Biggest Failures of the Decade

[SpursDynasty]

Who is the bigger failure of this decade?

The Houston Rockets blew a 2-0 series lead in 2005. They blew yet another 2-0 series lead in 2007. Tracy McGrady is supposedly one of the game's best players, right? :lol

Or how about the Dallas Mavericks. They blew a 2-0 series lead in 2006. They were the favorites to win, right? They also get the #1 seed in 2007, but lose the series anyway.

Phoenix Suns. Records of 62-20, 54-28, and 61-21 in 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. One of the league's best teams, right? The 2005-2006 failure is excusable, no Amare. But the other years, you win 60+, are one of the favorites to win the championship, but you get shut down by superior defense (Spurs).

So who is the biggest failure of this decade: Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix?

I'd say none, since none ever had a real chance of winning the championship. Just a fake sense of being an elite team. No "upsets" in these cases, just lost to better teams.


EDIT: If there is such a thing as an "upset", it has to be the Lakers over Sacramento in 2002. The Kings clearly outplayed the Lakers that series. The only way the Lakers stuck in it was Divac batting the ball out for Horry's shot in Game 4. The Kings are also possible for biggest failure of the decade.

I pick the Kings. The Rockets, Suns, and Mavs were good, but not championship-level, Dallas reached the Finals by making some fake lucky shots, but they otherwise didn't belong in the Finals. So there can't be a failure if they weren't expected to win the championship, right? The Kings are the only team this decade that "should have" won the championship but got screwed.

[Leetonidas]

Latrell Spreewell, by far.

[ludda]

mavs, cuz i thought they at least had a legit shot but then choked major and couldn't seal the deal.

[dirk4mvp]

'04 Lakers

[Tippecanoe]

udrih, beno

[bdictjames]

Detroit last year.

[Findog]

The Josh Daniels Band not securing a record deal from a major label

[Mr.Bottomtooth]

04 Lakers.

[lefty]

Shawn Bradley

[leroyjenkins]

kwame brown

[SpursDynasty]

The '04 Lakers can't be considered a failure because they were not a deep team and not really expected to win the championship. The Spurs beat them in Game 5, but for some odd reason a late clock start was allowed. If there's any team in the NBA that gets screwed, it's the Spurs.

So, like the 2006 Mavs, losing in the Finals wasn't an "upset" for the Lakers in 2004, just a scenario playing out after they were handed the series victory with the late clock start. In other words, they should have been happy to have made the Finals at all...no upsets for losing.

Upset: When a team that is more talented, deep, and expected to win, loses to the underdog team.

[Pistons < Spurs]

Rasheed.......http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2005/06/20/PH2005062000009.jpg

[ShoogarBear]

I'd say none, since none ever had a real chance of winning the championship. Just a fake sense of being an elite team. No "upsets" in these cases, just lost to better teams.

So the Mavs, up 2-0 in The Finals, had no real chance of winning the championship?

I hesitate to ask this, but what about the Spurs being up 2-0 against the Lakers in 2004? Was that the biggest failure of the decade, or was it that the Spurs had no real chance?

Jefflogic is humorous.

[SpursDynasty]

So the Mavs, up 2-0 in The Finals, had no real chance of winning the championship?

I hesitate to ask this, but what about the Spurs being up 2-0 against the Lakers in 2004? Was that the biggest failure of the decade, or was it that the Spurs had no real chance?

Jefflogic is humorous.

The Spurs aren't considered in the failure category because of their three championships this decade.

And the Mavs isn't an upset b/c they were the underdogs.

[ambchang]

But the Spurs in 04 would be one of the biggest failures of the decade, right?
What about the Spurs in 06? They were the favourites to win it all, and they lost to the Mavs in the 2nd round, going by your definition that a failure is a team NOT winning like they were supposed to win, the 06 Spurs would be failure.
BTW, good job defining failure, I wonder how you know so much about it.

[mavs>spurs2]

But the Spurs in 04 would be one of the biggest failures of the decade, right?
What about the Spurs in 06? They were the favourites to win it all, and they lost to the Mavs in the 2nd round, going by your definition that a failure is a team NOT winning like they were supposed to win, the 06 Spurs would be failure.
BTW, good job defining failure, I wonder how you know so much about it.
:lol

[SpursDynasty]

But the Spurs in 04 would be one of the biggest failures of the decade, right?
What about the Spurs in 06? They were the favourites to win it all, and they lost to the Mavs in the 2nd round, going by your definition that a failure is a team NOT winning like they were supposed to win, the 06 Spurs would be failure.
BTW, good job defining failure, I wonder how you know so much about it.

It wasn't considered a failure because officials had more to do with those losses than the Spurs did.

I mean, .04 has never been allowed for a catch, turn, and shoot.
Fouls are usually called in Game 7's when they're supposed to be.

It was more of the officials letting things slide, therefore the Spurs didn't really fail. The Lakers in '04 and Mavs in '06 didn't go on to the win championship. The NBA Finals don't lie.

[mavs>spurs2]

It wasn't considered a failure because officials had more to do with those losses than the Spurs did.

I mean, .04 has never been allowed for a catch, turn, and shoot.
Fouls are usually called in Game 7's when they're supposed to be.

