Spurs Dynasty ranks behind Lakers, Celtics and Bulls

http://www.faniq.com/article/Spurs-D...ulls-Blog-2989

Dan Shanoff chimed in with the inevitable debate: Who is the best Dynasty of this era (Clearly the 60s Celtics would beat everyone) and where do the Spurs rank?

If Mike Brown has anything to say about it, the San Antonio Spurs will win their 4th NBA title since 1999 tonight in Cleveland. To get a head start on the debate that will pick up full steam tonight and tomorrow, here's my Top 5 Dynasties and why they would or would not beat the Spurs.

Let me first say, my entire debate hinges on the fact that I believe the quality of basketball and quality of players was at it's height during the mid 80's to mid 90's.

1. 90's Bulls How fun would it be to see Michael Jordan against Bruce Bowen? Besides the obvious, Michael Jordan, here's why I like the Chicago over San Antonio: The Bulls would not have put up with the flopping or 'Bowen-ism.' Whether it's Dennis Rodman of latter 3-peat or Horace Grant, Bill Wennington, Scott Williams or Stacey King of the 1st 3-peat, one of them would have continually knocked Bowen and Ginobili down. There used to be enforcers in basketball that took care of the garbage plays. Now Duncan would have likely had a field day on anyone that tried to guard him, but I assume Rodman would get his fair share of boards. Oh, and so I don't sound too biased, Jordan would likely get more calls than the Spurs. That's for sure.

2. 80's Lakers Magic, Worthy, Kareem, Coop, Byron Scott, A.C. Green, Mychal Thompson ... come on, the Spurs aren't beating that lineup. I'm not entirely convinced Michael's Bulls beat this team. No one on the Spurs could guard Magic. Kareem will score with Duncan point for point, and of course Rambis will play the role of knocking down Bowen/Ginobili.

3. 80's Celtics Spurs have their fantastic foursome and these Celtics had theirs: Bird, McHale, Parish, and DJ. Simply using the argument that the overall skill level (not athleticism, but skill) was much higher back then. If the Celtics are playing, you're not going to see 90 shots missed in one game. Parish can hang with Duncan on defense. Would Bowen guard Bird? You know who you're taking that matchup.

4. Spurs

5. Shaq/Kobe Lakers That's got 7 games written all over it. Duncan/Shaq ... Bowen on Kobe. I could go either way, but I'll side with the Spurs because of the perfect assortment of role players. Plus Shaq is clearly going to get in foul trouble often.

How do you rank the Spurs against these other great dynasties?

Source: (Dan Shanoff)

http://www.faniq.com/images/polls/thumb/157154-1.jpg

Depends if we stay healthy this year. The 05 Spurs were scary, considering we played with a hobbling Duncan. This year's team is deep. Rediculously DEEP! If there is a team that is capable of dethrowning the 90's Bulls, it might be this year's squad. We'll have to wait and see how everything unfolds.

Nice analysis by the way. I'll have to rethink this argument.

Basketball is played at a much faster pace and the game is called completely differently today. The Spurs are a more conditioned team (as are many) than any team from the 80's and 90's. Basketball has changed quite a bit from when it was played in the 80's and 90's...It's become less physical and more about finesse. Less about defense and more about scoring.

But that's what I like about the Spurs they're old school.
However, they can light up the scoreboard when needed.
The Spurs are the Chameleons...We mold to our opponent in order to win. None of the teams mentioned did that. They won it by playing their style.
We win it by beating you at your own game. The Spurs are incredibily versitle, and can adapt to making changes quickly. I'm not sure the other teams can say that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remingtonbo2001

The Spurs are the Chameleons...We mold to our opponent in order to win. None of the teams mentioned did that.

---

even though we are capable of being chameleons, our gameplan is always to mold our opponents game to be more like ours.

i would put 80's Lakers first. there's no way the bulls could beat that team. if duncan would have a field day against the 90s bulls, even more so worthy and kareem.

if the 80s celtics is considered a dynasty inspite of just winning 3 championships with no back-to-back, does that make the current spurs official?

80celtics hahaha

spurs arent afraid to give them a run for there money

mchale, parish are overrated...duncan > both combined.

Spurs > 80s Celtics

The 80s Celtics just weren't that good. They were 3-2 in Finals during the 80s, but only 1-2 against the Lakers, clearly a step below. And Parrish on par with Duncan defensively? Please....

the best thing i can say about the celtics is they beat the lakers in 84. the second best thing is they beat the sixers a couple times too. i'd put the spurs before them. matchup, schmatchup, it's all conjecture. the spurs beat two defending champs and a lot of other teams to get their four titles. that's fact.

The Jordan lead Bulls would have trouble with any of the other top 5 if he gets called for palming and traveling like everybody else. The best team I ever saw play goes back to the Lakers of the 70's with West and Chamberlin and a close second is the Lakers of Magic. The Havlichek Celtics would be third followed by the Bird Celtics. I give the Jordan Bulls spot 5, but that may change as the Spurs are not done. Also, you can't overlook Olajuwon, Drexler Rockets. I think they are very close the being better that Jordan Bulls, as well.

NO DOUBT Spurs more than 80's Celtics... and i dunno how well Jordan Bulls would have matched up against us...

Our Chinese rocketfan posters here have better grammar than this guy.

FanIQ is an oxymoron in this case.

This is bogus - the Spurs had to deal with the stout Lakers with Shaq and Kobe and still have the highest winning percentage in the modern era in any sport + 4 championships in 9 years (4 of 8 when their mainstay player was active for playoffs).

Bowen would be able to slow down Jordan as well as anyone, Manu would be able to slow down Pippen and probably out play him, and Duncan if motivated would dominate Rodman others done low while Parker had a field day running around the slower PGs of the Bulls.

It would be a great series but the Spurs are more than capable of beating the Bulls and several computer simulations have had them winning easily.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lefty

1. 90's Bulls How fun would it be to see Michael Jordan torch Bruce Bowen for 40 a night with ease?

---

Fixed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbestpro

The Jordan lead Bulls would have trouble with any of the other top 5 if he gets called for palming and traveling like everybody else.

---

God, shut the hell up, please. EVERY great player gets away with little dirty tricks. Tim Duncan gets away with a lot of travels in the post. Shaq always used his elbow to push off to clear space for a monster dunk. John Stockton always scratched people when swiping for the balls. EVERYONE has their tricks that they use to their advantage that the refs don't see.

i was really disappointed in this having nothing to do with jeffdrums.

:lol @ Mavfan posting in a thread about champions, like he has a an informed opinion or something.


:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

:lol @ Mavfan posting in a thread about champions, like he has a an informed opinion or something.


:lol

---

Yup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

80celtics hahaha

spurs arent afraid to give them a run for there money

mchale, parish are overrated...duncan > both combined.

