Celtic Dominance

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Your right that had Bynum not gotten hurt, the Lakers would have never gotten Gasol. But I would argue that had he healed up by the time the playoffs started and had the Lakers been at full strength by the time they got to the finals, they would have done better than losing in 6 against the Celts. Do you agree that having Bynum would have (at the very least) pushed the series to 7 games?

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Yet another lakers fan who agrees with me!!!!  Where oh where is QueenShaq when you need him?

     

    Just for the record, I am a firm believer in destiny.  I never said the Celtics would have won in 2010 if Perkins didn't go down - you were destined to win that year.  KG getting hurt in 2009, I didn't really mean, it was to prove a point - you deserved to win that year, too.

     

    But 2008 belonged to us - and yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won - FATE!!

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasBracamonte. Show EliasBracamonte's posts

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    "yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won"

    But do you think you guys would have won in 6?

     

     

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    "yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won"

    But do you think you guys would have won in 6?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    4, 5, 6 or 7 doesn't matter.  I do remember, though, that Celtics team did not lose 2 in a row all year, including the playoffs............

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

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

     

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Not answering ANY of my questions, and then calling ME gutless is your MO.  Think I'll let you get away with that?  You must really be smarting......................

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You did not any of mine either.

    You said: We needed an inside presence AFTER Bynum went down'  - Phil Jackson!!

    I said: And the relationship of this statement to "if Bynum had not been injured"? Are you going to say "then we don't need an inside presence"?

    You still haven't got out of this loop. Good grief!!!

    You said: That's your twisting of my words.....................not my point.

    Once you wimped out with "not my point", Bingo, you tried not to argue the hypothetical scenario "Had Bynum not injured". That's why I challenged you with the three posts:

    Your own words:

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=8

    9/7/2012 01:17:37 EDT
    "prove without a doubt that the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured!"

    9/7/2012 01:25:43 EDT
    "Since they didn't approach MEM until after Bynum got hurt.............I said the trade would not have happened."

    http://www.boston.com/community/forums/sports/celtics/on-the-front-burner/since-this-is-a-celtics-forum/100/6312998?page=7

    9/7/2012 10:45:35
    "and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt"

    Now tell me what exactly your words are...

    You dared not argue the hypothetical scenario anymore? re-stating the actual fact isn't going to save you. We all know Gasol got trade after Bynum got hurt. If you are so desperate to get me to agree with you on some facts that weren't our argument, then sure, I'll play. You can state 903876601 more facts and you'll get no argument from me, like "1+1=2", "2*3=6", "the sun rises from the east", "Lebron won the MVP in 2012", etc.

    But when pushe comes to shove, your original hypothesis got roasted:

    the lakers would not have Gasol if Bynum wasn't injured

    I said the trade would not have happened.

    and the trade would not have been made if he didn't get hurt

    And you have to wimp out with "not my point", "Never said the inverse- only said  - because Bynum got injured is the reason the lakers have Gasol"?

    You think you can get away by moving the goalposts?

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

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

     

    In response to TommyRules' comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Guys, please move away from the Gasol trade to the Lakers discussion.

    Monica Lewinsky and OJ think that subject was old news years ago.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    He refuses to answer my questions - or admit an ounce of defeat.............kind of like you and Ramon Sessions....................

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Your question has nothing to do with the hypothesis "Had Bynum not injured". Are you going to answer the hypothetical scenario or not?

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtic Dominance

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

     

    In response to EliasBracamonte's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    "yes, I believe even if Bynum had played, we still would have won"

    But do you think you guys would have won in 6?

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    4, 5, 6 or 7 doesn't matter.  I do remember, though, that Celtics team did not lose 2 in a row all year, including the playoffs............

     

    [/QUOTE]


    My bad, I meant three in a row!!!  OOPPPS!!

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share