Printable View
Gotta give it to the Spurs since they have stayed at top the entire post-jordan era.
Lakers 3 peat is really fucking impressive though. More impressive than the Spurs run, but I'd rather be at the top for 10 years and get 4-5 than be strong for 3 years straight and fizzle out b/c of bullshit drama.
There is one the Spurs just don't have one yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
There isn't one. Why do you have to make things up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple & Gold
Don't cry DumpChumper :cry the Spurs still have a chance to win it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChumpDumper
There is nothing to win as far as that goes.
Kings and Blazers were stacked. If the competition was so weak I guess the '99 Ring really does deserve an *. And I didn't realize the Cavs were some type of juggernaut. Till you beat Boston don't put them as competition in your championship year.Quote:
Originally Posted by GRANFAN
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambchang
It's the same guy.
I think, the team of the decade must be decided on factors attending within the past ten years. Since it's not the end of 2010 yet, I suggest we start in 1998 (1997 is also OK)till 2008(or 07). So everything in this comment must be understood in the context of what transpired within this period.
For me the spurs win it against the lakers. I choose them for the following reasons:
First, Including the 1999 championship, It's pretty obvious that the spurs edge the Lakers with 4 titles. Along with the individual awards...
Second, Even if we go to the their winning records in the regular seasons , I still think the spurs has the edge. The spurs are regulars in the one, two or three spot in the western conferrence(if not the league). The lakers was ok in the three years they dominate but they didn't have as many wins within the said period. As recorded, spurs is the winniest team in any sport for the past ten years.
Third, There were years that the lakers wasn't able to go to the playoffs (specially after the post shaq era). Spurs on the other hand go there every year since 1999.(they didn't always win the title but they're always in contention). I think, that's what they call consistency...
Fourth (this isn't a hard fact but I guess it worth adding), the spurs made more with less. The spurs achieved everything with a roster that isn't as "spectacular in paper" as the lakers had (at least that what I think). Plus the players is without star complex written over their forehead.
See them for yourselves:
Spurs http://www.hoopsstats.com/basketball...roster/99/24/1
lakers http://www.lakersuniverse.com/roster.htm
Do I need to say more...Bias may it seems but it is the truth. Ask any NBA buff...
04 doesn't help either team's cause, neither won the title that year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple & Gold
Great...Laker trolls.
Hard to give it to any team. It was a shared decade. You can't call the spurs the team of the decade because 2000-02 belonged to the Lakers and they humiliated the Spurs during those years. 2003 the lakers were shooting for 4 straight titles. Something that has only been done by one team in the late 50-'s and they ran out of gas. I still don't consider the 2003 team the better team that season. In 2004 the Lakers resumed their mastery over the Spurs. Since the breakup of the Lakers the Spurs were able to win a couple of titles. Without the breakup, those titles may have never happened.
You have to be able to solidify your championships with a repeat. The Spurs have been unable to do so, so their titles are like the other one and out titles. Not a dynasty!
I would disagree with that. If the Spurs win another title this decade, repeat or otherwise, and LA does not, then i think the dynasty is set. I would rather have 4 non-repeat titles than 3 that came in a row. 4 still beats 3 and in the end, that is all that would matter.
You don't get extra points for back to back titles. By your logic, you are saying that the 90's Rockets are better than the Spurs of the last 10 years because Houston had a back-to-back, even though the Spurs have 4.
At this point I'd have to give the nod to the Spurs simply because they've maintained their dominance over the last 10 years. Thankfully that's all coming to an end now. This is the last shot the Spurs have at a title, age/injuries/health are finally catching up to them. Tons of players will retire after this season and their big 3 just isn't as dominating anymore. They have no real promising young talent outside of Parker. Udoka, Bonner, Vaughan, are decent role players at best. The rest of the league has caught up.
Still, how can you say Pop made more out of nothing? Since when was Manu, Parker, David Robinson, and Duncan nothing?
I don't know, to a lot of your fellow Laker fans, DRob was always nothing. :)
My thing is that any former champion will tell you that it is harder to repeat than it is to win a title. A team recognized for an honor of Team of the Decade, should at least be able to accomplish a feat that has been accomplished by all of the great teams in NBA history. Titles that are not solidified just shows breaks rather than greatness, imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by samikeyp
I agree about the difficulty in repeating but if the Spurs stay true to form and not win this year but win in 2009 and finish with more titles than anyone else for the decade....doesn't that qualify them? Who would you put ahead of them if no one has the same or more than them?
I am also curious of your term "solidified" do you not feel that someone the titles are legitimate?
It's harder to win every other year over five years.Quote:
My thing is that any former champion will tell you that it is harder to repeat than it is to win a title.
I don't buy that. Winning 4 titles in 9 years is dominance, doesn't matter if they repeat or not. The fact is they have gone deep in the playoffs damn near every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakeshow1
you've been dazed and confused for so long it's not true, wanted a woman, never bargained for you...Quote:
Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused
if you think this is the spurs last shot, it's time to go make some money on your deep insight. just don't count on getting paid.
If you cut all the trash talk back and forth, this could actually be a good question and an interesting discussion. If you go by decades, I think you can't count the 1999 Spurs title because that was the 90s. So each franchise has had 3 titles in the 2000s.
The Lakers three-peat does bolster the case for the Lakers as does an added NBA Finals appearance by the Lakers. One thing that does hurt the Lakers argument is that they missed the playoffs altogether in 2004-05.
The Spurs have a very strong case of sustained excellence and winning over a longer span of seasons and winning titles with a couple different teams. There are obviously a couple more seasons for either the Spurs or the Lakers to win more titles and the Spurs would appear to have an edge in winning more over the Lakers, although by 2009 and 2010, you never know if the Lakers find that championship success again. But, I don't think it would be this year for the Lakers while the Spurs definitely have a chance.
All in all, it's a very interesting argument. Right now, I'd probably say the Spurs because of their sustained excellence over the entire decade whereas the Lakers were the best for the first half of the decade only. But, it's really a close call especially because three-peating is so rare. It's a toss up really.
Of course not, that would ruin the Lakers fans fantasies of their superiority, they probably want an Asterisk on the 2003 title as well because Kobe could not wait for the season to end so he could rape that teenage girl, he was distracted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Obstructed_View
Instead of calling me confused point out where you think I"m wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave McNulla
It's a fact the Spurs team is old getting older. Players lose effectiveness as they age and health issues start to come up. We've already seen each of the big 3 go down this season with injuries. Who is waiting in the wings to take over? You have no real young promising talent outside of Tony Parker, and you can't build championship teams around a PG.
Kobe is closing in on 30 himself and this is the first season since he helped throw Shaq under the bus that the Lakers are a pretty good team. I don't see them winning a title with Kobe, in fact i see him a Laker maybe 1 more year and then he will be traded.Quote:
Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused
Team of the Decade?
Eff the Lakers. If you want to talk team of the Decade then lets debate that after next Sunday.
Spurs vs. Patriots
Now that's the real match-up!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused
I agree that the Spurs are getting older but I think you may be assuming that the Spurs FO is not going to replenish talent. They are going to have some decent money coming so they will be able to build around the Big 3.