quote:
detroit was relevant in the late 80s and the mid 2000s. you know how many winning seasons they had between 1991 and 2001? 3. you know how many winning seasons theyve had since 2009? 1, this year detroit was relevant between 1985 and 1990 and 2001 and 2009 but outside of that has been pretty fricking shitty as a franchise. its hilarious that you think they are this clear cut better franchise even given you opinion on the warriors

If we're using this argument, then the Blazers or heaven forbid, the Rockets are top 5 material. If we're objectively speaking and not being prisoners of the moment, both teams have been relevant for a long time. The Rockets have 2 titles. The Blazers have one and a few appearences.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by WestCoastAg

Member since Oct 2012

145383 posts

Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:31 pm to theducks

its just that the pistons in particular were shitty for such a long time and have had moments of excellence where they go and win a title but then go back to shite. its funny to use the winning percentage argument and years of irrelevance as a thing against the warriors in one sentence, and then turn around and try to pimp up the pistons. the pistons were irrelevant for the first 40 years of their existence until they drafted isaiah thomas. the warriors are 20th in winning percentage, the pistons are 19th.

the pistons really havent been consistently relevant for the past 30 years and thats not a knock against them. the only three historically consistent franchises in the NBAs history are the lakers, celtics, and spurs. outside of that a lot of teams like the knicks, and the sixers, and the bulls have had long stretches of irrelevance

This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 10:32 pm

1 ...

Report Post

More Sports - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board