View Full Version : The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever ...
TmacsRockets
09-09-2008, 05:04 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
Maggot
09-09-2008, 05:06 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
why didn't they make the finals? :rolleyes:
boozehound
09-09-2008, 05:07 PM
uhm, rockets every recent offseason? :confusedshrug:
They were inarguably a Top 2 team that year, regardless of not making the Finals.
uhm, rockets every recent offseason?
Pistons every year since winning the title? :confusedshrug:
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 05:13 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
I disagree that they were overrated. They were a few whistles away from going to the Finals, where they definitely would have beat the Sixers. Many experts agree that they were the better team in the series against the Lake Show.
But if you really feel that strongly about it, you can take it up with Coach Adelman. You can find him on the Rockets' bench every game next season.
bigkingsfan
09-09-2008, 05:14 PM
Lucky batted ball landing directly in Horry's hand and all time questionable ref game says otherwise..
AItheAnswer3
09-09-2008, 05:16 PM
I disagree that they were overrated. They were a few whistles away from going to the Finals, where they definitely would have beat the Sixers. Many experts agree that they were the better team in the series against the Lake Show.
But if you really feel that strongly about it, you can take it up with Coach Adelman. You can find him on the Rockets' bench every game next season.
too bad you dont know anything you're talkin about
2002 Finals were Lakers Vs Nets
& FYI in 01 the Sixers were the only team to beat LA while the Kings got SWEPT
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 05:31 PM
too bad you dont know anything you're talkin about
2002 Finals were Lakers Vs Nets
& FYI in 01 the Sixers were the only team to beat LA while the Kings got SWEPT
Ah, whatever. The East was super-weak in those years. That was my point. The Kings would have beat the Nets, too.
Thats funny since they probably should've WON the title that year but bad officiating got in the way.
AItheAnswer3
09-09-2008, 05:32 PM
Ah, whatever. The East was super-weak in those years. That was my point. The Kings would have beat the Nets, too.
Kings would have defeated the Nets but not the Sixers in 01.
craiye
09-09-2008, 05:37 PM
Kings would have defeated the Nets but not the Sixers in 01.
Are you kidding me?? Don't let homerism cloud your judgment. Kings would have won that series, though it probably would have taken 6 games instead of 5.
craiye
09-09-2008, 05:42 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
That Kings team was very, very good. They had everything needed to win a championship - they just ran into a better Lakers team time and time again. I really thought they had it in 02 though.
They were a great passing team, had a go to scorer in the post (Webber) and on the perimeter (Peja) a finisher (Bibby) perimeter defender (Christie), impactful bench play (Jackson, Hedo) and a great coach.. The only piece they were really missing was a shot blocking presence but they were collectively good enough to get past that. Those guys were smart, deep and they played well together - easily one of the best teams in the post Jordan era.
The only weakness was their defense, but it wasn't really as bad as it seemed back then. They played decent team defense, they just didn't have anyone KNOWN for defensive tenacity outside of Christie. They got quite a few stops when they needed them though.
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 05:42 PM
Kings would have defeated the Nets but not the Sixers in 01.
Your love for Iverson is epic. I respect that. But the truth is that the Kings would have had too many weapons for the Sixers to stop them.
AItheAnswer3
09-09-2008, 05:43 PM
Your love for Iverson is epic. I respect that. But the truth is that the Kings would have had too many weapons for the Sixers to stop them.
too bad the Sixers provided the best competition for the Lakers
Showtime
09-09-2008, 05:44 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
They were the best team in the league at that time. I'm not making excuses, but they did have injuries to key players (like Peja), and after '02, Webber went down in the playoffs, so we really didn't get to see them win a ring. It's not like they were a flash in the pan team, they were great but Webber's knee killed their chances and the team never recovered.
StroShow4
09-09-2008, 05:45 PM
That Kings team was very, very good. They had everything needed to win a championship - they just ran into some questionable officiating.
fixed.
White Chocolate
09-09-2008, 05:45 PM
That Kings team was very, very good. They had everything needed to win a championship - they just ran into a better Lakers team time and time again. I really thought they had it in 02 though.
They were a great passing team, had a go to scorer in the post (Webber) and on the perimeter (Peja) a finisher (Bibby) perimeter defender (Christie), impactful bench play (Jackson, Hedo) and a great coach.. The only piece they were really missing was a shot blocking presence but they were collectively good enough to get past that. Those guys were smart, deep and they played well together - easily one of the best teams in the post Jordan era.
The only weakness was their defense, but it wasn't really as bad as it seemed back then. They played decent team defense, they just didn't have anyone KNOWN for defensive tenacity outside of Christie. They got quite a few stops when they needed them though.
The Lakers were not better. The Kings had it won in 6. They played the best team ball in the NBA that year. Not even the Lakers could match that.
craiye
09-09-2008, 05:54 PM
fixed.
Well, they ran into questionable officiating once but they hadn't ALWAYS been better than the Lakers. They probably were that year. That Lakers team so very good too though, I just don't like pointing fingers at the officials...
I'm not saying the series was fixed, cause maybe it wasn't. But nobody can deny that it was clearly bad officiating.
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 06:00 PM
Well, they ran into questionable officiating once but they hadn't ALWAYS been better than the Lakers. They probably were that year. That Lakers team so very good too though, I just don't like pointing fingers at the officials...
Well, you don't have to point the finger at officials, it was obvious what they were doing to debilitate the Kings. David Stern put the fix in and the refs were just along for the ride.
Thats funny since they probably should've WON the title that year but bad officiating got in the way.
http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm
craiye
09-09-2008, 06:15 PM
I'm not saying the series was fixed, cause maybe it wasn't. But nobody can deny that it was clearly bad officiating.
Sure there was bad officiating but I'm just saying I don't like blaming an L on the refs. It's too easy of an out. They got screwed in game 6, but why couldn't they put the Lakers away in game 7? They had two chances and blew them both.
You can blame it on the officials all you want and all this buzz about Donaghy makes it even more attractive to dog the officials. Do we really want to trust an admitted liar in Donaghy in this case though? I have trouble believing anything he says, even if it is fishy.
This is going way off topic though. The point here is that the Kings 02 team was a very good championship caliber team and would probably be the best team in the league today (much to TmacsRockets chagrin).
Maniak
09-09-2008, 06:39 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
stop being so butthurt ppl think they are better than the 09 rockets will be.
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 07:03 PM
http://www.82games.com/lakerskingsgame6.htm
Thanks for the breakdown. Even if the Kings were not dogged by bad calls, they had the talent deserving of a championship team. They are not overrated.
Might as well claim that every great team in the 90's are overrated too because of Jordan's Bulls.
Styl3zT
09-09-2008, 07:08 PM
The 2002 Kings are not overrated.
Best Team Ever to not win a title.
First team known to get cheated by the refs.
Thanks for the breakdown. Even if the Kings were not dogged by bad calls, they had the talent deserving of a championship team. They are not overrated.no they aren't... it was a very talented team...
The 2002 Kings are not overrated.
Best Team Ever to not win a title.
First team known to get cheated by the refs.
Game 5, the Lakers were screwed by the refs.
What's your point?
artificial
09-09-2008, 07:16 PM
Let me guess: the kid that started this thread saw that Kings - Lakers series from his cradle.
oldenpolynice
09-09-2008, 07:17 PM
Let me guess: the kid that started this thread saw that Kings - Lakers series from his cradle.
:roll:
Vragrant
09-09-2008, 07:26 PM
I dont really see anybody overhyping them. Maybe the 02 WCF sure, their were complaints there, but I dont see anybody saying they were an all time great team or anything.
That being said they are one of the most fun teams to watch of the decade and they are the one of the most skilled and are arguably one of the best passing teams of all time.
ronnymac
09-09-2008, 08:14 PM
Watch the game 6 in la of the WCF of that year. they were screwed by the refs. i mean screwed.
sick_brah07
09-09-2008, 08:28 PM
Watch the game 6 in la of the WCF of that year. they were screwed by the refs. i mean screwed.
with screw drivers?
haji_d_robertas
09-09-2008, 08:37 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
They were a great team, they did their best and were in the hunt for a good number of years. Why do you want to hate them so much? Are you unsure about Adelman's coaching ability? I saw some glimpses of great passing from Houston last year, I think you should really look again at Sacramento's glory days and see that Houston could be the team that take's Adelman's style of basketball into the finals.
ronnymac
09-09-2008, 08:47 PM
with screw drivers?
No but with a bunch of corrupt refs.
they were really fun to watch with Jason Williams:cheers:
72-10
09-09-2008, 09:13 PM
They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
Maybe that's because they arguably are the best team to not win a title.:confusedshrug:
Day La Ghetto
09-09-2008, 09:18 PM
i hated those kings. i bleed purple and gold until shaq left. i started to like the kings right before webber got traded. kings still were a great team up until cwebb left . last game i remember watching was the new look suns/kings 141-140 score.
72-10
09-09-2008, 09:19 PM
Thanks for the breakdown. Even if the Kings were not dogged by bad calls, they had the talent deserving of a championship team. They are not overrated.
But they were dogged by bad calls. According to that analysis, "dubious" and "very dubious" calls favored L.A. 7 to 2... and we all know that those were all in the desperate 4th quarter.
Diesel J
09-09-2008, 09:42 PM
Those Kings teams would easily wipe the floor with any title winning team since the Lakers last title. Too bad there was a beast known as prime Shaq in their way:mad:
EricForman
09-09-2008, 11:26 PM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
They caught every bad break possible (the Vlade swat to Horry, Peja's injury) along with one of the most one-sided officiated games ever go against them... and they were still seconds away from beating Shaq and Kobe IN THEIR PRIMES.
Do you know how big the Lakers stepped up in game 7? It wsn'st just Shaq and Kobe. Fox and Horry had a double double each. Fisher was hitting shots. It took the absolute best of the Lakers to squeak by the Kings in 7.
They're easily the best team of the past 10-15 years to not win the title.
You're just upset cause Rocket fans always feel their team gets dissed for some reason.
lefthook00
09-10-2008, 12:13 AM
They were really dope in '02. Amazing passing, made teams look foolish. When they were on they were ON. Schooled a lot of teams. That being said, F*CK THE KINGS.
J-Roc
09-10-2008, 12:43 AM
They caught every bad break possible (the Vlade swat to Horry, Peja's injury) along with one of the most one-sided officiated games ever go against them... and they were still seconds away from beating Shaq and Kobe IN THEIR PRIMES.
Do you know how big the Lakers stepped up in game 7? It wsn'st just Shaq and Kobe. Fox and Horry had a double double each. Fisher was hitting shots. It took the absolute best of the Lakers to squeak by the Kings in 7.
They're easily the best team of the past 10-15 years to not win the title.
You're just upset cause Rocket fans always feel their team gets dissed for some reason.
Kobe is his prime??
TMac&Luther
09-10-2008, 12:45 AM
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
:banghead:
Why do you keep making threads like this........all you do is piss everybody off and every other Rockets fan has to pay for it.
Note to you........don't make a "overrated team" thread, when your team is picked as preseason favorites every season despite not being able to get out of the first round in over a decade.
AItheAnswer3
09-10-2008, 05:58 AM
They caught every bad break possible (the Vlade swat to Horry, Peja's injury) along with one of the most one-sided officiated games ever go against them... and they were still seconds away from beating Shaq and Kobe IN THEIR PRIMES.
Do you know how big the Lakers stepped up in game 7? It wsn'st just Shaq and Kobe. Fox and Horry had a double double each. Fisher was hitting shots. It took the absolute best of the Lakers to squeak by the Kings in 7.
They're easily the best team of the past 10-15 years to not win the title.
You're just upset cause Rocket fans always feel their team gets dissed for some reason.
No.
Heretik32
09-10-2008, 06:06 AM
with screw drivers?
With screwdrivers, screws and screwball comedy. Triple-screwed.
The 2002 Sacramento Kings are the most overrated team ever. I've never seen a team get so much publicity about how good they were when they never made the finals. It's a shame a team could be that overrated but they are. They were a good team, but people act like they were really better than any team that didn't win the title.
your thread is retarded.
EricForman
09-10-2008, 06:24 AM
No.
I would take the "no" more seriously if I didn't know you as such an Iverson homer. Knowing you you'll say the 01 Sixers team was better than the 02 Kings.
AItheAnswer3
09-10-2008, 06:41 AM
I would take the "no" more seriously if I didn't know you as such an Iverson homer. Knowing you you'll say the 01 Sixers team was better than the 02 Kings.
No I wont :banghead: 97,98 Jazz>>>02 Kings
97 Jazz
64-18
98 Jazz
62-20
Seriously, this team lost to a dynasty. Same can be said about the Kings but the Jazz will simply overmatch the Kings.
el_locoteee
09-10-2008, 12:35 PM
too bad the Sixers provided the best competition in the EAST for the Lakers
Fixed
BTW
Did you forgot Detroit ?
kidachi
09-10-2008, 12:56 PM
too bad the Sixers provided the best competition for the Lakers
How?
