Celtics are too old is getting too old

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers'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 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.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]
    The Celtics' last stand was in 2009, when they were good enough to compete: 2nd seed in the east. Last year, when they announced they couldn't get mentally up for the regular season, that's the end of it.

    "But they got within 4 points of winning the championship", you say?

    That was a fluke. 4th seed or lower usually don't do well in the playoffs. Witness since the Magic/Bird era, the Celtics were only the 4th such team (a 4th seed or lower, and have to play two series without the HCA in the conference) making the finals:

    1981 Rockets
    1995 Rockets
    1999 Knicks
    2010 Celtics

    How many teams were able to win three series WITHOUT the HCA? only the first three teams on this list.

    Is it possible for the Celtics to tank in the regular season and flip it on in the playoffs? Everything is possible, but the odds are extremely against it.

    Then is it possible for the Celtics to have a great regular season? finishing as top or #2 seed, while having HCA in the finals? Very unlikely, the age of the big three will prevent it.

    So, Celtic fans, you better pray for another fluky occurrence in the upcoming playoffs. Having followed the NBA for decades, I won't count on it.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from CK57. Show CK57's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Boston Globe - September 19, 2010

    "We're probably the oldest team in the NBA."

     Wyc Grousbeck
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    If baby starts against Bynum, the celts get owned. Please put sense into your posts else it looks like the dribble that came out of baby's mouth.
     
  4. 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]Boston Globe - September 19, 2010 "We're probably the oldest team in the NBA."  Wyc Grousbeck
    Posted by CK57[/QUOTE]

    And?


    Who cares what he says, he clearly doesn't have the facts, which are stated very plainly at the beginning of this thread........lakers are older than the Celtics.....he clearly doesn't have the correct info!
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Lakers Starting 5

    Kobe 31 years old
    Fisher 36
    Ratliff 37
    Artest 30
    Gasol 30

    Avg. 32.8 years old

    HAHAHA!!!


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

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Lakers Starting 5 Kobe 31 years old Fisher 36 Ratliff 37 Artest 30 Gasol 30 Avg. 32.8 years old HAHAHA!!!
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    What's the average when Bynum starts back? He'll start when he's ready so your point is moot.
     
  7. 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 : What's the average when Bynum starts back? He'll start when he's ready so your point is moot.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    WITH Bynum, lakers are still older.
    And that won't be until December, apparently!

    Go Theo!!
     
  8. 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]In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old : What's the average when Bynum starts back? He'll start when he's ready so your point is moot.
    Posted by RUMcHale[/QUOTE]

    You're missing the point. The Lakers will most likely lose 5 more games this year because of Bynum's absence. If you do the math the Lakers will most probably win only 52 games this season.
     
  9. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    The Lakers do seem to be chasing the talent out of the west to the east and so far only the Thunder seemed to have stayed the path. This will only make HCA more valuable if more teams in the east get better and bash each other in the playoffs.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from brndonthagreat. Show brndonthagreat's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Just for laughs, and because I am tired of hearing lakers trolls say the Celtics are too old to compete next year, I did a comparative study.  I wondered, with the signing of 27 yr old Delonte West, exactly how old are we? The facts are these:  I compared the lakers and Celtics ages.  For us, I took the age they will be during the season, and for them the age they are NOW.  For us, I counted all 15 players under contract, and for them I included second round picks Ebanks (age 21) and Caracter (age 22), who are technically not signed yet. Here are the results: Boston Celtics - 15  players, 419 years - 27.93 average age LAL - 14 players, 404 years - 28.86 average age Starting 5 (Perk is the Center) - BOS  30.4 years LAL - 30.4 years Top 8 - (take out Perk, add JON, Shaq, BBD and Nate) - 30.75 LAL - add Odom, Blake and Barnes  - 30.375. Can you lakers trolls please come up with something else now, clearly this holds no water!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    Try comparing the avg age of the celtics big four to the lakers and see what you get then. you can even substitute ron for lamar and vice versa. i havent did it myself because i dont know their exact ages but you seem like such an expert im sure you know
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    It's already done, genius.................lakers are the oldest team in the league - read the first post
     
  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]In Response to Celtics are too old is getting too old : this is the original post. it has nothing about the big four of pierce allen garnett and rondo in comparison to kobe pau bynum and odom/artest(same age) the celtics big four avg age is 31.5 to lakers 29. genius! every argument u make is fallacious and can be torn down with ease. stop the personal attacks and get the facts straight,
    Posted by brndonthagreat[/QUOTE]

    Last time I checked, it took FIVE players to play basketball.  And who are you to discount Fisher?  He has five rings, and is just as important as odom/artest.  I love when lakers fans take facts and turn them into cr p for their own personal use. 
    Fact - it takes 5 players to play the game
    Fact - the lakers are the oldest team in the league
    Back to school for you!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale'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 : You know an awful lot about the lakers for a Celtics fan.
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    What person wouldn't swap their own teams record for the Lakers the last 10 years? No one....except the blind and the excuse makers!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from brndonthagreat. Show brndonthagreat'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 : Last time I checked, it took FIVE players to play basketball.  And who are you to discount Fisher?  He has five rings, and is just as important as odom/artest.  I love when lakers fans take facts and turn them into cr p for their own personal use.  Fact - it takes 5 players to play the game Fact - the lakers are the oldest team in the league Back to school for you!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]


    lol now you sound ridiculous. im not discounting anyone. is it an argument that fisher is not one of the lakers top 4 player or five for that fact. sure he has five rings but he is still a role player. no one was up in arms when fisher signed with LA. did you care? compare that to the gasol trade, or the artest signing. come on now. the big four makes the celtics just like the lakers top players make them.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from brndonthagreat. Show brndonthagreat'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 : You're missing the point. The Lakers will most likely lose 5 more games this year because of Bynum's absence. If you do the math the Lakers will most probably win only 52 games this season.
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    gasol odom artest fisher and kobe will have to hold down the fort until bynum returns. they seem pretty capable.  they used a line up similar to this to get to the finals. and its virtually impossible to predict a teams record but if you take into account the weakening of the west and the lakers already less than impressive play against the easts elite during the season i think its a safe prediction that they will equal or add onto their win total.
     
  17. 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 : You're missing the point. The Lakers will most likely lose 5 more games this year because of Bynum's absence. If you do the math the Lakers will most probably win only 52 games this season.
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    Fierce, is basketball still five on five?  Must have missed the memo that says only count the top four players!
     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from CK57. Show CK57's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    Just like the Lakers do it, here's a repeat...

    By position and the year they were born:

    PG -

    Rondo '86 Fisher '74

    SG -

    Allen '75 Bryant '78

    SF -

    Pierce '77 Artest '79

    PF -

    Garnett '76 Gasol '80

    C -

    Perkins '84 Bynum '87

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

    Here's another way to look at it...

    At 4 out of 5 positions, the Lakers key players have several years just to catch up to where 4 of the Celtics key players are right now where age is concerned.

    So, if you think the Celtics have a good chance of making it back to the Finals this season, it stands to reason that the Lakers have a good chance of going to the Finals for years to come. The problem for Celtic fans is, the Lakers will most likely be playing against Miami for those championships. 


    "We're probably the oldest team in the NBA."

    Wyc Grousbeck - September 19, 2010
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from P34. Show P34's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    The oldest team in the NBA probably would have beaten the Lakers if Perkins didn't get injured in Game 6. Cool
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski'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 oldest team in the NBA probably would have beaten the Lakers if Perkins didn't get injured in Game 6. 
    Posted by P34[/QUOTE]

    -

    And to add insult to injury, the C's have just gotten older & better.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers'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 : - And to add insult to injury, the C's have just gotten older & better.
    Posted by RajonRondowski[/QUOTE]

    Too bad it's still 2 vs 1 in the past 3 seasons. So who would you rather be? the "older" Lakers or the "younger" Celtics?

    Celtics fans simply have paranoid delusion. Now that's a FACT.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUMcHale. Show RUMcHale's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]Just like the Lakers do it, here's a repeat... By position and the year they were born: PG - Rondo '86 Fisher '74 SG - Allen '75 Bryant '78 SF - Pierce '77 Artest '79 PF - Garnett '76 Gasol '80 C - Perkins '84 Bynum '87 So, as you can plainly see, at 4 out of 5 positions, the Celtics are 2 to 4 years older than the Lakers.  Here's another way to look at it... At 4 out of 5 positions, the Lakers key players have several years just to catch up to where 4 of the Celtics key players are right now where age is concerned. So, if you think the Celtics have a good chance of making it back to the Finals this season, it stands to reason that the Lakers have a good chance of going to the Finals for years to come. The problem for Celtic fans is, the Lakers will most likely be playing against Miami for those championships.  "We're probably the oldest team in the NBA." Wyc Grousbeck - September 19, 2010
    Posted by CK57[/QUOTE]


    You make a good point CK...I suspect that's why Wyc said we were the oldest team. I hope your wrong about Miami, something just reeks about that team.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BirdandCowens. Show BirdandCowens's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    It's only fitting I get to be post #100 on my own thread.

    And CK can't hear you, he only comes out to play on Mondays!
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RajonRondowski. Show RajonRondowski's posts

    Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old

    In Response to Re: Celtics are too old is getting too old:
    [QUOTE]It's only fitting I get to be post #100 on my own thread. And CK can't hear you, he only comes out to play on Mondays!
    Posted by BirdandCowens[/QUOTE]

    -

    Congrats on reaching the century mark.  Quite an achievement, my friend.

    And the Old Men down in Newport are slowly greasing their gears for another title run.

    It should be fun.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share