0-4 at repeating; 2 of the losses bad breaks, 2 against super teams

2000: LOST 1-3 to the PHX Suns (Not a Superteam, but had a solid lineup and caught a break when Timmy didn’t play in the series)


2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.)


2006: LOST 3-4 to the Mavs (Not a Superteam, but a solid lineup with a solid coach AJ who knew our strengths and weaknesses. Refs a huge factor)


2008: LOST 1-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Coach Phil)


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And judging by the offseason so far, it seems as the spurs are doomed to not repeat as NBA champions.


Don’t get me wrong. Bringing back Diaw and Mills was a good move. I like the signings of Anderson and our new assistant coaches. But where is there actual improvement in the lineup? Timmy and Manu are a year older. Teams will be more prepared and more on guard with what Leonard, Green, and Splitter will throw at them. And we won’t have Patty Mills until next year, which could cost us in regular season victories and ultimately HCA ( a huge factor in our wins over OKC and Dallas).


Is the FO really that comfortable staying put with the current lineup we have? Keeping our lineup in tact has never given us the opportunity to repeat as champions in our history. Super teams were either formed and clearly outmatched us, or we didn’t have enough skilled personnel to overcome tough breaks and still win a series. In those cases, I always felt like we were missing 1 or 2 key guys to turn the series around.


We still have the MLE left, and I think we should at least try to improve personnel wise rather than relying on internal improvement from our own players. There is still some quality left in the talent pool:


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ng-free-agents

At this point, in free agency, who are you hoping for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2000: LOST 1-3 to the PHX Suns (Not a Superteam, but had a solid lineup and caught a break when Timmy didn’t play in the series)


2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.) There are no available free agents worth the minimum. Spurs, per usual, were actually smart not to spend the MLE this summer as there were too many teams with too much salary cap money and that led to a scenario where too much money was in the market leading to overpaying for mid-tier players. The better bet is to wait until mediocre players are bought out towards the end of the season, and then rent one for cheap. If it is a good enough player, give them the MLE. We have a deep enough team that we don't need to worry about starting out the season with a new free agent.


2006: LOST 3-4 to the Mavs (Not a Superteam, but a solid lineup with a solid coach AJ who knew our strengths and weaknesses. Refs a huge factor)


2008: LOST 1-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Coach Phil)


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And judging by the offseason so far, it seems as the spurs are doomed to not repeat as NBA champions.


Don’t get me wrong. Bringing back Diaw and Mills was a good move. I like the signings of Anderson and our new assistant coaches. But where is there actual improvement in the lineup? Timmy and Manu are a year older. Teams will be more prepared and more on guard with what Leonard, Green, and Splitter will throw at them. And we won’t have Patty Mills until next year, which could cost us in regular season victories and ultimately HCA ( a huge factor in our wins over OKC and Dallas).


Is the FO really that comfortable staying put with the current lineup we have? Keeping our lineup in tact has never given us the opportunity to repeat as champions in our history. Super teams were either formed and clearly outmatched us, or we didn’t have enough skilled personnel to overcome tough breaks and still win a series. In those cases, I always felt like we were missing 1 or 2 key guys to turn the series around.


We still have the MLE left, and I think we should at least try to improve personnel wise rather than relying on internal improvement from our own players. There is still some quality left in the talent pool:


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ng-free-agents

---

No reason to spend the MLE with so much money flooding the free agency market that teams are overpaying for mediocre players. The better bet is to wait for the buyouts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poolboy5623

At this point, in free agency, who are you hoping for?

---

That is a damn good question man.

Too late for Marion and Allen (but they would have been perfect here in a limited role). I think okafur is really solid. Blatch or bayless for ayers and joseph

we were fuked in 2004 and 2006. in 2004, fisher had enough time in .4 seconds to catch the ball, turn around AND THEN fade away. that is impossible for any human to accomplish. they went up 3-2 and the rest is history. david stern screwed us in 2006. he developed this divison bullshit in which the leader of each division are 1,2, and 3 in the conference rankings going into the playoofs. Here u had the spurs and mavs the 2 best teams in the league(pistons played in the shitty east. even though they had the best record in the league, they were not better than either team) playing each other in the 2nd round due to seeding. Everyone knew the winner of that series would be in the finals. So dallas should have been a 2nd place team and maybe they don't get past the lakers so easily and the clippers as well. It was one of the worst things david stern had done with seeding during his tenure as commissioner. By those seeding rules, a team with a losing record could have been a #2 or #3 seed as long as they won their division. Worst fukin seeding ever.

http://scottburns.files.wordpress.co.../done_r_hi.gif

Back in those days it was your best 5 against my best 5. Play some D and 1 on 1 on offense. Shitload of iso. Pop has done revolutionized the game. 1 or 2 players having a bad game doesn't necessarily mean a loss these days. The ball movement is damn near unstoppable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

we were fuked in 2004 and 2006. in 2004, fisher had enough time in .4 seconds to catch the ball, turn around AND THEN fade away. that is impossible for any human to accomplish. they went up 3-2 and the rest is history. david stern screwed us in 2006. he developed this divison bullshit in which the leader of each division are 1,2, and 3 in the conference rankings going into the playoofs. Here u had the spurs and mavs the 2 best teams in the league(pistons played in the shitty east. even though they had the best record in the league, they were not better than either team) playing each other in the 2nd round due to seeding. Everyone knew the winner of that series would be in the finals. So dallas should have been a 2nd place team and maybe they don't get past the lakers so easily and the clippers as well. It was one of the worst things david stern had done with seeding during his tenure as commissioner. By those seeding rules, a team with a losing record could have been a #2 or #3 seed as long as they won their division. Worst fukin seeding ever.

---

They beat us 3-1 in the regular season and their margin of victory in the post season was higher than ours. Yeah 0.4 was a tough pill to swallow, but the lakers were the better team that year. The same goes for the Mavericks.

3 bad breaks. Duncan injury in 2000, game 5 swing game in 2004, game 7 overtime in 2006.

Come to think of it, there was a bad break in 2008. Brent Barry got hacked on a potential game-winner in game 4, but no call.

Call me sentimental, but, I am going to follow this season nonetheless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arcadian

3 bad breaks. Duncan injury in 2000, game 5 swing game in 2004, game 7 overtime in 2006.

Come to think of it, there was a bad break in 2008. Brent Barry got hacked on a potential game-winner in game 4, but no call.

---

Portland owned us in 2000 and the lakers were just hitting their stride. I don't think we would have fared well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

Too late for Marion and Allen (but they would have been perfect here in a limited role). I think okafur is really solid. Blatch or bayless for ayers and joseph

---

Okafor would be a good signing and Blatch is a skilled offensive big man. But I don't see the Spurs clearing out room to sign either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cd021

Okafor would be a good signing and Blatch is a skilled offensive big man. But I don't see the Spurs clearing out room to sign either.

---

Both are better than ayers, so why not at least try? The 0-4 history tells me we need all hands on deck to get that elusive repeat

:lol the 2004 and 2008 Lakers weren't Superteams, not even close, tbh..

The 2003 Spurs were one of the weakest title teams of the modern era..it was prime Duncan + role players, and the only decent competition they faced was a Lakers team on their 4th run to the Finals(tired legs)..the 2004 team lost Robinson and Jackson, 2 of the more important members of the 2003 team, too..

The 2007 Spurs avoided the Mavs and beat Phoenix in a controversial series that could have gone either way..that Spurs team was the beginning of the end for surrounding the aging Big 3 with old role players on their last legs(Bowen, Horry, Finley)..

The only great chance for a repeat was the 2006 Spurs, and they lost in arguably the best/most competitive series of the 2000s..

This upcoming Spurs team didn't lose anybody from the 2014 Spurs, which was statistically one of the 3 greatest teams of the 1990-2014 era..their rival(OKC) didn't make any improvements, either..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Malik Hairston

The only great chance for a repeat was the 2006 Spurs, and they lost in arguably the best/most competitive series of the 2000s..

---

The only way '00 could not be considered a "great chance for a repeat", would be because of Duncan's injury. '04 was a great chance, too.

Mills will not cost us wins early in the season - we will beat poor and mediocre teams and lose to contenders as usual.

2004 was not our year whatever happened - Pistons were the best team that year.

Cleveland will not win in their first year together, although they'll be scary in their 2nd if they can find a rim protecting C. OKC and the Bulls are our chief rivals, and I still think we're better than both.

BRING ON THE SEASON! :ihit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2000: LOST 1-3 to the PHX Suns (Not a Superteam, but had a solid lineup and caught a break when Timmy didn’t play in the series)


2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.)


2006: LOST 3-4 to the Mavs (Not a Superteam, but a solid lineup with a solid coach AJ who knew our strengths and weaknesses. Refs a huge factor)


2008: LOST 1-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Coach Phil)


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And judging by the offseason so far, it seems as the spurs are doomed to not repeat as NBA champions.


