So... will it be the same excuse AGAIN?

[HarlemHeat37]

I like your maturity about this Oz, but Laker fans are tough to ignore..they get annoying quick..the annoying thing about Laker fans, is that they actually believe what they write..a lot of people like to talk to bait people, but Laker fans really believe the that they annoy us with..

they're always preaching the same old annoying ..Laker fans are the Jehovah's witnesses of the NBA..

[Harry Callahan]

I like how you conveniently start at 2003 to support your argument. Weak.

How about only 2 years w/o a playoff appearance since 1975? How's that for consistency. See, I can do that too!

The "inconsistency" HE (not I, I think both LA and SA have been the class of the league the last 10 years) is referring to is your inability to repeat as champs, given 4 chances to do so

How about four championships over an 11 year period and winning at least one playoff series 10 out of 11 years (the one year losing in the first round was when Duncan was injured and not available) and being the best team in basketball over that period. The Spurs had bad teams both times and were fortunate to win the lottery when HOF type players were available.

The Lakers have missed the playoffs completely once and were drummed out in the first round several times over the last decade. The extended success for San Antonio (winning a le in 1999 and being able to get four championships through 2007) is more impressive than a short period of dominance because of the constant player turnover in basketball. The teams winning those les had totally different rosters (outside of Duncan) going from 99 to 07. Not to mention the fact the role players changed dramatically in that period. This points to Popovich being a superior coach (P Jackson is at the top too - that's obvious).

The Lakers were the best team in basketball for a four year period (1999-2002). When a team has had one deep run in the playoffs in the last four or five years, they have not measured up to what SA has done recently. Not to mention the fact that LA had very little turnover from 99 to 03. They had to recruit over the hill Hall of Famers in 2003-2004 AND have the refs swallow their whistles AND have a questionable buzzer beater shot to beat SA that year in the playoffs.

San Antonio has been more effective with less pure talent than the Lakers since Duncan arrived in 1997.

The recent Lakers "mini-dynasty" was the by-product of screwing over the Orlando Magic and having a dope like Bob Bass running the Charlotte Hornets in 1996. If you wonder what I am talking about, then you don't know much about basketball.

Laker "fans" rip the Spurs for supposedly "tanking seasons" in 1986 and 1996 to get the #1 pick the following year. The 86 team legitimately stunk and the 96 team had its star player BREAK HIS FOOT and then have knee/back problems after that. Their second best player (Sean Elliott) was dogged with knee problems and missed half the season.

The Lakers historically have preyed on financially strapped franchises. Their success has been based on stealing away players like Wilt Chamberlain, Jabbar, and Shaq (even Gasol) in exchange for either nothing or spare parts players. In addition, trading away washed up players to teams with incompetent management (New Orleans Jazz and Cleveland Cavs) for future #1 picks turned into guys like Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and Byron Scott.


The Lakers have always had a little "extra help" along the way that other teams have not. They have never had to "bottom out" like most teams. It's just so easy for the simple minded bandwagon fans to clutch on to a team like the Lakers. Their fans take success for granted and think it is their birthright to win every year. This getting something for nothing pattern throughout their history makes the Lakers a very unlikeable team.

[Harry Callahan]

That has nothing to do with anything.

The bottom line is the Spurs are not universally considered to be a dynasty because of the fact that they haven't repeated. I'm sorry that bothers you but those are the facts.

Dynasties repeat.

DH
Dynasty is just a word. Opinions are all you are offering here. No facts. Opinions are like assholes - everyone has one. BTW asshole is a word you do have a lot of knowledge about, since you are one.

BTW, the Spurs have been a better, more effective team since 1997 than the Lakers. It's an opinion, but I think a legitimate one that is supported by overall results.

Look at SA's regular season (approx 68%) and playoff winning percentage (approx 63%) since Duncan arrived. It's better than EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE NBA. Four Championships. More than any other team. These are facts.

