Was this the Spurs' last chance to repeat?

[Sacramental]

I think it was, and I wouldn't be sayin that if Derek Fisher didn't...you know. Hard to imagine a team like San Antonio has never repeated, and probably won't. There are simply too many good teams getting over the hump right now to challenge the Spurs, Detroit, Dallas. In the west, you've got: the clippers, sacto with artest, and memphis ready to make some noise. Oh, and cleveland in the east.

[timvp]

No.

[leemajors]

seeing as they have duncan, gino, and tp locked up for a while, they have a chance to win a championship for the next 4 years. if you win, there's always a chance to repeat.

[tlongII]

Yes.

[E20]

No, not really. If everything goes all right Spurs could probably 3-peat maybe even 4-peat.

[CosmicCowboy]

Spurs still could but the window is closing fast. Lots of good teams out there getting better.

[boutons_]

No, but with Tim's age and 3 consecutive seasons of Tim's injuries, 06 was best chance to lose, and the window to repeat with Tim is closing.

[Leetonidas]

Depending on what the Spurs do this summer, maybe, maybe not. If we get younger, than hell no.

[strangeweather]

There are simply too many good teams getting over the hump right now to challenge the Spurs, Detroit, Dallas. In the west, you've got: the clippers, sacto with artest, and memphis ready to make some noise. Oh, and cleveland in the east.

Sacto and the Clippers are good teams, but they're not title contenders as presently constituted. Memphis isn't a threat to anyone. Cleveland's roster doesn't fit very well together right now.

One of those teams might put it together to become a legit threat for a title, but Miami is pretty close to the end of their (brief) run, which offsets that.

[ZStomp]

Who knows?

We don't know what team will be here in the next few years.

[Borosai]

No, this was not the last chance by any means. The core will be together for a while, and the front office will bring in the missing piece or two to keep them at the top for a while.

IMO, if Duncan becomes the starting center, and the Spurs can get an athletic PF to matchup with Dirk and Amare and Brand (who are a bit too quick for Duncan out on the floor) the Spurs will be at the top once again, with a great chance to repeat.

[ALVAREZ6]

No, but the chances are decreasing each year with Tim getting older.

[Solid D]

I don't think 2005 was their final Championship. I think they will win at least one more with Tim Duncan on the team.

Repeating, as in back-to-back, is nice and is impressive...BUT....not going back-to-back isn't some sort of defect or a diminishing attribute in the grand scheme of things. If anything, in these days of rotating of players with various teams, spreading out championships - say 3 or 4 over a 8 year period could be a more impressive indicator of a franchise's long-term strength than winning 2 in 2 years or 3 in 3 years. Let's compare with an individual's accomplishments. What would be more impressive, 4 consecutive MVPs for Magic Johnson or 4 MVPs spread out over a long career with 1 coming late in his career?

Food for thought, at least.

[Spurologist]

07 and 08. Book it. Anything is possible

[Vashner]

Focus on one season at a time...

If we win another we should just enjoy the moment...

This is the kind of stuff that burns out the spurs.. the pressure.

[DDS4]

Lots of teams are foaming at the mouth for just one championship.

Pending our summer moves, I like our chances in 2007.

[exstatic]

By the time Kareem Abdul Jabbar was Tim's age, he had one ring. He went on to win 4 more. The Spurs aren't done. Not even close, although fans of poser teams would like to think so.

No ring for you!!!

[SA Gunslinger]

No. Stability is important and the three key pieces to the puzzle will be together for four more years. They will win at least one more championship in that time, probably two.

And Dallas fan might be on cloud nine now but it doesn't mean anything without the ring. I will be laughing my azz off if they blow it.

[SAGambler]

Spurs are nowhere near dead.

Certainly the next three to four years, they still have a great shot at repeating.

And as much as I love Duncan and his game, I by no means think it will be absolute demise of the Spurs when he goes.

You continue to bring younger players in and bring them along, so you have an elite team every year.

[samikeyp]

No.

[dknights411]

I think it was, and I wouldn't be sayin that if Derek Fisher didn't...you know. Hard to imagine a team like San Antonio has never repeated, and probably won't. There are simply too many good teams getting over the hump right now to challenge the Spurs, Detroit, Dallas. In the west, you've got: the clippers, sacto with artest, and memphis ready to make some noise. Oh, and cleveland in the east.

I don't think that matters. 3 out of 5 is just as impressive IMO.

[unartested]

I don't think 2005 was their final Championship. I think they will win at least one more with Tim Duncan on the team.

Repeating, as in back-to-back, is nice and is impressive...BUT....not going back-to-back isn't some sort of defect or a diminishing attribute in the grand scheme of things. If anything, in these days of rotating of players with various teams, spreading out championships - say 3 or 4 over a 8 year period could be a more impressive indicator of a franchise's long-term strength than winning 2 in 2 years or 3 in 3 years. Let's compare with an individual's accomplishments. What would be more impressive, 4 consecutive MVPs for Magic Johnson or 4 MVPs spread out over a long career with 1 coming late in his career?

Food for thought, at least.

I would agree 100%....... :smokin

I think “some people” set out these expectation that are totally bull shxt.

What?? ……..Any fool going to turn down Championships every other year???

Only on years that end on odd numbers???

Repeat…………… THREEpeat, really is there any end to what some fools will bring up to make the great accomplishments of others seem just a little less so?? Fuck all of them. :hat

[austinfan]

I don't think 2005 was their final Championship. I think they will win at least one more with Tim Duncan on the team.

Repeating, as in back-to-back, is nice and is impressive...BUT....not going back-to-back isn't some sort of defect or a diminishing attribute in the grand scheme of things. If anything, in these days of rotating of players with various teams, spreading out championships - say 3 or 4 over a 8 year period could be a more impressive indicator of a franchise's long-term strength than winning 2 in 2 years or 3 in 3 years. Let's compare with an individual's accomplishments. What would be more impressive, 4 consecutive MVPs for Magic Johnson or 4 MVPs spread out over a long career with 1 coming late in his career?

Food for thought, at least.

Why is repeating a championship seen as a sign of superiority in the NBA? I don't understand it. Imo it's a definition set up by media types who don't like the Spurs in an effort to undermine their legitimacy as a great team. I mean, Jack Nicklaus is seen as the greatest golfer of all time precisely because his victories were spread out over such a long time.

[Borosai]

Repeating is good because it demonstrates that, over a span of two or more years, the team was dominant. However, look at the Lakers...they won three in a row and look at them now...definitely not in contention for a title anytime soon. The Spurs, on the other hand, have not repeated, but are in the run every year, and have been for a while. I'll take long-term success, although repeating would be great.

[JamStone]

Spurs, like the Pistons last year, know very well how difficult it is to repeat. Every season, there are different obstacles beyond the obvious competition of other NBA teams. Injuries, free agency, suspensions, off-the-court distractions can all play a role in misfortune for an otherwise title contending team looking to repeat.

Luck is always part of a championship season. And, while everything needs to fall in the right place to win just one championship, it's that much more crucial to have that kind of fortune two years in a row or more.

The Spurs will compete as long as Tim Duncan is playing and healthy. They will have a chance every season he's healthy for at least the next four season. And, that's all a Spurs fan can hope for.

As for repeating, that's talk for a team that has already won the title and is currently the defending championship team. Seeing how the Spurs have been eliminated this season, talks of repeat are irrelevant at the moment. But, if a team is capable of winning one, then they are capable of winning back-to-back, and I wouldn't count the Spurs out until they are no longer title contenders.

