Spurs Dynasty ranks behind Lakers, Celtics and Bulls

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.