Leaderboard

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2189/screenshot20110706at824.png

Lolz, you mad because nobody repped your picture?

Definitely 2005. First of all from 1999 to 2003 there was just no team in the East that was good enough to win a ring. As a matter of fact after the Bulls lost all their best players in 98 the best Eastern teams lost their basketball got also too old to be a true legit ring contender. The Pacers still had two good seasons after that but they were nothing like the 98 amazing squad at the same time. They started to look REALLY old in 99. In fact they even lost against a Knicks team who ended the season as the 8th team in the East and lost their leader Ewing in the second game of the series against Indiana. New York, Indiana and Miami were major disappointment after 98 (again even if the Pacers made the Finals in 00, besides the Lakers were clearly better than them in those Finals). The Heat managed to get some young blood in the summer of 2000 but unfortunately for them Mourning's illness definitely ended all their hope to win a ring. There were still some talented young teams that appeared in the East during that period, but those teams, who were the Sixers, Raptors, Bucks and later Celtics and Nets still were way too young and definitely lacked of something to be a legit contender. As much as I liked those teams (I was a huge fan of the 2001 Sixers) they would have never made the Finals (Raptors, Bucks and C's didn't made them anyhow) for sure today or in the 90's. So the Spurs definitely lacked of competition in the East. As for the West, well the Spurs didn't have a great competition either... The Jazz were not even close to the 97/98 squad. The Blazers were a young talented squad, but they still lacked of something to be a true ring contender. Besides you know that something's wrong when your best scorer is Isiah Rider... As for the Lakers Bryant was still very young and the Lakers had a major trade (Jones for Rice), trade which was a big disappointment for them as Rice didn't bring what the Lakers needed at all, the Lakers were CLEARLY better with Jones that year. Besides they also tried to sign Rodman and Rodman was clearly out of his prime that year and it was just a huge failure... The rest were just not good enough to contend. Phil Jackson said that there will always be an asterisk aside of the name of the champ that year and I have to say that I agree with that. The NBA just wasn't the same without the Bulls and with this lockout, there were no real great team that year. Even the Spurs in fact, they were fantastic defensively but offensively they were not even close to what they became later with Parker and Ginobili and still had some major flaws... I certainly don't think that this team would have won anything one year later or earlier. In 2003 the East was still weak. And if the West was better, it was nonetheless not as good as it was between 2000 and 2002... The first reason why was because of the Lakers obviously. The Lakers, clearly the best team in 2000, 2001 and 2002 were not even close to the level at which they played during those years in 2003. Why ? Multiple reasons. First of all during the three peat the Lakers managed to get good veteran players to surround the two superstars and the three superfriends (Horry, Fisher, Fox) every year. Yet in the summer of 2001 they just did not... They only got Walker and Hunter and both players were big disappointment (especially Walker who turned out to be terrible, Hunter was better, especially defensively but he was still a downgrade to Tyronne Lue). So in 2002 the team was basically only Shaq, Bryant, the three superfriends and George. They managed to get a ring that way.. But it was clear that they better get some other players in the summer of 2002. Yet they didn't. Not only the team was as weak on paper but it was even weaker as first Shaq and Bryant now just couldn't get along with each other (this time Phil Jackson couldn't do nothing about it), Shaq got injured during the season and Horry TOTALLY lost his basketball, he was nowhere close to the player he was before and couldn't hit a clutch shot any longer. Many thought he was done, I was definitely one of them (I sure was wrong..). So it's just a poor Lakers team that the Spurs defeated that year. The other dangerous teams in the West were Dallas and Sac Town. But first Dallas, as talented as they were, were still very young, Dirk was not the leader that he is now, and they played NO DEFENSE at all. Then about the Kings Webber was injured during the entire season and the Kings had to change their game. Now the offense was built around Peja, who had and by far his best season, an MVP season (definitely could have been MVP that year). But the only problem for the Kings was... Webber's return. As Divac said it at the time (and I 100% agree with him), with Webber the Kings totally lost their basketball. First because Chris wasn't playing at 100%, second because they weren't used to play with him any longer. They were just better without him that year. Webber should have waited till the following year to get back.. So once again the Spurs didn't have a great competition that year. Besides Robinson was clearly past his prime that year, no where close the player he used to be, and Parker and Ginobili were nowhere to the players that they became. Gino was a rookie. And Parker was still way too young, we saw that in the last three games of the Finals. So both the 99 and 2003 teams were the less good of the fours championship Spurs teams, there is no doubt in my mind about that. And I put the 2005 team ahead of the 2007 because first of all there was more competition in 2005. In 2005 the East had awoken, not only the Pistons were the NBA champions but Shaq was now in the East, and was still in his prime (the 2005 season is probably is the last season he played at his peak, the last he had a true chance to be MVP) and Wade was getting up there. The Heat and Pistons were two TRUE legit ring contenders in the East, no question about that. In the West the Mavs learned to play defense thanks to Johnson that year and were more dangerous than they ever was.. Even if they still lacked of something... And the Suns had their best season that year. They were never that dangerous though cause of their lack of defense but still... The Spurs had their toughest match up of their four championship seasons that year anyhow, I'm of course talking about the Finals against Detroit. The Pistons who were at their best, who just won a ring one year earlier and just beat a very good Heat team in the ECF. The Spurs were just fantastic that year, no doubt about it. Not only Duncan, Parker and Ginobili were at their very best at the same time (the only time it happened as Duncan had already started to decrease a bit in 2007), and Bowen was also at his best, but their bench was the best too, they had Horry back at his finest, then Barry, Udrih (probably Parker's best back up), and shooters like Devin Brown or Glen Robinson... While in 2007 they didn't have a great competion once again, the Mavs lost it in the first round and there were no team who was really good enough to win a ring... The Suns maybe but once again they played no defense. And honestly the Jazz should have never made if to the WCF... In the East it was even worst, the Cavs had nothing to do in the Finals. But the fact was the Heat and Pistons had now nothing to do with the teams they used to be and had no chance whatsoever to win a ring any longer. Besides Ben was not in Detroit any more and Shaq was now clearly past his prime... As for the Spurs themselves well as I said Duncan started slowly to decrease (he was still great don't get me wrong, but let's just say that the big three was more impressive in 2005 as stated above), Horry was now washed up for good, as good as it was Oberto was not the defender that Mohammed was and Barry was quite disappointing... Only Finley was really good from the bench (well he was the starter in fact as Pop preferred to used Ginobili as a sixth man, but we all know that Gino was the true starter). So for all these reasons there is no doubt for me that the 2005 team is the best one.

