Reply With Quote
Im confident but your jumping the gun just a little bit bro.
We are 8 days away from the Spurs celebrating their third championship in five seasons. What are your thoughts on this season? Best championship ever compared to 2005 and 2003? I think the 2007 championship is the best thus far considering how many people were doubting the Spurs and labeling them "old and unathletic" all year. I say the Spurs repeat next year. This also could possibly be the easiest championship ever for the Spurs : Nuggets, Suns, Jazz, Cavaliers..quite possibly the easiest set of playoff opponents the Spurs have ever had.
58 wins, top team in the West, another championship. Not much different than 2002-2003 and 2004-2005.
Im confident but your jumping the gun just a little bit bro.
call in the dynasty trolls
You rang?
Thus they are a fluke team if they win the le. And if they don't win it, it was a fluke they were even in the playoffs to begin with. No matter what, the Spurs are now officially a fluke team.
Golden State
Mavs reaching the Finals after a stupid Ginobili foul seems like a bigger fluke to me. Not to mention their lackluster compe ion that consisted of a Grizzlies team that never won a playoff game and a watered down Suns team without Stoudewhiner.
8 days away till the Spurs show the Mavs how to get it done. Maybe next year chokers.
They should run The Parade all the way to Dallas so their fans can see what it's like.
It's a fluke that the Spurs are able to win with limited minutes from the great Beno Udrih
Obviously, you are ignorant of what is going on here, and the subtle joke in my post.
well congratulations Spurs*. it was a fluke that the Heat didnt get here. they took the Bulls to the wire every game and bail oout calls were needed in every game. they just wanted a new champion. it was a fluky win on the Bulls by a fluke player, fluke coach, fluke fans, and fluke owner, for bringing in a fluke defensive player of the year, Ben Flukace. it is no fluke that the Mavs arent here. it was a six game sweep by a better team just beating a team they were supposed to beat. last year the Mavs shouldnt have gone to the Finals. Ginobli was celbrating early, waving his fist in the air, and accidentally hit Dirk in the air, and a fluke shot went in by a fluke player. and i am the one who is most happy by the Mavs not making the Finals
well congratulations Spurs*. it was a fluke that the Heat didnt get here. they took the Bulls to the wire every game and bail oout calls were needed in every game. they just wanted a new champion. it was a fluky win on the Bulls by a fluke player, fluke coach, fluke fans, and fluke owner, for bringing in a fluke defensive player of the year, Ben Flukace. it is no fluke that the Mavs arent here. it was a six game sweep by a better team just beating a team they were supposed to beat. last year the Mavs shouldnt have gone to the Finals. Ginobli was celbrating early, waving his fist in the air, and accidentally hit Dirk in the air, and a fluke shot went in by a fluke player. and i am the one who is most happy by the Mavs not making the Finals
you're just happy bc Dirk didnt beat u up this time...
I see Cavs fans doing this. I don't mind it when Spurs fans do.
But you forget that Spurs fans are flukes.
*bookmarked*
Beware the Jeff jinx Spurs fans!!!
Kill the dynasty talk right now. No back-to-back les, the 99 win was in a bull season, Kobe hurt throughout the 03 playoffs and no Shaq in the WC in 05 aided the Spurs cause. Add to this that the Lakers had their own dynasty in the early 2000's (how can you have coinciding dynasties??) and you get - a possible 4th championship, but certainly NOT a dynasty.
Hence, the ruling that SpursDYNASTY is a piece of is once again supported.
This I agree with
This I dont. Its easy to make excuses for almost any team any year. Maybe the SPurs would have won in 2000 but Duncan was hurt. Maybe they would have won in 00-01 when D.A got hurt. And come on dude, trading Shaq somehow is a reflection of the Spurs not being a dynasty is idiotic.
Dad always said that making excuses is for losers. Making excuses about why winners win, that's just pathetic.
The biggest arguments are that there isn't a B2B in there, the Lakers had their own dynasty right in the middle and the 99 season has an asterisk next to it. It's an impressive run, but it's not a dynasty - especially when the aforementioned Lakers ruled the league on their own for 3 years.
Atericks are opinions, not anything else. 3 les in 5 years is a dynasty to me, the Bird Celtices never won back to backs and that doesnt keep people from calling them a dynasty. Either way, I really dont care, they are a dynasty to me
That is the biggest arguments. All teams that won the le one year and out could be labeled a fluke. Every Champion knows that a true champion defends their les and are much harder to accomplish. The Lakers team of the 80's, as good as they were, did not achieve greatness in the eyes of NBA fans until they repeated in the late 80's, after no team had done so, in 20 years (i believe or somewhere around there). When you talk about dynasties, you can only talk about the Lakers, Bulls, and Celtics. When you talk about the greatest NBA Champions, you would included the Pistons with that group, based on the fact that they defended their le and went to the finals 3 years straight and the Rockets who successfully defended their le.
The Lakers of the 80's were a dynasty winning 5 les in the 80's but the fact that they went to the finals 8 years in that stretch meant that They at least defended their les in the finals! This is where the Spurs fall off. They have not defended any of their les and they never reached the finals the next season after winning a le.
If the Spurs win this season and wins again next season, then you could include the spurs with the greatest NBA champions, until then, they're just one and out champions, which were plentiful in the NBA.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
