Rank the 2010-2011 Mavs in comparison to the other champions in the last 10 seasons.

[Venti Quattro]

2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2007 Spurs
2006 Heat
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
2002 Lakers

Where do dem Mavs stand?

[clambake]

on top

[Trainwreck2100]

on top

so i see you decided to use ascending order

[Leetonidas]

2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2002 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

[Viva Las Espuelas]

2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2002 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

Seems about right, but why is a team that won 4 straight after losing two, last?

[Leetonidas]

The Mavs choked hard in that series and the refs were sucking Wade's cock like no one's business, it was more that than Miami being an amazing team. Shaq posted fairly pedestrian numbers. Payton was old and so was Williams. And :lmao Antoine Walker. Zo was the only good player with Haslem.

Wade was that team. Without him they were garbage.

[JamStone]

I think you can make an argument for the top 3 on your list to be in any order. All three of those teams had complete teams. Hurts to admit, but I personally might put the 2008 Celtics as the best champs over the last 10 years. Same level defensively as the 04 Pistons and 05 Spurs, some could argue better. But I think they're offense was better than both.

Also agree that this Mavericks team would probably rank somewhere in the middle of the pack, anywhere in the 4-7 range among those title teams.

[endrity]

I don't know how to rank them personally.

I know the Mavs had one of the toughest roads to get there, but I can't say for sure whether they really are part of the top.

It really depends on how you see a lot of the events. Were the 04 Pistons great, or did the Lakers implode? (That says a lot on how you rank the 04 Pacers as well) How you answer that question has a lot to do with how you rate the 05 Spurs. Were the 03 Spurs really good, or lucky to get a tired Lakers team.

I still think the 01 Lakers were the gold standard. they might not have been great in the reg season, but their playoff run was smth else. After that I don't know. 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics are probably my top 3.

[TimmehC]

2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2002 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat
Solid, but just swap the '03 and '07 Spurs squads, IMO.

[Mal]

Seems about right, but why is a team that won 4 straight after losing two, last?

You werent watching those finals ? Mavs choked badly, Heat was little above crap that time.

[Ghazi]

definitely better than the '06 Heat... maybe better than the '10 Lakers..

[Darthkiller]

08 celtics
11 mavs
04 pistons
02 lakers
07 spurs
05 spurs
03 spurs
09 lakers
10 lakers
06 heat

[stretch]

the only teams that I would without question put ahead of the Mavs are the 01 Lakers, and 08 Celtics, and the only ones that would without question be behind the Mavs are the 06 Heat, 07 Spurs. IMO everyone else is duking it out in the middle, pretty even overall.

[mavsfan1000]

the only teams that I would without question put ahead of the Mavs are the 01 Lakers, and 08 Celtics, and the only ones that would without question be behind the Mavs are the 06 Heat, 07 Spurs. IMO everyone else is duking it out in the middle, pretty even overall.
Amazing how underrated this team was. The media was all over the Heat and Lakers and calling them chokers. Gasol has personal problems. Kobe is injured. Lebron has mental problems. All this bullshit and not giving the Mavs the credit.

[Darrin]

2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2007 Spurs
2006 Heat
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
2002 Lakers

Where do dem Mavs stand?

2004 Pistons--My favorite team winning as 7-1 underdogs against the hated Shaq/Kobe Lakers. It was a perfect storm for me.
2008 Celtics--KG and Paul Pierce were two of my favorite players before they played on the same team. I was convinced that the two would never climb the mountain and I would never see a competitive team in Boston. This was sweet, even if they had to beat the Pistons on the way to it.
2005 Spurs--They had great performances from everyone in the rotation, it was a classic series, the last season that NBA defense was allowed. More than that, the Spurs earned my respect and it's part of why I am a member of this board.
2009 Lakers--My venom for the Lakers had subsided. They were my second-favorite team growing up and it was sweet to see Kobe play that way, transform his game, in perhaps the best year I have ever seen from the Lakers.
2007 Spurs--Tony Parker was masterful. The Spurs won with a team concept and were dominant for most of the postseason. It was good to see the Cavs get trounced and I think that most of the country missed good basketball from the Spurs because of their reputation.
2011 Mavericks--Dirk was masterful and Lebron was exposed. I saw very little of the series, but I like the result.
2003 Spurs--These Spurs were tough and clutch. I hated the fact the Pistons weren't there and I am glad that the Nets were defeated.
2010 Lakers--I really wanted Boston to win. Sasha Vujacic with 2 rings or KG? It was a little bitersweet. Kobe looked old, and it wasn't a good series.
2006 Heat--I wanted the Mavs. I hated watching the criticism of Dirk, the collapse, the officiating (the first with the new interpretation of contact and impeding progress to the rim), thinking the NBA was fixed, the broken playoff bracket, watching Steve Nash win MVP. Have I mentioned I hated the 2005-06 season?
2002 Lakers--Hate these Lakers. Feuds, no balance around O'Neal, bunch of shooters around Kobe, and no ball-movement. Boo. Bad Basketball.

[baseline bum]

Are you serious? The Gasol Lakers over the Shaq Lakers?

[Darrin]

Are you serious? The Gasol Lakers over the Shaq Lakers?

That's covered in the post (why I don't like the Lakers with Shaq). Kobe is a different player playing alongside Gasol than he was with Shaq.

[baseline bum]

Winning three titles in a row is bad basketball?

[DAF86]

2002 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
2011 Mavs
2007 Spurs
2006 Heat

[Darrin]

Winning three titles in a row is bad basketball?

You had teams with role players who couldn't hit a jumpshot or set a screen. The quality of the NBA product was down. There were no teams to speak of. Everyone had their Jordan, paid him accordingly, gave them his media attention, and they were 95% of the offense. It was Allen Iverson vs. Tracy McGrady every night. It was bad basketball that dominated because they had Shaq. When Shaq became fat and overrated, the team couldn't contend anymore. He is the laziest superstar I have ever seen. Don't get me started on the young Kobe.

They had no point guard, they stood and swung the ball, but outside of that, there was no movement. They didn't have anyone challenge them. It was boring, frustrating, and I hated having this team in LA. Respect the Championships, sure. Like them? Never.

[DMC]

2003 Spurs
2005 Spurs
2007 Spurs
everyone else... blah blah who cares.

[Axe Murderer]

2002 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2003 Spurs
2010 Lakers
2004 Pistons
2009 Lakers
2011 Mavericks
2005 Spurs
2006 Heat
2007 Spurs

[Isitjustme?]

The 2008 Celtics are overrated. They went seven in their first three series. There hasn't been any real dominant playoff team since the 2001 Lakers and they're not from the last ten seasons.

