Sac @ SA...Kings win by 20!

Post #1 » by **ICMTM** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:28 am

Now you know I've worked too many hours....

RIPskaterdude · Post #2 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:42 am

Ack! We're supposed to be depressed towards the outcome of the game, THEN we get a win (see Lakers game)! Now you've cursed us! :lol:

Anyways, I figure that we will lose by 8-14, because the Spurs are a very 3 point dependent team and....we suck at defending it.

Post #3 » by **KingInExile** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:53 am

This thread has already had more replies than my last game thread. :cry:

RIPskaterdude · Post #4 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:09 am

Only the Kings could allow the Spurs to score 33 in one quarter

SacKingZZZ · Post #5 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:25 am

WTF is going on with Spencer and Brad did they get traded during a timeout or something?? These rotations are rediculous, you can't sit you starters for this long whether your trying to win or not.

RIPskaterdude · Post #6 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:32 am

Have the Spurs ever shot such a high % before?

Post #7 » by **KingInExile** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:38 am

Uh...ok...we suck.

RIPskaterdude · Post #8 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 2:42 am

I think I'm going to get drunk. Seems more productive than watching the rest of the game.

Blame Rasho · Post #9 » by **Blame Rasho** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:33 am

KingInExile wrote:Uh...ok...we suck.

Well most team suck without their best and most productive player...

Post #10 » by **KingInExile** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 3:45 am

Blame Rasho wrote:
KingInExile wrote:Uh...ok...we suck.

Well most team suck without their best and most productive player...

We would suck just as bad even if Martin wasn't injured (assuming you were talking about Martin's injury and not Kenny Thomas').

BMiller52 · Post #11 » by **BMiller52** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 6:28 am

This team injures my eyes, srsly

Post #12 » by **ICMTM** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 4:15 pm

Maybe Ron Artest was that good? Kevin missed time last year, too and we were almost a .500 team Sorry KIE, but my game thread titles have a tabloid style to them. I think I was high when I said 28 wins this year. I'm going to lower that to 23.

RIPskaterdude · Post #13 » by **RIPskaterdude** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 7:30 pm

ICMTM wrote:Maybe Ron Artest was that good? Kevin missed time last year, too and we were almost a .500 team Sorry KIE, but my game thread titles have a tabloid style to them. I think I was high when I said 28 wins this year. I'm going to lower that to 23.

23? Are you sure you arent still high? I'm thinking 20 or lower.

Post #14 » by **pillwenney** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 10:43 pm

It wasn't that bad of an effort last night. It wasn't great. The second worst game in the Natt era so far, but it wasn't that bad. The Spurs played very well.

Post #15 » by **KingInExile** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 2:33 am

ICMTM wrote:Maybe Ron Artest was that good? Kevin missed time last year, too and we were almost a .500 team Sorry KIE, but my game thread titles have a tabloid style to them. I think I was high when I said 28 wins this year. I'm going to lower that to 23.

I seem to remember me saying something like 60 wins...I may have been intoxicated at the time.

SacKingZZZ · Post #16 » by **SacKingZZZ** » Wed Dec 24, 2008 5:35 am

ICMTM wrote:Maybe Ron Artest was that good? Kevin missed time last year, too and we were almost a .500 team Sorry KIE, but my game thread titles have a tabloid style to them. I think I was high when I said 28 wins this year. I'm going to lower that to 23.

Hey, I said the same thing. I though it was mediocrity all the way! But it turns out we might be saved by the injury bug for real this time! :wink: