SA Spurs slide means...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    OKC and Dallas both lost....Lake Show keeps rolling. Spurs will hopefully lose some more, Bulls have a slip up and boom, the Lakers are #1 seed (again).
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    I love how all these loser Laker trolls were nowhere to be found when their team was struggling but now that they are playing really well they are here ready to submit their fragile egos to the task of trying to be the toughest guys on the Internet. 

    Guess what fools? There's a much higher level of sports fan that you will never know anything about. 

    I for one enjoy the Celts Lakers rivalry and don't see a need to diminish the Lakers because that in turn diminishes the greatness of the rivalry. #cluelesstrollalert
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Laker-Nation32. Show Laker-Nation32's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]I love how all these loser Laker trolls were nowhere to be found when their team was struggling but now that they are playing really well they are here ready to submit their fragile egos to the task of trying to be the toughest guys on the Internet.  Guess what fools? There's a much higher level of sports fan that you will never know anything about.  I for one enjoy the Celts Lakers rivalry and don't see a need to diminish the Lakers because that in turn diminishes the greatness of the rivalry. #cluelesstrollalert
    Posted by BostonTrollSpanker[/QUOTE]

    Cry me a river! Enjoy your self proclaimed morality, no one gives a damn.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BS10FAN. Show BS10FAN's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]That the Lakers are still in the hunt for the best record in the NBA. That probably doesn't mean much to you C's fans cause you've got your own problems. And in all honesty, the Lakers don't NEED the home court advantage against the Spurs, but it would help. While the C's, Spurs and Bulls have been sputtering lately, the Lakers are hitting on all 8 cylinders. Andrew Bynum is healthy, although some of you were hoping and praying for another Bynum injury (I'm looking at YOU P34!). And he's looking like a BEAST!! Ron Artest is finally getting it together and the Lakers bench is meshing well. All the pieces are coming together for the Lakers. It looks like Phil will add another ring to put some distance between himself and the 2nd greatest coach of all-time...Red Auerbach. My advice to Danny Ainge...start your rebuilding project NOW! Oh wait, he already has...by trading Perk and bringing in some questionable talent. HAH!
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]

    Bulls sputtering of late they have on 15 of 17 gmes..there is a new definition of sputtering. It means success.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from b126962. Show b126962's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]That the Lakers are still in the hunt for the best record in the NBA. That probably doesn't mean much to you C's fans cause you've got your own problems. And in all honesty, the Lakers don't NEED the home court advantage against the Spurs, but it would help. While the C's, Spurs and Bulls have been sputtering lately, the Lakers are hitting on all 8 cylinders. Andrew Bynum is healthy, although some of you were hoping and praying for another Bynum injury (I'm looking at YOU P34!). And he's looking like a BEAST!! Ron Artest is finally getting it together and the Lakers bench is meshing well. All the pieces are coming together for the Lakers. It looks like Phil will add another ring to put some distance between himself and the 2nd greatest coach of all-time...Red Auerbach. My advice to Danny Ainge...start your rebuilding project NOW! Oh wait, he already has...by trading Perk and bringing in some questionable talent. HAH!
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]
    LOL Phil Jackson has had every single on of his titles handed to him by Michael/Kobe, notice he left once Michael and Scottie left in CHI. Red built all of his teams from scratch. And about that bench, do you honestly think it will hold up against the benches of the Spurs, Mavs, or Celtics or Bulls?
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to SA Spurs slide means... : LOL Phil Jackson has had every single on of his titles handed to him by Michael/Kobe, notice he left once Michael and Scottie left in CHI. Red built all of his teams from scratch. And about that bench, do you honestly think it will hold up against the benches of the Spurs, Mavs, or Celtics or Bulls?
    Posted by b126962[/QUOTE]

    Okay...If you say so.

    BTW when Red won the last of his NBA titles, the league consisted of 11 teams. Pretty easy to win in a league that's more than half of what it is today. Doug Collins and Del Harris had the same rosters that Phil had when he arrived in Chicago and LA. THEY didn't win NBA championships. It's the COACHING!

