Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 26 of 26
  1. #16
    Member Steezo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kiyaman View Post
    Later for calling it luck .. mybad, the Warriors championship was phoney, like other NBA Championships was PHONEY! Dallas, the last ring Shaq n Kobe Lakers won (Kings series) and 2 of the Spurs rings were phoney.

    The Knicks beating Hakeem in the FINALS in 1994. would've been PHONEY! not bc of the missing Jordan era.
    Hakeem proved to be the best NCAA center for two years straight .. out performing centers Sampson, Ewing, and Bowie.
    Ewing won the MVP in 1984 NCAA Championship, plus Ewing knew Hakeem was going to be the 1984 first pick in NBA.
    Rookie Hakeem & Sampson took the Houston Rockets to the 1984-85 NBA FINALS.
    The Rockets Hakeem & Drexler vs Pat Riley Knicks Ewing & Starks .. were great advertisement for the NBA FINALS in the missing Jordan era .... The vegas odds favored the Houston Rockets
    I disagree w/ your mindset that we would've been lucky to defeat Houston back when-- it went the distance with Ewing shooting as poorly as he did. Had he managed to shoot even 40% we would've won 1994. But this isn't the main reason I quoted you...

    It has to do with the bolded. I'm guessing you're referring to the Horry hipcheck lol. I can see the argument there, however it seemed like Phoenix just lost their cool (they knew the rules, I mean damn, we should've been a shining example ten years preceding this), plus Nash admittedly didn't immediately get up when he knew he could, just to try to draw a foul. Had he gotten right up as he should've, the suspensions wouldn't have happened. And they had everyone back for game 6 AT HOME, and lost anyways

  2. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    315
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steezo View Post
    The only thing about Dallas' title, is that their ring was determined by the play of LeBron James-- the best player in basketball playing well below his standards. You can say what you want about his team or the defense he played, that doesn't negate the fact that no superstar-- the NBA's best player mind you-- that I can think of in recent memory, played such below their standards in the Finals. You don't agree w/ it, but in the minds of most, Dallas getting that title was more about LeBron's play than anything Dallas did (although they did play great)


    As for Golden State, none of the teams they beat were any great. All were injured, plus they were lucky to avoid the Spurs, and less so the Clippers. I'll see what they do next Spring and I'll eat my words if they actually beat some great teams and get back to the Finals

    Houston, same story, none of the teams they beat either year were any great. The fact that Houston won as a 6th seed, and an 8th seed nearly won two rounds the year before should tell you the quality of the NBA during that time. Plus Houston relied on luck MUCH MORE than any team I can think of in '95, really the only round I feel that luck didn't play into the equation was the WCF series (which happens to be Hakeem's shining moment of his career). It's either Houston got really lucky in '95, or if you believe the better team won that year, than you'd have to admit the teams they beat weren't so hot.

    As for what I bolded in your quote, you're lying to yourself. Don't get me wrong, I would've loved to have had the Rangers and Knicks win the same year, but I wouldn't delude myself. To win our only title when Jordan was gone, and against a team that we didn't have HCA against, to lose the very next year to a Pacer team that never won ****, while having HCA, would tell me that we were very fortunate to have Mike not there
    come on now, this sound reasoning at all.. First of all lebron playing below standards is not the fault of the mavs .. I bet you can go back in history and find a team that lost, playing below standards, usually that is what happens when teams lose, and often they play below standards because the other team is making it look that way. It is that simple. And remember lebron did have wade and bosh on that team... And for the record, Dirk played out of his mind down the stretch of games.. Almost historic.

    As far as the warriors, none of the teams they beat were great is not their fault.. the fact remains they were great, thats all that matters..And please stop with the spurs and clippers.. the warriors beat the rockets who beat the clippers who beat the spurs.. THE END!

