dare wrote:At some point I'm disappointed. The record has been broken
Cruzerr wrote:You did it. Crack the beers open and celebrate.
hova- wrote:Wow, not realistic but really nice to see you winning it all. A championship for the T-Wolves ... I doubt that this will happen soon IRL.
Sit wrote:Rubio won it for you.
Suck on that Martti!
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
shadowgrin wrote:KHAAAAAAAAAAAAN! KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!
Lamrock wrote:The X has just won the NBA title! Great to see you win and enjoyed the finals coverage.
shadowgrin wrote:Who's the coach of the team again? For a moment there I thought it was The Custodian Brian Cardinal.
JaoSming2KTV wrote:its fun on a bun
Andrew wrote:Shame it had to come at the Bulls' expense, but congrats on reaching the top again.
Lamrock wrote:There's something special about the finals coverage. Be it the brilliantly pro-rated best of 5 -> 7 series to the video, it is perhaps a fitting end to a dynasty trilogy of Andrew "The X" Watson's underdog stories. After epic stints in Charlotte and Portland, The X has finally won it all.
qfrmcpt310 wrote:Congratz on the title. If this was to happen IRL I'd bet everyone would say the new CBA made it possible
hova- wrote:It's unrealistic because the T-Wolves really suck in the current reality - I think that is what the word bases on - nothing more. You're in season three and maybe in three years the T-Wolves can also make some noise in the West.
I think that is what we are all playing for ... winning. In the end winning is always the best thing about anything related to sports - be it playing yourself or a video game.
And you're also right with the fact that every champion of the last decade that wasn't LA, the Spurs or the Cs was also not a "realistic" contender before.
Valor wrote:Haha congrats man, even though you owned my Bulls...still, well won
Axel. wrote:Congrats on the title, X! Well done holding Rose to a mediocre scoring average, not to mention Gordon's high scoring.
Andrew wrote:Even if you'd won the title in your first season, when it comes down to it Association and Dynasty games incorporate a certain amount of fantasy: what you'd do if you were GM, how certain players might perform if they lived up to their potential, what if a certain player didn't get injured, etc. You can always elect to keep a certain amount of realism but you also have to play the game the way you want and enjoy it and for most of us that would be trying to win. There's no sense in intentionally losing just for the sake of the story or a sense of realism.
The X wrote:Cheers, Rubio owned Rose
Valor wrote:The X wrote:Cheers, Rubio owned Rose
That bit is ESPECIALLY hard to swallow I'm just glad that, that will never happen IRL
Martti. wrote:Rubio owned Rose? That's like Luke Walton owning Durant.
The X wrote:Agreed with more or less everything you said there Andrew. I think it's worth me saying that I would never intentionally lose. Even through all those bad teams in prior years, it was frustrating, I never tried to lose. I was just playing with some really terrible teams with no offensive firepower. I also made life harder for myself by playing shorter seasons, bumping up difficulty (by level or sliders) once I got better at game so I'd have to keep upping the ante, & also simming at least half my games so if I had a terrible team it would never win those games, so I never had a realistic shot of making playoffs, until I was able to build a better team.
Whether you win 70 games or 20 games, doesn't really matter. As long as you're having fun. I hope my previous post didn't come across as bashing anybody else's dynasty or Association, because that wasn't my intention, it was just to add some context to mine.
Andrew wrote:Congrats again on a fine story thread. HOF, folks?
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests