Comments on: First and a long way to go

By: reckut nala

reckut nala — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 20:02:33 +0000

There’s plenty of people who consider the Bills to be amongst the most successful teams of the 90s. 4 straight Super Bowls. Are you crazy? That’s being awfully successful. But just because you’re successful, it doesn’t mean you’re content. I think that’s where you’re being confused. I’m not saying in any way the Cavs should be happy with the team they have or with the success they’ve had in the past. I’m with you that this team needs to get better. But to say the last 2 seasons were not successful is just silly.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:17:19 +0000

This is so dumb, arguing over the definition of “success.” With $28 million in cap space that Ferry had, and add that to LeBron James, anything less than a championship isn’t successful. Bottom line.

I mean, who in their right mind walks around town saying the 80s Browns were successful? Successful at what, giving Mike Junkin a job? And who really considers the Buffalo Bills to be successful? Successful at what, losing games that matter?

By: reckut nala

reckut nala — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 03:08:59 +0000

Yeah, I forgot that they were the one other time the team won 100 games in 2 years. That one was my mistake.

“And who cares if they never made it to the Finals. From where I sit, neither did last year’s Cavs.” Um, no, look it up, the Cavs were in the NBA Finals last year. Success is NOT a relative term. “Good” is a relative term. You can argue Embry’s teams were better. I would agree with that. But you can’t argue success. No matter which way you try to look at it, the Cavs last 2 seasons were successful.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 21:22:22 +0000

Really? Then what do you call the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 teams? They won 111 games. And who cares if they never made it to the Finals. From where I sit, neither did last year’s Cavs. They coasted on LeBron’s back on a magic seeding carpet before flying into a big tree.

When you’re a “success,” you’re not mocked and disrespected by everybody and their mother. Unless you’re the band ‘N Sync.

That’s a good start for being an actual professional sports success. Don’t be mocked.

So, yeah, success is relative.

By: reckut nala

reckut nala — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:23:32 +0000

Embry’s teams never won 100 games in 2 years. Never made it to the NBA Finals. These are FACTS. Successful is not relative. In what way can you argue those teams had more success than this team?

By: alan t.

alan t. — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 02:26:07 +0000

What’s to concede? It’s my own opinion. Honestly, I believe some of Embry’s teams were more “successful.” It’s a relative term. In terms of box office business, which is all Gilbert actually cares about, they’re far more successful. But in terms of what’s going on down on the court? Nah.

By: rekcut nala

rekcut nala — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 00:23:48 +0000

Don’t worry, Alan, I knew it was funny. You never concede anything. You not understanding what successful means….that’s more like the Alan T I know and have grown to loathe.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 21:23:12 +0000

First, I didn’t write whatever it was that was written at 4:17 PM. Somebody took the liberty to write a post for me. Second, I still don’t know what “very successful” is supposed to mean. Box office? OK, successful.

By: alan t.

alan t. — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 20:17:06 +0000

Point well taken, reck.

But the 2003-2004 Timberwolves won 58 games. Who cares? If it really meant anything, then Kevin Garnett wouldn’t be one of the 20 black guys living in or around the Boston area.

People around Cleveland are so starved for any kind of winner, that the marketing departments of the individual sports franchises prey on people like they’re Dracula. Gilbert may be a Detroit guy, but he knows Cleveland business like he’s lived in Cleveland’s suburbs his entire life. The only difference is that instead of blood, he’s sucking hope. Sorry, but personally, I (and a lot of other realistic old farts) got all sucked out at least 15 years ago.

Keep the faith, kiddo.

By: reckut nala

reckut nala — Sat, 03 Nov 2007 13:48:39 +0000

Do you even read what I write before you post the EXACT same thing you wrote before. That same post which still has no relevance to my point. READ WHAT I WROTE. “I said the Cavs shouldn’t be content with where they’re at and there’s much work to do. Of course we can’t beat the Mavs. They’re an entirely better team.”

What faith do you want me to keep. When did I say we were going to win a title with this team?? Seriously, tell me when. You’re reading comprehension skills are so weak you can’t even decipher the meaning behind what people write. You do this all the time. Rather than debate the points people make, you try to twist around the whole point of what they’re saying. Let me say this as clear as possible for the guy who claims to be old but reads at a 2nd grade level…..MY POINT IS NOT THAT THIS TEAM CAN WIN A CHAMPIONSHIP. MY POINT IS THAT THINGS ARE NOT AS BAD AS YOU MAKE THEM OUT TO BE, AND NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU REFUSE TO ADMIT IT, THE PAST TWO SEASONS WERE VERY SUCCESSFUL, DESPITE THE FACT WE GOT NOTHING OUT OF IT.