    It's either Houston got really lucky in '95, or if you believe the better team won that year, than you'd have to admit the teams they beat weren't so hot.
    The Houston teams that won had probably the best player in the NBA on their team.. there is nothing lucky with that..And tell me again, what is lucky about Houston coming from a 6th seed and winning the title? they beat the 1,2 and 3 seeds to win the title!! Jeezus christ... The better team did win, Houston beat the top 3 seeds... According to your logic then, Golden state is legit, they did what a #1 seed should have done.... WIN!!! you can't have it both ways man..

    and I am not lying to myself, this is what you are doing by making up all of these ridiculous excuses to discredit teams..
    Last edited by Tkf; Oct 27, 2015 at 11:53.

  3. #18
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,597
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    There are some scenarios that you can make the argument about luck, having an less hard route to a championship, etc. The Warriors though won 67 games in the regular season, and won the championship. The Cavs' injuries sure did have an impact, but Curry wasn't even at his best during the series, a lot of it anyway, and they won. They had a lot of weapons. Don't forget that they changed up the line-up, starting Iguodala and on LeBron, which had such an impact that he won the Finals MVP.

    And the Mavs/LeBron 2011 Finals thing, you can't even make that argument. You know why? LeBron played, he was healthy, it doesn't MATTER how he usually plays, he played unusual, and it wasn't good. There is no what if scenario there. LeBron had his chance. It doesn't matter that it was the Heat's first year, LeBron won MVP twice before joining the Heat, he was a veteran in his first year of the Heat, he just didn't play that well.

    The Spurs missed free throws at the end of Game 6 in the 2013 Finals. They were up five points with what? Thirty something seconds to go? They missed free throws, and lost that game. The Spurs had another chance to prove they were the best, they didn't win. It doesn't matter if the best player in basketball doesn't play well, or players who don't usually don't miss free throws miss free throws, the fact is, it happened, it wasn't unfair, it happened. The better team won. What is potential, what is the usual, they don't matter. What matters is what was. They had their chance!

    On top of the first gap without Jordan, we can talk about what if Jordan played with the Bulls in the 1998-1999 season? They just went 62-20 in the regular season with Jordan being the scoring champion, MVP, and Finals MVP, in which they won the championship in Game 6. He didn't play though. I've thought about Jordan's first gap before, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play.

    Yes, I UNDERSTAND people's opinions and feelings in some scenarios, but things happen. Unless a pretty obvious mediocre team won the title, you have to give teams credit.
    Last edited by RunningJumper; Oct 27, 2015 at 12:41.


    Sig made by Sons of Thunder

  4. #19
    Member Steezo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tkf View Post
    come on now, this sound reasoning at all.. First of all lebron playing below standards is not the fault of the mavs .. I bet you can go back in history and find a team that lost, playing below standards, usually that is what happens when teams lose, and often they play below standards because the other team is making it look that way. It is that simple. And remember lebron did have wade and bosh on that team... And for the record, Dirk played out of his mind down the stretch of games.. Almost historic.

    As far as the warriors, none of the teams they beat were great is not their fault.. the fact remains they were great, thats all that matters..And please stop with the spurs and clippers.. the warriors beat the rockets who beat the clippers who beat the spurs.. THE END!


    The Houston teams that won had probably the best player in the NBA on their team.. there is nothing lucky with that..And tell me again, what is lucky about Houston coming from a 6th seed and winning the title? they beat the 1,2 and 3 seeds to win the title!! Jeezus christ... The better team did win, Houston beat the top 3 seeds... According to your logic then, Golden state is legit, they did what a #1 seed should have done.... WIN!!! you can't have it both ways man..

    and I am not lying to myself, this is what you are doing by making up all of these ridiculous excuses to discredit teams..
    All I'm asking is, what was great about the teams Houston and GS beat. Forget the seeding for a moment, I'd just like to know what was great about the teams Houston beat both years, and what was great about the teams GS beat this past spring

  5. #20
    Member Steezo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RunningJumper View Post
    There are some scenarios that you can make the argument about luck, having an less hard route to a championship, etc. The Warriors though won 67 games in the regular season, and won the championship. The Cavs' injuries sure did have an impact, but Curry wasn't even at his best during the series, a lot of it anyway, and they won. They had a lot of weapons. Don't forget that they changed up the line-up, starting Iguodala and on LeBron, which had such an impact that he won the Finals MVP.

