What's with the Lakers schedule?

  1. 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Home court is always preferable, but not getting sixty wins on the way to a championship is still nothing but irrelevant.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it


    I totally agree with you! I also hope that the Lakers will not win 60 games this year. 

    How many wins do you think the Lakers will get this year, 52?
     
  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?:
    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


    62
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    So let's win 60 games, and have the lakers win 59, since it doesn't matter to them.  Then, after disposing of the Heat, we will go to the Finals with HCA.  As "fans" of the lakers, is that what you really want?
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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. 
     
  6. 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?:
    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


    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.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from victorlee1234. Show victorlee1234's posts

    Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?

    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : 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?
    Posted by P34


    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.
     
  8. 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?:
    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


    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.
     
  9. 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?:
    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


    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.





     
  10. 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?:
    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


    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.



     
  11. 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?:
    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

    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?

     
  12. 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?:
    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


    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.

     


     
  13. 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.
     
  14. 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : 62
    Posted by Give-in-to-it


    And you said 60 wins is irrelevant... such a hypocrite... Yell
     
  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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : So why do 60 games matter?
    Posted by OldFirm


    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.
     
  16. 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : 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.
    Posted by OldFirm


    Give me proof that before the 1980s the NBA was a bush league. Show us the link.
     
  17. 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?:
    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


    So why do 60 games matter?
     
  18. 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : 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.
    Posted by OldFirm


    If Dr. Buss, the owner of the Lakers, said the Lakers have 16 championships. I think I'll take his word over yours.
     
  19. 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?:
    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


    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.



     
  20. 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?:
    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


    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. 
     
  21. 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?:
    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


    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".
     
  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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : And you said 60 wins is irrelevant... such a hypocrite... 
    Posted by Tachometrix


    Ok, I think we need to slow things down for you. Sixty wins IS irrelevant. I am still holding firmly to that contention. 

    BUT

    You asked me how many wins I think the Lakers will get this season. I told you I think they will get 62. 

    NOW

    How is any of that hypocritical? Do you know what the word hypocritical means? Do you not think it is possible to think a team has a realistic chance at winning 60 games, while at the same realizing that in the scope of things winning sixty games means nothing more than winning 58 games as long as you get the ring? This isn't Phi Beta Kappa thinking we are taking about 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : You rely on Google? Tell me, when you google the "greatest player ever", who show up? and why was he since he only had 6 rings as compared to Russell's 11?
    Posted by OldFirm


    Why are you changing the subject? You said the "Big-Time Era" so I googled it and couldn't find it. 

    So Michael Jordan is considered the greatest player of all-time, duh! He's not even a Laker.

    You're spinning and twisting the issue. Typical troll response.
     
  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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : And you dare not respond to the necessary nor sufficient logic? Can't blame you for that, since you have no basis on the 60 wins. BTW, I see no reason why the big 3 can't win 51 either. So why didn't they? Don't give me lame answer of "that's why they play game 7 at Staples". That's the consequence,  not the reason.
    Posted by OldFirm


    So man up and tell us your prediction on how many games the Lakers will win 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?:
    In Response to Re: What's with the Lakers schedule? : Think about it, the Suns had HCA in 1993, won 2 in Chicago. Who won the championship? and why? It's left for you as an exercise. And the Celtics actually had the HCA. That's why your lust said: the series won't be back to LA. And think about your illogic: The Magic didn't win 60 games yet they still had HCA throughout the playoffs as of May 15, 2010. The Lakers didn't win 60 yet the still had HCA throughout the playoffs (as it turned out). You realize games 6 & 7 were played at the Staples, not at Quicken, do you? Back in 1997 the Jazz won 64 games yet they still didn't have HCA in the finals. So 60 wins are neither necessary nor sufficient. So, you have no clue how the playoff seeding works. Here are 2 cents. Buy a clue.
    Posted by OldFirm


    You're out of topic. The argument is simple, the Lakers had an easy schedule last year and also this year. Since Laker fans are claiming that they have the best player in the NBA and also the best frontcourt, I don't see why they can't win 60 games every year. It's as simple as that. No clues needed. 
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share