If you could change one shot that affected your team in the last 15 years

[Donkeybong]

The Robert Horry missed three pointer that went in and out against the Spurs in Game 5 of the 2003 playoffs. If that shot went in, we probably would have had a 4peat. :domokun

[tp2021]

.4

[DAF86]

Manu's foul on Dirk

[baseline bum]

The Nowitzki layup and foul. No way the Spurs don't repeat going against Phoenix and Miami the next two rounds.

[baseline bum]

The Robert Horry missed three pointer that went in and out against the Spurs in Game 5 of the 2003 playoffs. If that shot went in, we probably would have had a 4peat. :domokun

There's no probably. Dallas and New Jersey in the next two rounds? :lol

[SAtown]

.4

Playing Detroit twice in a row in the Finals would've been huge, and beating them in 04 would've made Game 7 a lot tougher. Also, say they go on to win vs Detroit in 04, after 05 they would've won 3 titles in a row, shutting up all the pussy laker fans who discredit the Spurs dynasty.

[timvp]

The Nowitzki layup and foul. No way the Spurs don't repeat going against Phoenix and Miami the next two rounds.Yeah, Spurs almost for sure sweep the Amare-less Suns. Those Heat might have taken five games.

If Manu doesn't foul, passes it to Horry on the subsequent possession or makes the layup, the Spurs three-peat.

:shootme

[timtonymanu]

Definitely the Manu foul on Dirk or the .04 shot. if one of those had gone out, the Spurs would have had repeated and possibly have a 3peat.

[Lakers_55]

Interesting how people are responding.....First off, suppose Horry's shot 2003 did go in. There was time on the clock for the Spurs to still win it. they may have. Also, it only makes the series 3-2 Lakers, SA still could have came back, no guarantee for the Lakers. The irony was Fisher's legal 0.4 (should have been 0.8) shot in 2004 happened one year to the day after Horry's miss. Same scenario applies in 2004, Lakers could have still come back. We had solved the SA game plan by collapsing on Duncan and Parker. We just gave our huge lead away in game 5 and let the drama unfold. Funny how so many games with the Lakers in San Antonio come down to the last and crazy play.

As far as the Spurs debated dynasty title goes, I can tell you this as I lived through it, in 1987, the Lakers had 4 titles in 8 years and no one would give us dynasty status, we had to have a repeat championship to secure it, which we did in 1988. 3 titles in 5 years isn't enough, and the Spurs 4 in 9 claim fails because a Laker dynasty lies within. I have said this here before. Want an NBA dynasty? Win a back to back title and prevent the controversy that will arise. Last year was a great shot for the Spurs to finally get the dynasty title, wins againt the Lakers and Celtics would have done the trick. So, there remain but 5 dynastys in NBA history, Lakers have three, Celtics and Bulls, one each.

However...

No team would have beaten Detroit in 2004, no team. It was Piston destiny to win in 2004, just the same as it was the Spur's in 2003, 2005, and 2007. It was also the Celtic's last year, and the Heat in 2006. The team that wins the finals beats the best the other conference had to offer. It isn't their fault they don't play a different team. Since their destiny is to win it all and they do so by beating the best the other conference offered, it makes sense they would have beaten any other team from the conference. Remember it's destiny to be champion. Accept that when your team doesn't win it all. Cheering your team on next season will be a lot easier as a result.

I can't think of a shot I would change. I like how things have worked out.

[Rapper]

0.4 and Manu 's foul on Dirk.

Both

If the spurs could change those 2 shots, the 2004 and 2006 champuions would belong to the spurs.

[BlackSwordsMan]

dirk's foul shot

[DaDakota]

John Stockton's 3 pointer in game 6 of the WC championship....

DD

[Rogue]

If I could make the clock run a little bit more quickly to end the game before fisher hit the damn 3 in 04's series, then I am afriad the pistons wouldn't get their only championship during the past decade and spurs would also get "3 titles streak". And the finals of 05 would be replicated too.

[jmard5]

So, there remain but 5 dynastys in NBA history, Lakers have three, Celtics and Bulls, one each.

What years did the Celtics win back-to-back championships?

Also, who coined the term dynasty with winning back-to-back championships?

[Lakers_55]

What years did the Celtics win back-to-back championships?

Also, who coined the term dynasty with winning back-to-back championships?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
They won 11 of 13 years from 1956-57 to 1968-69, including 8 in a row at one point, and the last two were back-to-back. They never repeated again, (Which is why Larry Bird's Celtics are not a dynasty with 3 titles in 6 years) and they won't this year either.