---

I tend to agree and this is an issue that seems to be about what generation of basketball you gew up watching and were a fan of. Going back even further, i have seen tons of film of Bill Russell in his heyday. I am sorry but if anyone out there thinks he is better than Tim Duncan they are friggin nuts. The man spent his whole career rebounding over and blocking the shots of 6'5 white guys. He did not have a great overall offensive game like Duncan. Yet the old crones of that era talk as if players like Russell and Wilt are GODS and Duncan and the greats of today don't measure up.

This veteran Spurs bunch approaches the playoffs like they know they're going to win. There's no awe over the post season, just an increase in effort and intensity. The Spurs have the players in place who know how to win with the game on the line. Parker is becoming the Spurs 3rd 'clutch' weapon, not just early game weapon, and guys like Horry and Bowen play there roles to perfection in the post season.

The only team that is arguably deeper would be the 80's Lakers. They were basically an all-star team that played as a unit. The Bulls had Michael and some good role players, but not much else. None of the other teams are on par with the Spurs from a matchup standpoint.

In any case, this is a hard comparison to make. Different eras make for different lineups and styles of play. You'd probably have to distinguish what set of rules are in force, etc., before you start making comparisons.

Would Bill Russell's Celtics, the greatest sports dynasty ever, beat today's Spurs? Probably not because the game has evolved so much. Does that mean the Spurs are a better dynasty? Definitely not.

So...while this stuff is fun to argue, it's really an impossible debate to pick a winner. An unwinnable argument...must be the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbreiden83080

I tend to agree and this is an issue that seems to be about what generation of basketball you gew up watching and were a fan of. Going back even further, i have seen tons of film of Bill Russell in his heyday. I am sorry but if anyone out there thinks he is better than Tim Duncan they are friggin nuts. The man spent his whole career rebounding over and blocking the shots of 6'5 white guys. He did not have a great overall offensive game like Duncan. Yet the old crones of that era talk as if players like Russell and Wilt are GODS and Duncan and the greats of today don't measure up.

---

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man:) Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

Well,I think that the 2007 Spurs could have beaten the 95-98 Bulls.

Think about it, the Jazz lost in 6 games to the Bulls in 1997 and a998, and the 2007 Spurs are much better than the 97-98 Jazz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callo1

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man:) Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

---

I agree with this post completely.

It's hard for me to watch basketball from the 80s, where players routinely take entire plays or sequences off, where they stand around on defense and watch a wide open man shoot a 15-18 foot J with regularity. The defense is much better now from top to bottom than at any point in league history. I do not think that Wilt would be even the best big man in the game today, although he would probably be up there. There are tons of athletic freaks that never even make it into the league because the competition is so tough and it takes more than sheer talent to make it.

And this is NOT me hating on Wilt or Bill or attempting to tarnish their legacy. I'm just saying that today the game is far more competitive than it's ever been. An average team today would be a very very good team in the 80s. Look at Houston! What would Yao Ming be doing to the NBA if he played in the 70s or 80s, or... Wilt's day and age? He'd probably average 30 rebounds per game. :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callo1

I totally agree.

Generation bias seems to do this in all sports. I can't help but laugh a bit when I hear the comments about Russell and his deity status. Bill Russell won those eleven rings with no more than 10 teams in the league at the time...10 friggin teams !! Odds are much better than when you only have to go through 10 teams versus 30. Right now the media is so scared to attach the Dynasty word to the Spurs because they are a small market team amongst large market, flashy fan favorites.

I'm still waiting for the people who defend the notion that basketball was being played "better" in the '80's yada yada (fill in decade here) to explain to me how when a sport gets MUCH MUCH larger and the overall talent pool expands by 200-300% that the overall quality of the players goes down. Thats like saying the best 2-A highschool football programs in Texas are superior to the 5-A programs. Larger talent pool = better average talent making the cut. Now I will agree that there are parts of the game that the more modern players are missing today...things like freethrow shooting average for example, but overall average player talent is higher today, and if the NBA continues to grow it will be higher 10 years from now.

It is my contention that the reason we have a perception of less superstars in the league now is that since the average talent level is higher now it is harder for players to stand out from the crowd so to speak...in other words there arn't as many big fish in little ponds because the pond is bigger (NBA globalization).

I am 38 years old and have been watching basketball since the Finals were tape delayed and it is absurd to say that todays NBA is inferior to the NBA of the '80's for example. Take a look at the top 50 list and you see some names on there like Walton. Even prior to Walton's foot problems Timmy would have been able to post very good numbers against him. Patrick friggin Ewing is on that list !! Ewing wasn't that great man...only reason he made the list was the market he played in a large market.

As time goes by, average talent level increases if the sport continues to grow. Look at the 1980's O-line of the Redskins in football for example. the HOGS were so named because of their massive average of 280 lbs a man:) Did you know that up until 1984 there were never more than 8 players in the NFL in a given year that were over 300 lbs? Now 20% of the NFL's players tip the scales at 300 lbs or more. The reason...science (roids) and nutrition.

While I will agree that the NBA does not require all of same physical attributes of the NFL, science and nutrition are still major factors. A person like Wilt dominated like he did because he was FAR ahead of his time when he came into the league in 1959. Put Wilt in todays league and he fails to stand out like he did then. He would still be a great player, but the gap wouldn't be nearly as prominent.

In 20 years we will be defending the arguement that the likes of Shaq, Timmy, Kobe, Lebron etc. were far better than the "new" crop of players and we will be wrong then too most likely.

---

GREAT POST, i 100% agree with everything you said here.

The Gen bias is at times infuriating. I live in NY and i remember last year during the finals one of the local sports talk guys was fielding calls on the finals and he said that "Tim Duncan can win 5 more titles and he will never crack his top 10" Guess who was number 10 on his list?? Bob Cousy, yeah that's right Bob Cousy. He was a great player but no GM in their right mind is taking Cousy over Duncan unless they want to be fired. I mean if he said Jabbar or Wilt i would understand but "Bob Fucking Cousy"

Could SA have beaten the 80's Lakers?

No

The 80's champ had to go through that LA team to win it all. The Celtics beat them once.

Therefore, Celtics > Spurs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Could SA have beaten the 80's Lakers?

No

The 80's champ had to go through that LA team to win it all. The Celtics beat them once.

Therefore, Celtics > Spurs

---

By that logic, 1985-86 Rockets > Spurs.

Spurs could win a 7 games series against ANY team that EVER existed. Period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ed Helicopter Jones

This veteran Spurs bunch approaches the playoffs like they know they're going to win. There's no awe over the post season, just an increase in effort and intensity. The Spurs have the players in place who know how to win with the game on the line. Parker is becoming the Spurs 3rd 'clutch' weapon, not just early game weapon, and guys like Horry and Bowen play there roles to perfection in the post season.

