Diaw's uncontested layup(historically significant)

Regarding that play, why the hell did Pop not put three bigs on the court when he saw the Suns in their tri-towers set? D'Antoni had ran that same play countless times. Put a big on Diaw and they would have had to go to another play.

And yeah, that had And-1 written all over it. Luckily Diaw's position was good enough that he only got the layup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kermit

Why does everyone assume that we would've beaten Miami? It could've easily been us that Wade and Salvatore went off on.

---

+1 Nobody was getting by the Heat in 2006.

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jimcs50

With 26 secs left, the Spurs were up 3, so the Spurs virtually gave Diaw a layup, knowing that 2 points would not hurt them, because they had the clock and good foul shooters on their side.

This caused me once again to lament the same situation in the 2006 game 7 with Dallas, with almost the same amt of time on the clock. Had the Spurs just gaven Dirk that layup(instead of Manu's block attempt) like they gave Diaw the layup, the Spurs would be going for their 4th straight championship and 6th overall, this year. Had that happened, there would be no doubt that the Spurs were the 2nd greatest dynasty in NBA history, behind only Boston, and IMO ahead of Chicago)

I am just glad that history did not repeat itself.....I guess the Spurs learned a valuable, but costly lesson.

---

Spurs have only 4 champions in 9 years, Bulls have 6 champions in 8 years, how does that make the Spurs a better dynasty than the Bulls?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tacker

Spurs have only 4 champions in 9 years, Bulls have 6 champions in 8 years, how does that make the Spurs a better dynasty than the Bulls?

---

Read my first post, Mr ADHD

I said if Manu had not given Dirk the 3 pt play and Spurs had won the game, they would be going for their 4th straight and 6th championship....that would make them the 2nd best dynasty, ahead of the Bulls, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

---

Read my last post, Mr ADHD II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

---

The word dynastic is meant to imply an event or norm which is in place for a long period of time. As such I don't think the Lakers of the early 2000's qualify in this discussion. Making the finals in 2004 and losing counts for nothing. Threee for three aint bad, but it's hardly dynastic. By your logic, the Buffalo Bills are quite possibly one of the best dynasties bar none.......

Any team winning championships over an extended period of time (5+ years) could and should be considered dynastic. I give you the 90's Bulls, 60's Celtics and 80's Lakers (who repeated just once BTW). So if the Spurs repeat this year, where are they with respect to those Lakers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

---

asterisk year? you're starting to sound like a Suns fan, man.

- Mars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

---

Why is it an asterisk year?

What advantage did the Spurs have over everyone else?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClingingMars

asterisk year? you're starting to sound like a Suns fan, man.

- Mars

---

Not considering it was Phil Jackson who first started the whole thing.

I think anyone who thinks of 99 as an asterisk year is just jealous. I mean what? Did the Spurs sweep your team that year? Oh wait... it makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DazedAndConfused

2nd greatest Dynasty??? Please lay off the crackpipe.

The Spurs are 4 in 9 (if you want to count the asterisk year). That puts them IMHO behind the 80's Lakers, 80's Celtics, 90's Bulls, and even the 2000-2004 Lakers who won 3 straight and made the Finals in 4/5 years. The fact that they haven't repeated is telling.

---

Dude, put down the crack pipe. The 80's Lakers were a pedestrian 5-3 in Finals appearances. The 80s Celtics were 3-2. The Millenium Lakers at least just lost once in the Finals (3-1), but they flamed out after only 5 years, lacking the duration of the previously named two teams. I'll give you the 90s Bulls because they never choked on the big stage and had a solid 8 year run, but the Millenium Spurs have the duration and the undefeated 4-0 Finals record and easily surpass either 80's squad.