Author Topic: What's the difference between us and the spurs?  (Read 13219 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #90 on: November 29, 2012, 01:40:16 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

It is fine for the OP to be a little disappointed at our slow start.  Our finish in 2010 doesn't change that.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #91 on: November 29, 2012, 02:01:22 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #92 on: November 29, 2012, 02:07:57 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #93 on: November 29, 2012, 02:12:00 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #94 on: November 29, 2012, 02:14:52 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

All I said to you is that he is talking about this year, and he was.  Cool your jets, my friend.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?  I should note that we have zero titles without home court in years that we have had this core group.  We've also lost a Game 7 on the road in 2010 and in 2012.  Our title in 2008 came with us winning almost exclusively at home.

Once again, I'd state this slump might not hurt, but it certainly doesn't help.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #95 on: November 29, 2012, 02:16:10 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #96 on: November 29, 2012, 02:16:59 PM »

Offline Chris

  • Global Moderator
  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18008
  • Tommy Points: 642
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Thats enough of that (both of you).  Let's keep this civil.  Consider this a general warning to everyone.  There is a lot of tension right now, but we still expect everyone to behave with respect to other posters.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #97 on: November 29, 2012, 02:22:33 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #98 on: November 29, 2012, 02:25:56 PM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

  Were they low seeded teams? If not we'd have won some series before we played them, just like we did when we lost to the Heat and the Magic. We might have done better in the West without Wade's cheap shot on Rondo in 2011.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #99 on: November 29, 2012, 02:29:08 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80


  I thought the answer was "we've had more recent playoff success than them".

I'd say he is talking about this year.  Every year is different.  For instance, he spoke of roster similarities.  The Celtics roster this year has a lot of turnover.  Context clues, my friend, context clues.

Or maybe that was a sarcastic response to a poster asking a genuine question.  That wouldn't be your style though.

  Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post.

  And it's great that you were able to tell that he was talking about this year by those hard to decipher context clues, I did too. I don't know if you're new here, but threads like this happen all the time when the Celts go through a slump. I was just pointing out that the team usually plays well in the playoffs despite these issues. I was just adding some perspective, my friend, perspective.

1) Every year is different.  It isn't a definite that a slow start will lead to a nice finish because it happened before.  And our title year happened after a quick start to the season.  Given the choice between being 8-7 or 11-4, I'd prefer to be 11-4, regardless of how we started or finished in prior seasons.

2) The OP, or myself, never said we can't or won't turn it around.  He is just wondering why we are struggling now as compared to other teams, like the Spurs.

  So if you agree that there's no reason to think we can't turn it around, why does it bother you that I pointed that out?

3) Chris Paul. (Who probably appears in a higher % of your posts, as mocking him is oddly your sole means of praising Rondo.)

  I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul. I don't know that I've ever seen a post of yours before yesterday. I keep less track of who posts what than you seem to.

It doesn't bother me at all, but it fails to address the OP's question, which is asking why we look worse than the Spurs to begin this year.  Our finish in 2010 or 2009 isn't the difference between us and the Spurs to begin this season, which is what the question was.  Your post is an answer to a question that nobody asked, in essence, which is all I addressed.

  Are you the thread police? It's not that uncommon for someone to make a comment based on the thread title that doesn't directly address the OP. And, again, I was just injecting a different perspective on the issue.

It's really odd that you said you were surprised that I didn't mention Chris Paul.  You don't "keep track of my posts" but feel the need to point out that I supposedly post about a certain player a lot.  Strange.

  Oh, I knew who you were by your reply to my post, which seems to largely be spillover from the other ongoing thread that I referred to. You posted about Paul a lot in that thread.

Regardless, is it possible that our slumps hurt us in 2010?  Would we have won the NBA Finals in 2010 if we had home court?  Didn't we lose Game 7 in the Lakers building by 4?

  Possibly, but home court would change for the whole series, not just the one game. What if we'd come out flat in game 1 at home instead of in LA? What if we'd come back to Boston down 3-2 instead of going back to LA up 3-2?

Losing a lot of games to begin the year might not hurt us in the long run, but there is no way that it helps.

  Nobody said that losing helps, nobody said that they'd rather have our record than the Spurs.

