It will be really tough for Randolph to make it on the All Star team. His team is terrible and there are a ton of great forwards in the West. The starting five will probably be Nash, Kobe, Yao, Nowitzki, and Duncan. There will be at least two guards as reserves (Chris Paul and Deron Williams), which only leaves five more spots for reserve forwards/centers. So out of Melo, Boozer, Stoudemire, Marion, and Garentt, who do you leave off for Randolph? It's unfortunate for him that he doesn't play in the East, because I could see him starting on that team.
Denver isn't doing very good this year either, but its Melo, and he's scoring a ton of points so he will make it. Likewise, Minnesota is doing poorly, but its Garnett so he will make it. Boozer is healthy, the Jazz are good, so he will probably make it. Marion is kind of iffy if you ask me, but still a possibility. Same with Stoudamire. Elton Brand is still a consideration as well. Its too bad because Randolph really deserves it, and it would be good for the fan base in Portland.
And Mattreis, do you really think Deron Williams would make the all star game over say Ray Allen, T Mac, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Jason Terry?
Well, apparently Iverson's days in Philadelphia are numbered. He went to the owners and said he wanted to be traded and they're willing to grant him that wish. Don't bring him to New Jersey; we don't want a whiny crybaby. Give him to Boston so that he and Paul Pierce can cause a nuclear war with their egos. Same with the Lakers.
I can't believe that the East basically still hasn't improved. The fact that a team with an under 400 record is leading their division is a complete atrocity. What fascinates me the most is that East teams are all mostly terrible, but, they consistently put up competitive games(typically losses, but still) against high ranking West teams...I guess the West doesn't take the East seriously or something.
I guess the West doesn't take the East seriously or something.
Of course not. Its like a high school varsity team beating on a middle school B squad. The East is just terrible, and there really was no excuse for them winning the title last year.
The East reminds me of the NFC in football. Clearly, the NFC is the JV league, and damn near every team is terrible. They might get two 8-8 wild cards they are so bad. Their 'best' team (in terms of record) is led by a quarterback who gets a 1.3 passer rating. Whats sad, is that they still win the game.
On Randolph-- though itd be nice to see him in, think Vince Carter for all those years. In off publicity and nothing more. For this reason alone, Randolph (seen as a crybaby the last two season, which won't help him) will receive very few votes.
On AI- I'm in philly, been hearin about this all day. They should've traded him years ago, when integral parts of AI Philly teams (Stackhouse/Dallas, Hughes/Washington-Cleveland, Harpring- Utah, Ratliff- Portland, Bell- Pheonix, GlenRob- SanAn {1year only but still}) started blossoming everywhere else. Hell even Speedy Claxton became a B baller after leaving.
AI was the answer. What is Philly's problem? :-p
On the East- I look at the basketball and football National leagues (NFC, East) differently. Where the NFC ruled for a decade + (SanFran-Dallas-ending with GreenBay repeating at the Bowl, starting the AFC run with Denver), the AFC consistently stepped up to get to their level. It just so happens that the NFC worried so much about in conference that they couldn't focus on new fundamentals in the other (emphasis on D, and the run game for the AfC). That made the AFC dominant over the NFC for yeeeeeears. Only recently have you seen a more competitive superbowl annually (Eagles lose by 3, Panthers by 3, Seahawks by 3), but that's not because the NFC has improved.
The AFC is going through the same thing. Soon, the power will shift again, to the NFC. I'd bet that between this year and 2017, 8/10 will be out of the NFC.
In Basketball, the East has just been bad. The bulls dynasty aside, the East has classically been the JV league. The NFC is not the same as the east.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Legendary Storyline Poster--- Ixidorsdreams (yeah, it was me ;))
Well, Boston was crazy in the 60s. When Bill Russel and Larry Bird and those guys played, they won 13 championships didn't they? Then the Lakers ruled for awhile, but the NBA hasn't had another Boston incident, and they never will. Jordan's Bulls will be as close as the NBA will ever get again to having a dynasty like that, which is good for the NBA.
