Did the Lakers shatter the Celtics swag?

Walmart · Post #121 » by **Walmart** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:47 am

The Celtics are "struggling" because Ray Allen has struggled the past five or so games. If Garnett, Pierce, or Allen struggle(Allen has been the least consistent since joining Boston) the other two have to have really strong games because they are not a deep team.

And I don't think Stephon Marbury is a solution to any of their problems. Really if you want a quick way to destroy team chemistry then go ahead and bring in an idiot with a star tattooed on the side of his head. I guarantee you if you they bring him in Garnett will be so sick of him by the end of the season he will hit him on the other side of his head and leave him a nice little design there.

TonyMontana · Post #122 » by **TonyMontana** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 1:49 am

Farm Raid wrote:
TonyMontana wrote:
Farm Raid wrote: You think like you're in grade school or something. "This guy isn't a Laker cheerleader, he MUST be a Celtic fan!" I don't care about the Celtics.

Let it go "TUFF GUY".......... lolllllllll
Farm Raid you put the T in TUFF.......

lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

There you go brahhhh, lighten up a bit.
Nobodys perfect, we try. :wink:

Dont take everything seriously.

jirojan · Post #123 » by **jirojan** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:02 am

Farm Raid wrote:
Farm Raid wrote:If you think those games meant the same for each team...you're just a Laker fan, really. I mean, it's no excuse, but obviously the Lakers wanted it more.

jirojan wrote:well, looks like the c's needed to just as much....3 out of 4 isnt very good

jirojan wrote:
Farm Raid wrote:Umm...okay?

the swagger is broken...okay?

Which had nothing to do with what I was talking about. But...good job?

TonyMontana wrote:
Farm Raid wrote:I actually said way, way before the game, on a thread here, that the game wasn't really that big and it was going to be overhyped by whichever team who won's fans.

But when someone says the games a bigger for the Lakers than it was the Celtics...that's true. Only Laker fans would disagree.

Okayyyyy, you know what your RIGHT????

Oh, I know. Thanks though, Tony. You're still talking about it like a week later- and if the Celtics won some fan that is the equivalent of you would still be posting about it, too.

This game ment nothing.

I didn't say that. Strawman much?

Specailly since it was the highest rating in 4 years.

That doesn't really have anything to do with anything.

The Cs board on Christmas day by the time the game ended well over 290 Replies 5000 + Views, they even started threads on why the Lakers beat us with 112 Replies 3465, and thats not counting all the other threads they opened up complaining and coming up with their version of NBA Conspiracy about Stern fixing the Christmas games so that the Finals will be between the Lakers and the Cavs..............
Sure brahh, they didnt care about that game............

One- and again- I never said the game didn't mean anything, I said it was more important to the Lakers, something only Laker fans seem to be denying.

Two, those are Celtic fans who post on RealGM, it's not like it was KG and PP posting.

I would rather have somebody man up and say ...... Props that was a good game or the better team won, than sitting on a board and complaining about everything and at the end saying OH THAT GAME MENT NOTHING..............

Who said the game meant nothing? It's like you read as well as you spell.

Obviosuly it did, if all your doing is crying, compalining and coming up with every excuse you can come up with and at the same time denying you care about it.
Bunch of Hypocrites............ I swear.

Why would I be crying? I'm not a Celtics fan! I know that shocks some of you, that someone can think, for example, that the 08 Celtics are debatable with the 01 Lakers, or that this game meant more to the Lakers than it did the Celtics, without being a Celtic fan, but I'm sorry. Just because someone isn't a **** cheerleader for the Lakers like you and some of your homies doesn't mean that they're a Celtic fan. Jesus Christ, your mind is a seriously simple place, isn't it? You think like you're in grade school or something. "This guy isn't a Laker cheerleader, he MUST be a Celtic fan!" I don't care about the Celtics.

dude, give it up...

Farm Raid · Post #124 » by **Farm Raid** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:07 am

I usually do when my point has been clearly made. No one in their right mind thought the Celtics wanted the game more than Lakers before or after it- except for Laker fans, go figure.

jirojan · Post #125 » by **jirojan** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:15 am

Farm Raid wrote:I usually do when my point has been clearly made. No one in their right mind thought the Celtics wanted the game more than Lakers before or after it- except for Laker fans, go figure.

....so i guess your the only one in "the right mind then"...even my celtic fan buddies would say your wrong

both teams wanted it bad...they both wanted to prove a point....not to mention the fact that the race for best record is going to be very close

both teams wanted it bad

Farm Raid · Post #126 » by **Farm Raid** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:21 am

...

