Oliver P

Yeah as Yugonomics said it, it's true that the clock never stops in soccer. However it's important to take in consideration the fact that every time out (and there are definitely not as many as in Bball) is added to the 90 minutes at the end of the game. Besides a team can't have more than 2 substitutions in soccer. So whatever happens nine players will play at least 90 minutes for sure.

Well I am both a team and players fan. I am a team fan first though, I support the Knicks no matter what even if my favorite player plays in the opposite team. Anyway to answer the question I certailny do not constantly look for another young superstar to become a fan of. I'm a fan of a player because I like him, if I don't like any young player I am gonna force myself to like any because my favorite player is getting old. In fact my favorite players ever are still to this day Ewing and Starks despite the fact they don't play any longer. And I supported them in every game until they eventually retired. And supported the teams they played for (so Sonics and Magic for Ewing and Warriors, Bulls and Jazz for Starks), again not as much as the Knicks of course... Right now my favorite players are Dirk, Blake and Durant, same I support their team but not as much as the Knicks. And I don't support Blake because I looked for another player to replace Dirk or anything, it's just that I like him a lot, that's all. And Dirk is still my favorite player right now anyhow, and certainly will always be until he retires.

I certainly do not see why they should reduce the number of games. If the players were totally exhausted in the playoffs then yes I would definitely agree that they should but it's certainly not the case. I watch this game for quite a long time now and the playoffs have always been the best time of the year, the players have always been at their best come playoffs time. So no there's no reason whatsoever why they should change that. In fact the only reason IMO why they would reduce the number of regular season games would be to have more playoffs games. But we definitely have not enough teams for longer playoffs.. So the answer is definitely no for me. As for 40 minutes games, I'm strongly opposed to that as well. In Europe basketball games last 40 minutes and I've always wanted that to change. The games are clearly too short here. In fact 48 minutes is quite short as well compared to other sports, in soccer the games last 90 minutes for example... Besides Big Penny had another good point, records from the past would be totally out of reach if we did that. So everything is honestly fine the way it is for me, no reason to change it at all.

That was an awesome bock indeed. I wouldn't say best block in history though, I mean there were so many great blocks... In fact it reminds me of LaPhonso Ellis' block in 1994 and if you ask me LaPhonso's one was even better... This block is my favorite of All Time : But McGee's block was great nonetheless. What I love about those two blocks is that contrary to most blocks, not only they're spectacular but they actually got the possession out of it. Definitely smarter than getting the ball into the crowd... Bill Russell was an expert of that which is why he's in my opinion the great shot blocker in the history of the game. One of the smartest player ever indeed :