Sure there was bad officiating but I'm just saying I don't like blaming an L on the refs. It's too easy of an out. They got screwed in game 6, but why couldn't they put the Lakers away in game 7? They had two chances and blew them both.
You can blame it on the officials all you want and all this buzz about Donaghy makes it even more attractive to dog the officials. Do we really want to trust an admitted liar in Donaghy in this case though? I have trouble believing anything he says, even if it is fishy.
This is going way off topic though. The point here is that the Kings 02 team was a very good championship caliber team and would probably be the best team in the league today (much to TmacsRockets chagrin).
They couldn't put the Lakers away in game 7 cause the Lakers played a better game. But if it wasn't for the bad officiating in game 6, a game 7 doesn't even exist, so I don't see how thats an easy way out. At the same time, I get what you're saying. I still consider the Lakers the 02 champs, not the Kings. However, I do think the Kings should've won that series. I don't really believe in luck for sports, but if there ever was luck, it was in this series. It took the Lakers an incredible buzzer-beater, the worse officiated game ever, and overtime to beat the Kings that year. Thats horrible luck for the Kings.
oldenpolynice
09-10-2008, 01:13 PM
No I wont :banghead: 97,98 Jazz>>>02 Kings
97 Jazz
64-18
98 Jazz
62-20
Seriously, this team lost to a dynasty. Same can be said about the Kings but the Jazz will simply overmatch the Kings.
I hate to say it, but that may be true. The Jazz took it to the Kings for a few years in a row in the opening round. The Jazz's defense was pretty legit at that point. It would have been a great series.
Even if those Jazz teams were better, that doesn't make the '02 Kings overrated.
Hopper15
09-10-2008, 01:18 PM
No way were they overrated. That 02 Kings team was one of the best passing teams in history.
No I wont :banghead: 97,98 Jazz>>>02 Kings
97 Jazz
64-18
98 Jazz
62-20
Seriously, this team lost to a dynasty. Same can be said about the Kings but the Jazz will simply overmatch the Kings.
Record doesn't mean anything when you're comparing teams that are 5 years apart. So much can determine a record, not just simply how good a team is.
Anyway, I would say the 02 Kings are better. Seriously, we should be talking about those Jazz teams possibly being the most overrated ever, and their definitely not the best team to not win the title in the past 15 years. I would say that the early 90s Blazers, mid 90s Knicks, the Barkley-KJ Suns, the Shaq-Penny Magic, the 2000 Blazers, and the 2002 Kings were all better. I know technically thats more then the past 15 years, but whatever.
The Jazz were almost the same team for basically the whole decade but they didn't do much until 97. By that time, alot of the great Western Conference teams of that decade got worse. The Suns traded Barkley, the Rockets were old and out of their prime while not being as durable as the Jazz, the Sonics traded Kemp before the 98 season, the Spurs had Robinson who was injured all of 97 and never the same after that and Duncan was just a rookie in 98. The Lakers were coming up but Shaq was not that disciplined yet and didn't have a great 2nd option. I think they're remembered so much due to them being the only team to face the Bulls in the Finals twice, and because it was the end of Jordan's career and they had so many memorable moments from him. But just cause those series rank up there as some of the most entertaining series ever, that doesn't mean its cause the Jazz were as great as people seem to think.
willds09
09-10-2008, 01:30 PM
Record doesn't mean anything when you're comparing teams that are 5 years apart. So much can determine a record, not just simply how good a team is.
Anyway, I would say the 02 Kings are better. Seriously, we should be talking about those Jazz teams possibly being the most overrated ever, and their definitely not the best team to not win the title in the past 15 years. I would say that the early 90s Blazers, mid 90s Knicks, the Barkley-KJ Suns, the Shaq-Penny Magic, the 2000 Blazers, and the 2002 Kings were all better. I know technically thats more then the past 15 years, but whatever.
The Jazz were almost the same team for basically the whole decade but they didn't do much until 97. By that time, alot of the great Western Conference teams of that decade got worse. The Suns traded Barkley, the Rockets were old and out of their prime while not being as durable as the Jazz, the Sonics traded Kemp before the 98 season, the Spurs had Robinson who was injured all of 97 and never the same after that and Duncan was just a rookie in 98. The Lakers were coming up but Shaq was not that disciplined yet and didn't have a great 2nd option. I think they're remembered so much due to them being the only team to face the Bulls in the Finals twice, and because it was the end of Jordan's career and they had so many memorable moments from him. But just cause those series rank up there as some of the most entertaining series ever, that doesn't mean its cause the Jazz were as great as people seem to think.
