Reply With Quote
Latrell Spreewell, by far.
Who is the bigger failure of this decade?
The Houston Rockets blew a 2-0 series lead in 2005. They blew yet another 2-0 series lead in 2007. Tracy McGrady is supposedly one of the game's best players, right?
Or how about the Dallas Mavericks. They blew a 2-0 series lead in 2006. They were the favorites to win, right? They also get the #1 seed in 2007, but lose the series anyway.
Phoenix Suns. Records of 62-20, 54-28, and 61-21 in 2004-2005, 2005-2006, and 2006-2007. One of the league's best teams, right? The 2005-2006 failure is excusable, no Amare. But the other years, you win 60+, are one of the favorites to win the championship, but you get shut down by superior defense (Spurs).
So who is the biggest failure of this decade: Houston, Dallas, or Phoenix?
I'd say none, since none ever had a real chance of winning the championship. Just a fake sense of being an elite team. No "upsets" in these cases, just lost to better teams.
EDIT: If there is such a thing as an "upset", it has to be the Lakers over Sacramento in 2002. The Kings clearly outplayed the Lakers that series. The only way the Lakers stuck in it was Divac batting the ball out for Horry's shot in Game 4. The Kings are also possible for biggest failure of the decade.
I pick the Kings. The Rockets, Suns, and Mavs were good, but not championship-level, Dallas reached the Finals by making some fake lucky shots, but they otherwise didn't belong in the Finals. So there can't be a failure if they weren't expected to win the championship, right? The Kings are the only team this decade that "should have" won the championship but got screwed.
Last edited by SpursDynasty; 10-19-2007 at 09:57 PM.
Latrell Spreewell, by far.
mavs, cuz i thought they at least had a legit shot but then choked major and couldn't seal the deal.
'04 Lakers
udrih, beno
Detroit last year.
The Josh Daniels Band not securing a record deal from a major label
04 Lakers.
Shawn Bradley
kwame brown
The '04 Lakers can't be considered a failure because they were not a deep team and not really expected to win the championship. The Spurs beat them in Game 5, but for some odd reason a late clock start was allowed. If there's any team in the NBA that gets screwed, it's the Spurs.
So, like the 2006 Mavs, losing in the Finals wasn't an "upset" for the Lakers in 2004, just a scenario playing out after they were handed the series victory with the late clock start. In other words, they should have been happy to have made the Finals at all...no upsets for losing.
Upset: When a team that is more talented, deep, and expected to win, loses to the underdog team.
Rasheed.......
So the Mavs, up 2-0 in The Finals, had no real chance of winning the championship?
I hesitate to ask this, but what about the Spurs being up 2-0 against the Lakers in 2004? Was that the biggest failure of the decade, or was it that the Spurs had no real chance?
Jefflogic is humorous.
The Spurs aren't considered in the failure category because of their three championships this decade.
And the Mavs isn't an upset b/c they were the underdogs.
But the Spurs in 04 would be one of the biggest failures of the decade, right?
What about the Spurs in 06? They were the favourites to win it all, and they lost to the Mavs in the 2nd round, going by your definition that a failure is a team NOT winning like they were supposed to win, the 06 Spurs would be failure.
BTW, good job defining failure, I wonder how you know so much about it.
It wasn't considered a failure because officials had more to do with those losses than the Spurs did.
I mean, .04 has never been allowed for a catch, turn, and shoot.
Fouls are usually called in Game 7's when they're supposed to be.
It was more of the officials letting things slide, therefore the Spurs didn't really fail. The Lakers in '04 and Mavs in '06 didn't go on to the win championship. The NBA Finals don't lie.
its always been in the rulebook
fisher got that shot off as quickly as you can get one off, and the rule is .4 for catch and shoot
My point exactly.
It wasn't a catch-and-shoot-only motion.
He had extra time to turn. He caught the ball facing away from the basket.
you can't blame everything on the officials. especially in that game. if they had stopped the clock with .5 or .6 or .7 when tim duncan scored, would fisher's shot have gotten out of his hand in time? probably. if you focus on one mistake of delayed human reaction and ignore another mistake of delayed human reaction that had the opposite effect, i like to call that being biased.
more importantly, the spurs lost three other games in that series, one after that freak of a shot. if the spurs win game 6, maybe we don't talk about the shot so much. but the lakers won game 6.
btw, i think a lot of people considered that lakers team to be unbeatable. i wasn't amongst them. but they were a good team. they were better than the spurs that year.
i'd say your homer postings are the biggest failures of the decade.
The only way this could be funnier, would be if d_s_f posted it.
Yeah -- the '04 Lakers weren't expected by anyone to win a championship. Sure. Right.
JeffDrums' willingness to blame all Spurs failures on officiating is, ahem, officially a disgrace.
The Spurs could have won Game 5 against LA in 2004 if they hadn't dug themselves a huge hole in the 1st half -- they didn't do that and they gave the Lakers a chance to win the game at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. The officiating, though, does not win or lose the game for a team.
The Spurs could have won Game 3 against Dallas in 2006 if they had hit more than 25% of their shots in the first quarter or if they had gotten some stops over the last 8:30 of the game -- but they didn't do those things and it gave the Mavs a chance to win at the end; when you do that, you take your chances with officiating. But the officiating, again, didn't decide the game; the Spurs' inability to do the things that winning teams do cost them that game.
*waits for Duncan228 to come and start the ass kissing*
Good try FWD but I seriously think Jeff has a mental illness that does not allow him to comprehend anything that makes sense.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
