Mavs are just dirty players

SA up 3 games to 1

Way to go Duncan, Parker and Ginobili

It has a very subtle message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

Mavs: Cancel your manicure, take your skirt off, grow a mustache, and HARDEN THE FUCK UP! :rofl:

A shame, really.

if they let a team whose players are all about my age (45) from a "city" where more than half the residents are uninsured (seriesly!) do this to them. :grr: :banghead:

knock them out TONIGHT

In order to be a proficient team you really need 3 threats. two generally is not enough. That is why Boston and san Antonio are so tough.

You can win with one great player: Russell's Celtics, Hakeem's Rockets.

Lots of teams win with two: Most notably Jordan's Bulls.

You can with three: The Celtics you mentioned.

Too lazy to think of a four example.

You can win with five really good ones: The Bad Boy Pistons.

So, no, three is not the magic number.

ps: At the risk of being a tinfoiler, Stern really doesn't want to hand a championship trophy to Mark Cuban. I don't know what he would do to prevent that from happening but nothing would surprise me.

Bob Cousy, Tommy Heinsohn, Sam Jones, John Havlicek, and Bill Sharman (all HOFers) might disagree. These guys would have been starts on any other NBA team at the time, though clearly Russell was the biggest star of the Celtics. It wasn't like Lebron dragging his team kicking and screaming to the finals a few years back.

But like most people who have this argument; I'm basing it on perception, since honestly I never watched any of their games in their entirety, just seen clips here and there.

There were plenty of people that had comparable talent as Russell's teammates, they just weren't lucky enough to be playing with the ultimate warrior/winner.

And Lebron hasn't won a ring yet so I didn't cite him as an example. Horseshoes and hand grenades baby.

And honestly, what would Cousy do if he played on the Bulls? Role player at best. Different eras but still.

but Cousy was one of the top guards in the game at the time. How much was because of Russell is hard to say. But I don't think Scottie Pippen was a star without Jordan either. Still, Cousy was a 3 time all-star and 2 time All-NBA first team before Russell even joined the team. Sure, on Jordan's Bulls a (relatively) slow 6'1" guard wouldn't have even made the team, but I don't think a 6'10" 220lb center would dominate today the way Russell did in his day. IMHO, all you can really do is compare them against their contemporaries.

I had to use the Lebron example, because I really couldn't think of a team that had a star (and really nothing else) and won a championship.

Kenny Smith doesn't count, since you know him because of his TV work.

And Cassell was the 6th man. There was also Otis something. Good point. Perhaps Hakeem was essentially a one man show.

Cousy was unbelievable for his time. The first great dribbler. All the Celtics were good. havlicek was outstanding.

played so dirty that they were able to win, thanks to the league letting them get away with their shit.

Yeah, right.

perhaps Russell's Celtics is the worst. You must be too young to have watched them. They certainly was probably the team that had multiple threats. Sam Jones, John Havlicek and bailey Howell. As far as the team that was the most well rounded from a scoring threat, it was probably the Knicks. All 5 starters had excellent offensive games and were the best team of that era. Reed, Debuscherre, Bradley, Barnett(replaced by Earl Monroe and Walt Frazier were all outstanding offensive threats.

The Pistons started Mahorn who couldn't score.

The Bulls had Jordan, Cartwright and Pippen. All could score.

Who's the one who doesn't know anything about basketball?

Her is one for you. If you can find the full game footage of the games from the sixties and seventies you will find that even though the players are slower relative to back then the game was actually faster. The passing was crisper and teams actually used the fastbreak.

Today's game has less possessions, lower scoring and less fast breaking. In the late sixties the Celtics and the Knicks played opposing styles. Knicks were a half court team while then Celtics were a fast breaking team. The Team that controlled tempo won. If the score was below 100 the Knicks won and if it was over 100 the Celtics won. Name all the fast breaking teams today( 3 point line has caused this.

Great outlet passers from the past included Wes Unseld, Bill Walton and Bill Russell(who used to have a tutorial at halftime which taught things like blocking out which I used y whole life and gues what it works.. Name a great outlet passer today.

I started watching in 1964 and saw the Texas Western game, The famous Havlicek steal, the Houston- UCLA game at the astrodome in real time plus many more. I saw every final round of the NBA from 1964 on and every NCAA from 1965 on.

I played until I was 46 and played against many professional football players and guys who played in Europe.

When you questioned Cousy then I knew you knew nothing.

So I was a little sloppy about my knowledge of 1960s basketball.

BFD.

My essential point was that "Three Threats" are not required. It's irrefutable.

But you just insist on nitpicking about Cousy and Havlicek.

Now, when you are going to tell me how the Bulls got three rings without Cartwright.

Ron Harper, Michael Jordan, Scotty Pippen- 3 threats. Teams really need 3 threats so they don't have lags in scoring. If you watched and understood the game more you would agree with me.

You made the argument that Russell's Celtics was a one man team That disqualifies you immediately from speaking with knowledge. Only an idiot would say that and you obviously never watched Russell.

Another example was the Celtics with Dave Cowens, Havlicek and Jo Jo White.

I am sure you never saw a game without a 3 point shot.

Another question for you. Why isn't there a 4 point line and a 5 point line. Ponder that.

Endlessly quibbling about the definition of a threat isn't productive.

When I called you on your Cartwright bullshit you just picked another name off the Bulls roster.

I cited Russell because he was the reason the Celts won those titles.

Take him off the team and they wouldn't have won shit.

All titles in that era would have been won by whatever team Russell was playing for.

Maybe Wilt would have gotten an extra ring or two but that's debatable.

I have seen games without a 3 point shot but what difference does it make? I'll bet you never watched a game when they played with peach baskets.

The answer to your question about why there's no 4 or 5 point line is that the 3 point line serves its purpose. It's not intended to reward superior shooting. It's intended to discourage defenses from packing the lane and it does an adequate job of that.

Got any more questions?

Have you ever actually, like... watched basketball before?

to talk. However, the Mavs have no "guts" at all. A very weak-minded team.