[mariners]

2002 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2003 Spurs
2010 Lakers
2004 Pistons
2009 Lakers
2011 Mavericks
2005 Spurs
2006 Heat
2007 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2011 Mavs
2004 Pistons
2003 Spurs
2005 Spurs
2007 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2010 Lakers
2002 Lakers
2006 Heat

[ogait]

2002 Lakers
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2010 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2003 Spurs
2011 Mavs
2009 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2006 Heat

[Amaso]

1. 2002 Lakers
2. 2008 Celtics
3. 2005 Spurs
4. 2004 Pistons
5. 2010 Lakers
6. 2009 Lakers
7. 2003 Spurs
8. 2007 Spurs
9. 2011 Mavericks
10. 2006 Heat

Had trouble with the rankings. The only one's I knew for sure were the 2002 Lakers at 1, and 2011 Mavericks at 9 with 2006 Heat being the weakest championship team in the past decade.

[Killakobe81]

I don't know how to rank them personally.

I know the Mavs had one of the toughest roads to get there, but I can't say for sure whether they really are part of the top.

It really depends on how you see a lot of the events. Were the 04 Pistons great, or did the Lakers implode? (That says a lot on how you rank the 04 Pacers as well) How you answer that question has a lot to do with how you rate the 05 Spurs. Were the 03 Spurs really good, or lucky to get a tired Lakers team.

I still think the 01 Lakers were the gold standard. they might not have been great in the reg season, but their playoff run was smth else. After that I don't know. 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics are probably my top 3.

agree on 2001 Lakers we was rollin' we were an AI once in a lifetime game from AI from sweeping the whole thing ...Celts defense in 2008 was amazing though and Pierce shot his wad ...he will NEVER was that good before or will be THAT good again ...

[JamStone]

Problem I would have with saying 2002 Lakers were the best champs in the past 10 seasons is that they had to get help from the refs to beat a Sacramento Kings team whose core never even won a championship in the WCF. That Lakers team was still very good, as all championship teams are. But they weren't as dominant, especially in the playoffs, as the previous Laker team in 2001. And I think the Kings series and the controversy around it at the very least diminishes some of the greatness of that team.

[Proxy]

Solid, but just swap the '03 and '07 Spurs squads, IMO.

[TampaDude]

2003 Spurs
2005 Spurs
2007 Spurs
everyone else... blah blah who cares.

:toast

[TampaDude]

2005 Spurs--They had great performances from everyone in the rotation, it was a classic series, the last season that NBA defense was allowed. More than that, the Spurs earned my respect and it's part of why I am a member of this board.


Back at ya, dude...the 2005 Finals was EPIC!!! IMHO, the greatest Finals of the past 20 years, hands down. :toast

That Finals made a lot of Spurs and Pistons fans really respect the other team. :hat

[Jacob1983]

The 2006 Heat are one of the worst championship teams in the history of the NBA.

[Venti Quattro]

FWIW, my rank would be:

2002 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2011 Mavs
2003 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2010 Lakers
2005 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat
2007 Spurs

[davethedope]

It's really hard to rank teams with no stats and intagibles but here's a go:

2006 Heat
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2002 Lakers
2011 Mavs
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2003 Spurs
2007 Spurs

Don't like having the Pistons at the top but they were really consistent and won against
a stacked team with a roster of role players.

O5' Spurs beats said team in 7 games, which had to have been a very competitve all-time series.

02 lakers just because they were stacked, in spite of the controversies

'11 Mavs beat defending champion and a few stacked teams with Dirk and role players

09-'10 Lakers are again tough because the Magic were a joke and the Celtics were
robbed, still I believe they are a better team than 08 Celtics and probably would
have won in 08 had Bynum been healthy. Plus Celtics didn't really dominate the comp
during the playoffs, being taken to 7 games in each series.

03' and 07' Spurs who played very weak Eastern conference entries, probably the weakest comp in the 10 years.

edit: on second thought Heat team probably could've beaten all these teams come to think of it since shaq cancels himself out.

[Jacob1983]

Mavs winning the Finals without HCA has to put them in the top 3 in my opinion. Kobe or Duncan never did that.

[DirkDoesWork]

2002 Lakers
2008 Cletics
2003 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2010 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2006 cHeat

Only reason I put 2007 Spurs that low is because of how horrible the entire league was that year.

[Venti Quattro]

Many rag on the 2006 series but despite the *largely-percieved* rigging, it was an exciting series. The 2007 Finals was a wire-to-wire snorefest and the only people who could watch it were Spurs fans and masochist Cavs fans.

[Chieflion]

Many rag on the 2006 series but despite the *largely-percieved* rigging, it was an exciting series. The 2007 Finals was a wire-to-wire snorefest and the only people who could watch it were Spurs fans and masochist Cavs fans.

If you are a Cavs fan, you are a confirmed masochist. No need to repeat that for them.

[Amaso]

It's really hard to rank teams with no stats and intagibles but here's a go:

2006 Heat
2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2002 Lakers
2011 Mavs
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2003 Spurs
2007 Spurs


lol, you obviously didn't watch the NBA the past 10 years

[FkLA]

Why would any of yall niggas, especially Spurs fans, rank the 03' Spurs as the best SA title team this decade??The other two title teams along with still being a defensive force and having a prime TD, had Parker and Ginobili as established all-stars. The 03' team was way too dependent on Timmy.


2005 Spurs
2002 Lakers
2004 Pistons
2008 Celtics
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2009 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2010 Lakers
2006 Heat

[sonic21]

2002 Lakers
2008 Celtics
2005 Spurs
2004 Pistons
2011 Mavs
2003 Spurs
2010 Lakers
2009 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2006 Heat

[DAF86]

Why the fuck are people raking the '03 Spurs over '05?

[Ice009]

How are the Celtics so high? They needed 7 games to beat the Hawks, 7 games to beat Cleveland, Pistons choked after taking a 2-1 lead and should have beaten them. Lakers weren't a great finals opponent either (they would have been a decent opponent with Bynum in the lineup, but without Bynum didn't have enough at all)

Everyone keeps going on about how great that Celtic defense was. What are their stats? opp fg % and ppg? I don't think their defense was better than the Pistons in '04 or Spurs defense either.

The Spurs '07 Championship team was one of the lower ranked ones and I might agree with that, but the Spurs swept that Cleveland team the year before and the Celtics needed 7 games to beat them. Does anyone remember Ray Allen choking it up shooting a piss poor percentage all the way to the finals? There was no team to take advantage of him choking. He choked so much that I thought he had nothing to lose by the time he got to the finals and was relaxed as no one made him pay for it.

