Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    after the last couple decaded of Celtics basketball, I've just been thrilled to see them get to the finals a couple times and win a title again.  I don't really care who has more titles - honestly, I'd like to see more variety of teams win year to year, so kids from other cities can experience how amazing it is.  Honestly, is winning a xteenth title that important to you?  I know with the Patriots and Red Sox, the first title for those teams for me is very special, that I know my father got to see those teams win, the rest of the titles were great, but for a fan - there's nothing like that first title.  or in the Celtics case, the first title after a long long time; it is like watching the impossible come true, pure majic.  I'd like more people to have that experience, clearly being from the Boston area - really, any fan of Boston area teams, can you have any complaints about the volume of titles your teams have won over the last 10 years?  Maybe some Bruins fans are chomping at the bit, but other than that really think about how spoiled we've been lately as fans.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I think seeing your team win as a child is a more cherished memory than seeing them win as an adult. 

    I do feel for some fans though, most of the NBA teams haven't even reached the final let alone won the championship. 


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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]A John Hollinger column stating his opinion?.....and an ESPN Poll?......trumps history.....?  Umm....NO .809 vs .516 in the Finals 9 Wins head to head vs 3 wins head to head Those aren't opinions.....those are facts!! [/QUOTE]
    And using only the Finals records is NOT an opinon?

    So the Celtics should be rewarded for NOT making the finals? or do you think an NBA season begin and start with the finals?

    Repeating the same idiocy again and again doesn't make it a FACT, i.e. people are only looking at the finals for a season.

    The real record:

    17 championships in 64 seasons (or 17-47) vs
    16 championships in 62 seasons (or 16-46)

    You are only slightly ahead in percentage points: .266 vs .258. But the Celtics actually have more failures than the Lakers.

    [QUOTE]
    Never mind focusing on timeframes (first 30 years vs last 30).....[/QUOTE]
    Yep, big-time NBA era, something you can't really dispute. Now that's a FACT.

    [QUOTE]
    if you are comparing titles......the entire timeframe must be considered....now, if you include the "modern era" only (shot clock)...the Lakers forfeit 5 titles....[/QUOTE]
    I think the Lakers should forfeit 6 titles, including the bush league era one (1972). Deal? Titles are not equal, you know.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]After all we are just 2 away! We are one (ONE!) championship away from being tied with the most championships in NBA history. We have 16, you have 17. No one ever thought that would happen this soon, but here we are! So to say, "well, why didn't you guys talk about surpassing us back when you had 9 championships" is, well, kind of stupid if you ask me.
    Posted by EliasB[/QUOTE]
    And when the Lakers tie with the Celtics at 17, all the Celtics fans will hang on is the 9-3 head to head record, crediting the Celtics for failing in the conference and NOT making the finals...

    There is nothing I would like to see more: Lakers keep winning titles while the head-to-head is stuck at 9-3 and the Celtics finals records stuck at 17-4. Afterall, a few whiners here particularly want to see the Celtics NOT making the finals and lose. They would rather see the Celtics lose early.

    As far as records are concerned, if the Lakers win next season, it will be:

    Lakers: 17-46
    Celtics: 17-48

    which record is better? But to Celtics fans, any failure before the final doesn't count...
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Elias, I hear you man....this is not at all about titles in reality.....this is about those fans who storm this board and talk trash about our titles of "yesteryear" and how our history is irrelevant compared to the Lakers of the last 30 years...I have respect for your posts and I do not include you in the list of trolls that invade this board....what it all comes down to is this is the greatest rivalry in sports...I believe that, since we have more titles (only one more) and a better head to head record in the finals, the Celtics are still the #1 franchise....with the Lakers being a close 2nd...and the Lakers very well may pass us in titles down the road...I will still point to the 9-3 record and also the fact that the Celtics have historically had a more difficult time getting to the finals....hence the '80's term "the Big Four".....give us 10 more appearances and, our .800 percentage notwithstanding... with  half that winning percentage we would still have another 4 titles....I guess bottom line....the number of finals appearances does not make the difference......the number of titles, the winning percentage, and the head to head are what determines supremacy
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Let's start with 7 more appeances:

    1980, 1982, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2009

    You'll lose all 7 of them. Afterall, the best team the east came up with lost to the Lakers. The closest of these 7 were 1988, but Celtics were no match to the Pistons.

    Give you four more appearances, against our biggest rival:

    1999, 2003, 2005, 2007

    How many do you think the Celtics can win? 0

    See, it's not that simple of "give us 10 more appearance and we'll win half of them".