It was more of the officials letting things slide, therefore the Spurs didn't really fail. The Lakers in '04 and Mavs in '06 didn't go on to the win championship. The NBA Finals don't lie.

its always been in the rulebook

fisher got that shot off as quickly as you can get one off, and the rule is .4 for catch and shoot

[SpursDynasty]

My point exactly.

It wasn't a catch-and-shoot-only motion.

He had extra time to turn. He caught the ball facing away from the basket.

[Dave McNulla]

you can't blame everything on the officials. especially in that game. if they had stopped the clock with .5 or .6 or .7 when tim duncan scored, would fisher's shot have gotten out of his hand in time? probably. if you focus on one mistake of delayed human reaction and ignore another mistake of delayed human reaction that had the opposite effect, i like to call that being biased.

more importantly, the spurs lost three other games in that series, one after that freak of a shot. if the spurs win game 6, maybe we don't talk about the shot so much. but the lakers won game 6.

btw, i think a lot of people considered that lakers team to be unbeatable. i wasn't amongst them. but they were a good team. they were better than the spurs that year.

[yourcheatinheart]

i'd say your homer postings are the biggest failures of the decade.

[Mister Sinister]

i'd say your homer postings are the biggest failures of the decade.
The only way this could be funnier, would be if d_s_f posted it.

[FromWayDowntown]

The '04 Lakers can't be considered a failure because they were not a deep team and not really expected to win the championship.

Yeah -- the '04 Lakers weren't expected by anyone to win a championship. Sure. Right.

[FromWayDowntown]

JeffDrums' willingness to blame all Spurs failures on officiating is, ahem, officially a disgrace.

The Spurs could have won Game 5 against LA in 2004 if they hadn't dug themselves a huge hole in the 1st half -- they didn't do that and they gave the Lakers a chance to win the game at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. The officiating, though, does not win or lose the game for a team.

The Spurs could have won Game 3 against Dallas in 2006 if they had hit more than 25% of their shots in the first quarter or if they had gotten some stops over the last 8:30 of the game -- but they didn't do those things and it gave the Mavs a chance to win at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. But the officiating, again, didn't decide the game; the Spurs' inability to do the things that winning teams do cost them that game.

[phyzik]

JeffDrums' willingness to blame all Spurs failures on officiating is, ahem, officially a disgrace.

The Spurs could have won Game 5 against LA in 2004 if they hadn't dug themselves a huge hole in the 1st half -- they didn't do that and they gave the Lakers a chance to win the game at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. The officiating, though, does not win or lose the game for a team.

The Spurs could have won Game 3 against Dallas in 2006 if they had hit more than 25% of their shots in the first quarter or if they had gotten some stops over the last 8:30 of the game -- but they didn't do those things and it gave the Mavs a chance to win at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. But the officiating, again, didn't decide the game; the Spurs' inability to do the things that winning teams do cost them that game.


*waits for Duncan228 to come and start the ass kissing* :elephant

Good try FWD but I seriously think Jeff has a mental illness that does not allow him to comprehend anything that makes sense.

[Nashfan]

The Josh Daniels Band not securing a record deal from a major label


:lol

[Nashfan]

The '04 Lakers can't be considered a failure because they were not a deep team and not really expected to win the championship. The Spurs beat them in Game 5, but for some odd reason a late clock start was allowed. If there's any team in the NBA that gets screwed, it's the Spurs.
:cry :cry


So, like the 2006 Mavs, losing in the Finals wasn't an "upset" for the Lakers in 2004, just a scenario playing out after they were handed the series victory with the late clock start. In other words, they should have been happy to have made the Finals at all...no upsets for losing.

Upset: When a team that is more talented, deep, and expected to win, loses to the underdog team.

[Nashfan]

It wasn't considered a failure because officials had more to do with those losses than the Spurs did.
:cry :cry :rolleyes


I mean, .04 has never been allowed for a catch, turn, and shoot.
Fouls are usually called in Game 7's when they're supposed to be.

It was more of the officials letting things slide, therefore the Spurs didn't really fail. The Lakers in '04 and Mavs in '06 didn't go on to the win championship. The NBA Finals don't lie.

[Vinnie_Johnson]

The Spurs in 2004 for falling apart before the Pistons could beat them.

[SpursDynasty]

JeffDrums' willingness to blame all Spurs failures on officiating is, ahem, officially a disgrace.

The Spurs could have won Game 5 against LA in 2004 if they hadn't dug themselves a huge hole in the 1st half -- they didn't do that and they gave the Lakers a chance to win the game at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. The officiating, though, does not win or lose the game for a team.

The Spurs could have won Game 3 against Dallas in 2006 if they had hit more than 25% of their shots in the first quarter or if they had gotten some stops over the last 8:30 of the game -- but they didn't do those things and it gave the Mavs a chance to win at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. But the officiating, again, didn't decide the game; the Spurs' inability to do the things that winning teams do cost them that game.

Doesn't matter how or what the Spurs did during the game - the point is they were in a position to win at the end of the game before crucial calls or non-calls cost them a game or series. The 2004 Lakers were not unbeatable. They got spanked 4-1 in the Finals.

[FromWayDowntown]

Doesn't matter how or what the Spurs did during the game - the point is they were in a position to win at the end of the game before crucial calls or non-calls cost them a game or series. The 2004 Lakers were not unbeatable. They got spanked 4-1 in the Finals.

Well, at least we've outed you as a sore loser and a bad sport.

Blaming officials is absolutely asinine.

[Nashfan]

Well, at least we've outed you as a sore loser and a bad sport.

Blaming officials is absolutely asinine.


:clap

[ChumpDumper]

Blaming officials is absolutely asinine.This is true.

Blame the timekeeper.

[SpursDynasty]

Well, at least we've outed you as a sore loser and a bad sport.

Blaming officials is absolutely asinine.

My point was to clear up false illusions about certain teams being "elite", and to subtract the Spurs from the failures of the decade list because they don't fit the definition of failure for the purposes of this thread.

The McGrady/Yao Rockets, Dirk Mavs, 2002 Kings, and 2004-2007 Suns remain on the failures list of this decade. :lol

[Leetonidas]

The '04 Lakers can't be considered a failure because they were not a deep team and not really expected to win the championship. The Spurs beat them in Game 5, but for some odd reason a late clock start was allowed. If there's any team in the NBA that gets screwed, it's the Spurs.

So, like the 2006 Mavs, losing in the Finals wasn't an "upset" for the Lakers in 2004, just a scenario playing out after they were handed the series victory with the late clock start. In other words, they should have been happy to have made the Finals at all...no upsets for losing.

Upset: When a team that is more talented, deep, and expected to win, loses to the underdog team.
Oh my God, SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY. The Lakers in 2004 were HEAVILY favored, as were the Mavericks in 2006. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING HEAD.

[cornbread]

The McGrady/Yao Rockets, Dirk Mavs, 2002 Kings, and 2004-2007 Suns remain on the failures list of this decade. :lol
Yet they remain your obsession.

If you started as many threads about the Spurs as you do these same few subjects, over, and over, and over again...then you might not totally suck.

[LakeShow]

It would have to be the 2004 team. Anything short of a championship was an underachievement for that squad.

[stretch]

It would have to be the 2004 team. Anything short of a championship was an underachievement for that squad.
Sure was. Too bad they beat your rockets that year though... hey wait a sec... who were you rooting for in that series? The Lakers or Rockets?

[Johnny RIngo]

Biggest failure of the decade? Answer's kinda obvious, isn't it?

Steve Trash. 2 tainted MVP awards, all the hype in the world, and he's played about a hundred playoff games and STILL can't make the Finals.

Nash's retarded fans like to say he's better than Gary Payton, Jason Kidd, and Stockton despite the fact that those three are each leagues better than Nash. Not to mention the fact that each of those PGs at least managed to lead their respective teams to the Finals(something Nash will never do in his lifetime).

[sprrs]

I know he's only been around a year or so...but is it too early to nominate SpursDynasty for biggest failure of the decade?

[TheAuthority]

He's right about 0.4, of course. The shot clearly should have never counted. There's obvious evidence to back that.

[Dalhoop]

Just going up 2-0 in a series and loosing is nothing special (unless its a best of five). As the "favored team" plays the first two at home. I would say that to be a major disapointment a team would have to be 3-0 in a seven game series and drop the ball.


In basketball the home team wins more then 60% of the time, reguardless of team records to that point. Home court does matter. So a team up 2-0, just based on odds alone are going to be ties 2-2 after four games. After you get to 2-2 in a series, there are no major disappointments the teams are closely matched.

So to answer you question. I'm too lazy to look up teams that went up 3-0 and failed to seal the deal, but those team would be the "Big Failures" of the decade.

[jman3000]

Just going up 2-0 in a series and loosing is nothing special (unless its a best of five). As the "favored team" plays the first two at home. I would say that to be a major disapointment a team would have to be 3-0 in a seven game series and drop the ball.


In basketball the home team wins more then 60% of the time, reguardless of team records to that point. Home court does matter. So a team up 2-0, just based on odds alone are going to be ties 2-2 after four games. After you get to 2-2 in a series, there are no major disappointments the teams are closely matched.

So to answer you question. I'm too lazy to look up teams that went up 3-0 and failed to seal the deal, but those team would be the "Big Failures" of the decade.
has never happened in basketball.

it's been pushed to 7 a few times... with the most recently being... dallas and portland a few years bacK?

[itzsoweezee]

kwame brown

[Reggie Miller]

If we define “last decade” as 1997-2007, I could make a strong case for the Pacers. The franchise has had two separate championship caliber teams in this span, only to see both of them broken up with no results. In the ‘90s, the Pacers couldn’t get out of the East with Jordan and Shaq in the way. When the East became depleted, they finally broke through, only to be beaten by Shaq again. After some reshuffling, the Pacers became a regular season powerhouse, who couldn’t beat Detroit in the playoffs. Obviously, they are now one of the worst teams in the league.

During this same period, the Pacers also went from being the most successful former ABA franchise to a distant second to San Antonio. Even the lowly Nets have made the NBA finals twice now.