will robie

 

 

The Eastern Conference when Bird played was a monster, with the 76ers, Bucks, Hawks and later on Pistons being championship-worthy opponents Boston had to navigate just to get to the Finals. The situation was almost exactly reversed then, with the West of the 1980s being extremely weak and giving the Lakers an easy path to the Finals eight times out of 10 in that decade.

Need I say more?

 

Teach me how sensei. LOL

 

I'm a victim of this fantasy yet I'm aware that it is, I can't explain it if you'll ask me.

Just like all spa goers, I am not immune to their charms. However, I tend to snap back to reality after the session. I can't teach you how to think. It is innate in all of us.

 

 

So if a player doesn’t look as smooth or play like the stereotypical superstar many fans been brainwashed and/or accustomed to seeing, they tend to suspect they are not as good as others who are flashier, especially someone who looked like Larry Bird.

There is a brainwashed and shallow Lechoke troll here who is so piqued because I stated facts which makes Larry greater than Lechoke which diminishes the status of its idol. I get a kick out of it when I don't even need to try to piss it off.

It is obviously terrified in engaging me, hence, it only quotes posts by other posters that I argue with. But I don't blame it. It can't argue intelligently since it is limited to ad hominem posts which only pollutes this thread.

Treat it as a one-hour fantasy. Once you're out of the cubicle, you just have snap out of it and get back to reality. However, some customers can't seem to distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Kung totoo ito, maganda sa ginebra yan... but honestly mukhang lugi ang blackwater diyan.

I checked it out. So far, it's just a rumor. Parks is a franchise player while Slaughter is a borderline franchise player at best. I agree, chief. Lugi Blackwater kung totoo nga. However, Ginebra won't have anyone to defend Fajardo when SMB and GSM go head to head in a finals series.

 

James’s accomplishments are lessened as well as by having played his first 15 years in a historically terrible Eastern Conference with relatively little team or individual competition compared to Bird.

For most of LBJ’s career, the NBA (East) he has dominated is a diluted and bloated 30-team product dragged down by over-expansion, poor fundamentals and a product geared more toward entertainment than fierce competition.

The East was the weak junior varsity half of the league during LeBron’s tenure with Cleveland and Miami, whereas the East was incredibly top-heavy with great teams during Bird’s career. Thus the “eight straight years in the Finals” argument for James is incredibly weak. Put the Hall of Fame-laden Bird Celtics in the NBA of the past decade and they would have won 10 straight conference crowns and almost that many NBA titles.

Another excerpt on why Larry is greater than Lechoke.

 

To be fair, James was 19 and 20 in his first two easons, while Bird was a grown man when he entered the NBA at 22, having matured earlier due to a divorce, fatherhood and the suicide of his father all during his college-age years.

But in Larry’s first nine NBA seasons from 1980-88, the Celtics made it AT LEAST to the Eastern finals eight of those nine campaigns - including five trips to the NBA championship series and three NBA titles - at a time when the East was brutally good and top-heavy with great opposition like the 76ers and Bucks in the early 1980s, and later the Pistons and Hawks in the second half of the decade.

His streak of five straight East finals from 1984 through 1988 was broken only in 1989 when he missed 76 of 82 games and the post-season due to double Achilles surgery.

Without Bird in 1989, Boston limped to a 42-40 mark and barely earned the eighth and last eastern playoff spot, where they were swept by the eventual champion Pistons in round one.

Over James’s first seven seasons with the Cavs - in a very weak East - Cleveland made it to just one NBA Finals in 2007, where they were swept by the Spurs, and to two conference finals. Only when he went to the Heat to join up with Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh and co. did his run of Eastern Conference title teams begin, again in a very poor conference easily dominated.

Another excerpt

 

 

Of course since James has a far more unique first name than the pedestrian Larry, fits the visual stereotype and has a superficially flashier style of play, and is the beneficiary of much greater media coverage and Internet play today as a current standout - many succumb to now-ism and an an over-emphasis on flash and superior speed/leaping ability, and thus tend to think James has somehow surpassed Larry Legend.

One of the excerpts in the post I made from a blog of the Celtics.

 

Well it's good that you rectified this ridiculous "mediocre franchise" post. This is very shocking comment coming from a Celtic fan. This could get you evicted from Boston Celtics fans club...

 

why can't you name another rookie who turned his team around by 31 games?

 

David Robinson 88-89, 35 game turnaround

 

Tim Duncan 97-98, 36 game turnaround

 

Sorry to burst your bubble Robie... It's not even close. Baka may iba pa sila lang dalawa naalala ko.

Thanks for answering my question. Noted on the Admiral and Duncan. Anyway, I will just quote your posts from now on. You are the only one making sense here since this argument started.

You were arguing for James. When I countered with a factual statement, your argument lost steam. Is that why you instead chose to argue against something as inane as an erroneous term?

 

 

Stating a fact is not an argument. In 2007, the Cavs made the NBA Finals. Lebron James was 22 years old then. That's it. Ikaw lang naman nagpupumilit ng argument,

Instead of arguing for James further, nakisawsaw ka sa post ni red60 kasi supalpal yung post mo sa reply ko. I wouldn't mind if you argued with something on topic and sensible but telling me that it is astounding that I know so little about my team is an ad hominem, shallow and imbecilic.

 

Belittling Bird's achievements in his rookie year? When did I say he didn't deserve ROY, 1st Team All-NBA, All-Star player as a rookie? Bird had a great rookie season! But to put the Celtics' turnaround just on him is misguided, at best.

Yes, you are belittling Bird's achievements as a rookie by saying he had a good coach and a good supporting cast when I easily discredited what you said. Read and understand before commenting. Archibald and Cowens were part of that 1979 team that went 29-53 and didn't qualify for the playoffs. If they were a great supporting cast, why couldn't they even make the Cs qualify for the playoffs in 1979? Bill Fitch was the coach of the Cavs that went 30-52 in 1979 and also didn't qualify for the playoffs. If Bill Fitch were such a great coach, why wasn't he able to pilot the Cavs to the playoffs in 1979? Misguided? Hahahaha! I gave you cold, hard facts. This only means you don't understand what I posted. Again, read and understand what is being posted before commenting. Your posts are lame at best.

 

Again, anong kinalaman ng Bill Fitch coaching Cleveland to a miserable season? The COY Award is a seasonal award - for performance during a particular season. And during Bird's rookie season, Fitch did a good enough job to win the award. Unintentional comedy ka naman ha!

 

You just don't get it. Do you? The season before Bird came along, Bill Fitch was the coach of the Cleveland Cavs. The Cavs had a miserable 30-52 season with Fitch as their head coach. Why wasn't Bill Fitch able to do a good job if he were such a great coach with the Cavs? Unintentional comedy? Another ad hominem since you really can't post anything sensible. Your juvenile ad hominems won't work. Sagutin mo yung tanong ko kung talagang alam mo yung sinasabi mo.

 

Master, nagpapatawa ka na naman ba? Ano kinalaman ng Archibald not being an All-Star to the Celtics losing seasons? Your point was Larry Bird did not have a great supporting cast in his rookie season. I refuted that by stating that Bird had enough help from his teammates - with both Archibald and Cowens enjoying an All-Star caliber season on the same year as Bird's rookie season.

Again, Archibald and Cowens were on that Celtic team that finished 29-53. That isn't a great supporting cast. Cowens didn't even make the All-Star game in 1980. Prior to Bird's arrival, Archibald last made the All-Star team in 1976. Yes, he may have been a scoring champion with the Kansas City Kings but in that season when Archibald became the scoring champion, the KC Kings didn't even qualify for the playoffs. Back to Archibald being an All-Star, he again became an All-Star when Bird became his teammate. The point here is, Larry did not have a great supporting cast with him as the only addition to that mediocre 29-53 team. I am not making you laugh. It's just that you don't understand what I posted.

 

"Speaking of mediocre franchises, Larry Bird got into a mediocre franchise"

 

Wow, I can't believe this came from a Celtic fan. Boston Celtics already won 13 titles even before Larry Bird was drafted. How can they be a mediocre franchise? One losing season does not undo the 13 titles. 1977 was not an ordinary year for BC. They had freaky friday situation where the owner of the Braves swapped shares with the owner of the Celtics. Key players were also traded and legendary Havlicek retired. Red Auerbach threatened to resign and move to NYK because he was not informed. This was a tumultuous year for the Celtics. They were 54-28 the previous season and was obviously a good team before the sudden decision of the owners to swap shares. Celtics was not suppose to have losing record. Larry Bird was a good player but I think you're over exaggerating his greatness. There were a lot of circumstances why Celtics had poor showing prior to drafting LB. I want to point out that the Boston Celtics was not a mediocre franchise prior to drafting Larry Bird! (Still can't believe I'm explaining this to a Celtic fan)

Again, I rectified myself after a poster called me out. I said team. The "freaky friday" situation is beside the point. The fact of the matter is the Cs were a mediocre team for two straight seasons until Larry Bird came along. No, I am not overexaggerating his greatness. If am exaggerating Bird's greatness, why can't you name another rookie who turned his team around by 31 games?

 

Hey, that's your prerogative whatever you call them.

 

No, teams that don't qualify for the playoffs aren't necessarily mediocre. What's more mediocre a 38-42 team that qualified for the playoffs or a 45-37 team that didn't? There are many many instances of teams with losing records entering the playoffs and teams with winning records who don't. Sino ang mediocre dun?

When a team doesn't qualify for a playoffs, then that team is mediocre by NBA standards.