[rascal]

Duncan may win one more title but it will not be in the near future. The spurs have locked in a core team that will not be good enough to win it all for the next few years and the role players they will get won't be any better than what you saw this year. They will be an annual playoff team not good enough to reach the finals for the next few years. It will be what we saw in the early Robinson years before Duncan.

There will be a team or two that will make bold moves and jump pass the spurs in player talent. Maybe the Lakers will land Garnett and a couple other good players. The nba is not static but ever changing although the spurs will be locked in with their core players with little manuverability to get any more impact players. Adding the annual role player carousal will not work with the core they currently have because another team or two will pass them with better talent.

[blaze89]

For a repeat...yeah, probably.

For more championships, no - with the core intact there are more runs ahead, of course time and injury are the worst enemies.

[rascal]

Spurs are nowhere near dead.

Certainly the next three to four years, they still have a great shot at repeating.

And as much as I love Duncan and his game, I by no means think it will be absolute demise of the Spurs when he goes.

You continue to bring younger players in and bring them along, so you have an elite team every year.


Not true. You don't realize how important and influential Duncan is. When Duncan leaves the spurs will fall and likely not even be a playoff team anymore. He is a franchise player and the spurs will need to replace him with another franchise type player to remain a top team.

[SPARKY]

No way. TD 30, MG 28, TP 24. Outside of those 3, the only other player locked into a contract past 2 years is Rasho with his having 3 more on it. Spurs have their international prospects, their cap exceptions, potential trades this summer (Barry, Mohammed), etc. Scola could come in and provide 12 and 6 next season if they wanted.

It's not that hard to find athletes to run the floor if the league's back to the old is new model.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

Every year we establish more respect and attention...Screw ratings. Duncan will get at least a 5th ring before he retires.

We have been contenders for the title for 8 odd years or so. Next year will be no different, we always have a chance. So the window may be closing , but bring this thread back up in 3 years...IF THAT. SHaq's 34,35, with Wade he still has one or two years to be a contender, with proper management.

[Leeroy]

with Duncan running around the Spurs are always a chance to win it all so yeah there is still opportunity to repeat. Especially with Parker coming into his prime over the next few years and Manu, Bruce, Finley etc there over the next 3 to 4 years they will still be a top tier team .

[chispito]

I agree with the main feeling, I don't see any sign of decadence...the team will come back with more hunger to try to win the title next year :)
I BELIEVE ;)

[MadDog73]

srry ppl, its over, your getting closer and closer to having a team full of nick van exels


I'm sorry, what have the Mavs won? Ever?

Spurs will become Champions again. Repeat? Who cares. Winning every other year is good enough for me.

[Oh, Gee!!]

Spurs got two more in 'em.

[DirkAB]

No, not really. If everything goes all right Spurs could probably 3-peat maybe even 4-peat.

Crack kills.

[Old School Chic]

Was this the Spurs' last chance to repeat?

:nope

We just like winning every other year...

1999-2003-2005 and 2007

[DarrinS]

Not necessarily.


But, if the Spurs are going to make more championship runs, their window of opportunity is closing.


Q: What do all three Spurs championship teams have in common?
A: Tim Duncan


Tim is getting older, but I still think he has a few awesome seasons left in him. I hate to say it, but, after Tim leaves, the Spurs are going to have some hard times.

[Phenomanul]

I said this in another post....

I will liken this to the year the Lakers lost to a last second tip-in by Ralph Samson of the Rockets... in '86.

They came back and took the trophy in '87, '88 and were a Magic Johnson hamstring injury from taking it again in '89....

All is not lost... and we still have a bright future... (brighter than Sac town's anyway... sorry dude).

[polandprzem]

It was probably the last chance of repeating in TD's era.

Tony can grow but manu is too old and I do not see anybody who can be a great Bowen follower. Bowen is not getting younger and we don't have a center. It looks more like a rebuilding process in near future unfotunately.

[Phenomanul]

It was probably the last chance of repeating in TD's era.

Tony can grow but manu is too old and I do not see anybody who can be a great Bowen follower. Bowen is not getting younger and we don't have a center. It looks more like a rebuilding process in near future unfotunately.


Dude... let the pessimism go. We still have an amazing team.

[Old School Chic]

It was probably the last chance of repeating in TD's era.

Tony can grow but manu is too old and I do not see anybody who can be a great Bowen follower. Bowen is not getting younger and we don't have a center. It looks more like a rebuilding process in near future unfotunately.


You are so negative... :rolleyes

[DirkAB]

I said this in another post....

I will liken this to the year the Lakers lost to a last second tip-in by Ralph Samson of the Rockets... in '86.

They came back and took the trophy in '87, '88 and were a Magic Johnson hamstring injury from taking it again in '89....

All is not lost... and we still have a bright future... (brighter than Sac town's anyway... sorry dude).

You're comparing this team to the late 80's Lakers!!!!! Wow! There is another way to spell HOMER and it is hegamboa!

That Laker team is the best team ever to play in the NBA! This Spurs team doesn't even belong in the same conversation, let alone in same sentence or breath. If Duncan is the Magic of that team, then who is Kareem? Who is Worthy? Who is Cooper? Scott? Thompson? Green? You're 2 second best players would have been their 4th and 5th! Get fuckin' real!

That Laker team puts the Mavs down in 5 games or less, sorry but that is the most homeristic thing I've read in a long time.

[Phenomanul]

You're comparing this team to the late 80's Lakers!!!!! Wow! There is another way to spell HOMER and it is hegamboa!

That Laker team is the best team ever to play in the NBA! This Spurs team doesn't even belong in the same conversation, let alone in same sentence or breath. If Duncan is the Magic of that team, then who is Kareem? Who is Worthy? Who is Cooper? Scott? Thompson? Green? You're 2 second best players would have been their 4th and 5th! Get fuckin' real!

That Laker team puts the Mavs down in 5 games or less, sorry but that is the most homeristic thing I've read in a long time.


This coming from a guy who is on a forum for a team not his own...

I don't have to justify my comparison simply because the analogy went beyond your comprehension.

I'm talking about the motivation, heart and battle left in our guys... not whether our team could beat the 80's Lakers.... different rules and different styles... different premise altogether... :rolleyes

BTW teams like the 80's Lakers and Celtics were fully supported by the league... The Spurs have won their championships inspite of the league... or the media for that matter....

They don't understand or champion the greatness of Duncan... instead they promote dim-witted thugs like Iverson... or big market heroes like Wade (which I happen to admire... ehh... they get one right every now and then).

And you, like so many others will also never fully appreciate the greatness of Manu... in Pop's words, "he is the Stud of the world" for very few have his competitive fire. Consider this; for all of America's stars... Wade, Lebron, Carmelo, Iverson, Marbury, Marion, and yes even Duncan... Manu outplayed them all en route to an Olympic Gold...

Homer... no.

Informed Basketball fan... yes.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

That Sacfan has got the homer goggles on, Tim Duncan is already up there with the greats like Kareem, Magic and Bird. After his 3rd Ring, 3 Finals MVP's , 2 MVP's, 9 consecutive All NBA...He's been on that level, a player who defines their era--where the hell were you? Only he and Shaq are considered in this exclusive group. MJ ruled the nineties. It's been Duncan/Shaq 2000's... That and we've already won 3 frickin' CHAMPIONSHIPS.. IF we were talking back in 2003, then we'd be homerish...There's an elite club, and Sacramento only dreams of joining, so don't laugh cuz if you learn a little bout the league's history the comparison between Spurs, (not just a single Championship team) and the 80's Lakers/80's celtics ain't too farfetched.