The only team that is arguably deeper would be the 80's Lakers. They were basically an all-star team that played as a unit. The Bulls had Michael and some good role players, but not much else. None of the other teams are on par with the Spurs from a matchup standpoint.

In any case, this is a hard comparison to make. Different eras make for different lineups and styles of play. You'd probably have to distinguish what set of rules are in force, etc., before you start making comparisons.

Would Bill Russell's Celtics, the greatest sports dynasty ever, beat today's Spurs? Probably not because the game has evolved so much. Does that mean the Spurs are a better dynasty? Definitely not.

So...while this stuff is fun to argue, it's really an impossible debate to pick a winner. An unwinnable argument...must be the internet.

---

There is my point in may disscussions of comparing the players from different eras.
Plus the evolution of basketball and sport itself (whole stuff around player)

Damn - it is even hard to compare the players from that same era.

Any lists that are made are bougus in some kind of way. And anybody can choose their own criteria.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by urunobili

Spurs could win a 7 games series against ANY team that EVER existed. Period

---

So could the 92-93 Mavericks. Doesn't mean they will.

no, the 92-93 mavs could steal one game, maybe two with dubious officiating.

the spurs could win a 7 game series.

Jim, that was a moronic post, even for you. Yes, the Celts won one series against Showtime...out of three. Give the current Spurs squad three cracks at Showtime, and I guarantee at least one win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by whottt

:lol @ Mavfan posting in a thread about champions, like he has a an informed opinion or something.


:lol

---

:lol :D :lmao

-Mars

by reading the posts:

so its 80s lakers then, 00-03 lakers followed by the '07 spurs? then the 90s bulls and the 80s celtics, right?

EDIT:forgot to insert the laker mini-dynasty

If anyone here thinks this Spurs team could take the Showtime Lakers they are delusional. This Spur's dynasty couldn't even best the Lakers 2000 3-peat team, with an arguably better team than what they have now.

Quote:

---

The Lakers-Spurs series in the conference finals was the most lopsided conference finals series in NBA History, with the Lakers winning by an average of 22 points per game

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

If anyone here thinks this Spurs team could take the Showtime Lakers they are delusional. This Spur's dynasty couldn't even best the Lakers 2000 3-peat team, with an arguably better team than what they have now.

---

Did you forget who kept it from being a 4-peat? Some team from a little burg in Texas. I think they went all the way that year.

You're doing a good job of living up to your forum handle.

Comparing different eras in sports is kinda pointless really. FAR to many rule changes make it an apples to oranges comparison. Extended key, defensive 3 sec call, shorter 3 pt. line, zone D / no zone D blah blah blah.

Heres a great place to see the rule changes the league has gone through:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

I feel very confident that the best teams of today could hold their own against the best of yesteryear though. I remember when guys over 7 feet were stiffs that had no coordination or real skill (Manute Bull) and now look at a guy like Yao...no comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by callo1

Comparing different eras in sports is kinda pointless really. FAR to many rule changes make it an apples to oranges comparison. Extended key, defensive 3 sec call, shorter 3 pt. line, zone D / no zone D blah blah blah.

Heres a great place to see the rule changes the league has gone through:

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

I feel very confident that the best teams of today could hold their own against the best of yesteryear though. I remember when guys over 7 feet were stiffs that had no coordination or real skill (Manute Bull) and now look at a guy like Yao...no comparison.

---

hakeem, smits, robinson, sampson and ewing were already playing back then.
and so was george muresan. :dizzy
mutombo has been playing since like the early 70s. :wtf
bol was a great 3 point shooter. i think he was the best 3 point shooter on that bullets team - which is sad. :lol
the '80s was the best era for the big man. yao would just be considered a second tier center back then. and a very soft one at that.

The 1980's Showtime Lakers were the best team ever assembled in the NBA. Period.

Kareem = Best Center of all time in the NBA
Magic = Best PG of all time in the NBA
Worthy = HOF
Michael Cooper = NBA Defensive Player of the Year
Byron Scott = Deadly outside shooter
Bob Mcadoo = HOF
Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis = Great role players

No Spurs team is beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series. There were almost no weaknesses to that starting 5. Anyone who thinks the Spurs have even an outside shot at winning is clearly outside their minds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TDMVPDPOY

mchale, parish are overrated...duncan > both combined.

---

you think McHale is over-rated? watch this footage and you'll see you're wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDNTt5p3F8

the dude had serious post moves. of course he's no duncan, but he's not over-rated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The 1980's Showtime Lakers were the best team ever assembled in the NBA. Period.

Kareem = Best Center of all time in the NBA
Magic = Best PG of all time in the NBA
Worthy = HOF
Michael Cooper = NBA Defensive Player of the Year
Byron Scott = Deadly outside shooter
Bob Mcadoo = HOF
Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis = Great role players

No Spurs team is beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series. There were almost no weaknesses to that starting 5. Anyone who thinks the Spurs have even an outside shot at winning is clearly outside their minds.

---

Who would've guarded Tony Parker? He'd blow by any of those guys, even Cooper. Of course, he'd probably get blocked a few times by Kareem, but I think he might be the X factor for the Spurs in this match-up. On the other hand, Kareem would destroy Oberto or Elson. It would be interesting for sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m33p0

the '80s was the best era for the big man. yao would just be considered a second tier center back then. and a very soft one at that.

---

lol

can you imagine Yao having to face guys like Laimbeer?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The 1980's Showtime Lakers were the best team ever assembled in the NBA. Period.

Kareem = Best Center of all time in the NBA
Magic = Best PG of all time in the NBA
Worthy = HOF
Michael Cooper = NBA Defensive Player of the Year
Byron Scott = Deadly outside shooter
Bob Mcadoo = HOF
Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis = Great role players

No Spurs team is beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series. There were almost no weaknesses to that starting 5. Anyone who thinks the Spurs have even an outside shot at winning is clearly outside their minds.

---

in the same token, how are the spurs gonna guard magic? he's too big and crafty for bowen. and i doubt bowen's little mind tricks would work on a guy that suffers through tougher treatment than what bowen is inflicting on his assignments. and how do you deal with worthy with kareem on the opposite block? duncan with another big might work which would make the spurs slower to stop the break. tony and manu's dribble drives would even be more important to pressure the defense into collapsing. spurs would have to play a perfect game the entire series to win. but hey, if the 80s celtics did it once, who's to say the spurs can't pull it off.

Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, people will look back at this Spurs team the same way that we look at the 80's Celtics, Lakers today.

Dynasties become even greater as the years pass. People will be talking about Duncan as a God on the basketball court the same way we talk about Kareem, Bird, Worthy, etc.

We will be saying we were there when Robert Horry sank the big 3pter to beat the Pistons. We were there at the Riverwalk when a million people welcomed the Spurs home.