There are several MVP candidates in the league this year and LeBron James is definitely one of them. He has better teammates than ever indeed but the fact that he's averaging the same stats that he was in Cleveland shows that he's still as important to his team as he was in Cleveland. Besides, even if it's true that they tend to give the MVP to a player that does more with less (which seems quite logical indeed anyhow) you definitely can win MVP while playing with great teammates. Bill Russell won several MVPs despite the fact that he was surrounded by players like Jones, Havlicek, Heinsohn, Cousy or Sharman. Moses Malone won it despite the fact that he had Erving and Cheeks for teammates. Larry Bird won it despite the fact that his teammates were McHale, Parish and DJ. The last year he won it there was even Walton in the team (even if Bill wasn't exactly the player he used to be by then because of his injuries...). Magic won it despite the fact that he was surounded by Jabbar and Worthy. When Shaq won it the Lakers were the better team in the league on paper (except maybe the Blazers). So it can happen. This said it is true that right now the clear MVP is definitely Derrick Rose. For a simple reason : who would have thought that the Bulls would be the best team in the East before the season started ? No one. Everybody was talking about Boston, Miami and Orlando. Yet they are. Not only that but Derrick led his team to the best record in the East despite all the injury troubles they had. Boozer missed more than 20 games and Noah more than 30. What Rose has done this season is just beyond belief. Meanwhile most people were sure that the Heat would not only win the ring for sure but would even win more than 70 games... The result ? They have now 0 chance to win 70 games are right now the 6th best team in the league. So in short we have two players who are both having a terrific season and would both deserve to be MVP indeed but the fact is that James hasn't led his team to its expectations while Rose has led his team to an even better level than it was supposed to be. Again despite the fact that the Bulls had so many injury troubles... So it's definitely impossible to make a case against Rose right now, he is the clear MVP indeed. Now the season is not over yet. And there are other MVP candidates. Dirk Nowitzki is definitely one of them, we saw how important he was to his team when he was injured. And if he wasn't injured the Mavs would probably have the second best record in the league and would be very close to the Spurs right now. The other two in that top five candidates are certainly Durant (who among the top candidates is probably the one who has the less good teammates) and Dwight. However both teams' record is probably not good enough right now. Especially for the Magic, they haven't been as good as they were supposed to be (this can be explained by the fact that they had an important trade during the season) so I would be surprised if Howard was named MVP this year. So IMO it will be either Rose, James or Dirk. But honestly I don't see how anyone else than Rose could be MVP. Because the only way that Dirk or James could be MVP is that the Heat or Mavs would have a much better record than the Bulls. As a matter of fact contrary to Chicago they were both legit contenders to the ring before the season started. Yet the Bulls have right now a better record than both of them, and even if the Mavs and Heat can still have a better record than Chicago at the end of the season we know now that whatever happens (unless the Bulls lose totally their basketball during the last 24 games, which is more than unlikely...) they will not have a much better record than them. There is no doubt that Derrick deserves to be MVP this year.

Well first of all the first four games of the Spurs-Pistons series were garbage honestly... I mean four blow outs ? I really couldn't believe it at the time, that was just terrible. The last three games were better. And game 5 was a great game, I agree but I personally didn't appreciate cause... I don't like the Spurs. Never liked their style of play and so didn't enjoy this game. I was excited by another Lakers-C's in 2008 but was quite disappointed in the end as the Lakers were definitely not at their best... Without Ariza and Bynum they clearly couldn't stand a chance. So the Finals were nice but not great overall. Last year Finals were clearly the best we had since 98 IMO. That's true those Finals were great. My favorites since the 98 ones with the 2001 Finals. Yes the 2001 ones are my favorite Finals of the last decade, even if the Lakers were clearly the better team and they were the big favorite it was great to watch this brave Sixers team who not only won the first game but gave all what they got in every game and could even have won games 2 and 3. For the last two games well they were starting to be very tired and the Lakers won more easily... But it was still overall a great Finals to watch IMO. Other than 2001 and last year we didn't have a great Finals IMO. Some nice ones, I didn't hate it at the same time let's not exaggerate, but not great to be honest... As for the 91 Bulls-Lakers, well it's true that the Lakers were clearly not the same team and that the Bulls were clearly better that year, I even think that the Bulls should have won 4-0. They lost the first game cause they were too nervous as it was their first Finals series... But it was still a very good Finals to watch, I mean Magic in his last Finals against Jordan in his first one, the first time the Bulls won a ring, some great Jordan plays (including one of his most famous lay ups ever in game 2), the crowd in Chicago Stadium who was just totally insane, I honestly enjoyed those Finals very much. Even if I agree that it was certainly the less good one of the six Bulls Finals. And I loved the Bulls-Blazers. I mean Jordan who was rightaway on fire with his 35 pts in the first half of the first game, he destroyed the Blazers rightaway with one of the greatest performances ever. But the Blazers never gave up they eventually won two games and almost even won a third one. Game 6 was amazing, when the Blazers led at the beginning of the fourth quarter things sure didn't look good for Chicago, Phil decided to put Pippen surrounded by scrubs on the floor and that lousy team actually got the Bulls back in business ! That was an amazing ending. Yes the 95 Finals were quite disappointing. The Magic were disappointing. But I still enjoyed it nonetheless. Just because of game 1. It's honestly one of the best games ever. I don't know how many times I watched this game... When the Magic dominated in that game, who could have thought that the Rockets would eventually sweep them ? Certainly not me, actually I even clearly remember saying to myself at some point that I was sure that the Magic would certainly sweep Houston. How wrong I was... Fantastic game. And even if the Magic weren't able to eventually win one game the other three games were still nice to watch. It's not my favorite Finals ever, it was a sweep after all but I still enjoyed it more than the 2005 7 games Finals if you wanna know the truth. And all the other Finals we had in the 90's were great, I mean the two Bulls-Jazz and the 93 Bulls-Suns were just amazing, definitely among the best Finals ever. I know that many people didn't like the 94 Finals but they're among my very favorites as well, all the seven games were won by less than 10 points. I even think that it never happened in another series. And as a fan of huge defense and a Knicks fan (especially that the 94 team is actually my favorite Knicks team ever) I could only love those series, even if we eventually lost... In 96 the Bulls dominated the Sonics in the first three games and there was no doubt that the Bulls would eventually win. But it was still great to watch this unbelievable team at his best. And the Sonics come back in games 4 and 5 thanks to McMillan's return was just amazing. So yeah I clearly enjoyed the 90's Finals more.

Oh you will see some things you didn't see the first time around for sure. In fact you will see some new things every time you watch the movie. You will understand things that you didn't the preceding times. That's definitely for sure. But the movie will always be confusing nonetheless. You will never understand that movie the way you understand a "normal" movie. For a simple reason : that's the way Lynch wants it. He made this movie, just like Twin Peaks and Lost Highway, not to be understood. They're purposely confusing. And that's what so great about it. In short to "understand" the movie you will have to accept the fact that you cannot understand it. I know a lot of people who were severely troubled by the fact that they couldn't understand these movies (Lost Highway, Twin Peaks and Mullolhand so). They coiuldn't accept that and eventually didn't like it. That's because they looked at it all wrong. It's not a "traditional" movie, wanting to understand it at any price is a huge mistake, you have to let go into the movie. It's a movie that can be interpreted many ways, everyone can have a different interpretation of it in fact. You have to as a matter of fact. I mean no one can explain it to you, you have to have your own interpretation of it. And that's why it's so great.

It is based on mly personal preference indeed, I said it so myself. I believe that the 90's/80's are the two greatest eras of the history of basketball, I might be wrong but that is my opinion. And it's not only because the Knicks were one of the dominant teams in the 90's... It certainly has something to do with it though, I don't deny that. But it's definitely not the only reason why. I can appreciate games not involving my favorite team. Fortunately... I admit that the 90's Knicks-Bulls series are my favorite ever but not the only ones I loved at the same time. I loved all the 90's Finals for example, despite the fact that only two were involving the Knicks (the 99 one is also my less favorite Finals of the decade). And I prefer all those Finals than all the 2000's Finals. Again I'm not saying they were better but just that I personally enjoyed them more. I didn't follow the 80's as I was too small and living in France didn't help... I started to be a basketball fan in the early 90's. But I watched a lot of game from the 80's (and other eras for that matter) nonetheless and I honestly prefer to watch the 80's teams (especially the Lakers and Celtics, it's a real delight to watch those teams) for example than any team of our era. As I said in my other post I believe that the games were just more intense and interesting to watch overall in the 90's/80's. But I can understand that someone does not agree about that with me. It's just my opinion. That's all. Yes that is true but at the same time can the great players that were Wilt and Russell be blamed for that ? They did not choose to play in that era and who knows what they would have done in other eras... Just impossible to tell. And I believe that a case can still be made for them both. As I said in my other post I know a poster (who were on CTS but sadly didn't join here) who makes a great case for Russell as number one. I'm not gonna talk for him but I read a lot of his posts about this topic and what he's saying is very interesting. I know another poster who believes that O is the best player ever. And this poster actually followed Robertson's career. He watched all the greatest players ever at their prime. And he makes a great case for Robertson as well. I'm not saying that the fact that he followed the NBA at the time makes him necessarily right though, I would say myself that O is the best ever otherwise, but it certainly gives more weight to his words. Exactly. That's precisely my point. Those debates could not lead anywhere. But I wouldn't say that it's totally pointless to debate about it at the same time though, cause you still can learn things when you debate, it still can be interesting. But in the end I do not believe that anyone will be able to say that one particular player is the best ever indeed.

