I just rewatched 2001 WCF and 2002 WCSF of Lakers/Spurs [Archive]

jrmp317

08-05-2009, 12:06 PM

Anderson or not, nobody was beating that Laker team, Shaq in his prime (30 PPG, 12 RPG & 3BPG) and a young Kobe who averaged nearly 30 PPG.

Much like the 2003 Spurs, nobody was stopping Duncan that year. Or in 99 for that matter.

this is true

nobody stood a chance against that 2001 Lakers team, even a healthy Spurs team would have lost. If that 2002 team could have figured out how to hold a lead, they had a chance to beat the Lakers.

spursfan1000

08-05-2009, 12:14 PM

Who cares, it was a long time ago, stop tryin to make trouble.

TheMACHINE

08-05-2009, 12:21 PM

Those were hard years, we lost Sean..TD was injured in 2000.....Derek Anderson was injured in the playoffs in 2001, Avery and Robinson were getting Old.

It's funny you bring things up like this, while the Lakers often DIDN'T EVEN MAKE THE PLAYOFFS or advance far enough to get destroyed by the Spurs from 2005-2007.

Bottom line, from 05-07 Spurs owned the Lakers (not to mention 2003 and most of the 90's) and next year, another trend will start erased from Lakers history

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/Janthony019/tie0708_white_1200x900.jpg

Muser

08-05-2009, 12:22 PM

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v309/Janthony019/tie0708_white_1200x900.jpg

:lol

23LeBronJames23

08-05-2009, 12:37 PM

Kobe/Nowitzki/Hakeem are the top 3 Spur killers that come to mind.

And I don't hate Kobe, he's a hell of a player.

Kevin Durant owned spurs all the time its kinda funny but i dont think San Antonio has beat OKC yet

dirk4mvp

08-05-2009, 12:49 PM

SpurFan complain about injuries? :wow

I don't think i've ever seen that

Hey did you know if Manu wasn't injured, the Spurs would've swept the Mavs with an average margin of victory of 35? :wow

baseline bum

08-05-2009, 03:00 PM

No wonder why you guys hate Bryant so much, this guy was absolutely lethal against the spurs in these series. :wow:wow:wow

I was actually a pretty big Kobe fan until he ratted Shaq out to the police.

bostonguy

08-05-2009, 03:28 PM

That 2001 Lakers team was so damn good. It took ALOT for them to lose that only game to the 76ers. They had a week and a half off, blew a 13 point lead early in that game. Then in overtime they had a 5 point lead with the ball and Horry committed a stupid offensive foul. Bell made that scoop shot and AI took over. AI had 48 points i believe in that game. It took LA screwing up that much and AI playing great for them to barley lose that only game in the 2001 playoffs. That is how sick they were.

IronMexican

08-05-2009, 03:51 PM

Game 1 hurt a lot. I wanted the Lakers to pull 15 in a row.

bostonguy

08-05-2009, 04:00 PM

Game 1 hurt a lot. I wanted the Lakers to pull 15 in a row.

As that saying goes, you cant win em all. A slip up tends to happen on a run like that. What was scary was how LA played their c game and still had multiple chances to win that game. That loss alone showed you just how great that team was.

galvatron3000

08-05-2009, 05:37 PM

One player is the difference between a sweep and winning a series? He was good, but not that good.

Take Shaq off the 2001 Lakers championship team and the 2001 Spurs would have swept them or loss only one game. Regardless, even with Derek the Spurs would have lost that series because more was going on with the Spurs than just losing Anderson.

IronMexican

08-05-2009, 05:39 PM

spursncowboys

08-05-2009, 08:37 PM

Kobe/Nowitzki/Hakeem are the top 3 Spur killers that come to mind.

And I don't hate Kobe, he's a hell of a player.

Pothead Howard did more than Hasselhoff. Spurs shut Nowitzki down for the most part.

galvatron3000

08-05-2009, 08:45 PM

Look at my second sentence. He was no Duncan, Shaq or Kobe.

He was a big part of what that Spurs team did all year, take Kobe off or Gasol off or Odom off or as in 2008 Bynum off and you lose when in matters, that's my point. If it were a bench player sure but not guys who are a major part of what a team does, major part. Bowen off the Spurs team could very well be a lost in atleast 1 or 2 championship run years.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 08:47 PM

Uh, he's Kobe Bryant. He's lethal on the basketball court. That's kinda his thing.

Did you just recently become a NBA fan?

But to hear everyone here, Kobe was just along for the ride on Shaq's coat tails. When you actually go back and watch the series.... you see that Kobe played a huge roll. Especially against the Spurs.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 08:50 PM

Take Shaq off the 2001 Lakers championship team and the 2001 Spurs would have swept them or loss only one game. Regardless, even with Derek the Spurs would have lost that series because more was going on with the Spurs than just losing Anderson.

And if a frog had wings it wouldnt bump it's ass. You have absolutely no clue what would of happend if anyone was taken off a team for any reason. To act like you do shows how ridiculous some Spur fans get in their revisionist history.

if....if....if....if

DrHouse

08-05-2009, 09:24 PM

Who the fuck cares what moronic Spur fans think?

These are the same morons that screamed at the top of their lungs that Kobe could never win a ring without Shaq. They don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 09:36 PM

Who the fuck cares what moronic Spur fans think?

And yet here you are on a Spurs forum. :rolleyes

http://forum.nexon.net/CombatArms/forums/storage/8629/1919205/DUMBASS.jpg

BlackSwordsMan

08-05-2009, 09:39 PM

if only danny ferry wasn't hurt....

lefty

08-05-2009, 09:53 PM

Both teams played hard.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 10:06 PM

And yet here you are on a Spurs forum. :rolleyes

http://forum.nexon.net/CombatArms/forums/storage/8629/1919205/DUMBASS.jpg

Actually is a Spurs Board... and a NBA Forum. :nope

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:20 PM

Actually is a Spurs Board... and a NBA Forum. :nope

SPURSTALK.. need I say more... :wakeup

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:21 PM

I think you can add Shaq to the top of that list. He would bitch slap Duncan and Robinson.

& when he was in Los Angeles he made Pops toe the f'in line. None of that Hack-a-Shaq until he lit in Phoenix.

Pops always knows his place.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:23 PM

SPURSTALK.. need I say more... :wakeup

Yes,
NBA Forum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

Go back into your room where you all talk about your every-other-year happy horseshit.