I remember the Lakers of the 80's. They were great, but defensively they don't compare with today's NBA. They gave up 120 on a regular basis. Magic had his 6 for 20 nights and Worthy disappeared at times. As great as they were, the Lakers did lose occasionally just like all great champions and they weren't that much greater than the Spurs, Suns, and Jazz of that era.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peskypesky

lol

can you imagine Yao having to face guys like Laimbeer?

---

:lmao
bill would taunt him to death if he ever tries to crumple in front of the bad boys and pretend that he got his eyes gauged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, people will look back at this Spurs team the same way that we look at the 80's Celtics, Lakers today.

Dynasties become even greater as the years pass. People will be talking about Duncan as a God on the basketball court the same way we talk about Kareem, Bird, Worthy, etc.

We will be saying we were there when Robert Horry sank the big 3pter to beat the Pistons. We were there at the Riverwalk when a million people welcomed the Spurs home.

I remember the Lakers of the 80's. They were great, but defensively they don't compare with today's NBA. They gave up 120 on a regular basis. Magic had his 6 for 20 nights and Worthy disappeared at times. As great as they were, the Lakers did lose occasionally just like all great champions and they weren't that much greater than the Spurs, Suns, and Jazz of that era.

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The 1980's Showtime Lakers were the best team ever assembled in the NBA. Period.

Kareem = Best Center of all time in the NBA , but the second, declining half was as a Laker.
Magic = Best PG of all time in the NBA Well, one of the best, anyway.
Worthy = HOF Nope
Michael Cooper = NBA Defensive Player of the Year
Byron Scott = Deadly outside shooter
Bob Mcadoo = HOF Yup, but a Finley quality role player as a Laker
Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis = Great role players

No Spurs team is beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series. There were almost no weaknesses to that starting 5. Anyone who thinks the Spurs have even an outside shot at winning is clearly outside their minds.

---

I'm out of my mind, then. Magic would have presented matchup problems, but I would have REALLY enjoyed watching Cooper look between his legs or over his shoulder to find where Parker went. Nixon? The one or two years he played before Magic had him run off? Rambis = Madsen = scrub. The Spurs bench wins one series out of three, at least.

I'm continually surprised at the soft pedal that some Spurs fans have for our franchise. The 99 team was decent, but the 2003, 2005, and 2007 teams are as good as the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

I'm out of my mind, then. Magic would have presented matchup problems, but I would have REALLY enjoyed watching Cooper look between his legs or over his shoulder to find where Parker went. Nixon? The one or two years he played before Magic had him run off? Rambis = Madsen = scrub. The Spurs bench wins one series out of three, at least.

I'm continually surprised at the soft pedal that some Spurs fans have for our franchise. The 99 team was decent, but the 2003, 2005, and 2007 teams are as good as the game.

---

hmmm... good points.
GO SPURS GO!

Let's not forget that a 44-38 Dallas Mavericks team led by Mark Aguirre and Ronaldo Blackman (not to mention Sam Perkins, a rookie) took the '85 Lakers to a 6 game series. The Lakers won three of those games by a combined 15 points.

This is not to suggest that the Lakers were soft or to take anything away from Aguirre and Blackman, but they are in no way comparable to Duncan & Co. It also suggests that the Lakers weren't quite as invincible as the "experts" seem to recall.

The Spurs would have beaten the Celtics most years in the 80s with the team we have now. Probably 7 or 8 out of 10 times if they play every year in the decade. The C's could match us or even better us on offense sometimes, but they did not play nearly the D the Spurs do. Some pundits will attempt to laud the "hard fouls" of the day as proof that the defense was superior, but I don't see a correlation. Hitting someone in the face does not mean you know martial arts. Checking someone into the 3rd row of the bleachers does not mean you know how to play good D in the NBA -- it just means you know how to be a thug.

The first time the Celtics or ANYONE did that to Manu, he'd light them up for 40 points per game. And I'd love to see them attempt to get under Duncan's skin. The last team that really tried were the Pistons in 05, and we saw how that worked out for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Let's not forget that a 44-38 Dallas Mavericks team led by Mark Aguirre and Ronaldo Blackman (not to mention Sam Perkins, a rookie) took the '85 Lakers to a 6 game series. The Lakers won three of those games by a combined 15 points.

This is not to suggest that the Lakers were soft or to take anything away from Aguirre and Blackman, but they are in no way comparable to Duncan & Co. It also suggests that the Lakers weren't quite as invincible as the "experts" seem to recall.

The Spurs would have beaten the Celtics most years in the 80s with the team we have now. Probably 7 or 8 out of 10 times if they play every year in the decade. The C's could match us or even better us on offense sometimes, but they did not play nearly the D the Spurs do. Some pundits will attempt to laud the "hard fouls" of the day as proof that the defense was superior, but I don't see a correlation. Hitting someone in the face does not mean you know martial arts. Checking someone into the 3rd row of the bleachers does not mean you know how to play good D in the NBA -- it just means you know how to be a thug.

The first time the Celtics or ANYONE did that to Manu, he'd light them up for 40 points per game. And I'd love to see them attempt to get under Duncan's skin. The last team that really tried were the Pistons in 05, and we saw how that worked out for them.

---

true. and its not as if the spurs wouldn't be afforded the same uhh "courtesy" by the officials.

i wish every game, there's an asshole who would try to make mr duncan mad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dav4463

Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, people will look back at this Spurs team the same way that we look at the 80's Celtics, Lakers today.

Dynasties become even greater as the years pass. People will be talking about Duncan as a God on the basketball court the same way we talk about Kareem, Bird, Worthy, etc.

We will be saying we were there when Robert Horry sank the big 3pter to beat the Pistons. We were there at the Riverwalk when a million people welcomed the Spurs home.

I remember the Lakers of the 80's. They were great, but defensively they don't compare with today's NBA. They gave up 120 on a regular basis. Magic had his 6 for 20 nights and Worthy disappeared at times. As great as they were, the Lakers did lose occasionally just like all great champions and they weren't that much greater than the Spurs, Suns, and Jazz of that era.

---

That about sums up this whole discussion. And I am proud to be a Spurs fan who will one day be talking about this team with the same nostalgia as those great Celtics, Lakers, and Bulls teams.

How can anyone say the Spurs would best the 80's Showtime Lakers when they couldn't even best the 3-peat Laker team? Lakers owned them in that series only losing to SA once in the playoffs.

2001 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-0
2002 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-1
2003 NBA Playoffs - Spurs beat Lakers 4-2
2004 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

How can anyone say the Spurs would best the 80's Showtime Lakers when they couldn't even best the 3-peat Laker team? Lakers owned them in that series only losing to SA once in the playoffs.

2001 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-0
2002 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-1
2003 NBA Playoffs - Spurs beat Lakers 4-2
2004 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-2

---

Are you seriously a Spurs fan? The Spurs beat them the year before you're showing in the playoffs, and would likely have beat them in 04, except for .4. It was a close series.