    11 more appearances and you won't win a single of them...

    But you are actually proud that the Celtics actually FAILED to make it out of the east?




     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Dude, getting to the finals more than our team is partly due to strength of conference (anyone notice not one Laker fan has a comment when I bring up the "Big 4" or talk about the shifting of St Louis to the East for an expansion team when the NBA expanded?)......dominating your conference is nice but why does your incredible success rate drop to merely average when you make the finals? The Celtics have been historically dominant in their conference as well.....but they take it up a notch higher when they meet the champion from the West....and when they meet the Lakers? .....that's right....9-3.....that is an embarrassing stat for someone claiming his team is the greatest...and if you check the record book....yes Boston has the edge against the Lakers in the regular season as well...your argument is valid only as it pertains to dominating your conference....it certainly doesn't hold up when discussing titles and it gets embarrassing when looking at the Lakers' record vs Boston's...historically speaking, Boston was the first team to draft a black athlete....the first to start an all black starting lineup, and the first to hire a black head coach...Boston revolutionized basketball with the fast break and the 6th man...Cousy was the master point guard who developed the "Showtime" before Magic brought it to LA......Boston has more players in the HOF than any other team...Phil may have passed Red but Red has more titles with one team than any other coach in league history....even when the discussion goes to Wilt vs Russ, Wilt's fans always point out that he didn't play with they type of players Boston had....although he played along side of great players... 

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]when the Celtics made it to the Finals they went .809.....and 9-3 vs the Lakers you can't take away their record vs. the Celts and adjust it to the record against the rest of the East (as you just pointed out with the Pistons)......[/QUOTE]
    "when" the Celtics made it to the Finals?

    So there is no NBA history when the Celtics didn't make it to the finals?

    Your qualification is 10 times worst than what we did, the big-time NBA era. At least that's a qualification that have something in common: multi-million/billion $$$ operations, an infusion of talents both from America and overseas, free agency, etc.

    Your qualification is simply: when the Celtics failed to make the finals, then nothing count against them...



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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Dude, getting to the finals more than our team is partly due to strength of conference (anyone notice not one Laker fan has a comment when I bring up the "Big 4" or talk about the shifting of St Louis to the East for an expansion team when the NBA expanded?)......dominating your conference is nice but why does your incredible success rate drop to merely average when you make the finals?
    [/QUOTE]
    Well, at least your fellow fans don't agree with you, seeing their reactions on the Celtics reaching the finals this past season instead of losing in the early rounds. Success rate merely average when you make the finals STILL BEATS losing to the Cavs or the Magic in the 2nd round. Your fellow fans' reaction told it all...

    [QUOTE]
     The Celtics have been historically dominant in their conference as well.....[/QUOTE]
    The goal is to dominate the league, i.e. win it all, not just dominate the other conference, or are you going to concede the Spurs and the Bulls are both greater than the Celtics, because they are PERFECT against the other conference.  You have to dominate both your conference and the other conference (i.e. win the finals) to consider champions, yes or no?

    [QUOTE]
    but they take it up a notch higher when they meet the champion from the West....and when they meet the Lakers? .....that's right....9-3.....that is an embarrassing stat for someone claiming his team is the greatest...
    [/QUOTE]
    Not at all. 10-4 in the big-time era, isn't that more embarrasing for the team that you claim as the greatest? and what would have happened had your team been lucky enough to reach the finals in the other 11 occasions I mentioned?  You would simply lose 11 more finals.

    [QUOTE]
    and if you check the record book....yes Boston has the edge against the Lakers in the regular season as well...your argument is valid only as it pertains to dominating your conference....[/QUOTE]
    My argument is pertinent about dominating the big-time era. 10-4, remember?

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    the big game era started with the shot clock.....many of the greatest and most dominant players played between 1957-1969 when the Celtics dominated...
    over one half of the original "Greatest 50 List" played during this era......the league is now loaded with players that would not have made the grade back in the day....with the merger the league got stronger.....the Bird/Magic era brought a cocaine troubled league back to prime time TV....but since the mid '90's it has become a watered down league in comparison to it's glory days..kids with no college experience and players with poor basketball skills...add in the poor officiating (not calling the fouls that are part of the game)......let me ask....did you watch the Laker/Celtics games in the '60's?
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from GlasgowRangers. Show GlasgowRangers's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]the big game era started with the shot clock.....[/QUOTE]
    According to whom?

