Great win by SA . . .

[Randy]

in the last month they have proven they can beat the top teams -- when it matters.

As for the TWolves, I made this statement before Wally World came back and I continue to believe that it is true.  The Wolves need to trade Wally for some depth in the backcourt.  The Wolves had GREAT chemistry and team play before Wally's return -- since his return they are struggling (much like SacTown is struggling since the return of Webber who destroys their motion defense).  The Wolves already had a great team piece at SF -- Wally isn't a team piece, he's a "me" piece.  If the Wolves want to make it past the second round, I would suggest trying to regain the chemistry they had before Wally came back.

[Reality]

Randy you are making so much sense it's just got me warm and fuzzy.

At no time did i ever think you were a hopelessly lost Laker.

Concur with your take on Wally also.  Besides the Xs and Os he's just got a "Me" auora at present.  Wolfies were all team prior.
 

[Randy]

Randy you are making so much sense it's just got me warm and fuzzy.

At no time did i ever think you were a hopelessly lost Laker.

Concur with your take on Wally also.  Besides the Xs and Os he's just got a "Me" auora at present.  Wolfies were all team prior.

Reality,  

Lakers and their fans are never lost -- we have too many flags (banners in the ceiling) to mark our way!  I'm sure that one is enough as long as it's a really short distance though.

[Reality]

I've been deprogramming Lakers since Don Nelsons jumper hit the rim, went straight up and fell in.  While many of the over 10,000 i have rehabbed were indeed lost, very lost and some at present may seem irreversable, they can always be helped to find the way back.



 

[Randy]

I've been deprogramming Lakers since Don Nelsons jumper hit the rim, went straight up and fell in.  While many of the over 10,000 i have rehabbed were indeed lost, very lost and some at present may seem irreversable, they can always be helped to find the way back.

Let me make sure I understand you right.  You are trying to pull fans from the NBA club who has been most dominant over the decades to what?  A club that has won 2 titles?  Umm, yeah, that sounds like you are helping people find there way -- out of paradise into the wilderness.  Just because you are lost, Reality, doesn't mean that others want to join you.  :lol:  

[Reality]

You're good on non Purple n Gold subjects but still oh so far away when under the influence of Marketing Air.  Celts were clearly the most dominant team "over the decades."  If you want to talk 87 plus it's when marketing really got sickening.
That and Lenny Bias dying opened an ugly ugly door.

Keep thinking the Lakers are a lock for the title.  Ha ha with 2 gifts and 4 HOFlamers and they are one game ahead of the Spurs.

[Guest_Randy]

You're good on non Purple n Gold subjects but still oh so far away when under the influence of Marketing Air.  Celts were clearly the most dominant team "over the decades."  If you want to talk 87 plus it's when marketing really got sickening.
That and Lenny Bias dying opened an ugly ugly door.

Keep thinking the Lakers are a lock for the title.  Ha ha with 2 gifts and 4 HOFlamers and they are one game ahead of the Spurs.

Please, tell me how many games the Lakers have had all four HOF's healthy and then talk about their record.  What is the Spurs record without TD (and that's only ONE player).  

As for the Celts, when was the last time the Celts were a dominant team?  It's not because Boston wasn't a great city -- their fan base was huge -- it was poor management that kept them down (and their fans drifted away).  

As for being good when it comes to "non Purple n Gold subjects" -- you wouldn't know an objective discussion of purple and gold if you read it.  In your reality, objective usually involves four letter words aimed at the Lakers.  

[Reality]

Keep thinking the Lakers are a lock for the title.  Ha ha with 2 gifts and 4 HOFlamers and they are one game ahead of the Spurs.

Please, tell me how many games the Lakers have had all four HOF's healthy and then talk about their record.  What is the Spurs record without TD (and that's only ONE player).  

 [/quote]
 Probably a better record then LA with their round marketer out.  Do tell.
That is only ONE player and leaves how many HOFlamers on the floor for the Lakers?  Ha!  We have to have all four HOFs on the floor at once or we cant win boo hoo.

Hee hee hee.

Look up in the Celts rafters and compare your quote of "team of the decades."
They won their last one in 1986 FYI.  In advance Randy yes that means they did not win one in 90s.  So the Lakers must be the "team of the 90s" based on the Blazers miracle choke lol.

Anyway this is getting so ugly now that we've gotten you on Purple n Gold.
I simply wanted to compliment you on your takes on the Spurs, Wolves, and even Kings.

I don't get people over to the Spurs.  We are a select group of people that know hoop and aren't into marketing conditioning.  Except when the game is watched on Telemundo.  What i do is help people leave Laker Krishnadom.  Many even remain Laker watchers but can now acknowledge other teams.

Enjoy another win against a sub .500 Pacific team the Clippers.  Hey see a 4 letter word in that sentence?  :lol:  

[westkoast]

Reality I think you should change your name to Lord of the Dance......way to balerina your way around Randy's point.  You cant fall back on this marketing bs you keep bringing up.  Step up to the plate and talk instead of typing nonsense.  You know very well how injured Kobe, Karl, Grant, Fox, and others were over the course of the season.  You just like to ignore it because it doesn't help your hating.

I could be wrong but I believe the Lakers are 21-6 when all of the HOF are together.  No one has said the Lakers can only win if all 4 of the HOF are playing.  As you can see with Kobe missing 16 games and counting, Shaq missing 10+, and Malone 39 games they still have a good record.....meaning they are winning.

Btw, dont refer to yourself as a true Spurs fan and say 'we are a select group...'  You my friend are bandwagon.  Prior to last years championship you never claimed to be a real fan of the Spurs.  Dont lump yourself in with the people around here who really have been fans for a while...Spursx3, 101, etc

[Reality]

Reality I think you should change your name to Lord of the Dance......way to balerina your way around Randy's point.  You cant fall back on this marketing bs you keep bringing up.  Step up to the plate and talk instead of typing nonsense.  You know very well how injured Kobe, Karl, Grant, Fox, and others were over the course of the season.  You just like to ignore it because it doesn't help your hating.

I could be wrong but I believe the Lakers are 21-6 when all of the HOF are together.  No one has said the Lakers can only win if all 4 of the HOF are playing.  As you can see with Kobe missing 16 games and counting, Shaq missing 10+, and Malone 39 games they still have a good record.....meaning they are winning.

Btw, dont refer to yourself as a true Spurs fan and say 'we are a select group...'  You my friend are bandwagon.  Prior to last years championship you never claimed to be a real fan of the Spurs.  Dont lump yourself in with the people around here who really have been fans for a while...Spursx3, 101, etc

Koast you got many if not all your alleged quotes of mine and facts misconstrued to fit an imaginary profile of myself, but a guy who helps hook up Tivo info is still good in my book.

Compare the stats of how many games the Spurs and Lakers have played with no HOFers on the floor.  While it could be said Parker, Turkey, GNOB and who else    may become HOFs it remains the Spurs only have one HOF at present.  He's been out about 15 games total along with Parker at seasons start.  Now show us how many games the Lakers have played with NO HOFers on the floor.

Oh woops!!  The Lakers have had at least one, two practically every game (make that every single game this year? i believe),  many games 3 HOFers on the floor. So even with Shaq out they have had how many HOFs on the floor?  
How did they do with Shaq out while still having 1 2 or 3 HOFs on the floor?  Lets Dance.

"No one has said the Lakers can only win if all 4 of the HOF are playing."  I don't consider Randy to be a "no one" and i don't feel you should either.  Randy could you cut n paste your posts or will you fill WKoast in?  Lets Dance.

If you want to go back and retrieve posts i was on board for the Spurs from Day 1 of the START of last years champ season.  Not a bandwagoner.  Anyone can root for any team as long as they get on board before the start of the season in my book.  Those of you who want to remain married to the same team your entire life are also fine.   Just don't paint yourself as oh so *loyal* yet others as bandwagners because they don't choose to root for the same team their entire lives.  Now if they are switching every single season, yes that is bandwagoner.  Switching less but still 5 times a decade would smack of bandwagoner.  Myself I'm like to root for teams and players and styles.