The first NBA dyasty was the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948-49 to 1953-54, who won 5 titles n 6 years. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

The Lakers of the 1980's were the 3rd NBA dynasty and as I noted above, no one would give us dynasty status until we won a back-to-back in 1988. By 1987 we had 6 finals appearances in 8 seasons, with 4 titles. Not enough for a legitimate dynasty claim. Proving we could win back-to-back clinched it. No one could do it for 20 years, and then every team repeated until recently. See this thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114193 The league considered and still does, getting a back to back to be critical to how a team is looked at over an era.

So, the back to back will clinch it. without one most people will disagree. 2 in a row in itself isn't enough, you need at least 3 titles over no more than a 4 year period. Lakers did that with titles in 1985/87/88. 1980/82 get included as they are relevant, especially since we were in the finals in 1983/84. The Lakers 80's era was all about Magic, Kareem, and the showtime role players: Worthy/Cooper/Rambis/Wilkes/Nixon/Kupchak/Scott/Thompson/Green/McAdoo etc.

[m33p0]

i know which shot magic fans want to change. nick anderson's 4 missed free throws. ouch. big time choke.

[m33p0]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
They won 11 of 13 years from 1956-57 to 1968-69, including 8 in a row at one point, and the last two were back-to-back. They never repeated again, (Which is why Larry Bird's Celtics are not a dynasty with 3 titles in 6 years) and they won't this year either.

The first NBA dyasty was the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948-49 to 1953-54, who won 5 titles n 6 years. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

The Lakers of the 1980's were the 3rd NBA dynasty and as I noted above, no one would give us dynasty status until we won a back-to-back in 1988. By 1987 we had 6 finals appearances in 8 seasons, with 4 titles. Not enough for a legitimate dynasty claim. Proving we could win back-to-back clinched it. No one could do it for 20 years, and then every team repeated until recently. See this thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114193 The league considered and still does, getting a back to back to be critical to how a team is looked at over an era.

So, the back to back will clinch it. without one most people will disagree. 2 in a row in itself isn't enough, you need at least 3 titles over no more than a 4 year period. Lakers did that with titles in 1985/87/88. 1980/82 get included as they are relevant, especially since we were in the finals in 1983/84. The Lakers 80's era was all about Magic, Kareem, and the showtime role players: Worthy/Cooper/Rambis/Wilkes/Nixon/Kupchak/Scott/Thompson/Green/McAdoo etc.
that's an opinion not a definition. and outside of la and its fans, the celtics bird is considered by many as a dynasty.

[dirk4mvp]

Every shot Baron Davis took in the first round.

[Lakers_55]

Oh, by the way, by challenging the Spurs dynasty status in no way means they aren't elite and haven't been. If the Lakers aren't playing in the finals, I root for whatever western team made it there.

Although falling short of dynasty status, a very legitimate honor is to simply call it the Tim Duncan Era, and people will know what you speak of. Spurs have lots of eras: George Gerivin era, Dave Robinson era, Big 3 era.... Many teams are hard pressed to find any meaningful eras in their history.

[Lakers_55]

that's an opinion not a definition. and outside of la and its fans, the celtics bird is considered by many as a dynasty.

considered by many and considered by all are two different things. win back-to-back in 2009-10 and end the debate. I said this last season, win in 2008 and it's yours. Bird's era as a dynasty within the period of a legimate dynasty? The Spurs have a better claim from 2003-07. But most feel it isn't enough.

[m33p0]

Oh, by the way, by challenging the Spurs dynasty status in no means they aren't elite and haven't been. If the Lakers aren't playing in the finals, I root for whatever western team made it there.

Although falling short of dynasty status, a very legitimate honor is to simply call it the Tim Duncan Era, and people will know what you speak of. Spurs have lots of eras: George Gerivin era, Dave Robinson era, Big 3 era.... Many teams are hard pressed to find any meaningful eras in their history.
dynasties are defined by eras. and what you just posted sounded like a very polite way of saying "you suck". quit it.

[Lakers_55]

dynasties are defined by eras. and what you just posted sounded like a very polite way of saying "you suck". quit it.

I didn't mean that at all, as your franchise doesn't suck. I believe it to be the third most successful franchise in NBA history. Eras stretch longer than dynastys do and add to the legacy of any team.