    According to most historians, the big-time era started with Magic and Bird joining the league. It was Magic and Bird that saved the league. There are also people counting the Modern NBA as the time after the NBA/ABA merger. Or if you want to count the Jordan era as the big-time era because he brought global popularity to the game, I have no problem either.

    Since the Bird-Magic era, or modern NBA: Lakers 10, Celtics 4
    Since the Jordan era: Bulls 6, Lakers 5, Spurs 4, Rockets 2, Celtics 1

    No matter what, you are still overmatched.

    [QUOTE]
    many of the greatest and most dominant players played between 1957-1969 when the Celtics dominated... over one half of the original "Greatest 50 List" played during this era......the league is now loaded with players that would not have made the grade back in the day....[/QUOTE]
    The league is now loaded with players that would have crushed the stiffs back then. $$$$ draws talent, it's the golden rule. Do you think this silly argument of "Oscar, Wilt, Russell can always play in any era" haven't got enough rebuttals? Do you think the NBA back then are all filled with Oscars, Wilts, Russells and Hondos? OK, tell me the greatness of Jackie Moreland, Willie Jones, Lee Shaffer, Dave Gambee, Kenny Sears, Carl Braun...

    And tell me why a Luis Scola, a Marc Gasol, an Al Jefferson, a Joey Harrington, etc. can't beat out the Jackie Morelands, the Willie Joneses, the Lee Shaffers, ...

    The 130th best player in the league right now, a starter on a non-playoff team or a rotation reserve on a playoff team, train and play with NBA talents day in day out.

    The 130th best player back then sold insurance/real estate day in day out.

    Which player is better?

    Do you think basketball talent is determined solely at the time of birth? training don't count?

    [QUOTE]kids with no college experience and players with poor basketball skills...add in the poor officiating (not calling the fouls that are part of the game)......let me ask....did you watch the Laker/Celtics games in the '60's?
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]
    Yes, I had, very poor games. Won't stand a chance given today's defense. Taking a shot after 10 seconds elapsed in the shot clock? That's Suns/Nuggets/Warriors basketball we saw back in the 1980s/1990s. You should know I am not fond of 124-122 or 119-116 games. Real games have scores like 83-79 or 81-74...

    Are you talking about kids with no college experience like Kobe, Garnett, LeBron, T-mac, Jermaine O'Neill. Back in the 90s, in rec.sport.basketball in Usenet, I've seen arguments that "these high school kids have no fundamentals", the league was water down...

    The thing is, fans of teams of glorious past (Celtic fans, fans of original six Canadian hockey teams) always think that # legit players to play in a league is fixed. And the funny thing is that it's fixed at the bush league era. Thus, at any era, there are only ~100 players good enough to play in the NBA or NHL. Players outside of that fixed 100 must not belong...

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    "...but why does your incredible success rate drop to merely average when you make the finals?"

    Because of what happened in the 60's - you know that Duke! You keep saying that "hey, when the Lakers make it to the finals they are a .500 team." 

    It's not complicated Duke, obviously the hit the Lakers took in the 1960's is the reason why you are able to throw that stat around as if it is relevant. It may be to those of you who live in the 60's but to me when I look at what my team has been able to do in the last 30 years is astonoshing!


    Cool
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    you are absolutely right Elias.....we both enjoy our histories......mine go back a to the late '50's...I still enjoy the teams I remember....and I am enjoying today as well....Cow asks how I think the players like Russ, Wilt, Baylor, West, and The Big O would do? ......most experts believe they would have been stars...the only difference would be the weight training....Wilt was the strongest man to play this game....Russ played him well for over a decade....Cousy couldn't play in the "modern era"? .....well John Stockton was a clone and is HOF material...Bebe Ruth and company would be stars today.....so would Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas.....
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Bill Russell
    Wilt Chamberlain
    Nate Thurmond
    Walt Bellamy
    Wayne Embry
    Zelmo Beaty
    Willis Reed
    Wes Unseld
    Elvin Hayes

    ....all starting centers who played during the glory era of the Celtics......every one an all star and most in the HOF....

    Someone please list the current league's centers who compare to this list? One requirement.....only list current starters who have played in the all star game in their career
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Bill Russell Wilt Chamberlain Nate Thurmond Walt Bellamy Wayne Embry Zelmo Beaty Willis Reed Wes Unseld Elvin Hayes ....all starting centers who played during the glory era of the Celtics......every one an all star and most in the HOF.... Someone please list the current league's centers who compare to this list? One requirement.....only list current starters who have played in the all star game in their career
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Duke, I enjoy your posts.  Elias is basically ok, but I really need to inform you about the Glass Cow.  He should be on permanent ignore for all of us for 4 reasons:
    1.  While cutting and pasting is  certainly a skill,  it is annoying to read, and he picks and chooses what he responds to.
    2.  His definition of "big time NBA" does not exist on any level, or in any article.  The game changed with the invention of the shot clock - except in Glass Cow's world.
    3.  He only posts on weekends, then hides like the Soccer Mom he really is.  He then claims victory over us all, because he has already hidden for the week.
    4.  Lastly, Duke, and most importantly, he has written THE dumbest thing ever on this board:  GlasgowRangers has said numerous times that the Celtics lost  ON PURPOSE in the 90's because they were afraid of the lakers.  Then he tries to defend it.

    You can do what you want, of course, you are an intelligent poster.  You know that I usually respond to venom with venom.  But even I have this guy on ignore.  You can't argue with him.  It's like a Monty Python sketch.  "I came here for an argument."  " No you didn't."  " You're not arguing, just contradicting everything I say."  "No, I'm not."
    See?  And watch for his response to this, which I expect will be within the hour, be cut and pasted, have no relevance, and he will be gone by tomorrow!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from CeltsAZ. Show CeltsAZ's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Nice post RUWorthy.  I often think that people also use the term better when talking about the East, but in reality they could have just said "tougher" or simply more physical to describe  it.  Either way, this is such an interesting discussion from both sides of the argument.


    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Boston is fortunate to have had Bill Russell otherwise their 9-3 mark against us would look incredibly different. Russell was such a genius for basketball and a winner that it's almost unfair to compare eras. But we can't because it happened.  I do think it's unfair to call the West a weaker conference there are good teams out there and have always been. Dallas in the late 80's appeared to be a great team and pushed us to the limit in 1988. As did Utah in the same year. But the Lakers did own the West in the 80's and to a lesser extent the 00's. Injury and infighting cost us in 1981 and a freak shot in '86.  The East has had strong teams but when you look at recent times there has been only one powerhouse team at any one time. Yes there are strong teams but only one great side. Really, there is no way that Orlando makes the finals in '09 if Garnett is healthy. Boston play the Lakers in the finals again if KG doesn't go down. Boston has been the strongest team in the East for the last 3 years. You had the Chicago era where nobody could touch them. Before that you had the Pistons who were the best for 3 years. I'm counting 1987 as one of their years. They were beaten somehow by the Celtics, who really shouldn't have made the finals in '87. They got there because of Larry Bird. He was just such a freak.  I think the early 80's in the East belonged to the Sixers. From '81 though '83. They should never have lost in '81 to Boston. But I'd say it was the Larry factor at play again. Although how did Boston lose the mojo and allow the Sixers to get to the finals in '82 and '83? When on paper the Celtics were another year older and wiser? '82 the Sixers learned how to play you guys. Then again in '83 you had your turn for infighting and a mutiny against Fitch. '07 and '08 were perhaps a transition period for the East, But perhaps those two years although the Pistons didn't get into the Finals they were the dominant team. The team to beat. '07 They lose to the Cavs. '08 they lose in the Finals to Boston. So that's dominant years in 05 and 06, perhaps a trip back in '07 and losing to the NBA champs in '08. Teams in the East seem to have 4 year windows of late. That is if your team doesn't have Michael Jordan in it. Yes the East is strong but no stronger than the West. I think the Media have it in their heads that the East is stronger. And therefore most of us believe it to be stronger. And yes Dr Buss is the best because he's aggressive. And as long as the Lakers have aggressive owners we'll be near the top the West each year. But this doesn't excuse his lack of respect for the Minneapolis years. But then people in some cases don't have a respect for what has gone before them. And this just doesn't apply to Basketball. 
    Posted by RUWorthy[/QUOTE]
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Hedley, thanks for your comments....I really do try to be reasonable but some posters just revert to criticism and name calling....they even start sounding like 13 year olds (who knows, some of them might be)...I notice the Glass Cow makes mention of any number of modern era's when it is generally accepted that the shot clock remains the point at which the game changed forever....he does not get the concept of competition and strength of conference....I mean, one team from each conference goes to the finals....the odds have been pretty much in LA's favor, hence more trips to the finals....you know, if you eliminate their records against each other for the title....the Lakers have more wins (by virtue of more appearances) but the Celtics would hold the better winning percentage (.888 to .684)....the Finals usually determine the better team....although not always.....the Lakers were better than the Rockets, who won on a fluke shot and ended up representing the West in '86....the Celtics were a walking Mash unit in '87........I mentioned the "Big 4" of the '80's.....I'm still waiting for a response...I agree that the cut and paste gets a little tedious......I did have him on ignore....maybe I'll take you up on your suggestion...
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE] Lastly, Duke, and most importantly, he has written THE dumbest thing ever on this board:  GlasgowRangers has said numerous times that the Celtics lost  ON PURPOSE in the 90's because they were afraid of the lakers.  
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Sounds as if he's been eating too many Snickers bars. 

