Oliver P

Well I would love to say New York but I can't... Cause I've never been there so far lol. I've always been attracted by Big Apple, since I can't remember in fact, but I've never had the opportunity to go there... Well I was supposed to go to New York this year in fact. I was unemployed lately and I told myself at the beginning of the year that I would go to New York if I was still unemployed in October/November. Unfortunately (or rather fortunately lol) I'm not any more so I will not be able to go this year as well. I hope I'll be able to go to NYC next year. For me it's the greatest city ever, I've always been fascinated by this city as I said, I even plan to live there some day. Well anyway so far I've only been to Spain, Italy and everywhere in France. Can't say that I particularly loved any cities I visited, well I'd say that Marseille, Paris and Barcelona are probably the best ones. I ain't a big fan of Paris though, I mean I like it but I couldn't live there. A lot of people there are jerks who ain't friendly whatsoever (they sure don't like tourists...), and all believe (as a lot of people in France sadly) that Paris is the greatest city on Earthy which I find quite laughable to be honest... As for Marseille (I was born there), I've always liked this city but it ain't as great as it used to be though... So I can't really say that I particularly love to visit one city in particular, that is among the cities I've been to so far. I've always been more attracted by American cities anyhow (New York at first but not only). After I go to New York I plan to go all around the US, I'm sure I'm gonna love it. Other than New York I've always wanted to see cities like Chicago, Phila, Boston, Minneapolis and St Paul, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, and well everywhere else basically.

Yeah we've heard about the possibility of seeing both Stats and Nash in New York for quite some time now... Well having Nash in NYC would be nice indeed, especially that he's still playing at a high level despite his age, but the fact remains that he ain't getting any younger and he won't play at that level eternally. So I don't know, I guess I would welcome his experience (especially that we didn't play well those last four games) but it depends on what we have to trade to get him. As the Suns are rebuilding I suppose that they will want some draft picks and young talents like Chandler, Morrow or Gallinari and in that case I would be against the trade for sure.

Obviously the fear of failure. As Multi said it failure is inevitable. No matter what you do through your life you will have to fail soon or later. It is inexorable. In fact the people who do not fail are the people who do not even try to succeed, so the people who are afraid to fail. As Lil' Penny said the fear of failure will keep you from trying, it can ONLY make you fail. Both succesful and unsuccesful people fail, but the difference between them is that succesful people learn from their failures and can only become stronger. As Real Deal said you can, and I would even say you will have to, learn from your failure while you can't do anything outta fear. Fear is useless. Everyone has to deal with fear, there is no one on this planet who is never afraid at times, but the succesful people are the ones who manage to dominate their fear. Failing will not make you a loser, being afraid to fail and spend your life doing nothing will. Therefore the real losers are in fact the ones who are afraid to fail.

Oh I see, I didn't know that it could slow down the scolling speed and loading times that much... I'm kinda new in the internet business (only got a computer for two years) and I just learned how to make a website this week in fact lol. Well forget about what I said then, it's perfect as it is. And yeah I'm definitely sticking around, honestly the best group of posters I've seen since the RST days. Very mature and knowledgeable, I really love it, keep up the good work.

^Very nice I like it. Just one thing though, I think that it would look even better if there were the team logos on the sides, in the background. But it ain't a big deal, great job nonetheless.

At first I didn't even want to post in that thread to be honest... I mean we had quite a nice start and then... four losses in a row against Phila, Golden State, Milwaukee and Minnesota ? Really ??!! That hurts even more cause I really believe in the team that we have this year, I mean I know we can't go to the CF or even the second round for that matter but I really feel that we can make it to the playoffs... So seeing us play just as bad as last year (except December) is really painful. It's still the beginning, the season's gonna be long and our players need time to develop a chemistry, so we'll have to be patient btu still... It's honestly [expletive]ing hard to be patient after watching this team suck every year since 2001.... I'm tired of being a Knicks fan. I miss the 90's... Well anyhow it's the just the beginning of the season as I said, so let's be patient I guess.

Yeah as I said in another post I saw that during the Thunder-Blazers game, that was hilarious haha. I mean I usually don't like the hate against Miami and LeBron but that was different that was really funny, didn't know P Double was a clown haha.

Lol nice way of putting more pressure on the Heat... As if they didn't have enough pressure on their shoulders already. Same ol' Phil Jackson, always playing mind games as usual, that's why I like him.

Lol seems to me that Haslem is pretty upset... I mean the only thing that Haslem does is showing that he cares about what Pierce said, he's just showing weakness and that ain't a good thing. He just should have said nothing. And saying things like "I'm here to play basketball" just makes things worse, as we clearly saw what team was the better of the two right now... C'm'on what P Double said was funny, it was just a little joke, no need to make a big deal outta it... The Heat ain't playing very well right now so they should at least show that they have the sense of humor... Well apparently they just don't have any, too bad for them. Well I had a good laugh at Pierce's tweet when I saw it, that's telling them Paul.

