Is winning back-to-back conference championships that great?

[Jacob1983]

The Lakers have won back-to-back western conference championships. It got me thinking. Is it impressive to accomplish that feat even if say you don't win in the NBA Finals? Do you give props to teams like the Malone-Stockton Jazz in the 90s, the Jason Kid Nets in 2002 and 2003, and the Pistons from 2004 and 2005 for having back-to-back trips to the Finals?

[RsxPiimp]

is this a serious question? i mean really????

[jacobdrj]

Just wow...

[peskypesky]

of course it's an accomplishment, it's just as good as winning the Finals. but it is the next best thing.

[21_Blessings]

Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.

[resistanze]

Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.

Why mention the Spurs when thread was started by Mav Fan?

[BRHornet45]

sons if ESPN tells us that it is great .... then it is

[jag]

Stupid fuckin thread

[jag]

sons if ESPN tells us that it is great .... then it is
When did you turn into some pussy ass conspiracy theorist?

Grow a sack, son.

[BRHornet45]

When did you turn into some pussy ass conspiracy theorist?

Grow a sack, son.

son LMAO at you! ... you are an admitted proud homosexual man. nothing wrong with that AT ALL ... but I am sick of you talking about my sack.

[Ghazi]

Yes I do!

Although the Nets were in a time where the East was VERY shitty.

[Banzai]

I don't think winning back to back wcf is a big deal..winning back to back nba titles is better.

[MarHill]

Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.

A weak champion...the dumbest criticism I've heard ever.

Spurs are the last Western Conference team to win a title. Oh three of them in the last six years.

So regardless if you get them in a row or over a period of time...you are still a multiple champion.

By the way, the Larry Bird led Celtics won three championships during his career. 1981, 1984, and 1986 and no one considered them weak champions because they didn't win them in a row.

Winning championships is a great accomplishment...but winning multiple titles different years is a great accomplishment as well.

[Jacob1983]

It's a serious question. Some people don't think it's that great to win back-to-back conference championships unless you win the championship. That's all I was saying.

[MarHill]

Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.

Also, you keep leaving out facts.

Spurs beat Shaq and Kobe in 2003 and that wasn't a down year for the Lakers.

[jag]

son LMAO at you! ... you are an admitted proud homosexual man. nothing wrong with that AT ALL ... but I am sick of you talking about my sack.

I'm surprised you can even type without your massive vagina getting in the way.

Your Hornets show their true scrub colors and all the sudden the NBA is rigged. LOL at your fuckin vagina.

[iggypop123]

lakers didnt seem to care so why should we

[Ghazi]

Refs gifted the Nuggets 58 fucking points :lol

[JamStone]

Curious why you added the 2004/2005 Pistons when they actually won a title one of the times.

[Jacob1983]

I added the 2004/2005 Pistons because they did win back-to-back eastern conference championships. They just had better luck than the Jazz and the Nets.

[JamStone]

But in your original post you asked: "Is it impressive to accomplish that feat even if say you don't win in the NBA Finals?"

[BRHornet45]

I'm surprised you can even type without your massive vagina getting in the way.

Your Hornets show their true scrub colors and all the sudden the NBA is rigged. LOL at your fuckin vagina.

LOL son you are such a choking vagina.

[Double-Up]

A weak champion...the dumbest criticism I've heard ever.

Spurs are the last Western Conference team to win a title. Oh three of them in the last six years.

So regardless if you get them in a row or over a period of time...you are still a multiple champion.

By the way, the Larry Bird led Celtics won three championships during his career. 1981, 1984, and 1986 and no one considered them weak champions because they didn't win them in a row.

Winning championships is a great accomplishment...but winning multiple titles different years is a great accomplishment as well.

I would rather win 5 championships every other year than only 3 in a row during say a 10 year period...that's just me.

[mytespurs]

Not winning a back to back is a sign of a weak champion. And the Spurs were just that. They could only win it when the Lakers had a down year.

:lol
trying to stir up Spurs fans.

Bottom line and ALL that matters is the Spurs have won championships!

spurs fans don't argue and get into semantics...just sir back and chuckle....we have nothing to be jealous about......:hat

[baseline bum]

In the case of the Nets, it doesn't mean shit. If LA loses the finals, it won't mean shit either. Obviously them winning it all would completely change that, and Detroit deserves huge props as they were one quarter from repeating.

[baseline bum]

As for the Jazz, I guess that is pretty impressive with the way Karl Malone has tendencies to throw big games away with bad turnovers (think game 6 vs Chicago in 98), missed free throws (think game 7 vs Seattle in 96 or game 1 vs Chicago in 97), or complete no-shows (lots of the 99 Sac series and the elimination games in 99 and 00 vs Portland). Stockton was such a wildly underrated part of that team, and it always looked like it went to hell every time he went to the bench for Eisley.

[Trainwreck2100]

it worked for the bills

[Lakers999]

well according to all the mavs fans, spurs fans, denver fans, and pretty much every fan except for boston, chicago, houston, philly, jersey, detroit, new york, utah and of course the lakers....

winning conference titles back to back is NOT a great accomplishment. fans of teams who failed to do it and then they hate on the teams for doing it are just pathetic...

[Trainwreck2100]

well according to all the mavs fans, spurs fans, denver fans, and pretty much every fan except for boston, chicago, houston, philly, jersey, detroit, new york, utah and of course the lakers....

winning conference titles back to back is a great accomplishment. fans of teams who failed to do it and then they hate on the teams for doing it are just pathetic...


so you're saying you don't think it's a great accomplishment?

[Lakers999]

so you're saying you don't think it's a great accomplishment?

NO I DO .... let me reword my quote

[Jacob1983]

You can't really blame the Jazz that much for losing two years in a row in the Finals. They were playing one of the best teams of all time and they were playing against the best player in NBA history.

[Jacko]

If you don't win the Finals who the fuck cares? That's the way I see it.

Lakers and their fanbase care about one thing and one thing only, motherfucking championships. We don't hang up WCF banners in Staples.