[benefactor]

I'm not going to get all wrapped up in this discussion but I will say this...dynasties are subject to interpretation. There is no written rule that says your team must repeat to be considered a dynasty. The Celtics example that was given earlier is a good one. Any basketball fan you ask would consider that team a dynasty even thought they never repeated. If winning 4 les and have the best winning percentage of any sports franchise in any sport over a 10 year period is not a dynasty then I don't know what is.

If the Bulls, Knicks, Lakers or Celtics would have accomplished what we have since Duncan arrived there would not even be a discussion.

[Harry Callahan]

The Larry Bird Celtics did not repeat. The Bill Russell Celtics did many times. I will say that the LB Celtics had better compe ion than the recent Spurs teams have had to beat.

[LEONARD]

There are no excuses for any losses.

You make more excuses than anybody on this site, boy...

[manufor3]

lol at laker fans leavin after they cant argue

[m33p0]

knee?

[superbigtime]

o rly??

after the G wallace injury.... i counted at least 5 threads hoping for a bynum injury


and 3 threads after when their pitiful dreams came true

I'm impressed you can count that high, laker bag. I'm not wishing injury on any of your precious Lakers. But I wouldn't mind if Phil got run over by a Mack truck. As for last year's WCF, I suppose that you think an unfavorable travel schedule, a gimpy starter, and horrendous officiating are supposed to be overlooked quietly by Spurs fans. Bottom line though is that the Spurs lost, and I think the vast majory of Spurs fans accept that, although of course they don't like losing. What's your excuse for the Laker's getting sodomized by the Celtics?

[xellos88330]

What's your excuse for the Laker's getting sodomized by the Celtics?

I think their excuse was... "We didn't have Bynum."

[Man In Black]

A day later, not a single Laker fan has responded to my Larry Legend take.

FIGURES
I AM THE KING!

[i LUV da SpURZ]

lakerz fanz r ugly and oversized babiez n der loud ez i hate dem, i wish malice on all 0f dem !!%$#$#&%

[DrHouse]

Bird's Celtics were at least able to make it back to the Finals in repeat years. And the compe ion they had to face in the 80's was far tougher than anything the Spurs have had to go through. Bird's Celtics would have repeated if their toughest compe ors were the ing Dallas Mavericks and Phoenix Suns.

The bottom line is the Spurs can't even make the claim that they are the best team of this decade. If the Lakers win this season then they will have accomplished more than the Spurs.

4 rings and 6 Finals appearances vs 4 rings and 4 Finals appearances.

[DeadlyDynasty]

lakerz fanz r ugly and oversized babiez n der loud ez i hate dem, i wish malice on all 0f dem !!%$#$#&%

Sterling example of a San Antonio education

[Gutter92]

Only 2 teams in NBA history are undefeated in Finals when playing 3+...Lakers/Celtics are not among that number

The 2 best teams of the last 20 years are those teams...Bulls and Spurs.

[DrHouse]

You can't pinpoint when you want to start NBA history. The NBA did not start in 1999.

Going undefeated in the Finals doesn't mean anything. It's just a sad rationalization that Spur fan uses to convince himself that somehow 4 rings and 4 Finals appearances are better than 14 rings and 29 Finals appearances.

You'll recognize the greatness of the Laker franchise as you begin to pick up the pieces of what is left of the San Antonio Spurs. You'll see just how hard it is to rebuild in this league. It took the Celtics over 2 decades to just get back to the Finals.

[sammy]

now that manu has a injured knee and prolly will make a come back before the season ends and for the playoffs and with that notion the spurs AS A TEAM will get their asses handed to them by the los angeles lakers will the same excuse arise from die hard spurs fans that "Manu's Hurt thats why we lost! will you spurs fans actually cough that tired old excuse again? just as much as the ref excuse? and fisher piggy backing brent barry excuse?


if thats so..

in the event that we lose can we say we didnt have BYNUM? ..



ing pathetic....

Hey idiot, get your facts straight! Manu has a stress reaction of the fibula which he will be out 2 to 3 weeks! You only beat us last year as Manu was injured and then got your asses handed to you by Boston and beaten by 40 points! Nothing to be proud of idiot!

[LockBeard]

LOL at Laker fan, who has enjoyed one of the biggest markets in the NBA making it easy to build good teams taking on the little kid down south who has been more successful and respected this entire decade.

