Celtics are too old is getting too old

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

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Thank you Opie for your "comprehensive study" hope you didn't work too hard! But I think your hard work is incomplete. You see when Laker fans, Basketball fans in general, commentators and sportswriters say that the Celtics are old, what they are referring to is the main go-to guys on your team. When we talk about our team being much younger, we are referring to our go-to guys that make an impact on our team. One way to determine how valuable guys are to their team is by how much they are getting paid. Derek Fisher for example gets paid something like 2.5 or 3 million a year (I cannot remember which). My point is that he might hit big shots at times but he is no Kobe Bryant or Pau Gasol. His career average is only 9 points 3 assists a game. My point in bringing up Derek Fisher is not because I don't like D-fish but because whenever age stats come up, guys like you like to throw his age in with our guys as if he is an impact player - he is not. Derek Fisher is old, but the rest of our impact guys are at their prime! Unfortunately that is not the case for the Boston Celtics whose impact players are all on the downward tred of their careers. If you look at the ages of the "Big Three" or four best players on both our clubs you can see that there is in fact a considerable age difference: For both teams I looked at the ages that the Celtics will be at the end of this year and the ages the Lakers are NOW. (Why? I don't know? I'm just doing what Opie did :) Anyway, the big three Celtics are Pierce, Garnett and Ray Allen right? Pierce will be 33 Garnett will be 35 Ray Allen will be 35 THESE are the Celtics main go to guys are they not? Okay, now let's look at the Lakers main go to guys shall we? Kobe Bryant is 32 Pau Gasol is 30 Artest is 30 Our next go to guy is Andrew Bynum who is 23. Your next go to guy is Rajon Rondo who will be 25. Our best bench player is Lamar Odom who is 30. Your best bench player is Shaq who is will be 39. LOL Anyway, it's much easier to see why NBA fans view the Celtics as old and the Lakers as a team that is at it's peak when you compare the ages of the impact players on each team and not just the overall age of the team. Hope that helps!
    Posted by EliasB[/QUOTE]

    As much as I would like "Opie's " money and fame, I am not Ron Howard!  Did you know that Ron Howard attended and was the star basketball player at John Burroughs High School, which is in Burbank, where I live?  Did you further know that some of us think Shaq will start, making JON (31) a reserve?  Did you further know MOST Celtics fans think Davis (age 25) will be our best reserve?  Or Nate (25)?  Did you lastly know that I will not go back and forth with someone who insists Jerry West played for the MN lakers?  He did not!  Don't even know your own team!  Hope that helps!  Bye now, don't get too close, look what happened to KB24rulz!!!!!!!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Bobbarcker. Show Bobbarcker's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Why is there no mention of Theo Ratliff when he's also a Laker and he's 37 years old. Let's see, J.O'Neal, Shaq, Perkins, KG, and Davis versus Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Theo Ratliff .  Shaq is only 38 years old because he was born in 1972.  HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Can you comprehend the end of the bench? Theo Ratliff is replacing DJ Mbenga. Do you know what DJ Mbenga's most consistent stat line read last year? Try DNP, as in did not play. This guy is an emergency fringe player, and if the Lakers get to the point where they depend on him for big minutes, it is a wrap anyway. 

    So squawk and holler like an ignoramus all you want about the age and ability of Theo Ratliff all day. The Lakers front court is the best in the NBA, and all that off season patchwork the Celtics have done is not going to matter. When you have big men floating around freely in the market to be had for a song, there is usually a reason for it. This lesson is going to be funny as hell to watch unfold right in front of the eyes of you silly myopics.

    Dam, it is going to be so pleasurable watching you guys burn down again this year, specifically because of morons like you.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    That is one of the best things I've read here.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Why is there no mention of Theo Ratliff when he's also a Laker and he's 37 years old. Let's see, J.O'Neal, Shaq, Perkins, KG, and Davis versus Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Theo Ratliff .  Shaq is only 38 years old because he was born in 1972.  HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Snaq-no outsde shot/can't hit a free throw
    hands of stone- no game.
    KG-no legs
    Jermaine-no heart/no spine
    shrek-lmao.

    Spaniard-best PF in the game!
    Bynum-the Beast!
    Lamar-Mr All Purpose (and newest gold medal winner)
    Theo-5 fouls to give

    Easy to see who wins here.

    Enjoy the gif.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DoctorCO. Show DoctorCO's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Elias B,

    Time for your reality check son....

    OLDEST TEAM IN THE NBA IS
    THE LA LAKERS avg age 30.0 YEARS
    Boston is second with 28.4 years

    Yes the boston princible big 3 are slightly older..BUT for you not calling out that your team is 30 years plus. isnt right..YOUR TEAM ISNT YOUNG...30 years old and plus means ANY PLAYER CAN BE PRONE TO INJURY MORE...

