It's May 07, 2024, 08:34:28 PM
yall niccas gettin all geeked up like yall did something big based off ONE week on a website? hahaha...there's more to the nba than one week on a top 10 list. first you niccas talk about hittin your prime in march and april and then yall get excited about being the "best" team one week in january. hahaha. i swear if the lakers win a jump ball u groupies all get hyped like yall actually doin something. good luc without overhyped bynum
Quote from: Antonio on January 14, 2008, 12:01:16 PMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 14, 2008, 11:39:53 AM30-5 > 25-11 nomatter how you twist itHomie.. let me write you a couple of things once again. First: it says "Weekly Rankings". Our record was been better than yours, in the last week. Second: you are celebrating your before-the-All-Stars-Game-record too much, imho. I mean ok, your team looks solid, and your team will probably end up having a great regular season record. But should i remember you once again how early ended last season for the Mavs? I still remember 7even celebrating their 67-15 record. Ask him how their season ended with him almost crying. Or should i remember you the 64-18 record of the Pistons the year before? They looked unbeatable at one point of the season. They didn't win the damn ring. Let me remind you who had the best record in the 2k's, maybe you'll stop celebrating your. LOL.2006/07 - Dallas Mavericks 67-15 record, no ring.2005/06 - Detroit Pistons 64-18 record, no ring.2004/05 - Phoenix Suns 62-20 record, no ring. 2003/04 - Indiana Pacers 61-21 record, no ring.2002/03 - Dallas Mavericks 60-22 record, no ring.2001/02 - Sacramento Kings 61-21 record, no ring.2000/01 - San Antonio Spurs 58-24 record, no ring.Homie trust me: i'm more surprised by OUR record than YOUR. That's what the whole board is trying to tell you from a pair of weeks. Your team is SUPPOSED to have a great record. They built a team to win a ring witin 3 years. On the other hand, the Lakers were supposed to struggle to reach the Play Off and to loose Kobe Bryant. Bynum was supposed to be a bum ("Bynum? Fucking ship his ass out!"), and Mitch was supposed to be a moron (while now everybody is on his dick). At the moment the Lakers looks solid and i like our chances in the Play Off. You like yours, ok. But still.Portland's record > Lakers record > Celtics record.Fuck the numbers. Your team has to have a winning record in the Play Off, to impress me.fair enough but those teams didn't have KG, Ray Allen and Paul Peirce on the same lineup
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 14, 2008, 11:39:53 AM30-5 > 25-11 nomatter how you twist itHomie.. let me write you a couple of things once again. First: it says "Weekly Rankings". Our record was been better than yours, in the last week. Second: you are celebrating your before-the-All-Stars-Game-record too much, imho. I mean ok, your team looks solid, and your team will probably end up having a great regular season record. But should i remember you once again how early ended last season for the Mavs? I still remember 7even celebrating their 67-15 record. Ask him how their season ended with him almost crying. Or should i remember you the 64-18 record of the Pistons the year before? They looked unbeatable at one point of the season. They didn't win the damn ring. Let me remind you who had the best record in the 2k's, maybe you'll stop celebrating your. LOL.2006/07 - Dallas Mavericks 67-15 record, no ring.2005/06 - Detroit Pistons 64-18 record, no ring.2004/05 - Phoenix Suns 62-20 record, no ring. 2003/04 - Indiana Pacers 61-21 record, no ring.2002/03 - Dallas Mavericks 60-22 record, no ring.2001/02 - Sacramento Kings 61-21 record, no ring.2000/01 - San Antonio Spurs 58-24 record, no ring.Homie trust me: i'm more surprised by OUR record than YOUR. That's what the whole board is trying to tell you from a pair of weeks. Your team is SUPPOSED to have a great record. They built a team to win a ring witin 3 years. On the other hand, the Lakers were supposed to struggle to reach the Play Off and to loose Kobe Bryant. Bynum was supposed to be a bum ("Bynum? Fucking ship his ass out!"), and Mitch was supposed to be a moron (while now everybody is on his dick). At the moment the Lakers looks solid and i like our chances in the Play Off. You like yours, ok. But still.Portland's record > Lakers record > Celtics record.Fuck the numbers. Your team has to have a winning record in the Play Off, to impress me.