You was actually proud of it, ya doofus, you.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:25 PM

Yes,
NBA Forum (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)

Go back into your room where you all talk about your every-other-year happy horseshit.

You was actually proud of it, ya doofus, you.

Which is still a part of SPURSTALK.. :bang

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:31 PM

Which is still a part of SPURSTALK.. :bang

But it's NBA Forum.

Don't be purposely obtuse.

lefty

08-05-2009, 10:34 PM

How many teams have lost the conference finals while having HC?
Spurs 1995 and 2001 :depressed

Knicks 1993

Cavs 2009 :lol

Lakers 1986 :D

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:35 PM

But it's NBA Forum.

Don't be purposely obtuse.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132727&page=2

Still says Spurstalk. If someone is going to complain about "Spurs" fans, maybe they should look at where they are posting. Sure this is the "NBA forum," but it is still a part of Spurs talk.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 10:35 PM

Which is still a part of SPURSTALK.. :bang

So do you go into the Piston talk forum and say the same crap? Do you go into the NFL, Baseball, College Sports, and MMA forums and call those guys out for posting about sports that have nothing to do with basketball on a Spurs board?

I'm guessing not..... you are just a jealous hater. One of the multitudes. :lmao

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:38 PM

So do you go into the Piston talk forum and say the same crap? Do you go into the NFL, Baseball, College Sports, and MMA forums and call those guys out for posting about sports that have nothing to do with basketball on a Spurs board?

I'm guessing not..... you are just a jealous hater. One of the multitudes. :lmao

No, but they're not complaining about "Spurs" fans. That's like me going to LakersTalk and complaining about talking to Laker fans. :lol Maybe that's too hard for some of you to comprehend.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:38 PM

Sure this is the "NBA forum,"

Thanks! It was like pullin' teeth, or, getting the Mavs to stop kicking your asses all over Texas.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:40 PM

NBA forum is still part of SpursTalk. It's not an independent forum.

There you go. FIFY.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:41 PM

No, but they're not complaining about "Spurs" fans. That's like me going to LakersTalk and complaining about talking to Laker fans. :lol Maybe that's too hard for some of you to comprehend.

You stupid ass, you. You'd actually sit here and circle jerk (exclusively) with the other Spurs fandom 24/7 if Kori didn't make you try to be a better person.

Here, do this:::go back-to-back, dunski, and you won't be so gd stove up & afraid.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:42 PM

there you go. Fify.

lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lefty

08-05-2009, 10:42 PM

Hey I just rewatched game 6 of Spurs-Lakers 2003

That was some serious ass stomping on the Lakers homecourt

BadOdor

08-05-2009, 10:43 PM

There you go. FIFY.

Without us, this place would be no better than lakerground, dumbass. The owners of this site has made it clear many times that any fan base is welcome. Now go back to the spurs forum and circle jerk each other some more.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:43 PM

You stupid ass, you. You'd actually sit here and circle jerk (exclusively) with the other Spurs fandom 24/7 if Kori didn't make you try to be a better person.

Here, do this:::go back-to-back, dunski, and you won't be so gd stove up & afraid.

No. Dr House was complaining about Spurs fans, when he is in a Spurs forums. It's not exclusive to the Spurs, but it is about the Spurs.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 10:44 PM

No, but they're not complaining about "Spurs" fans. That's like me going to LakersTalk and complaining about talking to Laker fans. :lol Maybe that's too hard for some of you to comprehend.

Why do you care? If i was posting at Lakers talk and went to an NBA forum (if they have one) I would ABSOLUTELY expect the majority of posts to be anti Laker. I thought that was the purpose of creating a seperate forum. I guess i don't comprehend so well. :bang

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:44 PM

Without us, this place would be no better than lakerground, dumbass. The owners of this site has made it clear many times that any fan base is welcome. Now go back to the spurs forum and circle jerk each other some more.

That's not what my original post was about. Go back and read.

BadOdor

08-05-2009, 10:45 PM

That's not what my original post was about. Go back and read.

stop crying.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:45 PM

Hey I just rewatched game 6 of Spurs-Lakers 2003

That was some serious ass stomping on the Lakers homecourt

I just saw Houdini try to shove a piece of cheap bond paper under Duncan when he jumped and Harry failed.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:45 PM

No. Dr House was complaining about Spurs fans, when he is in a Spurs forums. It's not exclusive to the Spurs, but it is about the Spurs.

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:46 PM

stop crying.

Who's crying?

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:47 PM

[Originally Posted by manufan10 http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/images/Style_Templates/nba/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3614606#post3614606)

No. Dr House was complaining about Spurs fans, when he is in a Spurs forums. It's not exclusive to the Spurs, but it is about the Spurs.]

No, it's not about the Spurs. Its the NBA Forum.

lefty

08-05-2009, 10:47 PM

Thanks.
No problem

Suns in 2005

Heat in 2005

Pistons in 2006

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:50 PM

cobbler

08-05-2009, 10:52 PM

What's the name of the website?

Give it up folks... he can't grasp it.

lefty

08-05-2009, 10:54 PM

I just saw Houdini try to shove a piece of cheap bond paper under Duncan when he jumped and Harry failed.
I didn't have HDTV back then.

I'm sorry I missed that

manufan10

08-05-2009, 10:54 PM

Give it up folks... he can't grasp it.

I understand this is the NBA section, and I don't care if Laker fan rips on the Spurs. If you complain about the Spurs fans, you have to think of where you are. This is called SpursTalk. Again, if I went to LakerTalk and complained about the conversations of Laker fans it would be dumb. Why? Because it's called LakerTalk, not NBA Talk.

Culburn369

08-05-2009, 10:55 PM

Give it up folks... he can't grasp it.

He's being obstinate & facetious. He still ain't over:

A. the Mavs beating his ass.

B. the Lakers beating everyone's ass.

If they were World Champions we'd be welcome here, and have to listen endless to their war stories.

If I ever get to San Antonio I'm gonna go Santa Ana on these wimps.

cobbler

08-05-2009, 10:56 PM

I understand this is the NBA section, and I don't care if Laker fan rips on the Spurs. If you complain about the Spurs fans, you have to think of where you are. This is called SpursTalk. Again, if I went to LakerTalk and complained about the conversations of Laker fans it would be dumb. Why? Because it's called LakerTalk, not NBA Talk.

