cedric ceballos 1995 lakers
Banned
- Jul 1, 2009
- 10,833
- 11
shut up prettyplaya
Rank the NBA Championship teams this decade from best to worst
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by cedric ceballos 1995 lakers,
- Start date
- Aug 31, 2006
- 9,105
- 95
- Jan 11, 2006
- 4,069
- 10
1. 08 Celtics
2. 01 Lakers
3. 02 Lakers
4. 05 Spurs
5. 04 Pistons
6. 00 Lakers
7. 07 Spurs
8. 03 Spurs
9. 09 Lakers
10. 06 Heat
2. 01 Lakers
3. 02 Lakers
4. 05 Spurs
5. 04 Pistons
6. 00 Lakers
7. 07 Spurs
8. 03 Spurs
9. 09 Lakers
10. 06 Heat
- Jul 15, 2002
- 1,505
- 13
It does when its on the game winning shot attempt.
- May 5, 2009
- 12,536
- 39
just as long as the 2001 Lakers are on top
...the rest of the list area toss up
- Apr 19, 2007
- 2,654
- 57
Damn I was gonna come in here defending the Heat...but after reliving someof those phantom calls in slow-mo....
Holy friggin hell at this thread.
I was wonderin how this thread had made it to 6 pages.
I had no idea it turned into another Kings got raped thread. But eh, I've been in plenty of those, looks like you guys have things pretty much handled. As you were gentlemen.
Prettyplaya--pathetic. downright sad, and pathetic. Blazers, Kings, Spurs all were top teams out west, all swept. Philly was tough as nails, but not allthat talented outside of AI, we got em in 5, woulda been another sweep if not for Rob Horry (one of only two known black marks on his storied playoff career) in game one.
There have been hundreds of playoff runs, many of them faced inferior teams, none of them ran thru with only the 1 loss.
Oh, and make sure you destroy your boys' tapes. Don't want that dunk to leak out someday ya know?
I was wonderin how this thread had made it to 6 pages.
I had no idea it turned into another Kings got raped thread. But eh, I've been in plenty of those, looks like you guys have things pretty much handled. As you were gentlemen.
Prettyplaya--pathetic. downright sad, and pathetic. Blazers, Kings, Spurs all were top teams out west, all swept. Philly was tough as nails, but not allthat talented outside of AI, we got em in 5, woulda been another sweep if not for Rob Horry (one of only two known black marks on his storied playoff career) in game one.
There have been hundreds of playoff runs, many of them faced inferior teams, none of them ran thru with only the 1 loss.
Oh, and make sure you destroy your boys' tapes. Don't want that dunk to leak out someday ya know?
do be doo
Banned
- Mar 13, 2009
- 6,589
- 547
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 47,060
- 31,751
epox12:
game 6 we all know what happened in game 6
Ska doesn't.
Slow your road speaking for me, big guy. Because you suck at it.epox12:
It obvious the purple and gold in your sig is forming your opinion because you honestly believe the Lakers won game six without any help from the refs.
Never said that. I know that's what you want to believe that I said, but I never said it. I know you've built responses to me based on mesaying that the Lakers had no help, but, again, I never said that.
'The Kings have a few other things they can look at besides 'We got screwed by the refs' is NOT the same as 'The Kings didn't get screwed;the Lakers had no help.'
First you misquoted me about the Kings/Mavs flopping, and now you've done it again.
Never have I once said that the Lakers won Game 6 without an help from the refs.
And never once have you said that the Kings had other things besides 'got screwed by the refs' that they could look at as contributory factors tolosing.
I am not being biased about the Lakers, but since you say I am, then I guess that's all that matters. You say it, so that must be what it is. So dig this:I say your Clipper fandom has caused you to hate the Lakers, and that hatred is what's making you see things the way you do. So re-watch the series withoutyour Laker hatred shining through.
It's fun turning your own assumptions and opinions into fact just because you say they're fact, huh?
D
Deleted member 43282
Guest
Ska doesn't.
Slow your road speaking for me, big guy. Because you suck at it.
epox12:
It obvious the purple and gold in your sig is forming your opinion because you honestly believe the Lakers won game six without any help from the refs.
Never said that.
First you misquoted me about the Kings/Mavs flopping, and now you've done it again.
Never have I once said that the Lakers won Game 6 without an help from the refs.
And never once have you said that the Kings had other things besides 'got screwed by the refs' that they could look at as contributory factors to losing.
