Author Topic: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17  (Read 4870 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #390 on: March 07, 2017, 02:13:34 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6163
  • Tommy Points: 639
And I'm tipsy.  So, please, pardon the grammatical errors, but as long as you understand what I'm trying to say, it's all good.  A drunk man never tell tales.
no but they say illogical things like saying a championship is "surefire"

Like making a surefire prediction that the Warriors are the favorites to win the championship had everything gone their way?
"had everything gone their way" is a really important qualifier here.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #391 on: March 07, 2017, 02:15:55 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6163
  • Tommy Points: 639
We're not winning a championship this year.

We could've won one.  I said that with no shred of doubt.  With all the misfortunes that Cleveland and the Warriors are faced with, Banner 18 would've been sure fire.

But no...Danny's apologist never fails.  The puppets who, forever, marginalize their inteligence for some know-it-all GM.  It's funny how the same critics forever question the worst GMs in the league but their own.

Smh.  Danny screwed up big time.  I never backed away from that and I'm glad few smart people around here agrees. 

Yea, draft Balls or Fultz (however tha **** his name is spelled), then what?  What happens to IT and all others guys whose contracts are due?

Reality is going to kick in soon enough for these people around here, if it hasn't already.  1st round bounce.  2nd at best.
if you think banner 18 was sure fire you are stupid.

Unless you are too ****ing dumb to think that trading for Cousins (whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks), Jimmy or George wouldn't topple depleted Cavs or Warriors. 

****ing moron.
lol

Theres two things you cant fully evaluate

1. How much of a moron/negative personality is Cousins. Is he actually that toxic? I dont know. I wanted to trade for him. I think Ainge has a better evaluation of that and frankly just how low the price was makes me more confident that Cousins is really that toxic.

2. The prices for Butler/George

Prices could have easily been prohibitive for Butler and George and Cousins is the only one of those guys likely to make us favorites over Cleveland.

To say any player out there save Lebron James makes banner 18 a sure thing is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of sports.

The 07 Patriots didnt win the superbowl, the 73-9 Warriors lost last years finals.

dont call me a ****ing moron for not having emotional overreactions.

Yea, compare football to basketball.  Here's where it would've been advisable for me to cut off this ridiculous back-and-fourth.  How is comparing, fundamentally, two completely two different sports in an effort to bolster the empty points you're trying to make?  How about we compare compare basketball to boxing?  As long as the two are sports, why not?

Stop the nonsense.  I didn't say a player.  I mentioned 2 to 3 names.  MORONS always twist situations to fit their ridiculous assertions. 

Read what I said, and post your **** again.  How about that?
Quote
We could've won one.  I said that with no shred of doubt.  With all the misfortunes that Cleveland and the Warriors are faced with, Banner 18 would've been sure fire.
by definition you claim that a championship would have been guaranteed beyond all doubt. Meaning effectively there is a 0% chance we do not win a championship. In sports, even basketball, this is never true. Thats my main objective, but Ill move past that for now.

You go on to list the conditions at which we could win a championship.
Quote
Unless you are too ****ing dumb to think that trading for Cousins (whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks), Jimmy or George wouldn't topple depleted Cavs or Warriors. 
trading for a, b or c means trading for one of the three.

had you said Cousins AND Jimmy or George the debate would be slightly different.

As such, I am left to evaluate 3 players.

I dont believe that the addition Butler or George would immediately make us favorites over Cleveland. Perhaps with the Love injury it makes it a toss-up. Cousins, assuming his sanity (which is something just about every NBA GM decided not to do) probably makes us favorites over the Cavs and potentially even favorites over the Durantless Warriors. Probably a toss-up vs. the Warriors if KD is healthy (those are some very optimistic projections).

All that said, even the most green eyed Celtic homer would concede that there would still be non-trivial chance that we win a championship. Thus a ring would not be surefire.

Are you this stupid?  Don't try and be technical when I'm too impaired for it even though I know that you know what I"m talking about.  I wouldn't have put in parenthesis "whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks" if I only meant one player.  I would've just named Cousins and that would've been it.  I put that sentence in parenthesis with the knowledge that we would still be the highest bidder for either George or Butler or both had we traded for Cousins, whose trade alone would've made us competitive and on par with the Cavs.