In Basketball, the East has just been bad. The bulls dynasty aside, the East has classically been the JV league. The NFC is not the same as the east.
I wasn't trying to compare the Eastern Conference and the NFC. I just said that the past couple of years the Eastern Conference has reminded me of the NFC. Not that the East is exactly like the NFC.
And no, the East hasn't classically been bad. As I mentioned above, Boston won 13 championships. The East dominated for years, then the Lakers. Then the Bulls had their dynasty.
Denver isn't doing very good this year either, but its Melo, and he's scoring a ton of points so he will make it. Likewise, Minnesota is doing poorly, but its Garnett so he will make it. Boozer is healthy, the Jazz are good, so he will probably make it. Marion is kind of iffy if you ask me, but still a possibility. Same with Stoudamire. Elton Brand is still a consideration as well. Its too bad because Randolph really deserves it, and it would be good for the fan base in Portland.
Well Denver is 11-7 and Minnesota is 10-9 and have won four in a row. I guess neither team is doing great, but they're both above .500. I agree that it's too bad because he's playing well. Not enough room on the All-Star team for everyone though.
Quote from Petear Griffin »
And Mattreis, do you really think Deron Williams would make the all star game over say Ray Allen, T Mac, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Jason Terry?
Yes over all of those guys. The Sonics are awful, T-Mac's numbers haven't been great this year, you have a case with Parker, Ginobli has been hurt all year, and Terry isn't that good. The coaches choose the reserves, and they always reward players whose teams are winning.
Griffin- Like I said, the 60's aside (ya know, lets try to deal with just the LAST 50 YEARS, that is plenty of time to base this thought off).
So yes, take the Celtics championships away, and the East has been CLASSICALLY bad.
Quote from Griffin »
The East reminds me of the NFC in football. Clearly, the NFC is the JV league, and damn near every team is terrible.
The Cowboys are terrible? The Saints are terrible? The Bears are looking terrible? Yeah the NFC has a bunch of JV teams alright.
25-30 is the record of NFC win to AFC wins in inter-league play this year to date. If you discount weeks 9-current, the NFC was dominating the AFC in fact by a margin of 8-9 more game wins. Only this last few weeks has the AFC crushed the NFC.
So yeah, you're wrong on that account. They're much much closer than you give them credit for.
The Cowboys are terrible? The Saints are terrible? The Bears are looking terrible? Yeah the NFC has a bunch of JV teams alright
Are the Cowboys or the Saints on the same level as the Chargers, Ravens, Patriots, or Colts? I don't think so. The Bears may have the best record in the NFC, but just last week their quarterback had a 1.6 passer rating. That won't win you a championship. So who is right up there after the Cowboys and the Saints? The 7-6 Giants who have been seemingly imploding the last few weeks? How about the 7-6 Falcons who can't catch a football and has a quarterback who flips off the fans? Maybe the 6-7 Panthers who have no quarterback? How about the Seahawks who play in arguably the worst division in football and just got smoked by the Cardinals?
Griffin- Like I said, the 60's aside (ya know, lets try to deal with just the LAST 50 YEARS, that is plenty of time to base this thought off).
So yes, take the Celtics championships away, and the East has been CLASSICALLY bad.
You can't take away the largest dynasty in all of sports history and make your point. No one has dominated like that in any sport ever. Its kind of a big deal. You can't just discount it.
I'm discounting ancient history in favor of current events.
You're making that point is like saying "well there's no way Peyton Manning is the best QB, you can't throw the ball in football!"
Yeah, maybe in 1890 dude, but in present day-- the reality has changed.
I mentioned none of those other oddball teams. But uh yeah, Cowboys already beat the Colts if you don't remember, and they're perenial as a top 3 AFC team.
Could the Saints beat the Chargers? Are you serious? Brees has been playing with a chip on his shoulder all YEAR! Get him back in San Diego, and i'll give you a 10+ victory for New Orleans. Yeah, they're that underrated and the Chargers are slightly overrated. I'm a fan of the Chargers, but i'm not foolish enough to say they're the best team in the LEAGUE.
