Reply With Quote
.4
The Robert Horry missed three pointer that went in and out against the Spurs in Game 5 of the 2003 playoffs. If that shot went in, we probably would have had a 4peat.
.4
Manu's foul on Dirk
The Nowitzki layup and foul. No way the Spurs don't repeat going against Phoenix and Miami the next two rounds.
There's no probably. Dallas and New Jersey in the next two rounds?The Robert Horry missed three pointer that went in and out against the Spurs in Game 5 of the 2003 playoffs. If that shot went in, we probably would have had a 4peat.
.4
Playing Detroit twice in a row in the Finals would've been huge, and beating them in 04 would've made Game 7 a lot tougher. Also, say they go on to win vs Detroit in 04, after 05 they would've won 3 les in a row, shutting up all the pussy laker fans who discredit the Spurs dynasty.
Yeah, Spurs almost for sure sweep the Amare-less Suns. Those Heat might have taken five games.
If Manu doesn't foul, passes it to Horry on the subsequent possession or makes the layup, the Spurs three-peat.
Definitely the Manu foul on Dirk or the .04 shot. if one of those had gone out, the Spurs would have had repeated and possibly have a 3peat.
Interesting how people are responding.....First off, suppose Horry's shot 2003 did go in. There was time on the clock for the Spurs to still win it. they may have. Also, it only makes the series 3-2 Lakers, SA still could have came back, no guarantee for the Lakers. The irony was Fisher's legal 0.4 (should have been 0.8) shot in 2004 happened one year to the day after Horry's miss. Same scenario applies in 2004, Lakers could have still come back. We had solved the SA game plan by collapsing on Duncan and Parker. We just gave our huge lead away in game 5 and let the drama unfold. Funny how so many games with the Lakers in San Antonio come down to the last and crazy play.
As far as the Spurs debated dynasty le goes, I can tell you this as I lived through it, in 1987, the Lakers had 4 les in 8 years and no one would give us dynasty status, we had to have a repeat championship to secure it, which we did in 1988. 3 les in 5 years isn't enough, and the Spurs 4 in 9 claim fails because a Laker dynasty lies within. I have said this here before. Want an NBA dynasty? Win a back to back le and prevent the controversy that will arise. Last year was a great shot for the Spurs to finally get the dynasty le, wins againt the Lakers and Celtics would have done the trick. So, there remain but 5 dynastys in NBA history, Lakers have three, Celtics and Bulls, one each.
However...
No team would have beaten Detroit in 2004, no team. It was Piston destiny to win in 2004, just the same as it was the Spur's in 2003, 2005, and 2007. It was also the Celtic's last year, and the Heat in 2006. The team that wins the finals beats the best the other conference had to offer. It isn't their fault they don't play a different team. Since their destiny is to win it all and they do so by beating the best the other conference offered, it makes sense they would have beaten any other team from the conference. Remember it's destiny to be champion. Accept that when your team doesn't win it all. Cheering your team on next season will be a lot easier as a result.
I can't think of a shot I would change. I like how things have worked out.
0.4 and Manu 's foul on Dirk.
Both
If the spurs could change those 2 shots, the 2004 and 2006 champuions would belong to the spurs.
dirk's foul shot
John Stockton's 3 pointer in game 6 of the WC championship....
DD
If I could make the clock run a little bit more quickly to end the game before fisher hit the damn 3 in 04's series, then I am afriad the pistons wouldn't get their only championship during the past decade and spurs would also get "3 les streak". And the finals of 05 would be replicated too.
What years did the Celtics win back-to-back championships?
Also, who coined the term dynasty with winning back-to-back championships?
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/
They won 11 of 13 years from 1956-57 to 1968-69, including 8 in a row at one point, and the last two were back-to-back. They never repeated again, (Which is why Larry Bird's Celtics are not a dynasty with 3 les in 6 years) and they won't this year either.
The first NBA dyasty was the Minneapolis Lakers from 1948-49 to 1953-54, who won 5 les n 6 years. http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/LAL/
The Lakers of the 1980's were the 3rd NBA dynasty and as I noted above, no one would give us dynasty status until we won a back-to-back in 1988. By 1987 we had 6 finals appearances in 8 seasons, with 4 les. Not enough for a legitimate dynasty claim. Proving we could win back-to-back clinched it. No one could do it for 20 years, and then every team repeated until recently. See this thread: http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114193 The league considered and still does, getting a back to back to be critical to how a team is looked at over an era.
So, the back to back will clinch it. without one most people will disagree. 2 in a row in itself isn't enough, you need at least 3 les over no more than a 4 year period. Lakers did that with les in 1985/87/88. 1980/82 get included as they are relevant, especially since we were in the finals in 1983/84. The Lakers 80's era was all about Magic, Kareem, and the showtime role players: Worthy/Cooper/Rambis/Wilkes/Nixon/Kupchak/Scott/Thompson/Green/McAdoo etc.
i know which shot magic fans want to change. nick anderson's 4 missed free throws. ouch. big time choke.
that's an opinion not a definition. and outside of la and its fans, the celtics bird is considered by many as a dynasty.
Every shot Baron Davis took in the first round.
Oh, by the way, by challenging the Spurs dynasty status in no way means they aren't elite and haven't been. If the Lakers aren't playing in the finals, I root for whatever western team made it there.
Although falling short of dynasty status, a very legitimate honor is to simply call it the Tim Duncan Era, and people will know what you speak of. Spurs have lots of eras: George Gerivin era, Dave Robinson era, Big 3 era.... Many teams are hard pressed to find any meaningful eras in their history.
Last edited by Lakers_55; 01-16-2009 at 09:27 AM.
considered by many and considered by all are two different things. win back-to-back in 2009-10 and end the debate. I said this last season, win in 2008 and it's yours. Bird's era as a dynasty within the period of a legimate dynasty? The Spurs have a better claim from 2003-07. But most feel it isn't enough.
dynasties are defined by eras. and what you just posted sounded like a very polite way of saying "you suck". quit it.
I didn't mean that at all, as your franchise doesn't suck. I believe it to be the third most successful franchise in NBA history. Eras stretch longer than dynastys do and add to the legacy of any team.
in terms of long term success, we're 3rd. number of championships, 4th. i would like to debate this more but this will not go anywhere as we are giving opinions on an en y that has no definition, only descriptions. and descriptions are based solely on point-of-view. arguments about point-of-views are endless and therefore, ironically enough, pointless.
ok, that's fine, we can end the debate. I was thinking after my last post about how eras last longer than dynastys do. The Laker Showtime era pretty much lasted until Magic retired in 1991, 3 years past the end of our dynasty. So, the Magic Johnson era started and ended at the same time. (unless you count the two comebacks) Some people might argue Showtime continued as long as Worthy was around, but who cares. People know what the Showtime era was all about, just as they know what the Tim Duncan era is made of.in terms of long term success, we're 3rd. number of championships, 4th. i would like to debate this more but this will not go anywhere as we are giving opinions on an en y that has no definition, only descriptions. and descriptions are based solely on point-of-view. arguments about point-of-views are endless and therefore, ironically enough, pointless.
the lakeshow was defined by magic, hence it's the magic era aka the lakeshow. no magic, no lakeshow.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