Don’t get me wrong. Bringing back Diaw and Mills was a good move. I like the signings of Anderson and our new assistant coaches. But where is there actual improvement in the lineup? Timmy and Manu are a year older. Teams will be more prepared and more on guard with what Leonard, Green, and Splitter will throw at them. And we won’t have Patty Mills until next year, which could cost us in regular season victories and ultimately HCA ( a huge factor in our wins over OKC and Dallas).


Is the FO really that comfortable staying put with the current lineup we have? Keeping our lineup in tact has never given us the opportunity to repeat as champions in our history. Super teams were either formed and clearly outmatched us, or we didn’t have enough skilled personnel to overcome tough breaks and still win a series. In those cases, I always felt like we were missing 1 or 2 key guys to turn the series around.


We still have the MLE left, and I think we should at least try to improve personnel wise rather than relying on internal improvement from our own players. There is still some quality left in the talent pool:


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ng-free-agents

---

We should have won against the 2004 Lakers team. That was not a super team, the Spurs just cratered like a bunch of pansies who looked as if they were not champions only a year previous. Top to bottom choke job, IMO. The west was abnormally weak that year, and the Lakers only real competition was us. But they were exposed like the non-super team they were when the Pistons pistol whipped their asses in the finals.

In fact, we arguably choked against the 2008 Lakers team too. Pop removed Bruce Bowen from game 1 because he had 4 fouls, and Kobe went god mode against us seconds later. Game over. Brent Barry also got fouled by Derek Fisher with no call.

The mojo was gone after game 1.
However, the 2008 Celtics team would have destroyed us had we made the Finals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darius McCrary

In fact, we arguably choked against the 2008 Lakers team too. Pop removed Bruce Bowen from game 1 because he had 4 fouls, and Kobe went god mode against us seconds later. Game over. Brent Barry also got fouled by Derek Fisher with no call.

The mojo was gone after game 1.
However, the 2008 Celtics team would have destroyed us had we made the Finals.

---

exactly! Our FO did nothing that year that would have made us competitive against that Celtic team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

They beat us 3-1 in the regular season and their margin of victory in the post season was higher than ours. Yeah 0.4 was a tough pill to swallow, but the lakers were the better team that year. The same goes for the Mavericks.

---

The Lakers won that series by playing a gimmick defense where they left Turkoglu open the whole time and that faggot couldn't hit an open shot. If that Spurs team had even Danny Ferry or Steve Smith taking those shots instead of Turkoglu they win that series in 5 or 6. TeX Winter himself said he couldn't believe they survived that series.

The difference this year is the Spurs aren't relying on old fogeys to carry the rest of the load. Young assets like Leonard, Splitter, Green, and Mills are developing, and any progress on their part is an improvement as good as any. The teams in 2006 and 2008 featured squads more than half of which were over 30 (check basketball reference for an extensive list) and Pop rode the Big Three hard. No young'uns of note, just a stagnating Beno Udrih and a raw Ian Mahinmi. The team took gambles on the likes of Marcus Williams and Melvin Sanders, none of which panned out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2000: LOST 1-3 to the PHX Suns (Not a Superteam, but had a solid lineup and caught a break when Timmy didn’t play in the series)


2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.)


2006: LOST 3-4 to the Mavs (Not a Superteam, but a solid lineup with a solid coach AJ who knew our strengths and weaknesses. Manu a huge factor)


2008: LOST 1-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Kobe, Gasol, Bynum, Odom, and Coach Phil)


Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And judging by the offseason so far, it seems as the spurs are doomed to not repeat as NBA champions.


Don’t get me wrong. Bringing back Diaw and Mills was a good move. I like the signings of Anderson and our new assistant coaches. But where is there actual improvement in the lineup? Timmy and Manu are a year older. Teams will be more prepared and more on guard with what Leonard, Green, and Splitter will throw at them. And we won’t have Patty Mills until next year, which could cost us in regular season victories and ultimately HCA ( a huge factor in our wins over OKC and Dallas).


Is the FO really that comfortable staying put with the current lineup we have? Keeping our lineup in tact has never given us the opportunity to repeat as champions in our history. Super teams were either formed and clearly outmatched us, or we didn’t have enough skilled personnel to overcome tough breaks and still win a series. In those cases, I always felt like we were missing 1 or 2 key guys to turn the series around.


We still have the MLE left, and I think we should at least try to improve personnel wise rather than relying on internal improvement from our own players. There is still some quality left in the talent pool:


http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-...ng-free-agents

---

Fixed a glaring error for you...

OP is an obvious fag

I see no issues in bringing back the team that just won the championship. Especially when there are no roster spots really available. I guess they could waive Ayres/Daye and not resign Baynes, but it will be tough for someone to crack the rotation. Those guys don't get much P/T anyways.