Could the Saints beat the Ravens? Depends. Defense usually wins, but the NO offense isn't easy to read. 1 play allows for Deuce up the gut or Reggie on the endaround. 1 play with 2 very good, likely plays. That is vicious, makes them hard to read.
Cowboys got exposed a little last night, but only a little.But yeah, they ae on the level with the Colts, they beat them. They're better than the failing Patriots, but not the Ravens or Chargers. If i had to, this would be my list.
1) Ravens 2) Chargers/Saints 4) Cowboys
Now we're way off topic however. The point is-- if you go from the end of the Boston dynasty in the 60's, you'll find the East is wayyyyyy more JV than the NFC.
You also didn't mention anything about that nearly even interconference record Cat got your tongue?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Legendary Storyline Poster--- Ixidorsdreams (yeah, it was me ;))
I'm discounting ancient history in favor of current events.
The late 50s and late 60s are ancient history?? Don't tell that to the 40/50 year olds who were born then.
You're making that point is like saying "well there's no way Peyton Manning is the best QB, you can't throw the ball in football!"
This doesn't even make sense and I don't even know where you are coming from.
Yeah, maybe in 1890 dude, but in present day-- the reality has changed.
Pretty sure there is a big difference from 1890 to 1969.
I mentioned none of those other oddball teams. But uh yeah, Cowboys already beat the Colts if you don't remember, and they're perenial as a top 3 AFC team.
You didn't have to. That was my whole point. There is Dallas, New Orleans, the Bears defense, then nobody. There are no good teams after those 3. Thats it. The rest of the NFC is awful. Ok, great, the Cowboys beat the Colts, it was a good win. The Cowboys also lost to the Redskins who are near the bottom in the whole NFL. So what does the win against Indy and the loss to Washington prove? Nothing. I would still take the Colts over any NFC team, no run defense or not.
Could the Saints beat the Chargers? Are you serious? Brees has been playing with a chip on his shoulder all YEAR! Get him back in San Diego, and i'll give you a 10+ victory for New Orleans. Yeah, they're that underrated and the Chargers are slightly overrated. I'm a fan of the Chargers, but i'm not foolish enough to say they're the best team in the LEAGUE.
I never said they were the best team in the league, but they sure look like it. The Chargers are slightly overrated, I will give you that. However, have you ever heard of a guy named Ladainian Tomlinson? Pretty sure he is better than anyone on the Saints. No one has been able to stop him, and neither would the Saints. And you want to talk about Deuce up the gut, or Reggie on the endaround, how about LT doing all of that, plus passing for a touchdown?
Cowboys got exposed a little last night, but only a little.
A little? They got beat 42-17 AT HOME. Thats an old fashioned ass whoopin if I ever saw one. Brees threw 5 touchdowns. Pretty sure he greatly exposed the defense.
25-30 is the record of NFC win to AFC wins in inter-league play this year to date. If you discount weeks 9-current, the NFC was dominating the AFC in fact by a margin of 8-9 more game wins. Only this last few weeks has the AFC crushed the NFC.
Ok, so the AFC has won 30 games to the NFC 25. You also have to take into consideration that there are bad teams in the AFC as well, like Oakland, San Francisco, Houston, etc. And you can't just leave out a particular section. Thats like saying 'oh, the Cowboys would have beat the Saints if it weren't for Drew Brees!'. You can't say well, if you leave out this really important part that pretains to the whole season, they would be winning. And while were talking about the AFC crushing the NFC, the BEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS have lost to Baltimore AND Cincinatti, two top AFC teams. Their only quality win was against Dallas. Otherwise, New Orleans has beaten powerhouses including: Cleveland, Greenbay, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Tampa, and San Francisco. Great job guys.
Now we're way off topic however. The point is-- if you go from the end of the Boston dynasty in the 60's, you'll find the East is wayyyyyy more JV than the NFC.