    Like I said, the entire Basketball world acknowledges that Phil is the greatest NBA Coach in history. Only in Boston, where they bury their heads in the sand (or up their @$$) do they NOT acknowledge it.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from victorlee1234. Show victorlee1234's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to SA Spurs slide means... : LOL Phil Jackson has had every single on of his titles handed to him by Michael/Kobe, notice he left once Michael and Scottie left in CHI. Red built all of his teams from scratch. And about that bench, do you honestly think it will hold up against the benches of the Spurs, Mavs, or Celtics or Bulls?
    Posted by b126962[/QUOTE]

    Have you been watching the NBA?  The Lakers are back-to-back champs with that bench.  Try again.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from victorlee1234. Show victorlee1234's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]\ John Wooden, by the way,  is regarded as the best coach of all time, followed by Vince Lombardi. [/QUOTE]

    Did Wooden or Lombardi coach in the NBA?
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from jdm894g. Show jdm894g's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    Again, I get tired of folks talking about how many teams were in the league when the Celtics won in the 60s.  Well that would mean that it was only the best players playing then, unlike the diluted talent with 30 teams.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from tonyxx. Show tonyxx's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    Please hedley!!!!  We are talking NBA and from you words to this blog, "you are comparing apples to oranges."
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]Again, I get tired of folks talking about how many teams were in the league when the Celtics won in the 60s.  Well that would mean that it was only the best players playing then, unlike the diluted talent with 30 teams.
    Posted by jdm894g[/QUOTE]


    Well said.  In addtion,  weren't the lakers one of those teams?
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    QDaddy,
    Red built three multiple championship eras.   Coached one to nine titles. Then. drafted and made deals to build two more championship teams in the seventies(74 and 76).  Five years later with an entirely different team he built  a three championship team (81,84, and 86).  He then went on to sign Len Bias and if he had lived would have kept championships going another ten years.

    Note I said built championship teams. Phil never did anything but perform as a hired gun.  If Michael Jordan had not fallen in his lap you would never have heard from him.  He goes to LA where Shaq and Kobe are waiting and wins there as well.

    The guy can coach, but compare him to Auerbach and you have to compare him along with Jerry West, Pat Riley and Phil.  All together they did what Red did alone. Impressive but not Red by a long shot.

    The only reason people feel Phil is best coach of all time is because they only see what is current.  A look at history gives  you the facts. Red could have one another five titles if had wanted to coach.  In Boston we all know it because it is our history.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]QDaddy, Red built three multiple championship eras.   Coached one to nine titles. Then. drafted and made deals to build two more championship teams in the seventies(74 and 76).  Five years later with an entirely different team he built  a three championship team (81,84, and 86).  He then went on to sign Len Bias and if he had lived would have kept championships going another ten years. Note I said built championship teams. Phil never did anything but perform as a hired gun.  If Michael Jordan had not fallen in his lap you would never have heard from him.  He goes to LA where Shaq and Kobe are waiting and wins there as well. The guy can coach, but compare him to Auerbach and you have to compare him along with Jerry West, Pat Riley and Phil.  All together they did what Red did alone. Impressive but not Red by a long shot. The only reason people feel Phil is best coach of all time is because they only see what is current.  A look at history gives  you the facts. Red could have one another five titles if had wanted to coach.  In Boston we all know it because it is our history.
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    Completely different situations. As I already said, Phil was handed the same rosters that Doug Collins had in Chicago and that Del Harris had in LA. In each case, he won a championship his first year. He installed his offense and defense, managed some of the games biggest egos and molded them into champions. No one disputes Red's ability to build a championship team, but in today's game, coaches are hired to WIN NOW. We'll never know if Red could pull off what Phil has done in two different cities with different rosters. And before you start crowning the C's with Len Bias, let me say that's all speculation. How many "great" players have come into the league only to become "busts" or get injured (Greg Oden the most recent example. There's no way of knowing if the C's would've won even ONE title. Red and Phil are from completely different eras and you can't take anything away from either. But Phil's 11 rings (and possibly a 12th that could complete a 4th three-peat) are historic. You guys will argue till you're blue in the face that Red is the greatest all-time, but the numbers don't lie. If you ask the average basketball fan who isn't a Celtic or Laker fan, and I don't doubt that most of them will go with Phil.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from hedleylamarr. Show hedleylamarr's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means... : Completely different situations. As I already said, Phil was handed the same rosters that Doug Collins had in Chicago and that Del Harris had in LA. In each case, he won a championship his first year. He installed his offense and defense, managed some of the games biggest egos and molded them into champions. No one disputes Red's ability to build a championship team, but in today's game, coaches are hired to WIN NOW. We'll never know if Red could pull off what Phil has done in two different cities with different rosters. And before you start crowning the C's with Len Bias, let me say that's all speculation. How many "great" players have come into the league only to become "busts" or get injured (Greg Oden the most recent example. There's no way of knowing if the C's would've won even ONE title. Red and Phil are from completely different eras and you can't take anything away from either. But Phil's 11 rings (and possibly a 12th that could complete a 4th three-peat) are historic. You guys will argue till you're blue in the face that Red is the greatest all-time, but the numbers don't lie. If you ask the average basketball fan who isn't a Celtic or Laker fan, and I don't doubt that most of them will go with Phil.
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]

