What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. This post has been removed.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from PHX85014. Show PHX85014's posts

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    Let's not forget Pitino getting rid of RICK FOX and DEVID WESLEY , even before drafting Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer and then trading both of them too soon

    Plus trading for Vitaly Potepenko....that was the Shawn Marion pick

    Have a nice evening

     
  6. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to Fiercy's comment:

    Yes, we all know Pitino did a bad job, a very bad job when he was calling the shots.

    But at least Pitino got one thing right.

    He drafted Paul Pierce.

     

    All those Celtic fans who endured the 1990s know Dave Gavitt and the Celtic front office did NOTHING!




    Bingo!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Pud

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

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    But the fact remains that Fiercy the coward has run and hid from the topic of this thread.

    This thread is about Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 being the ones that set the Celtics franchise back in the 1990's more than anything else anyone else in this franchise did.

    Care to disagree Fiercy?

    Care to argue YOUR OPINION that what Gavitt did in 1992 hurt the team more than what Red did in 1989?

    Because that is what this thread is about. I do not deny that Gavitt failed to blow up decent 1991 and 1992 playoff teams... but he hardly set the 1990's back very far. Red was the one blew it BIG TIME.

    If you disagree with me you are welcome to explain why. But the reason you have changed the topic is b/c you know you can't and have already lost.




    Fungus' simple argument seems to be that Red was a genius who made all the right moves.... Gavit the idiot who did nothing.

    Easy enough to understand. 

    No short story needed. 

    End of discussion.

    Pud

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: What really set the Celtics back in the 1990's

    In response to puddinpuddin's comment:

    In response to rameakap's comment:

    But the fact remains that Fiercy the coward has run and hid from the topic of this thread.

    This thread is about Red Auerbach's decisions in 1989 being the ones that set the Celtics franchise back in the 1990's more than anything else anyone else in this franchise did.

    Care to disagree Fiercy?

    Care to argue YOUR OPINION that what Gavitt did in 1992 hurt the team more than what Red did in 1989?

    Because that is what this thread is about. I do not deny that Gavitt failed to blow up decent 1991 and 1992 playoff teams... but he hardly set the 1990's back very far. Red was the one blew it BIG TIME.

    If you disagree with me you are welcome to explain why. But the reason you have changed the topic is b/c you know you can't and have already lost.




    Fungus' simple argument seems to be that Red was a genius who made all the right moves.... Gavit the idiot who did nothing.

    Easy enough to understand. 

    No short story needed. 

    End of discussion.

    Pud




    To question Red means that you are not a real Celtic fan... but are in fact a Red-hater.

    Pud

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share