You are bringing up misquoting when you did it to me yourself. You did not once say the refs played a part in the Lakers winning game six you keptsaying it was the Kings fault for not running back on defense. Its obvious you cannot bring yourself to admit your beloved Lakers got an assist from the refsin game 6 like the kings got in game 5. Its 7 years later and you still can't admit it, its okay I know you are a die hard purple and gold homer. Someother Lakers fans have admitted it in previous replies but you can't its cool.
It's fun turning your own assumptions and opinions into fact just because you say they're fact, huh?
That reply made me laugh. Not just because of the condescension butbecause you really think you are not doing what you accused me of doing. Its okay ska that 2002 chip is never going to erased or taken away. To top it off youran out of things to say so you went to the classic well you are just a Laker hater. I watched game 5 and 6 and they were both screw jobs but i couldn't have made that conclusion without being a hater or being influenced bysomeone else.
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 47,060
- 31,751
Wrong.
Watch.
The Lakers got help from the refs in Game 6. Twenty-seven free throws in the fourth quarter of a pivotal game is ridiculous.
Boom.
Guarantee you won't admit what I said you have a hard time admitting.
Because you hate the Lakers.
And you won't admit that, either.
It's cool.
BY the way, I'm not even saying you're a Laker hater. You said FIRST that I can't watch the series objectively. You're wrong, but you thinkyou're right, so I'm saying 'Hey, if I say I'm right, then I guess that makes me right. You're a Laker hater. I'm right, because I sayso.' I don't believe I watch Laker games with purple and gold filters any more than I believe you to be a Laker hater. Interpret that how you want, anddo with it what you want. If I were you, I'd take a step back and throw something out there along the lines of 'Nah, I'm not a Laker hater, and Isee your point. I shouldn't have made it out to be a fact that you watch with a bias. My bad.'
But that's just me. I can admit things like 'The Kings got screwed', because I never said they didn't. I just said they have other things tolook at also.
Don't you agree that they have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B)nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
I find it funny that you say that I labeled you a Laker hater due to not having anything else to say... when the reason I did that is because you labeled me abiased observer. It would seem to me, by YOUR logic, that the reason you did that... would be... because... you didn't have anything else to say.
Pride will prevent you from using your own logic against yourself. That doesn't change the fact that you labeled me a biased observer before I responded bycalling you a Laer hater, and then you said that I must have said that because I ran out of things to say.
But I digress.
Don't you agree that the Kings have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B)nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
Watch.
The Lakers got help from the refs in Game 6. Twenty-seven free throws in the fourth quarter of a pivotal game is ridiculous.
Boom.
Guarantee you won't admit what I said you have a hard time admitting.
Because you hate the Lakers.
And you won't admit that, either.
It's cool.
BY the way, I'm not even saying you're a Laker hater. You said FIRST that I can't watch the series objectively. You're wrong, but you thinkyou're right, so I'm saying 'Hey, if I say I'm right, then I guess that makes me right. You're a Laker hater. I'm right, because I sayso.' I don't believe I watch Laker games with purple and gold filters any more than I believe you to be a Laker hater. Interpret that how you want, anddo with it what you want. If I were you, I'd take a step back and throw something out there along the lines of 'Nah, I'm not a Laker hater, and Isee your point. I shouldn't have made it out to be a fact that you watch with a bias. My bad.'
But that's just me. I can admit things like 'The Kings got screwed', because I never said they didn't. I just said they have other things tolook at also.
Don't you agree that they have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B)nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
I find it funny that you say that I labeled you a Laker hater due to not having anything else to say... when the reason I did that is because you labeled me abiased observer. It would seem to me, by YOUR logic, that the reason you did that... would be... because... you didn't have anything else to say.
Pride will prevent you from using your own logic against yourself. That doesn't change the fact that you labeled me a biased observer before I responded bycalling you a Laer hater, and then you said that I must have said that because I ran out of things to say.
But I digress.
Don't you agree that the Kings have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B)nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
- Sep 5, 2005
- 15,762
- 517
This is the NBA we are talking about, how can the competition not be "fierce"?
And who uses fierce? That's a word you would probably here over in West Hollywood
D
Deleted member 43282
Guest
Did you or did you not say that I didn't form my opinons on my own? That I was influenced by other people? Sounds like you were turning youropinion into fact. How many replies did it take you to admit that the Lakers got help from the refs? I think you only admitted it to prove a pointOriginally Posted by 23ska909red02
Wrong.