Because of Duncan we've been a serious contender every fucking year! This you can't deny. And since Manu and Parker have joined it's only augmented our potential to gain titles. We're not some pussy team looking to build up. We're the fucking present.

On a side note besides Duncan: Manu's game is already getting compared to Larry Bird. Manu's another very unique player, not as sound as Duncan. But he adds to the Spurs dynamic. Parker is only gonna get better. Bowen's already recognized for his specialist status and gets compared to what Cooper did for the Lakers on the defensive end. Though Cooper had a better offensive game.

[DirkAB]

This coming from a guy who is on a forum for a team not his own...

I don't have to justify my comparison simply because the analogy went beyond your comprehension.

I'm talking about the motivation, heart and battle left in our guys... not whether our team could beat the 80's Lakers.... different rules and different styles... different premise altogether... :rolleyes

BTW teams like the 80's Lakers and Celtics were fully supported by the league... The Spurs have won their championships inspite of the league... or the media for that matter....

They don't understand or champion the greatness of Duncan... instead they promote dim-witted thugs like Iverson... or big market heroes like Wade (which I happen to admire... ehh... they get one right every now and then).

And you, like so many others will also never fully appreciate the greatness of Manu... in Pop's words, "he is the Stud of the world" for very few have his competitive fire. Consider this; for all of America's stars... Wade, Lebron, Carmelo, Iverson, Marbury, Marion, and yes even Duncan... Manu outplayed them all en route to an Olympic Gold...

Homer... no.

Informed Basketball fan... yes.


Kings fan on a Spurs board, then that automatically discounts my opinion to squadouche, huh? Nice logic, that must be the same logic that lead you to parallel your Spurs team to the 80's Lakers! Yeah, it was such a deep comparison, it went right over my head! LOL

Obviously you are such and informed basketball fan if you are comparing this team to Magic's Lakers! I mean really, maybe the best basketball player of all-time (at least the second best), for sure the best point guard ever feeding the best scorer of all-time with the most unstoppable shot. Not to mention one of the most underrated players ever in Worthy, who was maybe the best fastbreak player ever. In addition to a variety of great role players in Cooper, Scott, Green, and Thompson.

I could give a shit about what Manu did on his way to Olympic gold, how about how he played this year in the playoffs? He flopped his way to a number of Spurs losses. He was a hit and a miss this year in the playoffs, great one game and terrible the next. He would maybe be the 4th best player on that Laker team, and not even that high the way he played this year.

The Spurs have won their championships inspite of the league and media? What the hell does that have to do with you throwing ridiculous statemants out there comparing the Spurs to the Lakers? Nothing, you're trying to change the subject because you made and asinine comparison. BTW since you brought it up why do you think the Lakers and Celtics seemed to have more media support? Because they have stars that were actually marketable, unlike Duncan who has no real marketable qualities. Is this a knock on Duncan in anyway? No, but it is the way that things are. How do you market a guy or a team that has zero personality? Impossible. I guess you hope that the point guard continues to screw a Desperate Houswife and she keeps showing up to the games. Not that this has anything to do with your original jackass statement, but you took it there.

[DirkAB]

That Sacfan has got the homer goggles on, Tim Duncan is already up there with the greats like Kareem, Magic and Bird. After his 3rd Ring, 3 Finals MVP's , 2 MVP's, 9 consecutive All NBA...He's been on that level, a player who defines their era--where the hell were you? Only he and Shaq are considered in this exclusive group. MJ ruled the nineties. It's been Duncan/Shaq 2000's... That and we've already won 3 frickin' CHAMPIONSHIPS.. IF we were talking back in 2003, then we'd be homerish...There's an elite club, and Sacramento only dreams of joining, so don't laugh cuz if you learn a little bout the league's history the comparison between Spurs, (not just a single Championship team) and the 80's Lakers/80's celtics ain't too farfetched.

Because of Duncan we've been a serious contender every fucking year! This you can't deny. And since Manu and Parker have joined it's only augmented our potential to gain titles. We're not some pussy team looking to build up. We're the fucking present.

On a side note besides Duncan: Manu's game is already getting compared to Larry Bird. Manu's another very unique player, not as sound as Duncan. But he adds to the Spurs dynamic. Parker is only gonna get better. Bowen's already recognized for his specialist status and gets compared to what Cooper did for the Lakers on the defensive end. Though Cooper had a better offensive game.


You had a nice little post going there until you decided to compare Manu to Larry the Legend! Wow! We have a new King of the HOMERS! Holy fuckin' shit, that is hilarious! Manu is being compared to Larry Bird! Where did you here that? Manu's mom and dad?

BTW, by no means will I sit here and argue that Duncan isn't in elite company.

[dknights411]

All I'm gonna say is that the Spurs of this decade can be considered the team of this decade. We've been the only team to constantly be in the mix for a championship every year of this decade (The Pistons had their struggles at first, and the three-peat Lakers fell off the map extremly quickly) and we have a few titles under our belts to boot. I'm not gonna sit here and compare us with the Lakers and the Celtics of the 80s, but you cannot deny what the Spurs have done thus far, and what they still have the potential of doing for the next few years.

[DirkAB]

All I'm gonna say is that the Spurs of this decade can be considered the team of this decade. We've been the only team to constantly be in the mix for a championship every year of this decade (The Pistons had their struggles at first, and the three-peat Lakers fell off the map extremly quickly) and we have a few titles under our belts to boot. I'm not gonna sit here and compare us with the Lakers and the Celtics of the 80s, but you cannot deny what the Spurs have done thus far, and what they still have the potential of doing for the next few years.

No doubt about that. Although I would add this, as much as I hate the Lakers they have to also be considered the team of the decade, even though they have fell off. They have as many championships, and falling off can be expected when you trade a player like Shaq, it would be like trading Duncan.

[Phenomanul]

Kings fan on a Spurs board, then that automatically discounts my opinion to squadouche, huh? Nice logic, that must be the same logic that lead you to parallel your Spurs team to the 80's Lakers! Yeah, it was such a deep comparison, it went right over my head! LOL

Obviously you are such and informed basketball fan if you are comparing this team to Magic's Lakers! I mean really, maybe the best basketball player of all-time (at least the second best), for sure the best point guard ever feeding the best scorer of all-time with the most unstoppable shot. Not to mention one of the most underrated players ever in Worthy, who was maybe the best fastbreak player ever. In addition to a variety of great role players in Cooper, Scott, Green, and Thompson.

I could give a shit about what Manu did on his way to Olympic gold, how about how he played this year in the playoffs? He flopped his way to a number of Spurs losses. He was a hit and a miss this year in the playoffs, great one game and terrible the next. He would maybe be the 4th best player on that Laker team, and not even that high the way he played this year.

The Spurs have won their championships inspite of the league and media? What the hell does that have to do with you throwing ridiculous statemants out there comparing the Spurs to the Lakers? Nothing, you're trying to change the subject because you made and asinine comparison. BTW since you brought it up why do you think the Lakers and Celtics seemed to have more media support? Because they have stars that were actually marketable, unlike Duncan who has no real marketable qualities. Is this a knock on Duncan in anyway? No, but it is the way that things are. How do you market a guy or a team that has zero personality? Impossible. I guess you hope that the point guard continues to screw a Desperate Houswife and she keeps showing up to the games. Not that this has anything to do with your original jackass statement, but you took it there.