Ya we are pretty off topic. Again, you are discounting the greatest dynasty in sports history, and it even isn't that old. Its like discounting the Yankees in baseball, even though baseball is terrible. You can't leave out important facts. Anyway, I did some homework.
After the last Boston championship in 68-69, lets look more recent and see who has won more championships since the 69-70 season to present.
There has been 37 championship series played from 69-70 to present, and the East has won 20 of those championships. That is more than 50 percent. If you break it down by years:
69/70-78/79: The East won 6 of 10 of those championships, including a few by Boston who had part of their dynasty players still intact (read: Larry Bird)
79/80-88/89: The East won 5 of those championships
89/90-98/99: The East won 7 of those championships.
99/00-present: The East has won 2 championships.
So pretty much the east, at worst, has been as good as the west, probably a little better up until the end of the Jordan era in the late 90s. So historically, the east hasn't been that bad, championship wise, which is pretty much the standard on how teams are judged.
So anyhow, less about the NFL and more about the NBA. Where do you think Allen Iverson will go? Candidates include Boston (bad choice, since his ego will clash with Pierce's), Indiana, and practically half of the NBA. The question is who will take his ridiculous salary?
Are the blazer's low on the salary totem pole right now? I know we used to have the highest salary payout like 2-3 years ago lol. Not that Portland is a likely canidate just a thought.
Minnesota would be the best place for Iverson to go in terms of which team he would fit in the best with. Garnett is just the kind of superstar that Iverson would mesh with; a big guy who shares the ball and plays good defense. Unfortunately Minnesota has no draft picks to offer (their pick goes to the Clippers this year from the Marko Jaric-Sam Cassell trade) and only Randy Foye as an interesting young player. I doubt it will happen, but I really hope that Iverson ends up here. Garnett deserves to play with at least one other great player before his career is over.
Chicago and Boston seem like the two most likely destinations for Iverson. They both have lots of good young players and high draft picks (Chicago gets New York's pick this year). The only problem is that Philly really doesn't want to trade Iverson to another Eastern Conference team. I don't see the problem because Philly is going to be completely awful for years after this trade. I mean they're awful now with Iverson, so you can only imagine how bad they'll be without him. By the time the Sixers are competitive again, Iverson will probably be on the verge of retiring.
OK, then by your equation, we will measure the NFL.
NFC is 22-18 in Superbowls. That is more than 50 % as well.
Ok, but you want to know the difference between that stat and my stat? I NEVER said the NFC was historically bad. I only said that the East reminded me of the current NFC. That is all. I wasn't comparing them historically, or saying historically the NFC is bad.
Are the blazer's low on the salary totem pole right now? I know we used to have the highest salary payout like 2-3 years ago lol. Not that Portland is a likely canidate just a thought.
Ugh, I hope not. We would most definitley have to trade youth for Iverson's aging body and fading career. We are too far away from a championship, and it just wouldn't make sense to trade our future for a star who is only going to get progressively worse in the next couple of years. Please, Portland, don't do it.
Chicago and Boston seem like the two most likely destinations for Iverson.
I don't like either of those destinations for AI. Chicago already has a ton of young two guards, they don't need AI. They need some low post scoring, not another guard. Boston already has Pierce, along with another guard who can't shoot a basketball to save his life in Telfair. Seems like he would fit in well with Dallas, but that would probably never happen.
In other news, the NBA is returning the leather ball on January 1st!! Who knew why they switched in the first place!
Yeah I can't wait for the old ball to come back. I've seen some strange things lately with that new ball. It's definitly not superior to the older one thats for sure.
I don't care about the ball thing. Hell, they could make it a soccer ball for all I care. I don't see what the players have to whine about (though NBA players are natural born whiners), except for the fact that it does look sorta ugly.
Minnesota was another place that was floated around for an Iverson location. Philly practically made it official that his days are over when they emptied his locker, so it's a matter of when. What I've read in the newspapers is that the last two times the Sixers traded a big name star (Charles Barkley last time and Wilt Chamberlain the time before that) is that they got screwed in the process and then sucked for the next few years. I don't see an Iverson trade making things any better for them, since the most likely candidates don't have much to offer.
