will robie

The Bucks are imposing their will on the Raptors. Kawhi has been bleeding for his points and I am not surprised since Bud was an assistant coach of the Spurs when they won the 2014 NBA championship. The paint has been a "no-man's land" for the Raptors. The Bucks' length is obviously bothering them. The Raptors shot 42% from the field in Game 1 and 37% in Game 2. The Bucks' defense is making them take uncomfortable shots and I saw it in Game 2. Although I earlier said that the Ws would win in a series against the Bucks, I am beginning to change my opinion. The Bucks' defense is outstanding. KD, Curry and Thompson could have a hard time scoring against these Bucks.

 

Correct.

That is precisely why if a thera tells you : "Sa yo ko lang ginagawa ito..." We all know it's a lie.

Yup, regardless if it's a most-requested therapist or a therapist who doesn't get that much customers. I would appreciate it if the therapist told me the truth rather than lie if I get her often pero meron naman nagsabi sa akin ng totoo. I mean when you strike up a conversation with a therapist, you can't avoid asking what her es is and if the es she does to you is her usual service.

 

Are you asking theoretical questions or are you asking for general advise because you are in a relationship with a thera?

 

Let me ask you: if you are a gm in a relationship with a thera, WOULD you allow her to do max mileage? If you won't then there you have your answer.

 

 

Addendum: Let me add: EVEN IF you give her a list of don't, what makes you think she will follow your instructions? She can always do what she wants then LIE TO YOU about it. She can always DENY everything. You'll read frs about her then confront her then she'll just say the fr posters are lying so who loses? Come on, it's common sense.

The thing is the therapist is here for the money. If a guest can't provide for her then he has no business telling her what to do or not to do. She can deny everything but a smart reader can discern between the lines in the field review what the therapist did to the guest.

Personally, while in the cubicle, it is nice to imagine that she is your gf but after the session and reality sets in, it is akin to waking up and saying "panaginip lang pala."

Masyado yatang affected yung dilawang troll na si rooster69ph sa pagkatalo ng Ocho Derecho nila. Before the elections, this loser would post cheap memes of Imee. Masyadong napahiya si rooster69ph. Hahaha!

I wasn't a fan of the "trade AD to Boston" but after seeing what happened against the Bucks, that would have been a good idea. But if the Cs made the trade, I was thinking it should be an AD for Kyrie trade. However, I wanted to give Kyrie a chance to lead but, apparently, Kyrie couldn't carry this team. I don't know what Ainge will do but, as a fan, I couldn't care less where Kyrie ends up. If he ends up with the Cs, he has to sacrifice for the team and play team ball.

The Cs should trade for AD. I leave it up to Ainge to pick who is going to be expendable.

MJ is the measuring stick of greatness in the game, the same way Gretzky is to hockey and Brady is to football, you can throw any statistics or situational analysis my way but if you think that Bird made that big of an impact shouldn't he be the one with the signature shoes? or at least being synonymous with the acronym GOAT

I really would like to believe Brady is the GOAT in American Football. The Patriots are my team in the NFL. However, I could not consider him the GOAT because he did not beat the NY Giants of Eli Manning in two Super Bowl tries. For me, a GOAT is someone who destroys every superstar in his path. MJ never even won a playoff game against Bird.

The 80's popularized the game but MJ made it mainstream and household, when great players enter their prime who are they being compared to?, who was the last great player that was compared to Bird, Dirk?

 

Dirk's game is similar to Bird but in terms of basketball IQ, leadership and competitive ferocity, Dirk does not hold a candle to Larry. Magic and Larry were the reasons the NBA had its renaissance in the 80s. The torch was just passed on to Jordan.

No matter what your argument is, if Bird helped the Celtics to a winning record, to the Celtics being helpless without him, to MJ not beating him, he didn't make that big of a legacy compared to MJ.

MJ is the greatest player of the 1990s. I won't dispute that. He destroyed every superstar in that era in the playoffs. In the 80s, he was the one getting destroyed year after year. You can't call someone the GOAT when he and his team get destroyed for 7 years. He was lucky that Larry had a bad back. Otherwise, he won't get in the NBA Finals in the 90s. He won 6 titles in an era with no Bird or Jabbar/Magic. Like I said, for me, he is the greatest player in the 1990s. That is indisputable. But him being the greatest of all time? That's quite a stretch.

MJ changed the way the game is supposed to play, he changed the way the defensive sets are prepared hell, he even changed the way the game is viewed.

If he, indeed, changed the game, why was his team always beaten in the first seven years by the Cs or the Bad Boys?

Are you not of the belief that the sheep (fans) and the shepherd (GM) share a general expectation of what kind of a player the team was getting from a Kyrie Irving?

 

Do you think that my opinion is wrong, based out of your stubbornness? Why would you believe that Danny boy still has hope that Kyrie could still be a Batman for the C's?