Who's to say that the 01-03 Lakers would be blown out by the 80s Lakers? No one in the NBA back then could have slowed down Shaq. Kobe was unstoppable, especially with Diesel in the post. They had excellent role players and a great coach working them.

To suggest that the 01 Spurs are the same as the 07 Spurs, well, I guess you really must be a Spurs fan. Same team, right? :rolleyes This Spurs team takes the 01 Lakers to at least 7 games, maybe beats them in 5 or 6. Parker and Manu have become a better tandem for Duncan than D-Rob ever was, especially this century.

Am I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about JeffDrums?

The 1980's Showtime Lakers were the best team ever assembled in the NBA. Period.

Kareem = Best Center of all time in the NBA
Magic = Best PG of all time in the NBA
Worthy = HOF
Michael Cooper = NBA Defensive Player of the Year
Byron Scott = Deadly outside shooter
Bob Mcadoo = HOF
Norm Nixon, Kurt Rambis = Great role players

No Spurs team is beating the Showtime Lakers in a 7 game series. There were almost no weaknesses to that starting 5. Anyone who thinks the Spurs have even an outside shot at winning is clearly outside their minds.
Offline | Online
The Lakers were fun and entertaining but the Celtics and other teams gave them a run for their money.

Matchups:

Duncan and Kareem - Duncan a far better defender but Kareem would get his points but with dificulty as Elston and Oberto also hounded him. Conversely a motivated Duncan might well foul Jabbar out of game with his moves down low some games and is a better rebounder.
Worthy - Fab player but quickness of going small with the likes of Manu and Finley on the floor cannot be underestimated.
Cooper is a great defender but it is questionable whether or not he could keep up with the quickness of Parker who might be able to drive with impunity against Worthy and Kareem - neither of whom were stellar defenders.
Scott - fine player but Ginobili is better, end of discussion.

This would be a match up for the ages but Spurs could well prevail - especially if they were allowed to play physical and Bowen was allowed to hound either Worthy or Johnson.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

If anyone here thinks this Spurs team could take the Showtime Lakers they are delusional. This Spur's dynasty couldn't even best the Lakers 2000 3-peat team, with an arguably better team than what they have now.

---

you think the 2007 spurs = 2001 spurs? and you have internet access? this can't be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Jim, that was a moronic post, even for you. Yes, the Celts won one series against Showtime...out of three. Give the current Spurs squad three cracks at Showtime, and I guarantee at least one win.

---

Ex, are we talking about who can win a one series out of three? We are talking about which dynasty is better than another.

Ask any NBA expert who has watched all these teams play up close, and 90% of them would say the 80's Celtics are better than the 00's Spurs.

Can you admit that the NBA, with it's 30 teams is watered down in talent now compared to then? It was much harder to beat a great HOF filled team such as the 80's Lakers in 7 games than it is to beat a Nets, Cavs, and Detroit team in 00's.

Those Eastern teams that we beat in the Finals would not even get past the 1st round in the 80's, much less beat Boston, Philly or even the Cummings and Moncrief led Bucks for that matter.

And calling me a moron is a little immature .....even for you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Ex, are we talking about who can win a one series out of three? We are talking about which dynasty is better than another.

Ask any NBA expert who has watched all these teams play up close, and 90% of them would say the 80's Celtics are better than the 00's Spurs.

Can you admit that the NBA, with it's 30 teams is watered down in talent now compared to then? It was much harder to beat a great HOF filled team such as the 80's Lakers in 7 games than it is to beat a Nets, Cavs, and Detroit team in 00's.

Those Eastern teams that we beat in the Finals would not even get past the 1st round in the 80's, much less beat Boston, Philly or even the Cummings and Moncrief led Bucks for that matter.

And calling me a moron is a little immature .....even for you.

---

who cares? it's speculation no matter how many games a person has seen up close.

watered-down argument will lose every time. there was an increase in the number of players in the league, but there is also a bigger increase in the talent pool from which the league gets their players from. training is better, coaching is better, athletes are better (find a player in the 80's that could stick a two handed jam from the foul line).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

How can anyone say the Spurs would best the 80's Showtime Lakers when they couldn't even best the 3-peat Laker team? Lakers owned them in that series only losing to SA once in the playoffs.

2001 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-0
2002 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-1
2003 NBA Playoffs - Spurs beat Lakers 4-2
2004 NBA Playoffs - Lakers beat Spurs 4-2

---

and the rockets owned the lakers in the 80's. therefore 80's rockets > 80's lakers.

once again, i just don't see the 80's celtics as that great. they lost so many times in the finals, they beat one-and-done teams in the finals, and they beat the lakers once when they resorted to clotheslining for defense.

2007 spurs > any 80's celtics team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

(find a player in the 80's that could stick a two handed jam from the foul line).

---

:lol



Oh, I forgot. Basketball is a circus act, not a team game where the object is to score more points than the other team.


No wonder Vince Carter and Lebon have so many rings.

Besides, you name me somone who could do a 2 hand jam from the foul line. I can name a few players who could do whatever any player today could do athletically. How about Dominique Wilkins, Jordan and David Thompson, do they count? :lol

When talking about the 80s Cs and 80s Lakers, it's not that I feel this Spurs team could shut them down over an entire game. No way in hell. They might end up scoring 100 PPG+ against us. However, I feel they have NO shot at even slowing down our offense. Parker would be walking through the lane with his speed. They have no one who could stay in front of Manu without getting in foul trouble, and Duncan is just Duncan.

Again, it would be a great series either way, with any team. Any sports fan who ever gets to see that dream matchup would be impossibly lucky. Sad that it can never come to fruition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

and the rockets owned the lakers in the 80's. therefore 80's rockets > 80's lakers.

---

They owned the Lakers?? They won 2 series against them, one a 3 game series.

And who beat Houston both times in the Finals after Houston beat LA?

Boston, in two boring Finals, where Houston had no chance at all to win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peskypesky

you think McHale is over-rated? watch this footage and you'll see you're wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtDNTt5p3F8

the dude had serious post moves. of course he's no duncan, but he's not over-rated.

---

I was kinda wondering the same thing. although nowadays, he would get murdered by guys like Dwight Howard and Duncan, unless he beefed up about 20 lbs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShoogarBear

Am I the only one who thought this thread was going to be about JeffDrums?

---

No, I did too. I was kinda disappointed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

When talking about the 80s Cs and 80s Lakers, it's not that I feel this Spurs team could shut them down over an entire game. No way in hell. They might end up scoring 100 PPG+ against us. However, I feel they have NO shot at even slowing down our offense. Parker would be walking through the lane with his speed. They have no one who could stay in front of Manu without getting in foul trouble, and Duncan is just Duncan.

Again, it would be a great series either way, with any team. Any sports fan who ever gets to see that dream matchup would be impossibly lucky. Sad that it can never come to fruition.