Minnesota is out, says McHale himself (the owner), and maybe KG will even somehow get a trade out of the fact the owner is NOT willing to help the team. I think 75% of people agree Iverson + Garnett= championship.
Boston seems the least likely with Pierce.
Chicago is an interesting idea, since Gordon always seems better off the bench, and Hinrich is perfect at point. Also, even with all the offense they have on paper, their scoring hasn't been would it should be. Plus they have the people (they could unload Nocioni OR Deng, keeping the other to start, and Chris Duhon + a 1st rnd pick) to do so.
I could see the Bulls happening, but this wold take the team from young to old with Ben and AI real quick. Shortens their window a bit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Legendary Storyline Poster--- Ixidorsdreams (yeah, it was me ;))
I don't see what the players have to whine about (though NBA players are natural born whiners), except for the fact that it does look sorta ugly.
Well, except its the same ball that has been used for years, there was no reason to switch it in the first place, it is slippery, and turnovers are up. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to change back.
And even if the Bulls give up Deng, Duhon and a first round pick, that would be terrible for them. AI doesn't answer their main problem, which is a legitimate low post scoring presence. Plus, as you said, it would close the window a bit more, which is something they don't need. I still say give him to the Mavs. Mark Cuban is always willing to take on a large salary.
Why would the Mavs make the same mistake the Sixers did in 2002?
By tearing down their championship roster, the Sixers arguably created most of the situation they face all these years later. Telling the Mavs who were up 2-0 in the Finals not a year ago that they should change their scoring philosophy is foolish. Telling them to work on their screen/switch defense might be a better idea.
Just saying
As for the Bulls, i'm always one to say that you don't need the low post offense, it just helps-- that said, i was aganst the Chandler for Brown trade from the get-go for making Chandler offensive while leaving him AND Ben to help him for defense would've been formidable. They kinda screwed themselves, but at least with AI they're worth about 5 more points per game average then they're scoring now.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Legendary Storyline Poster--- Ixidorsdreams (yeah, it was me ;))
Chicago doesn't really need a low post scorer per se, they just need ANYONE who can score consistently. Ben Gordon has a big game once in a while, but he's shown you can't rely on him every night. Iverson guarantees you at least 25 points a night, and he will also give Chicago a guy they can give the ball to in the final seconds with the game on the line.
I don't think Chicago should worry too much about "shortening their window." I mean, aren't they hovering around .500? It's not like they're one of the elite teams in the league right now.
Having a low post scorer opens everthing up. If the Bulls swing the ball into Ben Wallace in the post, the other team will just leave him single covered. Same thing with Brown. They can't create any mismatches down low and force the other team to double so they can open it up for Heinrich, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, etc. If you always have a guy in your face and you only shoot perimeter shots, you aren't going to win many games. You need a healthy dose of both.
I don't think Chicago should worry too much about "shortening their window." I mean, aren't they hovering around .500? It's not like they're one of the elite teams in the league right now
Ben Wallace is like 33 or 34 years old, and won't remain this defensive stopper who gobbles up all the rebounds too much longer. Then, if the Bulls have to trade further youth for an aging Iverson, they are just giving up more of their future. The Bulls still aren't championship contenders with Iverson, and it would be foolish to trade their future for a false hope of a championship.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Denver isn't doing very good this year either, but its Melo, and he's scoring a ton of points so he will make it. Likewise, Minnesota is doing poorly, but its Garnett so he will make it. Boozer is healthy, the Jazz are good, so he will probably make it. Marion is kind of iffy if you ask me, but still a possibility. Same with Stoudamire. Elton Brand is still a consideration as well. Its too bad because Randolph really deserves it, and it would be good for the fan base in Portland.
And Mattreis, do you really think Deron Williams would make the all star game over say Ray Allen, T Mac, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and Jason Terry?