Kendrick Perkins also said that they did not want to play the Spurs, they were hoping LA would make it instead. I think they felt too comfortable against LA and just didn't really get a challenge in those playoffs. No disrespect, but I don't think LA were good enough (without Bynum) to challenge Boston that season as I would have liked to have seen how Boston faired against a fully healthy Spurs team, who would have put some pressure on them IMO. We might not have won, but we would have put some pressure on.

I didn't know how bad Manu was until the end of the series when I saw that he averaged just over 10 ppg or so for the series and made it look like Sasha can actually guard him. I mean he averaged 20 ppg in these playoffs with a broken arm so his ankle must have really held him back. Ray Allen got to play against Vujacic in the finals whereas it would have been interesting to see him matched up against Bruce Bowen. I just don't think that Celtics team really got a decent challenge and they barely beat teams they should have swept.

Pistons were the biggest disappointment, they should have made at least 4 finals IMO.

Saying all that I would still rank the Lakers, Spurs, Pistons higher than the '08 Celtics. I'm just not impressed by the '08 Celtics to put them ahead of those other teams.

'11 Mavericks I won't rank yet as it's too early, but I will say they are up there.

[ogait]

Why the fuck are people raking the '03 Spurs over '05?

I would also like to see the reasoning for this. Makes no sense at all. 2005 had basically the same core without a 38 year old David Robinson, with much betters Parker and Ginobili, with a just as good Tim Duncan, and with better role players.

As far as this ranking goes, LA 2002 is the best team because it had prime Shaq and near prime Kobe, and very good role players. Its been proven that this team would beat most if not all other post MJ team in a series if things go the normal way, no other core has been as dominant.

2011 Mavs and 2003 Spurs have to be ranked side by side. Both had one star playing at an unusual high level, both have 1 hall of famer ways past his prime (Kidd and Robinson), both were barely a playoff team without their best player.

It seems that some people are voting on how unlikely it was for said team to win the tittle, therefore making it a bigger accomplishment rather than how good the team really was.

[ambchang]

I have no idea why anyone would rank the 2002 Lakers #1, did you forget about how they got there in the first place? That should should have been the 02 Kings, just like the 06 Mavs.

I am going out on a limb and say that you can pretty much swap the first three

08 Celtics
05 Spurs
04 Pistons
03 Spurs
11 Mavs
02 Lakers
10 Lakers
07 Spurs
09 Lakers
06 Heat

[Ghazi]

Mavs were basically a 65 win team this year if not for injuries... some might underrate them due to a subpar regular season by champion standards..

also 16-5 in the postseason w/ an impressive MoV, beating 7 all-NBA players... beating Kobe, Durant, and James

what a run, what a team :)

[Ice009]

I would also like to see the reasoning for this. Makes no sense at all. 2005 had basically the same core without a 38 year old David Robinson, with much betters Parker and Ginobili, with a just as good Tim Duncan, and with better role players.

As far as this ranking goes, LA 2002 is the best team because it had prime Shaq and near prime Kobe, and very good role players. Its been proven that this team would beat most if not all other post MJ team in a series if things go the normal way, no other core has been as dominant.

2011 Mavs and 2003 Spurs have to be ranked side by side. Both had one star playing at an unusual high level, both have 1 hall of famer ways past his prime (Kidd and Robinson), both were barely a playoff team without their best player.

It seems that some people are voting on how unlikely it was for said team to win the tittle, therefore making it a bigger accomplishment rather than how good the team really was.

Why are the 2002 Lakers ranked so high? I'd have thought everyone would pick the 2001 Lakers who steamrolled through the playoffs. Not sure how the Spurs would have went against them if Derek Anderson wasn't injured and could score more that 2 points for the series, but still the Lakers almost swept the whole playoffs.

As for the 2002 Lakers they barely beat the Kings who may have choked game 7 and also the Spurs had the lead in the 4th quarter of every game and choked closing the games out. The Spurs had a rookie Tony Parker and no Manu and they had a lead in the 4th every game and simply just choked it away in the last 5 minutes in most of the games.

2001 Lakers team is easily the best Lakers team IMO. I'm baffled that people keep putting the 2002 team up there.

Edit : Just realized that the 2001 team doesn't make the cut as it's only for the last 10 seasons. I still wouldn't put the 2002 team first though.

[davethedope]

lol, you obviously didn't watch the NBA the past 10 years


Let me clairfy then.

The east has been shit since the Jordan era, and just cuz Shaq moved out west and gifted LA some titles doesn't rank them among the greatest teams of all-time. You beat the Pacers and Nets, gimme a break. Those teams
are laughable comp.

The Pistons team wins, but I think they caught lightning in a bottle as they
didn't win again.

Spurs, again benefit from some shit comp, but was able to beat the
somewhat competent Pistons, a team with not one HOFamer on it.

Cavs, joke finals. Shaq comes back east with a stacked team, title, not
the same Shaq, but still a presence, more or less.

Celtics were okay.

Kobe played a seriously fraudulent Magic team and won a horribly officiated
game 7 which they couldn't back up. Mavs probably could've
beaten them last year if they played them last year.

Basically, whether or not the games are fun to watch is not the point, but
the level of comp and imbalance has been a joke since the lock out
so really they're all on the same level of shitiness.

[jsandiego]

The 2006 Heat are one of the worst championship teams in the history of the NBA.

+1

If Timmy didn't have plantar fasciitis. If no and-1 on Dirk by Manu -- we would've destroyed that team.

[davethedope]

you're dreaming, Spurs couldnt have beaten that team on their best day

[ogait]

Why are the 2002 Lakers ranked so high? I'd have thought everyone would pick the 2001 Lakers who steamrolled through the playoffs. Not sure how the Spurs would have went against them if Derek Anderson wasn't injured and could score more that 2 points for the series, but still the Lakers almost swept the whole playoffs.

As for the 2002 Lakers they barely beat the Kings who may have choked game 7 and also the Spurs had the lead in the 4th quarter of every game and choked closing the games out. The Spurs had a rookie Tony Parker and no Manu and they had a lead in the 4th every game and simply just choked it away in the last 5 minutes in most of the games.

2001 Lakers team is easily the best Lakers team IMO. I'm baffled that people keep putting the 2002 team up there.

Edit : Just realized that the 2001 team doesn't make the cut as it's only for the last 10 seasons. I still wouldn't put the 2002 team first though.

2001 Lakers weren't an option.

Again I'm not looking at the circumstances, and how they played against what was expected from the team.

2002 Lakers were back to back champions and almost swept the entire playoffs the year before.Compared to that almost everything you do the year after will be worse.

Still the team was pretty much the same as in 2001, it was still Shaq and Kobe getting along and playing to win, the rest of team was the same with big shot makers like Horry and Fisher.

One team doesn't go from great in 2001 to not great in the year after, unless serious roster or coaching changes happens or off court issues.

