Weakstern Conference

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]From 2000-2011 only the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs are the only teams from the west that made it to the Finals. In the east the Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Magic, and Celtics made it to the Finals. That's 8 different teams in a span of 12 years.  The Lakers made it to the Finals 7 times, the Spurs 3 times, and the Mavs twice. That's pretty obvious that the only great teams out west, the last 12 years, are the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. So if you trolls are wondering why the Lakers usually make it to the Finals then this is the answer. Let me rephrase that, the Lakers are usually in the Finals because they're in a weaker conference. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    Oh ok, that explains why the Celtics always came out of the Leastern Conference in the '60's. Thanks Feirce, you're just one big cauldron of information and wisdom.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from bosportfan. Show bosportfan's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Weakstern Conference : Oh ok, that explains why the Celtics always came out of the Leastern Conference in the '60's. Thanks Feirce, you're just one big cauldron of information and wisdom.
    Posted by lakersavenger[/QUOTE]

    Your comparing the depth of the 60's league to now? You're just one big cauldron of stupidness. Thanks fakeravenger say hi to kobe the rapist for me ha ha ha ha ha ha haCry


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

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Weakstern Conference : Oh ok, that explains why the Celtics always came out of the Leastern Conference in the '60's. Thanks Feirce, you're just one big cauldron of information and wisdom.
    Posted by lakersavenger[/QUOTE]

    How about them Boston Bruins?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]From 2000-2011 only the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs are the only teams from the west that made it to the Finals. In the east the Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Magic, and Celtics made it to the Finals. That's 8 different teams in a span of 12 years.  The Lakers made it to the Finals 7 times, the Spurs 3 times, and the Mavs twice. That's pretty obvious that the only great teams out west, the last 12 years, are the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. So if you trolls are wondering why the Lakers usually make it to the Finals then this is the answer. Let me rephrase that, the Lakers are usually in the Finals because they're in a weaker conference. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    The village idiot returns....the Least is aptly named because as already mentioned the west dominates the Larry O'Brien!
     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from LakerFan67. Show LakerFan67's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    There are only 3 strong Eastern conference teams with Miami, Chicago, & Boston.

    In the West, there is Dallas, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Oklahoma, with Memphis 'on their heals. Portland, Denver, Houston and Utah used to be. The West has the more competitive teams.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    Yes, the East is sooooo strong, that since the Bulls demise, the East representative in the Finals has been swept twice (Nets and Cavs) and ousted in five games three times (Knicks, Sixers, Magic), and the Knicks were an #8 seed when they went to the Finals.
     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsNot1966anymor. Show ItsNot1966anymor's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    More teams making it to the Finals means their are a bunch of average teams taking turns.  Only the Nets and Celtics made more than one appearance with virtually the same  team.  Yes, Shaq and Duncan were dominant, but they  had to beat each other along the way, in addition Rasheed, KG, Chris Webber, Dirk, Melo, etc... they were  crushing other great competitors and teams.  In the same time period, the Eastern  Conference Playoffs were lethargic until the  Eastern Conference Finals.  Finally, the East now has 4 - 5 pretty good teams.  If this were 2002, this year's Hawks would have been in the Finals.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]From 2000-2011 only the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs are the only teams from the west that made it to the Finals. In the east the Pacers, Sixers, Nets, Pistons, Heat, Cavs, Magic, and Celtics made it to the Finals. That's 8 different teams in a span of 12 years.  The Lakers made it to the Finals 7 times, the Spurs 3 times, and the Mavs twice. That's pretty obvious that the only great teams out west, the last 12 years, are the Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. So if you trolls are wondering why the Lakers usually make it to the Finals then this is the answer. Let me rephrase that, the Lakers are usually in the Finals because they're in a weaker conference. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    Like your posts, man, but even I question the wisdom of this one!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from icnd. Show icnd's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]8 different teams making it to the Finals in a span of 12 years. That means 8 great teams for the east. Out west only 3 great teams, Lakers, Spurs, and Mavs. And only the Spurs did not lose in the Finals. Sure the west dominated the east in the NBA Finals. But who had more great teams? East 2000 Pacers - Reggie Miller 2001 Sixers - Allen Iverson and Mutombo 2002-03 Nets - Jason Kidd 2004-05 Pistons - Billups, Rip, Sheed, and Big Ben 2006 Heat - Wade and Shaq 2007 Cavs - Lebron 2008 Celtics - Big 3 2009 Magic - Dwight 2010 Celtics - Big 3 and Rondo West 2000-02 Lakers - Shaq and Kobe 2003 Spurs - Duncan and Robinson 2004 Lakers - Shaq, Kobe, Malone, and Payton 2005 Spurs - Duncan, Manu, and Parker 2006 Mavs - Dirk and Terry 2007 Spurs - Duncan, Manu, and Parker 2008 Lakers - Kobe and Pau 2009 Lakers - Kobe and Pau 2010 Lakers - Kobe and Pau 2011 Mavs - Dirk, Kidd, and Terry 2011 Heat - Lebron, Bosh, and Wade It's really simple, more teams making it to the Finals means more great teams from that conference. 
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    And I guess the Bulls making it 6 times in 8 years (and winning all six) means, in your warped analysis, that the East sucked?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from icnd. Show icnd's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : The west dominated the east in the Finals because of Shaq and Duncan. Did I say the east dominated the west in the NBA Finals? Who has more great teams is different from who dominated in the NBA Finals. Is it really that hard to understand? Take away Shaq's 3 rings with the Lakers and Duncan's 3 rings with the Spurs and that leaves the west with only 3 championships in a span of 12 years.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]