---

IMO, the three best dynasties of all time are Jordan's Bulls, Shaq/Kobe Lakers, and Duncan's Spurs. I think that the best assembly of players from those championship teams could beat the best assembly of players from any other championship team ever in a 7 game series. These teams played exponentially better defense, had dominant rebounders, great role players that hit every open shot and played a hard-nosed, swarming defense, and can force any team to play their tempo and style.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

When talking about the 80s Cs and 80s Lakers, it's not that I feel this Spurs team could shut them down over an entire game. No way in hell. They might end up scoring 100 PPG+ against us. However, I feel they have NO shot at even slowing down our offense. Parker would be walking through the lane with his speed. They have no one who could stay in front of Manu without getting in foul trouble, and Duncan is just Duncan.

Again, it would be a great series either way, with any team. Any sports fan who ever gets to see that dream matchup would be impossibly lucky. Sad that it can never come to fruition.

---

Also you have to consider how much harder it was to penetrate to the basket back in the 80's compared to today. They allowed hand checking back then, and if handchecking were allowed, then Parker and Manu would not have near the success going into the paint. You also had guys like Paul Silas, Maurice Lucas, Rick Mahorn, Bill Lambeer, and Mark Oberding who would kill any gaurds going to the rack with what is today called flagrant fouls, and punished with ejections. Back then these fouls were just good hard fouls, which were never given any scrutiny by the officials or the public for that matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by So Cal

This Motha Fucker is Talking about Boring Finals. Some Spurs Fans are delusional!!!

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

---

Yeah being dominant is awful boring isn't it?? Oh wait you wouldn't know about that lately would you??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Also you have to consider how much harder it was to penetrate to the basket back in the 80's compared to today. They allowed hand checking back then, and if handchecking were allowed, then Parker and Manu would not have near the success going into the paint. You also had guys like Paul Silas, Maurice Lucas, Rick Mahorn, Bill Lambeer, and Mark Oberding who would kill any gaurds going to the rack with what is today called flagrant fouls, and punished with ejections. Back then these fouls were just good hard fouls, which were never given any scrutiny by the officials or the public for that matter.

---

Please, please let Bruce guard someone with those rules. You think he shuts Kobe down NOW? :lol He would absolutely, systematically destroy anyone he guarded.

PLEASE let Duncan maul whoever comes in the paint. He'd shut down any penetrating player in history.

You want to go by the old school rules? Fine. But if you unleash THIS Spurs team, which is BETTER on defense than teams were in the past when they were allowed to be so ungodly physical, if you allow THIS Spurs team to inflict their will physically? It would be boring. We'd destroy anything that came within reach of the lane. We've charateristically held teams to 87-90 PPG almost every season, with these so-called "soft" defensive rules that prevent our players from being physical.

I beg you to make that argument again. Unshackle these Spurs. Let the best defense in the NBA play as physical as it wants. The playoffs would be over before they start. We'd hold decent playoff teams to 70 PPG for a 7 game series.

Or, even scarier..... let the 1999 team play with those rules. My god... Duncan AND D-rob in the paint, doing as they please... no one would score on them.

The best part about your argument is that teams in the 80s were allowed to do all that and they STILL couldn't play defense. They STILL gave up open jumpers all over the court. If they gave Manu and Parker the space they did back then, they wouldn't be able to catch them to foul them. The Spurs of today play BETTER defense with more restrictive rules. Take those rules away and it would be frightening what we could do with hand-checking, hard fouls, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

Please, please let Bruce guard someone with those rules. You think he shuts Kobe down NOW? :lol He would absolutely, systematically destroy anyone he guarded.

PLEASE let Duncan maul whoever comes in the paint. He'd shut down any penetrating player in history.

You want to go by the old school rules? Fine. But if you unleash THIS Spurs team, which is BETTER on defense than teams were in the past when they were allowed to be so ungodly physical, if you allow THIS Spurs team to inflict their will physically? It would be boring. We'd destroy anything that came within reach of the lane. We've charateristically held teams to 87-90 PPG almost every season, with these so-called "soft" defensive rules that prevent our players from being physical.

I beg you to make that argument again. Unshackle these Spurs. Let the best defense in the NBA play as physical as it wants. The playoffs would be over before they start. We'd hold decent playoff teams to 70 PPG for a 7 game series.

Or, even scarier..... let the 1999 team play with those rules. My god... Duncan AND D-rob in the paint, doing as they please... no one would score on them.

The best part about your argument is that teams in the 80s were allowed to do all that and they STILL couldn't play defense. They STILL gave up open jumpers all over the court. If they gave Manu and Parker the space they did back then, they wouldn't be able to catch them to foul them. The Spurs of today play BETTER defense with more restrictive rules. Take those rules away and it would be frightening what we could do with hand-checking, hard fouls, etc.

---

How old are you?

Have you even seen any teams play ball in the 70's and 80's?

Get back to me if you have, then I will give you some credence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rummpd

Matchups:

Duncan and Kareem - Duncan a far better defender but Kareem would get his points but with dificulty as Elston and Oberto also hounded him. Conversely a motivated Duncan might well foul Jabbar out of game with his moves down low some games and is a better rebounder.
Worthy - Fab player but quickness of going small with the likes of Manu and Finley on the floor cannot be underestimated.
Cooper is a great defender but it is questionable whether or not he could keep up with the quickness of Parker who might be able to drive with impunity against Worthy and Kareem - neither of whom were stellar defenders.
Scott - fine player but Ginobili is better, end of discussion.

This would be a match up for the ages but Spurs could well prevail - especially if they were allowed to play physical and Bowen was allowed to hound either Worthy or Johnson.

---

Way to completely leave out the Lakers' offensive catalyst and best player in Magic Johnson.

CryHavok you're clearly a homer.

The Spur's offense pales in comparison to what the Showtime Lakers could do. You talk about nobody stopping Parker, who the hell is gonna guard 6'10" Magic Johnson or Kareem's skyhooks? The skyhook is the most unguardable shot in the history of the NBA. Fabricio and Elson are great role players but they would get murdered by Kareem the same way the Spurs got murdered by a prime Shaq. The Showtime Lakers just had too many weapons to throw at you, Bowen can't guard everyone.

Again, this Spurs dynasty was definitely bested by the 01-03 Lakers. Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down. If they could not take out the 01-03 Lakers they would have no shot against the Showtime Lakers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

They owned the Lakers?? They won 2 series against them, one a 3 game series.

And who beat Houston both times in the Finals after Houston beat LA?

Boston, in two boring Finals, where Houston had no chance at all to win.

---

i see that you don't get the point - even great teams lose sometimes.

i'll try to use smaller words next time.

Comparing different eras is so lame.

1) It'll never happen

2) Each era had different competetion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

:lol



Oh, I forgot. Basketball is a circus act, not a team game where the object is to score more points than the other team.


No wonder Vince Carter and Lebon have so many rings.

Besides, you name me somone who could do a 2 hand jam from the foul line. I can name a few players who could do whatever any player today could do athletically. How about Dominique Wilkins, Jordan and David Thompson, do they count? :lol

---

that's the only thing you could find to criticise in my whole post? that means that i am right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

that's the only thing you could find to criticise in my whole post? that means that i am right.

---

ok, you win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

CryHavok you're clearly a homer.



Again, this Spurs dynasty was definitely bested by the 01-03 Lakers. Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down. If they could not take out the 01-03 Lakers they would have no shot against the Showtime Lakers.

---

If you ask any Lakers fan which team in their history is better, they will say that the 80's showtime team was by far better than the Kobe and Shaq teams. Therefore, it follows that since the Spurs could not stop that team but onece, then they would not have a chance against Showtime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lefty

The Bulls would not have put up with the flopping or 'Bowen-ism.' Whether it's Dennis Rodman of latter 3-peat or Horace Grant, Bill Wennington, Scott Williams or Stacey King of the 1st 3-peat, one of them would have continually knocked Bowen and Ginobili down. There used to be enforcers in basketball that took care of the garbage plays. Now Duncan would have likely had a field day on anyone that tried to guard him, but I assume Rodman would get his fair share of boards. Oh, and so I don't sound too biased, Jordan would likely get more calls than the Spurs. That's for sure.

Kareem will score with Duncan point for point, and of course Rambis will play the role of knocking down Bowen/Ginobili.

Source: (Dan Shanoff)

---

A lot of "knocking down" going on here. Those were other times. With the whinning you can hear from Amare and others they would not be able to enforce their will by means of violence as much as years ago anymore. Without that hustle, you can't expect beating TP or Manu together playing just acceptable BB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

If you ask any Lakers fan which team in their history is better, they will say that the 80's showtime team was by far better than the Kobe and Shaq teams. Therefore, it follows that since the Spurs could not stop that team but onece, then they would not have a chance against Showtime.

---

wrong again. spurs swept the shaq/kobe lakers in 99.

what ever made you think that lakers fan is right about which team is better? relatively speaking, you could argue they were better against their competition, but even that is debatable. only one team has gone 15-1 in the playoffs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave McNulla

wrong again. spurs swept the shaq/kobe lakers in 99.

what ever made you think that lakers fan is right about which team is better? relatively speaking, you could argue they were better against their competition, but even that is debatable. only one team has gone 15-1 in the playoffs.

---

Um, the Lakers also went 15-1 in the playoffs.

That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Um, the Lakers also went 15-1 in the playoffs.

That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.

---

LOL what an idiot. Lakers went 15-1 losing a joke game to Philly in the Finals. Asterik seasons don't count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

LOL what an idiot. Lakers went 15-1 losing a joke game to Philly in the Finals. Asterik seasons don't count.

---

I told him that the Spurs were not the only team that went 15-1...duh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by exstatic

Spurs > 80s Celtics

The 80s Celtics just weren't that good. They were 3-2 in Finals during the 80s, but only 1-2 against the Lakers, clearly a step below. And Parrish on par with Duncan defensively? Please....

---

I agree to a point. The 80's Celtics, led by Bird, were an extraordinary bunch and were one of the dominant teams of that decade. After all, they did win 3 titles in six years. However, the Magic-led Fakers were better and proved it by besting them 2-1 in the NBA Finals matchups. That team won 5 titles during the decade, including a repeat, to prove they were indeed a dynasty.

Speaking of dynasties, it kills me that many of these so-called NBA pundits claim the Spurs aren't a dynasty because they've never repeated. OK fine. Well, the 80's Celtics never repeated either, yet people always refer to the Bird-era Celtics as a dynasty. Go figure!

The Spurs are most definitely a dynasty. 4 titles in 7 years = dynasty. Doesn't matter if they were back-to-back or not.

One of the more underrated facts about the Spurs is that almost no organization that I can think of has had classier players and coaches. Guys that absolutely represent the game of basketball in the right way. The 01-03 Lakers may have been better talent wise, but the Spurs embody team basketball in a much better way IMHO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

CryHavok you're clearly a homer.

---

Clearly. Thanks for taking the time to ensure you spelled my name right, by the way. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

The Spur's offense pales in comparison to what the Showtime Lakers could do.

---

You mean the Spurs offense that scored 120 points per game against Phoenix when Pop let Manu and Parker run the court as they wished? It's sad that even other Spurs fans are blinded by big offensive statistics that they think a potent offense means scoring 110+ ppg to be effective. That's the Suns strategy. The same one the Lakers employed. Run the court as much as possible. It inflates stats and makes teams look better than they are.

Quote:

---

You talk about nobody stopping Parker, who the hell is gonna guard 6'10" Magic Johnson or Kareem's skyhooks? The skyhook is the most unguardable shot in the history of the NBA. Fabricio and Elson are great role players but they would get murdered by Kareem the same way the Spurs got murdered by a prime Shaq. The Showtime Lakers just had too many weapons to throw at you, Bowen can't guard everyone.

---

Wow, do you actually read what other people post?

Quote:

---

When talking about the 80s Cs and 80s Lakers, it's not that I feel this Spurs team could shut them down over an entire game. No way in hell.

---

Gee, I wonder who said that?

Quote:

---

Fabricio and Elson are great role players but they would get murdered by Kareem the same way the Spurs got murdered by a prime Shaq.

---

So Kareem would throw his entire weight into them, knock them 3 feet backwards when they're completely set and vertical on defense, dunk the ball, and get a foul called on the defender?.

Quote:

---

Again, this Spurs dynasty was definitely bested by the 01-03 Lakers.

---

Please take a course in math. 4 > 3. Staying consistently dominant over a decade is every bit as hard or harder than winning back to back championships.

Quote:

---

Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down. Homers here need to realize that losing 4-1 against a team in the playoffs is called getting your ass beat down.

---

Just curious, Mr. Peabody. Where did you get your wayback machine and how did you get teams from this decade to go play against the Lakers from the 80s?

CryHakok I mean no disrespect, no need to get testy. I stand by my statement that the 01-03 Lakers in their prime were a flat out better team than the current Spurs dynasty team. The facts prove it.

Here's how the dynasties rank:

1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Lakers
3. Spurs of the Duncan era

There really aren't any other real dynasties than those three.

60's Celtics? Oh I'm sure it was very difficult to win a championship in a league of 13 teams...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

60's Celtics? Oh I'm sure it was very difficult to win a championship in a league of 13 teams...

---

If it was that easy how come it was so hard for the other 12 to win?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

Here's how the dynasties rank:

1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Lakers
3. Spurs of the Duncan era

There really aren't any other real dynasties than those three.

60's Celtics? Oh I'm sure it was very difficult to win a championship in a league of 13 teams...

---

Gotta throw in the 01-03 Lakers. 3 championships in a row. 4 Finals visits in 5 years. In the modern NBA that has to be considered a dynasty team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

CryHakok I mean no disrespect, no need to get testy. I stand by my statement that the 01-03 Lakers in their prime were a flat out better team than the current Spurs dynasty team. The facts prove it.

---

What facts? That the Lakers beat the Spurs 3 times back when the Spurs didn't have any offense?

The current Spurs team would match up very well with the 00-02 Lakers.

BTW, the Spurs ultimately led to the dismantling of the Lakers (signing of Malone and Payton).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpursDynasty

Here's how the dynasties rank:

1. 90's Bulls
2. 80's Lakers
3. Spurs of the Duncan era

There really aren't any other real dynasties than those three.

60's Celtics? Oh I'm sure it was very difficult to win a championship in a league of 13 teams...

---

So what is your explanation for the 80's Celtics, and Shaq/Kobe Lakers not being a real dynasty?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ambchang

What facts? That the Lakers beat the Spurs 3 times back when the Spurs didn't have any offense?

The current Spurs team would match up very well with the 00-02 Lakers.

BTW, the Spurs ultimately led to the dismantling of the Lakers (signing of Malone and Payton).

---

The dismantling of the Lakers had nothing to do with the Spurs. It was all about egos and the fact that Shaq and Kobe could not coexist with each other. Plus Shaq wanted a 30 million dollar extension.

The current Spurs team would still have no answer for Shaq. He would do the same thing to this Spur's team that he did back in 01-03. Kobe is an even better perimeter player now than he was during the 01-03 3-peat. They would be unstoppable if paired together in their primes. And the Spurs would lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

Um, the Lakers also went 15-1 in the playoffs.

---

that's what i was talking about. the 2001 lakers went 15-1 and the only team that came close to that in the 80's was the sixers, not the lakers. is reading comprehension difficult for you? i mean, do you understand... er, do you know what i am saying?

Quote:

---

That was the asterisk season, that does not count, anyone knows that.

---

asterisk as in shaq the last time shaq was swept? you forgot 2007.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

I told him that the Spurs were not the only team that went 15-1...duh!

---

spurs went 15-2 in 1999. lakers are the only team to go 15-1. next time, try using your internet access to do a little research.

Whoever said the "Old School" players would just knock Ginobili on his ass to take him out of the game....



ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?! Have you seen what happens when the other team hits Ginobili? You practically have to give him a black-eye, at least what would be a black-eye on any other inferior human, to get Ginobili to even wake-up. You hit Ginobili, he hits back......with 30 pts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BonnerDynasty

Whoever said the "Old School" players would just knock Ginobili on his ass to take him out of the game....



ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!?!?! Have you seen what happens when the other team hits Ginobili? You practically have to give him a black-eye, at least what would be a black-eye on any other inferior human, to get Ginobili to even wake-up. You hit Ginobili, he hits back......with 30 pts.

---

Careful. If you say ANYTHING positive about our chances against the Lakers of the 80s, they'll begin asking for your ID to make sure you're of age and then call you a homer. :lol

If the Spurs can finally repeat this year I think it will cement their status as one of the best dynasties of all time in the NBA. I feel that this season and next season are probably the last shot the Spurs have at a title with this current squad. Injuries are starting to become a problem and a good portion of the Spur's bench will probably retire by next season.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

CryHakok I mean no disrespect, no need to get testy. I stand by my statement that the 01-03 Lakers in their prime were a flat out better team than the current Spurs dynasty team. The facts prove it.

---

:dramaquee

You know, considering you are too blind to correct simple mistakes, I'm fairly certain that invalidates many of your opinions about the NBA. No disrespect intended when I call you blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The dismantling of the Lakers had nothing to do with the Spurs. It was all about egos and the fact that Shaq and Kobe could not coexist with each other. Plus Shaq wanted a 30 million dollar extension.

The current Spurs team would still have no answer for Shaq. He would do the same thing to this Spur's team that he did back in 01-03. Kobe is an even better perimeter player now than he was during the 01-03 3-peat. They would be unstoppable if paired together in their primes. And the Spurs would lose.

---

Kobe now >> Kobe then

Tony Parker now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony Parker then.

Manu Ginobili now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu then.

Wow, yeah, I see your point. Only Kobe has improved of all the players on both teams. :rolleyes Hell, even Bowen is at least as good of a defensive stopper now than in years past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cry Havoc

:dramaquee

You know, considering you are too blind to correct simple mistakes, I'm fairly certain that invalidates many of your opinions about the NBA. No disrespect intended when I call you blind.



Kobe now >> Kobe then

Tony Parker now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tony Parker then.

Manu Ginobili now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Manu then.

Wow, yeah, I see your point. Only Kobe has improved of all the players on both teams. :rolleyes Hell, even Bowen is at least as good of a defensive stopper now than in years past.

---

The key matchup was always with Shaq. Spurs had no answer for him then and they wouldn't have one for him now. He literally had his way in the paint against SAS and damn near every other team during those years. No amount of improvement to Manu or Tony would have stopped that.

Look you can argue all you want but the proof is in the pudding. From 2000-2005, when the 01-03 team was in tact, the Spurs lost 4 series out of 5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The key matchup was always with Shaq. Spurs had no answer for him then and they wouldn't have one for him now. He literally had his way in the paint against SAS and damn near every other team during those years. No amount of improvement to Manu or Tony would have stopped that.

Look you can argue all you want but the proof is in the pudding. From 2000-2005, when the 01-03 team was in tact, the Spurs lost 4 series out of 5.

---

We didn't play the Lakers 5 times in that timeframe, Einstein. 2000 was a wipe out with Tim's knee. If you count the entire time that Shaq and Kobe were paired, we are 2-3, winning in 1999 and 2003, and losing in 2001, 2002 and 2004. Each team won two titles after beating the other during that time frame, but the Lakers failed to trophy in 2004, and won in 2000 without facing us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

The key matchup was always with Shaq. Spurs had no answer for him then and they wouldn't have one for him now. He literally had his way in the paint against SAS and damn near every other team during those years. No amount of improvement to Manu or Tony would have stopped that.

Look you can argue all you want but the proof is in the pudding. From 2000-2005, when the 01-03 team was in tact, the Spurs lost 4 series out of 5.

---

I didn't know the 01-03 team was intact for 5 years. Last I checked, 01-03 was only 3 years long, so that would be tough to have a team for 5 years in that timeframe. :lol

There is no "proof". The Lakers never played a team that's at the level of the Spurs are now. Manu and Tony didn't really mature until the '05 season.

Bandy about "key matchups" all you want. But it gets really old when you talk about how you just "know" these complete opinions of yours to be fact.