[m33p0]

I didn't mean that at all, as your franchise doesn't suck. I believe it to be the third most successful franchise in NBA history. Eras stretch longer than dynastys do and add to the legacy of any team.
in terms of long term success, we're 3rd. number of championships, 4th. i would like to debate this more but this will not go anywhere as we are giving opinions on an entity that has no definition, only descriptions. and descriptions are based solely on point-of-view. arguments about point-of-views are endless and therefore, ironically enough, pointless. :lol

[Lakers_55]

in terms of long term success, we're 3rd. number of championships, 4th. i would like to debate this more but this will not go anywhere as we are giving opinions on an entity that has no definition, only descriptions. and descriptions are based solely on point-of-view. arguments about point-of-views are endless and therefore, ironically enough, pointless. :lol

ok, that's fine, we can end the debate. I was thinking after my last post about how eras last longer than dynastys do. The Laker Showtime era pretty much lasted until Magic retired in 1991, 3 years past the end of our dynasty. So, the Magic Johnson era started and ended at the same time. (unless you count the two comebacks) Some people might argue Showtime continued as long as Worthy was around, but who cares. People know what the Showtime era was all about, just as they know what the Tim Duncan era is made of.

[m33p0]

ok, that's fine, we can end the debate. I was thinking after my last post about how eras last longer than dynastys do. The Laker Showtime era pretty much lasted until Magic retired in 1991, 3 years past the end of our dynasty. So, the Magic Johnson era started and ended at the same time. (unless you count the two comebacks) Some people might argue Showtime continued as long as Worthy was around, but who cares. People know what the Showtime era was all about, just as they know what the Tim Duncan era is made of.
the lakeshow was defined by magic, hence it's the magic era aka the lakeshow. no magic, no lakeshow.

[Lakers_55]

the lakeshow was defined by magic, hence it's the magic era aka the lakeshow. no magic, no lakeshow.

Props to a Spurs fan for defining a Laker era!:toast

[IronMexican]

Definitely game 5, 2003 WCSF. That one hurt. LA already had the 4-peat shirts on and everything.

[Findog]

Every shot Baron Davis took in the first round.

Gary Payton's shot at the end of G3.

[monosylab1k]

Interesting how people are responding.....First off, suppose Horry's shot 2003 did go in. There was time on the clock for the Spurs to still win it. they may have. Also, it only makes the series 3-2 Lakers, SA still could have came back, no guarantee for the Lakers. The irony was Fisher's legal 0.4 (should have been 0.8) shot in 2004 happened one year to the day after Horry's miss. Same scenario applies in 2004, Lakers could have still come back. We had solved the SA game plan by collapsing on Duncan and Parker. We just gave our huge lead away in game 5 and let the drama unfold. Funny how so many games with the Lakers in San Antonio come down to the last and crazy play.

As far as the Spurs debated dynasty title goes, I can tell you this as I lived through it, in 1987, the Lakers had 4 titles in 8 years and no one would give us dynasty status, we had to have a repeat championship to secure it, which we did in 1988. 3 titles in 5 years isn't enough, and the Spurs 4 in 9 claim fails because a Laker dynasty lies within. I have said this here before. Want an NBA dynasty? Win a back to back title and prevent the controversy that will arise. Last year was a great shot for the Spurs to finally get the dynasty title, wins againt the Lakers and Celtics would have done the trick. So, there remain but 5 dynastys in NBA history, Lakers have three, Celtics and Bulls, one each.

However...

No team would have beaten Detroit in 2004, no team. It was Piston destiny to win in 2004, just the same as it was the Spur's in 2003, 2005, and 2007. It was also the Celtic's last year, and the Heat in 2006. The team that wins the finals beats the best the other conference had to offer. It isn't their fault they don't play a different team. Since their destiny is to win it all and they do so by beating the best the other conference offered, it makes sense they would have beaten any other team from the conference. Remember it's destiny to be champion. Accept that when your team doesn't win it all. Cheering your team on next season will be a lot easier as a result.

I can't think of a shot I would change. I like how things have worked out.

I would just like to point out that your sig is freakin retarded, especially considering the Lakers pulled one of the most egregious tankjobs ever when they lost to the Rockets in 1986 to purposely avoid getting absolutely curbstomped by the Celtics in the Finals.

[monosylab1k]

Dirk's missed FT at the end of Game 3.

[hater]

obvious answer is .4

then the foul called vs. nowitzki

spurs could easily have 6 championship if not for those 2 single plays

[Obstructed_View]

Timmy's dunk on Scot Pollard.

