Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 6339 Location: Virginia
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:13 pm Post subject:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
So your counter argument/response was to pretty much completely agree with what he originally said. He said almost won instead of almost tied. One bucket difference. Got it lol _________________ “Power resides only where men believe it resides...A shadow on the wall, yet shadows can kill. And ofttimes a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” - GRRM
Last edited by kobedagoat on Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 6339 Location: Virginia
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
Let's just be honest here. Okafor has panned out to be the better choice THUS FAR. We don't know what type of player Russell will develop into within the next year or so, and we also don't know what Okafor's ceiling will be. God willing, Russell can turn it around. But AS OF RIGHT NOW, it looks like the front office dropped the ball in taking a gamble on DLO over Okafor. Let's call a lemon a lemon- DLO is not looking like no.2 pick material at the moment.
Everyones really blaming the coach for getting killed on the glass and turning it over so much?
It get tiresome to listen to people blame the coach , coach cannot shoot. Cannot defend cannot box out. Get real people . Byron scott might not be great coach , but he is not the worse, this team sucks. The only bright spot is clarkson. Any one who think this team is better with out Kobe they are drinking there bath water.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
So your counter argument/response was to pretty much completely agree with what he originally said. He said almost won instead of almost tied. One bucket difference. Got it lol
By his definition, the Lakers almost won against the Suns tonight. I think we both know that didn't happen.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
Okafor plays PLENTY of garbage time. But I like him as a developing player, I take umbrage with saying the Sixers almost won.
Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 6339 Location: Virginia
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:42 pm Post subject:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
Okafor plays PLENTY of garbage time. But I like him as a developing player, I take umbrage with saying the Sixers almost won.
That's your opinion and i understand it, but personally i find that as a close game, and close games are games you almost won. Okafor does get taken out of the game a lot if the game is a blowout though, not to mention he doesn't get the ball in his hands all the time, there are games and long stretches of games where they have him doing nothing but running around setting screens instead of feeding him in the post. Things are rough all over for rookies. Both of them could have offenses better suited to there strengths.
Joined: 27 May 2010 Posts: 49180 Location: LA to the Bay
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:59 pm Post subject:
LakerBeastmode wrote:
There is no chemistry I blame it on continued experimental line ups.
Lee Jenkins brought that up recently on Access Sportsnet - which he'll likely never be invited to again because he questioned/critisized some of Byron's choices. But yeah he said the ever changing lineups aren't giving guys a chance to develop routine and a sense of consistency. And particularly for new guys, some sense of regularity it important. It was an interesting POV I hadn't thought of for this season, although I definitely felt that way last season.
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
Okafor plays PLENTY of garbage time. But I like him as a developing player, I take umbrage with saying the Sixers almost won.
That's your opinion and i understand it, but personally i find that as a close game, and close games are games you almost won. Okafor does get taken out of the game a lot if the game is a blowout though, not to mention he doesn't get the ball in his hands all the time, there are games and long stretches of games where they have him doing nothing but running around setting screens instead of feeding him in the post. Things are rough all over for rookies. Both of them could have offenses better suited to there strengths.
To give you some insight on my thought process, the Lakers/Magic game was an "almost won" game for me. Lou misses the shot to put us ahead, the Magic make a buzzer beater. If you lose a game by three possessions, I'm not really apt to say you almost won. I guess I have a more strict definition.
Everyones really blaming the coach for getting killed on the glass and turning it over so much?
It get tiresome to listen to people blame the coach , coach cannot shoot. Cannot defend cannot box out. Get real people . Byron scott might not be great coach , but he is not the worse, this team sucks. The only bright spot is clarkson. Any one who think this team is better with out Kobe they are drinking there bath water.
Joined: 18 Apr 2004 Posts: 6339 Location: Virginia
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2015 11:27 pm Post subject:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
AC Green's V-Card wrote:
kobeandgary wrote:
I watched the entire game and yes they did, I guess you missed the part where the Sixers stormed back against the Spurs?
I just looked at the play-by-play, how can you almost beat someone if you don't come closer than 4 points in the 4th quarter? I can see if the 76ers led at any point and the Spurs hit a game winner. Then you could say 'they almost won' but at no point did they hold a lead in the second half. I have no dog in this race, 76ers played them close but they didn't 'almost win.'
Being within 4 points with 2 minutes left is coming close to beating them you may not agree but it's fine. If you were playing in a game where you were down four with two minutes (with possession as the sixers had in that position) you would very much feel that you came close to winning. It was a very close game at that point and the sixers almost pulled off the win.
If you never lead in a game, you can't win said game. Played them close? Sure. Almost tied? Certainly. But close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.
Nobody said close counted for much, but i was replying to somebody who was saying Okafor only plays great because the entire Sixers game is garbage time and the Lakers are different because they play teams close which results in Russell's struggles in comparison to Okafor's success. I was only showing him examples of Okafor having tremendous games against Stellar teams in which the games were close.
Okafor plays PLENTY of garbage time. But I like him as a developing player, I take umbrage with saying the Sixers almost won.
That's your opinion and i understand it, but personally i find that as a close game, and close games are games you almost won. Okafor does get taken out of the game a lot if the game is a blowout though, not to mention he doesn't get the ball in his hands all the time, there are games and long stretches of games where they have him doing nothing but running around setting screens instead of feeding him in the post. Things are rough all over for rookies. Both of them could have offenses better suited to there strengths.
To give you some insight on my thought process, the Lakers/Magic game was an "almost won" game for me. Lou misses the shot to put us ahead, the Magic make a buzzer beater. If you lose a game by three possessions, I'm not really apt to say you almost won. I guess I have a more strict definition.
If I am playing and have the ball down four with two minutes left and lose, I walk back saying that's a game we almost won and should have won. Once again it was all in the context that all Sixers games are blowouts and the Lakers games are close, where in actuality both teams have actually had chances down the stretch of multiple games to improve there records.
Lakers95...........................1-0
pio2u...............................1-1
diando..............................0-3
Chronicle..........................0-3
Kb24goldenChild...............0-1
Don Draper........................0-1
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Totally forgot that there was a game. Studying got me thinking other things. _________________
"Through the legs to the left, through the legs to the right, we don't run them Laker plays, we just Kobe fadeaway..."
b] LAKERS: Stock Watch and Grades After Loss to Suns [/b]
Quote:
Despite keeping the game close for the first three quarters, the Lakers continued their trend of allowing their opponents to pull away late with lackluster play in the fourth. The bench in particular struggled in this game with Brandon Bass and Larry Nance Jr.both playing poorly.
The Lakers continued to shuffle their backup back-court, playing Lou Williams and Marcelo Huertas together for the first time in a few games. This squad continued to have issues on the defensive end, particularly with the undersized Bass at center.
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3 ... 38, 39, 40
Page 40 of 40
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
