Since this is a Celtics forum

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    EXACTLY - and thanks once again.  It is my OPINION that Red was a better coach than Phil.  And much like your OPINION that Torre is better than McCarthy, it is not just my opinon.......

     

    You slipped up, Glasgow.........you slippped up, and I caught you.  You cannot argue with someone over their OPINION!!!

     

    3-1 ME......last word!

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to TommyRules' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Basketball from decades ago is not a good comparison with Football from years ago.

    I haven't done any research on it, but I would assume that in Football years ago, you would have to win a couple of playoff games to be in the championship game, the same or similar to how it is today.

    In the NBA back in the 1950's you only had to win 1 series to be in the championship. Now you have to win 3 series just to get to the championship.

    The same was true of baseball. If you won one series, you then played in the World Series.

    The difference between the Yankees and the Celtics is that despite winning many championships years ago, the Yankees have been very successful over the last couple of decades and have won 5 championships in the last 16 years.

     

     

    No, all you had to do was win the American League.......NO playoffs at all!

    [/QUOTE]


     
  4. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:


    The Lakers didn't dominate the 80s, they just won more than the others. A 5-3 Finals record is nowhere near domination.


    The Lakers record was not 5-3. The Lakers record was 5 championships and 8 finals appearance.

    Since you consider 4 championships and 4 final appearances "dominate". So by your logic, 5 champs and 8 final appearances must be.
     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    HAHAHA

    It's amazing how you turn into a spinner when the facts are not in your favor.

    Lakers went to the Finals 8 times in the 80s. They won 5 times and lost 3 times. Therefore they have a 5-3 Finals record. 

    [/QUOTE]

    So what? the Lakers in the 80s won 5 championships, lost 3 times in the finals, 2 times in the early rounds.

    The Spurs, since you claimed that they dominated, from 1999-2008:

    won 4 championships lost 6 times in the early rounds.

    Won 5 times in the finals, lost 3 times in the finals and 2 times in early rounds is way better than won 4 times in the finals, lost 6 times in early rounds.

    Therefore by your logic, the Lakers dominated.

    [QUOTE]Also, in the 80s, the Lakers lost to the Sixers, Celtics, and Pistons. Those were 3 of the superpowers of the NBA in the 80s.

    Well, the Lakers went 5-3 against them. How did the Celtics do against the "Superpower" of the 80s?


    From 1980-1991: 2-2 vs 76ers, 1-2 vs Lakers, 2-3 vs Pistons for a total of 5-7.

    You think it's that easy to have a winning record against the "superpower" of the 80s?

    [/QUOTE]And again, the Lakers only made it to the Finals a lot of times because they had to face weaker teams like the Sonics and Nuggets.

    The Celtics had to face Dr. J, MJ, and Isiah Thomas. 

    The Lakers faced Alex English, Tom Chambers(with Suns and Sonics), and Dale Ellis.

    You know you have a weak conference when teams with losing records make it to the western conference finals.

    [/QUOTE]
    This is not the NBA's official position. So a final is a final, no matter it's against the Sonics or the 76ers. Until you can cite an NBA article that making the final from the west doesn't count, I don't worry about it.

    Making a final from the west > losing in the 1st round from the east.

     

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    EXACTLY - and thanks once again.  It is my OPINION that Red was a better coach than Phil.  And much like your OPINION that Torre is better than McCarthy, it is not just my opinon.......

     

    You slipped up, Glasgow.........you slippped up, and I caught you.  You cannot argue with someone over their OPINION!!!

     

    3-1 ME......last word!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So your opinion supports the opinion that the Celtics are not necessarily the best franchise, despite the most # championships. The reasoning is very sound: # championships is not necessarily the sole determining factor. It can be (as in the case of Yankees, Man United), but it may not be (as in the case of Packers, Princeton, Celtics)

    Fantastic. Thanks for your opinion support.

    And which 3 arguments are you winning? You already gave up on the "no Bynum injury, no Gasol trade" already. It's not even a week and you are smarting again?

     

     

     

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    EXACTLY - and thanks once again.  It is my OPINION that Red was a better coach than Phil.  And much like your OPINION that Torre is better than McCarthy, it is not just my opinon.......