[Bob Lanier]

Rip Hamilton's brick when isolated against Tony Parker at the end of Game 5 of the '05 Finals.

[peskypesky]

.4

:toast

[peskypesky]

obvious answer is .4

then the foul called vs. nowitzki

spurs could easily have 6 championship if not for those 2 single plays

right you are.

and if fisher's foul on barry had been called last year, who knows? maybe a 7th Championship?

[monosylab1k]

Are you upset that there are no shots that you could change that would have put your team in contention for a title?

It doesn't take a college graduate to remember that the Mavs were in the Finals with a 2-0 lead once, so no, I'm not upset that my team never had those shots, because they did.

[monosylab1k]

right you are.

and if fisher's foul on barry had been called last year, who knows? maybe a 7th Championship?

and if the Lakers never traded for the rights to Kobe, and Hakeem Olajuwon died in a car accident in the 80's, and Jordan never came back from retirement, it might be a 15-peat for the Spurs :jack

[z0sa]

and if the Lakers never traded for the rights to Kobe, and Hakeem Olajuwon died in a car accident in the 80's, and Jordan never came back from retirement, it might be a 15-peat for the Spurs :jack

FIFTEEN RINGS BITCH

[J.T.]

Definitely Ben Roethlisberger's bullshit shoestring tackle of Nick Harper during the 2005 Divisional playoffs. That was some voodoo shit, would have won the game for the Colts if Harper didn't stumble and would've won the Super Bowl with Denver (the team that is Peyton Manning's personal bitch) and Seattle as the two remaining teams.

Kind of like how if Manu doesn't foul Dirk, Spurs win it all in 2006 with the shitty Suns and Heat left to go.

[resistanze]

Only shot worth mentioning in Raptors' history was Game 7 Eastern Conference Semifinals vs. Philly.

If VC makes that shot on the last play, I believe the Raps beat the Bucks in the ECF, and get the honor of being curbstomped in 4 games by the Lakers. What could've been...

[IronMexican]

Definitely Ben Roethlisberger's bullshit shoestring tackle of Nick Harper during the 2005 Divisional playoffs. That was some voodoo shit, would have won the game for the Colts if Harper didn't stumble and would've won the Super Bowl with Denver (the team that is Peyton Manning's personal bitch) and Seattle as the two remaining teams.

Kind of like how if Manu doesn't foul Dirk, Spurs win it all in 2006 with the shitty Suns and Heat left to go.

The tuck play. I don't care if I am arguing this 50 years from now, it was a fumble and Oakland got robbed. Man, this shit really pisses me off. Oakland would have beat Pitt and STL.

[JamStone]

1. Bill Laimbeer gets a phantom foul call on a Kareem sky hook in game 6 of the 1988 NBA Finals (seriously, how do you foul a guy shooting a sky hook?). The Bad Boy Pistons three-peat.

2. The missed cover by Rasheed Wallace on Robert Horry in game 5 of the 2005 NBA Finals. The Pistons repeat.

side note: Can't say there's no way it happens, but seriously doubt the Spurs beat the Pistons in 2004. Not because the Spurs weren't a better team, but there was just something that felt like destiny with that 2004 Pistons team. But who knows. Interesting to hypothesize in retrospect.

[balli]

http://hoopedia.nba.com/images/9/9f/Jordan_last_shot_1999.jpg

[stretch]

its not a shot, but Wade punching Dirk in the stomach and Dirk getting whistled.

[Lakers_55]

I would just like to point out that your sig is freakin retarded, especially considering the Lakers pulled one of the most egregious tankjobs ever when they lost to the Rockets in 1986 to purposely avoid getting absolutely curbstomped by the Celtics in the Finals.

First off, someone else has Spurs/Celtics 2009 finals signature, why can't I have a Lakers/Celtics 2009 finals one?

I wouldn't call the Laker loss to Houston in 1986 on purpose, but my signature brings a few things to attention. The main one is, that Boston wasn't the best team in the east 7 times in the ECF in seasons where we went on to win the finals. Their perceived greatness is debunked if all of the evidence is looked at closely. Their huge series edge is only because they got to finals 9 times when they were the better team and didn't an additional 7 times when the matchups favored us. I have already dealt with 1986 in the proof I mention, and is available on request. Oh, my signature says that too.

[Kai]

http://i44.tinypic.com/9u1cvq.jpg

[Texas_Ranger]

0.4

[m33p0]

Rip Hamilton's brick when isolated against Tony Parker at the end of Game 5 of the '05 Finals.
that play is etched forever in my memory... or until i get alzheimer's.

