next »

[KCattheStripe]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

[celtsfan84]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

[Smutzy#9]

Same Core of 8-9 players for the past 2-3 years if not more and the best coach in the league.....

[Celtics18]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker.  I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.


The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

[celtsfan84]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

[Celtics18]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though. 

[celtsfan84]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though.

Same here.  And wondering if the Celtics roster will be the same in May as it is in November.

[Celtics18]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

Of course they get credit.  So do Ginobili and Parker. I don't think the Spurs titles are being ignored, it's just that it's been awhile.

The thread title isn't "What's the difference between us and the pre 2008 Spurs."

Some might say our title has been awhile.  It was only one year more recently than the Spurs last title, after all.

By that token the thread title also isn't "What's the difference between us and the 2008 Spurs"? or "What's the difference between us and the 2010 Spurs"?

He is talking about this year and how the teams look so far in the regular season.  This year, the HEAT, Celtics, Spurs, Thunder, Lakers, etc... have 0 NBA titles. 

I'd say our title win in 2008 will have just as much an impact as their title win in 2007 - none.  Otherwise, we'd give up to the HEAT and their 2012 title (more recent than ours) or the Lakers and their 2009 and 2010 titles (two more recent than ours).

Fine.  The Spurs are currently looking better than us.  I'm more concerned about how we'll be looking in May and June than in November, though.

Same here.  And wondering if the Celtics roster will be the same in May as it is in November.

As of right now, I still hope it is.

[Edgar]

Better players, coaching, and management on the Spurs side.

yes this too

[KCattheStripe]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

[Edgar]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

yup

imagine if we have picked timmy d ugly memmories

[celtsfan84]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.

[Edgar]

Also, 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 5 years.

Or three less titles since Paul Pierce and Tim Duncan entered the league.  I guess it depends on what arbitrary cutoff point you choose.

It's not an arbitrary cutting off point when you look at the current cores.

It is when you consider that their core happened to win their titles before the cutoff point.  You can't just ignore that the Spurs core has three titles because it came before the Celtics core existed.  If you are comparing the two franchises, Popovich and Duncan still get credit for having four titles.

I'd love three titles from this group, no matter what order they happened in, how long it took them, etc...  Three titles is a pretty big accomplishment to brush aside.

I mean, we could make this post about the HEAT and note that we have 0 finals appearances since their core formed (which is true).  It doesn't take away our one title.

Of course their core won before the cut-off point. Our core wasn't assembled until the cut-off point. That's why it's not arbitrary. Any rational analysis comparing the Celtics and the Spurs teams would have to start then because that's when the Celtics became elite.

So I guess according to you any rational analysis between us and the HEAT would start when their core was assembled. 

So if the question was about the HEAT, you'd respond 2 finals appearances and 1 win in the last 2 years (which they have and we don't).

That logic works against us, not for us.  Your logic makes the HEAT sound pretty invincible. I disagree with your HEAT praising logic.

it is what it is
theyre pretty invincible until proven otherwise

[Kuberski1]

I don't think there is a large gap in talent...my hope at the beginning of the year was that we would be the Spurs of the East.

So far, no go.

Their execution on both ends of the floor is much better.  Their role players know their roles, and execute them well - not so with some of our bench guys.  And our defense is far short of where it needs to be if we want to have a shot....that's my biggest gripe, and area of concern - I think we can and will score enough points.

[Lightskinsmurf]

These guys have proven they can play lock down D in stretches. Problem is they don't seem willing to play it for 48mins. I think our D improves alot once ab is in the starting lineup and terry is back on the bench.