No I honestly do not believe that age was really a problem for that team. First of all the reason why Wilt didn't average more than 30 PPG in his last two seasons with Philly wasn't because he declined but because he didn't take as many shots as he used to. As a matter of fact the last time Wilt averaged more than 30 PPG, in 66, he shot more than 25 times per game. The year after, the year he won his first ring, he shot less than 15 times per game... Huge difference. I would add that I'm not surprised that it's the year that Wilt shot less than 20 times per game for the first time that he won a ring for the first time. Wilt understood that he needed his teammates to win that year and he never averaged more than 20 shots per game for the rest of his career, which explains why his scoring per game was not as impressive and also why his FG% was his best in career. Wilt just became a more intelligent basketball player in his Sixers days. The year before he arrived in LA Wilt averaged 24 PPG (59.5 FG%), 24 RPG and almost 9 APG, he was still on top of the world. I'd say that Wilt really started to decline the season the Lakers won, in 72, but he was still Finals MVP that year nonetheless. Same for Baylor, well it's true that he got injured the second year and started to decline after that, but the first year (and the second before getting injured) Elgin was still at his very best. Yet the three players just failed together. Besides the thing that shows that age is irrelevant in that case is that the Lakers finally won the year Baylor eventually decided to retire for good (in 71-72 after playing 9 games), so despite their age Wilt and West were able to win together. And if they could win in 72, they sure could have won three years earlier with Baylor. Well it is true that the three players had a lot of injury troubles the two years they played together. Especially Barkley who already had to deal with a lot of bad injuries in his last years in Phoenix. I even remembering him announcing his retirement every year and then changing his mind every year... Until his terrible leg injury at the beginning of the 99-2000 season. So it's true that Barkley and that the three players got outta their prime together... But they were all still playing at an All Star level nonetheless though, especially the first year they played together, I do not believe that age and injuries are the only reasons why they didn't win together. No I definitely do not agree about age for that team. You mentioned only three players, this team is certainly the deepest ever, and having only three players who were not in their prime is not a problem. Sheed was the leader and he was 25, Mighty Mouse was 26, Smith was 30, Grant was 27, Wells was 23.... I mean most of those players were all at their prime. And in fact Pip was still at his best either, he didn't average as many PPG as he used but again the reason why was because he just didn't take as many shots as he used to, for the first time of his career he averaged just a bit more than 10 shots per game. Which is pretty logical as he had never been surrounded by as many offensive talents in all his career, so he obviously couldn't take as many shots and scored as many PPG. He also didn't play the same amount of MPG, which is once again pretty normal as that team was so deep, he just couldn't play the same amount of minutes as he used to before in his career. But other than that his stats were exactly the same everywhere else, he averages the same amount of pts, rbds, asts and blks as before, and had the same FG%. Only Sabas and Schrempf were past their prime. Sabas was never at his best in the NBA anyhow, when he joined the big league his body was already totally broken by injuries. Which is too bad as I think that he could have become one of the very best centers ever, even maybe the best... But that's another story. So anyway no, age is definitely not an excuse for that team. And saying that had they beat the Lakers they would have won a ring is just pure assumption. I mean yes I think too that they would have won, but there is no way that we can assert that for sure as it just did not happen, maybe they would have lost against Indiana. We just do not know. The fact remains that they did not win anyhow. Again saying that they would have went seven games is pure assumption. We just can't know that for sure. Although I agree with you that age played a factor with Karl. Not with Payton though, Payton was still at his best the year before and didn't have any injury troubles that year. Although he had more trouble to adapt to his team than Karl, but this had nothing to do with age. It's just that first Payton had trouble to play with his new teammates and second he was VERY uncomfortable in the triangle. He just wasn't made to play in that team. I remember that Magic was heavily criticizing him at the time, all year long... But for Malone it's true that it was the season he shouldn't have played. I mean the year before he still had around the same stats that he had all his career and still seemed unstoppable, but he had the first serious injuries of his career. I agree with that. But it's also important to consider that this team was really able to play together for a couple of months, in December-January. During that time they had a fantastic chemistry, I was really impressed by them. But after that, even when no one was injured, they were never able to have this fantastic chemistry back. Especially because of Payton... Webber's return is not enough to explain this failure honestly. Because first even if Webber just got back, well the team just started to lose his basketball because of his return. As Divac said that year the Kings were just better without Webber. Besides the Mavs struggled the whole year, they were certainly not supposed to win only 52 games... As for "no defense", well it's true but at the same time the Suns managed to win more than 60 games and make it to the WCF at least with no defense, so it doesn't explain it all once again... The stars just couldn't play together. Well maybe but the fact is that I personally am not surprised that they're having trouble. I mean first of all it's just the beginning of the season, as I already said in that thread, even if that team were to win a ring this year, you just can't expect them to be at their best rightaway. They need time to acclimate to each other, once again it's not a video game. And I don't see how can some people be surprised to see them lose twice against Boston, the players are together for quite some time there, they had all the time they needed to develop a great chemistry, their defense is great and they actually even won together. They all know each other very well. As talented as the Heat are on paper they just do not know how to play together yet. In fact even when the Spurs were still at their best, I remember that some years they started the season real slow as well, which made a lot of people believe (me included I have to admit it) that they were done. Yet they were always back to their best in March-April and ready to win another ring, or get far in the playoffs. It's just the beginning of the season, all of this is just meaningless, and it's certainly not because the Heat are 5-4 or that they lost twice against the best Eastern team that they're gonna lose for sure. That's a first thing. And again about this age thing, well first I already showed that some of the super teams I mentioned were actually not that old, but I'm gonna give you another example : Team USA. As a matter of fact the least we can say is that Team USA had a lot of trouble this past decade. Yet not only they were even better on paper than all the super teams I mentioned, but the teams they met actually not as good as the NBA teams, as they all had AT BEST one NBA star and a couple of NBA players. Yet Team USA almost lost against Lithuania in 2000 and Spain in 2008. And they actually lost in 2002, 04 and 06. In 2006 they even lost against Greece, and in that team not only there weren't any NBA stars but not even one NBA PLAYER. Yet Greece won. Which proves once again that it's not because a team is way better than another on paper that this team is gonna win for sure. I can also talk about the 2000 Magic. That year this team had no star whatsoever, its best player was Darrel Armstrong (a player that I used to like a lot but he was nowhere near an All Star level...), everyone at the time was sure that they would be the worst team in the league. Yet thanks to Doc Rivers' coaching and a terrific chemistry they surprised everyone and almost made the playoffs, had they won the last game of the season they would have been a playoffs team. That year the Magic showed once again that talent is not everything. Sure it's better to have talented players, but it's not because you have the most talented team in the league that you will win for sure. That's the only thing that I wanted to say here, I never said that the Heat wouldn't win, I want to be clear about that. No I wouldn't be surprised to see them win it all. But the only thing I'm saying here is that I wouldn't be surprised to see them fail at the same time.

Definitely one of the best skins I've seen. And I agree that the logos are too dark as well.. But other than that it's perfect, great job.

I don't think that the Heat need anything. It is not because they are not playing as well as most people expected them to play that they need to get something else... Besides when you got two players who can get the ball up court, like Wade and James, you certainly do not need a PG. Now I personally don't understand why some people are surprised that the Heat ain't playing very well so far... I mean sure they have a fantastic team on paper but it's not because you're the best on paper that you're gonna win it all... Basketball is not a video game. Basketball is a collective game and so the most important thing in basketball is chemistry, without a good chemistry no team can accomplish anything. Which is why I am not surprised whatsoever to see the Heat having some trouble. And that the Celtics beat them twice already. It's gonna take them some time to develop a chemistry. That is IF they can play together... I've said it the whole summer, the Heat are an exciting team on paper but they still have everything to prove. And there are certainly not the favorites to win it all. When we take a look at the very best teams ever on paper we can see that most of them have not even won a ring : In 1968 Wilt Chamberlain joined Elgin Baylor and Jerry West. I am sure that at the time most everyone thought that this team would be unstoppable. Well they ended their first season with 55 wins (2nd overall in the league), they went to the Finals the first two years and lost to the Boston Celtics then to the New York Knicks. The third year they lost in the WCF and lost to the Milwaukee Bucks. The fourth year, 1971/72 then, Elgin Baylor got injured around ten games after the beginning of the season (11 if I am not mistaken) and the Lakers finally won a ring. But there was only Chamberlain and West in that team. And so this unbelievable Big Three failed. In 1989, Tim Hardaway joined Chris Mullin and Mitch Richmond in Golden State. It was the "Run TMC". The first year the three stars did not make the playoffs, they only won 37 games and ended the season as the 10th team in the West. The second, and last, year they played together they went to the second round of the playoffs and lost to the Los Angeles Lakers. Then the Warriors staff, knowing that the three stars could not achieve anything together, decided to trade Mitch Richmond to the Sacramento Kings. This Big Three was so a failure. In 1996 Charles Barkley joined Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler in Houston. At the time everyone was sure that with those three superstars the Rockets could beat the mighty Chicago Bulls. Well the first year they won 57 games and ended the season as the 2nd team in the West (4th overall). They played two seasons together, the first year they lost in the WCF to the Utah Jazz, the second year they lost in the first round to the Utah Jazz once again. In 1998, Drexler retired and the Rockets signed Pippen to replace him. Barkley, Olajuwon and Pippen played one season together, they ended the season as the fourth team in the West and they lost in the first round to the Los Angeles Lakers. The Rockets Big Threes were once again a failure. In 1999 Steve Smith, Scottie Pippen and Detlef Schrempf joined Arvydas Sabonis, Rasheed Wallace, Brian Grant and Damon Stoudamire in Portland. They were even more impressive as a rookie named Bonzi Wells happened to be way better than eveyone was expecting him to be. This team was so stacked with talent that, again, everyone was sure that they would win it all. Steve Smith even said that he was sure that this team could win 82 games ! Well they actually won 59 games (they ended the season as the 2nd team in the West) and lost in the WCF to the Los Angeles Lakers. The following year Shawn Kemp joined this team and they were swept in the first round by the Los Angeles Lakers. The 2001/02 Kings were considered as one of the gratest starting lineup ever (arguably the best ever, there was no flaw in that lineup) : Vlade Divac, Chris Webber, Peja Stojakovic, Doug Christie and they just signed Mike Bibbyin the 2001 summer. And on the bench three great role players who did their job perfectly, Hidayet Turkoglu, Bobby Jackson and Scott Pollard. They ended the season as the first team this time (61 wins), but it's nonetheless a failure once again as they lost in the WCF to the Los Angeles Lakers. In 2003, Karl Malone and Gary Payton joined Kobe Bryant and Shaquille O'Neal in Los Angeles. Everyone thought that they would destroy everyone. Yet they ended the season as 3rd in the West (55 wins) and they lost in the Finals to the Detroit Pistons. In 2003 again, Antawn Jamison and Antoine Walker joined Dirk Nowitzki, Steve Nash and Michael Finley in Dallas. Not only that but two rookies named Josh Howard and Marquis Daniels had a terric season and played way better than expected. Well they won 52 games and ended the season as 5th in the West and they lost in the first round against the Sacramento Kings. It is hard to find better rosters than those ones, yet none of these teams won a ring indeed. Which shows us that it's not because you have a great roster that you will win for sure. Quite the opposite in fact we can even say that teams of stars usually do not work. And why is that ? well the fact is that a team needs role players to win. You need those players who, even if they know to do one thing only, know their role perfectly and do what they're supposed to do. One of the reasons why teams of star usually do not work is because those stars have trouble to adapt to a new role. Cause when several stars play together they have to change their game indeed, something that some have a lot of trouble to accomplish. For example I had a debate with another poster once, Coldj3 (some of you might know him), he was trying to convince me that the Bulls would have been better with Webber instead of Rodman as Webber was definitely a better player overall. Something that I highly disagreed with because even if Rodman was not as good as Webber I doubt that Webber would have done the same things that Rodman did. Rodman was a role player, he couldn't do all the things that C-Webb could do, but he was the best at what he did best. That's why even if Webber would have done a lot of things that Rodman couldn't do, especially offensively of course, he would not have been able to be as efficient defensively and would not have gotten as much rebounds. Let's not forget about all the little things that Rodman did to help his team win, like entering his opponents mind to destabilize them. Same if Webber had been a Laker during the three peat, he was much better than Horry but he was not even close to Horry's level in the clutch, and we know how important was Horry's role in the clutch for that team. That is why I don't believe that the Lakers would have been better with Webber, despite the fact that Webber was a superstar and Horry a role player. So for all these reasons, and as I said it the whole summer, there is no doubt that the Lakers are still the favorites to win it all, they're the champs anyhow, so they're the team to beat. This Lakers are still at their best, and they're even better this season. They know each other very well, they've played together for 3 years now, and it shouldn't take long to Barnes and Blake to adapt to their new team. Besides there are also a lot of great teams in which the players know each other for quite some time, teams like Boston, Orlando or Dallas. Those teams all have a better chance to win a ring than Miami this season IMO. It's still the beginning of the season though, and Miami still has a lot of time to improve and develop a chemistry, and I hope for them that they will, but as I said the whole summer, I am not as enthusiastic about this team as most people and I personally would not be surprised to see them fail this year, no matter if they get another PG or C, or if Riley replaces Spoelstra as the head coach (which I would like to happen by the way, as Pat is my favorite coach of all time, don't have anything against Spoelstra though).

