Knicks vs. Celtics

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why do these guys keep talking about tanking? are they that dumb, or are they being told to make these idiot illogical things? 

    "Staudemire is the leading scorer out of the 2002 draft class and he was taken 9th overall, for all you "tankers"." -Mike Gorman

    WTH is this guy talking about? what is he saying? is Staudemire that good, or was that draft class that bad? and what does that have to do with this year? 

    there is a big difference between hoping your team loses and wanting your team to lose on purpose. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He was the NINTH pick. Thats his point!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ok, and what does that have to do with tanking?

    [/QUOTE]

    It means you don't necessarily have to Tank to get a great player.

    [/QUOTE]

    so amare staudemire is a great player now?

    [/QUOTE]

    No. But he was for several years. He's been hurt and it's toward the end so you can't compare what he is today with what he was. And that was not Mikes point. Again, he wasn't a top 5 pick but he turned out to be an All-Star.

    [/QUOTE]

    staudemire has NEVER been a great player in the NBA. this isn't 2002, and people have much higher expectations of the talent in the 2014 draft than Amare Staudemire. More importantly, that doesn't prove any point. the 9th pick is in the lottery, you've got lose (aka tank) to get the 9th worst record. the 9th worst team could even win the #1 pick.

    but i agree with your point. whether you end up with the 9th or 1st worst record after tanking, even if you get unlucky in the lottery, you can still possibly find an all-star caliber player in the back end of the lottery.

    [/QUOTE]

    And that basically was Gormans point.

    [/QUOTE]

    well what one is it? they aren't equal points, they are complete opposites. if he's saying that you don't need to tank in order to get an all-star caliber player then he would be taking an anti-tanking stand point. this, as i said earlier, is an irrational statement and doesn't support his "point". Manu Ginobili would be an ideal example to support that claim. since "tank" has come to replace the word "lose", then the opposite of tank is to win. if you're winning and not tanking then you should be in the playoffs. Ginobili is an example of a playoff team that didn't need a lottery pick to find an all-star, and unlike staudemire, a GREAT player.

    now, if his point is that even if you get unlucky in the lottery you can still find an all-star player in the back end of the lottery, then he would be taking a pro-tanking stance. in essence, he would be saying that tanking is good because even if you miss out on the top 5 pick you can still hit on a 6-13 pick. 

     

    my questions are rhetorical of course because it's obvious that Gorman was talking out of his @55 and made no sense at all. But i'm sure he'd appreciate your support.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I give up. You don't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    what is the "it" that i don't get? that you're as dumb as Gorman? i was trying to help you "get it" ya dope. LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    You're the only dope here. His point was pretty clear to me. He made one simple statement and you by your own words said "WTH is this guy talking about". Your ignorance is unbearable.  You also can't spell. #gethookedonphonics

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jdm894g's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Danny needs to make a move. Boston is only one piece away from a .500 record. yeah! this is so exciting. 

    [/QUOTE]


    Don't sound so happy!!!!!! 

    [/QUOTE]

    Celtic Pride Baby!!! 

    [/QUOTE]

    You really are a fool.....

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    I love this team!!

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why do these guys keep talking about tanking? are they that dumb, or are they being told to make these idiot illogical things? 

    "Staudemire is the leading scorer out of the 2002 draft class and he was taken 9th overall, for all you "tankers"." -Mike Gorman

    WTH is this guy talking about? what is he saying? is Staudemire that good, or was that draft class that bad? and what does that have to do with this year? 

    there is a big difference between hoping your team loses and wanting your team to lose on purpose. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He was the NINTH pick. Thats his point!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ok, and what does that have to do with tanking?

    [/QUOTE]

    It means you don't necessarily have to Tank to get a great player.

    [/QUOTE]

    so amare staudemire is a great player now?

    [/QUOTE]

    No. But he was for several years. He's been hurt and it's toward the end so you can't compare what he is today with what he was. And that was not Mikes point. Again, he wasn't a top 5 pick but he turned out to be an All-Star.

    [/QUOTE]

    staudemire has NEVER been a great player in the NBA. this isn't 2002, and people have much higher expectations of the talent in the 2014 draft than Amare Staudemire. More importantly, that doesn't prove any point. the 9th pick is in the lottery, you've got lose (aka tank) to get the 9th worst record. the 9th worst team could even win the #1 pick.

    but i agree with your point. whether you end up with the 9th or 1st worst record after tanking, even if you get unlucky in the lottery, you can still possibly find an all-star caliber player in the back end of the lottery.