     

    You slipped up, Glasgow.........you slippped up, and I caught you.  You cannot argue with someone over their OPINION!!!

     

    3-1 ME......last word!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    So your opinion supports the opinion that the Celtics are not necessarily the best franchise, despite the most # championships. The reasoning is very sound: # championships is not necessarily the sole determining factor. It can be (as in the case of Yankees, Man United), but it may not be (as in the case of Packers, Princeton, Celtics)

    Fantastic. Thanks for your opinion support.

    And which 3 arguments are you winning? You already gave up on the "no Bynum injury, no Gasol trade" already. It's not even a week and you are smarting again?

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    I already won that argument, I just stopped arguing.......that is one - Phil vs Red - that's two for me.......lakers vs Celtics....one for you..........and you can't argue people's opinions.....three to one for me

    Bye!!

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I already won that argument, I just stopped arguing.......that is one - Phil vs Red - that's two for me.......lakers vs Celtics....one for you..........and you can't argue people's opinions.....three to one for me

    Bye!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You won the argument with what? some conversation you had with ESPN LA that you never posted? or some talks with LA's Lakers fans that you never posted? 0-1


    Red vs Phil, what are you winning? you used your "numbers don't necessarily mean better" to support Lakers vs Celtics? 0-2

    And you used your opinion to support the opinion that the Lakers are better. 0-3

    Yep, that's your score.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I already won that argument, I just stopped arguing.......that is one - Phil vs Red - that's two for me.......lakers vs Celtics....one for you..........and you can't argue people's opinions.....three to one for me

    Bye!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You won the argument with what? some conversation you had with ESPN LA that you never posted? or some talks with LA's Lakers fans that you never posted? 0-1


    Red vs Phil, what are you winning? you used your "numbers don't necessarily mean better" to support Lakers vs Celtics? 0-2

    And you used your opinion to support the opinion that the Lakers are better. 0-3

    Yep, that's your score.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Ha ha funny - the spin doctor is in........3-1   for ME....bye

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    Like I said, that's your opinion and your opinion is worthless. Just like you're a worthless troll that can't live if it can't say bad things about the Boston Celtics every morning.

    You really think it's easier to beat Isiah Thomas, Dr. J, and MJ compared to beating the likes of Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Alex English?

    If you say "yes" then you're a bigger fool than all of us though[/QUOTE]

    And that's your opinion and your opinion plus $10 can't even buy a cup of coffee, i.e. it's negative value.

    So your opinion that the west is weak and the western finalist doesn't count is worth what? validated by the NBA in where?

    Yes, I think it's much easier to win the NBA championship when you don't even FACE a winning team.


    1959 EDF vs Syracuse (35-37), F vs Lakers (33-39)

    1961 EDF vs Syracuse (38-41)

    1965 EDF vs 76ers (40-40)


    Nope, I don't believe the records of the opposition matter, BUT YOU DO. In other words, you claimed that the 1959 NBA was weak, and 1961 & 1965 Eastern Divisions were weak. That's why the Celtics got to the finals.


    Remember, I don't believe it, but I am using your own logic to hook you.

     

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ha ha funny - the spin doctor is in........3-1   for ME....bye

     

    [/QUOTE]


    0-3 for you. You can keep saying "bye", but I won't let you slip by...

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Ha ha funny - the spin doctor is in........3-1   for ME....bye

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    You may have the last word...............but I'm the winner 3-1 - the original arguments, not the ones you changed them to.

    0-3 for you. You can keep saying "bye", but I won't let you slip by...

     

    [/QUOTE]


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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What? no response? that's not like you...

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

     

    You may have the last word...............but I'm the winner 3-1 - the original arguments, not the ones you changed them to.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Now I see it. Next time you quote, learn how to respond to the other's quote.


    Oh, you can say that you win 3-1, I can say that I win 3-0, aggregate score, I still edge you by 4-3.


    See, I won't even let you have 1 game.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nope, no respone - you are a joke!! Stop embarassing yourself

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This has been reported to the mods as a personal attack.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Nope, no respone - you are a joke!! Stop embarassing yourself

     

    [/QUOTE]


    This has been reported to the mods as a personal attack.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Rignt - o.....so when I'm banned, you win!!