You really don't get it... but it's ok. Believe what you will...

manufan10

08-05-2009, 11:00 PM

He's being obstinate & facetious. He still ain't over:

A. the Mavs beating his ass.

B. the Lakers beating everyone's ass.

If they were World Champions we'd be welcome here, and have to listen endless to their war stories.

If I ever get to San Antonio I'm gonna go Santa Ana on these wimps.

A. I was over that a long time ago.
B. I don't care if the Lakers won the championship or not, it's not that big of a deal to me.

I never said Laker fan or any other fan is not welcome. All I said is that if you're going to complain about Spurs fan posting, you should realize that you're on a Spurs forum/message board, whatever you want to call it. But you guys can go on with your antics.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. I'm done with what website we're on.

Ditty

08-05-2009, 11:50 PM

Please

well thank the damn juwan howard who by the way his mavericks almost got swept by the spurs without Derek Anderson there 2nd leading scorer:lol

okay i was over exagerating on that part but anderson would have helped the spurs offense and defense probably winningthe first 2 games but getting our butt wooped over there and wouldnt have know what would happen over there

2002 if stephon jackson who was on the IR was playing we would of defintley beat LA in 2002 guarnteed but probably lose to the kings

z0sa

08-06-2009, 01:16 AM

:tu Manufan10. If any fanbase doesn't like having shitloads of spurs fans saturating the conversation, GTFO. Don't complain because your pussy hurts from many more of spurfan having the exact opposite opinion on everything.

Showtime24 LAKERS

08-06-2009, 02:41 AM

Kobe smells blood whenever he play against the spurs..he'd always step up a notch and take it right into their hearts! besides, who could/can stop kobe on that team? :lol

Culburn369

08-06-2009, 03:15 AM

LAKERS is correct here,,,,Kobe does possess some ownage rights when it comes to the Spurs.

And this Manufan10 fellow, he must realize that we're here, we're stayin' here and last but not least,,,we're like World Champions. Perhaps next June that may change, probably not. God willing, and the creek don't rise, we'll be World Champions once again. So, he needs to get an attitude adjustment and learn to coexist with our Lakers Fandom. By & large we're a fair, but, a very firm bunch. We, as a group adhere closely with the Davy Crockett motto of life: "make sure you're right, then go ahead."

scanry

08-06-2009, 10:14 AM

They were. IN fact the last game they had in March that year, the Spurs came back form a 22 pt deficit and won in OT with Derek Anderson leading the way. Derek was a huge loss, the Lakers had nobody to guard him that year.

A regular season game is irrelevant. That 2001 Laker squad had Shaq who was just unstoppable. Kobe tore us apart as well, but the reason he was killing us was because of the double & triple teams Shaq was drawing. As Shaq declined, Kobe was a lot easier to contain (see the 2003 & 2004 series).

Laker fans just don't appreciate Shaq enough. He was so damn dominant from 2000-2002. Like it or not, Kobe wouldn't be the player he is if it weren't for Shaq.

Culburn369

08-06-2009, 10:19 AM

Laker fans just don't appreciate Shaq enough. He was so damn dominant from 2000-2002. Like it or not, Kobe wouldn't be the player he is if it weren't for Shaq.

We don't appreciate him because Daddy shit where he ate. Media siding him because it sold papers doesn't change that fact.

Jacko

08-06-2009, 10:22 AM

A regular season game is irrelevant. That 2001 Laker squad had Shaq who was just unstoppable. Kobe tore us apart as well, but the reason he was killing us was because of the double & triple teams Shaq was drawing. As Shaq declined, Kobe was a lot easier to contain (see the 2003 & 2004 series).

Laker fans just don't appreciate Shaq enough. He was so damn dominant from 2000-2002. Like it or not, Kobe wouldn't be the player he is if it weren't for Shaq.

I think Kobe would have flourished no matter where he ended up playing. His skills transcend Shaq, and I think he proved that when he won a championship without him.

Spur fans just don't like admitting that Kobe is good and that he was one of the main reasons they never repeated in their run. So what they try to do is keep repeating the same tired mantra that Shaq was the only reason the Lakers won and Kobe rode his coattails to 3 rings. And then they repeated the same tired drivel for years that Kobe could never win a ring without Shaq. And he did.

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face fucked in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

scanry

08-06-2009, 10:24 AM

We don't appreciate him because Daddy shit where he ate. Media siding him because it sold papers doesn't change that fact.

Now that you mention, Shaq and Kobe were both childish and helped them sell papers. BTW you can't discount Phil, he had to chip in to soothe his ego..

ambchang

08-06-2009, 10:24 AM

So, like every single thread in this forum, it has turned into a Kobe is the greatest debate.

gaKNOW!blee

08-06-2009, 10:25 AM

Derek Anderson was the shit!

Culburn369

08-06-2009, 10:25 AM

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face fucked in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

Jack is correct here, you guys did end up looking God awful. Just own up to it.

gaKNOW!blee

08-06-2009, 10:26 AM

Jack is correct here, you guys did end up looking God awful. Just own up to it.

You didn't commit suicide yet?

That's a shame.

scanry

08-06-2009, 10:29 AM

Culburn369

08-06-2009, 10:31 AM

Now that you mention, Shaq and Kobe were both childish and helped them sell papers. BTW you can't discount Phil, he had to chip in to soothe his ego..

Yes, Phil had a heavy hand in it, and I'll tell you something else: Kobe was the cleanest of the three (until he ratted out Daddy in Denver years later), but, at the time, Kobe was absolutely correct on all of his indictments of Daddy. It just made Phil look weak when Kobe went public with them, and Phil took the easy way out. Once Daddy scratched in the Indy Finals he went "Hollywood."

I've said countless times on countless Boards: watch him in the immediate aftermath of the Indy Finals as he searches the crowd for his people. It's a sobering sight as relief mixed with such anguish is registered on O'Neal's face. It takes a lot of the joy of the moment away as you realize what that meant to him. He's been a pompous ass more or less ever since that nite.

Culburn369

08-06-2009, 10:38 AM

Kobe was no longer Shaq's sidekick from 2003 onwards, but he did benefit a lot from Shaq's presence (same with D Fish, Fox & Horry) before that. Kobe played hurt in 2000, and they still won that year (Luckily he wasn't that hurt in the Portland series, otherwise they wouldn't have advanced). You really think Rick Fox would've been relevant for another franchise?