Watch.
The Lakers got help from the refs in Game 6. Twenty-seven free throws in the fourth quarter of a pivotal game is ridiculous.
Boom.
Guarantee you won't admit what I said you have a hard time admitting.
Because you hate the Lakers.
And you won't admit that, either.
It's cool.
BY the way, I'm not even saying you're a Laker hater. You said FIRST that I can't watch the series objectively. You're wrong, but you think you're right, so I'm saying 'Hey, if I say I'm right, then I guess that makes me right. You're a Laker hater. I'm right, because I say so.' I don't believe I watch Laker games with purple and gold filters any more than I believe you to be a Laker hater. Interpret that how you want, and do with it what you want. If I were you, I'd take a step back and throw something out there along the lines of 'Nah, I'm not a Laker hater, and I see your point. I shouldn't have made it out to be a fact that you watch with a bias. My bad.'
But that's just me. I can admit things like 'The Kings got screwed', because I never said they didn't. I just said they have other things to look at also.
Don't you agree that they have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B) nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
I find it funny that you say that I labeled you a Laker hater due to not having anything else to say... when the reason I did that is because you labeled me a biased observer. It would seem to me, by YOUR logic, that the reason you did that... would be... because... you didn't have anything else to say.
Pride will prevent you from using your own logic against yourself. That doesn't change the fact that you labeled me a biased observer before I responded by calling you a Laer hater, and then you said that I must have said that because I ran out of things to say.
But I digress.
Don't you agree that the Kings have other things to look at?
Don't you agree that there was no reason for you to talk like it's fact that I watch Laker games with a bias, since that is A) just your opinion, B) nothing you can prove, C) belongs nowhere in the argument?
darthska
Staff member
- Apr 30, 2004
- 47,060
- 31,751
epox12:
Did you or did you not say that I didn't form my opinons on my own? That I was influenced by other people? Sounds like you were turning your opinion into fact.
Good point. You're right; I did.
epox12:
How many replies did it take you to admit that the Lakers got help from the refs? I think you only admitted it to prove a pointbut maybe you didn't admit just for that.
I 'admitted it' because it's true, and I never said it was false. Like I said, "The Kings have other things they can look atregarding that Gm. 6 loss" is NOT the same as "The Kings didn't get screwed; The Lakers got now help," and I was sick of you putting wordsin my mouth, saying that I was saying the latter when all I was saying was the former.
Regardless, you said that I couldn't admit it and that "It's cool" that other Laker fans can admit it, but not me, and I called your bluff...which was easy to do, because you were trying to turn "The Kings have other things to look at also" into "The Lakers didn't get help."Your point was to get me to admit something that you thought I didn't believe, so it was easy to put that to rest. Now that you got your way, you'requestioning how many replies it took?
I wouldn't have had a problem saying that from the jump, but it didn't hit me until this page that that was all you really wanted. Could have preventedall this nonsense from the beginning if I would have known that you weren't really interested in a debate, but that you rather just wanted another Lakerfan to admit what you wanted them to admit.
D
Deleted member 43282
Guest
P.P.S. I can't help but notice, you said that I can't admit something, and then I readily admitted it, without any further questions on what you said I couldn't admit. I aksed you if you could admit that the Kings had other things to look at, and you've got more questions before admitting that. Interesting.
I did admit it. Check my last response. I edited it to include an answer to your question because I had missed it earlier. You were probablytyping as I was editing.
Your point was to get me to admit something that you thought I didn't believe, so it was easy to put that to rest. Now that you got your way, you're questioning how many replies it took?
I wouldn't have had a problem saying that from the jump, but it didn't hit me until this page that that was all you really wanted. Could have prevented all this nonsense from the beginning if I would have known that you weren't really interested in a debate, but that you rather just wanted another Laker fan to admit what you wanted them to admit.
Not true I wanted to debate the other point you made also. From your last response it sounds like you are saying that both the Lakers and Heat got unwarrantedcalls but the calls the Heat got were at another level. Is that accurate? Thats how I feel about game 5 and 6 of the WCF. The queens got two calls in the lastminute while the lakers got all the calls for an entire qt. where IMO it was clear the refs were going to do everything they needed to do to help the Lakers. Ithink thats how a lot of people feel about what the refs did in the 06 Finals for the Heat and my initial point was that they did the same for the Lakers.