Don't forget about 99 knicks, if they had a healthy ewing actually playing, spurs wouldn't been so lucky, nobody want to admit that, plus kings did had a chance to win in 02, but kobe spoiled it in the last seconds of tha game, the lakers wanted it more, that's all
AItheAnswer3
09-10-2008, 04:02 PM
Fixed
BTW
Did you forgot Detroit ?
Dude you smokin?
Detroit wasnt even in the playoffs in 01
Lakers dominated and swept the west
The best team in the NBA (record wise): Spurs got swept & annihilated by the Lakers
Sixers actually won a game and had the balls to give the Lakers good competition
AItheAnswer3
09-10-2008, 04:09 PM
I hate to say it, but that may be true. The Jazz took it to the Kings for a few years in a row in the opening round. The Jazz's defense was pretty legit at that point. It would have been a great series.
Even if those Jazz teams were better, that doesn't make the '02 Kings overrated.
Never said they were overrated
craiye
09-10-2008, 04:16 PM
I hate to say it, but that may be true. The Jazz took it to the Kings for a few years in a row in the opening round. The Jazz's defense was pretty legit at that point. It would have been a great series.
Even if those Jazz teams were better, that doesn't make the '02 Kings overrated.
I'm still not sure those Jazz teams were better than the 02 Kings. I mean, I should be sure since I was born and raised in UT and I remember those teams so well but I don't think there's any way they could have stopped the 02 Kings. The team had Stockton & Malone + a bunch of role players. They were good role players, but (just like now) they had a major hole at SG on defense.
As much as I hate Vlade, he probably would determine who wins that series. If he comes out and has a big series the Jazz don't have an answer for Webber + Vlade.
craiye
09-10-2008, 04:21 PM
Record doesn't mean anything when you're comparing teams that are 5 years apart. So much can determine a record, not just simply how good a team is.
Anyway, I would say the 02 Kings are better. Seriously, we should be talking about those Jazz teams possibly being the most overrated ever, and their definitely not the best team to not win the title in the past 15 years. I would say that the early 90s Blazers, mid 90s Knicks, the Barkley-KJ Suns, the Shaq-Penny Magic, the 2000 Blazers, and the 2002 Kings were all better. I know technically thats more then the past 15 years, but whatever.
The Jazz were almost the same team for basically the whole decade but they didn't do much until 97. By that time, alot of the great Western Conference teams of that decade got worse. The Suns traded Barkley, the Rockets were old and out of their prime while not being as durable as the Jazz, the Sonics traded Kemp before the 98 season, the Spurs had Robinson who was injured all of 97 and never the same after that and Duncan was just a rookie in 98. The Lakers were coming up but Shaq was not that disciplined yet and didn't have a great 2nd option. I think they're remembered so much due to them being the only team to face the Bulls in the Finals twice, and because it was the end of Jordan's career and they had so many memorable moments from him. But just cause those series rank up there as some of the most entertaining series ever, that doesn't mean its cause the Jazz were as great as people seem to think.
While it may have seemed like the Jazz didn't change much through the 90's, they had a lot of small pieces that added up and developed from 93-97 when they really hit their stride.
Hornacek was the key to it all, he brought the offense they needed at SG. Anderson developed under the radar, as did Russel and Eisley. I believe they also had Carr during those finals runs who helped them get some offense out of the Centers which Ostertag couldn't do.
Just because Utah hit their stride when some of the other western powers were fading doesn't really mean that they couldn't have beaten them - their "primes" just came at different times.
bigkingsfan
09-10-2008, 04:23 PM
No way was the Jazz team better, anyone remember the lockout years? The 99 Kings took them to an elimination game 5, and should of won, if not for Stockton clutch shot in game 4 and Vlade misses a hook with seconds left in game 5. This was the Kings first season with Vlade and Webber, with a rookie J-Will. The 2002 team would of run the 97-98 jazz out of the gym.
Just because Utah hit their stride when some of the other western powers were fading doesn't really mean that they couldn't have beaten them - their "primes" just came at different times.
Possibly. But I highly doubt they beat the 92 Blazers, 93 Suns, 94-95 Rockets, and maybe not the 96 Sonics.
el_locoteee
09-10-2008, 04:56 PM
Dude you smokin?
