Bulls are going to struggle next year, with no accomplished 3 point shooter
They have Mirotic so its not all bad but calling them elite is just lol, their rookie Denzel Valentine seems to be doing very well at the moment though so perhaps they have something in him. They have 3 guys who all need the ball so wtf is gonna happen. Jimmy is a diva who's gonna rage if Rondo controls the facilitating, and Rondo will probably be pissed if he doesn't get enough touches
I think I just about understood what you wrote, I was 10 months at the time of the 95 finals so yeah I did end up watching it later *shock* Shaq peaked way earlier than you probably realise. He was dropping almost 30 in the 95 season. He pretty much came into the league maxed out. Do you think 95 Shaq was underdeveloped or something?
Again, look up the phrase false modesty and realise the difference.
i did say SHAQ was a rookie (almost). and you cannot conclude that because he dominated Shaq in the Finals that is why he is better than him. and again, i believe u are not thinking because someone won the finals that why he is the best.
if you don't understand say u don't, do not attack my english im not a native speaker. im French. if u can write in french go ahead. i hope ur mind is refreshed.
depend on what u mean by elite. LAC,SAS,OKC are elite in the West because they can contend with GSW? please...
i did say SHAQ was a rookie (almost). and you cannot conclude that because he dominated Shaq in the Finals that is why he is better than him. and again, i believe u are not thinking because someone won the finals that why he is the best.
if you don't understand say u don't, do not attack my english im not a native speaker. im French. if u can write in french go ahead. i hope ur mind is refreshed.
But they can contend with GS... if they couldn't OKC wouldn't have held a 3-1 series lead. And their regular season games with the Clipper and Spurs wouldn't have been so close nor so highly anticipated.
I'm CALLING YOU OUT on your poor English because you're attempting to give witty replies to people WITHOUT fully understanding what they mean. Which is annoying me.
No Shaq wasn't a rookie, it was his 3rd year in the league and like I said he was dominating early on. A finals series is plenty of proof in determining the calibre of a player, especially in the post. They don't have off games and neither did Shaq, he still averaged 28 PPG over the series. It wasn't a 'bad series' but he was still outmatched.
Shaq has a greater legacy than Hakeem of course, 3 consecutive FMVP is crazy but it doesn't suggest he was a better player either, breaking down opposition. Also worth noting Shaq was never as good defensively, which is another large reason why Hakeem did well against him.
But they can contend with GS... if they couldn't OKC wouldn't have held a 3-1 series lead. And their regular season games with the Clipper and Spurs wouldn't have been so close nor so highly anticipated.
I'm CALLING YOU OUT on your poor English because you're attempting to give witty replies to people WITHOUT fully understanding what they mean. Which is annoying me.
No Shaq wasn't a rookie, it was his 3rd year in the league and like I said he was dominating early on. A finals series is plenty of proof in determining the calibre of a player, especially in the post. They don't have off games and neither did Shaq, he still averaged 28 PPG over the series. It wasn't a 'bad series' but he was still outmatched.
Shaq has a greater legacy than Hakeem of course, 3 consecutive FMVP is crazy but it doesn't suggest he was a better player either, breaking down opposition. Also worth noting Shaq was never as good defensively, which is another large reason why Hakeem did well against him.
Keep talking about my English then, if you think your own is wonderful. it will annoy you until you dig a hole and bury yourself. if that was his third year in the League, thats why i said "almost". and if i reply to others and not mentioning you,please shut up. you give ur opinion and i give my own, and that's it.
Keep talking about my English then, if you think your own is wonderful. it will annoy you until you dig a hole and bury yourself. if that was his third year in the League, thats why i said "almost". and if i reply to others and not mentioning you,please shut up. you give ur opinion and i give my own, and that's it.
If you're wrong why would I? But if you're offended or irritated by my responses that's fine I won't reply.
As a Warrior fan, did you qualify your team as an Elite two years ago? Why
Any team that wins many games, less defeats during the regular season and is qualified for the playoffs is an elite team.
Of course it wasn't. 51-31 is a good team, middle seeded but nothing on par with the Spurs/OKC/Clippers that season.
I think using such a broad definition will run you into trouble when discussing where teams lie in comparison to one another. For example, last season's Memphis Grizzlies, finishing 42-40 and in 7th, by your definition, is elite? You can happily say they're on par with the Dubs or OKC last season? Factually, you're incorrect, judging by the games, stats, players or whatever other criteria you want to use.
It's all good and well saying those with more Ws than Ls and qualify are decent teams. But then elite is where you further divide the teams up. There is just no way you can seriously say there are any team on par with the Cavs for example in the East.