I could not disagree more with you about that ABL. Saying that the 2001 Lakers were flawed is more than wrong. And it's not only because they ran threw the West in the playoffs that season that I pick them over the other Lakers teams, no, it's just that they were clearly a better team overall that year. As a matter of fact the 2000 Lakers were pretty flawed. First of all Rice was always a major disappointment in LA, he never was even close to the fantastic level at which he played in Miami and Charlotte (especially Charlotte), and the only thing that he brought to that team was his offensive skills which were not as good as they used to be... He was totally useless otherwise (let's not talk about his defense...). Not only that but he never fit in that team. He never managed to adapt to the Lakers. It was obvious in 2000 that the Lakers would trade him, which they did to get Horace Grant. Rick Fox became a way more valuable SF, there is no doubt about that. Ron Harper was washed up. He was clearly past his prime and the reason why he started was because Fisher was not ready yet (and many people thought that he could never become a starter at the time anyhow...). AC Green was washed up as well. As for Kobe he wasn't used to play that far in the playoffs and was clearly not at his best, those 2000 Finals are even the worst of his career. And Horry started to feel a bit more comfortable in LA that year (as a matter of fact since his trade from Phoenix in which he barely played.., Horry always felt lost in LA until that year). So when you look at it you have a team with pieces who just don't fit, which is not good for chemistry (their chemistry was not even close to what it was a year later, you can trust me on that), two washed up starters, and players who were not at their best yet (Kobe, Fisher, Horry), etc... so yeah when you look at it you had only Shaq who was really at his best in that team. And all of this showed in the playoffs, the only valuable team that they met in the playoffs was the Blazers in fact, and they had to play seven games to beat them. And I don't know if you saw that seventh game but you have to know that it was really a miracle and no one knows how the Blazers could lose that game... The Blazers led 71-58 after the third, everyone thought that they would win for sure... Probably even themselves and that's certainly why they lost. It's just the biggest game 7 comeback after the third quarter. The other teams they met were not quite impressive, the Kings were a very young team with no experience, they didn't have Christie and Bibby at the time, this Kings team had nothing to do with the fantastic 02 Kings, yet the Lakers had to play five games to beat them (the first round was a five game series at the time). Let's not talk about the Suns who had basically only Kidd, the other two best players were Penny and Uncle Cliffy... And in the Finals the Pacers had nothing to do with the fantastic 98 squad, they were clearly too old and didn't belong here anymore. 2000 is the worst year of the decade for the East IMO, all the best Eastern teams of the past years had a last run, a last chance to win but they were all (Knicks, Pacers, Heat) not as good as the previous years, they were clearly done, and it's no surprise that they all had a terrible season in 2001, they all lost in the first round. It's rather the less bad team than the better one who made the Finals that year. Yet the Lakers had to play six games to beat them, they should have dominated more easily as they were clearly better. While the following year the team got rid of Rice, Bryant became a clearly better player and started to reach his peak, Fisher became a true starter and was more valuable than Harper the year before, just like Fox who brought a lot more in that team than Rice ever did, Horry was more clutch than ever, Grant was getting old but he was still less old than Green and more valuable than him, and let's not forget about Shaw and Lue, especially Lue whose defense was very important against Iverson in the Finals. Most importantly all the pieces fitted together this time, and the chemistry was obviously clearly better than the year before. Besides the team knew how to win and was more familiar with the high level of the playoffs, there is no doubt for me that they were a better team. As for what you said about the Blazers and Kings, that is certainly not true. Convinced themselves that they couldn't beat the Lakers ?! It's the total opposite, the Blazers were still mad that the Lakers beat them, especially due to the way the Blazers lost that 7th game... The Blazers were even more impressive on paper as they added Dale Davis, Kemp and Rod Strickland. Although they didn't play as well as the previous season, that's true but they were still very good and I'd say that it was their last truly good season until their rebirth a couple of years ago. And that year the Blazers wanted to beat the Lakers at the same time more than anything and more than anybody else. Yet the Lakers just destroyed them 3-0. As for the Kings they had no reason to convince themselves of anything, they were the surprised team the year before, no one was expecting them to play that good and to give so much trouble to the Lakers in the first round. If anything this experience allowed them to get some