Author Topic: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5  (Read 138988 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #750 on: February 06, 2009, 12:13:55 AM »

Offline Redz

  • Punner
  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30922
  • Tommy Points: 3766
  • Yup
We can stop reacting to the troll post with the million smileys...User has been booted and post deleted, but the more times it's quoted the longer it will hang around. - Redz
Yup

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #751 on: February 06, 2009, 12:18:35 AM »

Offline WBrownTrophy

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 263
  • Tommy Points: 43
  • Thanks Red
on Espn's front page:  The Lakers did what few believed possible Thursday: They beat the Celtics, in Boston, without Andrew Bynum. It took overtime, but Kobe & Co. outlasted the defending champions 110-109

Few believed this was possible? is that why everyone picked the Lakers-without Bynum- last year in the finals???

Does Bynum really change everything about the lakers so much?
"The only correct actions are those that demand no explanation and no apology."
                                   -Red Auerbach

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #752 on: February 06, 2009, 12:21:40 AM »

Offline Mogreen17

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 285
  • Tommy Points: 53
What happened here

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #753 on: February 06, 2009, 12:28:05 AM »

Offline Andrew Celtic Nation

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1652
  • Tommy Points: 105
What happened here

Rondo shoved The Kobe which apparently is not allowed and The Kobe is scolding him.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #754 on: February 06, 2009, 12:29:45 AM »

Offline twinbree

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2670
  • Tommy Points: 170
On the bright side since it seems Lakers are the winning steak kryptonite does this mean Celtics can now go 31-0  ;D
Tommy: He's got a line about me. Tell him the line.

Mike: Everybody 60 or over knows Tommy as a player. Everybody 40 or over knows Tommy as a coach. Everybody 20 or over knows Tommy as a broadcaster. And everybody 10 or under thinks he's Shrek.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #755 on: February 06, 2009, 12:37:05 AM »

Offline albas89

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 910
  • Tommy Points: 74
on Espn's front page:  The Lakers did what few believed possible Thursday: They beat the Celtics, in Boston, without Andrew Bynum. It took overtime, but Kobe & Co. outlasted the defending champions 110-109

Few believed this was possible? is that why everyone picked the Lakers-without Bynum- last year in the finals???

Does Bynum really change everything about the lakers so much?

Obviously ESPN wanted to point out how good the Lakers are... OMG, I wanna throw up... It's so bad to know that behind this Lakers team there is a league and a whole media-world supporting them...where's the justice my Lord??
"Life has so many hurdles. Some of them I've hopped over, some of them I've tripped over. The key is to get back up and finish the race."- Paul Pierce

And he did finish...

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #756 on: February 06, 2009, 12:45:54 AM »

Offline twinbree

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2670
  • Tommy Points: 170
on Espn's front page:  The Lakers did what few believed possible Thursday: They beat the Celtics, in Boston, without Andrew Bynum. It took overtime, but Kobe & Co. outlasted the defending champions 110-109

Few believed this was possible? is that why everyone picked the Lakers-without Bynum- last year in the finals???

Does Bynum really change everything about the lakers so much?

Obviously ESPN wanted to point out how good the Lakers are... OMG, I wanna throw up... It's so bad to know that behind this Lakers team there is a league and a whole media-world supporting them...where's the justice my Lord??

Take solace in the fact that they had the league and media behind them in the finals too. And look how that turned out  ;D
Tommy: He's got a line about me. Tell him the line.

Mike: Everybody 60 or over knows Tommy as a player. Everybody 40 or over knows Tommy as a coach. Everybody 20 or over knows Tommy as a broadcaster. And everybody 10 or under thinks he's Shrek.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #757 on: February 06, 2009, 12:49:38 AM »

Offline yoursweatersux

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 261
  • Tommy Points: 45
Seriously this game just solidified my hatred for the Lakers. Seeing those pompous little Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.s celebrating after the refs handed them a win was infuriating

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #758 on: February 06, 2009, 12:55:43 AM »

Offline yoursweatersux

  • Derrick White
  • Posts: 261
  • Tommy Points: 45
and (put this one on the record) I would've preferred to have Scal or Powe in instead of Baby in those last few minutes. As much as the refs really screwed us, Baby was the reason we actually lost the game. Whether you want to say "Baby lost the game" or "The refs cost us the game by fouling out KG on a bogus call" or "This just exposes our lack of a good big guy backup"... well, it's all pretty much leads to the same conclusion: a championship-caliber team needs somebody better than Baby as a backup.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #759 on: February 06, 2009, 12:56:44 AM »

Offline TatteredOnMySleeve

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
  • Tommy Points: 107
The winning streaks didnt exactly play to our favor in either games against LA..say that shot rims out in Philli, we taste a loss and get more motivated to get the W against the lakers imo...we just didnt play with anything to prove tonight, and the lakers did

And before you root for cleveland sunday..how exactly is that going to help us? it just wont under any circumstances...cleveland is still our biggest competition as of now, if cleveland wins that game it will just be another sign of them being better than us and will keep them better than us in the loss column...people acting like its a given its gonna come down to LA vs Celtics in the finals are delusional, we have to get through the east first, and I wouldnt count out the living legend duncan in the west
When you got it going, you got it going. I just keep my focus down the stretch. That's when I want the ball. I'm just not afraid to fail."-PaulPierce

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #760 on: February 06, 2009, 12:59:00 AM »

Offline TatteredOnMySleeve

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
  • Tommy Points: 107
and (put this one on the record) I would've preferred to have Scal or Powe in instead of Baby in those last few minutes. As much as the refs really screwed us, Baby was the reason we actually lost the game. Whether you want to say "Baby lost the game" or "The refs cost us the game by fouling out KG on a bogus call" or "This just exposes our lack of a good big guy backup"... well, it's all pretty much leads to the same conclusion: a championship-caliber team needs somebody better than Baby as a backup.


Powe wouldnt have been any better and scals injured. People who call out baby after a bad game are boring...he played great in the 12 game winning streak and in KGs abscense, blaming him for a 1 pt loss is a joke
When you got it going, you got it going. I just keep my focus down the stretch. That's when I want the ball. I'm just not afraid to fail."-PaulPierce

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #761 on: February 06, 2009, 01:02:41 AM »

Offline twinbree

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2670
  • Tommy Points: 170
The winning streaks didnt exactly play to our favor in either games against LA..say that shot rims out in Philli, we taste a loss and get more motivated to get the W against the lakers imo...we just didnt play with anything to prove tonight, and the lakers did

And before you root for cleveland sunday..how exactly is that going to help us? it just wont under any circumstances...cleveland is still our biggest competition as of now, if cleveland wins that game it will just be another sign of them being better than us and will keep them better than us in the loss column...people acting like its a given its gonna come down to LA vs Celtics in the finals are delusional, we have to get through the east first, and I wouldnt count out the living legend duncan in the west

I'll be surprised if they win in Cleveland. I'll be surprised if anyone wins in Cleveland this season. Not to keep harping on the refs but some of the shadiest 4th quarter officiating I've seen this season has been there.
Tommy: He's got a line about me. Tell him the line.

Mike: Everybody 60 or over knows Tommy as a player. Everybody 40 or over knows Tommy as a coach. Everybody 20 or over knows Tommy as a broadcaster. And everybody 10 or under thinks he's Shrek.

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #762 on: February 06, 2009, 01:04:22 AM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5572
  • Tommy Points: 699
and (put this one on the record) I would've preferred to have Scal or Powe in instead of Baby in those last few minutes. As much as the refs really screwed us, Baby was the reason we actually lost the game. Whether you want to say "Baby lost the game" or "The refs cost us the game by fouling out KG on a bogus call" or "This just exposes our lack of a good big guy backup"... well, it's all pretty much leads to the same conclusion: a championship-caliber team needs somebody better than Baby as a backup.

as we say baby is much better suited for guys like dhoward, shaq etc.. not on guys like gasol, odom. powe plays much better against the fakers than davis but sad to say we need room for paul and rondo to operate.

btw i really though that the davis shot which got blocked was going in.. you could see it from afar.. but you could also see the block too  ;)

no one is saying that rooting for cleveland is gona help the team, but it sure helps some fans feel better. come to think of it theres a bit of a chance that rooting for them would help the team. why? because if it comes down to homecourt advantage, now we cannot do anything about the lakers, other than hoping they would lose more games than us.. in fact, 2 more. but with cleveland its different, the c's can do something about it bec they stil have 2 games to play.

not that its that important but as a fan we the right to choose who to cheer for when two teams battle it out  :)

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #763 on: February 06, 2009, 01:40:28 AM »

Offline TatteredOnMySleeve

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
  • Tommy Points: 107
Ick, what is on WEEI right now?, it sounds like an LA show. wow, its whack.
Someone actually just called and ripped Doc for bringing up the refs on the least play, and actually said "Phil jackson would never do that" haha, you cant be serious?
followed by saying the lakers are in the celtics heads? wait, what?
« Last Edit: February 06, 2009, 02:11:39 AM by TatteredOnMySleeve »
When you got it going, you got it going. I just keep my focus down the stretch. That's when I want the ball. I'm just not afraid to fail."-PaulPierce

Re: Lakers (38-9) at Celtics (41-9) 2/5
« Reply #764 on: February 06, 2009, 02:05:20 AM »

Offline TatteredOnMySleeve

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1942
  • Tommy Points: 107
and (put this one on the record) I would've preferred to have Scal or Powe in instead of Baby in those last few minutes. As much as the refs really screwed us, Baby was the reason we actually lost the game. Whether you want to say "Baby lost the game" or "The refs cost us the game by fouling out KG on a bogus call" or "This just exposes our lack of a good big guy backup"... well, it's all pretty much leads to the same conclusion: a championship-caliber team needs somebody better than Baby as a backup.

as we say baby is much better suited for guys like dhoward, shaq etc.. not on guys like gasol, odom. powe plays much better against the fakers than davis but sad to say we need room for paul and rondo to operate.

btw i really though that the davis shot which got blocked was going in.. you could see it from afar.. but you could also see the block too  ;)

no one is saying that rooting for cleveland is gona help the team, but it sure helps some fans feel better. come to think of it theres a bit of a chance that rooting for them would help the team. why? because if it comes down to homecourt advantage, now we cannot do anything about the lakers, other than hoping they would lose more games than us.. in fact, 2 more. but with cleveland its different, the c's can do something about it bec they stil have 2 games to play.

not that its that important but as a fan we the right to choose who to cheer for when two teams battle it out  :)

I could care less about homecourt against the lakers, sorry but we have 0 chance at even getting to the finals without homecourt in the east, we arent a good enough basketball team right now to win a 7 game series against cleveland if they have homecourt.. so i root against cleveland regardless...I hate the lakers, but the cavs just as much

But, again..i would be shocked to see the lakers go into cleveland and shoot 9 more free throws then them, get all the calls that could go either way, etc, because unlike us, the cavaliers get homecooking
When you got it going, you got it going. I just keep my focus down the stretch. That's when I want the ball. I'm just not afraid to fail."-PaulPierce