Glad you liked it, I love this film as well. By the way the film doesn't come together more the second time lol, I watched it three or four times (one of them in theaters) and the film is still as confusing to me lol. That's why it's great... That's pure David Lynch style. He loves to make confusing movies like that one, he already did with Twin Peaks and Lost Highway for example. By the way I like Mullolhand Drive a lot but I prefer Lost Highway, I advise you to watch it if you have not yet. None of the two are my favorite Lynch movies though, they are Elephant Man, Blue Velvet and The Straight Story. Just amazing... I still need to watch Eraserhead though, many people told me it was a pure masterpiece.

Personally I do not understand why people are so obsessed with this Jordan-Kobe debate when talking about the greatest of All Time... I mean why are players like Bird, Magic, Jabbar, Wilt, Russell or Shaq disregarded just like that ? It's true that a case can obviously be made for both Jordan and Kobe for greatest of All Time, they both had a terrific career but so do the players I mentioned. Yes what do Jordan and Kobe have that Bird, Magic, Russell, Wilt, Jabbar and Shaq don't ? They all had terrific career, they couldn't have dreamed of better careers and that's the only thing that matters. The fact is that no one can assert that one player in particular is the best of All Time for sure. There are just too many things to consider. Besides basketball is first of all a collective game, teams win rings not players, and people tend to forget about that too easily. In collective games it's easy to say that a team is the best, it's the team that wins, and it's obviously a lot harder to say who's the best player... Besides if we can tell for sure what's the best team for each season (as again it's the team that won the ring) it's a lot harder to say that a team was the best of All Time. As a matter of fact as the 1972 Lakers never played against the 1996 Bulls for example we cannot for sure who's the best of the two. Same for the 1986 Celtics and the 2001 Lakers. We can only speculate about that but we cannot tell for sure. That's a fact. So as we cannot assert that one team was the best of All Time how could we say that one player was the best of All Time ? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. We can name a few teams and say that those teams are among the best, just like we can give a few names of players who had the biggest impact on their teams and tended to dominate other players but we just cannot say that one particular team or one particular player is the best for sure. Most people talk about Jordan or Kobe because most people have not seen and do not know much about other eras. But I know some people who do not think that Jordan is the best player of All Time personally. I know another poster from another forum for example who think that the best player ever is Russell. And he actually makes a very good case for him. I have no problem with his opinion, even if I personally think that Jordan is. Although the difference between me and other people is that I am not asserting it, I will never say that he is for sure. When asked who the greatest player of All Time is I always say that it is one of the seven players I mentioned, so Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Bird, Magic, Jabbar and Shaq. Why ? Because they're the players who impress me the most. And among that list Jordan is the player that impressed me the most. Just as simple as that. But I cannot assert it, once again, cause a lot of great players had fantastic careers, and they just couldn't have dreamed of a better career. Players like Kobe, Erving, Olajuwon or O for example are definitely in the discussion even if I personally were not as impressed by them as I was by the others. Besides another reason why I rather mention those players is because I prefered basketball before. Honestly I'm not saying that the 2000's suck but for me (again it's just my opinion), the 90's were better. I mean for example we all know that there could be a lock out next year. Well during the last lock out I was just devastated... Waiting five months to watch basketball was already long enough, this time I had to wait till February, 4 more months ! That season was just horrible to me... Well this time, I wouldn't like it as well for sure but it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Honestly. I mean I still love basketball, it's still, and BY FAR, my favorite sport, and I enjoy watching every game I can but... honestly just not as much as I used to, not as much as in the 90's. the games were just overall better IMO. For example I rewatched the 90's Knicks-Bulls series lately and it brought back so many memories to me... Nostalgia... The games were so intense. They're still intense today, but honestly not as intense as it used to be. That's clearly the way I feel it at least. I like a lot of today's players but I would trade 'em all for all the 90's players without a doubt. So when asked who's the best player of All Time it's normal that I think first of the player who dominated my favorite era, the 90's. Or the players who dominated the Golden Era of basketball, the 80's. And the players who actually made the game of basketball... But again I would never say it for sure.

Lol first htown says I'm 60 now you're calling me an old perv... Dam it what a great Birthday I have, I'm gonna kick your ass as well Under Legit !!! You're asking for it and now you're gonna get it. More seriously thanks ABL, appreciate it man.

Haha thanks a lot icehole, appreciate it. Glad someone thought about it. Stop saying that I'm 60 though cause I'm gonna KICK YOUR ASS !!

Well there are so many... I'd say that the very best were : Magic as a rookie playing at center because of Jabbar's injury in the game 6 of the 1980 NBA Finals. Willis Reed's playing injured in the game 7 of the 1970 NBA Finals. Jordan's last shot in the game 6 of the 1998 NBA Finals. When Havlicek stole the ball at the end of the 7th game of the 1965 ECF between the C's and Sixers. Mr Clutch's amazing half court shot at the end of the game 3 of the 1970 Finals (even if the Knicks eventually won that game, and the series thanks to Willis Reed's come back as I mentioned earlier). Michael Jordan's 55 points against the Suns in the game 4 of the 1993 Finals and 41 PPG averaged in this same Finals. Michael Jordan's 63 pts against the C's in the 1986 first round against the mighty C's and Larry Bird's legendary comments about "God's disguised as Michael Jordan". Bill Russell's 30 pts and 40 rebds in the game 7 of the 1962 NBA Finals. Michael Jordan's flu game in the game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals. Derek Fisher's unbelievable 0.4 seconds shot. Michael Jordan's game winner over Craig Ehlo in the game 5 of the 1989 first round. Don Nelson's clutch shot at the end of the game 7 of the 1969 NBA Finals. Larry Bird's great steal and assist at the end of the game 5 of the 1987 ECF against Detroit. Well I'm gonna stop here but there were so many more... Can't mention 'em all.

Today I rewatched Back to the Future. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_GIchwvJ-aNk/SljBEBENI_I/AAAAAAAAJE0/6cRZxPd7Bn8/s800/Back+to+the+future+movie+poster.jpg One of the movies that I watched the most, perhaps maybe the one that I watched the most, but I honestly can't get tired of it. It's like the first time I watch it every time. Just an amazing movie. Definitely in my top ten favorite movies list. Fantastic movie. So I definitely give it a 10/10.