Cut the BS.  I'm not here to argue semantics. I said what I said and what I said is what I said.  Don't try twisting my words.
lol you are a mess rn
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #392 on: March 07, 2017, 02:31:13 AM »

Offline tarheelsxxiii

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4800
  • Tommy Points: 1100
    • Yahoo h2h roster
There will be a ban, but if Roy is running this ship, I believe the sentence will be fair and just. 

I gave you both TPs for showing more aggression than our frontcourt ever does.
"As far as playing, I didn't care who guarded me - red, yellow, black. I just didn't want a white guy guarding me, because it's disrespect to my game."
-Larry Bird

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #393 on: March 07, 2017, 02:34:12 AM »

Offline CelticSince83

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 409
  • Tommy Points: 29
This team is annoying to watch. I don't feel like they have maximized the talent this year.

They have been maximizing talent/over achieving ever since hiring Stevens.  We are expecting them to keep building on that, but this team doesn't have enough talent to contend no matter how good the coaching is.  I like this team and its direction, maximizing talent isn't the issue.  Elite talent is.


It doesn't need to be an elite talent, a.k.a. superstars. We just need solid players who can sustain production without our starters. It was a lineup of Young, Olynyk and Rozier that started to lay an pile of dung on the court and Steven's super small line up was the nail in the coffin.

How about this team makes it past the first round before you say we only need better bench players to win a ring. I totally disagree. I'm not sure we can beat Toronto or the Wizards in the playoffs. The playoffs are a completely different game. It's a halfcourt game. So hold your horse man. Let's see how these guys perform in the playoffs first. I personally think we need another star while keeping the core roster intact.

Did 2004 Pistons have MVP calibre players? How about the 2014 Spurs? Duncan is far from his former MVP caliber self and Kawhi was just starting to tap the potential within him that year, just close but not quite the superstar yet. 2002 Kings who was arguably the real champs didn't have superstars either. I'd say that if we manage to make it far in this year's playoffs, depth will be a huge factor for this team. If you mean All-Star calibre player, we can just produce them as signing or trading one in the market will be expensive.

But yes, I agree that we should look first how this current team will go to determine who's to stay and who's to go.

Not the point, but are you sure the 2002 Kings did not have a superstar?

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #394 on: March 07, 2017, 03:07:12 AM »

Offline Clench123

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3055
  • Tommy Points: 251
We're not winning a championship this year.

We could've won one.  I said that with no shred of doubt.  With all the misfortunes that Cleveland and the Warriors are faced with, Banner 18 would've been sure fire.

But no...Danny's apologist never fails.  The puppets who, forever, marginalize their inteligence for some know-it-all GM.  It's funny how the same critics forever question the worst GMs in the league but their own.

Smh.  Danny screwed up big time.  I never backed away from that and I'm glad few smart people around here agrees. 

Yea, draft Balls or Fultz (however tha **** his name is spelled), then what?  What happens to IT and all others guys whose contracts are due?

Reality is going to kick in soon enough for these people around here, if it hasn't already.  1st round bounce.  2nd at best.
if you think banner 18 was sure fire you are stupid.

Unless you are too ****ing dumb to think that trading for Cousins (whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks), Jimmy or George wouldn't topple depleted Cavs or Warriors. 

****ing moron.
lol

Theres two things you cant fully evaluate

1. How much of a moron/negative personality is Cousins. Is he actually that toxic? I dont know. I wanted to trade for him. I think Ainge has a better evaluation of that and frankly just how low the price was makes me more confident that Cousins is really that toxic.

2. The prices for Butler/George

Prices could have easily been prohibitive for Butler and George and Cousins is the only one of those guys likely to make us favorites over Cleveland.

To say any player out there save Lebron James makes banner 18 a sure thing is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of sports.

The 07 Patriots didnt win the superbowl, the 73-9 Warriors lost last years finals.

dont call me a ****ing moron for not having emotional overreactions.