Kobe was never Shaq's sidekick. And Kobe's adamant refusal to be "Gilligan" to Daddy's "Skipper" killed O'Neil. He couldn't understand it, or reconcile the rejection in his mind. Made him bitter and he acted out accordingly.

---

And you're dead on about Kobe and that Portland series save. That was Kobe who started us back from the edge of calamity. We lose that series and they'd a come for Daddy first, pitchforks, tar & feathers, etc. They'd a got around to Kobe a little later, but, Daddy woulda been high tech lynched on the spot. I get shaky just talkin' about it like this. That was the biggest series victory since the Finals of '85 to this present day. No question, but, it's given short shrift because it denied Media there chance to torture Daddy and then Kobe.

SpursFanInAustin

08-06-2009, 09:04 PM

Spurs 1995 and 2001 :depressed

Knicks 1993

Cavs 2009 :lol

Lakers 1986 :D

Suns in 2005

Heat in 2005

Pistons in 2006

Celtics in 1988

Blazers in 1991

Pacers in 1999 and 2004

Kings in 2002

Pistons in 2003 and 2007

TWolves in 2004

Seems as if the team with the homecourt advantage in the Conference Finals losing has become a commontheme since the post Jordan Bulls era (1998). The only years it didn't happen between then and now were 2000 and 2008 where both teams with homecourt advantage in each conference finals have advanced.

lefty

08-06-2009, 09:54 PM

Damn you Juwan Howard

MarHill

08-07-2009, 10:01 AM

I think Kobe would have flourished no matter where he ended up playing. His skills transcend Shaq, and I think he proved that when he won a championship without him.

Spur fans just don't like admitting that Kobe is good and that he was one of the main reasons they never repeated in their run. So what they try to do is keep repeating the same tired mantra that Shaq was the only reason the Lakers won and Kobe rode his coattails to 3 rings. And then they repeated the same tired drivel for years that Kobe could never win a ring without Shaq. And he did.

And in the end you all look like fools and your team gets face fucked in the 1st round by a pathetic Dallas team.

As a Spurs fan, I have always respected Kobe the basketball player and in those two series in 2001 & 2002 was the difference in my opinion. The Lakers deserve to win those series....because they had better team at that time.

Now.....again (like most) you make the silly argument about the Spurs not repeating even though they have won 3 of the last 6 championships. I will give the Lakers credit for winning three-in-a-row but when your rival for best team of the decade has won three championships as well.......makes that argument silly and pointless.

Lastly, the Spurs lost in the 1st round of playoffs for the first time in 9 years. And between 2005-2007, the Lakers had first round playoff losses and didn't even make the playoffs one of those years.

Let's have some perspective...instead of taking a cheap shot without the proper context. No team is going to win a championship every year.....

:flag:

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 10:04 AM

As a Spurs fan, I have always respected Kobe the basketball player and in those two series in 2001 & 2002 was the difference in my opinion. The Lakers deserve to win those series....because they had better team at that time.

Now.....again (like most) you make the silly argument about the Spurs not repeating even though they have won 3 of the last 6 championships. I will give the Lakers credit for winning three-in-a-row but when your rival for best team of the decade has won three championships as well.......makes that argument silly and pointless.

Lastly, the Spurs lost in the 1st round of playoffs for the first time in 9 years. And between 2005-2007, the Lakers had first round playoff losses and didn't even make the playoffs one of those years.

Let's have some perspective...instead of taking a cheap shot without the proper context. No team is going to win a championship every year.....

:flag:

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

MarHill

08-07-2009, 10:07 AM

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

That makes no sense.....

3 championships out of the last 6!!

That makes your argument pointless!!!

I could see if the Spurs had only one title.

I don't care how you win multiple championships!!!!!

MarHill

08-07-2009, 10:10 AM

Until you repeat, Mar, yer less than quality.

Championships won are championships won!!

Boston won championships in '81, '84, and '86.

It doesn't make their championships any less revelant. They won three titles in a six-year period.

And they along with the Lakers were considered the best two teams of the '80s.

Doesn't matter if they won them in a row or not.....

They are still multiple championship winners!!!

Same for the Spurs!

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 10:13 AM

That makes no sense.....

3 championships out of the last 6!!

That makes your argument pointless!!!

I could see if the Spurs had only one title.

I don't care how you win multiple championships!!!!!

But, you failed after each of the four titles. Sure, Media pimped that every other year thingy, but, that was just to cover for your chronic ineptitude until you could repeat. That's never going to happen now with Duncan glued to the hardwood, and Manu's body compromised.

Sure, Media will still carry your water for you, but, the snickers will grow louder.

MarHill

08-07-2009, 10:22 AM

But, you failed after each of the four titles. Sure, Media pimped that every other year thingy, but, that was just to cover for your chronic ineptitude until you could repeat. That's never going to happen now with Duncan glued to the hardwood, and Manu's body compromised.

Sure, Media will still carry your water for you, but, the snickers will grow louder.

Again....you are making a pointless argument!!

The Spurs still have three titles out of the last 6. You can snicker all you want.....but they won those titles. So they didn't get them back-to-back-to-back.....those rings are the same as the Lakers 2000-2002 rings.

I will give the Lakers and Bulls credit for doing the three-peat. That is an accomplishment. But the Spurs and Celtics of the '80s three championships in six years are good as well and will go down in the history books as multiple championship winners.

Please don't overlook the obvious by trying to slam the Spurs for not repeating.

If winning championships was so easily....why did the take the Lakers seven years to win another one.

Why?

Because no team is guarantee a championship (even the mighty Lakers) and when you get to the finals you have to cash in. Well, the Spurs are 4 for 4 in that regard...even though they didn't win them in a row.

Championships won are championships won!!!

:flag:

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 11:09 AM

You can chase your elbow round your asshole till the cows come home, but, until you go back-to-back, you're are fart catcherPERIOD

TheMACHINE

08-07-2009, 12:26 PM

If winning championships was so easily....why did the take the Lakers seven years to win another one.