[ohmwrecker]

you're dreaming, Spurs couldnt have beaten that team on their best day

Your screen name is very appropriate.

[davethedope]

dont be smug, make a point.

Spurs never conquered Shaq so I don't see how they would do it againt Shaq and Zo and the rest, not to mention Wade who was out of his mind.

[stretch]

ice, with the butthurt

[Axe Murderer]

ice, with the butthurt

sup bro

[ogait]

Let me clairfy then.

The east has been shit since the Jordan era, and just cuz Shaq moved out west and gifted LA some titles doesn't rank them among the greatest teams of all-time. You beat the Pacers and Nets, gimme a break. Those teams
are laughable comp.

The Pistons team wins, but I think they caught lightning in a bottle as they
didn't win again.

Spurs, again benefit from some shit comp, but was able to beat the
somewhat competent Pistons, a team with not one HOFamer on it.

Cavs, joke finals. Shaq comes back east with a stacked team, title, not
the same Shaq, but still a presence, more or less.

Celtics were okay.

Kobe played a seriously fraudulent Magic team and won a horribly officiated
game 7 which they couldn't back up. Mavs probably could've
beaten them last year if they played them last year.

Basically, whether or not the games are fun to watch is not the point, but
the level of comp and imbalance has been a joke since the lock out
so really they're all on the same level of shitiness.

So basically your entire argument is that all teams are shitty and played shitty competition, but you pick as the best champion of the last 10 year the team who won the most rigged finals and of all teams was probably the one who was the least amount of time in contention for a championship.

OK.

[Ice009]

you're dreaming, Spurs couldnt have beaten that team on their best day

You certainly are a dope.

Pat Riley said the next season that the Spurs were probably one foul away from the Championship. We would have beaten Miami. The Championship series was the Spurs Vs Mavs. It's not our fault the Mavs screwed up in the finals.

And what is this bullshit post of yours a few pages up about all these teams in the last 10 seasons being average. What great comp did the Bulls beat in the 90s. Those Utah teams the Bulls had to get a last second push off shot from Jordan to win against a team the Spurs routinely destroyed by 20 from '99 onwards.

[davethedope]

So basically your entire argument is that all teams are shitty and played shitty competition, but you pick as the best champion of the last 10 year the team who won the most rigged finals and of all teams was probably the one who was the least amount of time in contention for a championship.

OK.

I don't think games are rigged. I think they're officiated horribly and
inconsistently. That doesn't make them rigged.

[davethedope]

You certainly are a dope.

Pat Riley said the next season that the Spurs were probably one foul away from the Championship. We would have beaten Miami. The Championship series was the Spurs Vs Mavs. It's not our fault the Mavs screwed up in the finals.

And what is this bullshit post of yours a few pages up about all these teams in the last 10 seasons being average. What great comp did the Bulls beat in the 90s. Those Utah teams the Bulls had to get a last second push off shot from Jordan to win against a team the Spurs routinely destroyed by 20 from '99 onwards.

Fuck Pat Riley, he just saying whatever. One foul, bullshit, who cares.
Point is, you couldn't beat Shaq on LA, how could you beat him and Wade?
Make a legitimate argument.

As for the decade at large, it's a fact that there was an imbalance in
talent. It took Garnett and Allen leaving the west to win just one
championship.

Is it not a fact there are no HOFamers on that Piston's team?

As for the Bulls, it was definitely special circumstances. Jordan's greatness
skews an entire generation.

[ogait]

I don't think games are rigged. I think they're officiated horribly and
inconsistently. That doesn't make them rigged.

Call him however you'd like. I don't believe in rigged games as well, I just said it to make a point that the outcome of those finals were clearly influenced by bad officiating.

The Heat weren't contenders prior to that year and stopped being contenders the next year. And yet they are the greatest champions of the decade :lol

[Ice009]

Fuck Pat Riley, he just saying whatever. One foul, bullshit, who cares.
Point is, you couldn't beat Shaq on LA, how could you beat him and Wade?
Make a legitimate argument.


What are you on about. We beat Shaq 3 times.

'99 in LA
'03 in LA
'08 in Phoenix

We had no trouble with Shaq in LA. We played Shaq better than anyone in his prime, but Kobe was the one that hurt us the most because it's darn hard to shut both those guys down. As good as D-wade was he is not better than Kobe and Dallas had no one at all to guard him. No one even in the same stratosphere as Bruce Bowen. There is no way we let him go off on us like he did against Dallas.

I shouldn't have to explain this, I actually thought you knew something.

[davethedope]

Call him however you'd like. I don't believe in rigged games as well, I just said it to make a point that the outcome of those finals were clearly influenced by bad officiating.

The Heat weren't contenders prior to that year and stopped being contenders the next year. And yet they are the greatest champions of the decade :lol

Listen, it's hard. I'm just thinking of matchups, and Shaq cancels himself
out. I don't think these new laker teams could beat them, the Celtics,
Pistons got lucky, no HOFamers there. Mavs, probably not. That leaves
the Spurs, and I don't see it. Could be wrong, but I don't see Duncan
out muscling Shaq and Zo and whoever else for a series, and Wade at that
time, there was no answer for him. There really wasn't an answer for him
against the Mavs this year.

[davethedope]

Just think of it like this, Steve Nash won two MVPs, gimme a fucking break.
Sometimes these things don't make sense.

[Ice009]

Listen, it's hard. I'm just thinking of matchups, and Shaq cancels himself
out. I don't think these new laker teams could beat them, the Celtics,
Pistons got lucky, no HOFamers there. Mavs, probably not. That leaves
the Spurs, and I don't see it. Could be wrong, but I don't see Duncan
out muscling Shaq and Zo and whoever else for a series, and Wade at that
time, there was no answer for him. There really wasn't an answer for him
against the Mavs this year.

Duncan was a total beast in the playoffs that season. Even though the Spurs screwed up he was the best player in the playoffs. Dallas screwed up, they should have won. Who the fuck did they have to guard Shaq? No one and they still should have won.

Spurs had Tim, Nazr and Rasho to throw at O'neal.


Who do you consider a good team? Who is your favorite player?

[ogait]

What are you on about. We beat Shaq 3 times.

'99 in LA
'03 in LA
'08 in Phoenix

We had no trouble with Shaq in LA. We played Shaq better than anyone in his prime, but Kobe was the one that hurt us the most because it's darn hard to shut both those guys down. As good as D-wade was he is not better than Kobe and Dallas had no one at all to guard him. No one even in the same stratosphere as Bruce Bowen. There is no way we let him go off on us like he did against Dallas.

I shouldn't have to explain this, I actually thought you knew something.

That's it. This is basically my reasoning as to why the Lakers were the most dominant champion in the last decade.

The 2005 Spurs had something similar, but obviously not as good with Duncan and Ginobili. When Duncan had trouble against Ben Wallace and that amazing Pistons defense Ginobili took over.
But because Ginobili is not on the same level as Kobe, they get #2 imo.

[ambchang]

dont be smug, make a point.

Spurs never conquered Shaq so I don't see how they would do it againt Shaq and Zo and the rest, not to mention Wade who was out of his mind.

So you definitely don't know the history of either the Spurs or the Lakers.

[ambchang]

2001 Lakers weren't an option.

Again I'm not looking at the circumstances, and how they played against what was expected from the team.

2002 Lakers were back to back champions and almost swept the entire playoffs the year before.Compared to that almost everything you do the year after will be worse.

Still the team was pretty much the same as in 2001, it was still Shaq and Kobe getting along and playing to win, the rest of team was the same with big shot makers like Horry and Fisher.

One team doesn't go from great in 2001 to not great in the year after, unless serious roster or coaching changes happens or off court issues.

The 02 Lakers were running on fumes. Still a great accomplishment that they won it all, but they were a tired bunch. 01 was great, it would have been one of the best teams of all time, but that does not apply to the 02 Lakers.

[Ice009]

That's it. This is basically my reasoning as to why the Lakers were the most dominant champion in the last decade.

The 2005 Spurs had something similar, but obviously not as good with Duncan and Ginobili. When Duncan had trouble against Ben Wallace and that amazing Pistons defense Ginobili took over.
But because Ginobili is not on the same level as Kobe, they get #2 imo.

The Spurs beat that same team in 2003 though with a rookie Manu. If they had Manu and Sjax in 2002 playing in the rotation they probably beat the 2002 Lakers as well.

[ohmwrecker]

Sometimes these things don't make sense.

Much like your posts.

[ogait]

The Spurs beat that same team in 2003 though with a rookie Manu. If they had Manu and Sjax in 2002 playing in the rotation they probably beat the 2002 Lakers as well.

Spurs fans out of all teams should know how hard it is to repeat since we never did it.

The 2002 Lakers were on route to a 3 peat. That involves playing until June 3 years in a row, every team they face knows how they play. It was still the same roster and the same coach.

Bottom line is Shaq and Kobe in their primes playing together, without off court issues or Kobe wanting to be the man over Shaq, were damn near unbeatable.

[davethedope]

So you definitely don't know the history of either the Spurs or the Lakers.

So how many times did the Spurs beat LA when they won 3 straight titles?
Teach me, I'm hear to learn.

[joshdaboss]

Last on the list, that's for sure. Not trolling at all, either.

[Ice009]

Spurs fans out of all teams should know how hard it is to repeat since we never did it.

The 2002 Lakers were on route to a 3 peat. That involves playing until June 3 years in a row, every team they face knows how they play. It was still the same roster and the same coach.

Bottom line is Shaq and Kobe in their primes playing together, without off court issues or Kobe wanting to be the man over Shaq, were damn near unbeatable.

No they weren't darn near unbeatable.

2000 - Portland was up 15 in the 4th at home in game 7 and choked it. They also never had to play the Spurs because TD was injured who swept them the year before.

2001 - They won it fair and square

2002 - Kings had them and choked game 7 at home missing a shitload of free throws handing the game to LA.

Lakers could have very easily come out of that with 1 ring instead of 3.

[davethedope]

Duncan was a total beast in the playoffs that season. Even though the Spurs screwed up he was the best player in the playoffs. Dallas screwed up, they should have won. Who the fuck did they have to guard Shaq? No one and they still should have won.

Spurs had Tim, Nazr and Rasho to throw at O'neal.


Who do you consider a good team? Who is your favorite player?

Listen, we can only go by what happened, not should, would, or could,
no wishes, just what happend. Who is your answer for Wade? And Tim and Nazr on Shaq, what about Zo?

My favorite player was LeBron, till last year. A good team, I think the
Lakers are a good, or were. I didn't see an answer for them, except the
Mavs, just because I've seen them beat LA at home a few times. Still,
I think the matchups in the paint should favor the Lakers.

[Ice009]

Listen, we can only go by what happened, not should, would, or could,
no wishes, just what happend. Who is your answer for Wade? And Tim and Nazr on Shaq, what about Zo?

Tim would have destroyed all of them. I don't think you actually watched those playoffs.

Answer for Wade? I already told you defensively, offensively Manu and TP could have easily matched him together if he was still somehow able to play at a high level with Bruce on him. I say he wouldn't have with Bruce guarding him. Bruce would have found a way to get in his head or at least slow him down more than anyone on Dallas could.

Dallas also would have won that series with ease if they got the same officiating as they did in the Spurs series. In the finals James Posey and Haslem were draped all over Dirk, pushing, pulling, grabbing with no fouls called. In the Spurs series we weren't allowed to get anywhere near as physical with him as the refs allowed Miami to. Dallas really did get screwed over in the finals, but I didn't care as I thought we got similar treatment against them.

Anyway. Miami was one of the worst Championship teams in a long time so there is no need to continue this. Enjoy your Miami Heat.

[ogait]

No they weren't darn near unbeatable.

2000 - Portland was up 15 in the 4th at home in game 7 and choked it. They also never had to play the Spurs because TD was injured who swept them the year before.

2001 - They won it fair and square

2002 - Kings had them and choked game 7 at home missing a shitload of free throws handing the game to LA.

Lakers could have very easily come out of that with 1 ring instead of 3.

So what? Are you just stating causalities? Anyone can play that game.

I can also say that if the Spurs faced the Mavs in 2007 they would've probably lost.

I can also say that if Shaq and Kobe continued getting along and playing together the lakers could've won more than the 3 peat.

I can also say that if it wasn't 0,4 shot in 2004 and one of the most unlikely and one's in 2006 the Spurs could've won in those years.

What does it matter?

My point is that the Kobe Shaq core was the best.
The Spurs big 3 core after 2004 was close but not as good.
The Celtics big 3 core after 2008 was good but not as good.
The Pistons core who went to 7 straight eastern finals was good but not as good.

Could've, would've don't really matter.

[ohmwrecker]

So what? Are you just stating causalities? Anyone can play that game.

I can also say that if the Spurs faced the Mavs in 2007 they would've probably lost.

I can also say that if Shaq and Kobe continued getting along and playing together the lakers could've won more than the 3 peat.

I can also say that if it wasn't 0,4 shot in 2004 and one of the most unlikely and one's in 2006 the Spurs could've won in those years.

What does it matter?

My point is that the Kobe Shaq core was the best.
The Spurs big 3 core after 2004 was close but not as good.
The Celtics big 3 core after 2008 was good but not as good.
The Pistons core who went to 7 straight eastern finals was good but not as good.

Could've, would've don't really matter.

That's settled. Let's all go home!

[Ice009]

What does it matter?


Well I am mainly responding to you saying they were darn near unbeatable. I don't think they were at all. They just got luckier than all those other teams you mentioned.

when they only won it once convincingly then I don't call that unbeatable. If they won it convincingly all three times then I would agree with you, but they didn't and I don't.

[davethedope]

Tim would have destroyed all of them. I don't think you actually watched those playoffs.

Answer for Wade? I already told you defensively, offensively Manu and TP could have easily matched him together if he was still somehow able to play at a high level with Bruce on him. I say he wouldn't have with Bruce guarding him. Bruce would have found a way to get in his head or at least slow him down more than anyone on Dallas could.

Dallas also would have won that series with ease if they got the same officiating as they did in the Spurs series. In the finals James Posey and Haslem were draped all over Dirk, pushing, pulling, grabbing with no fouls called. In the Spurs series we weren't allowed to get anywhere near as physical with him as the refs allowed Miami to. Dallas really did get screwed over in the finals, but I didn't care as I thought we got similar treatment against them.

Anyway. Miami was one of the worst Championship teams in a long time so there is no need to continue this. Enjoy your Miami Heat.

I have nothing to gain, either way. I don't give a shit about the Heat.
I knew they weren't going to win this year.

But just saying Timmy would've destroyed all of them doesn't sound right,
you make him sound like he was Wilt Chamberlin, scoing 50 a game and shit.

As for all the woulds and coulds, they're irrelevant. The question boils
down to were the Shaq lakers better than the Shaq heat and is Kobe
better than Wade? And how those teams match up.

[Ice009]

The question boils
down to were the Shaq lakers better than the Shaq heat and is Kobe
better than Wade? And how those teams match up.

I don't know what to say if you even have to ask that question. Pretty much everyone knows the answer to that.

[davethedope]

I don't know what to say if you even have to ask that question. Pretty much everyone knows the answer to that.

What's the answer?

[ohmwrecker]

This is absolutely mind numbing.

[elbamba]

2005 Spurs/2001 Lakers
2004 Pistons
2002 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2008 Celtics/2007 Spurs
2011 Mavs
2010/2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

[ambchang]

So how many times did the Spurs beat LA when they won 3 straight titles?
Teach me, I'm hear to learn.


dont be smug, make a point.

Spurs never conquered Shaq so I don't see how they would do it againt Shaq and Zo and the rest, not to mention Wade who was out of his mind.

So how does "Spurs never conquered Shaq" equates to "Spurs never beat LA when they won 3 straight titles"?

Teach me, I'm HERE to learn.

[ambchang]

A simple question like that shows which fans didn't start watching basketball until 2008.

[DubMcDub]

2004 Pistons
2005 Spurs
2008 Celtics
2002 Lakers
2007 Spurs
2011 Mavericks
2010 Lakers
2003 Spurs
2009 Lakers
2006 Heat

I'd put the 11 Mavs ahead of the 07 Spurs pretty easily. But the rest of this seems right. I think 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics is probably a tie.

Oh also, 03 Spurs ahead of 10 Lakers. League was much better in 10 but I'm fairly certain the 03 Spurs defense would have smothered that Lakers team.

[Axe Murderer]

2001 Lakers weren't an option.

Again I'm not looking at the circumstances, and how they played against what was expected from the team.

2002 Lakers were back to back champions and almost swept the entire playoffs the year before.Compared to that almost everything you do the year after will be worse.

Still the team was pretty much the same as in 2001, it was still Shaq and Kobe getting along and playing to win, the rest of team was the same with big shot makers like Horry and Fisher.

One team doesn't go from great in 2001 to not great in the year after, unless serious roster or coaching changes happens or off court issues.

Thank you

Other than a couple of interchangeable end of the bench scrubs, the 01 Lakers and 02 Lakers were the exact same team. And it's not like Kobe/Shaq were going downhill

When you keep the same team eventually other teams will build to beat you and catch up. 03 Spurs and 11 Mavs come to mind.

The Kings just had a lot going for them that season. Outside of Sacramento, LA still raped the other three series they played, going 11-1.

[Barfunk]

2005 Spurs - The emergence of Ginobili. Game 5 of the finals was worth the price of admission alone.

2003 Spurs - For me at least. The 110-82 beating/dethroning at LA in front of the bandwagoning movie stars (sans Jack) was especially nice. This was Tim Duncan's masterpiece run. He was basically a 30 point, 20 rebound, 5 assist, 5 block threat night in and night out. Tim Duncan with the near quadruple double (21, 20, 10, 8) in game 6 of the finals to seal the deal.

2011 Mavs - Tough run. Two flashy and trendy teams in LA and Miami get beat by the Mavs. 36 and the :lobt2:.

2004 Pistons - D Fence.

2007 Spurs - Nash, scorers table. Lebron James, Saturday night live.

2002 Lakers - Sacramento Kings.

2008 Celtics - Game 7's. Annnyyyythinng is possssiiiiiblllleee!

2010 Lakers

2009 Lakers

2006 Heat - lol "How dare Dirk's chest get in the way of D-Wade's Fist" - comment on Youtube vid Phantom Foul 5

[Amaso]

2005 Spurs - The emergence of Ginobili. Game 5 of the finals was worth the price of admission alone.

2003 Spurs - For me at least. The 110-82 beating/dethroning at LA in front of the bandwagoning movie stars (sans Jack) was especially nice. This was Tim Duncan's masterpiece run. He was basically a 30 point, 20 rebound, 5 assist, 5 block threat night in and night out. Tim Duncan with the near quadruple double (21, 20, 10, 8) in game 6 of the finals to seal the deal.

2011 Mavs - Tough run. Two flashy and trendy teams in LA and Miami get beat by the Mavs. 36 and the :lobt2:.

2004 Pistons - D Fence.

2007 Spurs - Nash, scorers table. Lebron James, Saturday night live.

2002 Lakers - Sacramento Kings.

2008 Celtics - Game 7's. Annnyyyythinng is possssiiiiiblllleee!

2010 Lakers

2009 Lakers

2006 Heat - lol "How dare Dirk's chest get in the way of D-Wade's Fist" - comment on Youtube vid Phantom Foul 5

lol i hope you're trolling with the spurs having the 2 best teams of the decade

[JamStone]

2008 Celtics won the NBA Finals in 6 games. I think it's actually a good point that those Celtics teams kind of struggled in the first three rounds as a reason to drop them down the list. I forgot about that. But I do temper that with the fact that it was their first playoff run together as a core. I think they were trying to figure things out on the fly during their playoff run. They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before and a very experienced Pistons team. And then they beat one of the better Finals opponents in the Kobe-Pau Lakers than most of the other 9 NBA champions over the 10 previous champs. I wouldn't put them in the bottom 5 of the last 10. But perhaps in the 3-5 range.

As far as the 2002 Lakers, they were in large part the same team as 2001 as far as personnel goes, but I still don't believe they were nearly as good. Might not be a huge difference, but Horace Grant not being on that team did make things tougher as far as front court depth. Robert Horry went from playing half the game to having to play nearly 40 MPG in the playoffs because the third big was Samaki Walker. It's not like Horace was crucial to their success, but his absence did make things different. I also think that team was on the verge of collectively feeling the toll of the three consecutive deep championship runs. And it seems right around then was when Shaq started not caring as much in terms of his conditioning because he pretty much figured all he had to do was show up and they'd win a title. That's really conjecture on my part though. The biggest thing is that I do think the WCF against Sacramento and what we now know as rigged officiating does go a long way in staining or diminishing how great that team was. At least enough that I would argue they weren't the best of the last 10 champions.

[Barfunk]

lol i hope you're trolling with the spurs having the 2 best teams of the decade

I'll admit this one was biased. However, I would bet on the 2005 Spurs against any team in the last decade. We had a young Parker, prime Duncan and Ginobili, Big Shot Rob, Brent Barry, Bruce Bowen, Nazr, and Rasho. They could beat you 125 - 120 or 80 - 70, take your pick. The rest of the list I probably messed up, but imo, the 2005 Spurs could beat any of the last champions since 2002. :toast

[JoeTait75]

They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before.

Cleveland only won 45 games that year.

[mindcrime]

2008 Celtics won the NBA Finals in 6 games. I think it's actually a good point that those Celtics teams kind of struggled in the first three rounds as a reason to drop them down the list. I forgot about that. But I do temper that with the fact that it was their first playoff run together as a core. I think they were trying to figure things out on the fly during their playoff run. They still had to beat what was perceived as a dominant LeBron led Cavs team that had gone to the Finals the year before and a very experienced Pistons team. And then they beat one of the better Finals opponents in the Kobe-Pau Lakers than most of the other 9 NBA champions over the 10 previous champs. I wouldn't put them in the bottom 5 of the last 10. But perhaps in the 3-5 range.

As far as the 2002 Lakers, they were in large part the same team as 2001 as far as personnel goes, but I still don't believe they were nearly as good. Might not be a huge difference, but Horace Grant not being on that team did make things tougher as far as front court depth. Robert Horry went from playing half the game to having to play nearly 40 MPG in the playoffs because the third big was Samaki Walker. It's not like Horace was crucial to their success, but his absence did make things different. I also think that team was on the verge of collectively feeling the toll of the three consecutive deep championship runs. And it seems right around then was when Shaq started not caring as much in terms of his conditioning because he pretty much figured all he had to do was show up and they'd win a title. That's really conjecture on my part though. The biggest thing is that I do think the WCF against Sacramento and what we now know as rigged officiating does go a long way in staining or diminishing how great that team was. At least enough that I would argue they weren't the best of the last 10 champions.

This for the most part. Who cares if they struggled initially in the playoffs. First playoffs together and adjustments had to be made. In game 4 of the finals they rallied back from a 24 point half time deficit to defeat the Lakers in LA. In game 6 we witnessed one of the greatest smackdowns in finals history . The 08 Celts were a great team and are top 3 easy.

[Ice009]

This for the most part. Who cares if they struggled initially in the playoffs. First playoffs together and adjustments had to be made. In game 4 of the finals they rallied back from a 24 point half time deficit to defeat the Lakers in LA. In game 6 we witnessed one of the greatest smackdowns in finals history . The 08 Celts were a great team and are top 3 easy.

If they were in the West they may not have even made the finals. I am sure a lot of the teams in the West would have beaten Cleveland and Atlanta in less than 7. The East was pretty weak outside of Detroit so there was no one to make them pay.

I think they were good and all, probably 4th but I just feel they are overrated just a little bit. Also, if you took away homecourt I don't think they would have won jack shit. They really, really needed that homecourt advantage to win those series.

I always rate teams higher that can win on the road.

The 2002 Lakers, 2005 Spurs, 2003 Spurs, 2004 Pistons could all win any game anywhere at anytime in the most hostile of environments. Those teams didn't need a heavy dose of home court to win games on their way to the Championship.

[pass1st]

Right in the middle, strong team but teams like the 04 Pistons and 08 Celtics were the best teams in the decade by a fair margin.

[Jacob1983]

The Mavs are the only Western Conference team of the bunch to win the Finals without HCA. Duncan's Spurs or Kobe's Lakers never did it. And the Mavs had to deal with 2006 in their heads. Mavs are definitely in the top 3 or top 5 of the bunch.

[sribb43]

Better yet who had the toughest road to win their championship. Off the top of my head would be Mavs. Taking out all the poster boys of the league in one Playoffs = EPIC

[Leetonidas]

I'd put the 11 Mavs ahead of the 07 Spurs pretty easily. But the rest of this seems right. I think 05 Spurs and 08 Celtics is probably a tie.

Oh also, 03 Spurs ahead of 10 Lakers. League was much better in 10 but I'm fairly certain the 03 Spurs defense would have smothered that Lakers team.

Nah. As a team those Spurs were better. I'm going based on their post season success and how well I think they'd match up together. The 2007 Spurs had Duncan/Ginobili/Parker all in some variation of their primes (Duncan near the end, Ginobili in the middle, Parker entering) along with Horry and Bowen still playing at high levels defensively along with the expert craftiness of Oberto. Really, Tim still being able to play at an elite level is what does it for me. The 2011 Mavs' best player is better than the 2007 Spurs' best player but the Spurs had 3 guys capable of taking the game over at any point while the Mavericks only have Dirk and Terry if he gets hot. Plus the 2007 Spurs' defense is better.

You're probably right about that last one. The Spurs team in 2003 was weak outside of Duncan but he was playing at such a high level and the players around him did just enough for him to carry them. It was quite beautiful to watch. Almost like what Dirk did this postseason minus the incredible defense/rebounding/assists.

[Leetonidas]

I do think a case could be made for the 2005 Spurs as the best team, they definitely had a tough road and they played some tough, tough ball against the defending champs. That was the only time besides LA v. Boston in 2010 that the champs from the previous two years faced off in quite awhile and that defending champion Piston team was deep and extremely good defensively, one of the best ever. I honestly think those Piston teams are severely underrated. Them not having a true star or go-to scorer normally would be a problem but they had their offense covered in every aspect in their starting lineup. And the Wallace tandem in the middle was just sick.

[davethedope]

You're just looking at them in the context of their season and the opponent they eventaully beat. The idea is to compare the champions. '05 Spurs were good, fine, but how does it match up against other champions, could it beat the '06 Heat, could it beat the '02 Lakers, and so on.

[FkLA]

Can someone please answer me why an 03' Spurs team, who was overly dependent on TD is getting ranked higher than the 07' team and in some cases even the 05' team?? Those two teams were still defensive juggernauts and still had a prime or very near prime TD, and in addition to that had Parker and Ginobili already established as all-stars.

That 07' team especially is getting underrated imo, they still had a defensive identity and were becoming way more explosive/versatile offensively compared to the days were everything was ran through TD. I think people are looking into the fact that they beat a weak Cavs team in the Finals too much.

[ambchang]

The Mavs are the only Western Conference team of the bunch to win the Finals without HCA. Duncan's Spurs or Kobe's Lakers never did it. And the Mavs had to deal with 2006 in their heads. Mavs are definitely in the top 3 or top 5 of the bunch.

Not sure why a team should be rewarded for past failures.

Mavs didn't get homecourt because they didn't dominate the regular season.

Mavs had to deal with 06 .... well, because it was a horribly officiated series, but they had a hand in that too.

[Leetonidas]

You're just looking at them in the context of their season and the opponent they eventaully beat. The idea is to compare the champions. '05 Spurs were good, fine, but how does it match up against other champions, could it beat the '06 Heat, could it beat the '02 Lakers, and so on.

Did you not read where I said how they would match up with each other?

You're the guy who said the 2006 Spurs wouldn't beat the 2006 Heat on their best day....... :lmao

That's really all that needs to be said. I'm sorry but if you hold that opinion something's wrong with you.

[DubMcDub]

Nah. As a team those Spurs were better. I'm going based on their post season success and how well I think they'd match up together. The 2007 Spurs had Duncan/Ginobili/Parker all in some variation of their primes (Duncan near the end, Ginobili in the middle, Parker entering) along with Horry and Bowen still playing at high levels defensively along with the expert craftiness of Oberto. Really, Tim still being able to play at an elite level is what does it for me. The 2011 Mavs' best player is better than the 2007 Spurs' best player but the Spurs had 3 guys capable of taking the game over at any point while the Mavericks only have Dirk and Terry if he gets hot. Plus the 2007 Spurs' defense is better.

This is the exact same type of 1-2-3 player-to-player analysis that led people to conclude that the Mavs would lose to the Lakers and the Heat. If this was valid, the Heat would have swept the Mavs, and the Lakers would have beat them easily as well. Doesn't work that way.

[davethedope]

Did you not read where I said how they would match up with each other?

You're the guy who said the 2006 Spurs wouldn't beat the 2006 Heat on their best day....... :lmao

That's really all that needs to be said. I'm sorry but if you hold that opinion something's wrong with you.

Maybe I didn't But I will say this. I joined this forum not to be contrary.
I adopted the Spurs and rooted for them because the Knicks have been
shit for so long, but I had no idea you Spurs homers were so arrogant.
You win a few championships and swear it's the greatest team of all-time.
I'm a Yankee fan also and we have rings to spare, you don't seem
to understand what titles mean, which is probably why the Spurs aren't
going to be winning any for the next few decades.

[Sean Cagney]

Maybe I didn't But I will say this. I joined this forum not to be contrary.
I adopted the Spurs and rooted for them because the Knicks have been
shit for so long, but I had no idea you Spurs homers were so arrogant.
You win a few championships and swear it's the greatest team of all-time.
I'm a Yankee fan also and we have rings to spare, you don't seem
to understand what titles mean, which is probably why the Spurs aren't
going to be winning any for the next few decades.

So the Spurs will not win a title because you think some fans are arrogant? I would say it is because they got old and not karma from some fans bruh. Who said the Spurs were the greatest team of all times? They are 4th in titles as of right now all times which is damn good, but not top 3.


BTW alot of homers are arrogant in here wouldn't you say? NAMELY Lakers fans (A FEW OF THEM).


BTW to me as a fan those titles meant ALOT! Struggling from early on this team was and losing every year in the playoffs, failure after failure to eventually get lucky and get TIM and then 4 titles :lobt2:, I feel they are blessed.

[Jacob1983]

If the Mavs repeat or at least get back to the Finals next year, would that put them over the 2004 Pistons? And yes, I'm realistic. If the Mavs let Chandler go, the repeat will be nearly impossible in my opinion. If Cuban does the right thing and throws a lot of money at Chandler and he decides to stay with the Mavs, then I say it's possible for them to repeat.

Someone should make a thread about ranking the losers from 2000-2011. Might be an interesting thread.

[Leetonidas]

This is the exact same type of 1-2-3 player-to-player analysis that led people to conclude that the Mavs would lose to the Lakers and the Heat. If this was valid, the Heat would have swept the Mavs, and the Lakers would have beat them easily as well. Doesn't work that way.

But the 2007 Spurs actually won a title and their core had won two titles together prior to that whereas the current Heat haven't done jack shit. The Spurs also were much more complete outside their 3 starts than Miami (lol mike bibby)

[Leetonidas]

Maybe I didn't But I will say this. I joined this forum not to be contrary.
I adopted the Spurs and rooted for them because the Knicks have been
shit for so long, but I had no idea you Spurs homers were so arrogant.
You win a few championships and swear it's the greatest team of all-time.
I'm a Yankee fan also and we have rings to spare, you don't seem
to understand what titles mean, which is probably why the Spurs aren't
going to be winning any for the next few decades.

lol "we"
lol yankee "fan"

I don't recall saying any Spurs team was the best ever, nor in my list did I have the Spurs as the top team of the last 10 seasons. Using the Yankees was great though, as if all those bought World Series' mean jack shit. :lmao

New York, possibly the only city with more bandwagoning, unknowledgable sports fans than LA. :lmao

[davethedope]

lol "we"
lol yankee "fan"

I don't recall saying any Spurs team was the best ever, nor in my list did I have the Spurs as the top team of the last 10 seasons. Using the Yankees was great though, as if all those bought World Series' mean jack shit. :lmao

New York, possibly the only city with more bandwagoning, unknowledgable sports fans than LA. :lmao

Just know you're not winning this decade, and show some humility once
and while. You had a few good years, get over yourself. You're no better
than the Rockets, when you think about it. Gimme a break. The farther
away from the titles you get the stupider you're going to sound, remember
that.

As for the Yankees, Jeter, Mo, etc., from our farm system. But the
team makes money, huge money, and we can afford the best.
Sports is business, what can you do.:greedy

[DMC]

dave the dope

enough said