When will your favorite team will a Championship

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Mar 16, 2005
6,904
401
83
#2
STOCKTON said:
For Me

The Kings: This year or in the next 2 after
49ers: Not in the Next 4 Years
SF Giants: ??? Pending on who they sign
The Nuggets: NEVER
Broncos: hopefully within 3 years (shooting for this year)
The Mets: Never....they had thier chance this year and blew it.
The avalanche: Never, salary cap is a bitch
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
43
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
The next time my favorite team will will a championship is this year (Chicago Bears), Next year (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears), the following year after that (chicago bears),
 
Apr 25, 2002
3,020
2
38
#4
STOCKTON said:
For Me

The Kings: This year or in the next 2 after
49ers: Not in the Next 4 Years
SF Giants: ??? Pending on who they sign
The King's window has been shut for the past couple years IMO..I dont think they have a chance this year unless they make some sort of big trade.

Sadly I dont think Ill ever see any of my teams win a championship...I got close in 02-03 with the Giants and Raiders but they both choked. As for the Warriors they're fighting just to make the playoffs.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#5
Have you seen the Defense and hustle from the Kings, To add to this, The Kings have arguably the best Back Court, in the Western Conference if not all the NBA. Kenny Thomas for his small PF size can heavily guard anybig man besides shaq and Duncan. The Only team I see the Kings struggling against, is the Heat.
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#7
Quick said:
the king have no low post game......

a nice backcourt isnt going to take you far.......
Watch a Kings Game, No. 1 Points Allowed, Top 5 in Rebounding, Top 5 in Rebounding Difference, Top 5 Scoring Back Court. This is without Brad Miller, who is our number one Rebounder, we have a 3 Being our Best Rebounder, Best Defender, and Best Ball Pilfer.
 

Quick

Active member
May 6, 2002
6,443
30
48
Yay Area, CA
#8
But thats it your 3 isnt anything above average and Miller istn going to get the kings anywhere....... like you said there a trade or two away from being a good team....


They havent even played 10 games yet the stats so really mean shit....... Do you think the jazz are going to win it all????????
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#11
Quick said:
But thats it your 3 isnt anything above average and Miller istn going to get the kings anywhere....... like you said there a trade or two away from being a good team....


They havent even played 10 games yet the stats so really mean shit....... Do you think the jazz are going to win it all????????
Nope because if you take into account that if Ron Artest Joined the Kings throughout the Whole Season last year, they would have been at .600 or above. Points allowed went down significantly by almost 5-7 Points, Rebounding and Steals went up, and FG % Went down for the Opposition, and the Kings weren't even supposed to make the Playoffs! No that you have everyone who does their part in both Defense and Offense, it's starting to Glue. The Jazz, will make the Playoffs, but won't go far. Didn't the Kings take the Spurs to 6 Games? That's pretty far in my book considering they didn't even have a big man.
 

Quick

Active member
May 6, 2002
6,443
30
48
Yay Area, CA
#12
STOCKTON said:
Nope because if you take into account that if Ron Artest Joined the Kings throughout the Whole Season last year, they would have been at .600 or above. Points allowed went down significantly by almost 5-7 Points, Rebounding and Steals went up, and FG % Went down for the Opposition, and the Kings weren't even supposed to make the Playoffs! No that you have everyone who does their part in both Defense and Offense, it's starting to Glue. The Jazz, will make the Playoffs, but won't go far. Didn't the Kings take the Spurs to 6 Games? That's pretty far in my book considering they didn't even have a big man.

the warriors were suppost to do this and that but shit happens........

Im not saying that the kings arent a good team, im just saying that they need a big man to get over the hump...... you can do all the comparisons and what if but you cant deny that.......
 
Jun 22, 2003
657
21
18
39
#13
warriors- id be happy with a playoff birth, but a championship that just aint happening
giants-we gotta have a big off-season but i doubt it we blew it in '02 i still cant beleive that shit
niners- solid young nucleus i give em 3 to 4 years
 
Mar 12, 2005
8,118
17
0
36
#14
Quick said:
the warriors were suppost to do this and that but shit happens........

Im not saying that the kings arent a good team, im just saying that they need a big man to get over the hump...... you can do all the comparisons and what if but you cant deny that.......
Bulls Didn't have a big man, but they had Jordan, YEAH YEAH, Pistons Didn't have a BIG MAN, they had a 6'8 Rebounding Machine.
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#16
STOCKTON said:
Who can the Kings Trade for?

Kevin Martin is the Truth, and hopefully Bibby can shoot the way he did last night. Artest and Shareef are good but Kenny Thomas and Garcia are role players. We need a big body if we're gonna go deep in the playoffs.
 

Quick

Active member
May 6, 2002
6,443
30
48
Yay Area, CA
#17
STOCKTON said:
Bulls Didn't have a big man, but they had Jordan, YEAH YEAH, Pistons Didn't have a BIG MAN, they had a 6'8 Rebounding Machine.
Id take both wallaces over any big man...... detriot was a big tough team all around from top to bottom........
 
Feb 8, 2006
3,435
6,143
113
#19
Quick said:
you guys can have dunleavy AND foyle for anything..... a couple towels, basketballs anything......

I'd rather watch midget porn 24/7 then have Foyle or Dunleavy.