Printable View
I mean seriously. They los 97 to 70. How do you lose that badly against the Pacers? They couldve won if they didnt take so damn long to set up. All they get is shot clock violations. Also There is always someone open at the 3-point line but they want to be fancy and dunk it. WTF
celtic lost by 97 goals woah, how are they going to win the spl now rangers have it this year.
goku, he's talking about the Boston Celtics.
And the reason is very simple. They suck. The Eastern Conference sucks, with the exceptions of Detroit and Miami. Any MENTION of them as being good is just ridiculous, because every other team in the conference is a bad, bad team.
And no, they didn't stand a chance at beating the Pacers. They suck. Pacers do, too, but not as badly as the Celtics do.
Actually, I think the East is as strong as it's been in a while. There's no true dominant team like there has been in the past... MJ's Bulls, Ewing's Knicks, Bird's Celtics... it's wide open, as far as I can see.
Indiana is probably a better team than Boston, anyway. Better coached, that's for sure. If Ron Artest hadn't melted down in the Malace at the Palace, they probably could've been a 2- or 3-seed. As it was, Rick Carlyle got robbed out of the Coach of the Year Award.
A lot of guys got robbed out. Nate McMillan, Scott Skiles, George Karl, to go along with Carlisle. It's just more Suns-lovin' that they don't really deserve. At least D'Antoni doesn't.
Maybe, but it's still pretty bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strider
Yeah, the answer (not AI) to this thread is pretty much that Boston sucks.