Jazzmoose Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I love underdogs, way to go Pistons!!!! Same here. Plus the fact that it's such a joy to see great defense in the NBA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 So, ss1.. about that RVG... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Some underdogs. The Lakers won only two more regular season games than the Pistons, and were without their starting power forward for virtually the whole series. In addition, Horace Grant was not healthy to play in Malone's place. We were left with Slava and Walton to guard Rasheed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Noj, the Pistons were underdogs because the Lakers have won three titles in five years and the Pistons are from the Eastern Conference, which have won a total of 3 finals games in the past three seasons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul secor Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 My hat is off to the Pistons. I've been a Laker fan since I was 8 years old and they (and I) were in Minneapolis, but the better team won. The Pistons played some of the best defense that I've ever seen throughout the entire playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 So, if the Lakers had been the number 8 seed and had suited up Noj at power forward, they still would have been the favorite because of what happened a few seasons ago with different personnel. I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hey, I didn't say it made sense. But everyone thought the Lakers would sweep the Pistons or win it in 5 or 6. Except those of us who have watched the Pistons all year and realized that they play much better than anyone thought. ss1's attitude here before the series began was indictative of what the majority of people thought. But you can't beat team basketball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I thought the Lakers would win, but I'm optimistic. I never expect a sweep, but I do expect them to win every game. Funny how that works. Hats off to the Pistons, NBA Champs. I'll stop making an ass of myself now, if I can help it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I think the "general consensus" on the relative strength of the two conferences is about to change, at least slightly... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 ...that is, assuming I have the terminology correct; it is conferences, right? (Hell, I haven't followed basketball closely since Satan...er, I mean Don Nelson traded Chris Webber from the Warrior. Bastard! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 I SO love it when the best team wins. And they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe G Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Hey, I didn't say it made sense. But everyone thought the Lakers would sweep the Pistons or win it in 5 or 6. Except those of us who have watched the Pistons all year and realized that they play much better than anyone thought. ss1's attitude here before the series began was indictative of what the majority of people thought. But you can't beat team basketball. Hell, even you stated in this thread that the Pacers would win that series. How silly does that seem now? Apologies to the Pacer fans in the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 man am i gonna hear "it" today..... i bet after the game 'sheed fired up a phat bowl SS1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 So do I have to pick an RVG, or can I go with that new Shirley Scott re-issue on Prestige, ss1? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 Great article by Bill Simmons. Bill Simmons page 2 It was nice to see Stephen A. Smith eat crow last night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 16, 2004 Report Share Posted June 16, 2004 So, who won? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 May I remind you guys of the 1986 playoffs when the Patriots were called for a highly questionable "roughing the passer" penalty while winning the game. The Raiders went on to win the game, and the Super Bowl. You don't hear us Pats fans whining about that kind of garbage. You see, if the Pats were good enough, they would have found a way to win anyway. Same for the Oakland Raiders of 2002. Now stop your whining....  -_- You mean 1984, right? In 1986, the Patriots DID make it to the Super Bowl only to be dispatched 46-10 by an awesome Chicago Bears team. Aw fudge.... I think it was 1976 actually... I don't remember the damned year! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 I hope no one takes these sports arguments personally. Don't hate me for my loyalties! I wouldn't worry about it, Noj. I doubt that anyone would hold it against you or anyone else for your sports' loyalties. Whaddya think this is, politics????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheldonm Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Hey, I didn't say it made sense. But everyone thought the Lakers would sweep the Pistons or win it in 5 or 6. Except those of us who have watched the Pistons all year and realized that they play much better than anyone thought. ss1's attitude here before the series began was indictative of what the majority of people thought. But you can't beat team basketball. Hell, even you stated in this thread that the Pacers would win that series. How silly does that seem now? Apologies to the Pacer fans in the house. ........I'm waiting..........hello????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 I hope no one takes these sports arguments personally. Don't hate me for my loyalties! I wouldn't worry about it, Noj. I doubt that anyone would hold it against you or anyone else for your sports' loyalties. Whaddya think this is, politics????? You're a Patriots fan? You lowlife, scum sucking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 B3ER IS THE NAME OF THE CD Trio Classics Vol. 1 * - Shirley Scott LET ME KNOW SS1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Old: Fox is done. The Glove played so bad in the Lakers' system he should leave or retire. Will the Mailman try to heal up and play again or will he hang them up too? Gone?: Fisher, Medvedenko, Rush....KOBE....PHIL? I think the Lakers will resign Kobe and Phil to big new contracts, but a lot of others don't. I know I would if I were Dr. Buss. What's the consensus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 Phil's gone. It's a big man's game these days. Shaq and a decent supporting cast minus Kobe stands a better chance than Kobe and a decent supporting cast minus Shaq. The ideal would be for both of them to take a little more responsibility as TEAM players, be that getting in better shape and honing some OTHER skills or be that being less concerned with whose team it is, but since that ain't gonna happen, I'd have to say stick w/Shaq, at least as things stand right now. Just my opinion, and I'm glad it ain't my problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted June 17, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 B3ER IS THE NAME OF THE CD Trio Classics Vol. 1 * - Shirley Scott LET ME KNOW SS1 Yes, that's the one. PM me your address and I will send you a copy of our CD anyway. You should have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted June 17, 2004 Report Share Posted June 17, 2004 (edited) Phil's gone. It's a big man's game these days. Shaq and a decent supporting cast minus Kobe stands a better chance than Kobe and a decent supporting cast minus Shaq. The ideal would be for both of them to take a little more responsibility as TEAM players, be that getting in better shape and honing some OTHER skills or be that being less concerned with whose team it is, but since that ain't gonna happen, I'd have to say stick w/Shaq, at least as things stand right now. Just my opinion, and I'm glad it ain't my problem. If Kobe goes, why wouldn't Phil stay? In an interview Jeannie Buss (Phil's girlfriend and daughter of Laker owner Jerry) said she was "95% sure" Phil was staying. I think Kobe and Phil could both stay, personally. The internal conflicts seem blown out of proportion by the media and wild speculation. I agree, it is still Shaq's team. I hear Shaq and TMac are friends... Edited June 17, 2004 by Noj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.