Since this is a Celtics forum

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    It will be a looooooong wait!!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    I know, whenever you are challenged, you wimped out by "I am done with you", "bye", "I am tired of arguing"....

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Liar!

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

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Liar!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to KingShaq's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    Liar!

     

    [/QUOTE]


    You lose.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Futile

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Red-16Russ-11's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     


    Futile

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Loser.

     

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Fake Fury, unable to have a creative thought on his own, must litter our forum with his trash.......seems an awful lot like Bloggy.......but ......hope all is well!!

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    In the end...

    Alone again, naturally!

    Untitled

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


    What is the heading of that picture.....Kobe and everyone who says he's a good teammate?

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Howard is saying, "OUCH, my back"

    Nash is saying, " Yikes, my back."

    Gasol is saying, "I'm back"

    Artest is saying, "Who got my back?"

    And Kobe is saying, "Not me!!"

     
  15. This post has been removed.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Feared, I hope you stop embarrassing yourself.

    During the magic reign (1979-80 - 1990-91), the Lakers have beaten the follow HOFers in the playoffs:

    - Gervin

    - Gilmore

    - Mailman

    - Stockton

    - DJ

    - Bird

    - McHale

    - Parish

    - Walton

    - Clyde

    - Hakeem

    - Issel

    - English

    - Isiah

    - Rodman

    - Dumars

    - Dr. J

    - Dantley

    - Mullin

    - Petrovic

    I hope you can count.

    And it's obvious that you have no clue about Alex English, a HOFer.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    HAHAHA

    That's funny. Petrovic?

    Sure Alex English is HoFer, but he's nowhere near the likes of Dr. J and MJ. Even Paul Pierce is ranked higher than Alex English when it comes to the top 10 SFs of all-time.

    Karl Malone and John Stockton were just mediocre in the 80s. It was in the 90s where they hit their stride.

    And you're the one who's embarrassing yourself. The Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the Finals in every decade. That means the Lakers lost in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80,s 90s, and 2000s.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yep, Petrovic, that's the HOFer the Lakers beat. What about it? Better than all you can do, just resort to Isiah, Dr. J, MJ, Isiah, Dr. J., MJ, Isiah, Dr. J, MJ, ... what a joke!!!!

    And you think the NBA is one-on-one street ball? So what if English is no MJ. The team is competitive enough to be in the CF. Tell me the 1986 and 1987 Bulls were a competitive team (0-6 in the playoffs). You are embarrassing yourself.

    "The Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the Finals in every decade."

    is a blatant lie. OK, I'll see how you can get out of this lie: tell me who the Lakers lost in the Finals to in the 1940s, in the 2010s.

    OTOH, the Lakers were a team to make it to the NBA finals every decade. The Celtics can't say that. You must be proud that they didn't lose in the finals but lose in the early round or miss the playoffs.

    So you are bragging about the Celtics' losing. Good.

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    How can you hook me when the Celtics won 8 straight championships in the 60s. 

    The Lakers faced weak competition in the 80s and they only ended up 5-3 in the Finals. 

    Sure the Lakers made it to the Finals a lot. That's what happens when your conference is weak. But when facing the superpowers of the east, Boston, Detroit, and Philly, they couldn't dominate.

    The Celtics won 8 straight championships from 1959 to 1966. Regardless if the competition was weak or not, the Celts took care of business.

    From 1959 to 1970, the Lakers went to the Finals 8 times and lost 8 straight times. The Lakers also lost to the Celtics 7 straight times in the Finals in that 11-year span.

    Even if it's just my opinion, my opinion is based on facts. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The same argument you make:  the won against losing teams, in 1959 and 1961. So that's nothing to write home about. The NBA was weak, the East was weak. I don't believe in it, but simply use your logic to hook you.

    Sure the Lakers made it to the finals a lot, but whether the conference is weak is not a fact, but your wishy washy. You have no NBA position to back up your point.

    In other words, the Lakers making a lots of finals is thus more successful than the Celtics making much fewer finals.

    Not to mention making the finals is better than the Celtics' 9-peat, true or false? or are you advocating losing?

    Celtics lose early a lot == something feared brag about.

    Tell me where you find the fact "the west is weak".

    But I find the NBA of 1959 and the east of 1961 was weak, a conclusion based on your logic. Not that I believe in it, but YOUR LOGIC implies it.

     

     
  18. This post has been removed.

     
  19. This post has been removed.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Here:

    Average Wins Per Season

    Boston 59.3 wins

    L.A. Lakers 59.1 wins

    Philadelphia 53.5 wins

    Milwaukee 52.2 wins

    Atlanta 44.9 wins

    Detroit 42.3 wins

    Houston 40.1 wins

    Even with the injury plagued 1988-89 season, the Celts still nip the Lakers for most wins for the decade.  This raises an interesting point…how did the Lakers win more title if the Celts usually out won them?   The answer seems to lie in the above chart.  While the Celts battled with Philly, Milwaukee, and Detroit, the Lakers had their way with decent teams like Denver and Portland for the entire decade.  In fact, the Lakers weren’t tested much in the Western Conference.

    [/QUOTE]

    Good, you bite.

    So you think the regular season is what counts? If that's the case, the Lakers were #1 all time.

    3125-1916 vs 3067-2084

    So you lose the mother of all arguments. Case closed. Do you accept that? yes or no?

    I bet you'll dodge it.

    But wait, you want to compare playoff teams, right? Now you rely on regular season records to compare playoff teams? That's interesting.

    So you have no evidence that the Lakers opponents were weaker. In the playoffs they weren't. They won as many series as the Celtics' opponents.

    "But they were weaker based on regular season records", you say?

    See, you never have any clues. Never change.

    And the Celtics won more in the regular season yet they came up with fewer championships. There is one more plausible explanation: they choked.

    Teams with the best regular season record but failed to win the championship in the 80s:

    1980 Celtics

    1982 Celtics

    1985 Celtics

    Teams with most series losses while having Home Court Advantage in the 80s:

    5 - Celtics (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988)

    Teams with most series losses while having Home Court Advantage in the Bird era:

    7 - Celtics (1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1990, 1991)

     

     

     

     

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from KingShaq. Show KingShaq's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    In response to Fiercest34's comment:
    [QUOTE]

     

    I'm bragging about the Celtics losing? HAHAHA

    You have no other argument left in your arsenal?

    Don't try spinning the argument. The 1940s can't be considered 1 decade because there was no NBA before 1946. And the 2010 era is not yet finished, so how sure are you the Lakers will not lose in the Finals in this decade?

    Also, the Bulls of the 80s were no match for the Celtics and Pistons. That's how strong the east was back then.

    [/QUOTE]

    You said "every decade", you didn't qualify every decade with a full decade of the NBA. Even if there is only one year of NBA in that decade, you are dead duck. The 1946-1949 was in the decade of the 1940s, true or false?  So tell us, which year did the Lakers lose in the decade of the 1940s. That's a lie.


    The 2010s hasn't finished, but "the Lakers lose in the finals" hasn't happened yet. You said:

    "The Lakers are the only NBA team to lose in the Finals in every decade."

    "are" is incorrect because it hasn't happened in the decade of 2010s, true or false? Better take some English class to learn about present and future tense...

    So it's a double whammy for you - 2 lies caught in one statement.

    The Bulls were 30-52 in 1986, 40-42 in 1987. Using your logic, they are weak. So the Celtics beat a weak Bulls team. So what if they had MJ? NBA isn't 1 on 1 street ball...

     

     

     

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    WOW - this is comical!!

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    Watch him accuse me now of FIERCE being comical

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Red-16Russ-11. Show Red-16Russ-11's posts

    Re: Since this is a Celtics forum

    King is a total joke and everyone laughs at him.................hasn't won an argument since Nixcon was President..................probably his favorite President

     

    Front-running fool

     

Share