Only superteams repeat. The Spurs play super ball, but they aren't a super team. There are too many players these days willing to gang up on one team to get where they cannot get on their own, for any team like the Spurs to have a long series of rings. I can see them getting a repeat, but the Lakers should have had 4 or 5 in a row. Chicago could have had 8 in a row I think. The Heat should have won 4 in a row.

You have to have a juggernaut to repeat. We don't. That's what makes beating one all that much sweeter. Anyone can find the most stacked team and dick ride it, but when the team you've been supporting for 30 years reels off 17 years of greatness like this one has, you cannot bitch about it.

You know what though... what I saw from last year is...

the Bearing of Fruit, finally after many years of toils.

The completion of a transformation.

And the Spurs, what they have become, is in a different stratosphere than the rest of the NBA.


It feels like other Teams Will have to Train and develop their defense to a whole new level, just to counter what the Spurs do, and that should take, years or the precise elements of players who have chemistry and are well coached.


If the Spurs Make it to the FINALS who in the East really... is capable of defeating them??

The Spurs are so sublime and their brand of ball makes everyone else look primitive.


I think next year, barring injury, we'll see the most magnificent Spurs repeat team in history.

They Blossomed into a new Form, evolved into something greater, that other teams are only now realizing is possible.

And the other aspect is... now that all their demons are gone.. they can just go out their and be free spirited.

You need peace before prosperity. They kept pounding that rock and it turned into a diamond.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuixafun

You know what though... what I saw from last year is...

the Bearing of Fruit finally after many years of toils.


And the Spurs, what they have become, is in a different stratosphere than the rest of the NBA.


It feels like Teams Will have to Train and develop their defense to counter what the Spurs do, and that should take, years or the precise elements of players who have chemistry and are well coached.

If the Spurs Make it to the FINAL who in the East really... is capable of defeating them??


I think next year, barring injury, we'll see the most magnificent Spurs repeat team in history.

They've got all the demons gone..

The Blossomed into a new Form, they've evolved into something greater, that other teams are just realizing is possible.

---

I second that :tu
Op is a faggie always too obsessed with dumb shit (weak troll).

It is almost impossible to recruit a FA without overpay these days. However, if SPURS overpays a FA, it would hurt the feeling of those players who are underpaid in order to have a chance to win. That's the dilema.

OK, sell the Spurs to an impact free agent.

Tell them the current rotations.

Tell them the minutes they should expect.

Now what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

They beat us 3-1 in the regular season and their margin of victory in the post season was higher than ours. Yeah 0.4 was a tough pill to swallow, but the lakers were the better team that year. The same goes for the Mavericks.

---

i know they beat us, but if the time keeper does their job, we are up 3-2 after game 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Only superteams repeat. The Spurs play super ball, but they aren't a super team. There are too many players these days willing to gang up on one team to get where they cannot get on their own, for any team like the Spurs to have a long series of rings. I can see them getting a repeat, but the Lakers should have had 4 or 5 in a row. Chicago could have had 8 in a row I think. The Heat should have won 4 in a row.

You have to have a juggernaut to repeat. We don't. That's what makes beating one all that much sweeter. Anyone can find the most stacked team and dick ride it, but when the team you've been supporting for 30 years reels off 17 years of greatness like this one has, you cannot bitch about it.

---

the early 90s bulls weren't a super team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RuffnReadyOzStyle

Mills will not cost us wins early in the season - we will beat poor and mediocre teams and lose to contenders as usual.

2004 was not our year whatever happened - Pistons were the best team that year.

Cleveland will not win in their first year together, although they'll be scary in their 2nd if they can find a rim protecting C. OKC and the Bulls are our chief rivals, and I still think we're better than both.

BRING ON THE SEASON! :ihit

---

Mills carried our scrubs when the Big 3 rested... About 6 wins he got us by himself. That's HCA, tbh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.)

---

That shot doesn't go down it's game 7 on our floor..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

They beat us 3-1 in the regular season and their margin of victory in the post season was higher than ours. Yeah 0.4 was a tough pill to swallow, but the lakers were the better team that year. The same goes for the Mavericks.

---

Lakers got horsewhipped by the Same Pistons team we beat in 7 the following year. They weren't better IMO we didn't play as well as we could and they also caught a huge break..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

i know they beat us, but if the time keeper does their job, we are up 3-2 after game 5.

---

Exactly, how quickly people forget that we had an 18 game winning streak going into that series. Regular season doesnt mean shit, look at the thunder this year. If we win that game as we rightfully should have, we go to the finals that year.

2003 free agency is when SA had a ton of cap room to prepare to repeat in 2004.