[dirk4mvp]

Are you upset that there are no shots that you could change that would have put your team in contention for a title?


I see 2 mentioned on this page. Can you read?

[dirk4mvp]

its not a shot, but Wade punching Dirk in the stomach and Dirk getting whistled.


Or Dirk getting bowed in the face by Shaq and forgetting how to attack the rim the rest of the series.

[himat]

Robert Horry's Game 5 2005 Finals shot. If the Pistons played defense correctly that play they could of been up 3-2 and on the verge of a back to back title.

Every since we lost in that Finals we have not been the same team. Maybe if we would of won LB would of stayed, which would of kept Ben here, etc.

[stretch]

Or Dirk getting bowed in the face by Shaq and forgetting how to attack the rim the rest of the series.

Or Josh Howards time-out. :lol

[balli]

Actually, more than the MJ shot.

Dick Bavetta cost the Jazz the 1998 NBA championship. You might recall it. His refereeing in Game 6 was the worst refereeing EVER in NBA Finals history. Gesticulating like someone who had just shaken hands with an electric fence, he adamantly waved off a 3-pointer made by Utah's Howard Eisley when replays clearly showed the shot was out of his hand before the shot clock expired. And with the same amount of bravado, Bavetta allowed a 3-pointer by Ron Harper that had clearly not gotten off before the buzzer. That's an undeniable six-point difference in a game that was won by one point. Bavetta might as well have been wearing a Bulls jersey.
And I 100% believe Stern personally engineered it.

[pauls931]

I guess the Paxson 3....

[Findog]

Robert Horry's Game 5 2005 Finals shot. If the Pistons played defense correctly that play they could of been up 3-2 and on the verge of a back to back title.

Every since we lost in that Finals we have not been the same team. Maybe if we would of won LB would of stayed, which would of kept Ben here, etc.

would've, not would of. Short for would have. Why do so many people get this wrong?

[td4mvp21]

Probably Dirk's and 1. I think it would have been far more likely the Spurs have lost games 6 & 7 to L.A. in 2004 rather than them lose to either Phoenix or Miami. We probably would have been going for 4 in a row last year...

[monosylab1k]

I wouldn't call the Laker loss to Houston in 1986 on purpose

Horseshit. That was one year where the Celtics would have wiped the floor with the Lakers, and LA knew it. They didn't want that kind of embarrassment so they decided to tank against the Rockets instead.

[tonylongoriafan]

here is your winner:

the sebsequent 3-point play that followed the rod strickland over-head-the turnover in game 7 of the 1990 western conference semifinals

[Lakers_55]

Horseshit. That was one year where the Celtics would have wiped the floor with the Lakers, and LA knew it. They didn't want that kind of embarrassment so they decided to tank against the Rockets instead.

You are such an idiot. Ok, here's what I will do. I have a huge post elsewhere that's on a Celtic Board, as well as about 20 other NBA teams for over 36 hours. I totally have the Celtic Mystique debunked and not one person, not even a die hard Celtic fan has been able to find a reasonable arguement to challenge what I have presented. As a matter of fact, they aren't even trying, it's so airtight. It is a long read, and requires your total attention.

All the Celtic arguements for supremacy are:
17-3 Finals record
Lakers have 15 finals losses
Celtic record aganst Lakers is 9-2.
I have counter arguments to show these are cherry picked by the beantowners and easily debated and questioned.

I don't need to seek justification for my team, so I haven't posted it here, but Laker fans who have seen it, realize it will shut any Boston Celtic fan up for good.

Shall I post it here on Spurs Talk?

[stretch]

Actually, more than the MJ shot.

And I 100% believe Stern personally engineered it.

It definitely wasn't as bad as the Mavs vs. Heat. If it was Wade who did that MJ shot, it would have been a flagrant on Russell.

[monosylab1k]

You are such an idiot. Ok, here's what I will do. I have a huge post elsewhere that's on a Celtic Board, as well as about 20 other NBA teams for over 36 hours. I totally have the Celtic Mystique debunked and not one person, not even a die hard Celtic fan has been able to find a reasonable arguement to challenge what I have presented. As a matter of fact, they aren't even trying, it's so airtight. It is a long read, and requires your total attention.

All the Celtic arguements for supremacy are:
17-3 Finals record
Lakers have 15 finals losses
Celtic record aganst Lakers is 9-2.
I have counter arguments to show these are cherry picked by the beantowners and easily debated and questioned.