Yes, they did.

And one team obviously had more to prove. You have to be kidding, if you really didn't see that. But maybe I'm just making it up, as a Bulls fan.

TonyMontana · Post #127 » by **TonyMontana** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:32 am

jirojan wrote:
Farm Raid wrote:I usually do when my point has been clearly made. No one in their right mind thought the Celtics wanted the game more than Lakers before or after it- except for Laker fans, go figure.

....so i guess your the only one in "the right mind then"...even my celtic fan buddies would say your wrong

both teams wanted it bad...they both wanted to prove a point....not to mention the fact that the race for best record is going to be very close

both teams wanted it bad

jirojan · Post #128 » by **jirojan** » Sat Jan 3, 2009 2:46 am

Farm Raid wrote:... Yes, they did.

And one team obviously had more to prove. You have to be kidding, if you really didn't see that. But maybe I'm just making it up, as a Bulls fan.

lol...sure

NetsForce · Post #129 » by **NetsForce** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 3:54 am

So as I was saying earlier in this thread... The Celtics... Just don't seem to have the energy or confidence that they did prior to playing the Lakers. Did anyone get a chance to see them against the Knicks tonight? I mean seriously what the F yo.

Post #130 » by **dockingsched** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:00 am

game mattered more to the knicks, can't take anything out of it.

celtsmon3y · Post #131 » by **celtsmon3y** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 4:04 am

It's called a slump. Did you seriously think we could keep up our 27-3 pace the whole season? I don't really see what you're getting at here.

jirojan · Post #132 » by **jirojan** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 5:33 am

knicks needed it more

Hye4Life · Post #133 » by **Hye4Life** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 5:38 am

I guess its just coincidence that the Celtic's "slump" occured right after they played the Lakers.

You guys are right, the Lakers didn't shatter the Celtics swagger, they only brought about a slump.

Btw, what happened to the people that argued that the Celtics didn't take games off, that they didn't even take possessions off? That the leadership of Garnett would rather that his teammates cry than to have them out of focus.? Then we have people saying that the game didn't mean as much to the Celtics as it did to the Lakers when Pierce himself said he hates losing to LA. It's funny that the excuses of "it didn't mean as much" or "they're just in a slump" go exactly against some of the notions that have been stated by those very same excuse makers.

doozyj · Post #134 » by **doozyj** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 5:41 am

celtsmon3y wrote:It's called a slump. Did you seriously think we could keep up our 27-3 pace the whole season? I don't really see what you're getting at here.

Celtics are playing their best ball. This is as good as it's gonna get for them.

The Laker Kid · Post #135 » by **The Laker Kid** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 6:09 am

The Celtics purposedly lost to the Knicks tonight to fool the Lakers into believing that "they got them". It's all mind games with Doc Rivers who is undeniably one of the best coach who ever graced the earth

Post #136 » by **snaquille oatmeal** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 6:28 am

TonyMontana wrote:
SabasRevenge! wrote:
NetsForce wrote:And have they shattered their swag?

No, we (the Blazers) shattered their swag. Believe it!

Wait I thought it was G.S.W that did that........
They SCAREDDDDD

here is the deal-

the Lakers knocked it lose, the Warriors stepped on it, the Blazers kicked it to the curve and the knicks danced around it. I wonder what Cavs will do?

Clangus · Post #137 » by **Clangus** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:24 am

If Sasha wore green the Celtics would be winning.

RutgersBJJ · Post #138 » by **RutgersBJJ** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:30 am

It is hilarious that the Knicks kind of showed how you have to defend the boston celtics. Rondo had no answer when Jeffries was on him. He couldn't deal with Jeffries' length.

When the Lakers play the Celtics in the finals they should just put Ariza on Rondo, and make him shoot.

dingclancy · Post #139 » by **dingclancy** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:34 am

RutgersBJJ wrote:It is hilarious that the Knicks kind of showed how you have to defend the boston celtics. Rondo had no answer when Jeffries was on him. He couldn't deal with Jeffries' length.

When the Lakers play the Celtics in the finals they should just put Ariza on Rondo, and make him shoot.

Some fans here think Kobe on Rondo is a gimick :lol:

eatyourchildren · Post #140 » by **eatyourchildren** » Mon Jan 5, 2009 7:44 am

NOBODY DEFENDS RONDO THE WAY KOBE DOES AGAINST THE CELTICS!!!!!!!