- 25,458
- 644
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2004
correct if im wrong but sheed range for days didnt come till later in his career right? he also didnt start to really lock up on D till later on. which is also when he forgot how to rebound and score in the post
NBA Legacy Thread, Update Resumes
- Thread in 'Sports & Training' Thread starter Started by CP1708,
- Start date
- 17,677
- 7,963
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- 17,677
- 7,963
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
CP, I don't care WHAT you say. You are discrediting the Spurs accomplishments by speaking on what the Lakers didn't do to win. Why do that? The same way people are talking about how LeBronze lost instead of how the Mavs won this year, you are doing the same thing. Come on man, you are better than that.
Again, they won 3 rings during that span. To say that they just "happened" to stumble upon rings because the Lakers were beat? Big red X mark.
Again, they won 3 rings during that span. To say that they just "happened" to stumble upon rings because the Lakers were beat? Big red X mark.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
CP, I don't care WHAT you say. You are discrediting the Spurs accomplishments by speaking on what the Lakers didn't do to win. Why do that? The same way people are talking about how LeBronze lost instead of how the Mavs won this year, you are doing the same thing. Come on man, you are better than that.
Again, they won 3 rings during that span. To say that they just "happened" to stumble upon rings because the Lakers were beat? Big red X mark.
Again, they won 3 rings during that span. To say that they just "happened" to stumble upon rings because the Lakers were beat? Big red X mark.
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I swear I'm missing something with 'Sheed cause he, Joe Smith and McDyess all came out as sophomore's at the same position and Sheed went behind both. I get the mental aspect, but like I said prior I've never bought fully bought into the talent part of him.
that's a different topic, though.
re: KG...defensively, yes.
offensively, nobody to score in the post. (David Robinson was partially done in '99, completely washed by the time they won #2) Maybe under Pop, KG is forced down there..but otherwise..I'd give them one title, anything more..he'd have to have a totally different mindset than what we saw throughout his career.
that's a different topic, though.
re: KG...defensively, yes.
offensively, nobody to score in the post. (David Robinson was partially done in '99, completely washed by the time they won #2) Maybe under Pop, KG is forced down there..but otherwise..I'd give them one title, anything more..he'd have to have a totally different mindset than what we saw throughout his career.
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I swear I'm missing something with 'Sheed cause he, Joe Smith and McDyess all came out as sophomore's at the same position and Sheed went behind both. I get the mental aspect, but like I said prior I've never bought fully bought into the talent part of him.
that's a different topic, though.
re: KG...defensively, yes.
offensively, nobody to score in the post. (David Robinson was partially done in '99, completely washed by the time they won #2) Maybe under Pop, KG is forced down there..but otherwise..I'd give them one title, anything more..he'd have to have a totally different mindset than what we saw throughout his career.
that's a different topic, though.
re: KG...defensively, yes.
offensively, nobody to score in the post. (David Robinson was partially done in '99, completely washed by the time they won #2) Maybe under Pop, KG is forced down there..but otherwise..I'd give them one title, anything more..he'd have to have a totally different mindset than what we saw throughout his career.
- 86,319
- 113,186
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Sheed always had the range. He showed it after 2000 by settling for so many.
- 86,319
- 113,186
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2010
Sheed always had the range. He showed it after 2000 by settling for so many.
Hold on there, I said in 2003, that's it. 2003 was because another team came in off 3 finals runs.
The 05, and 07 titles were different reasons, and had NOTHING to do with LA at all. I said 03, just 03. You're adding stuff to what I said now.
You see the difference?
If it makes you feel better, in 1987, LA beat Boston for the title, and I am totally convinced that Boston was simply wore down by then, being their 4th finals run in a row.
2 years later, LA was in their 3rd straight finals, and half their team ended up injured in that series.
Ignore it all you want guys, when you play that many playoff games 2-3-4-5 years straight, it adds up. It just does.
Hold on there, I said in 2003, that's it. 2003 was because another team came in off 3 finals runs.
The 05, and 07 titles were different reasons, and had NOTHING to do with LA at all. I said 03, just 03. You're adding stuff to what I said now.
You see the difference?
If it makes you feel better, in 1987, LA beat Boston for the title, and I am totally convinced that Boston was simply wore down by then, being their 4th finals run in a row.
2 years later, LA was in their 3rd straight finals, and half their team ended up injured in that series.
Ignore it all you want guys, when you play that many playoff games 2-3-4-5 years straight, it adds up. It just does.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
But being tired is part of the equation. The same with injuries. You can't say, "If so and so wasn't hurt we would have won." Stop putting conditions on that team winning a ring in 2003. It holds NO water because it is essentially a hypothetical statement. Yes they could have very well been tired but there is no need to even say something like that because it does nothing but tell us that you don't truly respect what they did for that season.
A ring is a ring. I don't care if it was a 4 year season, a ring is a ring.
Don't do that.
A ring is a ring. I don't care if it was a 4 year season, a ring is a ring.
Don't do that.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
But being tired is part of the equation. The same with injuries. You can't say, "If so and so wasn't hurt we would have won." Stop putting conditions on that team winning a ring in 2003. It holds NO water because it is essentially a hypothetical statement. Yes they could have very well been tired but there is no need to even say something like that because it does nothing but tell us that you don't truly respect what they did for that season.
A ring is a ring. I don't care if it was a 4 year season, a ring is a ring.
Don't do that.
A ring is a ring. I don't care if it was a 4 year season, a ring is a ring.
Don't do that.
And I have said a ring is a ring. Read my Lebron post. I said I didn't care if he didn't play well and they won, or if he went for 40 a game and they lost. Win the series, win the title. So I am fully aware a ring is a ring. Does that mean there is no story about how it's earned? The Horry hip check never happened, they won the ring? The Horry game 5 vs Detroit, never happened? They won during the 50 game season, there's no different set of circumstances there?
Why?
He has 4, I don't deny him those 4. I told a story, all of it was true in terms of how it happened, the parts about being tired and all that is certainly speculation, and my opinion, but how they got to the finals each year, and who they played, and what happened, none of that stuff is made up, so why is it shocking to hear a different side? You tellin me that when the Kobe portion of the thread comes up, there won't be several new angles to come out flying?
You know that won't be the case.
MJ retired in 94, how many stories have been told/made up about that? How many what ifs to Hakeem's 2 year reign? How many Player X would have won a title if not for MJ type stuff? That's what this is all about man. I'm not re-writing history, or changin it, I'm showin it thru a different view. And all the while, I am acknowledging, Tim Duncan is the best PF of all time. Not sure how clear I need to make that. But that does not mean there isn't stuff to look into and examine how and why stuff went down. Right?
Why?
He has 4, I don't deny him those 4. I told a story, all of it was true in terms of how it happened, the parts about being tired and all that is certainly speculation, and my opinion, but how they got to the finals each year, and who they played, and what happened, none of that stuff is made up, so why is it shocking to hear a different side? You tellin me that when the Kobe portion of the thread comes up, there won't be several new angles to come out flying?
MJ retired in 94, how many stories have been told/made up about that? How many what ifs to Hakeem's 2 year reign? How many Player X would have won a title if not for MJ type stuff? That's what this is all about man. I'm not re-writing history, or changin it, I'm showin it thru a different view. And all the while, I am acknowledging, Tim Duncan is the best PF of all time. Not sure how clear I need to make that. But that does not mean there isn't stuff to look into and examine how and why stuff went down. Right?
And I have said a ring is a ring. Read my Lebron post. I said I didn't care if he didn't play well and they won, or if he went for 40 a game and they lost. Win the series, win the title. So I am fully aware a ring is a ring. Does that mean there is no story about how it's earned? The Horry hip check never happened, they won the ring? The Horry game 5 vs Detroit, never happened? They won during the 50 game season, there's no different set of circumstances there?
Why?
He has 4, I don't deny him those 4. I told a story, all of it was true in terms of how it happened, the parts about being tired and all that is certainly speculation, and my opinion, but how they got to the finals each year, and who they played, and what happened, none of that stuff is made up, so why is it shocking to hear a different side? You tellin me that when the Kobe portion of the thread comes up, there won't be several new angles to come out flying?
You know that won't be the case.
MJ retired in 94, how many stories have been told/made up about that? How many what ifs to Hakeem's 2 year reign? How many Player X would have won a title if not for MJ type stuff? That's what this is all about man. I'm not re-writing history, or changin it, I'm showin it thru a different view. And all the while, I am acknowledging, Tim Duncan is the best PF of all time. Not sure how clear I need to make that. But that does not mean there isn't stuff to look into and examine how and why stuff went down. Right?
Why?
He has 4, I don't deny him those 4. I told a story, all of it was true in terms of how it happened, the parts about being tired and all that is certainly speculation, and my opinion, but how they got to the finals each year, and who they played, and what happened, none of that stuff is made up, so why is it shocking to hear a different side? You tellin me that when the Kobe portion of the thread comes up, there won't be several new angles to come out flying?
MJ retired in 94, how many stories have been told/made up about that? How many what ifs to Hakeem's 2 year reign? How many Player X would have won a title if not for MJ type stuff? That's what this is all about man. I'm not re-writing history, or changin it, I'm showin it thru a different view. And all the while, I am acknowledging, Tim Duncan is the best PF of all time. Not sure how clear I need to make that. But that does not mean there isn't stuff to look into and examine how and why stuff went down. Right?
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
The Suns were better than the Spurs in 2007 until the hip-check.
that is a what if, but I absolutely still believe that till this day. I had a series bet on SA and knew I was (totally) on the wrong side until that cheap shot.
Nash & Co would have breezed through Utah and Cleveland. might not have altered Duncan's legacy much but sure would have flipped things with Nash.
that is a what if, but I absolutely still believe that till this day. I had a series bet on SA and knew I was (totally) on the wrong side until that cheap shot.
Nash & Co would have breezed through Utah and Cleveland. might not have altered Duncan's legacy much but sure would have flipped things with Nash.
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
The Suns were better than the Spurs in 2007 until the hip-check.
that is a what if, but I absolutely still believe that till this day. I had a series bet on SA and knew I was (totally) on the wrong side until that cheap shot.
Nash & Co would have breezed through Utah and Cleveland. might not have altered Duncan's legacy much but sure would have flipped things with Nash.
that is a what if, but I absolutely still believe that till this day. I had a series bet on SA and knew I was (totally) on the wrong side until that cheap shot.
Nash & Co would have breezed through Utah and Cleveland. might not have altered Duncan's legacy much but sure would have flipped things with Nash.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
But that doesn't really matter. The what if that is. You are entitled to your opinion, not saying that I didn't love the hell out of that Suns Mob, but hey, there was a hip check and suspensions were thrown out. They lost. Simple as that.
And the better team doesn't always win, so yea.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
But that doesn't really matter. The what if that is. You are entitled to your opinion, not saying that I didn't love the hell out of that Suns Mob, but hey, there was a hip check and suspensions were thrown out. They lost. Simple as that.
And the better team doesn't always win, so yea.
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I know, but I don't have much fun dealing with the black and white of things all the time. I get what CP is saying.
- 12,105
- 1,410
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
I know, but I don't have much fun dealing with the black and white of things all the time. I get what CP is saying.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Fun? I thought this was an analytical conversion. Dealing with what ifs and conditionalizing people's success has no place in a discussion like this. Not trying to be a mod of the topic or anything but if we are going down THAT lane, we can conditionalize a lot of situations in NBA History. Didn't think that was what this discussion was about.
- 155,938
- 135,337
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
Fun? I thought this was an analytical conversion. Dealing with what ifs and conditionalizing people's success has no place in a discussion like this. Not trying to be a mod of the topic or anything but if we are going down THAT lane, we can conditionalize a lot of situations in NBA History. Didn't think that was what this discussion was about.