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    [QUOTE]


    Rignt - o.....so when I'm banned, you win!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You lost 3-4 whether you are banned or not. Too bad you conceded 1 game to me...

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:

    [QUOTE]


    Rignt - o.....so when I'm banned, you win!!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    You lost 3-4 whether you are banned or not. Too bad you conceded 1 game to me...

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    You forfeited for not arguing the points at hand!!

    Report this one, too!!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You forfeited for not arguing the points at hand!!

    Report this one, too!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yep, when you can't argue and dare not even to tell us why trading for Gasol was not an option (had Bynum not injured), better beg me to forfeit.

    You've lost big time, but I still won't let you have the last say...

    1) Show us the recording you had with ESPN LA. If you have shown it before, cite it.

    2) Show us evidence of what Lakers fans tell you (er, support you on the Gasol trade).


    3) Show us how A=>B is equivalent to !A=>!B.

    4) Last but not least, why wasn't trading for Gasol an option if Bynum not injured.

    And we still haven't talked about the trade was due to Kobe's outburst, not Bynum's injury, i.e. Kobe is NOT on your side...

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    You forfeited for not arguing the points at hand!!

    Report this one, too!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Yep, when you can't argue and dare not even to tell us why trading for Gasol was not an option (had Bynum not injured), better beg me to forfeit.

    You've lost big time, but I still won't let you have the last say...

    1) Show us the recording you had with ESPN LA. If you have shown it before, cite it.

    2) Show us evidence of what Lakers fans tell you (er, support you on the Gasol trade).


    3) Show us how A=>B is equivalent to !A=>!B.

    4) Last but not least, why wasn't trading for Gasol an option if Bynum not injured.

    And we still haven't talked about the trade was due to Kobe's outburst, not Bynum's injury, i.e. Kobe is NOT on your side...

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    How can I "show" you a phone conversation?  You are totally nuts!!


    And we are NOT going to talk about that - because it's irrelevant - the trade happened AFTER the injury............or didn't it?

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    How can I "show" you a phone conversation?  You are totally nuts!!


    And we are NOT going to talk about that - because it's irrelevant - the trade happened AFTER the injury............or didn't it?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    See, you said someone supported you but you can't show it. "I have it, I have it, believe me, I really have it" doesn't cut it. This isn't kindergarten, you know.

    Of course it's relevant, because you are not arguing what happened, you are arguing the hypothesis: Had Bynum not injured, true or false?

    Go ahead, tell the world that's not what you are arguing, you never have the intention to argue "had Bynum not injured"...


    I can't wait...

     

     

     

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You really think it's easier to beat Isiah Thomas, Dr. J, and MJ compared to beating the likes of Dale Ellis, Tom Chambers, and Alex English?

    If you say "yes" then you're a bigger fool than all of us thought.

    [/QUOTE]


    Feared, I hope you stop embarrassing yourself.

    During the magic reign (1979-80 - 1990-91), the Lakers have beaten the follow HOFers in the playoffs:

    - Gervin

    - Gilmore

    - Mailman

    - Stockton

    - DJ

    - Bird

    - McHale

    - Parish

    - Walton

    - Clyde

    - Hakeem

    - Issel

    - English

    - Isiah

    - Rodman

    - Dumars

    - Dr. J

    - Dantley

    - Mullin

    - Petrovic

    I hope you can count.

    And it's obvious that you have no clue about Alex English, a HOFer.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]


    How can I "show" you a phone conversation?  You are totally nuts!!


    And we are NOT going to talk about that - because it's irrelevant - the trade happened AFTER the injury............or didn't it?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    See, you said someone supported you but you can't show it. "I have it, I have it, believe me, I really have it" doesn't cut it. This isn't kindergarten, you know.

    Of course it's relevant, because you are not arguing what happened, you are arguing the hypothesis: Had Bynum not injured, true or false?

    Go ahead, tell the world that's not what you are arguing, you never have the intention to argue "had Bynum not injured"...


    I can't wait...

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    It will be a looooooong wait!!

     

Share