    And the Mavs/LeBron 2011 Finals thing, you can't even make that argument. You know why? LeBron played, he was healthy, it doesn't MATTER how he usually plays, he played unusual, and it wasn't good. There is no what if scenario there. LeBron had his chance. It doesn't matter that it was the Heat's first year, LeBron won MVP twice before joining the Heat, he was a veteran in his first year of the Heat, he just didn't play that well.

    The Spurs missed free throws at the end of Game 6 in the 2013 Finals. They were up five points with what? Thirty something seconds to go? They missed free throws, and lost that game. The Spurs had another chance to prove they were the best, they didn't win. It doesn't matter if the best player in basketball doesn't play well, or players who don't usually don't miss free throws miss free throws, the fact is, it happened, it wasn't unfair, it happened. The better team won. What is potential, what is the usual, they don't matter. What matters is what was. They had their chance!

    On top of the first gap without Jordan, we can talk about what if Jordan played with the Bulls in the 1998-1999 season? They just went 62-20 in the regular season with Jordan being the scoring champion, MVP, and Finals MVP, in which they won the championship in Game 6. He didn't play though. I've thought about Jordan's first gap before, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play.

    Yes, I UNDERSTAND people's opinions and feelings in some scenarios, but things happen. Unless a pretty obvious mediocre team won the title, you have to give teams credit.
    Yea but Dell Jr played all 6 games; Love and Irving only played one game between them in those Finals, you can't be serious comparing injuries like that.......

    AFA the '11 Finals, all I really wanted to know was about any other superstars playing such below their standards as LeBron did in an NBA Finals setting. You'll probably say "whatever, doesn't matter, etc", but just a simple question, lol

    And I don't see how you can compare Jordan's first LOA when he was 30, to the 2nd one when he was 36 and having played 13 seasons already, plus with Pippen just exiting his prime with beginning back problems. I don't really subscribe to Jordan's 2nd LOA anyways outside of the Knicks, I just brought that up to demonstrate a circumstance (our last Finals appearances since the days of Willis Reed). The fact remains that our only Finals apperances coincided with Jordan not playing at all (and for the record I do believe had Jordan not left in '98 the Bulls would've beaten us yet again in '99), and Houston only won titles when Jordan didn't play a full season. How one chooses to view that is entirely up to the eye of the beholder

  6. #21
    Super Moderator RunningJumper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4,597
    Rep Power
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steezo View Post
    Yea but Dell Jr played all 6 games; Love and Irving only played one game between them in those Finals, you can't be serious comparing injuries like that.......

    AFA the '11 Finals, all I really wanted to know was about any other superstars playing such below their standards as LeBron did in an NBA Finals setting. You'll probably say "whatever, doesn't matter, etc", but just a simple question, lol

    And I don't see how you can compare Jordan's first LOA when he was 30, to the 2nd one when he was 36 and having played 13 seasons already, plus with Pippen just exiting his prime with beginning back problems. I don't really subscribe to Jordan's 2nd LOA anyways outside of the Knicks, I just brought that up to demonstrate a circumstance (our last Finals appearances since the days of Willis Reed). The fact remains that our only Finals apperances coincided with Jordan not playing at all (and for the record I do believe had Jordan not left in '98 the Bulls would've beaten us yet again in '99), and Houston only won titles when Jordan didn't play a full season. How one chooses to view that is entirely up to the eye of the beholder
    Yes, it would have been interesting what LeBron would have done if he played as he does usually, but he was there. Alive and in the flesh. He didn't play well. I mean, we all know J.R. Smith can be nearly unstoppable, but a lot of times his head's not in it. He's no LeBron James, but it happens to everyone. Maybe LeBron got nervous, had a lot of pressure, he didn't overcome it that year. Confidence and focus is just as important as dribbling and shooting skills, that year, he didn't have it enough.

    I agree 100% that if Love and Irving were healthy they would have have given the Warriors a MUCH bigger challenge, even with Irving alone, but if you want to go back to LeBron's sub-par performance in the '11 Finals, then you can say the same about Curry, Klay, and I think Draymond Green as well. I mean seriously, if the Warriors were at their best it could have been a sweep, no disrespect to the Cavs.