    Actually not true.  Many people in Chicago hate the guy's guts.  Most of us in Boston don't like him because of the pot shots he's taken at Red over the years.  I also know many people out here who think he's overrated.  It is under debate if Phil is even the greatest LAKERS coach of all-time.  That would be Pat Riley, IMO.  An innovator and motivator.  Chuck Daly is number 3 in my book.  An offensive coach when he came into the league, he re-invented himself and his team, into the best defensive group of all-time. 
    Red, Riley, Daly.  Phil?  The WINNINGEST coach of all-time, but not the best!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from concord27. Show concord27's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    QDaddy,
    Jordan was ready to lead and Doug Collins just did not get to be around for it.

    Phil  is  a hired gun who clearly in business of free agents and building teams almost overnight thrived. There is no argument there.

    Bias was no Oden by the way he was playing at a level in ACC that was like the NBA he would have one of the greats ever.  You can pooh-pooh it but the truth is the truth.

    Lastly Red came from so long ago fans just don't remember the truth lies in his achievements.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]Again, I get tired of folks talking about how many teams were in the league when the Celtics won in the 60s.  Well that would mean that it was only the best players playing then, unlike the diluted talent with 30 teams.
    Posted by jdm894g[/QUOTE]

    Do the math. With fewer teams in the playoffs, their were fewer playoff series' they had to win. In today's playoff format, Red would have a hard time winning back-to-back.

    Of course, Phil has proven it can be done.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means... : Actually not true.  Many people in Chicago hate the guy's guts.  Most of us in Boston don't like him because of the pot shots he's taken at Red over the years.  I also know many people out here who think he's overrated.  It is under debate if Phil is even the greatest LAKERS coach of all-time.  That would be Pat Riley, IMO.  An innovator and motivator.  Chuck Daly is number 3 in my book.  An offensive coach when he came into the league, he re-invented himself and his team, into the best defensive group of all-time.  Red, Riley, Daly.  Phil?  The WINNINGEST coach of all-time, but not the best!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    Well! That's one man's opinion. And as you know, like @$$holes, we all have one.

    Like Pat Riley, their are some people in LA who no longer care for him because he left the Lakers. But the vast majority of Angelino's still love Pat for what he did. The same can be said of Phil in Chicago. There will always be a vocal minority who will say they hate him because he left the Bulls and went to the Lakers. But again, the VAST MAJORITY love and respect him for the run they had in Chicago.

    As far as Red is concerned, he's done his fair share of taking pot shots at Phil. What would you expect from Phil when he played for the Knicks. The C's and Knicks hated each other in Red's glory years. But Phil still respected Red and said so. Red was every bit as arrogant as Phil. In fact, Red was Phil before Phil was Phil. His "victory cigar" turned off a lot of other coaches and fans, so let's not paint Red as a saint.

    As far as the greatest coach, as much as we loved Pat, he can't be placed ahead of Phil. Pat had Magic in his prime and Kareem at center with a bunch of highflying athletes. Showtime worked in LA because he had the athletes. He didn't have much success in NY, and the only reason he won in Miami was because everything fell just right that season. And I don't mean the acquisition of Shaq. In reality, Shaq rode D-Wade's coattails to another title.

    Chuck Daly?! I'm sorry, but I'd put Red Holtzman above Daly, and probably a few others.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]QDaddy, Jordan was ready to lead and Doug Collins just did not get to be around for it. Phil  is  a hired gun who clearly in business of free agents and building teams almost overnight thrived. There is no argument there. Bias was no Oden by the way he was playing at a level in ACC that was like the NBA he would have one of the greats ever.  You can pooh-pooh it but the truth is the truth. Lastly Red came from so long ago fans just don't remember the truth lies in his achievements.
    Posted by concord27[/QUOTE]

    Regardless whether or not Jordan was ready to lead, he didn't have the game plan to lead them to a championship. That didn't happen until Phil arrived and Tex Winter came with him with his "triangle offense". Phil (and newly inducted Hall-of-famer Winter) ran that offense to 11 NBA titles. Without Phil (and Tex) there would be NO RINGS.
    You can call Phil whatever you want, but his ability to get players to buy into his system can't be overlooked.

    Like I said, you can't count any championships just because you had Len Bias. He could've been a "bust". Or he might've had a career-ending injury in the first month of the season. Brad Daugherty was the #1 pick and he didn't have much of a career. You just don't know and that can be said for Len Bias as well.

    I'll have to agree with you about Red...most of today's generation don't remember the great ones. The same can be said about Dick Butkus, Gale Sayers, Bill Russell and so many others. In today's ESPN world, we get to see the highlight reel performances and kids today think these are the greatest athletes or coaches. Too bad they've missed out on so many great perfomances of the past.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from Qdaddy. Show Qdaddy's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means... : Right back at ya!
    Posted by hedleylamarr[/QUOTE]

    hedley, I may not always agree with you, but you're among the few that I enjoy hearing from. You, Duke, Concord and a few others make me laugh or at least think. Even Fierce (AKA Sybil) keeps me in stitches.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from genaro008. Show genaro008's posts

    Re: SA Spurs slide means...

    In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means...:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: SA Spurs slide means... : Well! That's one man's opinion. And as you know, like @$$holes, we all have one. Like Pat Riley, their are some people in LA who no longer care for him because he left the Lakers. But the vast majority of Angelino's still love Pat for what he did. The same can be said of Phil in Chicago. There will always be a vocal minority who will say they hate him because he left the Bulls and went to the Lakers. But again, the VAST MAJORITY love and respect him for the run they had in Chicago. As far as Red is concerned, he's done his fair share of taking pot shots at Phil. What would you expect from Phil when he played for the Knicks. The C's and Knicks hated each other in Red's glory years. But Phil still respected Red and said so. Red was every bit as arrogant as Phil. In fact, Red was Phil before Phil was Phil. His "victory cigar" turned off a lot of other coaches and fans, so let's not paint Red as a saint. As far as the greatest coach, as much as we loved Pat, he can't be placed ahead of Phil. Pat had Magic in his prime and Kareem at center with a bunch of highflying athletes. Showtime worked in LA because he had the athletes. He didn't have much success in NY, and the only reason he won in Miami was because everything fell just right that season. And I don't mean the acquisition of Shaq. In reality, Shaq rode D-Wade's coattails to another title. Chuck Daly?! I'm sorry, but I'd put Red Holtzman above Daly, and probably a few others.
    Posted by Qdaddy[/QUOTE]

    I always give you credit for being able to make a point even if we do not agree, you make a good argument Phil and Red are to different to compare. 

    Red was the guy that changed the game in many ways in his era. He took defensive schemes to new levels. He also took the fast break off the defensive rebounds and turned good defense as an offensive weapon. He built teams around his philosophy. I know a lot of the younger Lakers fans who post here would not get it but I actually know you do... Red could have stayed on the bench but I believe he was making a statement when he asked Russ to coach. The fact he was 1st to draft and 1st to start 5 African American Players was unprecedented. Making Russ the 1st head coach in major sport in 1968 made a big statement. Russell was vocal for the civil rights movement and it was one of the brighter spots in what was a tumultuous year in American history. Red also made it known he was not doing Russ a favor he just thought Russ was the smartest player in the game and wanted to prove it. Red went on to be a GM and president and along the way build teams in two more additional decades.  

    Phil Jackson will go down as the most winning coach in history. There is no argument with the facts. Phil had the right philosophy for the right teams. He was very successful in Chicago because he was able to manage egos and put the right players around MJ that were able to buy into Phil’s approach. He was able to get the most out of a few players and have them sacrifice them selves for the better good. Phil will be remembered as winner no matter how we as Celtics fans feel about him. I have my opinions about Phil especially how on a few different occasions his little feuds with his players almost blew up in his face. He may be the Zen master but sometimes I think his ego gets the best of him. 

     When superstars played for Red either as a coach or GM they love him. His relationships with his players were well documented. Yes Red had an ego but he made it about his players in ways Phil never will. He added 1 dollar to Russell’s contract just to one up on Wilt. His team was an extension of his ego. I just don’t see Red making statements against his players the way Phil has. The biggest pet peeve I had with Phil is his public comments about his players. In the same respect I just don’t believe Red could have coached the Bulls or the Lakers. I do not think he could have adapted to the NBA style of the 90s and 00s. Phil was the right guy for the job in Chicago. I agree Doug Collins would not have won 6. I don’t think Riley would have been successful with the same team as Phil in the last go round. I also think Riley was the right guy for those 80s Lakers as he was more suited.

     I appreciate that you make logical points compared to the idiots 5 year olds who think the Laker's should win because they wear purple. They act like the kid who makes his point by saying I know you are but what am I.
     
  21. This post has been removed.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share