    We made the finals once in 1991. To be dismantled by the Bulls. And didn't even come close to making the finals in the 90's. 

    I agree with you, it's such an absurd comment. 
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from EliasB. Show EliasB's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    "...most experts believe they would have been stars..."

    What experts? Care to name them? C'mon, substatiate your claim...

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

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    All of LA's so called accomplishments are indelibly Tainted.  See 2010.

    It's a dirty old town whose denizens have been breathing too much smog.

     
    Jealousely & Resentment:  LA Lawyers at Large.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from KB24RULZ. Show KB24RULZ's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    The celtics lost continually in the 90s for one obvious reason....they were hopeless! The pitiful excuses they come up with now to obscure this fact are both laughable and inept. All one can say is boston, 22 more years and you'll win again......provided the team you play in the Finals dosen't have 2 injured starters.

    2008=tainted!
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    I wouldn't say they were hopeless. Reggie Lewis died in 1993. There's a chance they would have remained competitive at the least had he not died. 

    Although like everyone else in the East they'd have been playing for second as nobody could challenge Jordan's Bulls. Yes Orlando beat them but Jordan didn't play a full season.

    Plus we don't know how Len Bias would have been. He may have countered the play of Jordan and the Celtics may well have won 3 or 4 titles in the 90's. 

    They were not hopeless, just unfortunate. 
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Thanks kiddo.....you get it.....Bias and Lewis may have been the key ingredients to success.....Lewis was an all star when he died.....Bias came into the league more heralded than Jordan was.....to my friend Elias....anytime the media guys get together and the subject of Russ, Wilt, Baylor,etc comes up....I have never heard or read one opinion that says these guys wouldn't be stars...two easy ways to justify this thinking

    Wilt was the strongest man to play the game...an all star and a HOF player....and Bill Russell played against him effectively throughout his entire career...put in today's game Russ would be in the weight room...Wilt wouldn't need to be

    Bob Cousy.....could he have played in today's league given his skills?  ......if John Stockton could play all star caliber ball today...so could Cousy....same size...same skill set...actually Cousy was probably a better ball handler
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from paulliu. Show paulliu's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    In Response to Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics:
    [QUOTE]Bill Russell Wilt Chamberlain Nate Thurmond Walt Bellamy Wayne Embry Zelmo Beaty Willis Reed Wes Unseld Elvin Hayes ....all starting centers who played during the glory era of the Celtics......every one an all star and most in the HOF.... Someone please list the current league's centers who compare to this list? One requirement.....only list current starters who have played in the all star game in their career
    Posted by Duke4[/QUOTE]

    Great list Duke.  Can you imagine what kind of offensive force Dwight Howard would be if he combined his freaky athleticism with the fundamental footwork of any of the guys you named?
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Duke4. Show Duke4's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    He would be unbelievable my friend....you know, guys tout all of the world's greatest players being in the NBA....right!  ....the early league was filled with quality bigs...and I only listed centers (although the Big E also could play the 4)...think of the quality at the other positions....guys like Baylor, West, Cousy, The Big O, Gus Johnson.....the list goes on and on...how many quality bball talent wasn't good enough to make it do the the number of teams? Think about it....those guys had basketball skills and IQ.....so many of today's players are athletes first....they don't know enough of the true basketball fundamentals...Cow brings up names like Dave Gambee and Lee Schaeffer....for every one of those guys there are literally dozens of names like Gerald Green and Michael Olowakandi coming into this league
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from RUWorthy. Show RUWorthy's posts

    Re: Dr Buss on Lakers/Celtics

    Problem I have with Dwight Howard is that he's too nice. Doesn't have that 'killer' streak in him that guys like Russell, Magic and Jordan had. It's essential to have that if you're going to lead a team to victory in the Finals. 

    David Robinson didn't have it, took Tim Duncan to get him to the finals and onto victory. Maybe Dwight's own 'Duncan' is out there someplace.


     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share