    Trust me, I get where you're coming from, but at least the '11 Finals, you gotta give the Mavs their due. Even before they faced they Heat, they pulled off some incredible victories.


    Sig made by Sons of Thunder

  7. #22
    Member Steezo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RunningJumper View Post
    Yes, it would have been interesting what LeBron would have done if he played as he does usually, but he was there. Alive and in the flesh. He didn't play well. I mean, we all know J.R. Smith can be nearly unstoppable, but a lot of times his head's not in it. He's no LeBron James, but it happens to everyone. Maybe LeBron got nervous, had a lot of pressure, he didn't overcome it that year. Confidence and focus is just as important as dribbling and shooting skills, that year, he didn't have it enough.

    I agree 100% that if Love and Irving were healthy they would have have given the Warriors a MUCH bigger challenge, even with Irving alone, but if you want to go back to LeBron's sub-par performance in the '11 Finals, then you can say the same about Curry, Klay, and I think Draymond Green as well. I mean seriously, if the Warriors were at their best it could have been a sweep, no disrespect to the Cavs.

    Trust me, I get where you're coming from, but at least the '11 Finals, you gotta give the Mavs their due. Even before they faced they Heat, they pulled off some incredible victories.
    I'm sure Dell's numbers would've changed had GS lost, however just judging his numbers and play in the Finals, he played well overall. I believe it was him that cost GS a game in a Finals OT loss, and he had his other hiccups, but full-circle he was arguably the Finals MVP (I put the emphasis on arguably, I don't have a particular opinion on this ATM)

    I do believe Cleveland would've won had they been healthy, regardless of what the Warriors would've done, injuries or play-wise. I really like Irving, he is bad

    As far what I bolded, I never once even doubted what Dallas pulled off before the final round. Slightly off-topic, but the only problem I have in regards to revisionist history, is the they were anything but favorites against Portland. I'm pretty sure the Mavericks were favored to beat a team with a hobbled Brandon Roy and a Greg Oden on permanent vacation. Beating Portland was nothing special. Otherwise Dirk's offense and the defensive stand provided by Kidd & Marion in taking out the defending World Champs and Oklahoma City was very impressive, there's nothing anyone can take away from that

  8. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    315
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RunningJumper View Post
    There are some scenarios that you can make the argument about luck, having an less hard route to a championship, etc. The Warriors though won 67 games in the regular season, and won the championship. The Cavs' injuries sure did have an impact, but Curry wasn't even at his best during the series, a lot of it anyway, and they won. They had a lot of weapons. Don't forget that they changed up the line-up, starting Iguodala and on LeBron, which had such an impact that he won the Finals MVP.

    And the Mavs/LeBron 2011 Finals thing, you can't even make that argument. You know why? LeBron played, he was healthy, it doesn't MATTER how he usually plays, he played unusual, and it wasn't good. There is no what if scenario there. LeBron had his chance. It doesn't matter that it was the Heat's first year, LeBron won MVP twice before joining the Heat, he was a veteran in his first year of the Heat, he just didn't play that well.

    The Spurs missed free throws at the end of Game 6 in the 2013 Finals. They were up five points with what? Thirty something seconds to go? They missed free throws, and lost that game. The Spurs had another chance to prove they were the best, they didn't win. It doesn't matter if the best player in basketball doesn't play well, or players who don't usually don't miss free throws miss free throws, the fact is, it happened, it wasn't unfair, it happened. The better team won. What is potential, what is the usual, they don't matter. What matters is what was. They had their chance!

    On top of the first gap without Jordan, we can talk about what if Jordan played with the Bulls in the 1998-1999 season? They just went 62-20 in the regular season with Jordan being the scoring champion, MVP, and Finals MVP, in which they won the championship in Game 6. He didn't play though. I've thought about Jordan's first gap before, but it doesn't matter. He didn't play.