:flag:

Is that suppose to be an insult? :lol

Ditty

08-07-2009, 12:53 PM

whats the big deal about wininng back to back championship IMO

you won a cahmpionship

if duncan dosent get hurt in 2000 who know what could of happened

if fisher dosen't make that shot in 2004 what could of happened

if ginobili dosent foul dirk we porbaly do win back to back

lot of ifs lakers havent repeated since 2002 which is a remarkable thing and i will give lakers credit but i know if lakers dont repeat this year the laker fans will still be dogging how they had the greatest title run in one year

TheManFromAcme

08-07-2009, 01:15 PM

No no son, the Lakers were the best team in the 80's, there are no two, just one. Give Boston credit of at least getting back to try and defend their crown. You fuckers cant even get it up.

Exactly.

We root for "our" teams to have bragging rights against our rivals. He with most marbles is the best. A concept many of us in here with normal childhoods still carry with us. It's a competitive thing.

The Lakers are the "Team of the Decade" They won the most in the 80's. This is written in a plethora of articles and mentioned in sports T.V. channels.
If Boston would have won 5 and the the Lakers 5 then the comment of "Those were the 2 best teams of the decade" would be applicable.

Look, I usually stay away from this topic but I must add; I respect the Spurs franchise and it's players and it's history but come on man! You got to defend your title at least once. Once! Doing that just propels your legacy just a little more and to another level. Not taking away the Spurs LOB's. They are all well deserved and won by some legendary teams but again, You GOTTA WIN AT LEAST ONE BACK TO BACK. If the Spurs happen to split this decade with the Lakers or surpass the Lakers, I will be the first extend the hand out and congratulate your team and give you the decade. I think that's where a special clause exists if and when you don't at least get a back to back. If you don't split the decade and fall short without a back to back, it kind of demeans, in a informal way and with die hard sports fans, your other championships. Got to have at least one defense of the title guys!

My opinion only.

mingus

08-07-2009, 01:55 PM

1 + 0 + 1 + 0 +1 = 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

:hat

TheManFromAcme

08-07-2009, 02:10 PM

1 + 0 + 1 + 0 +1 = 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

:hat

Your math equation equates to a acceptable answer. Your right. They both equal 3. That's not the basis of this discussion.

I am assuming the 1+1+1+0+0 = 3 equation is the Lakers right? In all reality your missing one more +1 in there but I'll let that go. :king

Do you not understand the "legacy" aspect of this? The Spurs cannot be mentioned (actually they're not at least anything I've read or heard in the media) as "one of the greatest" teams in basketball. I know they are. They have fielded some great teams but your not going to get the "respect" tag from the the rest of the shmoes out there. Spurs fan cares and won't ever accept it. I know of 100's of threads in here on how the Spurs get no love nationally. Well, maybe it's because they haven't repeated or really established a aura of dominance. Repeats do that...they establish a extended aura of dominance in a tangible way. Your teams F.O. holds 2 LOB trophies covering a 24 month span. You want that so that you can establish your team. Hey, I get it. 3 is 3 is 3 is 3 and so on. I am not taking ANYTHING away from the Spurs. Nothing. Linking them (championships) for extended period of times makes them greater. I know you know this. Money says if the Spurs had defended at least once your stance would be exactly like my stance. You would lobby your point on how defending a championship is a must. Since your team hasn't, I understand your defense on "how not defending" is not that big of a deal.

mingus

08-07-2009, 02:38 PM

Your math equation equates to a acceptable answer. Your right. They both equal 3. That's not the basis of this discussion.

I am assuming the 1+1+1+0+0 = 3 equation is the Lakers right? In all reality your missing one more +1 in there but I'll let that go. :king

Do you not understand the "legacy" aspect of this? The Spurs cannot be mentioned (actually they're not at least anything I've read or heard in the media) as "one of the greatest" teams in basketball. I know they are. They have fielded some great teams but your not going to get the "respect" tag from the the rest of the shmoes out there. Spurs fan cares. I know of 100's of threads in here on how the Spurs get no love nationally. Well, maybe it's because they haven't repeated or really established a aura of dominance. Repeats do that...they establish a extended aura of dominance in a tangible way. Your teams F.O. holds 2 LOB trophies covering a 24 month span. You want that so that you can establish your team. Hey, I get it. 3 is 3 is 3 is 3 and so on. I am not taking ANYTHING away from the Spurs. Nothing. Linking them (championships) for extended period of times makes them greater. I know you know this. Money says if the Spurs had defended at least once your stance would be exactly like my stance. You would lobby your point on how defending a champiobship is a must. Since your team hasn't, I understand your defense on "how not defending" is not that big of a deal.

i don't care about dynasties. it's a side converstaion, mental masturbation. it's an arbitrary ranking concept.

mingus

08-07-2009, 02:51 PM

urunobili

08-07-2009, 03:25 PM

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals :tu

BadOdor

08-07-2009, 03:27 PM

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals :tu

That's because you made so few of those:toast

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 06:48 PM

The Lakers are the "Team of the Decade" They won the most in the 80's.

And once & again the Lakers are the Team of the Decade (this decade) with 4. This '09 one really kicked the holy shit outta of the Spurs Franchise. It further shrunk they're already repeatless accomplishments.

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 07:13 PM

:lol

They thought we were a long lost memory.

Ain't it the truth! & to squeeze this one in at the ass end of the decade is such a slap in the face!:rollin

Culburn369

08-07-2009, 07:46 PM

Do you realize that we have started every fucking decade with a title contending team.:lol

Makes me proud, Luva. Great citation!

TheMACHINE

08-07-2009, 07:47 PM

There's something we have accomplished the Lakers WILL NEVER be able to... 100% winning percentage on Finals :tu

:lol:downspin::lmao:rollin

mystargtr34

08-07-2009, 07:51 PM

Of course you did, you the Yankees of the NBA. Sign anyone ya want.

BadOdor

08-07-2009, 08:46 PM

:lol:downspin::lmao:rollin

Miami Heat = 100% finals winning %!!!1

BadOdor

08-07-2009, 08:47 PM

Of course you did, you the Yankees of the NBA. Sign anyone ya want.

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick:toast

TheManFromAcme

08-07-2009, 09:02 PM

Miami Heat = 100% finals winning %!!!1

Touche!!:tu

cobbler

08-07-2009, 09:04 PM

also, the Larry Bird Celtics are mentioned more in the media as being one of the great basketball teams of all time, despite having won no consecutive championships, than the Pistons or Rockets, who both won consecutive championships.

and i believe that the reason the media doesn't talk about the Spurs is because they've been around for so long, demonstrating success. people expect it; there's nothing to report about. when it's all said and done, and people get a better grasp of history, i think people will look back and categorize the Spurs with the greats.