Again, I wouldn't know what Ainge was thinking. Like I said, I thought Kyrie was an alpha-level player. This playoffs showed he is not. But I still believe that Danny will make the decisions that will improve the team. Personally, I wouldn't mind if Kyrie leaves.

You said that I am in denial, right? To which I said that it is your opinion and that your opinion is wrong because I am not in denial.

Just because MJ was not a winner during the early years of his career doesn't make him better than Bird, he single-handedly turned around a loser franchise to a playoff contender with an unknown coach, this man scored 63 points on Bird's head at the Garden on his 2nd year, during his first run all he had was a developing Pippen and he had a 3-peat, did Bird had a 3-peat with McHale, Johnson, Ainge, Maxwell and Parish?

MJ not winning in his early years is already a dent in his legacy. Larry was already one of the best players in the league when he entered the NBA. The Bulls weren't a contender when MJ came on board. They were a playoff lightweight. MJ and the Bulls did not have a winning record until his 4th year when Pippen came along. Ok, I will give MJ a pass in 1985-86 because he was injured most of the year.

MJ scored 63 points but they lost and, worse, got swept. Pippen was already an all-star when the Bulls won their first championship so he wasn't a developing player.

Bird never had a 3-peat because the NBA in this era had ridiculously strong teams. The Lakers had two alpha players in Johnson and Jabbar; the Sixers had the original MJ in Dr. J; the Rockets had Moses Malone who would later team up with the Doctor to lead the Sixers to the 1983 championship; the Bucks had a great coach in Don Nelson who made his players overachieve. The Bucks didn't exactly have a franchise player but they had Sidney Moncrief, not an alpha-level player but an all-star nonetheless. The West was the weaker conference in the 80s so the Lakers were the consensus favorites year after year to come out of that conference since they were a super team with two alpha-level players and a great complimentary star in Worthy. MJ never had that kind of competition when he won those championships. The NBA was more physical and there was hand-checking during the 80s.

You keep saying that MJ lost the playoffs during his early year, sino ba mga notable teammates nya?, Bird lost on his first year also and he had Pete Maravich and Cedric Maxwell.

Bird led the Cs to the best record in the NBA in his rookie season and all the way to the ECF. Pistol Pete was way past his prime when he went to the Cs. Cornbread was a part of the 29-53 Celtic team a year before Bird came aboard. Again, Larry was the only addition to that miserable 29-53 Celtic squad from a year before. The Bulls were 27-55 before MJ came on board. When he came on board, he couldn't even take the Bulls to a winning record. When MJ came in, he helped improve the Bulls by 11 games. When Larry came in, he helped improve the Celtics by 31 games. It's not the teammates. Its the record of the team we are talking about because even if you name Maravich or Maxwell, that Celtic team sucked.

I don't want to comment on an era na di ko naabutan ayokong magmarunong, it's easy to base on analytics and stats because there are no variables involved kaya I don't like the what ifs.

I am basing my conclusions on facts.

Pat Riley said this:

"If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save a game, I'd choose Michael Jordan. If I had to choose a player to take a shot to save my life, I'd take Larry Bird."

Do you want more?

Larry Bird was the only addition to the 1979-80 Celtics. In 1978-79, the Cs had an atrocious 29-53 record. The next season, 1979-80, the Cs had the best record in the NBA, a 31-game turnaround from the year before, behind a super rookie who took them all the way to the ECF.

On the other hand, MJ led his team to the playoffs on a losing record in his rookie season and got eliminated by the Bucks in the first round. In fact, MJ never made it past the first round of the playoffs in his first three seasons winning a total of one game and losing nine games. He only got out of the first round when Scottie Pippen came along. Bird didn't need a Mchale or Parish to lead the Cs to the ECF in his rookie season.

If you believe MJ, is the GOAT, these are the cold, hard facts about the GOAT. Never making it out of the first round in his first three seasons in the NBA.

LMAO you still put Bird over MJ despite those achievements just because he never won in the playoffs, and no it's not based on facts, that's based on pure speculation, I can say the same that Kobe would not have 5 rings if MJ was playing during his time

Yes, I still put Bird above MJ. What did I base on pure speculation? The last time I checked, Kobe has a winning record when going head to head against MJ, 5-3. Ok, if that's your opinion, you are entitled to it. I am basing my argument on facts.

 

Again basketball is a team sport, so what if MJ didn't win anything without Phil, so does Kobe, those 2 coaches were also HOFer, So what if the Celtics couldn't win without Bird, that speaks largely to the management and coaches, yes the Bulls almost made the Finals without MJ but does that discredit MJ, hell no

 

You can't say that a player is great just by judging what happened during their absence

You just said credit to the coach and the system. It means that MJ can only win in a Phil Jackson system. Bird won in 2 systems. Hence, Bird is more adaptable to a coach than Jordan. Great players adapt to different coaching styles. Did you understand what I am getting at when I said that the Bulls were competitive without Jordan while the Celtics had no chance without Bird? It means that Larry is more important to Boston than MJ is to Chicago. These are incontrovertible facts.

Yes, one of the reasons you can say a player is great is the impact of his absence and it's been proven by Jordan's and Bird's absence. For the nth time, the Celtics need Larry more than the Bulls need MJ.

Sinabi ko nga di ba look at both their careers in hindsight nagbabasa ka ba?

 

It's like you're comparing Lillard and Doncic today, one is in his prime while on is just starting his career

 

It's a credit to the coach and the system

Yes, in their careers, Bird owned Jordan and Jordan won most of those championships when Bird wasn't around.

Larry won with Bill Fitch and Larry also won with KC Jones so Larry thrived in two systems. Jordan never won anything without Phil Jackson.

That's the big word "IF"

 

But in this reality this happened, you can't say if they both went at it at the same time then this would have happened, yes he dominated a young MJ but not the prime MJ which was unstoppable

It's an "if" based on cold, hard facts. Prime Bird is better than prime MJ. When Jordan retired, he was at his prime but the Bulls still gave the Knicks a competitive series which could have gone either way. Again, the Cs couldn't win a game in the playoffs without Bird in 1988-89. Prime Bird owns prime MJ.

That depends on the system of the team not the player himself, just because the Celtics needed Bird more than the Bulls needed MJ doesn't make him any better, it's the fault of the coaches and the system if they can't adjust to that absence

Yes, it makes Bird better because it proves that the Bulls can win without MJ and almost advanced to the ECF and, most probably, the NBA Finals in that 7-game war with the Knicks. The Cs never had a chance without Bird.

You can't say someone is better just by saying they lost in the playoffs everytime, look at both their careers in hindsight and see which one was better, ok sana kung sabay silang in their prime like Magic and Bird but it's unfair to compare their matchups

Then by what metrics can you say someone is better than someone? I am stating cold, hard facts.

Jordan never won a playoff game against Bird apart from losing the all-time head to head match-up in the regular season.

Moreover, it has been proven in the seasons that both were not in the roster that the Cs need Bird more than the Bulls need Jordan.

6 championships

6 Finals MVPs

5 Regular season MVPs

Never lost in the Finals

Changed the game forever, even in the aesthetics part and the Jordan rules

I give Jordan credit for those but he never won a playoff game against Bird. Bird also dominated the all-time regular season match up. Moreover, Jordan won most of those championships when Bird was already a shell of his old self and Magic was already retired. Based on facts, my take is Jordan would not win 6 championships if both he and Larry went out of college in the same year.

Remember when Ewing was the star player for the Knicks during the 1999 playoff then got injured but when he was out they made it all the way to the Finals

The topic is Bird and Jordan and facts don't lie. The Cs needed Bird more than the Bulls needed Jordan.

You can't compare players being out of rotation, it's a credit to the coaches and during that time the Bulls had an established Pippen with a weak East

I am not comparing players who were out of the rotation. I am stating the effect of the absence of Bird and Jordan. Apparently, the Cs need Bird more than the Bulls need Jordan. You must be confusing the East of today to the East of the 90s. The East was at par with the West in the 1990s. In the 80s, the West was way weaker than the East.

During THAT time Bird had HOFer teammates as opposed to Jordan having squat so of course MJ would get owned everytime

Again, the players you mentioned and you are now calling squat were the same players who were in the roster when the Bulls almost upended the Knicks in the the Eastern semis in 1993-94. Yes, they may be HOFers but the fact remains: Parish and Mchale could not carry the Cs without Bird.

Baka nakakalimutan mo basketball is a team sport, nakalaro ka na ba bg basketball?

 

Was Jordan in his prime?, who are the NOTABLE teammates of MJ?, BJ Armstrong?, Horace Grant? Opposed to Kevin Mchale, Dennis Johnson and Robert Parish

Prime or not, Larry owned Jordan in the regular season. In the playoffs, it was no contest. Kevin Mchale is not a franchise player and so was Parish. Check out the season when Larry was injured and only played in 6 games the 1998-99 season and check the regular season record of the Boston Celtics that season with Parish and Mchale leading them. Also, check out the 1993-94 season when Jordan retired. Check the record of the Bulls.

The Cs finished with a 42-40 record without Larry Bird in the 1988-89 season and got swept by the Pistons in the first round.

Contrastingly, the Bulls posted a 55-27 record without Jordan and forced the Knicks to a Game 7 in the Eastern semi-finals before losing to the Knicks in 7. Moreover, 4 of those games against the Knicks were decided by 6 points or less.

This means that the Cs need Bird even with Mchale and Parish more than the Bulls need Jordan with Pippen and Kukoc. The fact of the matter is the Bulls were competitive even without Jordan. You can't say the same for the Celtics without Bird.