confidence in themselves, and in 2001 they were even a better team, they got rid of Nick the Brick and Delk, and Hedo, Bobby Jackson and Christie had arrived. There were only one piece missing in that puzzle and that piece was Mike Bibby... Well anyway they were clearly a better team that year and wanted more than anything to do what they almost did the year before (and a year after...), they wanted to beat LA. But the Lakers were just too strong that year and they destroyed them too 4-0. And no the Spurs were not "down the hill", quite the opposite they were clearly better than the year before. Robinson was still playing at a high level (he was better than in 2003), Derek Anderson had the best year of his career, and they still had a lot of talented players like Malik Rose, Steve Kerr, Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, etc... And yeah they started Daniels, but you're saying that like it was a terrible thing... You have to be aware that Daniels at the time had nothing to do with the player he became those past years, he was a terrific player, it's definitely in San Antonio that he had the best years of his career. And when Pop decided to start Parker over him the following year Duncan was strongly against it. He wanted Daniels to start. As for Ferry, well it's Pop style, he was always like that, he likes to start players who are not necessarily true starters to have talented players on the bench... As for Porter it's true that he was getting old, but he still played at a good level nonetheless. I mean this team was certainly not washed up. They won 58 games that year, that shows how good they truly were. In fact this 2001 season is one of the best of the decade for the Western Conference, there were 7 (!) teams in the West who won at least 50 games. That is huge. Yet the Lakers heavily dominated them all. This shows how fantastic this team was. And it's true that the Sixers were in fact the less talented team on paper that the Lakers met but you clearly underrate them though. When people think of the Sixers that year they usually think only about Iverson and Mutombo and forget about players like Lynch, McKie, Snow, Hill, etc... Iverson was the center piece but even if they were not stars all the players that surrounded him were fantastic that year, and this team's D was very impressive. The Sixers deserved to make the Finals and they were clearly a better team than the old 2000 Pacers IMO. Not only they won the first game but they had a strong chance to win game 2 and 3, the first three games were really close. The Sixers SHOWED that they deserved to be there. It was harder for them in games 4 and 5 though, because, well first the Sixers started to be really tired after those long playoffs and second the Lakers were just too strong that year. No one could stop them. Just two things about what you said here : second weakest ? Who's the weakest then ? The 99 Spurs ? Well I kinda disagree with you there, I think that the 99 Spurs were better than the 03 ones. I mean Robinson was clearly better, they had Avery Johson who's always been a very underrated PG (but he was truly one of the best), and still had Sean Elliot, Mario Elie, Rose, Daniels, Kersey, and the surprising Jaren Jackson. The team was clearly more deep than in 03. They also had a better defense then. So even if I didn't like this team I have to say that I would put them ahead of the 03 squad. Also I wouldn't say that TP played poorly, he was still very young but he was literally amazing against Kidd in the first three games of the Finals. Sadly for him he was far from being that great in the last three ones... But anyway he wasn't as good as he's now, that's for sure. And I disagree with you about the 07 Spurs, I personally think that the 05 Spurs are the best Spurs of the decade. Two reasons : first Duncan was starting to get older in 07, while he was still clearly at his peak in 05, and Horry was clearly done in 2007. While in 2005, when he got back to his best level, he was almost as important to that team as the big three. Besides Nazr was a more valuable big man than Oberto IMO, especially thanks to his defense. Even if Oberto did a fine job... And very important as well Parker was not alone as the PG in 2005, contrary to 2007..., there was Udrih on the bench. And Barry was clearly better in 2005. So yeah I would give the edge to the 2005 Spurs, best Spurs team ever IMO. One last thing : I would not say that the 03 Spurs were "mediocre", it's true that Duncan had more importance in that team than he had with the other championship teams and that this team was not good enough to be considered as the best team of the decade as well, but Duncan had a valuable help nonetheless, Parker and Ginobili were not the players that they are now but they were already very good, and Jackson had the best year of his career. He was very important in the playoffs, they clearly missed him the following year in the 04 Lakers-Spurs series when no Spurs could hit a shot. And they also had Bowen of course, Malik Rose, Willis, Claxton as you said, and Steve Kerr, let's not forget about Kerr, who was VERY important against the Mavs. I honestly doubt that they would have beaten the Mavs without him. But it was clearly one of Duncan's very best years in the league nonetheless, I agree with you about that.