I'm not the thread police, but I am allowed to point out that every year is different and previous slow starts don't guarantee us more playoff success than the Spurs this year.  Are you the thread police?  Or am I not allowed to respond to your posts?

  I was just being snarky about the thread police thing. You didn't seem to have trouble discussing our playoff success compared to the Spurs with other posters instead of admonishing them for not answering the OP's question. Guess you missed the context clues on that one.

So I posted a lot about Chris Paul in one thread on one night and that leads you to draw the conclusion that you were surprised that I wouldn't post about him in other threads.  Geez, rush to judgment much?

  Obviously not, which is why I said "I don't have any idea how many of your posts are about Chris Paul".

4 games at home is preferable to 4 games on the road, no matter how you slice it.  The end goal is to win the championship.  We did so after a fast start.  We haven't done so after slow starts.

  I don't think that home court is a huge advantage in a 2-3-2, but opinions vary.

Which begs the question why your first reply to me was "Haha. I'm surprised you couldn't work Chris Paul into your post."  Because I posted about him in one completely different thread?  At least it seems that now you are admitting that this initial statement made no logical sense or connection to this thread at all, so that one can be put to rest.

  Your initial response to my post seemed to be based on a discussion in another thread. I was merely responding in kind. It makes logical sense, and it's connected to the thread because it came after your post.

Is home court a big advantage in a 2-2-1-1-1?

  It's definitely a bigger home court advantage than 2-3-2. Would you rather have your home games earlier in a series or later?

My response on this thread was not based on another thread.  My initial post on this thread was not about Chris Paul (nor was any other thread) and did not mention him in any way, so no, that response was not connected to my post or the thread at all.

Anyway, it would certainly hurt us to lose home court in a 2-2-1-1-1 series according to your post.  We risk doing that in the East this year.


Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #100 on: November 29, 2012, 02:30:21 PM »

Offline Kane3387

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8269
  • Tommy Points: 944
  • Intensity!!!
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.


KG: "Dude.... What is up with yo shorts?!"

CBD_2016 Cavs Remaining Picks - 14.14

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #101 on: November 29, 2012, 02:32:34 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

  Were they low seeded teams? If not we'd have won some series before we played them, just like we did when we lost to the Heat and the Magic. We might have done better in the West without Wade's cheap shot on Rondo in 2011.

At the very least we would've played the 2010 Lakers before the Finals.  Maybe we win, maybe we lose.  But I wouldn't say that it is impossible or delusional to think that we could've lost that series.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #102 on: November 29, 2012, 02:34:25 PM »

Offline celtsfan84

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1182
  • Tommy Points: 80
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #103 on: November 29, 2012, 02:36:15 PM »

Offline Lightskinsmurf

  • NCE
  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1949
  • Tommy Points: 134
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

I said we'd have less playoff wins. I never said we wouldn't have beaten any west teams.

Re: What's the difference between us and the spurs?
« Reply #104 on: November 29, 2012, 02:37:53 PM »

Offline Kane3387

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8269
  • Tommy Points: 944
  • Intensity!!!
If we played in the western conference we wouldn't have as many playoff wins as we do now. Western conference is alot tougher.

  I don't agree at all.

If you think the east is tougher than the west you're delusional lol.

  What's delusional is the claim that we wouldn't be able to beat teams in the west in the playoffs. lol.

Teams in the West won the title in 2009, 2010, and 2011 while we did not.  It is entirely possible that we could have lost to one of those teams during the playoffs if we were in the West.

Or beaten all of them had we been healthy.

Potentially true.  A lot of teams in the NBA can make the "if healthy" claim though.  The Suns lost Joe Johnson one year, lost Amar'e the next, and lost Amar'e to a suspension against the Spurs after that.  Suns fans count three potentially lost titles.

Maybe we beat those teams, maybe not.  I wouldn't say arguing either way is delusional though.

Not a lot of teams.. Only a few. Spurs, Suns, Rockets, Lakers. That's really about it. Detroit never could. Miami couldn't - I don't think. From 1998 - 2004 the east never had a chance.


KG: "Dude.... What is up with yo shorts?!"

CBD_2016 Cavs Remaining Picks - 14.14