Well first of all the four best centers of All Time are IMO Wilt, Russell, Jabbar and Shaq. Because no other center ever dominated the game as much as those four did. A case can be made for each of them for best center ever. Now it's true that Bill's offensive game was not as good as the other three but his fantastic defense and leadership (arguably greatest ever in both categories) definitely make up for it. For the second tier I'd pick Olajuwon, Ewing and Moses Malone. Robinson was very talented as well but his lack of leadership and the fact that he was invisible in money time, especially in the playoffs (ask Rodman about it), hurt him a lot, that's why he wasn't as good as the other three and that I would definitely not put him in the second tier. And I'd like to say a few words about Ewing here cause I know it might surprise some people that I put him in the second tier but it's important to understand that, even if I do believe myself that Olajuwon was a better center, it wasn't that clear that Hakeem was THAT better in the 90's. I know that in most people mind he was by far better but it's far from true. People usually think that because of Hakeem's rings. Now I believe that Hakeem was better, that's true, all I'm saying is that he was not CLEARLY better, Ewing was right behind him. As a matter of fact Wilt Chamberlain himself even said that for him Ewing was the best center of the 90's. I disagree with that (despite the fact that I'm a Knicks fan) but it still means something. Anyway Ewing was definitely better than Robinson. Because of his leadership. Ewing showed many times during his career how terrific a leader he was. He's the first reason why the Bulls surprisingly (that's right it was a big surprise at the time) had to play seven games against New York in 92 for example. He was fantastic in this series, especiallly in game 1 (or 2, I don't exactly remember) when he hit several clutch shots (even long distance shots) to make New York win in Chicago. Or we could mention the 94 Bulls-Knicks series or the same year Knicks-Pacers when he made us win a game thanks to a clutch lay up. And there's important thing to consider, it's that Ewing had all that success despite the fact that he never had a true second option in his team (I loved Starks and Oak - Starks is even my fav player with Ewing - but they were rather third options). He led the 94 Knicks in the Finals despite the fact that they had no great SF for example, Charles Smith even had to start as SF and he was rather a PF-C. In fact the only time Pat had a great second option was when Spree arrived in the team and at that time Ewing was getting out of his prime and was clearly not the same player. For the third tier of my top ten list I'd say that it's between Mikan (the first true dominant superstar, even if it was in the very beginning of the game, at the time when the Lakers played in the Madison the announcement for the game was "Mikan vs Knicks", that says it all...), Robinson, Parish, Reed, Cowens, Petit, or Unseld. It's very hard, and I would even say impossible to make a 100% accurate list to the different eras and stuff anyhow. Now back to Duncan, well I'd say that he can definitely be considered as center. He can play at both positions anyhow, center and PF. I think that in some cases it's just impossible to say that a player had one particular position, like for West and Oscar for example they definitely can be considered as PG and SG. And so could be mentioned in both positions' top tens. Duncan has played C and PF as efficiently so he can definitely be mentioned in both top ten centers of All Time and top ten Centers of All Time. Besides since Robinson's retirement, Duncan has been the main center of the team. During the Horry days Duncan ended the game as center. Horry was the main PF of the team. Then it was Dice and now Blair. So to answer the thread's question I would put Duncan in the second tier, with Hakeem, Ewing and Moses Malone. By the way I would like to say a few words about the best PFs of All Time as well, for me it's not that clear that Duncan is the best PF ever. I mean I agree that a strong case can be made for him but honestly he's not better in my eyes than Karl Malone and Charles Barkley. The reason why so many people think that he is clearly the best PF ever is because of his rings. But honestly had Duncan played in the 90's would Duncan have won so many rings ? I honestly doubt it a lot... While teams like the Barkley's Suns or Malone's Jazz (especially at the end of the 90's) would have definitely won a ring in this past decade IMO. Duncan's Spurs never had to play against the Jordan's Bulls (except in his rookie season). So for me a case can be made for Duncan, Malone and Barkley for best PF of All Time, there is no clear leader among the three.

Honestly my favorite game of the year so far... Great win for us ! We beat the third best team in the league (was third before the game anyhow) only in our third game since a major trade ?! This first of thanks to our defense, it was even more impressive as the Heat usually score 102 points per game. And we won thanks to a defensive clutch play. Yes the Knicks showed that they can defend indeed. Also it's so great to finally have a good TRUE PG. It changes everything... When we think about it the last time we had one was in 95, it was Derek Harper (yes I'm perfectly aware that Marbury was a Knicks this last decade...). Chauncey might be old but he's definitely not done yet, what a game from him... Carmelo had another great game with 29 pts, 9 rbds and 2 asts. What a game honestly what a game... I never saw Spike Lee so excited since the 90's lol. We definitely can do great things with that team... Honestly I don't know if we're gonna make it to the second round or not, we'll have to wait and see, but I know one thing for sure : if we can beat a top team after only two games together, we definitely can beat a top team in two months.