Detroit wasnt even in the playoffs in 01
Lakers dominated and swept the west
The best team in the NBA (record wise): Spurs got swept & annihilated by the Lakers
Sixers actually won a game and had the balls to give the Lakers good competition
We talking about the 2002 Kings and they problems passing a Lakers team who was a dynasty for 3 years + until dethrone by SA and when they end their era(Shaq, Kobe, Phil) with Detroit, no a 2001 Lakers only. Wining a game is as bad as getting swept it was no even a series they lost first game by surprise then got swept.
There was a lot of other teams that gave the Lakers dynasty a fit, Portland who implode, King who got rob. etc
Prodigy
09-10-2008, 05:42 PM
95 Knicks team probably a little underappreciated. Same with the 97 Pacers. One of the few teams to ever take Jordan to 7 games.
White Chocolate
09-10-2008, 07:08 PM
95 Knicks team probably a little underappreciated. Same with the 97 Pacers. One of the few teams to ever take Jordan to 7 games.
That was the '98 Pacers, but they would definitely give the Kings a run for their money.
TmacsRockets
09-10-2008, 09:33 PM
Where do you people get this belief that the Kings could beat the 2002 Nets?
Showtime
09-11-2008, 12:38 AM
Where do you people get this belief that the Kings could beat the 2002 Nets?
lol
HisJoeness
09-11-2008, 01:54 AM
Where do you people get this belief that the Kings could beat the 2002 Nets?
^^^:roll:
EricForman
09-11-2008, 07:50 AM
Where do you people get this belief that the Kings could beat the 2002 Nets?
:roll:
please stop...
the 02 nets were weak. Todd MaCalloch at center and Keith Van Horn was basically the most skilled scorer on that team (Kmart cant really create his own shots).
let's put it this way... even the rockets right now can beat the 02 nets. :roll:
Lebron23
06-19-2012, 11:04 PM
They were the best team in 2002. It sucks that the referees screwed them in the Conference Finals.
game 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4rAT3roUSk
game 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhlGYvIMPgQ
CelticBaller
06-19-2012, 11:05 PM
Where do you people get this belief that the Kings could beat the 2002 Nets?
:facepalm
esmile
02-29-2020, 05:14 PM
i miss that team;
NBA Playoffs 2002 Game 5 Sacramento Kings 114-101 Dallas Mavericks (13/05/02) Full Match
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv1MTX0z5QU
esmile
02-29-2020, 05:16 PM
NBA Regular Season 2002-2003 Sacramento Kings 110 - 109 Dallas Mavericks Full Match (04/02/2003)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp2SCOPH0jA
esmile
02-29-2020, 05:17 PM
Best Rookie Game Performance: Sacramento Kings 100-89 Phoenix Suns Full Match (07/03/2001)
Sacramento Kings Historic 28 - Points Comeback Win over the Phoenix Suns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4klp_FcRzyA
esmile
02-29-2020, 05:18 PM
NBA Regular Season 2002-2003 Sacramento Kings 110 - 109 Dallas Mavericks Full Match (04/02/2003);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUDLDt41WR0
BarberSchool
02-29-2020, 05:27 PM
In Tim Donaghy's federal deposition, he did admit that orders to call this series in favor of the bigger market team with the storied history and global merchandise sales to it's global fanbase ..... (Los Angeles Fakers) ...was issued directly from the league office.
Food for thought, before anyone who wasn't alive and aware and WATCHED WCF that year says anything else stupid.
SouBeachTalents
02-29-2020, 05:39 PM
In Tim Donaghy's federal deposition, he did admit that orders to call this series in favor of the bigger market team with the storied history and global merchandise sales to it's global fanbase ..... (Los Angeles Fakers) ...was issued directly from the league office.
Food for thought, before anyone who wasn't alive and aware and WATCHED WCF that year says anything else stupid.
Does anyone besides Laker fans even dispute that? The officiating in Game 6 was a travesty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDJBr-iN1I
Lakers Legend#32
02-29-2020, 05:47 PM
Truth.
How long did the Kings survive after 2002?
Truth.
How long did the Kings survive after 2002?
I'm guessing 4 years and did not make the postseason for more than 10 straight years.
Real Men Wear Green
02-29-2020, 07:43 PM
That Game 6 officiating was the most biased I've ever seen. The only game that I've ever felt convinced was rigged based solely on watching it.
sdot_thadon
02-29-2020, 08:06 PM
My memory that stands out the most from that series is Mike Bibby's face fouling Kobe's elbow.....while rooting for the Lakers to win that series.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.