Really ? I didn't know that... That would be awesome. I hope they're gonna pick one of the dudes I mentioned. Especially James White, I wanna see him in the Dunk Contest for quite some time now. Here's my favorite dunk of him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8yHQ15TdHU Contrary to Jordan, Barry and Erving, he really takes off from BEHIND the free throw line. Guy Dupuis could be awesome as well : And Kadour Ziani even if he's getting old though :

Oh no not a Frenchman, I hate Frenchmen... Je plaisante bien sûr François . Tu viens d'où en France ? Enfin sois le bienvenu sur OTR, j'espère que le forum te plaira.

7 feet, 250 pounds at 14 ??!! That's quite amazing indeed lol... Funny cause Gheorghe Muresan started to play basketball at the age of 14 as well, thanks to his dentist who was also a basketball referee lol. I don't know how tall was Muresan at that age though... But the reason why Muresan was that tall was because of a disease in fact, of a pitutuary disorder. Gheorghe even had to have surgery as he was 7'7 and kept growing... Hope for this kid that he doesn't got the same problem. Well anyhow that's nice for India, let's hope that this kid will be able to be one day a part of the biggest league in the world. By the way I don't know if you know this but there's two other Indian phenoms, two brothers, Sim Bhullar, who's 7'4 at 17 and Tanveer Bhullar who's 7'2 at 15. Well they are Canadians and were born and raised in Canada, but they are of Indian descent, as a matter of fact their parents are Indians and emigrated from India before they were born. Here's a video of them : And another a video of Sim : And an article on them : http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/luke_winn/07/01/sim-bhullar/index.html Who knows, maybe the three players will be in the NBA in a few years. That would be terrific for basketball in India.

Yeah he's very impressive indeed ABL. Last week against Phila he also became the fourth player ever to have at least 20 pts and 10 rbds (29 pts, 13 asts and 9 stls) in his first home game. The other three are Isaiah Thomas, Norm Nixon and Oscar Robertson... He's also the first rookie to average 7 or more assists per game through his first five games since Oscar Robertson. And about last night triple double it's also important to consider that he became the second rookie to record a triple double WITH six steals in his first six games of the season. The other was the Magic man. Honestly before the season started my favorite to win ROY was Blake Griffin but if John Wall keeps playing like that he will be ROY for sure. I still wanna see what will happen when he'll hit the rookie wall though. Although we can ask ourselves : can one wall stop another one ? Anyway this kid is gonna go far, that's for sure.

Another loss, we've lost three times in a row against bad teams, that's fantastic... (though even if the Bucks ain't terrific right now they're quite a good team overall and Golden State has been way better than expected so far). Well at least Stoudemire made the play of the game : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHfM1HF7Yco Well anyway we definitely HAVE to win tomorrow against the Wolves now.

I've said it from quite some time now but I think the Dunk Contest should be open to players who don't play in the NBA. Let's face it the best dunkers in the world just don't play in the NBA now and the only way to make this event interesting again (we had some nice dunk contests lately but nothing great since 2000 and last year was just horrible) is to allow guys like Guy Dupuy, Kadour Ziani, James White, well and a lot of other "dunk experts" participate. Well anyway it won't happen this year so I guess that I would like to see Bill Walker and Landry Fields : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZPEnlGBLmE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW8Tq6F6L0Y They could do some nice things (couldn't do worse than last years contestants anyhow..) and at least they're Knicks players.

Exactly. When I'm asked who's team is the best one the first thing I'm looking at is the playoffs. Because it's the only thing that matters, the purpose of the regular season is just to make the playoffs.Besides 56 wins is definitely good enough, especially that it was the second best record in the league. Also the main reason why they didn't win more games in the season was because of Shaq and Kobe's fights who took a new dimension that year. Fortunately for them, and with the help of Jax, every went back to normal (momentarily) in playoffs time. And the level they reached that season was just beyond belief. The most amazing team I've seen play at the exception of the Jordan Bulls. O'Neal was just unstoppable at the time, no one could stop him, Harper even said that it was easier to play with him than with Jordan, all you had to do was to give him the ball in the paint, sometimes there were even three defenders on him but it was just impossible to stop him, the player not named Jordan that impressed me the most, Bryant reached a new level that year, the kid became a man, and their help was better than the other years, Horry, Fish and Fox were at their finest, Grant, even if he was getting old, still brought all his experience in the post, Harper wasn't in the rotation anymore but Shaw and Lue brought a serious help, and their chemistry was unbelievable. This 2000-01 Lakers team just had the best record in the post season in the history of the game. And they swept four teams that all won at least 50 wins in the regular season. I can tell that there was no one in the world who thought that they would dominate that easily teams like the Spurs, Blazers and Kings. And even if the Sixers didn't look as impressive as those three western teams on paper, they still had heart and were absolutely fantastic in the playoffs, especially thanks to Iverson who had the best year of his career. So it's not that surprising that they were the only one to win one game against (in overtime though) that amazing Lakers team. We cannot know for sure but there is honestly no doubt in my mind that no other teams this decade could have beaten this 2001 Lakers squad. That's what I was about to say either. This is the problem I had with this Celtics team. I agree that they were an amazing team but they were not particularly impressive in the playoffs, that's the least we can say... Not only they had to play seven games to beat a Hawks team that was certainly not as good as they are now, but they also had to play seven games against Cleveland and at the time the Cavs were certainly not close to what they were those past two years, LeBron's only valuable helps were Z, Hughes (who was never comfortable in Cleveland) and Gooden... and the Cavs only won 45 games that year. And they had to play 6 games to beat the Pistons and Lakers after that, yet the Pistons were certainly not as good as they were in 2004 and 2005, no one was able to make up for Big Ben's departure, and Pau Gasol had just arrived in LA and didn't have much time to adapt to the team. Not only that but Ariza and Bynum were injured... The Lakers were certainly not as good as they were those past two years, they only had Odom and Gasol inside and Radmanovic even had to start... So for those reasons even if the Celtics were a very good team I certainly don't think that they can be mentioned in this thread. I am not so sure about that.. The 2003 Spurs were not particularly impressive IMO. First they had trouble against the Suns, despite the fact that the Suns were not even close to what they were after that year (Marbury isn't Steve Nash... and Stat was still a kid) then they beat a Lakers team who was totally washed up (Shaq and Kobe couldn't stand each other for good and their help was ONLY George, Horry, Fox and Fish, not only that Horry had one of his worst years ever, everyone even thought that he was done (I did for sure)), and again they had to play six games against them nonetheless, they also had to play six games against the Mavs, and at the time Dallas cared ONLY about offense and was not even close to the 2006 Mavs. Finally they had to play six games once again against the worst team I ever seen in the Finals, the New Jersey Nets. The East was quite weak at the time and this Nets team couldn't pass the second round now IMO. They had no one inside (Martin is not a true inside player, he has no post moves, and Mutombo was totally washed up), and their bench was quite weak. Besides Parker and Ginobili were still babies at the time, they were not at the level at which they play now yet. At the time the Spurs were basically only Duncan. So no the 03 Spurs are outta the discussion IMO. You should have picked the 05 Spurs, certainly the best Spurs team that I saw, Duncan was still at his peak, Ginobili and Parker had reached a new level (it was a true big three) and Horry got back to his best level. Alright they lost in 7 games agaisnt Detroit but at the time the Pistons were still at their best and it was definitely a WAY tougher team to beat than the weak Nets...A case can be made for that team IMO, even if, as I said, my pick is the 01 Lakers. EDIT : About the Kings I agree that it was a great team as well (my favorite non Knicks team of the decade with teh 01 Sixers and the Mavs), one of the best chemistries I ever saw, but as they didn't win a ring I certainly don't think that they can be mentioned here.