Yea, compare football to basketball.  Here's where it would've been advisable for me to cut off this ridiculous back-and-fourth.  How is comparing, fundamentally, two completely two different sports in an effort to bolster the empty points you're trying to make?  How about we compare compare basketball to boxing?  As long as the two are sports, why not?

Stop the nonsense.  I didn't say a player.  I mentioned 2 to 3 names.  MORONS always twist situations to fit their ridiculous assertions. 

Read what I said, and post your **** again.  How about that?
Quote
We could've won one.  I said that with no shred of doubt.  With all the misfortunes that Cleveland and the Warriors are faced with, Banner 18 would've been sure fire.
by definition you claim that a championship would have been guaranteed beyond all doubt. Meaning effectively there is a 0% chance we do not win a championship. In sports, even basketball, this is never true. Thats my main objective, but Ill move past that for now.

You go on to list the conditions at which we could win a championship.
Quote
Unless you are too ****ing dumb to think that trading for Cousins (whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks), Jimmy or George wouldn't topple depleted Cavs or Warriors. 
trading for a, b or c means trading for one of the three.

had you said Cousins AND Jimmy or George the debate would be slightly different.

As such, I am left to evaluate 3 players.

I dont believe that the addition Butler or George would immediately make us favorites over Cleveland. Perhaps with the Love injury it makes it a toss-up. Cousins, assuming his sanity (which is something just about every NBA GM decided not to do) probably makes us favorites over the Cavs and potentially even favorites over the Durantless Warriors. Probably a toss-up vs. the Warriors if KD is healthy (those are some very optimistic projections).

All that said, even the most green eyed Celtic homer would concede that there would still be non-trivial chance that we win a championship. Thus a ring would not be surefire.

Are you this stupid?  Don't try and be technical when I'm too impaired for it even though I know that you know what I"m talking about.  I wouldn't have put in parenthesis "whom we would've gotten without having to give up any major picks" if I only meant one player.  I would've just named Cousins and that would've been it.  I put that sentence in parenthesis with the knowledge that we would still be the highest bidder for either George or Butler or both had we traded for Cousins, whose trade alone would've made us competitive and on par with the Cavs.

Cut the BS.  I'm not here to argue semantics. I said what I said and what I said is what I said.  Don't try twisting my words.
lol you are a mess rn

Yea...that's the meat of that post  ::)

Danny's apologist never seize to surprise me.  That unfallable savior snoozed on his own hype at the deadline and lost, and his supporter has no foresight to decipher reality from delusion.  That's the saddest part to me.

I always said when I left the Celtics, I could not go to heaven, because that would
 be a step down. I am pure 100 percent Celtic. I think if you slashed my wrists, my
 blood would’ve been green.  -  Bill "Greatest of All Time" Russell

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #395 on: March 07, 2017, 03:12:30 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2566
  • Tommy Points: 355
Clench the fortuneteller at it again  ::)


Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #396 on: March 07, 2017, 06:33:55 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13787
  • Tommy Points: 836
I think on paper than LAC are more talented than us and they showed it last night.  They are just in the West they would probably be a top three team and in the East and push us down the Totem pole.

We did not have Horford and JJ and we were thin in the front court.   As a poster stated yesterday reactions to wins and losses are pretty severe here.  Let the knee jerk reactions begin!

Re: Celtics (40-23) at Clippers (37-25) Game #64 3/6/17
« Reply #397 on: March 07, 2017, 08:59:38 AM »

Online jambr380

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5906
  • Tommy Points: 747
I think on paper than LAC are more talented than us and they showed it last night.  They are just in the West they would probably be a top three team and in the East and push us down the Totem pole.

We did not have Horford and JJ and we were thin in the front court.   As a poster stated yesterday reactions to wins and losses are pretty severe here.  Let the knee jerk reactions begin!

Eh, I'm not so sure. We were without our [borderline] all-star big (and another rotation PF) playing away on the 2nd night of a back to back against a mostly healthy and rejuvenated Clippers team. The way we played defense in the 1st half may have otherwise been sustainable.

Add in the fact that outside of IT and Smart, or offense was absolutely atrocious. I'm just not 100% sure the Clips are better than the Cs, but it is certainly close.