30-5 > 25-11 nomatter how you twist it
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 14, 2008, 06:19:45 PMQuote from: Antonio on January 14, 2008, 12:01:16 PMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 14, 2008, 11:39:53 AM30-5 > 25-11 nomatter how you twist itHomie.. let me write you a couple of things once again. First: it says "Weekly Rankings". Our record was been better than yours, in the last week. Second: you are celebrating your before-the-All-Stars-Game-record too much, imho. I mean ok, your team looks solid, and your team will probably end up having a great regular season record. But should i remember you once again how early ended last season for the Mavs? I still remember 7even celebrating their 67-15 record. Ask him how their season ended with him almost crying. Or should i remember you the 64-18 record of the Pistons the year before? They looked unbeatable at one point of the season. They didn't win the damn ring. Let me remind you who had the best record in the 2k's, maybe you'll stop celebrating your. LOL.2006/07 - Dallas Mavericks 67-15 record, no ring.2005/06 - Detroit Pistons 64-18 record, no ring.2004/05 - Phoenix Suns 62-20 record, no ring. 2003/04 - Indiana Pacers 61-21 record, no ring.2002/03 - Dallas Mavericks 60-22 record, no ring.2001/02 - Sacramento Kings 61-21 record, no ring.2000/01 - San Antonio Spurs 58-24 record, no ring.Homie trust me: i'm more surprised by OUR record than YOUR. That's what the whole board is trying to tell you from a pair of weeks. Your team is SUPPOSED to have a great record. They built a team to win a ring witin 3 years. On the other hand, the Lakers were supposed to struggle to reach the Play Off and to loose Kobe Bryant. Bynum was supposed to be a bum ("Bynum? Fucking ship his ass out!"), and Mitch was supposed to be a moron (while now everybody is on his dick). At the moment the Lakers looks solid and i like our chances in the Play Off. You like yours, ok. But still.Portland's record > Lakers record > Celtics record.Fuck the numbers. Your team has to have a winning record in the Play Off, to impress me.fair enough but those teams didn't have KG, Ray Allen and Paul Peirce on the same lineupLMAO. What about Bryant, Shaq, Malone, Payton AND Phil Jackson?
kobe and shaq don't have chemistry
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 08:46:28 AMkobe and shaq don't have chemistryLOL!
but they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry.
Quote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:26:35 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry. he was motivated enough to win in Miami
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:33:43 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:26:35 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry. he was motivated enough to win in Miami ^^Yea...and that's another reason Laker fans hate him.
Quote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:34:27 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:33:43 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:26:35 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry. he was motivated enough to win in Miami ^^Yea...and that's another reason Laker fans hate him.blame Kobe for that, not Shaq.
Quote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:42:16 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:34:27 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:33:43 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:26:35 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry. he was motivated enough to win in Miami ^^Yea...and that's another reason Laker fans hate him.blame Kobe for that, not Shaq.Yea...lets blame Kobe for Shaq's lack of conditioning. LMAO. Anything else you have to add?
Quote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 12:13:03 PMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:42:16 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:34:27 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:33:43 AMQuote from: Now_I_Know on January 15, 2008, 11:26:35 AMQuote from: Hack Wilson on January 15, 2008, 11:20:42 AMbut they fell apart at the end and a trade was forceda team with REAL chemistry came and whooped them like bitches and the year before that San Antonio blew them out in LA i think in a game 6??Yes...Cuz Shaq was declining and wasn't motivated to try anymore. Had nothing to do with chemistry. he was motivated enough to win in Miami ^^Yea...and that's another reason Laker fans hate him.blame Kobe for that, not Shaq.Yea...lets blame Kobe for Shaq's lack of conditioning. LMAO. Anything else you have to add?who did Phil rip in his book again?