Again you missed the point.... though it's quite funny that you pompously promoted your claim to understanding my first post when you really don't get the premise for the comparison.... If your simpleton mind cannot comprehend what I am saying then perhaps there is no point in trying to explain the analogy.

But here it goes again.

I was not comparing the Spurs to the 80's Lakers nor trying to rank their place in all-time lore.... I was comparing the fact that both lost their series on an unfortunate bounce and that like the Lakers I know that the Spurs will be able to come back and win some more titles.... Coach Pop posed the question this way, "How much more athletic does one need to get to get one more point"... the point being that yeah, the Spurs were eliminated, but there is no reason to think that they are done.

If your Kings want to count out the Spurs as a contender then they will do so at their own peril.

What's the title of the thread?

I answered it with a no. The Spurs' haven't lost their chance to repeat.

No one counted on the Spurs winning the Championship in '03... why would they? They had been humiliated by the Shaq-Kobe Lakers in back-to-back years... (as were the Kings :blah )... But we won.

We were a Derek Fisher time/physics defying shot from advancing and repeating but that didn't happen.

And yet we win the whole thing again in 2005.

We are not out of the hunt just yet. This will give them even more motivation to stake their legacy as the team of the Decade... King fans be damned....

Peace BAkriD!!!

[pache100]

Was this the Spurs' last chance to repeat?

No. They didn't die. They just got eliminated from THIS post-season.

[DirkAB]

Again you missed the point.... though it's quite funny that you pompously promoted your claim to understanding my first post when you really don't get the premise for the comparison.... If your simpleton mind cannot comprehend what I am saying then perhaps there is no point in trying to explain the analogy.

But here it goes again.

I was not comparing the Spurs to the 80's Lakers nor trying to rank their place in all-time lore.... I was comparing the fact that both lost their series on an unfortunate bounce and that like the Lakers I know that the Spurs will be able to come back and win some more titles.... Coach Pop posed the question this way, "How much more athletic does one need to get to get one more point"... the point being that yeah, the Spurs were eliminated, but there is no reason to think that they are done.

If your Kings want to count out the Spurs as a contender then they will do so at their own peril.

What's the title of the thread?

I answered it with a no. The Spurs' haven't lost their chance to repeat.

No one counted on the Spurs winning the Championship in '03... why would they? They had been humiliated by the Shaq-Kobe Lakers in back-to-back years... (as were the Kings :blah )... But we won.

We were a Derek Fisher time/physics defying shot from advancing and repeating but that didn't happen.

And yet we win the whole thing again in 2005.

We are not out of the hunt just yet. This will give them even more motivation to stake their legacy as the team of the Decade... King fans be damned....

Peace BAkriD!!!

Ironic, because you missed the point. Teams that repeat have more than one all-time great player, their best player is in his absolute prime, or the competition is down. Do the Spurs as constituted right now have more than one great player? No, absolutely not. They have two very good players in Manu and Parker. Is Duncan in his absolute prime? No, he is at the end of his prime but his best couple of years are behind him. Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent. So why do you think that the Lakers were able to repeat after losing to the Rockets the year before? And why do you think that the Spurs have a chance of doing the same thing? Do they have 2 of the top 5 players of all-time on their team?

This isn't even taking into consideration the competition that the Spurs have to face is much closer to their level. The Lakers didn't have to face the same Rockets team the next two years because Sampson went down with injuries and the Celtics began to fall apart also. Do you think that the Mavericks are going away? How about the Heat and Pistons? What about the Suns when they get Amare back? Did you even consider how much more talented the Lakers were than the rest of the competition? Do you think that might have anything to do with a teams ability to actually pull off the repeat?

Do you have any real reasons that would lead anybody to believe that the Spurs are able to do anything of the sort? Is there anything besides the fact that the Spurs lost in the playoffs this year, and the Lakers did too in '86, that makes you think they will do the same thing? Is that it? The Lakers lost in '86 and won it the next 2 years, so the Spurs will too.

Do really believe that the Spurs chances of winning it are any better next year or the year after than what they were this year? Seriously, this was their best chance and they blew it. I think that they can definitely win another title but this would have been an easier road than what they are facing in the future.

[Phenomanul]

Ironic, because you missed the point. Teams that repeat have more than one all-time great player, their best player is in his absolute prime, or the competition is down. Do the Spurs as constituted right now have more than one great player? No, absolutely not. They have two very good players in Manu and Parker. Is Duncan in his absolute prime? No, he is at the end of his prime but his best couple of years are behind him. Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent. So why do you think that the Lakers were able to repeat after losing to the Rockets the year before? And why do you think that the Spurs have a chance of doing the same thing? Do they have 2 of the top 5 players of all-time on their team?

This isn't even taking into consideration the competition that the Spurs have to face is much closer to their level. The Lakers didn't have to face the same Rockets team the next two years because Sampson went down with injuries and the Celtics began to fall apart also. Do you think that the Mavericks are going away? How about the Heat and Pistons? What about the Suns when they get Amare back? Did you even consider how much more talented the Lakers were than the rest of the competition? Do you think that might have anything to do with a teams ability to actually pull off the repeat?

Do you have any real reasons that would lead anybody to believe that the Spurs are able to do anything of the sort? Is there anything besides the fact that the Spurs lost in the playoffs this year, and the Lakers did too in '86, that makes you think they will do the same thing? Is that it? The Lakers lost in '86 and won it the next 2 years, so the Spurs will too.

Do really believe that the Spurs chances of winning it are any better next year or the year after than what they were this year? Seriously, this was their best chance and they blew it. I think that they can definitely win another title but this would have been an easier road than what they are facing in the future.

After you blew all that hot air... you still admit that it is possible. And that is all I have been saying... :wakeup

[dknights411]

No doubt about that. Although I would add this, as much as I hate the Lakers they have to also be considered the team of the decade, even though they have fell off. They have as many championships, and falling off can be expected when you trade a player like Shaq, it would be like trading Duncan.

However, the Lakers haven't been a contender past '04 like the Spurs have, and barring a KG move, they don't seem like they'll have another legitimate title shot for the next few seasons. My point is that the Spurs are poised to be a legitimate title contender throughout the ENTIRE decade, which is something that the Lakers can't do, even with their three-peat.

[DirkAB]

However, the Lakers haven't been a contender past '04 like the Spurs have, and barring a KG move, they don't seem like they'll have another legitimate title shot for the next few seasons. My point is that the Spurs are poised to be a legitimate title contender throughout the ENTIRE decade, which is something that the Lakers can't do, even with their three-peat.

Amen, and god help us if they get KG. But I don't see them having the chips to land KG, because I don't think that Kevin M. is desperate to completely desperate sink that franchise.

I understand your point about the Spurs being better as far as remaining at the top and being more consistant, but the Lakers are still just as much the team of the decade. They have as many championships as the Spurs, they have one more finals appearance, and they 3-peated.

[Man In Black]

Classic!!!

Repeats, possible but it ain't neccesary.

Larry Legend NEVER wen't back-to-back and his titles are revered.

Spurs fans should look at theirs the same way. If anything, whether they do repeat or not, they still kicked enough ass along the way to gain those titles. So many people bitch just to get ONE of their own.

All Sacto fan can claim is 1 NBA title when the team was in ROCHESTER, NY.

[strangeweather]

Amen, and god help us if they get KG. But I don't see them having the chips to land KG, because I don't think that Kevin M. is desperate to completely desperate sink that franchise.

I understand your point about the Spurs being better as far as remaining at the top and being more consistant, but the Lakers are still just as much the team of the decade. They have as many championships as the Spurs, they have one more finals appearance, and they 3-peated.