    Yes, I UNDERSTAND people's opinions and feelings in some scenarios, but things happen. Unless a pretty obvious mediocre team won the title, you have to give teams credit.
    EXCELLENT POST. We all understand that in any given year the team that wins, may have had some breaks fall their way... but again, that is just part of the game, you still have to beat who is there. It doesn't matter if a great player didn't play well, he was there in the flesh as you said. it is on him that he didn't play well, or heck lets give the winner credit, maybe they had something to do with him not playing well. Golden state won 67 games, they were the best team in the NBA, they won it all, that is not a fluke. The mavs beat the heat with a healthy lebron and crew, they were there, they lost.. that is not a fluke.

  9. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    315
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steezo View Post
    All I'm asking is, what was great about the teams Houston and GS beat. Forget the seeding for a moment, I'd just like to know what was great about the teams Houston beat both years, and what was great about the teams GS beat this past spring
    that is irrelevant! Every team in the NBA can suck, but the team that wins it all is the best of the sucky bunch... it still makes them the best and validates their championship.. we are not talking who are the greatest teams of all time.. golden state would not be top 10, but that is not the point.. that doesn't make their championship less valid.. unless you can resurrect the 80's bad boys or the 90's bulls teams to come play the warriors, then I don't get your argument.

    The same goes with the Rockets team. They beat the best teams available at the time...

  10. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    315
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steezo View Post
    I'm sure Dell's numbers would've changed had GS lost, however just judging his numbers and play in the Finals, he played well overall. I believe it was him that cost GS a game in a Finals OT loss, and he had his other hiccups, but full-circle he was arguably the Finals MVP (I put the emphasis on arguably, I don't have a particular opinion on this ATM)

    I do believe Cleveland would've won had they been healthy, regardless of what the Warriors would've done, injuries or play-wise. I really like Irving, he is bad

    As far what I bolded, I never once even doubted what Dallas pulled off before the final round. Slightly off-topic, but the only problem I have in regards to revisionist history, is the they were anything but favorites against Portland. I'm pretty sure the Mavericks were favored to beat a team with a hobbled Brandon Roy and a Greg Oden on permanent vacation. Beating Portland was nothing special. Otherwise Dirk's offense and the defensive stand provided by Kidd & Marion in taking out the defending World Champs and Oklahoma City was very impressive, there's nothing anyone can take away from that
    You are making different arguments here... You keep trying to argue greatness and using that to discredit the validity of a championship... You can't do that. Winning is hard enough, it takes a complete effort to win, The coach of the Redsox in 1986 made a huge mistake leaving buckner at first base when he used to replace him defensively every game late inning during the regular season. that was a coaching blunder, I watched every game of that series, boston was the better team until that happened, the mets more resilient.. which is better? the team with the ring.... was that luck? maybe but if boston makes the right moves they win.. this is why teams win and lose..

    I heard this before and it applies here. " in the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king"....

  11. #26
    12th man
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,345
    Rep Power
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tkf View Post
    so if it is phoney, why watch? why root for the knicks to win anything? I just don't get your logic here... Im sorry
    I dont understand ur complaint? We even.
    I mention the GS Warriors championship was phoney, my reason were simple, if the Warriors would've beat the championship Spurs in a series, or even the Clippers in a series it would have been more ledgit.

    Last offseason, on the day Lebron return to the Cavs every sports announcer/commentator put the 33 win Cavs in the FINALS a week after the Lebron-Decision. And when the Lebron Cavs did make it to the FINALS .. PHONEY! PHONEY!
    The sports commentators saying the new Lebron Cavs will be in the Finals made the Eastern conference look like a conference of 14 weak teams.

    The Knicks maybe LOSERS, but the Knicks are not phoney.
    I know, I been a DIE hard Knicks Fan since Red Holzman were the Knicks head coach bringing ex-Knick player Phil Jackson off the bench.

Similar Threads

  1. NBA league pass changes
    By bigapple in forum NBA
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Sep 20, 2013, 16:26
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Nov 07, 2011, 16:19
  3. Possible NBA Rival League?
    By Ewing33Swisher in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: Aug 09, 2011, 18:03
  4. Nba League Pass
    By XxWinKnicksxX in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Oct 26, 2010, 15:20
  5. NBA League Pass
    By nyKnicks126 in forum NY Knicks
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Oct 15, 2007, 03:36

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •