Denver without Jokic...

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

not so good...

[thedangerouskitchen]

PITY BUMP

Grizz thinks it's thread-worthy to point out that a team isn't as good when their lone superstar doesn't play...

...and he calls other posters dumb.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I made that post just for you TDK. Surprised you managed to hold out so long. Congrats!

[thedangerouskitchen]

I made that post just for you TDK. Surprised you managed to hold out so long. Congrats!

So I'm inside your head, eh...

But seriously, are you really surprised that teams do worse when their superstar player isn't on the court?

Spoiler:

[Robceltsfan]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

The Nuggets probably wouldn't win 30 games without Jokic.

[zombiesonics]

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

I made that post just for you TDK. Surprised you managed to hold out so long. Congrats!

So I'm inside your head, eh...

But seriously, are you really surprised that teams do worse when their superstar player isn't on the court?

Spoiler:

You and Artie are the easiest people here to troll TDK. You are both so insecure about various topics that you simply can't help yourselves.

Any modern player that gets a ton of praise you try to denigrate. It somehow threatens your "Glory Days". Jokic is just exhibit 68.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

The Nuggets probably wouldn't win 30 games without Jokic.

You are really denigrating the great Pets Meyers here. He was damn near as good as Jordan, so that's why there wasn't much dropoff.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

FWIW, prior to missing these last few games, Jokic was tied for second in total deflections in the NBA behind Caruso. Not bad for a big man.

[Robceltsfan]

Lifetime, the Nuggets are 18-30 when Jokic doesn't play.

Over the past 5 seasons...they're 10-20 without him.

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

Lifetime, the Nuggets are 18-30 when Jokic doesn't play.

Over the past 5 seasons...they're 10-20 without him.

Their front office has done a horrendous job of building around him. Part of what makes him so good is that he is very easy to build around, and they've still fucked it up.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

Thanks for proving my point... the Bulls were a worse team withOut Jordan.

[Robceltsfan]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

Thanks for proving my point... the Bulls were a worse team withOut Jordan.

They were CONTENDERS without Jordan. That's the point. Jordan wasn't taking some 30-win squad and making them championship contenders.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

Thanks for proving my point... the Bulls were a worse team withOut Jordan.

They were CONTENDERS without Jordan. That's the point. Jordan wasn't taking some 30-win squad and making them championship contenders.

Nooooo... the point is teams are worse withOut their superstar.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky enough to have two (2) all-time great superstars, which is why their fall-off in 1994 wasn't massive (assuming you view a second-round Playoff loss vs. winning a Championship to be not very significant... and considering you fans of the Modern Era value "stats" and "regular season success" over Championships, I can understand you feeling that way even though astute hoops fans realize just what a YUUUGE fall-off that is).

Also, your "30-win" speculation for a Joker-less Nuggets is pure nonsense for too many reasons, reasons that any knoweledgeable hoops fan understands.

[thedangerouskitchen]

I made that post just for you TDK. Surprised you managed to hold out so long. Congrats!

So I'm inside your head, eh...

But seriously, are you really surprised that teams do worse when their superstar player isn't on the court?

Spoiler:

You and Artie are the easiest people here to troll TDK. You are both so insecure about various topics that you simply can't help yourselves.

Any modern player that gets a ton of praise you try to denigrate. It somehow threatens your "Glory Days". Jokic is just exhibit 68.

Pffft... I gave your thread a PITY bump grizz. You should thank TDK for making your presence on the board relevant.



Joker is a great player... never denied that. YOU, however, are dumb enough to believe the Offensive "stats" of today's players/teams is due to some sort of superhuman evolution of the player (lolol) rather than the real culprit: Weak and soft Defense, a super-fast Pace, and the popularity of the 3-point shot.

You don't understand the intracacies of the game grizz. You look at a guy like Joker with horse blinders... drooling over his "stats" in a league that caters and coddles Offense at the expense of Defense. The league today is played like the All Star game, as LeFraud even admitted.

You're too blind / dumb to pick up on the obvious.

Facts.

[Robceltsfan]

Thanks for proving my point... the Bulls were a worse team withOut Jordan.

They were CONTENDERS without Jordan. That's the point. Jordan wasn't taking some 30-win squad and making them championship contenders.

Nooooo... the point is teams are worse withOut their superstar.

In the case of the Bulls, they were lucky enough to have two (2) all-time great superstars, which is why their fall-off in 1994 wasn't massive (assuming you view a second-round Playoff loss vs. winning a Championship to be not very significant... and considering you fans of the Modern Era value "stats" and "regular season success" over Championships, I can understand you feeling that way even though astute hoops fans realize just what a YUUUGE fall-off that is).

Also, your "30-win" speculation for a Joker-less Nuggets is pure nonsense for too many reasons, reasons that any knoweledgeable hoops fan understands.

You're right, the 30-win speculation is likely wrong. Their 10-20 record without him over the past 5 seasons puts them at a 27-win clip.

[thedangerouskitchen]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

The Nuggets probably wouldn't win 30 games without Jokic.

You are really denigrating the great Pets Meyers here. He was damn near as good as Jordan, so that's why there wasn't much dropoff.

They also added the best player in the world outside of the NBA (Kukoc).

...and again, calling a second-round Playoff loss vs. a Championship "not much of a dropoff" is why you can't be taken serious when discussing hoops.

As I suggested before, stick to Hockey, ice fishing and moose hunting.

[Robceltsfan]

In 92-93 the Bulls beat the Knicks in 6.

In 93-94 the Bulls lost to the Knicks in 7.

Jordan was worth 2 wins!

[lettherebehouse]

The Bulls won 55 games and nearly made the Conference Finals without Jordan.

The Nuggets probably wouldn't win 30 games without Jokic.

You are really denigrating the great Pets Meyers here. He was damn near as good as Jordan, so that's why there wasn't much dropoff.

They also added the best player in the world outside of the NBA (Kukoc).

...and again, calling a second-round Playoff loss vs. a Championship "not much of a dropoff" is why you can't be taken serious when discussing hoops.

As I suggested before, stick to Hockey, ice fishing and moose hunting.

This thread backfired on the BWGC lol

[_Vcsgrizzfan_]

You are really denigrating the great Pets Meyers here. He was damn near as good as Jordan, so that's why there wasn't much dropoff.

They also added the best player in the world outside of the NBA (Kukoc).

...and again, calling a second-round Playoff loss vs. a Championship "not much of a dropoff" is why you can't be taken serious when discussing hoops.

As I suggested before, stick to Hockey, ice fishing and moose hunting.

This thread backfired on the BWGC lol

You should feel shame House. What a feeble effort. Tsk, tsk...