    [/QUOTE]

    And that basically was Gormans point.

    [/QUOTE]

    well what one is it? they aren't equal points, they are complete opposites. if he's saying that you don't need to tank in order to get an all-star caliber player then he would be taking an anti-tanking stand point. this, as i said earlier, is an irrational statement and doesn't support his "point". Manu Ginobili would be an ideal example to support that claim. since "tank" has come to replace the word "lose", then the opposite of tank is to win. if you're winning and not tanking then you should be in the playoffs. Ginobili is an example of a playoff team that didn't need a lottery pick to find an all-star, and unlike staudemire, a GREAT player.

    now, if his point is that even if you get unlucky in the lottery you can still find an all-star player in the back end of the lottery, then he would be taking a pro-tanking stance. in essence, he would be saying that tanking is good because even if you miss out on the top 5 pick you can still hit on a 6-13 pick. 

     

    my questions are rhetorical of course because it's obvious that Gorman was talking out of his @55 and made no sense at all. But i'm sure he'd appreciate your support.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I give up. You don't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    what is the "it" that i don't get? that you're as dumb as Gorman? i was trying to help you "get it" ya dope. LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    You're the only dope here. His point was pretty clear to me. He made one simple statement and you by your own words said "WTH is this guy talking about". Your ignorance is unbearable.  You also can't spell. #gethookedonphonics

    [/QUOTE]

    you don't get it and you're obviously not capable of getting it. i thougtht you were giving up? 

    [/QUOTE]

    i changed my mind. It's more fun exposing your stupidity. Case in point- Your Ginobili rant is a joke. Amar'e has a career scoring average of 21 Ppg and has played in 6 all star games. Ginobili has a career average of just under 15 ppg and has been on 2 all star teams. Got any more bad information you want to share?

     

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ktronic's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    why do these guys keep talking about tanking? are they that dumb, or are they being told to make these idiot illogical things? 

    "Staudemire is the leading scorer out of the 2002 draft class and he was taken 9th overall, for all you "tankers"." -Mike Gorman

    WTH is this guy talking about? what is he saying? is Staudemire that good, or was that draft class that bad? and what does that have to do with this year? 

    there is a big difference between hoping your team loses and wanting your team to lose on purpose. 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    He was the NINTH pick. Thats his point!

     

    [/QUOTE]

    ok, and what does that have to do with tanking?

    [/QUOTE]

    It means you don't necessarily have to Tank to get a great player.

    [/QUOTE]

    so amare staudemire is a great player now?

    [/QUOTE]

    No. But he was for several years. He's been hurt and it's toward the end so you can't compare what he is today with what he was. And that was not Mikes point. Again, he wasn't a top 5 pick but he turned out to be an All-Star.

    [/QUOTE]

    staudemire has NEVER been a great player in the NBA. this isn't 2002, and people have much higher expectations of the talent in the 2014 draft than Amare Staudemire. More importantly, that doesn't prove any point. the 9th pick is in the lottery, you've got lose (aka tank) to get the 9th worst record. the 9th worst team could even win the #1 pick.

    but i agree with your point. whether you end up with the 9th or 1st worst record after tanking, even if you get unlucky in the lottery, you can still possibly find an all-star caliber player in the back end of the lottery.

    [/QUOTE]

    And that basically was Gormans point.

    [/QUOTE]

    well what one is it? they aren't equal points, they are complete opposites. if he's saying that you don't need to tank in order to get an all-star caliber player then he would be taking an anti-tanking stand point. this, as i said earlier, is an irrational statement and doesn't support his "point". Manu Ginobili would be an ideal example to support that claim. since "tank" has come to replace the word "lose", then the opposite of tank is to win. if you're winning and not tanking then you should be in the playoffs. Ginobili is an example of a playoff team that didn't need a lottery pick to find an all-star, and unlike staudemire, a GREAT player.

    now, if his point is that even if you get unlucky in the lottery you can still find an all-star player in the back end of the lottery, then he would be taking a pro-tanking stance. in essence, he would be saying that tanking is good because even if you miss out on the top 5 pick you can still hit on a 6-13 pick. 

     

    my questions are rhetorical of course because it's obvious that Gorman was talking out of his @55 and made no sense at all. But i'm sure he'd appreciate your support.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I give up. You don't get it.

    [/QUOTE]

    what is the "it" that i don't get? that you're as dumb as Gorman? i was trying to help you "get it" ya dope. LOL

    [/QUOTE]

    You're the only dope here. His point was pretty clear to me. He made one simple statement and you by your own words said "WTH is this guy talking about". Your ignorance is unbearable.  You also can't spell. #gethookedonphonics

    [/QUOTE]

    you don't get it and you're obviously not capable of getting it. i thougtht you were giving up? 

    [/QUOTE]

    i changed my mind. It's more fun exposing your stupidity. Case in point- Your Ginobili rant is a joke. Amar'e has a career scoring average of 21 Ppg and has played in 6 all star games. Ginobili has a career average of just under 15 ppg and has been on 2 all star teams. Got any more bad information you want to share?

     

    [/QUOTE]

    but you only look smart in the eyes of other idiots. ppg and all-star aka popularity contest appearances? that's as deep as you can get to compare two players? while amare has been scoring 21ppg and not contributing in any other way for losing teams, Ginobili has been contributing in several ways for a winning franchise. 

    the fact that you're even trying to argue that stuademire is a better player and has had a better career than Ginobili is laughable. 

    [/QUOTE]

    Your statement was that Ginobili is a great player. I'm comparing the two not the teams they played on. Ginobili played with better players and yes he's very good, but great? No. it comes down to a matter of opinion and I disagree with you on that point. This started off with Gorman's statement that your dumb ( ! ) couldnt figure out. And you still haven't figured out what he meant. Why don't you write to Mike and Tommy's mailbag and ask him yourself. I'm not wasting any more Time on this or you. 

     

     

     

     

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 37stories' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to mossad-did-911's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    11-14!!!! Celtics Pride!!!! Championship!!!! who needs a top 5 pick when you play in the worst division in the NBA????? wooooo hoooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    [/QUOTE]

    Why don't you just save some time and stop watching until the draft?

    [/QUOTE]

    is that rhetorical or do you actually want an answer?

    [/QUOTE]

    It wasn't rhetorical. I don't want an answer.

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

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    Why would anyone even bother responding to a jerk who takes pride in flaunting his hatred of Jews? This skinhead makes even runrunrun's racism look good in comparison! 

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to jerrycole's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why would anyone even bother responding to a jerk who takes pride in flaunting his hatred of Jews? This skinhead makes even runrunrun's racism look good in comparison! 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That is what makes him fun to mess around with. He is clearly insane, yet thinks he is smarter than anyone else.

    He is right out of the DSM.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from tomobo. Show tomobo's posts

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to 37stories' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerrycole's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why would anyone even bother responding to a jerk who takes pride in flaunting his hatred of Jews? This skinhead makes even runrunrun's racism look good in comparison! 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That is what makes him fun to mess around with. He is clearly insane, yet thinks he is smarter than anyone else.

    He is right out of the DSM.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's ironic that you describe yourself so aptly w/out realizing that the joke is on you.

    Gender issues, racial confusion, multiple personalities(Snake,37,bp,???) They're obviously holding up DSM V until you've been extracted from the warmth of Rondo's anal cavity. Considering the battery that you subject yourself to on a daily basis-one must conclude that you like it there. We like you there too. DSM V can wait...Laughing

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from 37stories. Show 37stories's posts

    Re: Knicks vs. Celtics

    In response to tomobo's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to 37stories' comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to jerrycole's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Why would anyone even bother responding to a jerk who takes pride in flaunting his hatred of Jews? This skinhead makes even runrunrun's racism look good in comparison! 

     

    [/QUOTE]

    That is what makes him fun to mess around with. He is clearly insane, yet thinks he is smarter than anyone else.

    He is right out of the DSM.

    [/QUOTE]

    It's ironic that you describe yourself so aptly w/out realizing that the joke is on you.

    Gender issues, racial confusion, multiple personalities(Snake,37,bp,???) They're obviously holding up DSM V until you've been extracted from the warmth of Rondo's anal cavity. Considering the battery that you subject yourself to on a daily basis-one must conclude that you like it there. We like you there too. DSM V can wait...Laughing

    [/QUOTE]

    Aww. Look who I made mad.

    Grr.

     

Share