I don't need to seek justification for my team, so I haven't posted it here, but Laker fans who have seen it, realize it will shut any Boston Celtic fan up for good.

Shall I post it here on Spurs Talk?

I'm not a Celtics fan. I don't give a shit about the Celtics, their "supremacy", or their lack thereof. I didn't say anything refuting what you said about the Celtics, it could all be 100% true. It could also be 100% Lakerfan crap. I don't give a shit either way. Don't bother posting it because I won't read it, I don't give a crap.

I just said it's stupid for a Lakerfan to accuse the Celtics of tanking to avoid the Lakers, because the Lakers DID THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING IN 1986 TO AVOID THE CELTICS. YOU are the one that keeps glossing over that.

[Lakers_55]

I'm not a Celtics fan. I don't give a shit about the Celtics, their "supremacy", or their lack thereof. I didn't say anything refuting what you said about the Celtics, it could all be 100% true. It could also be 100% Lakerfan crap. I don't give a shit either way. Don't bother posting it because I won't read it, I don't give a crap.

I just said it's stupid for a Lakerfan to accuse the Celtics of tanking to avoid the Lakers, because the Lakers DID THE EXACT SAME FUCKING THING IN 1986 TO AVOID THE CELTICS. YOU are the one that keeps glossing over that.


Hahaha! I quote 7 examples in my signature, you quote 1. Your logic fails, as bad as any I have ever seen here. Typical Cherry Picking Celtic mentality. Celtic fans are mostly bandwagon folks. I don't mess with the Spurs fans here because I happen to like their team, and it's a Spurs board. Bandwagon Celtic fans that spew crocks of crap are open season. There are at least 2 foul mouthed ones of that ilk here that make 21_Blessings look like a saint. If you don't care about the Lakers and Celtics, you should drop the argument with me. Otherwise, you do care.


And remember, I dealt with 1986 in the post I mention.

[monosylab1k]

Hahaha! I quote 7 examples in my signature, you quote 1.

Thank you for admitting the Lakers tanked in 1986 to avoid the Celtics.

[monosylab1k]

I guess if one guys murders 7 people, and someone else only murders 1, it makes the murderer of one less of a bad person.

[Lakers_55]

Thank you for admitting the Lakers tanked in 1986 to avoid the Celtics.

I didn't admit that at all. I said I dealt with 1986 in my post. See, you do care about this after all.

[monosylab1k]

I didn't admit that at all.

Yes you did.

[crc21209]

I'm gonna go with .4 in 04' and Manu's foul on Dirk in 06.' I know it wouldve been HIGHLY unlikely but stranger things have happened, can you imagine if the Spurs had made it to the finals in both 04' and 06' and won? That would've been a 5-peat from 2003 to 2007. Crazy on what could have been. Or even just winning in 04' OR 06' wouldve given the Spurs a back 2 back title. But hey...shit happens...and happens for a reason sometimes. lol.

[Lakers_55]

Yes you did.

No I didn't, read my posts. quote me exactly or cut your losses and give up. otherwise you will look like an even bigger fool.

[monosylab1k]

quote me exactly

I already dealt with that.

[Lakers_55]

I already dealt with that.

no you didn't. there is an old saying....

Never argue with an idiot.
They will bring you down to their level
And beat you with experience.

Guess what, I am probably the most intelligent idiot you will ever meet. I say this because every time I join a message board, I work hard to contribute and fit in. I gain respect as a poster. Then, someone like you comes along, perhaps envious, who attempts to take me off my "pedestal". I end up leaving those places after having it out with dumbasses like you, their boards cease to be fun for me. So, I wonder how long this place will last before I run off and try again elsewhere.

I have brought you to my level, using intelligent replies, and have beaten you to death with my experience. You aren't the first person who I have handed their ass too, but you may be the last at this board. Quit lying!

[monosylab1k]

no you didn't. there is an old saying....

Never argue with an idiot.
They will bring you down to their level
And beat you with experience.

Guess what, I am probably the most intelligent idiot you will ever meet. I say this because every time I join a message board, I work hard to contribute and fit in. I gain respect as a poster. Then, someone like you comes along, perhaps envious, who attempts to take me off my "pedestal". I end up leaving those places after having it out with dumbasses like you, their boards cease to be fun for me. So, I wonder how long this place will last before I run off and try again elsewhere.

I have brought you to my level, using intelligent replies, and have beaten you to death with my experience. You aren't the first person who I have handed their ass too, but you may be the last at this board. Quit lying!

wow, you'll do anything to avoid discussing the Lakers tank job of 1986.

[Spurs1234]

What about game 5 vs. LAL in 1995 by mr. nick van excel. Sure the spurs won in game 6, but that one hurt..another ball buster, game 1 vs. the suns in 2003....the fact they could have won by hitting a free throw combined with the fact the suns had no timeouts, and the rebound bounced right back to marbury who had just enough time to get to the three line to hoist a shot, combined with the fact it banked in....dam...as far as the .4 vs. manu foul in 2006 argument goes, i say 2006 was much more painful. the spurs had their best regular season ever, and came back through so much, down 3-1 and down 20 at half in game 7, that victory would have been so sweet..just think, everytime they show the down 3-1 stat where a team comes back, the spurs would be on it. plus, its a lock they beat the suns and probably beat the heat. In 2004, its no lock if fisher wins they win that series, cause lakers probably win game 6, and that means it comes down to game 7, anyones game. plus the pistons were very good that year and it could have gone either way...plus, if the pistons win in 2004 vs. the spurs, perhaps the 2005 finals are different, perhaps the pistons get the mental edge in 2004....i am fine with 2004, although it sucked at the time...to me, 2006 is "the one that got away." of course, winning in 2007 made the hurt not so much.

[Girasuck]

Of course I'm going to say Jordan's shot but honestly if I could go back and change one thing it would be the pathetic play call from Jerry Sloan when Malone had the ball stolen from him by Jordan. Up by 1...you don't post up 15 feet from the basket and run a cut offense. You milk the clock down until 6-7 seconds and run the pick-n-roll. You make the Bulls defend your bread and butter. It still pisses me off today that Sloan called a post up for Malone instead of running the pick-n-roll.

[Lakers_55]

wow, you'll do anything to avoid discussing the Lakers tank job of 1986.

wow, you really must be an attention whore. Just like a kid. Did you know why many school children deliberately misbehave? They are starving for attention, and even the negative kind will do. That's what you are bringing on yourself here, so you must be loving it.

How does it feel to be starved for attention? You certainly are showing you need it. The only difference between now and when the schoolyard bullies beat you up is you are now safely behind a computer screen.

I am not avoiding your question. I addressed it elsewhere in a post you say you don't want to see. I also told you at least twice I had an answer for 1986. Here is that part from my blog, maybe that will shut you up:


Now, an astute Celtic fan will say, well, you ducked us in 1986 losing in the WCF. Well, that’s true. We didn’t get there. We weren’t good enough to beat the Rockets.

I call it not good enough. I also say the Celtics weren't good enough to play the Lakers all those times. "Ducking" is pure smack talk directed back at the arrogant Cetic fans, they deserve it.

Are you ready for further spanking?

[monosylab1k]

I addressed it elsewhere in a post you say you don't want to see.

Exactly. I don't want to read your shitty blog, I just want your justification for 1986.


I call it not good enough. I also say the Celtics weren't good enough to play the Lakers all those times.

So you completely contradicted your own sig. Gotcha :tu


"Ducking" is pure smack talk directed back at the arrogant Cetic fans, they deserve it.

So you're no better than Celtics fans. Gotcha :tu


Are you ready for further spanking?

How kinky.

But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.

[Lakers_55]

Exactly. I don't want to read your shitty blog, I just want your justification for 1986.



So you completely contradicted your own sig. Gotcha :tu



So you're no better than Celtics fans. Gotcha :tu



How kinky.

But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.



Try reading once in awhile. My signature is smack. I said that. Ok, little boy you get your candy (by that I mean the public ass spanking you crave) taken away now. I am done with owning your worthless ass. I'll let this exchange of posts between us speak for itself.

[monosylab1k]

My signature is smack. I said that.

So you waste time trashing Celtics fans only to reveal that you're on the same level. Gotcha :tu

[Def Rowe]

How kinky.

But being a fan of the Lakers, you'd know a thing or two about being a sexual deviant.

Classy.

[tlongII]

The Memorial Day Miracle. If Elliott misses we win that series and the championship and likely win the following year against the Lakers as well.

[cobbler]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
They won 11 of 13 years from 1956-57 to 1968-69, including 8 in a row at one point, and the last two were back-to-back. They never repeated again, (Which is why Larry Bird's Celtics are not a dynasty with 3 titles in 6 years) and they won't this year either.