The Spurs need at least one more title to be called team of the decade; two would seal it.

Having said that, things like repeating as champions and being considered the team of the decade are for when Tim retires and we look back on everything the Spurs accomplished with him playing. Right now, it's time to figure out how to improve the team and play for a title in 2007.

[DirkAB]

After you blew all that hot air... you still admit that it is possible. And that is all I have been saying... :wakeup

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another title (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back titles (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the title, conference, or even division anymore. The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.

You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport! Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.

[DirkAB]

Classic!!!

Repeats, possible but it ain't neccesary.

Larry Legend NEVER wen't back-to-back and his titles are revered.

Spurs fans should look at theirs the same way. If anything, whether they do repeat or not, they still kicked enough ass along the way to gain those titles. So many people bitch just to get ONE of their own.

All Sacto fan can claim is 1 NBA title when the team was in ROCHESTER, NY.

Then again the Spurs have never made 4 consecutive NBA Finals, or 5 out of 7 years. They also didn't have to go through probably the greatest NBA team of all-time to get their rings. There is no way that you can compare the Spurs to the 80s Celtics, either. The Celtics were also a better team.

[Man In Black]

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another title (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back titles (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

I've been watching the game long enough to remember a time when repeats weren't as prevalent. The Spurs most certainly could win again, and with their keen drafting and smart fiscal management, a repeat isn't impossible. Improbable maybe but impossible, not at all. They are just as good as any team active today.

History refresher-
Year Winner Runner-up
1970-71 Milwaukee Bucks Baltimore Bullets
1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers New York Knicks
1972-73 New York Knicks Los Angeles Lakers
1973-74 Boston Celtics Milwaukee Bucks
1974-75 Golden State Warriors Washington Bullets
1975-76 Boston Celtics Phoenix Suns
1976-77 Portland Trail Blazers Philadelphia 76ers
1977-78 Washington Bullets Seattle SuperSonics
1978-79 Seattle SuperSonics Washington Bullets
1979-80 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers
1980-81 Boston Celtics Houston Rockets
1981-82 Los Angeles Lakers Philadelphia 76ers
1982-83 Philadelphia 76ers Los Angeles Lakers
1983-84 Boston Celtics Los Angeles Lakers
1984-85 Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics
1985-86 Boston Celtics Houston Rockets
1986-87 Los Angeles Lakers Boston Celtics

80-87 provided us with many of the best players of their era.

Tim Duncan and his team's are in good company indeed.




It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the title, conference, or even division anymore.
Pure conjecture on your part I know but hey, I guess you were on a roll.



The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.


Let's see, considering that the core had won 2 of the last 4 titles, and was within a few luck plays of playing today, I'll GUESS BETTER. Plus the fact that they kicked your team to the curb...makes me feel even better.



You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport!

What does it mean exactly? Care to elaborate? To me it means that a team was able to make it through 2 season, get to the playoffs, and beat all teams it played en-route to 2 titles. Yes, long seasons. Yes, stuggles...but again...since you talked about Larry Legend, ask the general public if he thinks his no repeat titles are diminished.



Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.
Pure conjecture again on your part for that guys allegiance to his team. Why don't you just stick to your own Purple Dinosaur of a team? Maybe you will appreciate them more once they move to Vegas?
:fro

[DirkAB]

Let's see, considering that the core had won 2 of the last 4 titles, and was within a few luck plays of playing today, I'll GUESS BETTER. Plus the fact that they kicked your team to the curb...makes me feel even better.


^^^^^^^^^^Without a doubt my favorite part of that post! Classic! A couple of lucky plays! Depending on how you look at it they were a couple of lucky plays away from even making a game seven. Yeah, that's right, if anything the Spurs were lucky to make game 7. They got outplayed by the Mavs.

Where am I saying that the Spurs weren't any good? Your reply acts as if I said the Spurs sucked. Obviously they're better than my team. They were obviously the best team in '99, '03, and '05. Apparently you can't handle me stating the painful truth, they in no way compare to the 80s Celtics or Lakers.

And you're talking about my conjecture? My whole envolvement in this thread began because of somebody elses conjecture! Get your conjecture meter out and give me a reading on this one:


I said this in another post....

I will liken this to the year the Lakers lost to a last second tip-in by Ralph Samson of the Rockets... in '86.

They came back and took the trophy in '87, '88 and were a Magic Johnson hamstring injury from taking it again in '89....


That's about a 10 ain't it? I mean really, ain't it a beaut?


since you talked about Larry Legend, ask the general public if he thinks his no repeat titles are diminished.


Please show me where I indicated in anyway that the Spurs titles were diminished because they weren't able to repeat. I didn't. As matter of a fact, don't you think that has to do with my point? Instead of diminishing from a team that wins it one year, it adds to a team that is able to repeat and three-peat. I think it is ridiculous how people take repeats and three-peats as lightly as they do. Obviously based on the number of people in this thread that feel confident that the Spurs can still repeat, they are not look at with enough respect.


Why don't you just stick to your own Purple Dinosaur of a team? Maybe you will appreciate them more once they move to Vegas?
:fro

Yet another highlight of your post. Maybe to put in perspective how pathetic it sounded for you to make the excuse of "within a few luck plays of playing today," I should do something similar about the 2002 playoffs. But then again, why would I want to be a pathetic piece of shit and make sorry ass excuses? I wouldn't because luck is part of the game, and the team that deserves to win the series always does. Aside from that, go ahead and try to take your little cheap shots to avoid the real topics at hand. The Spurs lost their chance to repeat. Plus, your team doesn't hold a candle to Bird's Celtics or Magic's Lakers.

[Phenomanul]

Of course I admit it is still possible, what do you think I'm an idiot? And no that isn't what you've been saying, not even close! You drew a parallel between the 80s Lakers and the Spurs! Winning another title (possible but not likely) and coming back to win back-to-back titles (never happen) isn't even close to the same thing. Obviously you don't appreciate the significance of what it means for a team to repeat, or you wouldn't just loosely throw the idea around like you do.

It's possible but not likely they will win another. Unless they pull off a stunner of a move in the next couple of seasons they are no longer the odds on favorite to win the title, conference, or even division anymore. The way I see it they are stuck with this lineup for better or worse, and you know which one I think it is.

You claim to be an informed basketball fan! You don't even appreciate what a repeat means to the sport! Or what Magic's Lakers mean to the sport! You are a Spurs HOMER, not a fan of basketball, there is a huge difference. Seriously there is nothing wrong with being such a HOMER as long as you know it. If the Spurs franchise disappeared your supposed love for the game would probably disappear right with it.

Which is why I have been watching every series.... up to wee hours of the night... right.

I am foremost a fan of the sport... You have no right to question my loyalties but have every right to question my opinions. I can respect that.

You just happened to bark up the wrong tree. I know about the 80's Lakers.... And if comparing them to other champions is disrespectful well... you're just going to have to learn to accept it.

The Spurs have a legit chance at being considered the team of the decade... why? because they keep contending for titles year after year after year... With Duncan as the cornerstone. And whether or not you consider Manu and Parker stars or chumps is besides the question.... the fact of the matter is that they are capable of contending still. They have been over the hump and they know what it takes to get there, what is required of them... Plus I disagree with your assessment that they are washed up. They still got a couple of very strong years left in them.

Don't forget that there is an element of luck involved in all Championship runs... Magic, Erving, Larry, Isaiah, Jordan, Robinson have all mentioned this... the ball just didn't bounce our way this year. That by no means negates the fact that the current Spurs core cannot contend for a title next year or the year after next... I'm not discrediting the 80's Lakers by saying the Spurs can learn from history. Using them as an example demonstrates I understand the relevance of their similar circumstances... whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem. :spin

[DirkAB]

Which is why I have been watching every series.... up to wee hours of the night... right.

I am foremost a fan of the sport... You have no right to question my loyalties but have every right to question my opinions. I can respect that.

You just happened to bark up the wrong tree. I know about the 80's Lakers.... And if comparing them to other champions is disrespectful well... you're just going to have to learn to accept it.

The Spurs have a legit chance at being considered the team of the decade... why? because they keep contending for titles year after year after year... With Duncan as the cornerstone. And whether or not you consider Manu and Parker stars or chumps is besides the question.... the fact of the matter is that they are capable of contending still. They have been over the hump and they know what it takes to get there, what is required of them... Plus I disagree with your assessment that they are washed up. They still got a couple of very strong years left in them.

Don't forget that there is an element of luck involved in all Championship runs... Magic, Erving, Larry, Isaiah, Jordan, Robinson have all mentioned this... the ball just didn't bounce our way this year. That by no means negates the fact that the current Spurs core cannot contend for a title next year or the year after next... I'm not discrediting the 80's Lakers by saying the Spurs can learn from history. Using them as an example demonstrates I understand the relevance of their similar circumstances... whether you choose to accept it or not is not my problem. :spin


Really, I can respect and agree with most of what you just posted there. But the only problem is, that it really has nothing to do with your original comment, the Spurs being able to come back and repeat like the '87 and '88 Lakers.

Never once did I say that Manu and Parker were chumps, I said that they were very good players. I did say however that they were not as good as the Lakers 2nd and 3rd options.

I never said that the Spurs wouldn't compete for a title next 2 seasons. I didn't say that they wouldn't have "very strong years" left with the current core of players. I said that I didn't believe that they would win another championship with these players. Competing for it and being the odds on favorites to win it, like they have been the last couple of years, are miles apart.

As far as you using an example to "demonstrate you understand the relevance of a similar circumstance," you are just plain wrong. In what way are their circumstances similar? Serioulsy you have yet to explain this to me. Aside from losing in the playoffs the previous season, what does next years Spurs team and the '87 Lakers have in common?

[polandprzem]

If Shaq and Kobe are the top5 alltime then I'm a big cookie

[DirkAB]

If Shaq and Kobe are the top5 alltime then I'm a big cookie

If that is in response to something you read in my post, specifically this:


Lakers had arguably 2 of the top 5 players of all-time, plus a lot of other talent.

Then you need to follow the thread closer, because I was refering to Magic and Kareem.

[Phenomanul]

Really, I can respect and agree with most of what you just posted there. But the only problem is, that it really has nothing to do with your original comment, the Spurs being able to come back and repeat like the '87 and '88 Lakers.

Never once did I say that Manu and Parker were chumps, I said that they were very good players. I did say however that they were not as good as the Lakers 2nd and 3rd options.

I never said that the Spurs wouldn't compete for a title next 2 seasons. I didn't say that they wouldn't have "very strong years" left with the current core of players. I said that I didn't believe that they would win another championship with these players. Competing for it and being the odds on favorites to win it, like they have been the last couple of years, are miles apart.

As far as you using an example to "demonstrate you understand the relevance of a similar circumstance," you are just plain wrong. In what way are their circumstances similar? Serioulsy you have yet to explain this to me. Aside from losing in the playoffs the previous season, what does next years Spurs team and the '87 Lakers have in common?

And that is your opinion... and we will have to agree to disagree... But calling people out as a blind HOMERs in capital letters is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion on an another team's board.

And to answer your last question...

1) Whenever you have a legit superstar... and there's really only about five in the league give or take 1... you always have a chance at a championship. Our superstar is Duncan. 'Nuff said.

2) Whenever you have excellent team chemistry... focus is easier to come by. Competitiveness is synergetically instilled on your teammates. The 80's Lakers had and the current Spurs boast excellent team chemistry. This factor should never be thrown out the window.

3) The core of the Spurs will now have 3-4 years experience playing with each other and in the system. The 80's Lakers; self-explanatory. In fact we struggled this year because we were forced to play outside of our system... and Pop was really close to pulling it off... He walked the fine line of being a Genius or being stubborn.

4) Like the '87 Lakers, the Spurs will be very hungry next year. Someone mentioned it takes pain to gain an edge. They will be very sharp next year. Count on it.

[Man In Black]

Did I touch a nerve?

Bird's Celtics have how many titles? 3
Duncan's Spurs have how many titles? 3
Magic's Lakers have 5 with only 1 repeat.

Is it really a stretch to compare these teams?


Next-

I love this game.

Hegamboa...good points...SOLID!

[DirkAB]

Did I touch a nerve?

Bird's Celtics have how many titles? 3
Duncan's Spurs have how many titles? 3

Is it really a stretch to compare these teams?


Next-

I love this game and your juvenille perspectives make me chuckle. :fro

My juvenille perspectives! Nice. How juvenille for me to give consideration to the competition that Bird's Celtics were winning titles against, plus 2 other finals appearances. Do the Spurs have any competition that they can put in the same ballpark as Magic's Lakers? Have they accomplished 4 finals in a row? Or 5 out of 7? Just some juvenille considerations.

[greens]

The Spurs are in their prime right now! Of course, this was not the last time that we would have the chance to win a championship. It's not like Dallas came and beat us 4-0 without any effort. This was a hard 7 game series with lots of bad stuff happening as well...such as bad/embarassing foul calls in Dallas against San Antonio that even media reporters had the guts to talk about the awful calls.

Even look at Game 7, we ALMOST had it...right there, before Manu got overexcited and ruined his amazing three point shot all by himself...I mean, we were able to come back from loosing from as much as over twenty points to Dallas in the first half...But we fought, and got back and EVEN had the lead in the last few seconds...This wasn't like we were completely defeated...This was just a bad error in Manu's judgement...And that's fine because we're all human and we make mistakes. The Spurs are no superheros. They are bound to make mistakes.

The most important thing we need to know is that they were more than capable of not only beating Dallas, but also, of winning this year's championship. To say that we can't truly win again, it's not correct at all...

Can we repeat, meaning win two years in a row, who knows? No one knows for sure. Because it looks like Spurs have a system to win in odd years, never two in a row...lol...But can we win, period? Of course, no doubt about it.

We have an AMAZING core players who are here to stay for a long time. We've got Timmy at the heart of it all...We've got the best defensive player there is, Bruce. We've got a magnificant worrier in Manu, who's only biggest competitor is himself...We've got Tony who is already amazing and yet he is so young and still has so much to learn...We've got Horry making his big shots! I mean as long as we keep our core: Tim, Tony, Horry, Manu, and Bruce...+Finley...We're unstoppable...

2007-Odd year...here we come! GO SPURS GO!

[DirkAB]

And that is your opinion... and we will have to agree to disagree... But calling people out as a blind HOMERs in capital letters is not the best way to engage in meaningful discussion on an another team's board.

And to answer your last question...

1) Whenever you have a legit superstar... and there's really only about five in the league give or take 1... you always have a chance at a championship. Our superstar is Duncan. 'Nuff said.

2) Whenever you have excellent team chemistry... focus is easier to come by. Competitiveness is synergetically instilled on your teammates. The 80's Lakers had and the current Spurs boast excellent team chemistry. This factor should never be thrown out the window.

3) The core of the Spurs will now have 3-4 years experience playing with each other and in the system. The 80's Lakers; self-explanatory. In fact we struggled this year because we were forced to play outside of our system... and Pop was really close to pulling it off... He walked the fine line of being a Genius or being stubborn.

4) Like the '87 Lakers, the Spurs will be very hungry next year. Someone mentioned it takes pain to gain an edge. They will be very sharp next year. Count on it.

You make some very nice points. I especially like the team chemistry and experience aspects that you included, very valid points. I would of also included Popavich, having a coach with multiple rings.

The things I see as being the being the biggest difference is the obviously the talent level and the competition. The Lakers were so much more stacked compared to everyone else, except for the Celtics most years, and then is '88 the Pistons were close. But as a whole the league has a lot more parity now, and the Spurs aren't completely stacked like the Lakers were.

The top 4 teams in the West next year could all be serious contenders, making the second and third round of the playoffs harder than ever. The road to a title in the West is a rough one, it is a luxuary to be in the East, if you are a contender you shouldn't have to get beat up until the conference finals.

[Man In Black]

My juvenille perspectives! Nice. How juvenille for me to give consideration to the competition that Bird's Celtics were winning titles against, plus 2 other finals appearances. Do the Spurs have any competition that they can put in the same ballpark as Magic's Lakers? Have they accomplished 4 finals in a row? Or 5 out of 7? Just some juvenille considerations.


Bird's comp, Magic's comp...all you can do is play the teams you're scheduled against. If anything, the fact that Tim's teams have perenially been competitive is a testament to how well his team is. Need I remind you best winning percentage in ALL OF PRO SPORTS since he became a SPUR?

Bring it on Rochester Royal...Kings haven't won anything unless you consider Pacific Division Titles something :)

[polandprzem]

If that is in response to something you read in my post, specifically this:



Then you need to follow the thread closer, because I was refering to Magic and Kareem.

That what I thought while posting it.

But the 2000 LA team put a 3-peat with those 2 superstars.


And yes I didn't look up close enough your post

[DirkAB]

Bird's comp, Magic's comp...all you can do is play the teams you're scheduled against. If anything, the fact that Tim's teams have perenially been competitive is a testament to how well his team is. Need I remind you best winning percentage in ALL OF PRO SPORTS since he became a SPUR?

Bring it on Rochester Royal...Kings haven't won anything unless you consider Pacific Division Titles something :)

Hey, I'm not the one throwing out ridiculous comparisons. So instead of changing the subject, why don't you either do one of two things 1) try and back up your weak and ridiculous argument, or 2) just admit that you were wrong.

Who is juvenile? Keep throwing your little digs out there about the Kings, when I've already clearly stated that your Spurs were a much better team. It's your fail-safe, you can fall back on that when you lose the debate about your Spurs being any match for Bird's Celtics.

[Man In Black]

Bakrid huh..70 posts strong... I love these battles.
Been watching this game fo about 30 years now...I can say that there are some Spurs teams that can match Bird's Celtics. It's just basketball.

Team style of play, tough defense, emphasis on ball control. Championship teams do that. Why is it you place Bird's team on such a high pedestal when in reality, all they did was do what the Spurs have done so far. Win 3 titles, no repeats?

[ducks]

Guess What Spurs Could Land Another Player Like Duncan
No One Thought They Would Land Someone Like Big Dave They
Did
The Era With Duncan Is Closing But Not The Spurs

[DirkAB]

Bakrid huh..70 posts strong... I love these battles.
Been watching this game fo about 30 years now...I can say that there are some Spurs teams that can match Bird's Celtics. It's just basketball.

Team style of play, tough defense, emphasis on ball control. Championship teams do that. Why is it you place Bird's team on such a high pedestal when in reality, all they did was do what the Spurs have done so far. Win 3 titles, no repeats?

I've already began to make my case and all you have done is thrown out digs at my Kings, claimed I was drawing unreasonable conclusions, and passed the ball back to my court. When are you going to offer up any kind of insights of your own? It's pretty easy to sit there and point out my post count and claim my points are conjeture, but do you have anything to bring to the table?

The Celtics were a team that had the best of both worlds, IMO. They were able to play finesse on the offensive end and able to get tough on the defensive end. They moved the ball as well as any team has ever in the history of the game, they were so unselfish that is was a joy to watch. They were great inside and out. Yet they knew how to punish a team and get physical on the defensive end.

They had solid inside players in Parish and McHale, they would have been great against Duncan. Not that they would really render Duncan ineffective but they most definitely could effect his game more than anybody on the Spurs would have done to Bird. Was anyone ever able to negate Bird's effectiveness? No, the guy did it all, he contributed in every aspect of the game, he was all hustle and brains. I've actually seen Duncan struggle in games, I never seen Bird struggle. Again, McHale is a better second option than Manu or Parker. Parker wouldn't have dominated the match-up with Dennis Johnson, he was athletic and quick enough to stay with him. Ainge would have frustrated Manu just like Manu frustrate players. But that would be the Spurs biggest advantage, the Ainge/Manu matchup.

Basically I don't even think that it is comparable, the more I think about it the less comparable I think the two teams are. The Celtics would kill them.

[Phenomanul]

all teams pail in comparison to russels celtics, 8 straight titleS, and 9 in 11 years,


END OF STORY


Out of how many teams...???

Certainly not 30.... :spin

The teams were all stacked with talent... different world really....

[Man In Black]

Parker wouldn't have dominated the match-up with Dennis Johnson, he was athletic and quick enough to stay with him.

Did you actually watch DJ play? DJ wasn't what you would call quick by any stretch. he was smart, he used his size well in a time when outside of Magic Johnson, most PG's were 6'0 tall. Since you're talking DJ, you mean the 85 Celtics. 2nd team ALL-NBA D team true but since Bill Hanzlik was on that same team, I don't think that means much. Sidney Moncrief...now there was a playa.

Parker blew by people who are ALL-NBA 1st team TODAY. I don't think it would take that much for him to get his teardrop off against DJ.

About the Spurs.

Let me take what you wrote and then fix it to reflect some truths about these Spurs.

The Spurs are a team that had the best of both worlds, IMO. They were able to play most any pzce, strong half-court, able to run on the offensive end and are tough on the defensive end as evidenced by a stat Pop truly quantifies as important. FG% allowed. They move the ball as well as any team today, they play unselfishly and to the basketball purist, they are a joy to watch. With Duncan, they are great inside and with the attention that he draws, he gives his shooters a very good look every game.

They know how to physical on the defensive end (See Bruce Bowen & Tim Duncan-pereniall ALL-NBA D Teamers) and the opp FG%allowed.

They have the most solid inside player in the game today in Duncan. He would have been a tough cover for either Parish or McHale and they would have been great against Duncan. Not that they would really render Duncan ineffective but they most definitely could effect his game more than anybody on the Spurs would have done to Bird.

Was anyone ever able to negate Bird's effectiveness? Depends on what you mean by negate. Bird always played at high level ala Tim Duncan. It's just that there will be times where the rest of the team isn't as effective.

Tim does it on both ends. I've seen it all, I've watchd him contribute in every aspect of the game. 2003 Finals in game 6, he finished with a quadruple double, he is all hustle and brains and solid fundamentals.
I HAVE seen Bird struggle. It made him surly, and those struggles pre-cluded punches thrown at players like Julius Erving and Micheal Cooper.
McHale is a better second option than Manu or Parker. But can you say that the Celtics' other parts are as good as Parker & Ginobili?

Parker wouldn't have dominated the match-up with Dennis Johnson, but Tony does what he does against today's best defenders. While DJ was a good defender, his athleticism was good but he wouldn't be able to stay with him.

Manu is better than Ainge and will show his resiliency in the upcoming Worlds and the NBA NEXT SEASON :)

[Phenomanul]

I've already began to make my case and all you have done is thrown out digs at my Kings, claimed I was drawing unreasonable conclusions, and passed the ball back to my court. When are you going to offer up any kind of insights of your own? It's pretty easy to sit there and point out my post count and claim my points are conjeture, but do you have anything to bring to the table?

The Celtics were a team that had the best of both worlds, IMO. They were able to play finesse on the offensive end and able to get tough on the defensive end. They moved the ball as well as any team has ever in the history of the game, they were so unselfish that is was a joy to watch. They were great inside and out. Yet they knew how to punish a team and get physical on the defensive end.

They had solid inside players in Parish and McHale, they would have been great against Duncan. Not that they would really render Duncan ineffective but they most definitely could effect his game more than anybody on the Spurs would have done to Bird. Was anyone ever able to negate Bird's effectiveness? No, the guy did it all, he contributed in every aspect of the game, he was all hustle and brains. I've actually seen Duncan struggle in games, I never seen Bird struggle. Again, McHale is a better second option than Manu or Parker. Parker wouldn't have dominated the match-up with Dennis Johnson, he was athletic and quick enough to stay with him. Ainge would have frustrated Manu just like Manu frustrate players. But that would be the Spurs biggest advantage, the Ainge/Manu matchup.

Basically I don't even think that it is comparable, the more I think about it the less comparable I think the two teams are. The Celtics would kill them.


Who knows.... perhaps... but only because flagrant fouls were a common occurence back in the 80's... good riddance... and yet without the same physicallity these Spurs are able to keep their opponents below 90 PPG on a consistent basis....

The Lakers, Celtics or even the Pistons from the 80's cannot claim that their defense was every bit as good... (and again accounting for the fact that they literally knocked each other out of games)...

[Fabbs]

Yes I think this year was the best chance to repeat.
Very disappointed, and almost in disbelief it was a mental fart by my favorite player GNob in fouling Dirk after we had the advancment 98% locked up.

Not even trying TallBall the entire series, save an 11 minute stretch by Fabs (held his own vs Novitski) yeah that kinda sticks in the craw also. I do think Avery got the better of Pop.

But, I do not rule out the Spurs chances for a repeat either. Very interested to see what happens with Scola and other events for the 2006-7 roster.

[DirkAB]

Who knows.... perhaps... but only because flagrant fouls were a common occurence back in the 80's... good riddance... and yet without the same physicallity these Spurs are able to keep their opponents below 90 PPG on a consistent basis....

The Lakers, Celtics or even the Pistons from the 80's cannot claim that their defense was every bit as good... (and again accounting for the fact that they literally knocked each other out of games)...

Yes, the refs have done away with the flagrant fouls, but the game has been allowed by the officials to become much more physical over the last 20 years. There is no way that you can sit there and claim that the Spurs defense is so superior to the Celtics of the 80s or Pistons of late 80s/early 90s. If the officials allowed the hand checking and physical play back then, don't you suppose that those teams would have taken advantage and adapted? Those teams were as known for their defense back then as your Spurs are today, it's just that the game is much different now and defense has been allowed to become much more physical.

[DirkAB]

Did you actually watch DJ play? DJ wasn't what you would call quick by any stretch. he was smart, he used his size well in a time when outside of Magic Johnson, most PG's were 6'0 tall. Since you're talking DJ, you mean the 85 Celtics. 2nd team ALL-NBA D team true but since Bill Hanzlik was on that same team, I don't think that means much.

I think that Parker and Johnson would have given each other problems. Parker with his quickness, and Johnson with his stregnth and size. I wouldn't give any real advantage to either PG in this matchup.

[Phenomanul]

Yes, the refs have done away with the flagrant fouls, but the game has been allowed by the officials to become much more physical over the last 20 years. There is no way that you can sit there and claim that the Spurs defense is so superior to the Celtics of the 80s or Pistons of late 80s/early 90s. If the officials allowed the hand checking and physical play back then, don't you suppose that those teams would have taken advantage and adapted? Those teams were as known for their defense back then as your Spurs are today, it's just that the game is much different now and defense has been allowed to become much more physical.


And yet for those teams' supposed defensive prowess they never managed to produce a season where they held opponents to less than 90 ppg or less than 42 FG%... much less in the same season.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

You had a nice little post going there until you decided to compare Manu to Larry the Legend! Wow! We have a new King of the HOMERS! Holy fuckin' shit, that is hilarious! Manu is being compared to Larry Bird! Where did you here that? Manu's mom and dad?

BTW, by no means will I sit here and argue that Duncan isn't in elite company.
I've just read it before and heard it from older fans who actually experienced Bird's years, not just us younger guys who only have a collective image of their godlike greatness....Manu was 1 vote away from splitting the Finals MVP with Duncan (if that's possible), 2 votes away from owning it...Not that hilarious. Nash gets compared to Magic on PG skills/court vision and we all know it's a compliment at best and not an actual comparison.

His competitiveness is comparable, not exactly his game. He's a unique player nonetheless.

[dknights411]

all teams pail in comparison to russels celtics, 8 straight titleS, and 9 in 11 years,


END OF STORY

Even the Bulls of the 90s? The would have won 8 straight easily had Jordan not retired the first time around. Moreover, it's hard to dismiss 72-10.

[DirkAB]

I've just read it before and heard it from older fans who actually experienced Bird's years, not just us younger guys who only have a collective image of their godlike greatness....Manu was 1 vote away from splitting the Finals MVP with Duncan (if that's possible), 2 votes away from owning it...Not that hilarious. Nash gets compared to Magic on PG skills/court vision and we all know it's a compliment at best and not an actual comparison.

His competitiveness is comparable, not exactly his game. He's a unique player nonetheless.

Either you are full of shit and pretending that people are making these comparisons, or your friends that watched Bird and Magic are retards and have no idea what they are talking about.



It's getting worse, now you are comparing Nash to Magic? Nash has had 2 great seasons and now you think he is being compared to Magic? You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Nash has a hard time winning the Nash/Kidd debate, and in all honesty probably doesn't. So in what way is he anything like Magic Johnson? Aside from being an MVP point guard, what do they have in common? Obviously MVP point guards are going to be great passers and have great court vision, but their style of play couldn't be further apart. Did you know that Magic is considered by some to be the best player ever to play?

Oh yeah BTW, because Manu was a couple of votes away from being a finals MVP, but didn't actually win the award, he is comparable to Larry Bird? Brilliant! How about this:

Larry the Legend was:

9 time all-NBA first team
2 time Finals MVP (he actually won the award, unlike Manu)
3 time NBA MVP
3 time NBA all-defensive second team
NBA ROY
1 of the 50 greatest players in NBA history (does Manu even make the top 250?)

[DirkAB]

Even the Bulls of the 90s? The would have won 8 straight easily had Jordan not retired the first time around. Moreover, it's hard to dismiss 72-10.

Exactly, plus the Bulls did it when there was a salary cap and twice as many teams.

[mabber]

I don't think that matters. 3 out of 5 is just as impressive IMO.

I agree. Actually I think winning 3 out of 5 is more impressive than winning back-to-back and then not winning again.