Remember what they did:

• Swung & missed in recruiting Jason Kidd from the just defeated Nets
• Gave a huge contract to FA Rasho Nesterovic
• Brought in former Spur-killer Robert Horry in FA
• traded for Hedo Turkoglu
• traded for Ron Mercer
• Signed FA Anthony Carter

Just something to disprove that retooling after a ring is the way to go. Doesn't work out as we'd hope as in 2004.

Not one mention of Manu's ankle injury in 08... He was beasting vs Nola, no way the Lakers beat us with manu healthy that year, maybe his best till that point. Iirc tony had bone spurs issues that year as well.


04, parker crumpled, no one could hit from outside (fucking turk) and Malone and shaq got away with hacking Timmy all game, even then they needed .4, regular season I'm pretty sure there were at least two games we played them shorthanded (one was the 2ot game manu almost won by himself)

06 was bullshit, dirk would step on someone's foot and get FT while parker would get intentionally tripped no call. Last play of regulation Tim got fouled twice, no call. Part of it was pop going small but the main thing was the refs, mavs got ft from jump shots while spurs pounded inside (remember how much interior scoring Tim manu and tony used to give), that series was total bullshit, tony and Timmy in particular got no respect that series. Pretty sure Tim was still fighting plantar fasciitis too

No guarantees we win the finals those years but those series were more about injuries and refs than lack of personnel. 09-11 definitely spurs were outgunned

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

the early 90s bulls weren't a super team.

---

Compared to their competition they certainly were.

Putting MJ and Pippen together is like putting Lebron and Wade together. They'd be a super team without Bosh.

Wanted to put it before but wasn't sure what game. Go watch game 3 of that mavs series. Crawford went in hard! 50-32 ft for mavs, 27 pts on 9 shots (and 24 FTA) for dirk, one point loss. First four games spurs were -22 in FTA, game 3 was easily the most egregious- not just the disparity but the terrible calls- the play dirk steps on Duncan is crucial. Spurs were getting called for breathing on dirk and harris, while Howard diop and co were hammering us, Howard tripped parker blatantly in another game no call, I remember manu fouling out on some bs too. Games 3 and 4 were brutal, as a fan i suffered that more than .4 more than 08 or 14. We managed to come back from 3-1 down! But theres a reason that shit almost never happens, its real hard. The calls evened out but then Manu's foul happened. On the following play Tim is fouled twice, and in ot he was done. He got beat up good that series. Fucking mavs

I'm content with the spurs having 5 at this point and anything after is just gravy. Winning 5 was important just to put an end to the effects of game 6 last year and to shut up the media and the trolls. Its hard to win back to back considering it usually always takes a lot luck in the sense of having a game winning shot, a bounce here or there for a rebound, not getting a phantom called against you in a crucial playoff game. The spurs have a chance to win it again next year but I'm not getting myself emotionally invested in it like I did the 4 other times due to all the bs that happened in the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daslicer

I'm content with the spurs having 5 at this point and anything after is just gravy. Winning 5 was important just to put an end to the effects of game 6 last year and to shut up the media and the trolls. Its hard to win back to back considering it usually always takes a lot luck in the sense of having a game winning shot, a bounce here or there for a rebound, not getting a phantom called against you in a crucial playoff game. The spurs have a chance to win it again next year but I'm not getting myself emotionally invested in it like I did the 4 other times due to all the bs that happened in the past.

---

Slicer I agree and dead on 100%, the rest is just GRAVY NOW, period. Good post. I invested alot last year and this year in this team emotionally (2012 too TBH) and it burned me out some, I will take what comes now and 5 is what I always wanted for the team and they went out and GOT #5!!!!!!!!!! Anything else now is the icing on the cake, they have done it all and are a legendary team and a repeat would make them that much more legendary but honestly as of right now I am just going to relax and watch, period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2006: LOST 3-4 to the Mavs (Not a Superteam, but a solid lineup with a solid coach AJ who knew our strengths and weaknesses. Refs a huge factor)

---

Smallball a huger factor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

2004: LOST 2-4 to the LA Lakers (Superteam with Malone, Payton, Kobe, Shaq, and Phil coaching; We lost to them 1-3 in the regular season too, so I don’t buy that 0.4 was the difference in that series.)

---

Uh, that's a low bar for a superteam. They didn't win it all.
Also your take on .4 is retarded. Series tied at 2-2, Lakers taking game 5 wasn't the difference in the series? Hurrr

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

OK, sell the Spurs to an impact free agent.

Tell them the current rotations.

Tell them the minutes they should expect.

Now what?

---

This. It bothers me when people say "he didn't pick the spurs i guess he hates winning :cry" because frankly the spurs team right now is a terrible place for a prime player to go. No free agent we could add would be able to play over like 25 MPG, their role will always be behind the big 3 and Kawhi now, and on top of all of that San Antonio isn't a very attractive free agent destination. There's a reason we only attract oldies, and it's because they are perfectly ok playing small minutes in a great system in a small market. Great players aren't really ok with those things.

I must have this offseason confused with another. I could have sworn that the Spurs made a big-time play for Pau Gasol in an effort to improve the roster and just didn't have the money to offer that the Bulls did. But since that must have been a different offseason, yeah, the front office has shanked this team's chances in 2015 by not panicking and dropping the full MLE on someone just for the sake of adding to the roster (and their inability to get anyone in the league to just hand over a valuable asset for a Jeff Ayres and Austin Daye package is just ridiculous).

Bad off season Spurs. Handle yourselves like 5 time champions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Only superteams repeat. The Spurs play super ball, but they aren't a super team. There are too many players these days willing to gang up on one team to get where they cannot get on their own, for any team like the Spurs to have a long series of rings. I can see them getting a repeat, but the Lakers should have had 4 or 5 in a row. Chicago could have had 8 in a row I think. The Heat should have won 4 in a row.

---

By this logic, the SPURS should have won it at least 5 years in a row (2003-2007) if not for a 0.4 in 2004, and small ball/refs in 2006.
Then Manu was injured in 2008.
Then we had a 20 game winning streak in 2012.
Then 6 happened in 2013.
Then redemption in 2014.

So really we should have 8 championships too.

Each season is an entity unto itself. If anything, it might be easier to repeat because you're peaking. I think getting back to the top of the mountain after having been there and fallen back is harder than repeating. And we've done that 4 different times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diego

Not one mention of Manu's ankle injury in 08... He was beasting vs Nola, no way the Lakers beat us with manu healthy that year, maybe his best till that point. Iirc tony had bone spurs issues that year as well.


04, parker crumpled, no one could hit from outside (fucking turk) and Malone and shaq got away with hacking Timmy all game, even then they needed .4, regular season I'm pretty sure there were at least two games we played them shorthanded (one was the 2ot game manu almost won by himself)

06 was bullshit, dirk would step on someone's foot and get FT while parker would get intentionally tripped no call. Last play of regulation Tim got fouled twice, no call. Part of it was pop going small but the main thing was the refs, mavs got ft from jump shots while spurs pounded inside (remember how much interior scoring Tim manu and tony used to give), that series was total bullshit, tony and Timmy in particular got no respect that series. Pretty sure Tim was still fighting plantar fasciitis too

No guarantees we win the finals those years but those series were more about injuries and refs than lack of personnel. 09-11 definitely spurs were outgunned

---

Lol, Miami would have never had a chance against the 06 Spurs, it wouldve been a probable sweep even with ref help

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsandiego

By this logic, the SPURS should have won it at least 5 years in a row (2003-2007) if not for a 0.4 in 2004, and small ball/refs in 2006.
Then Manu was injured in 2008.
Then we had a 20 game winning streak in 2012.
Then 6 happened in 2013.
Then redemption in 2014.

So really we should have 8 championships too.

Each season is an entity unto itself. If anything, it might be easier to repeat because you're peaking. I think getting back to the top of the mountain after having been there and fallen back is harder than repeating. And we've done that 4 different times.

---

No.

Spurs were never a super team. You don't draft yourself into super team status. That requires combining forces of known superstar talent like Shaq and Robert Horry.

Hedo turkcoglu

Also, did the Spurs do nothing to get better, sure but none of the top West teams did anything either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainwreck2100

Hedo turkcoglu

Also, did the Spurs do nothing to get better, sure but none of the top West teams did anything either.

---

Yeah but two of our big 3 will almost certainly endure an age-related decline of some sort whereas KD or Westbrook aged further into their prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

No.

Spurs were never a super team. You don't draft yourself into super team status. That requires combining forces of known superstar talent like Shaq and Robert Horry.

---

I guess the Bulls weren't a superteam either, since they drafted Jordan & Pippen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenks

Uh, that's a low bar for a superteam. They didn't win it all.
Also your take on .4 is retarded. Series tied at 2-2, Lakers taking game 5 wasn't the difference in the series? Hurrr

---

You are the retard. We were supposed to lose that game anyway if it wasn't for Tim's miraculous shot before fisher's. They lead nearly that entire game on our HOME FLOOR. That tells me more than Fisher's shot does tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

You are the retard. We were supposed to lose that game anyway if it wasn't for Tim's miraculous shot before fisher's. They lead nearly that entire game on our HOME FLOOR. That tells me more than Fisher's shot does tbh.

---

Pretty much the most retarded thing I've ever read, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

i know they beat us, but if the time keeper does their job, we are up 3-2 after game 5.

---

I agree on this here, we never should have been down double digits though on our home floor for a game 5 and have to come back only for that to happen TBH. The part that got to me is Devean George is going off and we were down double digits at one point in the second half. .4 was crap but it never should have come to that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

You are the retard. We were supposed to lose that game anyway if it wasn't for Tim's miraculous shot before fisher's. They lead nearly that entire game on our HOME FLOOR. That tells me more than Fisher's shot does tbh.

---

There is no way we should have been down double digits at home in a pivotal game, I agree on that part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jsandiego

I guess the Bulls weren't a superteam either, since they drafted Jordan & Pippen.

---

Well no, he was traded to the Bulls by Seattle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Compared to their competition they certainly were.

Putting MJ and Pippen together is like putting Lebron and Wade together. They'd be a super team without Bosh.

---

they had jordan and pippen. who else? grant was there for defense and occasionally to hit an open jumper. perdue and cartwright had 12 fouls to give and cartright hit the open baseline jumper. bj armstrong and paxson hit open 3's and everyone else played their roles. they were no super team. they had jordan and pippen. a superteam isn't 2 future hall of famers/current all stars and a bunch of role players. by that standard, what are the 2008 denver nuggets with iverson and Melo? bad coaching is responsible for a few bulls titles. how the fuk u got dan majerle guarding jordan in the finals. then karl doesn't put payton on jordan in 96 until game 4. sonics win 2 in a row and jordan shoots shiity the rest of the series. Sometimes it makes you question if coaches are involved with throwing games the way they are coached. Sorta like a certain coach we all know putting in a 60% free throw shooter to ice a game in the finals. but i can forgive that now haha.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

The only way '00 could not be considered a "great chance for a repeat", would be because of Duncan's injury. '04 was a great chance, too.

---

We lost DRob after '03. Big change and loss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

they had jordan and pippen. who else? grant was there for defense and occasionally to hit an open jumper. perdue and cartwright had 12 fouls to give and cartright hit the open baseline jumper. bj armstrong and paxson hit open 3's and everyone else played their roles. they were no super team. they had jordan and pippen. a superteam isn't 2 future hall of famers/current all stars and a bunch of role players. by that standard, what are the 2008 denver nuggets with iverson and Melo? bad coaching is responsible for a few bulls titles. how the fuk u got dan majerle guarding jordan in the finals. then karl doesn't put payton on jordan in 96 until game 4. sonics win 2 in a row and jordan shoots shiity the rest of the series. Sometimes it makes you question if coaches are involved with throwing games the way they are coached. Sorta like a certain coach we all know putting in a 60% free throw shooter to ice a game in the finals. but i can forgive that now haha.

---

Jordan=>LeBron
Pippen=Wade
Rodman=>Bosh

Armstrong
Kukoc
Kerr

All of these guys were much better than revisionists seem to imply. The Bulls didn't win 72 games by being lucky or having a system. If Mike is that good, he at least counts for 1.5 superstars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Jordan=>LeBron
Pippen=Wade
Rodman=>Bosh

Armstrong
Kukoc
Kerr

All of these guys were much better than revisionists seem to imply. The Bulls didn't win 72 games by being lucky or having a system. If Mike is that good, he at least counts for 1.5 superstars.

---

i'll give you the 2nd 3 peat team as being a super team but that wasn't what we were discussing. the 1st 3 peat team was what we were talking about all along. i never mentioned the 2nd team cuz i agree they were a super team, but the 1st 3 peat(91-93) were not. 2nd 3 peat team had best 2g in league, best sf in league, best rebounder/defensive pf, one of the top 3 point shooters(kerr) and 6th man of the year. noone is dumb enough to argue that. but i still don't feel that was the best bulls team. no revisionist here. free agency was coming along and teams just got bad all of a sudden, plus the adding of 2 expansion teams. that 96 bulls team would not have beat the earlier bulls team cuz jordan was older. he was being hid on defense so much it's hilarious. pippen was at his best though. paxson is without a doubt leagues better than kerr. grant would have kept rodman out of the paint because he could consistently hit the open jumper. I give the edge to wennington and Longley over perdue/williams/cartrigh. and u have others that contributed. armstrong never played with the 2nd 3 peat team. they lost him in the expansion draft by leaving him unprotected. He was the first pick by toronto. randy brown took his spot during the 2nd 3 peat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

No.

Spurs were never a super team. You don't draft yourself into super team status. That requires combining forces of known superstar talent like Shaq and Robert Horry.

---

82 draft 1st pick worthy
79 draft 1st pick magic
traded for kareem

And all of those are from odd years. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

82 draft 1st pick worthy
79 draft 1st pick magic
traded for kareem

---

What's your point? Traded for Kareem... Do you not think that was an important piece or was Worthy that dominant? So you think Magic and Worthy were a super team but not Michael and Scotty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

What's your point? Traded for Kareem... Do you not think that was an important piece or was Worthy that dominant? So you think Magic and Worthy were a super team but not Michael and Scotty?

---

no magic, kareem and worthy were a super team. and scotty wasn't drafted to the bulls either. so both of us are wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aremid

Too late for Marion and Allen (but they would have been perfect here in a limited role). I think okafur is really solid. Blatch or bayless for ayers and joseph

---

Lmao @ Okafor. A guy who hasn't played a game in what, two years?

Bayless is inMilwaukee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

We lost DRob after '03. Big change and loss.

---

Yet and still, if Fisher's shot doesn't count (and it shouldn't have, since it's impossible to catch-turn-and-shoot in .4, even in one motion), they most likely win the series in seven, almost certainly beat the Timberwolves and play a tossup series with the Pistons, against whom they had by far the best player and the home court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

no magic, kareem and worthy were a super team. and scotty wasn't drafted to the bulls either. so both of us are wrong.

---

You're an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Well no, he was traded to the Bulls by Seattle.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Jordan=>LeBron
Pippen=Wade
Rodman=>Bosh

Armstrong
Kukoc
Kerr

All of these guys were much better than revisionists seem to imply. The Bulls didn't win 72 games by being lucky or having a system. If Mike is that good, he at least counts for 1.5 superstars.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

82 draft 1st pick worthy
79 draft 1st pick magic
traded for kareem

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

What's your point? Traded for Kareem... Do you not think that was an important piece or was Worthy that dominant? So you think Magic and Worthy were a super team but not Michael and Scotty?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by james evans

no magic, kareem and worthy were a super team. and scotty wasn't drafted to the bulls either. so both of us are wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

You're an idiot.

---

I see no reason to think you have any idea about this or that you gave it any thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TD 21

Yet and still, if Fisher's shot doesn't count (and it shouldn't have, since it's impossible to catch-turn-and-shoot in .4, even in one motion), they most likely win the series in seven, almost certainly beat the Timberwolves and play a tossup series with the Pistons, against whom they had by far the best player and the home court.

---

We probably would've lost to the 2004 Pistons in the Finals. We beat them in 2005, but Horry was off the chain in the Finals...we don't ring in 2005 without that performance.

dmc is pissed. haha. go cry yourself to sleep clown.

Man that Dunk Where Horry just flew and almost looked like he dislocated his shoulder... One the most thrilling momentous plays I ever witnessed.

He Made Big plays at the crucial moments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TampaDude

We probably would've lost to the 2004 Pistons in the Finals. We beat them in 2005, but Horry was off the chain in the Finals...we don't ring in 2005 without that performance.

---

YES! I agree. We had Rasho starting and Hedo, next year we get Barry and Nazr who were a big part of the team, no way we beat Detroit and their frontline with that crap Rasho and Hedo out there playing (Softie if I have seen one mentally). People forget we had a trade to improve to actually match up with Detroit in Nazr, the year before we had Rasho starting. That Detroit team would have beaten us I fully believe, they were clicking and on a flat out mission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yuixafun

Man that Dunk Where Horry just flew and almost looked like he dislocated his shoulder... One the most thrilling momentous plays I ever witnessed.

He Made Big plays at the crucial moments.

---

I thought there was no way he would land that dunk when he took off from out there but he got it in! I remember saying then he wants this game badly!

I still think the Spurs would have had a 60/40 chance against Detroit. With home court advantage, I still would have picked the Spurs. I disagree with all you guys that say Detroit would have won for sure.

Also, Malone's knee injury bothered him quite a bit in that series against the Pistons and he wasn't able to play his best. If he was healthier, the Lakers may have still beaten Detroit even with Kobe playing like a complete twit. Kobe also kept jacking up shots while shooting near 40% from the field. It seemed like he was trying to prove some kind of point against Tayshaun Prince and ended up shooting the Lakers out of the series, all the while Shaq was shooting over 60% from the field and never got the ball. Don't get me wrong, I was going for the Pistons and they were very, very good, but the Lakers didn't do themselves any favours during that series.