You are absolutely correct. The Bird Celtics are mentioned as a great team and the Duncan Spurs will go down in history as one too. They both should as they were and are outstanding teams. They actually share a lot in common. While great... both are the 2nd best teams of their respective decades behind the Lakers.

No doubt there are thousands of arguments about the topic but its simple math.

1980's Lakers 5 titles, Celts 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 7)
2000's Lakers 4 titles, Spurs 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 6)

mingus

08-07-2009, 09:18 PM

:wakeup

:sleep

mingus

08-07-2009, 09:25 PM

You are absolutely correct. The Bird Celtics are mentioned as a great team and the Duncan Spurs will go down in history as one too. They both should as they were and are outstanding teams. They actually share a lot in common. While great... both are the 2nd best teams of their respective decades behind the Lakers.

No doubt there are thousands of arguments about the topic but its simple math.

1980's Lakers 5 titles, Celts 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 7)
2000's Lakers 4 titles, Spurs 3... (Lakers most finals appearances of decade 6)

"team of the decade" talk is self-fallatio as well. tell me how it matters. it's a label conjured up by fans who basically make up shit that doesn't even exist in order to make themselves feel better. all that matters is LOB's, which this era's Spurs team has, along with he Lakers.

Dunc n Dave

08-07-2009, 10:34 PM

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick:toast

And neither did the Spurs.:toast

Boston, on the other hand? Well, ask them how that worked out for them... They had the worst record in the league that year.

cobbler

08-07-2009, 10:39 PM

Actually, we had 8 finals appearances in the 80's.

You are correct sir... my bad. I forgot the loss to the 76ers. Damn Andrew Toney. :bang

cobbler

08-07-2009, 10:50 PM

And neither did the Spurs.:toast

Boston, on the other hand? Well, ask them how that worked out for them... They had the worst record in the league that year.

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

mystargtr34

08-07-2009, 10:55 PM

At least we didn't tank for the number 1 pick:toast

Dont ever let those pesky facts get in the way of your arguments.

mystargtr34

08-07-2009, 11:02 PM

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

Ill agree with you and say Robinson could have, and would have played had the Spurs been in playoff contention. But how many times does breaking a foot, and getting a pin inserted, have a cut and dry recovery time? There can be complications that cause a player to miss more time than initially scheduled, or they can reinjure it by stepping on a court to early.

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

You may call that tanking, you can have your opinion, and honestly the tanking talk doesnt bother me at all because we all know it was a legitimate injury, and there would have been a big risk involved in bringing back your franchise player from a broken bone in his foot.

Besides, that 'advantage' isnt anywhere near the constant advantage the Lakers organization have had throughout their entire 60 year history. But I probably wouldnt complain about it if it was my team who had that advantage, so who cares.

Dunc n Dave

08-07-2009, 11:07 PM

It was well speculated and reported in 96 that the Spurs rested many players and extended the injured reserve status of the Admiral in order to better their odds at getting Duncan.

It's also well documented that Robinson broke his foot 6 games after missing the first 18 games due to his back, and the Top 4 highest paid Spurs played less than 70 games COMBINED due to COUNTLESS LEGIT injuries.

Robinson: 6 games (back injury, then foot surgery)
Elliott: 39 games (surgery for tendonitis)
Charles Smith:19 games (arthritis in knee, only "questionable" injury, but he sucked anyway)
Chuck Person: 0 games (out for season due to back surgery late in the 94-95 season from a plane accident)

You don't make guys get surgery if they don't need it, just to tank for a #1 pick.

How would the Lakers do if their 4 highest paid players (Kobe, Pau, Bynum, and Odom) had surgeries and all played less than 70 games combined?

mingus

08-07-2009, 11:20 PM

You're almost there. Knees bent, mouth wide open, ready to submit:whine.

:wow oh no. a sexual reference, the totality of what you've contributed to this board. at least Colburn or whatever his name is worth reading.

mingus

08-07-2009, 11:23 PM

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

the argument ends here, really.

cobbler

08-07-2009, 11:31 PM

Ill agree with you and say Robinson could have, and would have played had the Spurs been in playoff contention. But how many times does breaking a foot, and getting a pin inserted, have a cut and dry recovery time? There can be complications that cause a player to miss more time than initially scheduled, or they can reinjure it by stepping on a court to early.

Why would the Spurs risk their franchise player if complications came up, or if he wasnt 100%, or if he had some setbacks during his recovery, when the team clearly wasnt going anywhere that season.

You may call that tanking, you can have your opinion, and honestly the tanking talk doesnt bother me at all because we all know it was a legitimate injury, and there would have been a big risk involved in bringing back your franchise player from a broken bone in his foot.

Besides, that 'advantage' isnt anywhere near the constant advantage the Lakers organization have had throughout their entire 60 year history. But I probably wouldnt complain about it if it was my team who had that advantage, so who cares.

You see.... this is how it always is. I make a comment on how it was speculated and reported that the spurs rested players and Robinson in particular to have a chance at Duncan. I wasn't complaining one little bit. If my team had no chance in the season and our star player was hurt I would do the same thing. You yourself agreed on the Admiral speculation.

You could have left it at that. It was speculated. It was reported. I didn't say anything that is not true. But noooooo.... Laker jealousy rears it's head again and you take what was a quality post on your part and make it look petty. Constant advantage? :lmao

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good. :wow

Dunc n Dave

08-07-2009, 11:40 PM

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good. :wow

You got it all wrong. Pop finally stopped complaining and decided if the Lakers can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

The difference is the Spurs had no shady connections in the Bucks organization, unlike the Lakers with West in the Memphis front office.

mystargtr34

08-07-2009, 11:43 PM

You see.... this is how it always is. I make a comment on how it was speculated and reported that the spurs rested players and Robinson in particular to have a chance at Duncan. I wasn't complaining one little bit. If my team had no chance in the season and our star player was hurt I would do the same thing. You yourself agreed on the Admiral speculation.

You could have left it at that. It was speculated. It was reported. I didn't say anything that is not true. But noooooo.... Laker jealousy rears it's head again and you take what was a quality post on your part and make it look petty. Constant advantage? :lmao

Like Pop like fans... When the Lakers get a gift trade he's on tv complaining and asking for a review board...yet when the the Spurs get gifted 2 years later.... it's all good. :wow

The last part of my post wasnt really aimed at you, more just a response to those Lakerfans saying the Spurs tanked to get Duncan, which isnt true.

The other part of my post was in response to your post.

cobbler

08-07-2009, 11:47 PM

You got it all wrong. Pop finally stopped complaining and decided if the Lakers can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

The difference is the Spurs had no shady connections in the Bucks organization, unlike the Lakers with West in the Memphis front office.

West denied any invlovement. The memphis GM and owner denied any involvement. And nobody got robbed. All the collusion talk is nothing but sour grapes and conjecture.

cobbler

08-07-2009, 11:48 PM

The last part of my post wasnt really aimed at you, more just a response to those Lakerfans saying the Spurs tanked to get Duncan, which isnt true.

The other part of my post was in response to your post.

No problem... it's all good.

Ditty

08-08-2009, 12:30 AM

That's because you made so few of those:toast

last 4 finals if you want to be specific

spurs 4-0

lakers 2-2

:lol

powned faggot:toast

tlongII

08-08-2009, 12:38 AM

The 2001 Laker team was a joke. They got a title gift-wrapped by the refs the year before.

BadOdor

08-08-2009, 02:17 AM

last 4 finals if you want to be specific

spurs 4-0

lakers 2-2

:lol

powned faggot:toast

Last time lakers met spurs: 4-1 lol.

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 04:31 AM

You got it all wrong. Pop finally stopped complaining and decided if the Lakers can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em"

The difference is the Spurs had no shady connections in the Bucks organization, unlike the Lakers with West in the Memphis front office.

And the Lakers finally stopped complaining and decided if the Celtics can get away with robbing a franchise, so can we.

& West was no longer in the Memphis front office when we robbed Gasol.

TheManFromAcme

08-08-2009, 09:01 AM

"team of the decade" talk is self-fallatio as well. tell me how it matters. it's a label conjured up by fans who basically make up shit that doesn't even exist in order to make themselves feel better. all that matters is LOB's, which this era's Spurs team has, along with he Lakers.

Your one stubborn person mingus, I'll give you that. I can't say I blame you. Your a dedicated fan of a team that hasn't experienced that therefore you've been denied.

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 09:35 AM

Your a dedicated fan of a team that hasn't experienced that therefore you've been denied.

Acme is correct here. There is no way for Ming to get straightened out until he goes back-to-back. This is the kind of hair shirt they tossed onto Kobe over the Shaq has one without you rigamarole. It was conjuried up up by Media and then carried forth by their minions of readers. Media though don't want no part of fitting Spurs Fandom with the back-to-back LESS hair shirt. Uh, uh, they just figured we Lakers Fandom wouldn't notice. To help keep us distracted they started that assholish every other year rigamarole:rolleyes Then the Mavs came along and kicked the Spurs ass and that went to Hell.

No back-to-back. No mercy. That's it.

Let us proceed...

TheManFromAcme

08-08-2009, 10:13 AM

Acme is correct here. There is no way for Ming to get straightened out until he goes back-to-back. This is the kind of hair shirt they tossed onto Kobe over the Shaq has one without you rigamarole. It was conjuried up up by Media and then carried forth by their minions of readers. Media though don't want no part of fitting Spurs Fandom with the back-to-back LESS hair shirt. Uh, uh, they just figured we Lakers Fandom wouldn't notice. To help keep us distracted they started that assholish every other year rigamarole:rolleyes Then the Mavs came along and kicked the Spurs ass and that went to Hell.

No back-to-back. No mercy. That's it.

Let us proceed...

:tu

Unfortunately, I am afraid it's come to that.
Shame really. The Spurs have had some darn great teams but as fate would have it, could never really reach the level of greatness they probably deserved. Please Spurs fan don't construe this comment as a "back handed compliment" because it's not. Pull out your sports almanacs and look up any and all resources regarding "the greats". The greats at some point or another defend be it in the professional or collegiate level. What frustrates me is not that I am trying to convince a fan to do something that I think his team should accomplish. On the contrary. I am trying to shine light.

I am a Dodger fan big time. Love them. But the realist in me knows that to call the L.A. Dodgers one of the best, as much as I am a huge fan, compared to the Yankees would be silly. They Yankess are IT. Can't put the Dodgers in that category.

Self fallatio? Self gratification? Useless gauge to determine a great team? No it's not. Any normal die-hard sports fan wants his team to BE THE BEST AND TO HAVE THE MOST that's what us guys do as sports fans. To deny this is silly. Heck, we all come in here to this board to "brag".

Again, I'll put a months salary (GS-12 grade level) betting that if The Spurs would have won one back to back, Spurs fan WOULD BE DEFENDING how doing this propels your team to another level. That's the norm.

Since they haven't, not defending shouldn't be a determiner of how great a team is. It's psychological.

LakeShow

08-08-2009, 10:21 AM

No wonder why you guys hate Bryant so much, this guy was absolutely lethal against the spurs in these series. :wow:wow:wow

:lol, I'm sure you opened up old wounds with this one. The Lakers humiliated the Spurs those seasons. The Lakers toyed with them and it was down right embarrassing for the spurs. I even felt sorry for them. Not! :lol

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 10:50 AM

West denied any invlovement. The memphis GM and owner denied any involvement. And nobody got robbed. All the collusion talk is nothing but sour grapes and conjecture.

Of course they denied it. What do you expect them to do? Risk prison time or at the very least being banned from the NBA?

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 10:51 AM

Bucks just may have gotten the better of that deal. We'll know from the posters on here come mid-season. Dick better bring his A game.

Even if Jefferson brings his "B" Game, it's still better than anything an ancient Kurt Thomas or post-heart suregry Fabricio Oberto could bring for the Spurs.

It's a "can't lose" situation for the Spurs.

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 11:13 AM

David could have played the last few months of the season. He was only scheduled to be out for 6 weeks after he had his surgery in Dec. I wont question his back problems, because honestly, anyone who has suffered from back pains know that's the worst injury you can have. But, following that season, he played the majority of the games year in and year out. I guess Duncan relieved the load off his back.

Robinson's surgery was on December 27th. Best case scenario is he's back by mid February, but we've all seen with Yao and Ilgauskas how foot surgeries with 7 footers don't have your typical recovery time. Even if you only add 2 more weeks to his recovery, it's now close to March 1st with only 6 weeks left in the season. The Spurs have a record 13-43 on the season on Feb 28th.

There was no guarantee they'd get Duncan, so why risk your one and ONLY franchise player by bringing him back from his first major surgery early when you only have 26 games left. Even if you go 26-0, you still finish 39-43, out of the playoffs.

Oh, AND the Spurs won 7 more games in 6 weeks (March and April) (and lost another in OT) after David's 6-8 week recovery time had supposedly ended. 3 other games were lost by 5 points or less. Hardly the work of a team trying to tank.

And what you Laker fans never noticed was that David's back pains never went away completely. Before every game for the rest of his career, the training staff went through an almost HOUR LONG stretching regimen with David to help keep his back from flaring up too bad.

There were many games Pop would not put David back in because he had been sitting too long on the bench, so Pop did not want to risk David's back tightening up, and held him out of 4th quarters. He never played a full 82 games season again, missing a game here and there to rest his back. Many times during back to backs.

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 12:15 PM

Many times during back to backs.

Hey, Dunc, sweetheart, you never won back-to-back. Don't even start that shit, sonny.

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 12:24 PM

Hey, Dunc, sweetheart, you never won back-to-back. Don't even start that shit, sonny.

And neither did you. Do you REALLY want to go down this beaten path again, Cul?

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 12:26 PM

Please. I've tripled & doubled.

But, hey, you had that every other year thing goin' until the Mavs took it away 4-1.

Killakobe81

08-08-2009, 12:41 PM

1 + 0 + 1 + 0 +1 = 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 0 + 0 = 3

:hat

The titles are 4 - 3 ...not trrying to restart an old debate here ...but winning in 200, 2001, 2002 and 2009 = 4, not 3.

I can see BOTH sides of the argument here Spurs have a better won/loss record for the decade so they are THE MOST CONSISTENT of these teams ...but winning the BIG trophy is the bottomline and the truly GREAT franchises only put up banners for LOB's cause they are all THAT matter Lakers are the theam of the last decade because they won the most titles ...

cobbler

08-08-2009, 02:21 PM

Of course they denied it. What do you expect them to do? Risk prison time or at the very least being banned from the NBA?

Prison time? Banned from the NBA? Put the pipe down Dave. There are no laws or even NBA rules that say an unemployed ex GM can not give his input or insight to his former teams FO. What are you talking about? The owner of the Grizz was all for the trade... then in articles later even acknowledged they probably could have got more. There was nothing keeping him from saying... we took some bad advice. The trade was no more lopsided than the RJ trade. In fact... ill bet you the players and draft pics the Lakers traded for their all star will be contributing to teams in the NBA long after the players the Spurs traded for their all star are retired or forced out of the league.

Hmmmm.... Let me think.... Do I take the word of one of the most honorable and distingguished men in the history of the NBA or a bunch of whiney bitchy jealous fans. Hmmmm

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 02:57 PM

Please. I've tripled & doubled.
But, hey, you had that every other year thing goin' until the Mavs took it away 4-1.

Not interested in what you've done with your sister, Cul.

You don't play for the Lakers, never have, never will in your 50's. You jumped off the Suns wagon once the Lakers were better again.

But hey, you're not the only "Good Time Charlie," so don't feel ashamed...

Dunc n Dave

08-08-2009, 03:02 PM

Prison time? Banned from the NBA? Put the pipe down Dave. There are no laws or even NBA rules that say an unemployed ex GM can not give his input or insight to his former teams FO. What are you talking about? The owner of the Grizz was all for the trade... then in articles later even acknowledged they probably could have got more. There was nothing keeping him from saying... we took some bad advice. The trade was no more lopsided than the RJ trade. In fact... ill bet you the players and draft pics the Lakers traded for their all star will be contributing to teams in the NBA long after the players the Spurs traded for their all star are retired or forced out of the league.

Hmmmm.... Let me think.... Do I take the word of one of the most honorable and distingguished men in the history of the NBA or a bunch of whiney bitchy jealous fans. Hmmmm

Even honorable and distinguished men do things they aren't proud of. Of course they are going to deny doing something that would ruin that respected reputation. I'm not saying he did anything wrong, but I'm also not saying he didn't.

mingus

08-08-2009, 03:07 PM

The titles are 4 - 3 ...not trrying to restart an old debate here ...but winning in 200, 2001, 2002 and 2009 = 4, not 3.

I can see BOTH sides of the argument here Spurs have a better won/loss record for the decade so they are THE MOST CONSISTENT of these teams ...but winning the BIG trophy is the bottomline and the truly GREAT franchises only put up banners for LOB's cause they are all THAT matter Lakers are the theam of the last decade because they won the most titles ...

i wasn't making a point about team of the decade (try reading the post to which i responded originally). Lakers can have team of the decade. it's a retarded award to begin with. it's time-based, not team-based. i'd rather debate eras (ie. the Tim Duncan Era, The Kobe Bryant Era). it's a better way of debating about franchises if you want to dice up their histories into small, comparable parts (because obviously the Lakers are the better franchise considering both their histories).

mingus

08-08-2009, 03:21 PM

I'll take the bait. According to Spurs fans, the regular season counts for nothing. The Kobe era has produced 6 WC titles, and 4 NBA titles. The Duncan era has produced 4 WC titles, and 4 NBA titles. Head to head, the Kobe era has beat the Duncan era more times.

you're absolutely correct about what you just said. if you'd bothered reading/comprehending at all what i've argued about in this thread, you'd have figured out that trying to prove me wrong on something i never denied in the first place is :bang. my points were about the method(s) by which we measure greatness, not who's the greatest. quit wasting my time.

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 04:16 PM

I'm not saying he did anything wrong, but I'm also not saying he didn't.

tee, hee.

Culburn369

08-08-2009, 04:24 PM

Not interested in what you've done with your sister, Cul.

You don't play for the Lakers, never have, never will in your 50's. You jumped off the Suns wagon once the Lakers were better again.

But hey, you're not the only "Good Time Charlie," so don't feel ashamed...

No shame here, daddy-O. I got a total of 15. I keep 14 of them in my head. I keep two elsewhere: one is the catastrophe of '84. And then there is the deliverance of '85. Without the disaster of '84, nothing since woulda transpired as it has. Those two, Dunc--('84&'85)--they live in my heart and I'll take them to the grave.