No help in his rookie season??? Well, maybe you don't consider Cowens and Archibald having All-Star level seasons very helpful. And new coach Bill Fitch having a Coach of the Year season also wasn't very helpful. Wrong term again, Master??

All-Star level seasons but not good enough to make the playoffs. By the way, Archibald didn't even make the All-Star team in the seasons that the Celtics didn't make the playoffs. He was with the Knicks in 1976-1977. The same Bill Fitch who coached Cleveland to a miserable 30-52 record and missed the playoffs just like the Celtics in 1978-79. Bill Fitch became coach of the year because of Larry Bird. Nice try in implicitly belittling what Larry did in his rookie season.

 

Which post will I defend? I made a factual statement, you replied with a factual statement.

You were arguing for James. When I countered with a factual statement, your argument lost steam. Is that why you instead chose to argue against something as inane as an erroneous term?

 

Yes, the Celts had those two down seasons but mediocre? Havlicek was still good enough to make the All-Star team. I'd rather call those years as a transition period - as their stars from the 70s champion teams have started to show their age (Havlicek, Jojo White) or ravaged by injury (Cowens). Not to mention all the coaching changes with Cowens being forced to serve as part-time player-coach.

The fact of the matter is those Boston teams did not qualify for the playoffs which is mediocre in my book. Are you saying that teams that don't qualify for the playoffs aren't mediocre?

 

Wrong term huh?? Well, if you weren't called out, you'd let your statement stand

If I wasn't called out, then that would mean I crucified my own team. Shouldn't you be elated since you always argued against my points? Why are you defending my team? You aren't a Celtic fan, are you?

Affirmative

 

 

The Celtics - a mediocre franchise??? For a Celtics stan, it's astounding how little you know about the history of your beloved team.

Oops! I meant mediocre team during the two years they did not make the playoffs in 1977-78 and 1978-79 seasons. Agree or not? Haha! Just because I used the wrong term does not mean I know little about my beloved team. This is the Lechoke vs. Bird thread and you shallowly called me out on an erroneous term from my reply to red60 instead of quoting my reply to your post. Aren't you gonna defend your post?

At age 22, Lebron led the Cavs all the way to the 2007 NBA Finals.

And got swept by the Spurs. That was Lechoke's 4th season. In Larry's second season, he was already in the NBA Finals and the Cs won it.

 

At age 22 Lebron was already averaging 30-7-7. Can he reach the ECF? IMHO with a good supporting cast, yes. I want to make a point here. Larry Bird won championships because of Celtic's legendary front office making all those savvy moves. If Bird was drafted by a mediocre franchise could he have won all those titles? Michael Jordan is perhaps the best example. He was so dominant individually but had to wait for 6 years before the front office can build around him. Cavaliers had an inept front office in his first stint with Cavs yet somehow James was able to reach the NBA finals. The best teammate he had was probably Ilgauskas. Nasaan ang hustisya? Dude think about it the BEST teammate he had in his first stint was Ilgauskas

Speaking of mediocre franchises, Larry Bird got into a mediocre franchise with him as the only addition to that miserable 29-53 team and led them to the best record in the NBA, 60-22, an improvement of 31 games, and to the ECF in his rookie season. Larry did not have a great supporting cast, by the way. Can you name another rookie who did that? Lebron James didn't even qualify for the playoffs in his first two seasons.

Yes, Red Auerbach was a genius of a GM but what happened in 1977-78 and 1978-79, back to back seasons when Boston didn't even qualify for the playoffs? Pat Riley is a genius of a GM but why were there seasons when Miami didn't even qualify for the playoffs?

Yes, James was dominant individually but did he make his team mates better than what Bird did?

Betty C., are you back?

 

How old was Larry Bird when he entered the NBA? 22 or 23? How old was Lebron? 18? I don't think it's fair to expect an 18 year old to carry a sh*t team to the playoffs. Bird having played in college for 4 years is obviously more mature physically and mentally. It's no secret that HS-graduate teenagers entering in the NBA tend to struggle. I thought Lebron was phenomenal considering his age. Furthermore, 29-53 squad was suppose to get Larry Bird but since Bird opted to finish college, Celtics didn't get a draft pick that year.

He was purported to be the savior of the Cavs. Ok, let us say James finished college. Would he have been able to carry that Cavs team to the best record in the NBA, let alone the ECF in his rookie season?

Anyway, I posted an article comparing James and Bird in the Boston Celtics thread.

marami bang nagfall kay mavic 2.0 hehehe

Sayang at hindi ko lang man natikman yung dalawa. But then again, no therapist in their age range stays retired. Patience is a virtue.

 

we can have it named after you... once the airport is running... just let yourself be fatally shot in the tarmac... ayos ba?

Am I supposed to laugh at this lame post?