The Official NBA Regular Season 07-08 Thread

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
KC- 4-2. Though 3-3 is a very safe bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

unexpected response from you and I'm not sure if I'm being leveled.

[tdarko]

KC- No level. I haven't looked at the schedule and if these games are second night of B2B's are what the sitch is though.

[kidcolin]

I didn't check before either, but just did. No back to backs against the big 3. Their toughest run on the schedule looks to be on the road, Mar 17-22. SA and HOU back to back, then Dallas and New Orleans.

[Artdogg]

3-3 is reasonable, a lot will be decided on b2bs and roadtrips. There probably will be 1 blowout win at home and 2 blowout losses on the road, and we won't be able to conclude a ton from the games. I wish it was May so I could preview Suns/Celts.

[tuq]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Semtex,

Didn't the Wolves lose to a Lakers team that went on to get buttsecksed by the Pistons? I think that was the year anyway. If so that demonstrates that the Lakers were quite beatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a really bad memory. The Lakers were superb that season, and the main reason the Pistons raped them was because Karl Malone got hurt so they ended up having no answer for Rasheed Wallace.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking from memory, I'm fairly sure they only won like 56 games that year (I actually saw this number fairly recently so if not right it's close). They generally underachieved relative to the fact that they had four HOF locks, although clearly Malone and Payton were past their respective primes, and after a fast start I think there was a lot of talk of Greatest Team Ever.

This was also, if memory serves, the year that they got past the Spurs largely thanks to Derek Fisher's prayer at the buzzer in game 5, so that would have been in the second round that they nearly got bounced.

As for memory, your comment about Malone's injury being the difference is the first I recall that being cited. But troll on, troller.

[Vyse]

I was commenting about your "Pistons >>>>> Lakers LOLAMENTS." People always forget Malone got hurt and raped the Lakers' chances. I don't think they would've won anyway, but it was a very important turn of events.

You can stop changing my words into a strawman you create, though. Where did I say it was "the difference," as if implying it was the sole difference the Pistons won?

You're bad. This is easy. You really should ignore me because this isn't fun.

[Semtex]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Semtex,

Didn't the Wolves lose to a Lakers team that went on to get buttsecksed by the Pistons? I think that was the year anyway. If so that demonstrates that the Lakers were quite beatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a really bad memory. The Lakers were superb that season, and the main reason the Pistons raped them was because Karl Malone got hurt so they ended up having no answer for Rasheed Wallace.

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking from memory, I'm fairly sure they only won like 56 games that year (I actually saw this number fairly recently so if not right it's close). They generally underachieved relative to the fact that they had four HOF locks, although clearly Malone and Payton were past their respective primes, and after a fast start I think there was a lot of talk of Greatest Team Ever.

This was also, if memory serves, the year that they got past the Spurs largely thanks to Derek Fisher's prayer at the buzzer in game 5, so that would have been in the second round that they nearly got bounced.

As for memory, your comment about Malone's injury being the difference is the first I recall that being cited. But troll on, troller.

[/ QUOTE ]
also, if i remember correctly the entire pistons starting lineup averaged at least double figures throughout the finals. it was definitely more than sheed. to be completely honest i thought the lakers were the better team. i felt that phil jackson gave up on them b/c of the infighting and basically said [censored] it, you guys do what you want i am just going to sit back. i remember the pistons ran the same stupid screen for rip to get an open jumper at the top of the key like 20 straight times without the lakers making any kind of adjustment whatsoever.

[tuq]

Vyse,

Haha, no I'm not gonna ignore you even though you're a POS troll. I won't address your last post other than that though because I know what happened in that year's playoffs and I'll gladly discuss it with people like Semtex who are open to conversation on the internet, whereas most of your posts are designed to push buttons. I'm immune to it.

[Billy Bibbit]

The 2004 Pistons are the 2nd best team of the decade, after the 2001 Lakers. This should be a popular comment.

[tuq]

Semtex,

The Lakers were mortal locks in those finals the same way that Green Bay was a mortal lock vs. Denver in that Super Bowl ten years ago. But what do we know, eh? Things turned out differently. I guess I agree with your assessment regarding Phil Jackson; more than anything it was just weird the way that their team just got waxed. I just looked up the box scores; they lost by 12, 20, 8, and 13, their lone win coming by eight points. Worse yet, in those losses they looked to average ~77 points, which is anemic for a team with that much talent.

I'm guessing the whole Shaq-Kobe experiment was in its endgame and it was Karl Malone's bad luck that he signed on for the end of that ride.