    BTW: bynum was born is 1987
    rondo was born in 1986..SO theres bairly a year difference...SO THATS A WASH..plus whos been injured more..BYNUM

    Lets look at the bench shall we...

    our 6th man is not going to be shaq..
    it will be BIG BABY he is 24 years old..Then it will be delonte west who is 27 then nate robinson whos 26. then we go into jermaine oneal at 32...

    Lets look at your lakers...Isnt blake 30 years old..so is barns....isnt ratliff close to 40???

    PS: shaq is going to start..

    The celtics team is at the end of there peak..
    the laker team is just passed half way through there peak...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Alas Elias these posters failed to get the point. Your absolutely correct when you say our go to guys are considerably younger as a group compared to the celtics....the figures you put forward are on the button.

    KG, wheelchair and smirk are beaten up and tired. They asked for the Lakers, they got the Lakers and suffered a beat down. Even better, we beat them at smashmouth basketball and because of that the urge to find fault elsewhere is all consuming for them. But I stray from the point.

    If it comes to the last minute who would we really trust. KG with his old knees, brick with a poor outside shot, smirk whose good for 1 game in 7, wheelchair who hates someone in his face so goes missing or....

    KB24 who has rested up and is Mr Clutch, the Spaniard who schooled kg like a rag doll, or DFish who when the moment called (again) just hit shot after shot.

    It's all a moot point, it's a Laker/Heat Finals anyway but celt fans can dream!

    Such is life!
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    I remember Russ and Sam were at the end of their careers..(last game in fact)...a very old (experienced) team of vets beat Wilt, West, and Baylor on the road in game 7 many years ago...our somewhat old (experienced) team lost on the road in game 7 after leading most of the game this past season...that is why the games are played....this board seems much more fun lately....we still have some great Laker posters contributing (and you know who you are...)....looks like most of the trolls are gone....nice.....
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]I remember Russ and Sam were at the end of their careers..(last game in fact)...a very old (experienced) team of vets beat Wilt, West, and Baylor on the road in game 7 many years ago...our somewhat old (experienced) team lost on the road in game 7 after leading most of the game this past season...that is why the games are played....this board seems much more fun lately....we still have some great Laker posters contributing (and you know who you are...)....looks like most of the trolls are gone....nice.....
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Agreed. The ones that are left clearly outweigh the ones that "left."
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Absolutely BC......I wonder where jofc has been lately?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    "The celtics team is at the end of there peak...the laker team is just passed half way through there peak..."

    I agree. Although, I think the Lakers can be better this year than they were last year. I don't know that I could say the same for Boston. Aquiring Shaq...and by the way I had no idea he would start - wow! You guys went from really old in my book to really, really old. Aquiring Shaq and West and the other guys is not enough to win it all next June but who knows? That is why the game is played right?

    Cool
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]"The celtics team is at the end of there peak...the laker team is just passed half way through there peak..." I agree. Although I think the Lakers can be better this year than they were last year. I don't know that I could say the same for Boston. Aquiring Shaq...and by the way I had no idea he would start - wow! You guys went for really old in my book to really, really old. Aquiring Shaq and West and the other guys is not enough to win it all next June but who knows? That is why the game is played right?
    Posted by EliasB[/QUOTE]

    The big three is definitely poised to make their last stand, and any Celtics fan who can't realize this is kidding themselves.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from CK57. Show CK57's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    When NBA fans say the Celtics are old, they are not talking about the age average of the current roster, they are talking about your Big 3. Celtic fans just refuse to admit it because it doesn't look good. Personally, I prefer to look at the starting five and the guys on the bench that are probably going to get the most playing time.

    By position and the year they were born:

    PG -

    Rondo '86 Fisher '74

    This is the only spot where you have an age advantage. But seriously, with a game on the line, who do you think is more likely to knock down a big shot or make his free throws?

    SG -

    Allen '75 Bryant '78

    Kobe is arguably the best player in the NBA. Ray is far from it.

    SF -

    Pierce '77 Artest '79

    With Ron guarding him, Paul will never win another Finals MVP.

    PF -

    Garnett '76 Gasol '80

    Pau is now the best PF in the NBA. Sorry, Kevin.

    C -

    Perkins '84 Bynum '87

    Bynum is effective at both ends of the court, has good hands, offensive skills around the basket that Dwight Howard is still trying to develop, and a nice shooting touch. He can also make his free throws. Perk is all defense and no offense.

    If you prefer to put Shaq here, he was born in 1972.

    So, as you can plainly see, at 4 out of 5 positions, the Celtics are 2 to 4 years older than the Lakers. 

    Bench - This is more difficult because at this point none of us knows what the rotations are going to be. Here is my best guess and it is definitely up for debate.

    Celtics -

    Davis '86 J. O'Neal '78 Robinson '84 Daniels '81 West '83

    Lakers -

    Odom '79 Barnes '80 Blake '80 Brown '85 Vujacic '84

    Between Glen and Lamar there is a big age difference, but I will take Lamar's talent and versatility over Baby any day of the week. Other than that, I don't see any glaring differences unless you prefer to have Shaq in a reserve role. If so, your bench just got much older. I will say, however, that I am absolutely thrilled with the addition of Barnes and Blake to the Lakers bench. Good job Mitch!

    And you guys can stop putting Theo Ratliff in the equation any day now. He is not the Lakers b/u center. That job belongs to Pau, just as it has the past three seasons. Theo is a 3rd stringer and will probably get about the same amount of playing time as Mbenga did.

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

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]"The celtics team is at the end of there peak...the laker team is just passed half way through there peak..." I agree. Although I think the Lakers can be better this year than they were last year. I don't know that I could say the same for Boston. Aquiring Shaq...and by the way I had no idea he would start - wow! You guys went for really old in my book to really, really old. Aquiring Shaq and West and the other guys is not enough to win it all next June but who knows? That is why the game is played right?
    Posted by EliasB[/QUOTE]

    And Jerry West played in MN, right?
    What a clown!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : The big three is definitely poised to make their last stand, and any Celtics fan who can't realize this is kidding themselves.
    Posted by Give-in-to-it[/QUOTE]

    The Big Three are poised to make their last stand.  Any lakers fan who can't come to grips with that is fooling themselves.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]When NBA fans say the Celtics are old, they are not talking about the age average of the current roster, they are talking about your Big 3. Celtic fans just refuse to admit it because it doesn't look good. Personally, I prefer to look at the starting five and the guys on the bench that are probably going to get the most playing time. By position and the year they were born: PG - Rondo '86 Fisher '74 This is the only spot where you have an age advantage. But seriously, with a game on the line, who do you think is more likely to knock down a big shot or make his free throws? SG - Allen '75 Bryant '78 Kobe is arguably the best player in the NBA. Ray is far from it. SF - Pierce '77 Artest '79 With Ron guarding him, Paul will never win another Finals MVP. PF - Garnett '76 Gasol '80 Pau is now the best PF in the NBA. Sorry, Kevin. C - Perkins '84 Bynum '87 Bynum is effective at both ends of the court, has good hands, offensive skills around the basket that Dwight Howard is still trying to develop, and a nice shooting touch. He can also make his free throws. Perk is all defense and no offense. If you prefer to put Shaq here, he was born in 1972. So, as you can plainly see, at 4 out of 5 positions, the Celtics are 2 to 4 years older than the Lakers.  Bench - This is more difficult because at this point none of us knows what the rotations are going to be. Here is my best guess and it is definitely up for debate. Celtics - Davis '86 J. O'Neal '78 Robinson '84 Daniels '81 West '83 Lakers - Odom '79 Barnes '80 Blake '80 Brown '85 Vujacic '84 Between Glen and Lamar there is a big age difference, but I will take Lamar's talent and versatility over Baby any day of the week. Other than that, I don't see any glaring differences unless you prefer to have Shaq in a reserve role. If so, your bench just got much older. I will say, however, that I am absolutely thrilled with the addition of Barnes and Blake to the Lakers bench. Good job Mitch! And you guys can stop putting Theo Ratliff in the equation any day now. He is not the Lakers b/u center. That job belongs to Pau, just as it has the past three seasons. Theo is a 3rd stringer and will probably get about the same amount of playing time as Mbenga did.
    Posted by CK57[/QUOTE]

    So, you are basically saying that the lakers are older......thanks but anyone who read the opening thread would already know that!
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]When NBA fans say the Celtics are old, they are not talking about the age average of the current roster, they are talking about your Big 3. Celtic fans just refuse to admit it because it doesn't look good. Personally, I prefer to look at the starting five and the guys on the bench that are probably going to get the most playing time. By position and the year they were born: PG - Rondo '86 Fisher '74 This is the only spot where you have an age advantage. But seriously, with a game on the line, who do you think is more likely to knock down a big shot or make his free throws? SG - Allen '75 Bryant '78 Kobe is arguably the best player in the NBA. Ray is far from it. SF - Pierce '77 Artest '79 With Ron guarding him, Paul will never win another Finals MVP. PF - Garnett '76 Gasol '80 Pau is now the best PF in the NBA. Sorry, Kevin. C - Perkins '84 Bynum '87 Bynum is effective at both ends of the court, has good hands, offensive skills around the basket that Dwight Howard is still trying to develop, and a nice shooting touch. He can also make his free throws. Perk is all defense and no offense. If you prefer to put Shaq here, he was born in 1972. So, as you can plainly see, at 4 out of 5 positions, the Celtics are 2 to 4 years older than the Lakers.  Bench - This is more difficult because at this point none of us knows what the rotations are going to be. Here is my best guess and it is definitely up for debate. Celtics - Davis '86 J. O'Neal '78 Robinson '84 Daniels '81 West '83 Lakers - Odom '79 Barnes '80 Blake '80 Brown '85 Vujacic '84 Between Glen and Lamar there is a big age difference, but I will take Lamar's talent and versatility over Baby any day of the week. Other than that, I don't see any glaring differences unless you prefer to have Shaq in a reserve role. If so, your bench just got much older. I will say, however, that I am absolutely thrilled with the addition of Barnes and Blake to the Lakers bench. Good job Mitch! And you guys can stop putting Theo Ratliff in the equation any day now. He is not the Lakers b/u center. That job belongs to Pau, just as it has the past three seasons. Theo is a 3rd stringer and will probably get about the same amount of playing time as Mbenga did.
    Posted by CK57[/QUOTE]

    So what you're saying is Gasol, Bynum, and Odom will all play 82 games and will have no injuries what so ever?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : The Big Three are poised to make their last stand.  Any lakers fan who can't come to grips with that is fooling themselves.
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    It is a last stand because they are old. If they were young, there would be many title runs ahead, thus no last stand. If they fail in this coming season, the lights are out, the party is over, back to lottery-ville. The hammer will fall on this current roster, and the big break-up will be in full swing.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    I think the celtics have had their last stand. Losing to the back to back World Champion Lakers has put a massive dent into the Celtic psyche and it's a shame that DA didn't re-build this summer.

    Must admit the Lakers are the team to beat.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from CK57. Show CK57's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : So what you're saying is Gasol, Bynum, and Odom will all play 82 games and will have no injuries what so ever?
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]


    This thread is about age, not injuries. But with Garnett's issues and Perkins injury, I'd be happy to go there.

    Maybe you should read my post again.

    What I am saying is that your Big 3 is 2-4 years older than their Laker counterparts, and that Bynum is younger than Perk and MUCH younger than Shaq or even JON. 

     
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    CK57-your Lakers are definitely the standard all teams must aspire to beat. I thought danny might have re-jigged after the heart breaking loss in game 7 but so far he kept with what I would now term a team that is past it. I can't see Miami beating the Lakers in a Finals series so unless there are some more major moves in the season ahead, you guys are going to have the same amount of championships as the celtics.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]CK57-your Lakers are definitely the standard all teams must aspire to beat. I thought danny might have re-jigged after the heart breaking loss in game 7 but so far he kept with what I would now term a team that is past it. I can't see Miami beating the Lakers in a Finals series so unless there are some more major moves in the season ahead, you guys are going to have the same amount of championships as the celtics.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    Classic!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : Rondo was our best player last year, so there goes your theory!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    The last team to win a championship with the PG leading the way was the Lakers, with Magic. Rondo isn't Magic, and if he was the Celtics best player, it is because the big 3 future hall of fame guys are in decline. Surely you aren't suggesting Rondo is playing Hall of Fame level basketball at this time? He better start, because sometimes the downward slope of a player in decline can suddenly become a cliff.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : Rondo was our best player last year Magic had Kareem Our BEST player, Pierce, is 10 months older than your best player, koME.  AND koME has about 8000 more mins on his legs!! Lastly, you are  about to be found out and BANNED again, so give-in-to-it and stop stalking me
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Stalking you? Are you that soft, really? You respond to the post, then cry stalking? Wow, you are soft. You are just mad because you got caught being a phony again.

    It is some kind of crazy to have conversations with yourself, and the continuous paranoid delusions of being stalked by people you openly engage in conversation is nutso.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : Being a phony AGAIN?? When have I ever been a phony Conversations with myself NOPE, I was speaking to RUWorthy.  We are two different people.  You jumped in and made accusations you cannot possibly defend on any level.  I don't want you responding to me, that is stalking!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Sure it's two different people. Cool
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Give-in-to-it. Show Give-in-to-it's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : The only thing older than this year's lakers team is your lame attempt to prove I am two different people and you're not!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    I thought you didn't want to have a conversation with me? Are you stalking me now?
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share