Blowouts

[GREYRIDERx]

9 minutes ago, HSfootballfanatic12 said:

How big a boy are you?

Im about 5' 4" 125 lbs 

[HSfootballfanatic12]

28 minutes ago, GREYRIDERx said:

Im about 5' 4" 125 lbs 

Smaller than I thought. The way you talk, I figured you had to be at least 5'8 290 lbs. 

[GREYRIDERx]

5 hours ago, HSfootballfanatic12 said:

Smaller than I thought. The way you talk, I figured you had to be at least 5'8 290 lbs. 

Just the facts man. 

How do I talk? 

[GREYRIDERx]

Naah really , 6' 245

[tradertwo]

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 11:26 AM, kwc said:

The Celtics of the 50s and 60s. The Lakers of the 80s and 90s and the Spurs of the 2000s. All had teams with multiple players that could have been the MAN on other teams. All of those teams were STACKED. Even the Celtics of the 80s, that co-dominated with the Lakers. Those weren't teams with one dominant player and other good players. Those teams had MULTIPLE superstars that could go to other teams and be the MAN. They stayed with their teams because they could win more championships that way, they were making plenty of money, and there was no free agency, like it is today. Heck, the Bulls of the 90s aren't too far behind in talent distribution across the team.

I see no difference in talent across the board on the Lakers of the 80s in comparrison to the Golden State of today. I see no difference in talent across the board with the Celtics of the 50s and 60s in comparrison with the Goldn State of today. Dallas is not, and never has been in the same class as the teams I just mentioned. Even with the accolades you mentioned.

All that you have to do is check out the list of the "50 greatest players" in the NBA...players listed are condensed into very few teams in their timeframe across the board. Case in point is the "showtime" era of the Lakers, with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, ect...all three of those could be classified as superstar players, with a large cast of others that would have been the #'s 1 or 2 option on most other teams.

The only example where I'd possibly disagree with you is Jordan's Bulls. Remove him from the team and everyone else (even Pippen is arguable) would just be a "solid" role player at best. Just another example as to why Jordan will never be equaled as the GOAT.

[steelcityroller]

On 10/9/2018 at 11:02 AM, kwc said:

Golden State having more talent on their team didn't ruin the NBA. I don't care about eras or the current make-up of the NBA. There have ALWAYS been teams that dominate in the NBA. They dominate because they have the most talent on their team. It has ALWAYS been like that. This is OLD HAT. Golden State is just more RECENT. Don't be fooled by what you see now, and don't be misled by folks who don't know the history of something, and just complain, because, that's what they do. Who cares how the talent got to Golden State! The NBA will adjust. It always has. This is no different. Golden State will not come close to being as dominant as the Boston Celtics of the 50's and 60's. NOW .... THAT was domination. No team since has been able to replicate it. The Lakers of the 80's. The Bulls of the 90's.  The Spurs of the early 2000's. All of those teams were loaded. Regardless of how they aquried the talent.

Golden State is doing their thing currently ... but they are one of many NBA franchises who've had a dominant team in an era.

Don't get it twisted.

People often forget that the Bulls of the 90s usually had 3 or 4 guys in the All-Star game. MJ was amazing no doubt but Scottie Pippen is a top 50 player of all-time and you had guys like Rodman, Grant, Armstrong who were All-Stars and some of the best role players in the league.

And you want to talk about teams having all the talent.... OKC at one point had Kevin Durant, James Harden and Russell Westbrook and didn't win a championship. So much for all the talent ruining the league.

On 10/9/2018 at 11:13 AM, Fballfan1978 said:

thats really a interesting stat to point out, but i really wouldn't be that surprised if that margin has been like that for years.

I'm curious about this as well. Because I know in just the few counties I follow a blowout a double-digit win or more is far more common than a close game.

On 10/9/2018 at 11:26 AM, kwc said:

The Celtics of the 50s and 60s. The Lakers of the 80s and 90s and the Spurs of the 2000s. All had teams with multiple players that could have been the MAN on other teams. All of those teams were STACKED. Even the Celtics of the 80s, that co-dominated with the Lakers. Those weren't teams with one dominant player and other good players. Those teams had MULTIPLE superstars that could go to other teams and be the MAN. They stayed with their teams because they could win more championships that way, they were making plenty of money, and there was no free agency, like it is today. Heck, the Bulls of the 90s aren't too far behind in talent distribution across the team.

I see no difference in talent across the board on the Lakers of the 80s in comparrison to the Golden State of today. I see no difference in talent across the board with the Celtics of the 50s and 60s in comparrison with the Goldn State of today. Dallas is not, and never has been in the same class as the teams I just mentioned. Even with the accolades you mentioned.

The Boston Celtics from 1955-1991 had 3+ Hall of Fame players on their roster every year. And most of those years they had 5+ on the roster. They had teams in the 60s that had 7-8 Hall of Fame players.

So yeah this isn't new.

[steelcityroller]

On 10/11/2018 at 11:53 PM, tradertwo said:

All that you have to do is check out the list of the "50 greatest players" in the NBA...players listed are condensed into very few teams in their timeframe across the board. Case in point is the "showtime" era of the Lakers, with Kareem, Magic, Worthy, ect...all three of those could be classified as superstar players, with a large cast of others that would have been the #'s 1 or 2 option on most other teams.

The only example where I'd possibly disagree with you is Jordan's Bulls. Remove him from the team and everyone else (even Pippen is arguable) would just be a "solid" role player at best. Just another example as to why Jordan will never be equaled as the GOAT.

Disagree. The Bulls that first season without Jordan went 55-27. They lost in a 7-game series to the eventual Eastern Conference Champs New York Knicks in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

That is pretty good for a roster full of meh role players....

Scottie Pippen is considered a top 50 player of all time. That isn't arguable.

[tradertwo]

1 hour ago, steelcityroller said:

Disagree. The Bulls that first season without Jordan went 55-27. They lost in a 7-game series to the eventual Eastern Conference Champs New York Knicks in the 2nd round of the playoffs.

That is pretty good for a roster full of meh role players....

Scottie Pippen is considered a top 50 player of all time. That isn't arguable.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Pippen achieved that status because Jordan was on the floor with him and the opposing coaches and players understood that to beat the Bulls, you had to "regulate" Jordan. The Bulls didn't have many weaknesses, but minus MJ they were just solid role players... Rodman rebounded and played solid defense, Armstrong was a spot up shooter, Grant's game was within 8 feet of the hoop. Pippen was versatile, but when he was the focus of the defense, couldn't overcome teams with a legitimate shot at the title. They never even lost to the team that won it all, they lost to teams that went on to lose to someone else, even though with Jordan for three years prior and afterward, won it all.  There are multiple teams in the league today with a similar makeup, but without a Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe...they may advance through a couple of playoff rounds, but without "that guy" who can shoulder his team and beat you while being the main focus of the defense, will not win a championship. Durant is considered to be the best player for the Warriors, but couldn't win a championship even with Harden and Westbrook...Curry won without Durant. In my mind, the Mavericks are the lone team in recent history to capture a title without a player who was good enough to overcome a defensive game plan focused on stopping him. Dirk is one of the top 50, but still not in the class we're discussing in my opinion.

[EHSTrack06]

Pistons did ok with a team of role players and no major stars

[steelcityroller]

1 hour ago, tradertwo said:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Pippen achieved that status because Jordan was on the floor with him and the opposing coaches and players understood that to beat the Bulls, you had to "regulate" Jordan. The Bulls didn't have many weaknesses, but minus MJ they were just solid role players... Rodman rebounded and played solid defense, Armstrong was a spot up shooter, Grant's game was within 8 feet of the hoop. Pippen was versatile, but when he was the focus of the defense, couldn't overcome teams with a legitimate shot at the title. They never even lost to the team that won it all, they lost to teams that went on to lose to someone else, even though with Jordan for three years prior and afterward, won it all.  There are multiple teams in the league today with a similar makeup, but without a Jordan, Magic, Bird, Kobe...they may advance through a couple of playoff rounds, but without "that guy" who can shoulder his team and beat you while being the main focus of the defense, will not win a championship. Durant is considered to be the best player for the Warriors, but couldn't win a championship even with Harden and Westbrook...Curry won without Durant. In my mind, the Mavericks are the lone team in recent history to capture a title without a player who was good enough to overcome a defensive game plan focused on stopping him. Dirk is one of the top 50, but still not in the class we're discussing in my opinion.

Scottie Pippen without Jordan in 1994 was NBA All-Star MVP, finished 3rd in the league in MVP voting and was 8th in the league in scoring, 2nd in steals, 19th in assists, 23rd in rebounds etc.

He was All-NBA 1st team and All-NBA Defensive 1st team both seasons that Jordan was gone.

So the notion that he was only good because of Jordan is nonsense.

[GREYRIDERx]

Move this to Basketball catagory please Admin

[Indian]

Back to football, a formerly used classification revamp will probably get some consideration. Most of the effect would be in the largest schools. Not sure if it will help blowouts too much. Doubtful it could go in next year but who knows.