Of course not. Its like a high school varsity team beating on a middle school B squad. The East is just terrible, and there really was no excuse for them winning the title last year.
The East reminds me of the NFC in football. Clearly, the NFC is the JV league, and damn near every team is terrible. They might get two 8-8 wild cards they are so bad. Their 'best' team (in terms of record) is led by a quarterback who gets a 1.3 passer rating. Whats sad, is that they still win the game.
On AI- I'm in philly, been hearin about this all day. They should've traded him years ago, when integral parts of AI Philly teams (Stackhouse/Dallas, Hughes/Washington-Cleveland, Harpring- Utah, Ratliff- Portland, Bell- Pheonix, GlenRob- SanAn {1year only but still}) started blossoming everywhere else. Hell even Speedy Claxton became a B baller after leaving.
AI was the answer. What is Philly's problem? :-p
On the East- I look at the basketball and football National leagues (NFC, East) differently. Where the NFC ruled for a decade + (SanFran-Dallas-ending with GreenBay repeating at the Bowl, starting the AFC run with Denver), the AFC consistently stepped up to get to their level. It just so happens that the NFC worried so much about in conference that they couldn't focus on new fundamentals in the other (emphasis on D, and the run game for the AfC). That made the AFC dominant over the NFC for yeeeeeears. Only recently have you seen a more competitive superbowl annually (Eagles lose by 3, Panthers by 3, Seahawks by 3), but that's not because the NFC has improved.
The AFC is going through the same thing. Soon, the power will shift again, to the NFC. I'd bet that between this year and 2017, 8/10 will be out of the NFC.
In Basketball, the East has just been bad. The bulls dynasty aside, the East has classically been the JV league. The NFC is not the same as the east.
My point stands-- the NBA doesn't have the power swings that the NFL has.
I wasn't trying to compare the Eastern Conference and the NFC. I just said that the past couple of years the Eastern Conference has reminded me of the NFC. Not that the East is exactly like the NFC.
And no, the East hasn't classically been bad. As I mentioned above, Boston won 13 championships. The East dominated for years, then the Lakers. Then the Bulls had their dynasty.
Well Denver is 11-7 and Minnesota is 10-9 and have won four in a row. I guess neither team is doing great, but they're both above .500. I agree that it's too bad because he's playing well. Not enough room on the All-Star team for everyone though.
Yes over all of those guys. The Sonics are awful, T-Mac's numbers haven't been great this year, you have a case with Parker, Ginobli has been hurt all year, and Terry isn't that good. The coaches choose the reserves, and they always reward players whose teams are winning.
So yes, take the Celtics championships away, and the East has been CLASSICALLY bad.
The Cowboys are terrible? The Saints are terrible? The Bears are looking terrible? Yeah the NFC has a bunch of JV teams alright.
25-30 is the record of NFC win to AFC wins in inter-league play this year to date. If you discount weeks 9-current, the NFC was dominating the AFC in fact by a margin of 8-9 more game wins. Only this last few weeks has the AFC crushed the NFC.
So yeah, you're wrong on that account. They're much much closer than you give them credit for.
Are the Cowboys or the Saints on the same level as the Chargers, Ravens, Patriots, or Colts? I don't think so. The Bears may have the best record in the NFC, but just last week their quarterback had a 1.6 passer rating. That won't win you a championship. So who is right up there after the Cowboys and the Saints? The 7-6 Giants who have been seemingly imploding the last few weeks? How about the 7-6 Falcons who can't catch a football and has a quarterback who flips off the fans? Maybe the 6-7 Panthers who have no quarterback? How about the Seahawks who play in arguably the worst division in football and just got smoked by the Cardinals?
Griffin- Like I said, the 60's aside (ya know, lets try to deal with just the LAST 50 YEARS, that is plenty of time to base this thought off).
You can't take away the largest dynasty in all of sports history and make your point. No one has dominated like that in any sport ever. Its kind of a big deal. You can't just discount it.
You're making that point is like saying "well there's no way Peyton Manning is the best QB, you can't throw the ball in football!"
Yeah, maybe in 1890 dude, but in present day-- the reality has changed.
I mentioned none of those other oddball teams. But uh yeah, Cowboys already beat the Colts if you don't remember, and they're perenial as a top 3 AFC team.
Could the Saints beat the Chargers? Are you serious? Brees has been playing with a chip on his shoulder all YEAR! Get him back in San Diego, and i'll give you a 10+ victory for New Orleans. Yeah, they're that underrated and the Chargers are slightly overrated. I'm a fan of the Chargers, but i'm not foolish enough to say they're the best team in the LEAGUE.
Could the Saints beat the Ravens? Depends. Defense usually wins, but the NO offense isn't easy to read. 1 play allows for Deuce up the gut or Reggie on the endaround. 1 play with 2 very good, likely plays. That is vicious, makes them hard to read.
Cowboys got exposed a little last night, but only a little.But yeah, they ae on the level with the Colts, they beat them. They're better than the failing Patriots, but not the Ravens or Chargers. If i had to, this would be my list.
1) Ravens
2) Chargers/Saints
4) Cowboys
Now we're way off topic however. The point is-- if you go from the end of the Boston dynasty in the 60's, you'll find the East is wayyyyyy more JV than the NFC.
You also didn't mention anything about that nearly even interconference record Cat got your tongue?
The late 50s and late 60s are ancient history?? Don't tell that to the 40/50 year olds who were born then.
This doesn't even make sense and I don't even know where you are coming from.
Pretty sure there is a big difference from 1890 to 1969.
You didn't have to. That was my whole point. There is Dallas, New Orleans, the Bears defense, then nobody. There are no good teams after those 3. Thats it. The rest of the NFC is awful. Ok, great, the Cowboys beat the Colts, it was a good win. The Cowboys also lost to the Redskins who are near the bottom in the whole NFL. So what does the win against Indy and the loss to Washington prove? Nothing. I would still take the Colts over any NFC team, no run defense or not.
I never said they were the best team in the league, but they sure look like it. The Chargers are slightly overrated, I will give you that. However, have you ever heard of a guy named Ladainian Tomlinson? Pretty sure he is better than anyone on the Saints. No one has been able to stop him, and neither would the Saints. And you want to talk about Deuce up the gut, or Reggie on the endaround, how about LT doing all of that, plus passing for a touchdown?
A little? They got beat 42-17 AT HOME. Thats an old fashioned ass whoopin if I ever saw one. Brees threw 5 touchdowns. Pretty sure he greatly exposed the defense.
Ok, so the AFC has won 30 games to the NFC 25. You also have to take into consideration that there are bad teams in the AFC as well, like Oakland, San Francisco, Houston, etc. And you can't just leave out a particular section. Thats like saying 'oh, the Cowboys would have beat the Saints if it weren't for Drew Brees!'. You can't say well, if you leave out this really important part that pretains to the whole season, they would be winning. And while were talking about the AFC crushing the NFC, the BEST TEAM IN THE LEAGUE THE NEW ORLEANS SAINTS have lost to Baltimore AND Cincinatti, two top AFC teams. Their only quality win was against Dallas. Otherwise, New Orleans has beaten powerhouses including: Cleveland, Greenbay, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Tampa, and San Francisco. Great job guys.
Ya we are pretty off topic. Again, you are discounting the greatest dynasty in sports history, and it even isn't that old. Its like discounting the Yankees in baseball, even though baseball is terrible. You can't leave out important facts. Anyway, I did some homework.
After the last Boston championship in 68-69, lets look more recent and see who has won more championships since the 69-70 season to present.
There has been 37 championship series played from 69-70 to present, and the East has won 20 of those championships. That is more than 50 percent. If you break it down by years:
69/70-78/79: The East won 6 of 10 of those championships, including a few by Boston who had part of their dynasty players still intact (read: Larry Bird)
79/80-88/89: The East won 5 of those championships
89/90-98/99: The East won 7 of those championships.
99/00-present: The East has won 2 championships.
So pretty much the east, at worst, has been as good as the west, probably a little better up until the end of the Jordan era in the late 90s. So historically, the east hasn't been that bad, championship wise, which is pretty much the standard on how teams are judged.
OK, then by your equation, we will measure the NFL.
NFC is 22-18 in Superbowls. That is more than 50 % as well.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Chicago and Boston seem like the two most likely destinations for Iverson. They both have lots of good young players and high draft picks (Chicago gets New York's pick this year). The only problem is that Philly really doesn't want to trade Iverson to another Eastern Conference team. I don't see the problem because Philly is going to be completely awful for years after this trade. I mean they're awful now with Iverson, so you can only imagine how bad they'll be without him. By the time the Sixers are competitive again, Iverson will probably be on the verge of retiring.
Ok, but you want to know the difference between that stat and my stat? I NEVER said the NFC was historically bad. I only said that the East reminded me of the current NFC. That is all. I wasn't comparing them historically, or saying historically the NFC is bad.
Ugh, I hope not. We would most definitley have to trade youth for Iverson's aging body and fading career. We are too far away from a championship, and it just wouldn't make sense to trade our future for a star who is only going to get progressively worse in the next couple of years. Please, Portland, don't do it.
I don't like either of those destinations for AI. Chicago already has a ton of young two guards, they don't need AI. They need some low post scoring, not another guard. Boston already has Pierce, along with another guard who can't shoot a basketball to save his life in Telfair. Seems like he would fit in well with Dallas, but that would probably never happen.
In other news, the NBA is returning the leather ball on January 1st!! Who knew why they switched in the first place!
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
Minnesota was another place that was floated around for an Iverson location. Philly practically made it official that his days are over when they emptied his locker, so it's a matter of when. What I've read in the newspapers is that the last two times the Sixers traded a big name star (Charles Barkley last time and Wilt Chamberlain the time before that) is that they got screwed in the process and then sucked for the next few years. I don't see an Iverson trade making things any better for them, since the most likely candidates don't have much to offer.
Boston seems the least likely with Pierce.
Chicago is an interesting idea, since Gordon always seems better off the bench, and Hinrich is perfect at point. Also, even with all the offense they have on paper, their scoring hasn't been would it should be. Plus they have the people (they could unload Nocioni OR Deng, keeping the other to start, and Chris Duhon + a 1st rnd pick) to do so.
I could see the Bulls happening, but this wold take the team from young to old with Ben and AI real quick. Shortens their window a bit.
Well, except its the same ball that has been used for years, there was no reason to switch it in the first place, it is slippery, and turnovers are up. Otherwise, there really isn't a reason to change back.
And even if the Bulls give up Deng, Duhon and a first round pick, that would be terrible for them. AI doesn't answer their main problem, which is a legitimate low post scoring presence. Plus, as you said, it would close the window a bit more, which is something they don't need. I still say give him to the Mavs. Mark Cuban is always willing to take on a large salary.
By tearing down their championship roster, the Sixers arguably created most of the situation they face all these years later. Telling the Mavs who were up 2-0 in the Finals not a year ago that they should change their scoring philosophy is foolish. Telling them to work on their screen/switch defense might be a better idea.
Just saying
As for the Bulls, i'm always one to say that you don't need the low post offense, it just helps-- that said, i was aganst the Chandler for Brown trade from the get-go for making Chandler offensive while leaving him AND Ben to help him for defense would've been formidable. They kinda screwed themselves, but at least with AI they're worth about 5 more points per game average then they're scoring now.
I don't think Chicago should worry too much about "shortening their window." I mean, aren't they hovering around .500? It's not like they're one of the elite teams in the league right now.
Ben Wallace is like 33 or 34 years old, and won't remain this defensive stopper who gobbles up all the rebounds too much longer. Then, if the Bulls have to trade further youth for an aging Iverson, they are just giving up more of their future. The Bulls still aren't championship contenders with Iverson, and it would be foolish to trade their future for a false hope of a championship.