Just like a ton of them are not surprised at all with the verdict. I guess I'm in the same boat as them. I think most people THINK she is guilty, but going by the letter of the law, the jury just couldn't convict her. At the same time, I keep thinking "When does enough circumstantial evidence become enough?" because it was overwhelming in this case. She did something to Caylee, and I believe it was killing her, but the jury couldn't convict her based upon what they heard and were shown. I mean, even the alternate jurors said the same thing. It's a frustrating case because she is a complete scum-bag, and has gotten off legally. Also, if anyone watched any of Dr. Drew on CNN Headline News with Jeff Ashton, what did you think? I feel bad for him, but he's handling himself very well. Also, apparently before the body was found, Casey was talking about being able to go on radio stations and t.v. shows, and she was joking about Howard Stern and asking about her bra size if she went on the show. She is a low life piece of shit, and I wouldn't have complained at all if she went to jail, but I guess I understand the verdict.

The question becomes guilty of what? It's like citing someone for running a stop sign when really they were speeding. Even though a traffic violation did happen, can't find a person guilty if it's the wrong charge. I think in the opinion of most of us and the juror, Casey was guilty of something involving the death of the girl. But was it intentional, on accident, or did she just cover it up? Did someone see you steal the money? Get a discription of the car? Get a good description of you? Did the gloves and mask match the ones found later? Was it cold which would explain why someone would have gloves or a mask? Did the money they find match the cash stolen? What if the stolen money was all in $100 bills but the cash found on you were all in $10s. Stuff like this matters. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. If they match, there's enough evidence to show you were the probable robber and would get charged with robbery. If not, then you still may get charged with something else. Possible attempted robbery if they find a gun on you. All that shows is that you're involved somehow. But can they prove YOU specifically were the person who did the killing. If you know who did it but didn't actually do the killing then you can't be charged with murder. That's what happened with Anthony. There wasn't enough evidence to prove Anthony actually murdered the kid. Doesn't mean the jury doesn't believe she had nothing to do with her death.

lmao word. I got to the third line before wanting to blow my brains out. I couldn't do it.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-P0LqhZ0sJ_M/Te7EtGIYiBI/AAAAAAAADa8/4XnFqZjGF0Y/s1600/48_121794452311.jpg http://s4.hubimg.com/u/458035_f260.jpg http://a11news.com/images/casey-anthony-partying.jpg http://patrishka.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/b-casey-anthony-myspac-45b7bcd33317.jpeg?w=450 http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/03/19/news/photos_stories/cropped/casey_anthony--300x300.jpg http://patrishka.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/b-casey-anthony-lays-s-4235ab0f1765.jpeg