Yes those stats are very impressive indeed Nitro. I've always said myself that the first reason why Jordan is in my opinion the best player ever (even if I agree that a case can be made for several other players..) is because of his huge performances when it mattered the most, in the playoffs. So I just wanted to add several other impressive Jordan's records in the playoffs and Finals : As you said, Jordan averaged 41 PPG against Phoenix in 93. It's just the best scoring average ever in a finals series. He scored 55 points in one game in the 93 finals again, it's the second best ever performance in a finals game. He scored at least 20 points in 35 consecutive finals games, another record (second is West with 25). He also scored at least 30 points in 9 finals games, second best ever (Baylor was number one). He scored at least 40 points in 4 finals games in a row, NBA record. He scored 35 points in one half of a finals game, NBA record once again. Important fact, the players who were the closest to Jordan for each of these records all played in another era. Jordan did all this in our era which is even more impressive. Also even if he's never been considered as a poor 3ts shooter (which is justified), let's not forget that he hit 6 three pointers in one game, it's the third best NBA Finals record. I have to precise that before the last Finals and Ray Allen's performance (8 three pointers), the record was 7 held by Smith and Pip who BOTH made that record when the three points line was closer to the rim (well it's 8 now since the game 2 of those 2010 NBA Finals). Very important to take that in consideration. And Jordan also scored six 3 pointers in one half. Second best NBA Finals record (behind Ray's 7 last year so), tied with Kenny Smith who did it once again when the three points line was closer. Jordan always scored more points in the playoffs than he did in the regular season (at the exception of one season). Jordan's scoring average in playoffs in career is amazing : 33.4 PPG. Jordan scored 63 points in a playoffs game. NBA record. He's also the third in that same stats with 56 points in one game. He scored more than 20 points in a playoffs game 60 times in a row. NBA record. He has the second and third best scoring average for a playoffs series with 45.2 PPG and 45 PPG. The first once again is an Old School player, it's Jerry West. Also about this Kobe vs Jordan thing, I already saw on many forums several people asking who was the better of the two and therefore assuming that Kobe was the second best player ever... Which I defintely highly disagree with. Kobe is arguably a top ten player ever, I agree with that, but I would put Jordan, Magic, Bird, Wilt, Russell, Abdul-Jabbar and Shaq ahead of him without a doubt. For me those seven players are the best ever, no one dominated the game as much as they all did and a case can be made for each as the best player ever. Kobe is at best the 8th best player ever IMO.

Wednesday, November 10th Utah @ Orlando (ESPN) Winner: Orlando Magic Leading scorer: Dwight Howard LA Clippers @ San Antonio (ESPN) Winner: Los Angeles Clippers Leading rebounder: Blake Griffin Thursday, November 11th Boston @ Miami (TNT) Winner: Boston Celtics Player with the most turnovers: LeBron James LA Lakers @ Denver (TNT) Winner: Los Angeles Lakers Leading passer: Kobe Bryant Friday, November 12th Utah @ Atlanta (ESPN) Winner: Utah Jazz Leading scorer: Joe Johnson Portland @ Oklahoma City (ESPN) Winner: Oklahoma City Thunder Player with the most threes: Kevin Durant Saturday, November 13th Golden State @ Milwaukee (NBATV) Winner: Milwaukee Bucks Player with the most free throw attempts: Corey Maggette

^This definitely. Very well said Lil' Penny, I was about to say the same thing. I've always disliked groans or neg reps first because of that, as a matter of fact as you said it if there's a groan button people will most of the time just use it instead of clearly explain why they disagree. Which is totally ridiculous IMO. +1 Dan, you deserve it. And +1 to what Real Deal just said as well, definitely agree with all what you said. The groan button was just a big failure on RSZ, not only most members do what Dan said, they just groan a post and don't explain why they don't agree, but people use it for very bad reasons and it starts childish fights all the time... So a neg rep can ONLY be a bad thing, which is why I am strongly against it as well.