RealGM

These rankings are terrible!

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/w ... z0PE6b32Q2

Celtics are at number 4. Ridiculous.
76ers and Wizards have been boosted like no tomorrow.

the guy is clueless. not even talking about some of the rankings, but his reasons as well.

^^^^
agreed. some of those rankings are just as bad as the justifications.

Frankly, Lakers at #3 is even more ridiculous. You could make a case for Cleveland ahead of us. San Antonio is good, but it's a stretch. Jumping both over an upgraded LA is even crazier though.

I just realized something, I was laughing at how high Washington was, and then I realized that there aren't very many scary teams outside of the clear top 5, Dallas, and possibly Denver. If Oden develops Portland goes with Dallas/Denver as a borderline contender, and that's about it...

I really don't get this LOVE for the Spurs----They are no. 5 in my book right now---and I'm being GENEROUS....All these "Experts" are riding the "If the Spurs are Healthy" Bandwagon----Ginobli hasn't been healthy in years....if we're going on hopes of GOOD HEALTH---Then the Celtics are far and away the BEST Team----Well, it will make good locker room incentive for our guys---Kinda like in 2007-2008.

My Rankings---Based on 100% Health:

1-Boston
2-Los Angeles
3-Cleveland
4-Orlando
5-San Antonio
6-Denver

I think you have to put the Lakers at 1 just for the simple fact they are the defending champs. my list would go

1. LA
2. Boston
3. San Antonio
4. Orlando
5. Cleveland

boston
los angeles
orlando
cleveland
san antonio

hahaha i like how the description for the celtics is all positive and about how they loaded up perfectly for another title run... and they're #4? no comprende

BakersDozen wrote:1. LA
2. Boston
3. San Antonio
4. Orlando
5. Cleveland

^^^ word

Stupid people are funny

Spurs > Celtics? When did San Antonio become the best team in the league?

PaperMario3 wrote:Spurs > Celtics? When did San Antonio become the best team in the league?

Its somewhat reasonable because of Richard Jefferson but still inapropritate. lol

It's pretty funny you got the handle "Michael Jordan" on a basketball board, 8 years after it was created. Kudos.

As for the actual topic. I hate when guys don't respect the champs. And the reigning champs are the lakers. They deserve to be number 1. Heck, it's not like they had a fire-sale, they switched ariza for artest. Cleveland picked up Shaq, we picked up Sheed, and SA picked up Jefferson. I think shaq's got a little left, but not much. I think sheed still has some left. And RJ has some left. But we're all pretty even is what I'm getting at.

1. LA Lakers
2. Boston/Cleveland/San Antonio ---too close to rank.

Good. I like underrating from the media.

who cares...

That was bogus.

1. Boston
2. LA
3. Orlando
4. San Antonio
5. Cleveland

More like it.

Who gives a rats butt.......can't wait for the season to start.........

Well until Daniels is officially signed we don't get credit for him. That frontcourt does look impressive, though.

Kefa461 wrote:Who gives a rats butt.......can't wait for the season to start.........

You don't care that one of if not the biggest sports magazine rates us number 4 when we got better?

canman1971 wrote::lol:

Stupid people are funny

Ya this idiot is actually a writer that dinggels on the Spurs sack with everything he writes. I saw this and posted it on our board. He sits there and bases his opinion on how he picked the Spurs and the Cavs as 1st and 2nd yet when it comes to the Lakers he writes

"But as I've said before, I have my reservations about Artest "
"which explains why the defending champions are No. 3 on this list. Will the 29-year-old forward accept a complementary role? Will he play within the offense and control his shot selection?"

TonyMontana wrote:

canman1971 wrote::lol:

Stupid people are funny

Ya this idiot is actually a writer that dinggels on the Spurs sack with everything he writes. I saw this and posted it on our board. He sits there and bases his opinion on how he picked the Spurs and the Cavs as 1st and 2nd yet when it comes to the Lakers he writes

"But as I've said before, I have my reservations about Artest "
"which explains why the defending champions are No. 3 on this list. Will the 29-year-old forward accept a complementary role? Will he play within the offense and control his shot selection?"

Seriously...how did that Lakers not improve by swapping Ariza for Artest? I mean at least in the shortrun...this guy a moron.