Real Deal

Yeah, it should be put back up immediately for a few, maybe a couple of hours for some, maybe two days. It depends on your ISP. Read up on domain propagation (Google it) if you're curious. It's a bit to explain.

And it was the Lakers, no matter how you flip it. I'd rather play Duncan and the Spurs at their very best, than Kobe, Shaq and Phil Jackson during the dynasty years, or even Kobe, Gasol, and Odom last season (who would've beaten the best Spurs team, also). The Dallas Mavericks were consistently good as well, contenders every single year for what...nine years? 50+ wins every year? Consistency in the regular season doesn't mean jack to me. Dominance does. The Spurs would've gotten wrecked every single year by the 2000-2002 Lakers, and that's a fact. All of those Spurs teams. It's no coincidence that the best defensive year for them ended up ending at the hands of Kobe and Shaq. Even worse, their best winning season ended in the second round, while in both of the Lakers' 60+ win seasons, they dominated the NBA Finals, 4-1 over the Magic and 4-2 over the Pacers. I'm willing to bet that if problems hadn't started for Kobe and Shaq in the 2002-03 season, the Lakers would've put them away then, also, during their 60-win season. Anyone in their right mind knows that the Spurs' best team is not as good as 2-3 of the Lakers' best teams, since 1999. Nothing to debate on that. And when the Lakers went on a short slump, they returned to win the NBA title this last season, beating this same Spurs team we continue to talk about in 2008 to get to the Finals and eventually lose to a 66-win Celtics team. And you're going to see something similar happen again this upcoming season, if they meet. They may be dangerous, but they don't have the goods to defeat the Lakers in the playoffs, and you can stick that in your siggy until June, if you want.

By the way, the fourth-best season for the Lakers, or the best season for the Spurs?

Let's put it this way: who would you rather play, the Spurs at their best in this decade, or the Lakers at their best? How about the Spurs at their best, or the Lakers at their second best? Or...haha, how about the Spurs at their best...or the Lakers in their third best season? I don't have to go any further with this.

...I covered three-point attempts. He was 8th in attempts in 2008-09. That's among current players. And he shot 41% from three. Granger attempted more, and shot 40.4%. That doesn't mean he's a great three-point shooter, it means he's a good three-point shooter. Haha, Mo Williams attempted just two threes less than Ben Gordon, but shot a high 43.6% from the field. Hell, Troy Murphy attempted 358 threes and shot 45% from downtown, compared to Gordon's 422 attempts at 41%. Pretty solid comparison there, Murphy to Gordon, right? Roger Mason attempted 394 of them and hit at a better percentage. Let me know when Gordon attempts 653 in a season, and hits for 41% (like Ray Allen did) or 628 and hits for 43% (Dennis Scott) or even a small 536 for 43% (Reggie Miller), and I'll add Ben Gordon's name to the list of truly great three-point shooters.

In other words, again, it comes down to regular season wins, not the amount of times the Lakers dropped the Spurs in the playoffs, or the dynasty, or the level of players and coaches. Well, alright.

So the only reason for you saying the Spurs have been the better team this decade is because the Lakers had two first-round exits, and missed the playoffs once? They missed the playoffs in 2004 because of Kobe and Odom's injuries. Odom was out for 18 games, and Kobe was hurt for 16 games. The Spurs have had two first-round losses, and three second-round losses, while the Lakers have had two first-round losses, and two second-round losses. The Lakers just finished up a 65-win season, which is better than any of the Spurs' regular season marks in the history of their franchise, not to mention the Lakers' 67-win season I talked about in 2000. So, basically, it's because of that one season the Lakers missed the playoffs, and that's because of a major coaching change, with Kobe and Odom being hurt? That's it? You see, it truly is ridiculous. The Lakers have had the better individual seasons, the better overall teams, the better players, the better coach, and the true dynasty. The Spurs have made the playoffs every season, Lakers missing them once. Lakers win.

The Lakers won 67 games in 2000, won the title, then went the following season and won their second title with an NBA-record 15-1 win/loss in the playoffs. If regular season wins are going to decide this, I guess Dallas is right up there with everyone else, since they've had five 57+ win seasons since 2000, including a 67-win season and three total 60+ win seasons. The Lakers have dominated the Spurs in the Playoffs, they have won four NBA titles (tied with the Spurs), they had three consecutive (making them a true dynasty) and they have had the best two-guard since MJ, best center since Kareem and the best coach in NBA history. Hilarious that the Spurs would be considered better.

Haha, you pick a dynasty over any other team. The Lakers have had the best player in basketball in Kobe Bryant, the best coach of all-time in Phil Jackson, and arguably the best center since Wilt and Kareem in Shaq. I don't see how you take the Spurs over the Lakers, unless you just simply hate the Lakers, which is what I'll see throughout this topic. Now if you were to ask who it is between the Bulls of the 90's and the 00-02 Lakers, then it's those Bulls simply because they racked up two dynasties, literally. But the Spurs were never a dynasty. The definition of one is to win three consecutive titles, something the Spurs have never done. There's a reason why they haven't done it, and part of it is because of the Lakers. 2001: loss to Lakers, WCF 2002: loss to Lakers, 2nd round 2004: loss to Lakers, 2nd round 2008: loss to Lakers, WCF Haha, please.

No, a new host. We'll have our content, forum software, domain name, etc...we're not losing that.

Pfft, I know. He used to be able to pick up guys like you over his head.

Who cares? He's a big pansy for sucker-punching the guy. If he was going to hit him, he should've got in his face first. He probably would've gotten his ass beat if he did that, though. Attacking some dude just because you're getting taunted, then acting crazy and going after others? That doesn't belong on the field. He was a 2nd-3rd rounder in the draft. He doesn't deserve to be a pro with that attitude.

Oh look, another thread derailed. And, wow, can't be surprised at what team it involves AGAIN. Start a new topic if you want to talk about the SuperBowl. Sorry to the community for this nonsense.

When did Mike Brown shave his goatee and eyebrows, and start following you down the aisle? http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/ian_thomsen/02/11/cavs/mike-brown.p1.jpg

Shaq. He is all elbows and shoulders, good footwork, strength, that's about it. No defense, no respect for anyone unless it's a superstar guard he needs to suck up to for a championship ring, and the only time he was in shape was back in Orlando, and maybe a half a season in Phoenix. Missed free throws, cheated on his wife with Superhead, inability to stay in the game and contribute late in the 4th, getting manhandled by Ben Wallace on the glass, thinking he's the best center to ever play the game, thinking he's the best center in today's game, disrespecting Yao Ming with racial comments, getting completely owned as a police "helper" and eventually getting a ticket for parking in the middle of the street, thinking he's as big as Michael Jordan, thinking he's as good as all other major athletes in other sports (ex. Big Ben in football) and challenging them just to direct attention to his ugly mug...just disgusting, can't wait until he retires so I don't have to continue looking at his chubby, sweat-soaked sloth face in the NBA anymore.

We're getting crushed, guys. We're dropping below 500 posts per day. Activity isn't the issue here most of the time, because I would rather see intelligent and mature discussion, but we gotta keep pushing for the activity, stepping up as individual posters, until the regular season begins (when we'll actually double our posts again). In the next day or two, I'm moving the site, hopefully for the last time. Team skins will be put up immediately after, as quick as I can possibly put them up. Then I'm going to sweep through the topics and go to town, and it's going to be up to you guys to keep up with me. That's the problem with being so NBA-focused here: we struggle during the off-season. School doesn't help with that, although education is obviously more important than a message board, haha. We just need to keep swinging. The dedicated guys here know what's to come. You newer members just need to hang in there and await our regular season discussion.

Deng will be fine. I think he came back a little early from the injury, that's all. Chicago will need him, though. I'm interested to see how Deng will work with Rose, Hinrich and Salmons...seems to be an interesting group of teammates, and one that could do some damage in the East in the next couple of years. As far as the Bulls not trading Deng to the Lakers, the problem was that Bryant was declining the trades that sent him to Chicago for all of their players (he has the no-trade clause), while the Lakers wouldn't accept anything less, and the Bulls weren't going to trade two stars, possibly three, for him.

Ah, we're going semi-dedicated. I'll install IPB on their servers tonight, move the database very soon.

I really can't deal with our current memory problems. I am unable to create new team skins because of it, and this will surely be a problem once we bring in our 50 members online at a time (like we have for the last season or two), so because November is approaching, I'm going to find us a semi-dedicated server, or possibly a VPS. Shared hosting is rubbish. No matter how much I try, I can't find a single host that does what they promise AND/OR provides us with what we need. You all will be notified in advance when the move is happening. I'll send out emails and post it here on the forums. It may be next week, could be tomorrow, but our relationship with shared hosting has been about as bad as Bobby and Whitney's, so it's time to upgrade. EDIT: We aren't losing posts, members, our domain name or our board software. Just moving hosts.

Might as well wear a dress to the store this afternoon, if I'm going to go that far and embarrass myself.

Yeah, trying to maintain it.

By the way, you can see why I don't discuss much football. I feel like I know the sport quite a bit, but good God, when you hate your owner and you have no faith in your offense, you really don't have much to talk about.

Well, the possibility that Al Davis is still alive in 2011 is pretty high, which means he'll still be coaching the team from the box, which means we'll never win more than seven games. It's the Raiders. Arizona found their franchise player in Fitz. The Falcons have a QB that can potentially be the clear-cut best in the NFL in a few years. All of those teams found a way to do that via draft. The Raiders can't draft (Huff, Russell, DHB). If we knew how to draft franchise players, we'd be better off. McFadden may never be a franchise player. In fact, I thank God we somehow got lucky with Nnamdi Asomugha, but he's not going to make up for our pathetic offensive line, our lack of receivers, and our terrible coaching and ownership.

I'm going with Kevin Love here, also. I wouldn't mind seeing a frontcourt of Love and Bogut, although you'll be lacking on the defensive end. I think that, if this pick was made, Jefferson would still be playing for the Bucks, Sessions' offer sheet would be matched by Milwaukee, and Redd would probably be the guy on the trading block. The Bucks would have a reason to keep those guys because, even though money would be tight, they would start filling seat a bit more with Love and a decent Bucks team, instead of Joe Alexander not contributing at all.

There's no way this trade makes sense for Oakland. Seymour is a UFA after this season. There's a zero percent chance he comes back, unless we somehow win 8-9 games. Not with Russell as QB. Not with Al Davis coaching.