    What the fuc kind of conclusion did you just reach?  Then can I take away Russell's 11 rings, leaving the Celtics with only 6?  You see how dim-witted that sounds?  I swear, you've got the weakest, lamest, and dumbest posts on this board.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : What the fuc kind of conclusion did you just reach?  Then can I take away Russell's 11 rings, leaving the Celtics with only 6?  You see how dim-witted that sounds?  I swear, you've got the weakest, lamest, and dumbest posts on this board.
    Posted by icnd[/QUOTE]

    Weren't you the one saying you had green boogers in your nose?
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from icnd. Show icnd's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : Weren't you the one saying you had green boogers in your nose?
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    Yeah...I was referring to Fiercest34...why?  You've got another color?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : And I guess the Bulls making it 6 times in 8 years (and winning all six) means, in your warped analysis, that the East sucked?
    Posted by icnd[/QUOTE]

    The Bulls dominated the east in the 90s. The only time another east team made it to the Finals was when MJ retired. The 90s had the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, and Spurs making it to the Finals. That's 7 western teams making it to the Finals from 1990-99. Obviously the west was the stronger conference back in the 90s. When MJ retired the Rockets won back to back championships. The Spurs won their first championship after MJ retired for the second time. I'm sure you all agree that the Rockets and Spurs are from the western conference.

    Fierce has a point, just because one or two individuals dominated the competition it doesn't mean their conference is automatically better than the other conference. 
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : Yeah...I was referring to Fiercest34...why?  You've got another color?
    Posted by icnd[/QUOTE]

    Do you really have to tell Celtic fans that the color of your booger is green?

    What are you trying to say? Your nose bleeds green?
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from icnd. Show icnd's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : The Bulls dominated the east in the 90s. The only time another east team made it to the Finals was when MJ retired. The 90s had the Lakers, Blazers, Suns, Rockets, Sonics, Jazz, and Spurs making it to the Finals. That's 7 western teams making it to the Finals from 1990-99. Obviously the west was the stronger conference back in the 90s. When MJ retired the Rockets won back to back championships. The Spurs won their first championship after MJ retired for the second time. I'm sure you all agree that the Rockets and Spurs are from the western conference. Fierce has a point, just because one or two individuals dominated the competition it doesn't mean their conference is automatically better than the other conference. 
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    His point is that because the East sent a bigger variety of teams to the Finals, then it must be better, when in fact all it means is that the East didn't have a dominant team; thus, the different representatives each year.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from icnd. Show icnd's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : Do you really have to tell Celtic fans that the color of your booger is green? What are you trying to say? Your nose bleeds green?
    Posted by 21st[/QUOTE]

    You're taking my comments completely out of context.  I didn't intend to denegrate the color green...you need to read our initial exchanges to understand.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from 21st. Show 21st's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : His point is that because the East sent a bigger variety of teams to the Finals, then it must be better, when in fact all it means is that the East didn't have a dominant team; thus, the different representatives each year.
    Posted by icnd[/QUOTE]

    More teams that get into the finals in one conference means the conference is balanced. The Lakers had Shaq and the Spurs had Duncan, the top 2 best Centers were on the west back then. This year's finals is proof that big men wins championships. The Heat had Haslem and J.Anthony against Dirk and Chandler, of course the Mavs would win the title.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from fivekatz. Show fivekatz's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    Silly argument. Right now the power has swung and the East has more strong teams than the West, though the weak in the East are still weak. But for most of the first decade of this century without a doubt the West had more deep teams regardless of whether or not three teams dominated the conference playoffs.

    In the 80's the West was far weaker than the East. The C's went through wars with the Sixers, Bucks, Hawks and later Pistons to get to the finals. The Lakers dealt with a teams that just weren't at that level, physically or depth wise. Just the same Houston up ended them twice and the C's dispatched them twice in 6 games when they did beat LA. IMO in the 90's the league was pretty thin overall which is why a shooting guard and a small forward with a so so supporting cast rang up since titles.

    But make no mistake about it the Lakers team with Kobe and Shaq and the Spurs with Duncan and company were the best and they had to get through a much tougher group to see the weaker teams that emerged from the East.

    But the assembly of the C's, LeBum's emergence in Cleveland and Dwight Howard's maturation signaled another sea change in conference power. It only deepens with the Bulls and Miami Heat and the Knicks who are built around 2 former Western Conference stars.

    I thought that is what you were posting about not that the East was some how deeper because Indy, NJ and Philly went to the finals at the start of the decade. Those teams weren't great, not hardly.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: Weakstern Conference

    In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Weakstern Conference : The west dominated the east in the Finals because of Shaq and Duncan. Did I say the east dominated the west in the NBA Finals? Who has more great teams is different from who dominated in the NBA Finals. Is it really that hard to understand? Take away Shaq's 3 rings with the Lakers and Duncan's 3 rings with the Spurs and that leaves the west with only 3 championships in a span of 12 years.
    Posted by Fiercest34[/QUOTE]
    As I said the village idiot is back....welcome back wheelchair34.

    BTW, the Mavs winning gives the west a threepeat. So in your 12 year period, has the east even gone back to back??? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! Kinda reminds you of the celtics huh lmao!
     

Share