Friday, June 24, 2005
The Daily Suckie - June 24th, 2005
We have a champion crowned in a sport (congrats Spurs on the most God awful 7 game series in the history of sports), so you know what that means my fellow TSD'ers. That's right, you got Danny Boy spouting off about dynasties and what not. Luckily, the no talent hack doesn't know what the hell he is talking about which allows us to rip on him yet again (not that we have trouble finding reason to do so or anything). In today's Quickie, we have to deal with:
More Unwarrented Dynasty Talk:
"Is it a dynasty? Yes. But which dynasty? The Spurs' Dynasty? (3 championships in 7 years) Or is it the Duncan Dynasty? (3 Finals MVPs in 7 years) (Or maybe the Horry Dynasty?) (6 titles in 12 years) Not only is Tim Duncan a bona fide dynasty, but his dynasty (along with the Spurs') is the NBA's most impressive since Jordan's Bulls. That's right: Even more impressive than the Lakers."
Unfortunately, we would have had to deal with this either way. Because in Shanoff's world, when a team wins a championship, the D word will always come into play (much like how the cocksore brings up "sweeps" after game 1 victores). If you couldn't count, just to drive his point home, he mentions the word "dynasty" 7 F-ing times in about 50 words there. That's how much of a dynasty the Spurs are after winning fugly. Back where I came from, winning 3 titles in 7 years (with one coming in the lockout shortened season that shouldn't even count) would not even qualify for a sniff of that D word. But back where I came from, we didn't have dipshits posing as sports writers. But we wouldn't be able to expect anything less from Shamoff here, as he wouldn't be able to live with the fact that he is not witnessing something historical. Hopefully someone is able to break through one day and he can just off himself when he realizes that the sports world ain't all he is making it seem. Anyway, the word "dynasty" is pretty subjective nowadays as we really cannot emulate the kind of dominance that was once displayed in sports (due to free agency, larger leagues, etc). But I CAN tell you that this Spurs team is not an f-ing dynasty! Dynasties are dominant, they are consistent, and the term should not be given lightly to teams by hermaphroditic journalists.
It is absurd to say that the Spurs team is a dynasty for winning 3 in 7, yet the Lakers won 3 in 3 and they are trumped. Why is that? You got it! Because whatever team wins now is suddenly better than most any teams from the past in Shamoff's world! Forget the fact that it is much harder to win three championships in a row (the Spurs can't even f-ing pull off two in a row), that it is harder to sustain the hunger and drive necessary to win after you have already tasted success (hello most of Detroit's season. They couldn't play well until they absolutely had to), and that the Lakers won in non-lockout shortened seasons. Are you telling me you would take any of the three Spurs teams over any of the three Lakers teams? If you are, then you just proved the point we constantly make here: that you are a f-ing doucherocket who knows very little about sports.
As this point is already extremely long, let me just quickly say the Tim Duncan and Robert Horry dynasty comments are completely foolish. Now players can be dynasties? Way to keep soaring to new heights, cumdumpster.
More Unfound Definitions:
"What's a dynasty? Sustained championship excellence. It doesn't have to be in a row. In fact, all the more credit that it's not."
Says who?! Where do you get off claiming what the guidelines of a dynasty are?? You are right on the sustained championship excellence part. A monkey could have gotten that part correct, so don't get too high on yourself there. But when did you decide that there should be more credit given when they aren't in a row? Oh that's right. It couldn't be a dynasty or historical otherwise, so you add your little corrolary there. Brilliant. As I stated before, if you don't think winning three championships in a row (let alone two) is more difficult than winning sporadically, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
The Absence of Consistency:
Hey readers, did you notice something missing from the column (besides the usual common sense, humor, any logical sports writing, etc)? No "Shut up haters"? No "the experts are wrong"? No "I told you so" tone? Yeah I did too. You ever wonder why? Oh that's right, because his original prediction ended up not happening. Why not slam those who picked Detroit in 7 games like you unneccesarily slammed all of those who had the Spurs in 4-6 games? Oh that's right, because you are the human equivelent to gonnoreah.
Yet Another Attempt At Humor Pulling Up Lame:
"Paternity question: If the Yankees are Pedro's daddy, and the D-Rays are the Yankees' daddy, does that make Tampa, um, Pedro's granddaddy?"
Here's a question for you Shamoff: If you have a terrible joke that you overused an absurd amount of times, and you keep using it but add an even dumber punchline to the end, does that make the joke even dumber? Apparently not. My comparison of Shamoff to Dave Coulier the other day is quite the insult to Coulier. I am sorry Dave. This guy is in a league of his own.
He FINALLY Admits His Line of Thinking!!:
"Coming next week: NBA Draft Mania. Bandwagons I'm on: PG Deron Williams, SG Martell Webster, SF Joey Graham, SF/PF Hakim Warrick, PF David Lee"
That about sums up his philosophy on sports. Couldn't have said it better myself.
That just about does it for today. Tune in next week for more Shamoff hating fun! Have a great weekend, and remember... there's no hope with dope.
More Unwarrented Dynasty Talk:
"Is it a dynasty? Yes. But which dynasty? The Spurs' Dynasty? (3 championships in 7 years) Or is it the Duncan Dynasty? (3 Finals MVPs in 7 years) (Or maybe the Horry Dynasty?) (6 titles in 12 years) Not only is Tim Duncan a bona fide dynasty, but his dynasty (along with the Spurs') is the NBA's most impressive since Jordan's Bulls. That's right: Even more impressive than the Lakers."
Unfortunately, we would have had to deal with this either way. Because in Shanoff's world, when a team wins a championship, the D word will always come into play (much like how the cocksore brings up "sweeps" after game 1 victores). If you couldn't count, just to drive his point home, he mentions the word "dynasty" 7 F-ing times in about 50 words there. That's how much of a dynasty the Spurs are after winning fugly. Back where I came from, winning 3 titles in 7 years (with one coming in the lockout shortened season that shouldn't even count) would not even qualify for a sniff of that D word. But back where I came from, we didn't have dipshits posing as sports writers. But we wouldn't be able to expect anything less from Shamoff here, as he wouldn't be able to live with the fact that he is not witnessing something historical. Hopefully someone is able to break through one day and he can just off himself when he realizes that the sports world ain't all he is making it seem. Anyway, the word "dynasty" is pretty subjective nowadays as we really cannot emulate the kind of dominance that was once displayed in sports (due to free agency, larger leagues, etc). But I CAN tell you that this Spurs team is not an f-ing dynasty! Dynasties are dominant, they are consistent, and the term should not be given lightly to teams by hermaphroditic journalists.
It is absurd to say that the Spurs team is a dynasty for winning 3 in 7, yet the Lakers won 3 in 3 and they are trumped. Why is that? You got it! Because whatever team wins now is suddenly better than most any teams from the past in Shamoff's world! Forget the fact that it is much harder to win three championships in a row (the Spurs can't even f-ing pull off two in a row), that it is harder to sustain the hunger and drive necessary to win after you have already tasted success (hello most of Detroit's season. They couldn't play well until they absolutely had to), and that the Lakers won in non-lockout shortened seasons. Are you telling me you would take any of the three Spurs teams over any of the three Lakers teams? If you are, then you just proved the point we constantly make here: that you are a f-ing doucherocket who knows very little about sports.
As this point is already extremely long, let me just quickly say the Tim Duncan and Robert Horry dynasty comments are completely foolish. Now players can be dynasties? Way to keep soaring to new heights, cumdumpster.
More Unfound Definitions:
"What's a dynasty? Sustained championship excellence. It doesn't have to be in a row. In fact, all the more credit that it's not."
Says who?! Where do you get off claiming what the guidelines of a dynasty are?? You are right on the sustained championship excellence part. A monkey could have gotten that part correct, so don't get too high on yourself there. But when did you decide that there should be more credit given when they aren't in a row? Oh that's right. It couldn't be a dynasty or historical otherwise, so you add your little corrolary there. Brilliant. As I stated before, if you don't think winning three championships in a row (let alone two) is more difficult than winning sporadically, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
The Absence of Consistency:
Hey readers, did you notice something missing from the column (besides the usual common sense, humor, any logical sports writing, etc)? No "Shut up haters"? No "the experts are wrong"? No "I told you so" tone? Yeah I did too. You ever wonder why? Oh that's right, because his original prediction ended up not happening. Why not slam those who picked Detroit in 7 games like you unneccesarily slammed all of those who had the Spurs in 4-6 games? Oh that's right, because you are the human equivelent to gonnoreah.
Yet Another Attempt At Humor Pulling Up Lame:
"Paternity question: If the Yankees are Pedro's daddy, and the D-Rays are the Yankees' daddy, does that make Tampa, um, Pedro's granddaddy?"
Here's a question for you Shamoff: If you have a terrible joke that you overused an absurd amount of times, and you keep using it but add an even dumber punchline to the end, does that make the joke even dumber? Apparently not. My comparison of Shamoff to Dave Coulier the other day is quite the insult to Coulier. I am sorry Dave. This guy is in a league of his own.
He FINALLY Admits His Line of Thinking!!:
"Coming next week: NBA Draft Mania. Bandwagons I'm on: PG Deron Williams, SG Martell Webster, SF Joey Graham, SF/PF Hakim Warrick, PF David Lee"
That about sums up his philosophy on sports. Couldn't have said it better myself.
That just about does it for today. Tune in next week for more Shamoff hating fun! Have a great weekend, and remember... there's no hope with dope.
