUOTE]
    7, not counting Zelmo Beaty and Wayne Embry (who was elected as a contributor).

    How many are on mine?

    Don't try this trick of "your guys aren't in the HOF, and there is no way Mourning can be in the HOF". Guys in your list retired 30 years ago, and they  are already in even if elected thru' the veterans' committee.

    [QUOTE]....also, I implied players that are current starters right now....Shaq no longer qualifies...[/QUOTE]
    Then why current starter? Your span covers 13 years and you want to whitewash Shaq's starting in the past 12 years? So you want to compare 13 years in the Celtics era vs 1 current year (2010-11) and conclude that there are more HOFers in a 13-year time-span than next season?

    You have nerve.


     

Share