The first NBA dyasty was the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948-49 to 1953-54, who won 5 titles n 6 years. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/

The Lakers of the 1980's were the 3rd NBA dynasty and as I noted above, no one would give us dynasty status until we won a back-to-back in 1988. By 1987 we had 6 finals appearances in 8 seasons, with 4 titles. Not enough for a legitimate dynasty claim. Proving we could win back-to-back clinched it. No one could do it for 20 years, and then every team repeated until recently. See this thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114193 The league considered and still does, getting a back to back to be critical to how a team is looked at over an era.

So, the back to back will clinch it. without one most people will disagree. 2 in a row in itself isn't enough, you need at least 3 titles over no more than a 4 year period. Lakers did that with titles in 1985/87/88. 1980/82 get included as they are relevant, especially since we were in the finals in 1983/84. The Lakers 80's era was all about Magic, Kareem, and the showtime role players: Worthy/Cooper/Rambis/Wilkes/Nixon/Kupchak/Scott/Thompson/Green/McAdoo etc.

I can only argue one point. No way can you consider Worthy a role player.

[cobbler]

I would just like to point out that your sig is freakin retarded, especially considering the Lakers pulled one of the most egregious tankjobs ever when they lost to the Rockets in 1986 to purposely avoid getting absolutely curbstomped by the Celtics in the Finals.

Oh yeah.... And the Lakers just willed Sampson's last second shot in the basket. Anybody who knows or has followed Magic knows he would not tank anything. What a totally absurd post. :lmao

[cobbler]

1969 finals game 7. Don Nelson's (celtics) last second shot that hits the heel of the rim, bounces above the backboard, and back through the hoop. :bang

[baseline bum]

All the balls bounced the Rockets way that series.

:lmao
Um what? Mitch Kupchack got Akeem kicked out of game 5 and you all still blew it.

[Lakers_55]

I can only argue one point. No way can you consider Worthy a role player.

The reason I listed Worthy as a role player was he wasn't part of the whole Laker dynasty. True, he was our third option and 1988 series MVP. He triggered the game 6 series clinching win over Boston with his dive for the loose ball in the third quarter in 1987. Kareem, Magic, and Cooper played each season, and Riley moved from broadcaster to asst. coach in 1979-80.

Worthy was not a role player, he just fit in the list of them better imo.

[baseline bum]

Actually, more than the MJ shot.

And I 100% believe Stern personally engineered it.

That Eisley three being waved off is easily the worst call in NBA history. I've got that game on DVD and I'm still blown away time I see Bavetta wave that one away and count Ron Harper's shot good.

[JoeTait75]

It's been more than 15 years, but obviously, the Shot. If Jordan doesn't hit that jumper, we don't trade Harper, we pass Chicago in the pecking order- maybe permanently, if Krause makes a panic move following the loss- and maybe we win a title or two in the '90s.

[jack sommerset]

Robert Horrys shot on Steve Nash. Take it back and Suns win. Amare and Diaw would not have stepped over the line and the Suns would have had enough gas in the tank to finish off the Spews.

[baseline bum]

It's been more than 15 years, but obviously, the Shot. If Jordan doesn't hit that jumper, we don't trade Harper, we pass Chicago in the pecking order- maybe permanently, if Krause makes a panic move following the loss- and maybe we win a title or two in the '90s.

Huh? Ron Harper was going to be enough to offset Scotty Pippen's rise? :wow

[JoeTait75]

Huh? Ron Harper was going to be enough to offset Scotty Pippen's rise? :wow

Okay, maybe not. But let's just say it would have been nice to find out for sure, one way or another. And at least Harper would have been a counter to the athletic wing players that murdered that team- not just Jordan, but Petrovic, Reggie Miller and Reggie Lewis, all of whom had their way with us.

[dirk4mvp]

I fail to see how some of you are claiming that if one shot would've went your team's way, it would've triggered off several titles. Especially Spurfans spouting off that if not for .4 and the dirk and-1, they would've had a 5 peat. That's ridiculous.

[m33p0]

I fail to see how some of you are claiming that if one shot would've went your team's way, it would've triggered off several titles. Especially Spurfans spouting off that if not for .4 and the dirk and-1, they would've had a 5 peat. That's ridiculous.
agree about the .4. in 06, you'd have to give the spurs the advantage over the heat.

[dirk4mvp]

Mavs got fucked bad enough by the Heat. Maybe would've been worse for the Spurs since Stern was probably tired of the Spurs winning at that point.