After the Celts management and coaching went brain dead along with Lenny Bias tragedy I continued to pull for them but knew they were blowing it big time.  Posted exactly why.  From there i dug the Sonics when Kemp, Nate Mcmillian, Payton et all kicked booty from 92-96.  Yes in '93 i think they were burned out of another finals appearance by Phoenixs record 66 foul shots in one Game 7 WCFs.  Also CBS running commercials showing Barkely vs Jordan before Sonics-Suns Game 7 was played!!!  But of course there are those of us who refuse to believe the NBA could at times be marketing driven.   :ph34r:  :ph34r:   By the way the Sonics shot about 22 FTs that game.  I also talked with Michael Cage in person about the game.  He's a strait shooter in case this was before your time.  He said in part and i quote "Phoenix knew they were beat after game 6.  Everyone knew what came down in game 7 and that includes Phoenix players for sure."  

I've now given specific responses to every one of your questions.  Respond or get a cup.

[Mr. Meaner]

4 HOFlamers   :lol:  :lol:  

[Randy]

4 HOFlamers   :lol:  :lol:

You're just upset that your team doesn't have any HOF'ers -- just HOW'ers -- CWebb, Christie, and Vlade.

HOW = Hall of Wieners

[Randy]

Compare the stats of how many games the Spurs and Lakers have played with no HOFers on the floor. While it could be said Parker, Turkey, GNOB and who else  may become HOFs it remains the Spurs only have one HOF at present. He's been out about 15 games total along with Parker at seasons start. Now show us how many games the Lakers have played with NO HOFers on the floor.

This is what you are trying to do:  Take away the four best players on the Lakers squad and then compare the Lakers to the Spurs only taking away their best player.  Umm, I'd say that was a bit unfair, wouldn't you?  Try taking away the Spurs best four players and then you can begin to compare.  However, let's just say that Shaq and TD are a wash and then compare Kobe to oh, let's say, 3 of the best Spurs players -- that would be a bit better comparison, wouldn't it?

"No one has said the Lakers can only win if all 4 of the HOF are playing." I don't consider Randy to be a "no one" and i don't feel you should either. Randy could you cut n paste your posts or will you fill WKoast in? Lets Dance.

Please, tell me how many games the Lakers have had all four HOF's healthy and then talk about their record. What is the Spurs record without TD (and that's only ONE player).

If you actually compare what I said, I never stated that the Lakers couldn't win without all four HOF's, I merely stated that the Lakers have done quite well when the Lakers had all four HOF's healthy.  What is the Spurs record without TD?

[westkoast]

Reality....I know you know the game.  You understand how it works (all sarcastic comments aside).  We can compare stats all night about what both teams look like on paper.  The one thing you are forgetting is that the Spurs starting unit (and the players who will make the playoff cut) has played together much longer than the Lakers starting unit.  You are correct that the Lakers did have at least 2 stars on the court for a good portion of the season......but you forget that it alternated and really made it hard for new guys to adjust to the style of play.  Or for the team to get a true rhythm going on.  One night Shaq and Payton are on the floor.  The next its Kobe and Payton.  I even went to a Clippers game when it was just GP on the floor.  He was changing the normal style of the Lakers game because he had to take over the game the only way he knew how.  Tell me it hasnt been a bit of a bumpy road for this team.  Yet they still manage to be in thick of the league.

Should the Lakers be doing good considering they have 4 HOF's? Yes.  They should be winning these games (and even quite a few others IMO)  Is it easy to take 4 different styles of play and blend them together in 30 games? No.

No one ever said the Lakers need all 4 of them to win.  They didnt need them to win before.  What they needed was a stronger supporting cast and I believe the other additions (Russell, Walton, Grant) and the stepped up play of Rush with Fish's contributions off the bench gave us a stronger team than last year.

[Reality]

If you actually compare what I said, I never stated that the Lakers couldn't win without all four HOF's, I merely stated that the Lakers have done quite well when the Lakers had all four HOF's healthy.

Randy posted on Feb 26th:  

• The Lakers are going to need all 4 HOF's to make a run at the title -- but I think the same could be said for most teams in the WC, at this point, because the West is so tough.

• Feb 18th:  Actually, I don't worry about the Spurs with or without Malone -- we have already proven that we can beat them without all of our superstars. I do think we will need them to beat the Kings and the TWolves though.