What The San Antonio Spurs are, the Lakers will NEVER be.

[DeadlyDynasty]

No what Dynasties do are contend every year.

When you get eliminated twice in the first round and miss out entirely on the playoffs for 1 season, that means...YOU DID NOT CONTEND!

Open your got damn eyes.

Agree?

You probably won't but the truth is out there.



So tell me why are Larry Legend's Celtics teams considered a dynasty since they did not? Same reason Tim's team are...because they contend every year with him as the leader. It's amazing that Tim Duncan doesn't win MVP every year. If it was more about efficiency and winning ways instead of selling ing basketball shoes...Tim would win MVP every year, I guess he'll just continue to settle for All-NBA and All-NBA D every year for his ENTIRE CAREER.
Can Kobe say that? TO THE NO.

Bird's Celtics are considered a dynasty? I disagree. They were a great team but I would not call them dynastic, most especially since they were unable to repeat. By definition, Dynasty is the dominance or rule of one family (or team in this case) over a particular era. The 80's belonged to the Lakers: Five les, 8 appearances (including a repeat). The 60's Celtics were a dynasty (the greatest in sports history), as were the 90s Bulls. The late 40s and most of 50s belong to the Minneapolis Lakers. The 70s were a grab bag of teams, nobody owning that decade.

In the 00's, it's a wash, but that'll be a moot point when LA takes #4 in 6 appearances during a 9-year span. All those teams mentioned above, including this decade's Lakers, have defended their le. The Spurs have had 4 chances to defend their le but could never play with the bullseye on their back

[sammy]

You can't pinpoint when you want to start NBA history. The NBA did not start in 1999.

Going undefeated in the Finals doesn't mean anything. It's just a sad rationalization that Spur fan uses to convince himself that somehow 4 rings and 4 Finals appearances are better than 14 rings and 29 Finals appearances.

You'll recognize the greatness of the Laker franchise as you begin to pick up the pieces of what is left of the San Antonio Spurs. You'll see just how hard it is to rebuild in this league. It took the Celtics over 2 decades to just get back to the Finals.

One thing I can say, at the least the Spurs never lost in the Finals! Fakers had two chances and lost to Detroit in 2004 and Boston in 2008! Nothing to be proud of! Both of those Finals appearance, they got their asses handed to them!

[DeadlyDynasty]

LOL at Laker fan, who has enjoyed one of the biggest markets in the NBA making it easy to build good teams taking on the little kid down south who has been more successful and respected this entire decade.

What The San Antonio Spurs are, the Lakers will NEVER be.

a team incapable of defending a tile? Your right, that won't be LA, we've already shown we can defend when we win

[DeadlyDynasty]

One thing I can say, at the least the Spurs never lost in the Finals! Fakers had two chances and lost to Detroit in 2004 and Boston in 2008! Nothing to be proud of! Both of those Finals appearance, they got their asses handed to them!

and both years the Spurs were our doormats to those Finals...wanna try that one again, son?

[DeadlyDynasty]

You can't pinpoint when you want to start NBA history. The NBA did not start in 1999.

Going undefeated in the Finals doesn't mean anything. It's just a sad rationalization that Spur fan uses to convince himself that somehow 4 rings and 4 Finals appearances are better than 14 rings and 29 Finals appearances.

You'll recognize the greatness of the Laker franchise as you begin to pick up the pieces of what is left of the San Antonio Spurs. You'll see just how hard it is to rebuild in this league. It took the Celtics over 2 decades to just get back to the Finals.

Hey now, if you take away their selective memory then what else do they have to talk smack with?

[DrHouse]

and both years the Spurs were the doormats to those Finals...wanna try that one again?

[spursfan09]

If you don't want to hear our ing or hear excuses how about you don't come back to the forum? Wow! There's a thought. But I don't expect you have any thoughts.

Oh and it's one thing to beat the Spurs and get to the finals, but its another thing to get get your own ass handed to you in the finals. Don't think us Spur fans don't enjoy watching the Lakers lose even if they did beat the Spurs.